BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AJR 3 A
Assembly Member Cohn J
As Amended January 24, 2005 R
Hearing Date: June 7, 2005
GMO:cjt 3
SUBJECT
Relative to Reproductive Rights and Roe v. Wade
DESCRIPTION
This joint resolution memorializes the Congress and the
President of the United States to stand firm in their
resolve to uphold the intent and substance of the 32-year
old U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) 410
U.S. 113.
The resolution 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 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
(more)
AJR 3 (Cohn)
Page 2
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."
Constitutional protection of the right of privacy has long
been recognized by the United States Supreme Court,
beginning with Boyd v. United States , (1886) 116 U.S. 616,
and extended to matters of procreation and contraception in
Skinner v. Oklahoma , (1942) 316 U.S. 535 and in Griswold v.
Connecticut , (1965) 381 U.S. 479. While holding in Roe v.
Wade that this right also extended to a woman's decision
whether to terminate a pregnancy, the high court also
defined two compelling state interests that would satisfy
restrictions on a woman's right to choose whether 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 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 has been frequently challenged in the courts. For
example, in 1992, the court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in the
case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Casey , (1992) 505 U.S. 833, while also restricting
protections under Roe . Casey permitted the state to impose
restrictions on abortion as long as those restrictions do
not "unduly burden" a woman's right to choose, and upheld a
statute that it had previously found to violate the right
to privacy.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
This resolution makes various statements related to Roe v.
Wade and its significant effect on the reproductive rights
of women.
This resolution states that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Roe v. Wade , guaranteeing women reproductive
AJR 3 (Cohn)
Page 3
rights, is an occasion deserving of celebration and special
public commendation.
This resolution states that women's ability to control
their reproductive lives has facilitated their equal
participation in the economic and social life of the nation
and that the state should not interfere with a woman's
decision to either bear a child or terminate a pregnancy
through a safe and legal abortion.
This resolution states that during the first half of the
20th century, illegal abortions accounted for about 50
percent of all maternal deaths, that Roe v. Wade has
significantly reduced the mortality rate for women
terminating their pregnancies, and that Roe v. Wade
continues to protect the health and freedom of women
throughout the United States.
The resolution then memorializes the Congress and the
President of the United States to protect and uphold the
intent and substance of the Roe v. Wade decision.
COMMENT
1. Need for the resolution
The author states:
As the judges on the Supreme Court retire, Roe v. Wade
is in danger of being overturned. Many are concerned
if more than one Justice steps down, Roe itself could
be overruled. Much depends on the President, who is
vocally anti-choice, and would appoint the replacement
should a Justice step down. AJR 3 encourages the
Congress and the President to protect and uphold the
intent and substance of the Roe v. Wade decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade in 1992 in
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey ,
supra, by a 5-4 vote. Further, in November 2003 Congress
enacted the Partial Birth Abortion Bill, which bans
late-term abortions, without an exemption to protect the
health of the mother. These factors indicate a tipping
of the balance against the continued upholding of Roe v.
Wade , according to the author, thus creating the need for
AJR 3 (Cohn)
Page 4
this resolution to be sent to the President and to
members of the U.S. Congress.
2. Opposition to the resolution
Concerned Women for America opposes this resolution
because it uses the word "celebration" when describing
the occasion of the 32-year old decision in Roe v. Wade .
"Although radical feminists may enjoy the fact that the
courts narrowly support a woman's right to choose, CWA,
representing half-a-million U.S. citizens, including more
than 35,000 members in the state of California, strongly
believes that abortion is a tragedy that should never be
celebrated?AJR 3 is out of step with women and public
opinion."
3. Support for the resolution
The State of California Commission on the Status of
Women, however, strongly supports AJR 3:
"The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade established
constitutionally based limits on the power of states to
restrict the right of women to choose to terminate a
pregnancy. For thirty [sic] years abortion has been a
legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure
nationwide. Consequently, women and families today know
that should they have to make the difficult decision to
terminate a pregnancy, they will have access to a wide
range of family planning services, including a safe,
legal abortion."
Support: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California,
Inc.; State of California Commission on the Status
of Women; Lambda Letters Project
Opposition: Concerned Women for America; Responsible
Citizens, Inc.
HISTORY
Source: Author
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
AJR 3 (Cohn)
Page 5
Prior Legislation: AJR 57 (Jackson, Res. Ch. 50, 2004) was
identical to AJR 3;
AJR 2 (Jackson, Res. Ch. 63, 2003) was
identical to AJR 3;
SJR 3 (Karnette, Res. Ch. 112, 2001) was a
similar resolution.
Prior Vote: Asm. Cmte. Jud. (Ayes 6, Noes 2);
Asm. Floor (Ayes 47, Noes 26)
**************