BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SR 10 (Jackson)
As Amended March 21, 2013
Hearing Date: April 2, 2013
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Relative to Roe v. Wade
DESCRIPTION
This resolution memorializes that on the 40th anniversary of the
Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, the
Senate of the State of California recognizes the critical
importance of continued access to safe and legal abortion, and
urges the Congress and the President of the United States to
protect and uphold the intent and substance of that decision.
This resolution also makes various statements regarding the
effect of Roe v. Wade on women's ability to exercise their full
rights under federal and state law.
BACKGROUND
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court held that the
constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to
terminate a pregnancy, while simultaneously acknowledging that
some state regulation regarding these decisions was permissible.
(Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113.) "Jane Roe," an unmarried
Texas resident, sought to end her pregnancy under safe and
clinical conditions, but was unable to receive a legal abortion
in Texas unless her life was threatened by the continuation of
the pregnancy. Unable to afford travel to another state to
obtain an abortion, she challenged the statute making it a crime
to perform an abortion unless the woman's life was at stake,
claiming the law infringed on her constitutional right to
privacy. The Court struck down the Texas law, finding that the
right to privacy is "broad enough to encompass a woman's
(more)
SR 10 (Jackson)
Page 2 of ?
decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." (Id. at
153.)
Constitutional protection of the right of privacy has long been
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, beginning
with protecting against unreasonable search and seizure in Boyd
v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 616, and extending to matters
of marriage, family life, procreation, and contraception in
Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479,
and Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535. With respect to
the right of privacy, Justice Harlan wrote that "the full scope
of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific
guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. ? It is a
rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom
from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints ? and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and
sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require
particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to
justify their abridgment." (Poe v. Ullman (1961) 367 U.S. 497,
543.)
Accordingly, while holding in Roe v. Wade that the
Constitutional right of privacy extended to a woman's decision
whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, the high court also
defined two compelling state interests that would satisfy
restrictions on a woman's right to choose to terminate a
pregnancy: 1) states may regulate the abortion procedure after
the first trimester of pregnancy in ways necessary to promote a
woman's health; and 2) after the point of fetal viability, a
state may, to protect the potential life of the fetus, prohibit
abortions that are not necessary to preserve a woman's life or
health.
Roe v. Wade has been one of the most debated decisions of the
Supreme Court, and its application and continued validity have
frequently been challenged in the courts. For example, in
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (1992)
505 U.S. 833, the Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, yet also
permitted the state to impose restrictions on abortion as long
as those restrictions do not "unduly burden" a woman's right to
choose to terminate a pregnancy. To that end, this resolution
would urge the United States Congress and the President of the
United States to protect and uphold the intent and substance of
the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.
SR 10 (Jackson)
Page 3 of ?
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
This resolution makes various statements related to Roe v. Wade
and its effect on the reproductive rights, health, and equality
of women, including:
access to safe and legal abortion has improved the health of
women and families;
that reproductive freedom is critical to a woman's ability to
participate fully in the social, political, and economic life
of the community; and
that access to reproductive health services, including family
planning and prenatal care, supports individuals and their
families by ensuring that babies are planned, wanted, and
healthy.
This resolution describes California's history, public policy,
and public sentiment of supporting privacy and reproductive
rights.
This resolution states that the 2012 elections indicated to
Members of Congress and state legislatures that women do not
want politics or politicians to interfere with their personal
medical decisions.
This resolution asserts that violence against abortion providers
and laws that create barriers to abortion endanger a woman's
health.
This resolution then memorializes that the Senate of the State
of California recognizes the importance of continued access to
safe and legal abortion and would urge the President of the
United States and the Congress to protect and uphold the intent
and substance of Roe v. Wade.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the resolution
The author writes:
With over 100 bills introduced in various state legislatures
trying (and often succeeding) to restrict a woman's right to
choose; national candidates getting airtime with their
comments about "legitimate rape;" and when women's names being
dragged through the mud when they offered their opinion on
something as simple as the birth control pill women were
harshly made aware of the precarious state of choice.
SR 10 (Jackson)
Page 4 of ?
This resolution seeks to reiterate and remind Congress and the
President that a woman's choice over her own reproductive
health is a right that cannot be chipped away.
2.Upholding and protecting Roe v. Wade
This resolution would urge the United States Congress and the
President of the United States to protect and uphold the intent
and substance of the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision
in Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113. Supporters of Roe and its
continued application argue that women, children, and families
have benefited greatly since the landmark decision. Those
benefits include a significant decrease in infection resulting
from illegal abortion, dramatic decline in death from abortion,
and improved average living conditions of children because women
are able to start families when they are ready.
In support of this resolution, the National Association of
Social Workers writes:
Roe v. Wade has been the cornerstone of women's remarkable
strides toward equality in the past four decades, and
reproductive freedom is critical to a woman's ability to
participate fully in the social, political, and economic life
of the community. ? This law has fundamentally changed the way
that women contribute to their own families and our society.
It has created a path towards equality between the sexes. It
is impossible to overstate the benefits that personal choice
has made to the women of this country.
Also in support of this bill, the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees argue "[p]ublic health, which
includes access to safe abortions, is critical to the success of
California's communities and its workforce. Women deserve our
full support as well as their privacy to make decisions that
will impact their own lives. SR 10 is a celebration of
individual liberty and represents optimism for the future of
women's health."
3.Opposition
The California Catholic Conference Inc. (CCC) opposes this
resolution and rejects the assertion that Roe v. Wade is the
cornerstone of women's remarkable stride towards equality. The
CCC argues that "women's equality in the workplace, academe, in
culture-pregnant or not-has been protected in law. Women do not
SR 10 (Jackson)
Page 5 of ?
need to destroy their offspring to attain that status."
Support : ACLU; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME); California National Organization
for Women; NARAL Pro-Choice California; National Association of
Social Workers-California Chapter; Planned Parenthood Affiliates
of California;
Opposition : California Catholic Conference
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SJR 3 (Karnette, Res. Ch. 112, Stats. 2001) was a similar
resolution to AJR 2.
AJR 2 (Jackson, Res. Ch. 63, Stats. 2003) was almost identical
to AJR 57.
AJR 57 (Jackson, Res. Ch. 50, Stats. 2004) was almost identical
to AJR 3.
AJR 3 (Cohn, Karnett, Res. Ch. 83, Stats. 2005) was almost
identical to SJR 19.
SJR 19 (Alquist, Figueroa, Kehoe, Stats. 2005) was a similar
resolution to SR 10; it was never scheduled for hearing.
**************