Opponents of California’s Abortion Rights Measure Mislead on Expense to Taxpayers

“With Proposition 1, the variety of abortion seekers from different states will soar even increased, costing taxpayers tens of millions extra.”

California Collectively, No on Proposition 1, on its website, Aug. 16, 2022

California Together, a marketing campaign led by spiritual and anti-abortion teams, is hoping to influence voters to reject a ballot measure that will cement the fitting to abortion within the state’s structure. The group is warning that taxpayers shall be on the hook for an inflow of abortion seekers from out of state.

Proposition 1 was positioned on the poll by the Democratic-controlled legislature in response to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. If handed, it could defend a person’s “basic proper to decide on to have an abortion,” together with the right to birth control.

California Collectively’s website says: “With Proposition 1, the variety of abortion seekers from different states will soar even increased, costing taxpayers tens of millions extra.”

The marketing campaign raised comparable price considerations in a voter information guide that shall be mailed out to each registered voter forward of the Nov. 8 election. One distinguished argument is that Proposition 1 will flip California right into a “sanctuary state” for abortion seekers, together with these in late-term being pregnant — and that will be a drain on tax {dollars}.

We determined to take a more in-depth have a look at these eye-catching statements to see how properly they maintain up when damaged down.

We reached out to California Collectively to seek out out the idea for its arguments in opposition to the measure. The marketing campaign cited an evaluation from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, which estimated earlier than Roe was overturned that the variety of ladies ages 15 to 49 whose nearest abortion supplier could be in California would increase 3,000% in response to state abortion bans. The Guttmacher evaluation stated most of California’s out-of-state sufferers would seemingly come from Arizona as a result of it’s inside driving distance.

California Collectively doesn’t cite a particular price to taxpayers for the measure. Somewhat, it factors to tens of millions of {dollars} the state has already allotted to help abortion and reproductive well being providers as a sign of how way more the state may spend if the proposed modification passes.

Sources point out that individuals are already coming to the state for abortion providers.

Jessica Pinckney, govt director of Oakland-based Entry Reproductive Justice, which offers monetary and emotional help for individuals who have abortions in California, stated the group had skilled a rise in out-of-state calls even earlier than the excessive courtroom dominated in June. Pinckney anticipates dealing with extra circumstances as extra states limit abortion — no matter Proposition 1’s consequence.

Will It Price Taxpayers Thousands and thousands?

In its fiscal yr 2022-23 finances, California dedicated more than $200 million to increasing reproductive well being care providers, together with $20 million for a fund to cowl the journey bills of abortion seekers, no matter what state they stay in. As soon as it’s up and working in 2023, the fund will present grants to nonprofit organizations that assist ladies with transportation and lodging.

Nevertheless, none of that spending is linked to Proposition 1, stated Carolyn Chu, chief deputy legislative analyst on the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Workplace. It’s already allotted within the finances and shall be doled out subsequent yr no matter what occurs with the poll measure.

In the long run, the Legislative Analyst’s Workplace discovered “no direct fiscal effect” if Proposition 1 passes as a result of Californians have already got abortion protections. And other people touring from out of state don’t qualify for state-subsidized well being applications, comparable to Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, Chu added in an interview. “If folks have been to journey to California for providers, together with abortion, that doesn’t imply they’re eligible for Medi-Cal,” she stated.

Nonetheless, Proposition 1 opponents see the fee argument taking part in out another way.

Richard Temple, a marketing campaign strategist for California Collectively, stated a “no” vote will ship lawmakers a mandate to cease the help fund. “Defeat Prop. 1, and also you ship a loud sign to the legislature and to the governor that you just don’t wish to pay for these sorts of bills for folks coming in from out of state,” Temple stated.

What About an Inflow of Abortion Seekers?

A key aspect of California Collectively’s argument is pegged to the concept California will turn into a sanctuary state for abortion seekers. Opponents assert that Proposition 1 opens the door to a brand new authorized interpretation of the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act. At present, that legislation permits abortion as much as the purpose of viability, normally across the twenty fourth week of being pregnant, or later to guard the life or well being of the affected person.

An argument made within the voter information in opposition to the constitutional modification is that it could enable all late-term abortions “even when the mother’s life is not in danger, even when the healthy baby could survive outside the womb.”

