The Politics of Prudence

The California Supreme Court has demonstrated that sound judicial reasoning need not be encumbered with politically partisan baggage. The court has changed substantially over the past few years, from a liberal, Democratic-appointed court to a conservative majority largely appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian. But in examining whether to allow restrictions on state-funded abortions for poor women, both courts have reached the same conclusion. The court has continued to hold that the Legislature does not have the right to impose restrictions on the circumstances under which Medi-Cal will pay for abortions, because the state constitutional guarantee of privacy broadly protects the right to an abortion.

Although state courts since 1978 have taken this same position, the state Supreme Court decision to leave well enough alone marked the first time it considered abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court’s crucial Webster ruling last summer. That decision gave states more authority to regulate it.

Emboldened by what they believed to be a new mandate, anti-abortion advocates hoped to finally gather political steam for legislative action to restrict publicly funded abortion in California. They would limit abortion to cases where the mother’s life was endangered, the result of rape or incest, cases in which the mother is under 18, unmarried and the parent is notified and cases when the pregnancy would result in deformity.

The limits would have all but eliminated any legal abortion access for most poor women. A state Court of Appeal rendered instead a consistent legal judgment: Attempts to restrict Medi-Cal abortions not only violated overall privacy rights but equal-protection laws. The California Supreme Court voted 5 to 2, with Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli dissenting, to let that ruling stand.

Pro-choice advocates hope that the state high court decision marks the end of the annual attempts by some members of the Legislature to create a two-tier system of abortion access, one for those who can have money and one for those who do not. While there is no doubt that the battle over abortion is far from over, the court did show through its decision last week that prudence can make the best politics.