Locals weigh in on Prop 1's likely passage

Nov. 11—As of Friday, just over 65 percent of Californians penciled yes on their ballot for Proposition 1, which would ensure a state right to an abortion, according to the California secretary of state's website.

"Here in California, voters used their voice to say loud and clear they support access to abortion and contraception — safeguarding peoples' rights for generations to come," Planned Parenthood President and CEO Jodi Hicks said in an email statement. "This overwhelming victory once again shows California's leadership in moments of national crisis and that our values will not be compromised by a handful of conservative extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court pushing a political agenda while ignoring facts, medicine and science."

Like several other states that voted on similar measures, Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 was a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade, which previously guaranteed the right to an abortion under federal law.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who championed the bill, said in a speech Sunday it was meant to send "a powerful message all across America that we have your back."

Of the 35 percent of Californians who so far voted no on the ballot, many were from counties in the northeast as well as a couple in the Central Valley, including Kern. In short: While the majority of California said yes, most of Kern said no.

As of 1:30 p.m. Friday, 52 percent of Kern County voters, or 45,591 votes, said they want to shut down Proposition 1. The voting map provided by the secretary of state highlights the differences in values between urban and rural California.

"We focus more on life and talk about it here in Kern," said Angelo Frazier, a chaplain with the Bakersfield Police Department.

Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, who has vocalized his opposition to abortion in the past, declined a request for comment on the proposition.

"I believe women should have health care, but abortion is killing a life — so that's not health care, that's death care," said Frazier, a former board member of Right To Life in Kern County. "If it wasn't living, you wouldn't have to kill it, which proves that it was living."

Abortion has been legally protected in California since 2002. Titled the Reproductive Privacy Act, an abortion is a fundamental right and up to the woman "to choose to bear a child or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus," which is generally up to 24 weeks after pregnancy. After that, it is only legal if an abortion is "necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

"Prop. 1 was unnecessary and it didn't really change anything," said Erin Rogers, executive director at the Bakersfield Pregnancy Center. "California already has the most extreme abortion availability in the United States, allowing abortion up to birth."

What some critics contest is the openness of the amendment's language, which declares the "state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions."

"It doesn't change much, but I mean, it makes it more open-ended in the late-term aspects and brings in the issue of liability," Frazier said.

Proponents of the bill say this interpretation is unrealistic, and unlikely to cause further contest down the road.

"This isn't a bait-and-switch," said Margaret Russell, a professor of constitutional law at Santa Clara University School of Law, in a previous interview with CalMatters.

"I believe in the original design that God has for men and women, I respect that design and I uphold that design, regardless of what our laws say," Frazier said. "Sometimes our laws are wrong. Roe v. Wade was overturned because it was not constitutional. Now that's hard for people to take, because for so long people believed that it was."

While the state said on the ballot that it won't increase any funding for the state government, a rebuttal included in the Official Voter Information Guide by constitutional attorney Heather Hacker declared the item "will cost California taxpayers millions."

"California law already allows access to abortion and contraception," Hacker said. "But unlike state law, which limits late-term abortions unless medically necessary, Proposition 1 has no limit on late-term abortions."

Opponents have also argued that this will result in a soaring number of out-of-state patients traveling to the state to seek the procedure, even though abortions are currently legal in Oregon, Nevada, Washington and Arizona, under certain conditions.

"Gov. Newsom has stated, in his document, the future of an abortion counsel — which is a council of mostly Democratic legislators and Planned Parenthood — that his intent is to make California an abortion sanctuary and to offer California as abortion tourism state," Rogers said. "Prop. 1 continues that message."

Others believe that the bill, as touched on by Gov. Newsom, was a reply to the Supreme Court ruling, and meant to reaffirm the state's standing on abortion as a beacon before states where access to abortion is either unclear or outright banned.

"The separation of church and state demands that people have access to abortion and contraception so they can make their own reproductive decisions according to their own principles and beliefs," Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who has an office in Bakersfield. "Shielding our shared laws from any religion's influence frees us to come together as equals and build a stronger democracy."