• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
You are here: Home / DC Authors / California Doesn’t Need A New Abortion Measure

California Doesn’t Need A New Abortion Measure

August 24, 2022 by Joe Mathews Leave a Comment

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet
California doesn't need a new abortion measure
Image source

Prop 1 Might Have Good Intentions, But It Puts Fundamental Rights at Risk


California’s leaders shouldn’t put fundamental rights up for a vote. But the legislature and governor have nonetheless chosen to add Proposition 1 to this November’s ballot.

At first glance, Prop 1 doesn’t look like anything to worry about—if you, like most Californians (including your columnist), support abortion rights. It comes at a time when even conservative Kansas is voting pro-choice. And its 78-word text is seemingly simple. Prop 1 adds explicit protections for reproductive rights to the California Constitution—guaranteeing the “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion” and the “fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

Legislators behind the measure have said that California needs such explicit protections to keep judges from cancelling abortion rights here—the way the U.S. Supreme Court did for the nation through the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

All that may sound like common sense. But in matters of California governance and ballot measures, common sense often doesn’t apply. Prop 1 unintentionally puts at risk the rights it’s designed to protect.

The right to choose an abortion is well-established in California law. The very same section of the state constitution that Prop 1 wants to amend—Article 1, Section 1—already protects the right to choose, because it specifically lists privacy among our inalienable rights. If the U.S. Constitution contained such an indisputable privacy right, the federal right to abortion likely would still be with us.

More than 40 years of court precedents have reaffirmed abortion rights in our state. And to remove all doubt, a 20-year-old state law straightforwardly guarantees abortion and other reproductive rights.

Asking voters to put these settled and established rights in the constitution is to pose a question that’s already been answered. Prop 1 comes with no new benefits—Californians have no rights to gain from the measure—but with significant risks, both legal and political.

Legally, a new constitutional amendment could become a tempting target for abortion opponents to challenge in court. The federal judiciary, now dominated by anti-choice conservatives who love to read history in strange ways, might seize on such challenges to invent ways to undermine the right to choose in California. After all, abortion is no longer a constitutional right at the federal level.


But the biggest problem with Prop 1 has nothing to do with its outcome, or any other hypothetical. It’s the fact that California allows such measures to go on the ballot in the first place.


Prop 1 also is vulnerable because of what it leaves out. Back in June, when it was clear that the Supreme Court would strike down Roe, two legal scholars, Allison Macbeth of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law and Elizabeth Bernal, an editor of the Hastings Law Journal, publicly urged the legislature to incorporate the limits that Roe and related cases put on abortion.

Roe strikes a balance between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus, and so  Macbeth and Bernal urged lawmakers to include similar language in the measure. They suggested specifying that, per prior precedent, no law could “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus.”

Failure to mention earlier existing law, added Macbeth and Bernal, would “untether” Prop 1 from any solid foundation in privacy protection. Doing so could put both reproductive rights and other rights grounded in privacy, such as marriage, in danger of being reinterpreted by the courts.

“There is a substantial risk that the new California constitutional provision will either be interpreted by courts to have no effect, or that its underpinnings will be erased,” Macbeth and Bernal wrote.

These omissions create political risk as well. Prop 1’s unqualified language gives opponents the opportunity to argue that the measure would establish a right to abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy. And that is not a popular policy—most voters don’t support abortion in the second trimester or later. By contrast, polling finds that more than 70 percent of Californians support Roe v. Wade—with its limits based on fetal viability.

But lawmakers dismissed calls to add limits to Prop 1. And they are confident that the measure will win.  I hope they are right.

California’s confounding system of direct democracy has a long history of producing unexpected results. I fear, should Prop 1’s opponents succeed in framing it as an overreaching demand for unlimited abortion, that the measure could suffer an unexpected defeat. That would be a political disaster for abortion rights in America. And in California, it would raise the question of whether our state constitution’s privacy protections still covered abortion rights.