As a result of the proposition says the state can’t intervene with the fitting to abortion, opponents argue that present legislation limiting most abortions after viability will turn into unconstitutional. They contend that with out restrictions, California will draw 1000’s, presumably tens of millions, of girls in late-term being pregnant.

Statistically, that’s unlikely. The state doesn’t report abortion figures, however nationwide solely 1% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later, in line with the Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention.

Whether or not there shall be a brand new interpretation if Proposition 1 passes is up for debate.

UCLA legislation professor Cary Franklin, who makes a speciality of reproductive rights, stated that simply because Proposition 1 establishes a normal proper to abortion doesn’t imply all abortion would turn into authorized. Constitutional language is all the time broad, and legal guidelines and laws can add restrictions to these rights. For instance, she stated, the Second Modification to the U.S. Structure grants the fitting to bear arms, however legal guidelines and laws limit youngsters from buying weapons.

“The modification doesn’t displace any of that legislation,” Franklin stated.

However present legislation was written and interpreted below California’s present structure, which doesn’t have an specific proper to abortion, stated Tom Campbell, a former legislator who teaches legislation at Chapman College. If Proposition 1 passes, courts would possibly interpret issues otherwise. “Any restriction imposed by the state on abortion must be reconsidered,” Campbell stated.

The Legislative Analyst’s Workplace concluded that “whether or not a courtroom would possibly interpret the proposition to broaden reproductive rights past current legislation is unclear.”

California voters will quickly have their say.

Polling has discovered widespread help for the constitutional modification. An August survey by the Berkeley IGS Ballot discovered 71% of voters would vote “sure” on Proposition 1. A September survey by the Public Coverage Institute of California pegged help at 69%.

Our Ruling

California Collectively warns voters: “With Proposition 1, the variety of abortion seekers from different states will soar even increased, costing taxpayers tens of millions extra.”

Proposition 1 would defend a person’s “basic proper to decide on to have an abortion.”

Whereas it may result in extra folks coming to California for abortion providers, that’s already occurring, even earlier than voters determine on the measure.

As well as, Proposition 1 doesn’t allocate any new spending. So the $20 million state fund to cowl journey bills for abortion seekers would exist no matter whether or not the constitutional modification is adopted. Backside line: A nonpartisan analyst discovered there shall be no direct fiscal affect to the state, and out-of-state residents don’t qualify for state-subsidized well being applications.

It’s speculative that Proposition 1 would broaden abortion rights past what’s presently allowed or that the state would allocate more cash for out-of-state residents.

As a result of the assertion incorporates some fact however ignores vital info to provide a unique impression, we charge the assertion Principally False.


California Collectively, No on Proposition 1, “Q&A: What You Should Know About Prop 1,” accessed Aug. 22, 2022

Legislative Analyst’s Workplace, Analysis of Proposition 1, accessed Aug. 22, 2022

E-mail interview with Kelli Reid, director of consumer providers at McNally Temple Associates, Aug. 24, 2022

Telephone interview with Carolyn Chu, chief deputy legislative analyst, Legislative Analyst’s Workplace, Sept. 12, 2022

CalMatters, “California Fails to Collect Basic Abortion Data — Even as It Invites an Out-of-State Influx,” June 27, 2022

California Well being Advantages Overview Program, “Analysis of California Senate Bill 245 Abortion Services: Cost Sharing,” accessed Sept. 12, 2022

SB 1142, Abortion Services, accessed Sept. 12, 2022

Telephone interview with Richard Temple, marketing campaign strategist for California Collectively, Sept. 12, 2022

Telephone interview with Cary Franklin, legislation professor at UCLA Faculty of Regulation, Sept. 13, 2022

Telephone interview with Luke Koushmaro, senior coverage analyst, Legislative Analyst’s Workplace, Sept. 13, 2022

Gov. Gavin Newsom, remarks in Sacramento, California, June 27, 2022

Public Coverage Institute of California, “PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government,” accessed Sept. 13, 2022

California state finances, Health and human services summary document, accessed Sept. 14, 2022

Telephone interview with Jessica Pinckney, govt director of Entry Reproductive Justice, Sept. 15, 2022

Telephone interview with Tom Campbell, legislation professor at Chapman College, Sept. 15, 2022

SB 1301, Reproductive Privacy Act, accessed Sept. 19, 2022

E-mail interview with H.D. Palmer, deputy director for exterior affairs on the California Division of Finance, Sept. 20, 2022

Leave a Comment