ALRIGHT WELCOME TO A SPECIAL
HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE ARE
WAITING ON AN AUTHOR. I'M TOLD
THE AUTHOR WILL BE HERE PROTEST
ATKINS. VERY QUICKLY SO WE WILL
START TO HEARING ONCE SHE GETS
HERE. YEAH. WELCOME, SENATOR
ATKINS. COME ON UP. WE HAVE ONE
ITEM AND THAT IS SCHW 10.
WELCOME THANK YOU. I KNOW SENATE
IS STILL IN SESSION, BUT WE
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE, MR
CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. AND I AM
SORRY TO KEEP YOU WAITING. UM
APPRECIATE YOUR DOING THIS
TODAY. TO MY COLLEAGUES. I AM
HERE TO PRESENT SENATE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 10. WE
ARE ON THE BRINK OF A U. S.
SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT WE
HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE%
WILL TOPPLE ROE VERSUS WADE AND
ERODE THE RIGHT TO ABORTION THAT
WAS SECURED NEARLY 50 YEARS AGO.
ALTERING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM IN
AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT. IN
CALIFORNIA. WE CANNOT STAND BY
AS WOMEN AND FAMILIES ARE LEFT
VULNERABLE AS OUR HIGHEST COURT
MOVES TO STRIP AWAY OUR RIGHTS
AND PUT COUNTLESS PEOPLE IN
HARM'S WAY. ALONGSIDE SPEAKER
RENDON AND SO MANY OF OUR
COLLEAGUES. WE HAVE INTRODUCED
AS C A 10 TO ENSURE THAT THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO
HAVE AN ABORTION AND TO USE
CONTRACEPTION IS PROTECTED IN
CALIFORNIA NOW. AND FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME.
ABORTIONISTS HEALTHCARE, PLAIN
AND SIMPLE AND LIKE MANY
IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISIONS,
IT'S A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE
PATIENT AND THEIR HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER. NO JUDGE. NO
POLITICIAN SHOULD BE IN THAT
ROOM. NONE OF US SHOULD BE IN
THAT ROOM. THERE ARE DEEPLY
PERSONAL CHOICES HERE THAT
SHOULD BE GROUNDED IN SCIENTIFIC
FACTS, NOT ANYONE'S POLITICAL
AGENDA WHEN THE ABILITY TO
ACCESS SAFE LEGAL ABORTION IS
TAKEN AWAY, THINGS GET GRIM. AND
DANGEROUS AND I'VE SEEN IT
FIRSTHAND. WHILE RUNNING CLINIC
SERVICES AND WOMEN'S HEALTH
CENTER. I LISTENED TO A
DISTRAUGHT MOTHER WHOSE DAUGHTER
DIED AFTER AN ILLEGAL ABORTION
IN ANOTHER STATE. HER STORY HAS
NEVER LEFT ME. I HELD THE HAND
OF A WOMAN IN THE NAVY WHO HAD
BEEN INCORRECTLY LED TO BELIEVE
SHE COULD NOT SAFELY DELIVER A
BABY. BECAUSE SHE HAD A SEXUALLY
TRANSMITTED DISEASE AND STD. SHE
CAME TO US BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T
GET AN ABORTION AT THE NAVAL
HOSPITAL. SHE WAS SCARED,
CONFUSED AND SHE WAS ALONE AND
SHE WAS MISINFORMED. WE HELPED
HER UNDERSTAND ALL OF HER
OPTIONS, AND SHE LATER DELIVERED
A HEALTHY BABY WITH THE VERY
DOCTOR THAT SHE SAW IN OUR
CLINIC. AND THAT'S HAT'S AT
RISK. REAL FAMILIES AND REAL
LIVES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO
CONSIDER PASSING SCHNUR TODAY. I
KNOW THERE MIGHT BE A NUMBER OF
FOLKS HERE TO TESTIFY, BUT I AM
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS AND AGAIN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SO
FIRST, LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
CUNNINGHAM BLOOM, DAVIES HANEY
CHOLERA. KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN
REYES. LUZ RIVAS. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT NOW WE WILL
TAKE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. OF
10. AND PRIMARY WITNESSES. I
DON'T HAVE ANY LISTED, BUT
YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE
TABLE. MR CHAIRMAN. I APOLOGIZE
. I DID NOT LOOK BEHIND ME. JODY
HICKS, CEO AND PRESIDENT OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S HERE, AND
PROFESSOR LISA IKEMOTO, WHO IS
/C DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW. THOSE
ARE THE TWO PRIMARY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. FIRST WITNESS,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. I AM
REPRESENTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA SO
SEVENTH AFFILIATES THAT OPERATE
OVER 100 HEALTH CENTERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I'M ALSO
HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE STEERING
COMMITTEE OF THE FUTURE OF
ABORTION COUNCIL THAT IS I'M
SORRY. COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR
NAME? JODY HICKS. SORRY JODY
HICKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA. UM THE CALIFORNIA
FUTURE OF ABORTION COUNCIL IS
OVER 40 ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE
BEEN WORKING TOGETHER SINCE
SEPTEMBER TO PREPARE CALIFORNIA
FOR WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE
REALLY IN THE NEXT IN THE COMING
DAYS, SO SOME OF US WERE UP AT
SIX A.M. WATCHING THIS GODDESS
BLOG THIS MORNING WAITING FOR
THE DECISION ON ROE V. WADE.