Even a narrow victory for Prop 1 also could be damaging for abortion rights. Anti-choice activists and funders around the country, sensing weakness, would pursue future ballot initiatives and actions to keep California’s pro-choice politicians and political funders on defense. That would be a strategic defeat for reproductive rights nationally. Pro-choice leaders need to spend their time and money fighting abortion bans in other states.

But the biggest problem with Prop 1 has nothing to do with its outcome, or any other hypothetical. It’s the fact that California allows such measures to go on the ballot in the first place.

California’s powerful system of direct democracy permits votes on any subject—which makes the Golden State an outlier. Other countries with direct democracy prohibit votes on human rights. They understand that some freedoms are so fundamental that we shouldn’t let the people vote to take them away.


This article appears in Zócalo Public Square.

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Joe Mathews

Joe Mathews writes for Democracy Chronicles from his home in California. He is a columnist and editor at Zócalo Public Square and co-president of the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

DC Authors

Heartbreak and Yearning on the Streets of East Oakland

May 19, 2023 By Joe Mathews

“Nightcrawling” by Leila Mottley is a bestselling novel that explores the hardships of life in Oakland’s struggling streets.

Podcast: Gen Z’s Fight For Democracy

May 18, 2023 By Jenna Spinelle

In his book “Fight”, John Della Volpe argues that Gen Z has not buckled under the weight of the events that shaped them.

Advertise button

Courts, Constitutions, & Democracy: A Failing System

April 29, 2023 By Andrew Straw

Equal protection on its face means that everyone is treated equally but the U.S. Supreme Court has limited equal protection.

Newsom’s ‘Campaign For Democracy’ Has A Democracy Problem

April 26, 2023 By Joe Mathews

The governor has sympathies for changes in governance; he’s deeply familiar with democratic innovation. But will he actually take on democratic reform?

Podcast: Between Democracy And Autocracy

April 19, 2023 By Jenna Spinelle

Between democracy and autocracy is an anocracy, defined by political scientists as a country that has elements of both forms of government.

Who Will Protect The Global Economy From California?

April 18, 2023 By Joe Mathews

This bank failure, the second largest in U.S. history, actually fits a very old pattern—of California and its industries putting the economies of the nation and the world at risk.

Split Level In Jersey

April 15, 2023 By Jamie Lampidis

Everyone has limits to their goodness, Like those structures in her oil paintings, Cartoonishly stretched to contain something within.

California, Keep Your Schools Open. No Matter What

April 14, 2023 By Joe Mathews

California’s school reopening revealed education disparities, highlighting the need to rebuild trust and relationships for addressing these inequalities.

More DC author posts

Democracy Culture

Using Beer As Reminder Of UK Voting Rule Change

Using Beer As Reminder Of UK Voting Rule Change

May 7, 2023

Brixton Brewery has launched a beer can campaign to encourage voters in the UK to bring their photo ID to vote.

Macron Honors Haitian Revolutionary, But Leaves Much Unsaid

Macron Honors Haitian Revolutionary, But Leaves Much Unsaid

May 2, 2023

Macron visited the prison where Toussaint Louverture died, praising him as a hero who embodied French Revolution values.

Iranian Secret Committee 'Punished Celebrities Over Dissent'

Iranian Secret Committee ‘Punished Celebrities Over Dissent’

April 28, 2023

Iran’s Secret committee sent a list of 141 to the economy ministry, including celebrities, raising more worries over freedoms.

Rewards Get People To See Truth In Politically Unfavorable Info

Rewards Get People To See Truth In Politically Unfavorable Info

March 30, 2023

People don’t carefully evaluate links for accuracy and that partisanship may be secondary to the rush of getting a lot of likes on social media.

Pussy Riot Will Receive This Year's Woody Guthrie Prize

Pussy Riot Will Receive This Year’s Woody Guthrie Prize

March 30, 2023

Russian performance collective Pussy Riot will receive this year’s Woody Guthrie prize honoring art for social change, award organizers said Thursday.

More Democracy Culture posts