Criminal Law Reforms Imperil Abortion Rights, Atty. Gen. Says

Democratic Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp charged Tuesday that criminal statute reforms supported by two of his opponents for governor in 1990 “could lead to the criminalization of abortion” in California.

His contention set off a rage among some California district attorneys, but it also put Van de Kamp’s opponents on the defensive and opened a debate that will dominate political discussions for months.

The issue is the Crime Victims’ Justice Reform Initiative, which would amend the California Constitution if it qualifies for the June, 1990, ballot and is approved by the voters.

Among other things, the initiative would conform California laws on the rights of defendants with tougher federal statutes and speed up trials by limiting the right ofdefense attorneys to question potential jurors.

But Van de Kamp argues that the ballot measure could also subordinate California’s abortion right to federal statutes and place that right in danger. He said Tuesday that there are old criminal statutes still on the books in California that make abortion illegal but that they have been superseded by a state constitutional right to privacy. He said he fears that the crime initiative would endanger that right to privacy and make abortion illegal again.

In a letter to U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, the crime initiative’s honorary chairman, Van de Kamp said he could support the ballot proposition only if the drafters removed the following section:

“In criminal cases, the right of a defendant to . . . privacy . . . shall be construed by the courts in this state in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. (The California) Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.”

He wants it removed for this reason, Van de Kamp wrote:

“The right to privacy is not explicitly recognized in the U.S. Constitution. It exists under federal law solely as a matter of interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like Roe vs. Wade. By contrast, our state Constitution was amended by the people in 1972 to clearly recognize the right to privacy. It is this right . . . which protects freedom of choice in California.”

In other words, said Van de Kamp spokesman Duane Peterson, if the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturns Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision giving women the right to abortion, the language in the crime victims’ initiative could be used to strike down the California right to privacy and render abortion illegal.

Behind Tuesday’s skirmish over the initiative is a significant struggle in the 1990 governor’s race.

On one side are Wilson, who is seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination, and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who wants the Democratic nomination. Like Wilson, Feinstein supports the crime initiative.

On the other side is Van de Kamp, Feinstein’s opponent in next year’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. Until Tuesday, he had taken no position on the crime initiative.

Polls showing that voters continue to chafe over the rights of criminals in California versus the rights of victims have not been lost on Wilson and Feinstein. They see the initiative as a way to tap that anger, which led to the rejection of former California Supreme Court Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird in 1986.

Van de Kamp expressed concern over the crime initiative in remarks to the California District Attorneys Assn. last year, according to several district attorneys.

But like Wilson and Feinstein, Van de Kamp has also noted the voters’ concern over the rights of criminals, as interpreted by the Bird court, so he had moved cautiously in discussions about the initiative.

Now, Van de Kamp’s objection to the crime initiative could help separate the votes of some women from Feinstein and Wilson next year.

But Gary Mullen, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn., took strong exception to Van de Kamp’s argument Tuesday.

“When it comes to the right of privacy,” Mullen said, “the intent of the crime initiative--and the ballot argument will say so--deals strictly with search and seizure in criminal cases. It has nothing to do with a woman’s right to abortion in California.”

But former federal Judge Shirley Hufstedler of Los Angeles, who sides with Van de Kamp, said she sees ominous signs in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on abortion and is concerned about the future impact of the crime initiative’s section on privacy.

From a political standpoint, Van de Kamp’s specific objection to the crime initiative could present problems for Wilson and Feinstein, since both are pro-choice on abortion, as are a majority of California voters, according to opinion polls.

And Feinstein and Wilson wasted no time Tuesday in counter-attacking.

‘A Smoke Screen’

“John Van de Kamp is using this as a smoke screen to avoid endorsing an initiative that will reform the criminal justice system in California and alienate his friends, the criminal defense attorneys,” Feinstein spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers said.

“No one is more pro-choice than Dianne Feinstein,” Myers said. “She even supports public funding of abortions.”

And Wilson dashed off a scathing reply to Van de Kamp Tuesday that included the following:

“Dear John, such a flagrantly political maneuver should have been written on your campaign stationery. . . . The Crime Victims’ Justice Reform Initiative in no way affects abortion rights because, by its express terms, its provisions apply exclusively to criminal law and not at all to the civil right of women seeking an abortion.”