On November 8, the U.S. midterm elections will be held, in addition to the general election in California, and once voters have begun to receive their ballots, they will be able to make a decision on whether the right to reproductive freedom goes to the state constitution.
Knowing and staying informed about the electoral decisions that may affect the lives of residents in the state is of utmost importance, so this Thursday afternoon the session "Electoral initiatives pros and cons presented by the League of Women Voters of San Mateo County" took place through the organization Thrivewhere the electoral measure or proposition 1, which touches on the issue of sexual health, was discussed.
What are ballot measures?
League members Linda Atkinson and Kathy Wheeler, who conducted the briefing, reminded the audience that ballot measures, or propositions, are bills that are presented to the public to vote on.
Propositions can change existing laws and sometimes amendments to the California Constitution. Propositions can be placed on the ballot either by individuals who gather enough signatures on a petition or by state legislators.
For a ballot initiative statute, the number of signatures must equal five percent of the votes cast for governor in the states. Currently that number is over 600 thousand, but for a constitutional change a "war" of signatures is required and that is over 900 thousand.
A proposition becomes law if it receives more than 50 percent of the votes. If the majority of the people vote no, the associated law is repealed.
The League of Women Voters of San Mateo County suggests asking yourself some important questions about each proposition when casting your vote: Does the ballot measure address a real problem? Is it the best solution to the problem or is it too complex? Who are the stakeholders and what do they gain, and what are the fiscal implications?
Ballot Measure or Proposition 1: The California Constitution to include the right to reproductive freedom.
The question it asks is, Should the California Constitution be amended to express the guarantee of the right to reproductive health, Freedom, including the right to choose an abortion and to choose a refusal of contraception?
The California Constitution currently provides that all persons have the right to privacy.
A state Supreme Court case decided that the right to privacy includes a person's decision whether or not to have an abortion. The California Reproductive Privacy Act currently provides that every person has a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions.
Therefore, state law establishes that everyone has the right to choose a contraceptive method and the fundamental right to choose whether to have children or obtain an abortion.
The law also states that abortions can only be performed on a viable fetus if the pregnancy endangers the health or life of the pregnant person. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision held that there is no right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution, raising concerns about whether in the future the California Court could overturn the state's current law to eliminate the right to choose abortion and to refuse contraception.
Thus, Measure One was proposed to change the California Constitution to provide that the state may not deny or interfere with a person's reproductive freedom, and that individuals have the fundamental right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and whether or not to use contraception.
As for its price tag, proposition one would have no impact on the state budget other than the costs necessary to place the measure on the ballot.
Those in favor of measure one say it will enshrine the fundamental right to abortion and the fundamental right to contraception in the California state constitution. They also point out that doctors, nurses and health care providers agree that proposition one is necessary to keep reproductive medical decisions where they belong, to individuals and their health care providers based on scientific facts, not political arguments.
Opponents point out that it is an extreme and costly proposal that allows late-term abortions without restrictions and also affects taxpayers, while California will be "flooded" with people seeking abortions because they are not allowed in their states.
Opponents also point out that women already have the right to choose under current California law and that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not and will not change this, so the measure is not necessary to protect women's health or reproductive rights.
You may be interested in: Disinformation could jeopardize U.S. midterm elections, warns U.S. media.