THAT'S REALLY COMING ANY DAY.
AND WE ALL SAW THE LEAKED DRAFT
. AND SO WE'VE BEEN PREPARING
FOR WHAT WE THINK AND KNOW FOR
SOME OF US IS A COMPLETE
OVERTURN, TURNING OF ROE V. WADE
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR RIGHT NOW,
OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY. OUR RIGHTS
TO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
UNDER ASSAULT THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY AND ARE AT STAKE. THE
STAKES ARE VERY HIGH, LIKE NEVER
BEFORE, AND WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
DOES IS SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE
THAT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AT
THE SUPREME COURT NO MATTER WHAT
HAPPENED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL,
NO MATTER THE FUTURE MAKEUP OF
THIS VERY LEGISLATURE IN THIS
STATE THAT OUR CONSTITUTION AT
THE STATE LEVEL IS VERY CLEAR.
AND SHOULD THIS DECISION THAT'S
COMING ANY DAY NOW. SEND THAT
RIGHT BACK TO THE STATES. OUR
CONSTITUTION WILL BE VERY CLEAR
THAT TH RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM THE RIGHT TO ABORTION
AND CONTRACEPTION IS VERY
EXPLICIT AND CLEAR. IN
CALIFORNIA AND JUST TO TAKE A
MINUTE OF WHY THAT'S SO
IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW IS SINCE
TEXAS AND THE BAN ON ABORTION
RIGHTS AND THE SUPREME COURT
SILENCE ON THAT ISSUE. THEIR
INACTION WAS REALLY AN ACTION TO
ALLOW THAT TO STAND. WE'RE NOW
SEEING AN ON AVERAGE 1500
PATIENTS A MONTH COMING FROM OUT
OF STATE. IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ALREADY AND THESE
PATIENTS ARE SCARED, AND THEY'RE
CONFUSED, AND PATIENTS EVEN IN
CALIFORNIA ARE SCARED AND
CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THIS
DECISION MEANS. AND SO THIS WILL
SEND A SIGNAL THAT CALIFORNIA
WILL CONTINUE TO BE A
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM STATE WILL
CONTINUE TO BE A HAVEN STATE FOR
PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO IN THE
COMING DAYS WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE THEY LIVE
IN IN ORDER TO GET SERVICES AND
TO BE CLEAR. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
26 STATES THAT ARE POISED TO
INTRODUCE BAN ON ABORTION IN
THE COMING WEEKS. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT OVER 35 MILLION WOMEN THAT
WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF
THE STATE THEY LIVE IN IN ORDER
TO GET CARE SO THIS LEVEL, THE
SIGNAL THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM
THIS LEVEL OF COMFORT THAT HERE
IN CALIFORNIA, THEIR RIGHTS ARE
PROTECTED WHETHER YOU'RE IN
CALIFORNIA COMING TO CALIFORNIA
IS IMPERATIVE AND WE'RE MEETING
THE MOMENT AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR
EVERYONE AND LEGISLATORS THAT
HAVE TAKEN PART. IN THIS JOURNEY
IN PREPARING CALIFORNIA AND I
URGE URIBE. OH, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR, STONE AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LISA IKEMOTO
. I'M A PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
SCHOOL OF LAW. MY PRIMARY WORK
IS IN REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND
JUSTICE. HEALTH CARE, LAW AND
BIOETHICS. THE U. S. SUPREME
COURT WILL ISSUE A DECISION TO
DOBBS VERSUS JACKSON WOMEN'S
HEALTH ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE
NEXT FEW DAYS. THE LEAKED DRAFT
OPINION BY JUSTICE ALITO
INDICATES THAT THE MAJORITY IS
PREPARED TO OVERTURN ROE VERSUS
WADE AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD. A
SOUTHWEST SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA VERSUS CASEY. THE
MAJORITY ALSO SEEMS WILLING TO
SUBSTANTIALLY GUT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY.
