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 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 women throughout the United
States.
HR 32
Page 2
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 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:
[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
HR 32
Page 3
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).)
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 provided under the federal Constitution. (American Academy
of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, 327.)
HR 32
Page 4
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.”
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