BILL ANALYSIS Ó
HR 32
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 15, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
HR 32
(Atkins) - As Introduced January 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Women's Reproductive Health
KEY ISSUE: IN HONOR OF THE 43RD ANNIVERSARY OF THE LANDMARK AND
HISTORIC UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION, ROE V. WADE,
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE URGE THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT A WOMAN'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CONTROL
HER OWN REPRODUCTIVE DECISIONS?
SYNOPSIS
This resolution, similar to others passed by this Committee in
previous years, urges the President and Congress of the United
States to express their support for a woman's fundamental right
to control her own reproductive decisions, and to support access
to comprehensive reproductive health care, including care
provided by Planned Parenthood. This resolution also makes
findings regarding the importance of Roe v. Wade, reproductive
rights, and reaffirms California's strong support of a woman's
right to choose.
SUMMARY: Urges the President and Congress to support a woman's
fundamental right to control her own reproductive decisions, and
HR 32
Page 2
to support access to comprehensive reproductive health care,
including services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Specifically, this resolution makes the following findings:
1)January 22nd, 2016 marks the 43rd anniversary of the landmark
United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which
affirmed that every woman has a fundament right to control her
own reproductive decisions - an occasion deserving of
celebration.
2)Roe v. Wade has been the cornerstone of the rights of women to
control their reproductive lives, and to decide whether to end
or to continue pregnancy.
3)Roe v. Wade has drastically reduced the maternal mortality
rate for women terminating their pregnancies in the United
States.
4)Prior to Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions accounted for
approximately 17% of all reported deaths attributable to
pregnancy and childbirth, and many women were severely injured
as a result of "back alley" abortion procedures.
5)Interference with a woman's right to choose causes women to be
forced into illegal and dangerous abortions, a common incident
prior to Roe v. Wade.
6)Thirteen percent of the world's maternal deaths are attributed
to countries where abortion is illegal and unsafe-the
equivalent of eight maternal deaths every hour.
7)Roe v. Wade continues to protect the health and freedom of
HR 32
Page 3
women throughout the United States.
8)The State of California stands in strong support of every
woman's fundamental right to make her own decisions regarding
her pregnancy, as confirmed in Roe v. Wade.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Recognizes a right to privacy under the United States
Constitution. (Boyd v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 616;
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 U.S. 390; Griswold v. Connecticut
(1965) 381 U.S. 479; Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558.)
2)Explicitly provides for the right to privacy under the
California Constitution. (California Constitution, Article I,
Section 1.)
3)Holds that the constitutionally protected right to privacy
limits a state's power to restrict a woman's fundamental right
to terminate a pregnancy. (Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this resolution is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: This resolution honors the upcoming anniversary of
the landmark United States Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.
In 1973, the Supreme Court held, in Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S.
113, that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a
woman's decision whether to terminate a pregnancy, while
acknowledging that some state regulation was permissible. In
that case, "Jane Roe," an unmarried Texas woman, wanted to end
her pregnancy under safe and clinical conditions, but was unable
HR 32
Page 4
to receive an abortion unless her life was threatened by the
continuation of the pregnancy, as provided under Texas state
law. Unable to travel to another state to obtain an abortion,
she challenged the Texas criminal statutes that prohibited the
performance and procurement of an abortion except when a woman's
life was at stake; she argued that the state law abridged her
right of personal privacy. The Supreme Court struck down the
Texas law, and held that the constitutional right to privacy "is
broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy." (Id. at 155.)
Roe v. Wade is a natural extension of the constitutional
principles behind the right to privacy. The United States
Supreme Court has long recognized the constitutional protection
of the right of privacy. (See, e.g., Boyd v. United States
(1886) 116 U.S. 616.) That privacy right has been extended to
marital, sexual, and familial matters. (See, e.g., Meyer v.
Nebraska (1923) 262 U.S. 390; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381
U.S. 479; Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558.) In Roe v.
Wade, the Court held that the right to privacy also extended to
a woman's decision as to whether to terminate a pregnancy. At
the same time, the Court provided two state interests that are
sufficiently compelling to justify restrictions on a woman's
right to choose to terminate a pregnancy: (1) a state may
regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester of
pregnancy in ways reasonably related 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 the subject of much debate, both political
and legal. Indeed, the application and validity of the decision
has been frequently challenged in court. In 1992, in Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S.
833, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, and provided
reasoning for why it once again upheld Roe:
HR 32
Page 5
[F]or two decades of economic and social developments,
people have organized intimate relationships and made
choices that define their views of themselves and their
places in society, in reliance on the availability of
abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The
ability of women to participate equally in the economic and
social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their
ability to control their reproductive lives. The
Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of
reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the
certain cost of overruling Roe for people who have ordered
their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.
(Casey at 856 [internal citations omitted].)
Research shows that Roe v. Wade has saved women's lives.
According to an article, "The Public Health Impact of Legal
Abortion: 30 Years Later," published by the Guttmacher
Institute:
The number of abortion-related deaths per million live
births fell from nearly 40 in 1970 to 8 in 1976. The trend
was caused mainly by a decline in the absolute number of
deaths from illegal abortion-especially after Roe v.
Wade-from 39 in 1972 to 2 in 1976. After 1975, mortality
due to legally induced abortion also fell-from more than 3
deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1975 to about 1 in 1976 and
even fewer thereafter. (Cates et al., Comment: The Public
Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later
(January/February 2003) 35 Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health 1.)
Indeed, between 1978 and 2010, the abortion-related mortality
rate has fallen to less than 1 death per 100,000 abortions.
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion
Surveillance - United States, 2011 (November 28, 2014).)
HR 32
Page 6
Even in the face of these maternal mortality numbers, there have
been efforts-federally and in other states-to restrict access to
abortion and to limit a woman's fundamental right to choose.
Last year on the federal level, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed House Resolution 3134, known as the
Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, to prohibit Planned
Parenthood and its clinics from receiving any federal funds
unless it stopped providing abortions, even though existing law
already prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortion
services. Meanwhile, in Texas, the state enacted House Bill 2,
which, among other things, requires abortion clinics to comply
with standards set for ambulatory surgical centers-requirements
that the opponents to the law argue would shut down 75% of the
state's health clinics and significantly limit clinic access for
women in rural areas. (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at
1-8, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole (5th Cir. 2015) 790 F.3d 563,
No. 14-50928.) Supporters of a woman's right to choose have
challenged the constitutionality of that Texas statute, which
the United States Supreme Court will hear later this year.
(Whole Woman's Health v. Cole (5th Cir. 2015) 790 F.3d 563,
cert. granted Nov. 13, 2015, No. 15-274, __ U.S. __ [136 S.Ct.
499, 193 L.Ed.2d 364].) In fact, the State of California has
co-authored an amicus brief with other states to support Whole
Woman's Health's challenge to the Texas law restricting access
to abortion services.
Despite these efforts outside of California, California
continues its long history of protecting the privacy rights of
all Californians. Under California's Constitution, Californians
are explicitly given the right to privacy: "All people are by
nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among
these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining
safety, happiness, and privacy." (Article I, Section 1.)
Indeed, this privacy right has been interpreted to provide
greater protection of a woman's right to choose than that
HR 32
Page 7
provided under the federal Constitution. (American Academy of
Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, 327.)
Consistent with California's laws and policies, this resolution
would convey to the President and the U.S. Congress that the
California Legislature supports a woman's fundamental right to
control her own reproductive decisions and access to
comprehensive reproductive health care, including services
provided by Planned Parenthood, and therefore honors the
landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of
California, in support of the resolution, states the following:
The ruling in Roe v. Wade cemented the right for women to
control their own reproductive lives, and eliminated the
need for women to receive unsafe, illegal abortion
procedures. Many women who underwent these risky abortion
procedures suffered serious injuries or died as a result.
By cementing women's reproductive rights, the Roe v. Wade
decision eliminated the need for women to seek unsafe,
illegal abortion procedures.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Right to Life
Committee, Inc., in opposition to the resolution, writes that HR
32: "[indirectly] demands that Planned Parenthood's coffers
continue to be supplied with the public dollar?.Planned
Parenthood has now been exposed for its callous disregard for
human life, both male and female, and for its acknowledgement of
financial benefit from the sale of baby body parts. Tax payers
should demand that no more monies go to further the horror story
of the dismemberment and torture of preborn babies by Planned
Parenthood."
HR 32
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Opposition
California Right to Life Committee, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by:Eric Dang / JUD. / (916) 319-2334