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

Democracy Chronicles

California Doesn’t Need A New Abortion Measure

by Joe Mathews - August 24, 2022

FacebookTweetLinkedInPin1Share1
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.

FacebookTweetLinkedInPin1Share1

Filed Under: DC Authors

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.

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

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Home | DC AUTHORS | California Doesn’t Need A New Abortion Measure

Primary Sidebar

Advertise button

The Christian Evangelical Church

By Jack Jones January 22, 2023

I am not against Big Business having a voice, just not all the voices, and especially not an impersonator pretending to speak for God.

No One In Monterey County Is Good Enough To Serve In Legislature

By Joe Mathews January 9, 2023

California’s “democratic reforms” have left a place as… [key] as Monterey County without any state representation from one of its own.

democracy chronicles newsletter

DC AUTHORS

In America, the Joe-mocracy Rules

By Joe Mathews December 27, 2022

A republic? A democracy? No, our country is an avuncular autocracy run by old guys named joe.

Property Rights, Indiana-Style

By Andrew Straw December 24, 2022

Indiana’s justices have replaced constitutional property rights with ad hominem politics. Replacing them starts with better governors.

To The American Oligarchs: Lay Off Us

By Jack Jones December 21, 2022

No matter how many jobs are ruthlessly pulled out from under us, we are still going to do what it takes to put food on the table.

Indiana’s Irrational Ballot Access System

By Andrew Straw December 4, 2022

Opposing the potential 2024 retention of the Chief Justice Loretta Rush will be key to preventing disability discrimination bad blood in Indiana courts.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden’s Loan Forgiveness program

By Jack Jones November 24, 2022

What is unlawful is the Texas federal judge’s decision to strike down President Biden’s loan forgiveness program, not the program itself.

DeSantis Battles Trump in Florida Steel Cage Match

By Steve Schneider November 20, 2022

We take you now to the much-anticipated DeSantis-Trump steel cage match, in which “DeSanctimonious” has promised to “kick Trump’s ass.”

Why Gambling Can’t Really Lose In California

By Joe Mathews November 2, 2022

When state voters approved an expansion of casino gaming, gaming interests assured us that gambling here would be governed by strict limits.

MORE FROM OUR AUTHORS

VISIT OUR POLITICAL ART SECTION:

dc political art

DEMOCRACY CULTURE

Girl Scouts Earn Democracy Badge At Workshop In Salina

Girl Scouts Earn Democracy Badge At Workshop In Salina

January 26, 2023

The workshop assisted Girl Scouts in grades K–10 in earning their Democracy Badge through learning activities on democracy.

Study: Media Can Reduce Polarization By Telling Personal Stories

Study: Media Can Reduce Polarization By Telling Personal Stories

January 26, 2023

Sharing personal experiences and pairing them with facts reduces political dehumanization and increases political tolerance.

Study: 2020 Election Resulted In Increased Anxiety And Depression

Study: 2020 Election Resulted In Increased Anxiety And Depression

January 7, 2023

A review of 2020 Household Pulse Survey data reveals that as an election nears, people in [America] report more depression and anxiety.

Key Iran Labor Sectors Launch Major Strikes

Charlie Hebdo Caricatures Iran’s Mullahs

January 7, 2023

The satirical weekly is publishing a special issue on Wednesday, January 4, mocking Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in support of the protests…

First Impressions Are Strongly Influenced By Political Partisanship

First Impressions Are Strongly Influenced By Political Partisanship

December 22, 2022

How we perceive strangers or the impressions we have about them, particularly their faces, is influenced by political partisanship.

MORE CULTURE

VISIT OUR US DEMOCRACY SECTION:

American Democracy