BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Version: January 12, 2016
Hearing Date: January 26, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Women's reproductive health
DESCRIPTION
This measure would make various findings regarding the
importance of Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, the services
provided by Planned Parenthood, and women's reproductive health.
This measure would state California's strong support of each of
the aforementioned and the principle that each woman has a
fundamental right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy.
This measure urges the United States (U.S.) President and
Congress to express their support for access to comprehensive
reproductive health care, including the services provided by
Planned Parenthood and a woman's fundamental right to control
her own reproductive decisions, and to strongly oppose efforts
to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
BACKGROUND
In 1973, the U.S. 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. (See
Comment 2 for more.) This Legislature has on numerous occasions
adopted resolutions urging the President and Congress to
reaffirm the intent and substance of that decision.
Starting in July of last year, Planned Parenthood, a non-profit
organization that provides reproductive health services
throughout the U.S. through a network of affiliated clinics, was
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 2 of ?
prominently featured in the national news cycle after the
release of controversial videos involving alleged unlawful
activities by Planned Parenthood (which the organization has
denied). (See e.g. Scott, Anti-Planned Parenthood Group Releases
Latest Video, CNN (Aug. 25, 2015)
[as of Jan. 19, 2016].)
Since then, some members of Congress have reportedly led several
efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, with the most recent
effort passing the U.S. Senate just last month. (See e.g.
Gorman, House Republicans Pass Bill to Block Planned Parenthood
Funding, Newsweek (Sept. 18, 2015)
[as of Jan. 19, 2016]; see also Chang,
Senate Passes Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood, Repeal Health
Law, National Public Radio (Dec. 3, 2015)
[as of Jan.
19, 2016].) On January 8, 2016, President Obama vetoed that
latest legislation and as reported by the New York Times:
"While noting that federal law already prohibits funding for
nearly all abortions, Mr. Obama said that eliminating funding
for an organization that is a major provider of health care in
the nation would 'disproportionately impact low-income
individuals.'" (Harris, Obama Vetoes Bill to Repeal Health Law
and End Planned Parenthood Funding, New York Times (Jan. 8,
2016)
[as of Jan. 19, 2016].)
Additionally, in the fall of 2015, news outlets reported that a
Planned Parenthood facility in Thousand Oaks, California
suffered an arson attack after a window was smashed and gasoline
was splashed inside and ignited. (See e.g. Rocha and Mejia,
Arson Investigation Underway at Planned Parenthood in Thousand
Oaks, Los Angeles Times (Oct. 1, 2015)
[as of Jan. 19, 2016].)
Reportedly, that Thousand Oaks center provides more than 7,000
patients with a range of healthcare services each year, "over 90
[percent] of which is life-saving preventive care like cancer
screenings, birth control, and sexually transmitted infection
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 3 of ?
testing and treating." (Id.) Subsequently, on November 27,
2015, according to reports, a man armed with an assault-style
rifle gun opened fire at a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado
Springs, Colorado, ultimately killing three people, including a
police officer and two civilians, and wounding nine others
before he finally surrendered five hours later. (Turkewitz and
Healy, 3 are Dead in Colorado Springs Shootout at Planned
Parenthood Center, New York Times (Nov. 27, 2015)
[as of Jan. 19, 2016].)
This measure, in recognition of the Roe v. Wade anniversary and
in light of recent events involving Planned Parenthood, seeks to
urge the President and Congress to express their support for
access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including the
services provided by Planned Parenthood and a woman's
fundamental right to control her own reproductive decisions, and
to strongly oppose efforts to eliminate federal funding for
Planned Parenthood.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
This measure would make various statements relating to the
importance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and
women's reproductive health, including, among other things,
that:
January 22, 2016, marks the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, which acknowledged
that every woman has a fundamental right to control her own
reproductive decisions and decide whether to end or continue a
pregnancy, and is an occasion that deserves recognition;
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; and
California is committed to protecting the public health and
welfare of all its residents, and recognizes 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.
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 4 of ?
This measure would make various statements relating to the
importance of the services provided by Planned Parenthood to
Californians, including, among other things, that:
California recognizes the importance of Planned Parenthood as
one of this State's largest providers of women's preventive
and reproductive health care services, operating 115
community-based health centers across the state, which provide
more than 1.6 million patient visits a year;
Planned Parenthood provides comprehensive health care services
to women and men, which may include well-woman examinations,
birth control, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted
infections and HIV, pregnancy tests, life-saving cancer
screenings, sex education, prenatal care, primary care
services, and abortion services; and
a sudden defunding of Planned Parenthood's health centers by
federal or state governments would put patients across
California, particularly members of underserved communities,
at a significant disadvantage relating to their general health
care because Planned Parenthood is often the only source of
health care services for so many Californians.
This measure would state that violence against abortion
providers and laws that create barriers to abortion endanger the
lives of both men and women and would set forth statistics on
the rise in threats of harassment, intimidation, and violence
against women's health clinics, including a specific reference a
recent attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic on November 27,
2015.
This measure would state that the State of California stands in
strong support of Roe v. Wade and the work of Planned
Parenthood, and of women's reproductive health, and respects the
principle that each woman has a fundamental right to make
decisions regarding her pregnancy.
This measure would urge the President and Congress to express
their support for access to comprehensive reproductive health
care, including the services provided by Planned Parenthood and
a woman's fundamental right to control her own reproductive
decisions, and to strongly oppose efforts to eliminate federal
funding for Planned Parenthood.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 5 of ?
According to the author:
Since July 2015, anti-abortion activists have leveled a series
of false claims against Planned Parenthood. Using heavily
edited videos, extremists made accusations about practices to
facilitate fetal tissue donation at a small number of Planned
Parenthood affiliates. These claims have now been widely
discredited and debunked.
