Arthur Saginian | Overly Dramatizing Proposition 1

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

Gary Curtis’ overly dramatized letter (Nov. 17) attacks Proposition 1, which amends the California Constitution to provide guaranteed and lasting protection for the right to have an abortion in this state. I shall now proceed to demonstrate how Mr. Curtis’ statements are factually incorrect.

Here’s the reasoning behind Proposition 1.  While it is true that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade did not change access to abortion in California, where it is protected by state law (Reproductive Privacy Act, 2002) and through a right to privacy in the state constitution, Democratic lawmakers were concerned that future lawmakers could change their minds, or that judges could follow the lead of the Supreme Court and reinterpret the right to privacy. They argued that Californians need a stronger guarantee that they will not lose abortion access. The intent is simply to reaffirm (and “cement”) the right to abortion in California — nothing more, and nothing less.

Furthermore, Proposition 1 purposefully omitted language regarding limits because California law (see above) already has set standards regarding “viability” (about 24 weeks), and the only way someone can get an abortion in California past the point of viability is if the mother’s life and/or health is at risk regardless of what the shameless fear-mongers who wrote the opposition in the voter’s guide said — namely, the Catholic Church. 

(Oh, my… I’m getting flashbacks of previous letters I’ve written about them). 

And as for fiscal impact, there will be “no direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law,” which I’m quoting directly from the voter guide Mr. Curtis himself referenced. 

Arthur Saginian

Santa Clarita

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS