Editorial: Can California afford to be a haven for abortion? It can't afford not to be

California has long been a safe harbor for reproductive rights. Abortion was legal here even before the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade made the right to have the procedure constitutionally protected in this country.

In the intervening half-century, California has guaranteed the right to an abortion through the second trimester — and later if the life of the pregnant person is endangered — without constraints. While other states were passing multiple restrictions on abortion, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a proclamation in 2019 inviting women to come to the state to “exercise their reproductive rights.”

Just hours after a Supreme Court draft decision overturning Roe was leaked, Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) called for a state constitutional amendment on the November ballot enshrining the right to an abortion in California. Currently the state has a right to privacy that has been interpreted to cover a right to an abortion, and an amendment would explicitly provide a right to abortion in the state Constitution in case the right to privacy were ever challenged.

Now California is poised to become a sanctuary for women from the 26 states that are certain or very likely to ban abortion if Roe is overturned.

But the state's capacity to take on this mission may be tested. The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, estimates that California would be the place of the nearest provider for anywhere from 46,000 to 1.4 million people as other states impose abortion bans. Lawmakers must understand that many Californians have trouble accessing abortion services now. A surprising 40% of counties in the state have no clinics providing abortion and an influx of more people seeking abortions could make access even more difficult for California women. It would be cruel to encourage people needing abortions to come here and then turn them away from overbooked clinics when they got here.

It's encouraging that Newsom and state legislative leaders have made it clear that they will work to make sure California is prepared to serve people seeking abortion from other states. Legislators are considering 13 bills that would expand abortion access and funding and protect pregnant people and abortion providers. All are based on recommendations from the California Future of Abortion Council, a group of reproductive rights organizations and experts brought together in the early fall with Newsom's support.

Among the bills are two that would protect residents of states with laws making it illegal to get an abortion elsewhere. Assembly Bill 1666 protects patients and providers in California from civil actions for receiving or providing abortion care and Assembly Bill 2091 ensures that out-of-state subpoenas seeking information about a person who received abortion care in California are never granted.

A couple of bills would help subsidize abortion expenses for anyone who needs help. Senate Bill 1142 would set up the Abortion Practical Support Fund to give grants to nonprofits that help low-income pregnant people with support they need to get an abortion, such as airfare, lodging or gas money. Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), the bill's author, says she and supporters are asking for one-time funding of $20 million (which is not specified in the bill). After that, they hope contributions from private individuals and philanthropic organizations will become the main source of money for this fund.

Assembly Bill 2134 sets up a program through which Medi-Cal-enrolled providers could apply for grants to provide contraception and abortion to people who are uninsured or have health plans that don't provide this coverage. California — like 15 other states — uses its own funds to allow low-income people on Medi-Cal to get abortions.

Other proposals address the lack of abortion providers in the state. Senate Bill 1375 would allow nurse practitioners with a certain level of experience to perform abortions independently of a doctor. (Some nurse practitioners can already perform abortions under a doctor’s supervision.) The California Medical Assn. opposes the bill in its current form because it changes the requirements for what constitutes eligible experience. (The bill, which is supported by the California Board of Registered Nursing and the California Hospital Assn., requires three years of experience.) Assembly Bill 1918 would create a Reproductive Health Service Corps that would recruit and train a diverse workforce assigned to provide reproductive care in underserved areas.

We’re heartened by these urgent efforts to make California a place that protects the right to abortion for its residents and those who cross its borders to seek care. The governor already signed Senate Bill 245, which requires all state-licensed healthcare plans issued after 2022 to cover abortion without a co-payment or deductible.  (The law makes California the fourth state to ban the fees.)

California lawmakers should continue to work on ways to accommodate all who need reproductive help. Though these bills could change over the next months as lawmakers refine them, the Legislature must ultimately solidify the state's standing as a safe harbor and deploy the necessary resources to ensure that everyone who wants an abortion — resident or not — can get one. Ultimately, this is an investment in the protection of human rights.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.