This smear campaign has inspired efforts for congress to
defund Planned Parenthood as well as the creation of a special
investigative committee. Similarly, six states have faced
efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and seven states have
begun investigations of the women's health provider. The
agenda of these extremists is to push for legislation to
prevent patients, who rely on federal funds, from accessing
care at Planned Parenthood or that would ban safe and legal
abortion.
California recognizes the importance of Planned Parenthood as
one of California's largest providers of women's preventive
and reproductive health care services, operating 115
community-based health centers across the state, which provide
more than 1.6 million patient visits a year. [ . . . ]
A sudden defunding of Planned Parenthood's health centers by
federal or state governments would put patients across
California, particularly members of underserved communities,
at a significant disadvantage relating to their general health
care because Planned Parenthood is often the only source of
health care services for so many Californians.
In support, Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund
writes that "[t]he 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."
Planned Parenthood also writes in support that, as reflected in
this resolution, its health centers "are often the primary
source of health care for California's underserved communities.
These health centers provide an array of services including
well-woman exams, birth control, testing and treatment of
sexually transmitted infection and HIV, pregnancy tests,
life-saving cancer screenings, prenatal care, sex education, and
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 6 of ?
primary care services, and in some locations, abortion
services."
Also in support, the Citizens for Choice echoes the importance
of the Roe v. Wade decision, noting that the Court's decision
"not only saved women's lives by preventing unsafe, illegal
abortion procedures[, it] also bolstered women's reproductive
rights and access to needed reproductive and sexual health
services generally." Citizens for Choice, like other proponents
of this bill, including Planned Parenthood and the National
Council of Jewish Women California, further argues that no
patient should ever fear harm when seeking comprehensive
reproductive health care, as seen with the shooting attack on
Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs last November, and the
arson attack on the Thousand Oaks clinic here in California.
2. Roe v. Wade
This measure would restate California's strong support for the
U.S. Supreme Court decision 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. The plaintiff in
the case was "Jane Roe," an unmarried woman who wanted to end
her pregnancy under safe and clinical conditions but was unable
to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life was not
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 a woman's life was at stake. She also claimed that the
Texas law abridged her right of personal privacy. The court
struck down the Texas law, finding for the first time that the
constitutional right to privacy is "broad enough to encompass a
woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." At
the same time, 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 Supreme Court
decisions, and its application and continued validity have
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 7 of ?
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. That being said, this
Legislature has on numerous occasions adopted resolutions urging
the U.S. Congress and the President to stand firm in their
resolve to uphold the intent and substance of the now 43-year
old Roe v. Wade decision. Most recently, this Senate approved
SR 55 (Jackson) which addressed the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) 134 S.Ct. 2751, and
declared the Senate's recognition of the critical importance of
a continued commitment to reproductive health care and access.
That measure, among other things, declared that the California
State Senate reaffirms the decision of Roe v. Wade.
This measure, consistent with prior resolutions, reiterates the
importance of the Roe v. Wade decision, which acknowledged that
reproductive choice is a fundamental right that belongs to all
women. Timed with the January 22 anniversary of that 1973
decision, the measure further notes the impact that the decision
has had for women's reproductive freedom for improving the
health of women and families and declares the State's strong
support of that decision and the work performed by Planned
Parenthood, and of women's reproductive health, and the
principle that each woman has a fundamental right to make
decisions regarding her pregnancy. Recognizing both the impact
that any sudden defunding of Planned Parenthood would have on
Californians, and particularly underserved communities, as well
as the increase in threats of intimidation, harassment and
violence against women's health clinics, this measure ultimately
urges the President and Congress to express their support for
access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including the
services provided by Planned Parenthood and a woman's
fundamental right to control her own reproductive decisions, and
to strongly oppose efforts to eliminate federal funding for
Planned Parenthood.
Support : Citizens for Choice; Community Action Fund of Planned
Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties; National
Council of Jewish Women California; Planned Parenthood Action
Fund of the Pacific Southwest; Planned Parenthood Advocacy
Project of Los Angeles County; Planned Parenthood Northern
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 8 of ?
California Action Fund
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : HR 32 (Atkins, 2016) similarly
urges the President and Congress to express support for a
woman's fundamental right to control her own reproductive
decisions, as well as their support for access to comprehensive
reproductive health care, including the services provided by
Planned Parenthood. HR 32 was recently adopted on the Assembly
Floor on a 53-22 vote.
Prior Legislation :
SR 55 (Jackson, 2014) See Comment 2. The measure also urged the
U.S. Senate to reconsider and approve SB 2578, the "Not My
Boss's Business Act," which sought to prevent employers from
denying coverage of contraceptives regardless of their religious
views.
SR 10 (Jackson, 2013) memorialized that on the 40th anniversary
of Roe v. Wade, the California State Senate recognizes the
critical importance of continued access to safe and legal
abortion, and urges the U.S. Congress and the President to
protect and uphold the intent and substance of that decision. SR
10 also made various statements regarding the effect of Roe v.
Wade on the ability of women to exercise their full rights under
federal and state law.
SJR 19 (Alquist, Figueroa, Kehoe, Stats. 2005) was similar to SR
10; it was referred to this Committee but not set for hearing.
AJR 3 (Cohn, Karnett, Res. Ch. 83, Stats. 2005) was almost
identical to SJR 19.
AJR 57 (Jackson, Res. Ch. 50, Stats. 2004) was almost identical
to AJR 3.
AJR 2 (Jackson, Res. Ch. 63, Stats. 2003) was almost identical
to AJR 57.
SJR 19 (Jackson)
Page 9 of ?
SJR 3 (Karnette, Res. Ch. 112, Stats. 2001) was a similar
resolution to AJR 2.
**************