Abortion Right Held Protected by State

No matter how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on abortion, California women still will be able to have an abortion under the state Constitution, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp said Wednesday.

“No woman should fear a sudden retreat to the era of illegal, back-alley abortions in California,” he asserted shortly after the high court heard arguments to repeal the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that upheld a woman’s right to an abortion. “Even if the U.S. Supreme Court had never issued the Roe vs. Wade opinion, the law on abortion in our state would still be much the same as right now.”

However, anti-abortion leaders and legislators interviewed Wednesday disagreed with Van de Kamp, and contend that a reinterpretation of Roe vs. Wade could give them the opportunity to attempt to limit abortions in California, either through a statute or a constitutional amendment.

In 1972, a year before the high court’s historic abortion decision, California voters amended the state Constitution to include a specific right to privacy. The state Supreme Court has held that the privacy amendment gives women--rich or poor--the right to choose an abortion and has repeatedly blocked attempts to limit that right.

Van de Kamp expressed confidence that that would continue to be the case, even if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Roe vs. Wade, as it is being asked to do in the case now before it.

But Sen. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin), an abortion opponent, said he already is at work crafting a statute to curtail abortions in California.

“We have a right to privacy in the state Constitution,” Doolittle said, “(but) I do not understand that to mean a right to abortion on demand.”

Van de Kamp is aware that there will be challenges to state law if the federal high court weakens or overturns the Roe vs. Wade decision.

“We are likely to see a flurry of attempts in this and other states to restrict the right to choose,” Van de Kamp said. “No one can predict the outcome of that process.”

“However, we can say with some certainty that abortion will remain legal in California under the state Constitution unless the California Supreme Court changes its interpretation of the right to privacy or the voters themselves decide to change the Constitution,” Van de Kamp said.

Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan (D-Fresno), chairman of the Assembly Health Committee, agreed. “Our abortion rights protection, no matter what one feels about the issue, is embedded in the (state) Constitution,” he said. “What it does, rightly or wrongly, is make California significantly more immune to changes should Roe vs. Wade be modified.”

A constitutional amendment can be placed on the ballot if citizens collect 595,485 signatures or by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.

Despite the constitutional hurdles they would apparently face in California, anti-abortion forces appear ready to mobilize should the Supreme Court weaken the pro-choice protection of Roe vs. Wade. Up and down the state Operation Rescue demonstrations have been increasing and have resulted in numerous arrests of “passive” protesters at abortion clinics.

However, California also has a large, vocal pro-choice movement, evidenced by the estimated 1,000 demonstrators rallying on the state Capitol steps Wednesday. As speakers walked to the microphone to read accounts of illegal abortions and urge pro-choice rights, a group of about 50 anti-abortionists carrying pictures of aborted fetuses and pro-life slogans were barred from the Capitol area by police because they did not have a permit to demonstrate.

Within the Capitol, lawmakers and officials are wary of the consequences of addressing the abortion issue in the Legislature.

“It would stymie our whole process,” said Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. “It would tear this Legislature apart (and) open up a Pandora’s box that will tie up this Legislature and this government for years to come.”

Another pro-choice legislator, Sen. Nicholas C. Petris, (D-Oakland), was pessimistic that California could maintain its abortion law if the Supreme Court weakened or overturned Roe vs. Wade. “I think we’d get clobbered in California,” he said, noting that currently there is not a two-thirds majority in the Legislature to support the state funding of Medi-Cal abortions.

“I don’t like abortion, but I’m not going to support legislation to prohibit it,” Petris said.

Doolittle conceded that it will be difficult to win support for an anti-abortion measure in the current Legislature, and he noted that a constitutional amendment would be even more difficult. “Two-thirds might be hard to get in the Legislature,” he said. “It would probably end up being an initiative.”