Scrutinizing the Merc’s gauzy defense of Prop 1
Statewide reporting on SCA 10/Prop 1, on which Californians will vote later this year, tends to be highly enigmatic—sidestepping the questions that leave local citizens confused and concerned. In Opp Now’s exclusive series investigating this Const. amendment’s parameters for late-term abortions, Eric Scheidler—the Pro-Life Action League’s E.D.—examines the Merc’s latest commentary. To receive daily updates of new Opp Now stories, click here.
Opportunity Now: The Mercury News article says “the federal right to contraception could be overturned next” unless that right (along with abortion) is codified into our state constitution. Is that a fair comparison—and a realistic concern?
Eric Scheidler: There is zero chance that contraceptives will be legally limited in any way. Not only was Samuel Alito completely clear about how the Dobbs ruling would not touch other precedents, but more importantly, there is literally no one in the United States advocating for change in the law when it comes to contraceptives. Nobody is trying to take Californians’ birth control. Nobody.
ON: Merc: “Californians should expect to be bombarded this fall by political ads arguing that Prop. 1 would allow unrestricted late-term abortions that would cost taxpayers millions. Don’t believe them. / If voters approve Prop. 1, the Legislature would still be able to pass laws governing the parameters of when an abortion could be performed, just as legislators do for other established constitutional rights.”
I'm not sure what the op-ed is saying. It's suggesting that the Legislature can influence abortion parameters—I get that—but it avoids the question of exactly what Prop. 1 says about late-term abortions. Surely the constitutional amendment, as written, doesn't punt this question to Sacramento, does it?
ES: The op-ed itself argues that there should be no upper limit on when a woman can get an abortion in California, arguing that “the final decision be left to a patient and doctor.”
The text of Prop 1 does not provide any gestational limit, but rather says the state will not interfere with the woman's decision to get an abortion. Saying she can't get one at 24 or 36 weeks would be interfering, so Prop 1, as written, allows every possible abortion.
ON: Merc: “The law would ensure that only future state voters, not politicians nor justices, could alter [abortion and contraception] rights.” So to make changes in the future, it would be the voters' job, not Sacramento’s?
ES: Yes, I believe the only way that a measure passed in California via a ballot initiative can be changed is with another ballot initiative people would vote on.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
This article is part of an exclusive Opp Now series. Local and national attorneys and advocacy organizations interpret SCA 10/Prop 1’s implications for late-term abortion legislation in the Golden State in several installments:
first (including SJ law professor, Right to Life of Central CA’s E.D., etc.),
second (including SJ-based Values Advocacy Council’s president, etc.),
third (including Pasadena constitutional attorney, Associate Counsel at the American Center for Law & Justice, etc.).
In the fourth series article, the Pro-Life Action League’s E.D. Eric Scheidler examines the Merc’s gauzy defense of this controversial amendment,
The fifth article continues highlighting perspectives on how the bill will inform late-term abortion law in the Golden State. It includes Visalia constitutional attorney, National Mobilization for Reproductive Justice in San Francisco, etc.
In the sixth article, locals/advocacy orgs parse the bill’s implications for pregnancy resource centers.
Image by Wikimedia Commons