THE U. S WOULD THEN BECOME
DEFINED BY DANGER ZONES AND FREE
ZONES AS ROUGHLY HALF THE STATES
BAN ABORTION CRIMINALIZED,
DOCTORS AND PATIENTS ARE SIMPLY
MAINTAIN MULTIPLE BARRIERS TO
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE. WE
ALREADY KNOW THAT BANDS AND
BARRIERS DISPROPORTIONATELY HARD
WOMEN AND OTHER PREGNANT PEOPLE
WHO ARE LOW INCOME MEMBERS OF
HISTORICALLY SUBORDINATED RACIAL
GROUPS. AND OTHERS WHO FACE
OTHER BARRIERS TO HEALTHCARE. WE
ALREADY KNOW THAT US MORTALITY
AND MORBIDITY RATES FOR PREGNANT
PEOPLE ARE DISGRACEFULLY HIGH.
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC MADE IT
OBVIOUS A STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY
COMPOUNDS RISK DURING A CRISIS
OF HEALTH AND RIGHTS.
OVERTURNING ROLE WILL LAUNCH
SUCH A CRISIS. IN RECENT ASCENTS
JUSTICES WHO ARE NOW PART OF THE
NEW MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME
COURT, HAVE DENIED THE NECESSITY
OF REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY TO
GENDER EQUALITY. BUT ITS JUSTICE
KINBERG REPEATED, GINSBURG
REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZE
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM IS A
NECESSARY PRECURSOR TO EQUALITY
AND REMAIN SO. STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 10
RECOGNIZES THAT POINT.
CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY HAS A
ROBUST STATUTORY PROTECTIONS FOR
ABORTION. A C A 10 WILL
SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AN
ABORTION OR USE CONTRACEPTIVES
AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, REGARDLESS
OF WHO IS IN POWER IN THE
FUTURE. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
PRIVACY PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO
ABORTION. BUT THAT COULD CHANGE.
LAST WEEK, THE IOWA SUPREME
COURT ISSUED A DECISION CALLED
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE
HEARTLAND VERSUS REYNOLDS. THE
NEW MAJORITY ON THAT COURT
OVERTURNED A 2000 AND 18
DECISION THAT RECOGNIZED THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ABORTION.
THAT MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO
HAPPEN IN CALIFORNIA, BUT THE
ISSUE IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO
TAKE PROTECTIVE MEASURES. SB 10
WILL ENSHRINE REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS BY ENUMERATING THEM IN
THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
IT'S LIKELY THAT OTHER PRIVACY
RIGHTS WILL FALL AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL, THE RIGHT TO USE
CONTRACEPTIVES, SEXUAL PRIVACY
AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY ARE ALSO
VULNERABLE. SHORING UP STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS A
PRESSING NEED TO PROTECT THE
STATE'S RESIDENTS AND TO ANCHOR
CALIFORNIA FIRMLY IN THE
FREEDOMS OAN SCHNUR, ALONG WITH
OTHER LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS BY
THIS BODY, WILL HELP TO ENSURE
THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE BASIC
FREEDOM TO ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTHCARE. AND THE LIBERTY AND
EQUALITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN
DECISIONS ABOUT IF AND WHEN TO
GROW THEIR FAMILIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. RIGHT ARE THERE
OTHERS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULDLIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR C A 10? IF YOU HAD
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE, WE
ASKED FOLKS NOT TOUCH THE
MICROPHONE. BECAUSE OF THE
CURRENT PANDEMIC. AND WE WILL
NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY AT
THIS POINT, BUT JUST NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT FOR CHN.
LISA MATSUBARA ON BEHALF OF
ACCESS, REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MOLLY
ROBSON WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
COSPONSORING SUPPORT. I HAVE
ALSO BEEN ASKED TO ISSUE SUPPORT
ON BEHALF OF A HANDFUL OF
ORGANIZATIONS SO PLEASE BEAR
WITH ME. ACT FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN A COG DISTRICT
NINE. BLACK WOMAN FOR WELLNESS
ACTION PROJECT. CALIFORNIA
LATINAS FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE
, CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW,
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH
WOMEN. URGE UNITE FOR
REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER EQUITY
TEACH TRAINING IN EARLY ABORTION
FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE
AND THE WOMAN'S FOUNDATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CINDY HILLARY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT KATHY
MOSSBERG ON BEHALF OF ESSENTIAL
ACCESS, HEALTH AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT,
SAYING NONE IS THEIR OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR,
STONE AND MEMBERS, MORNING CHAIR
STONE AND MEMBERS AND HONORARY
ON HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MOLLY SHEEHAN. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE. THE
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE VEHEMENTLY
OPPOSES SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT 10, WHICH LOOKS TO
ENSHRINE THE MOST EXTREME FORMS
OF ABORTION INTO THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. WE BELIEVE IN
PROTECTING LIFE AT EVERY STAGE
AGE IN EVERY STAGE, INCLUDING
UNBORN HUMAN LIFE. AND WE ARE
EXTREMELY TROUBLED BY THE
LANGUAGE AND SATAN, WHICH IS SO
BROAD AND RESTRICTIVE THAT IT
WOULD ENCOURAGE AND PROTECT EVEN
LATE TERM ABORTIONS, WHICH MOST
CALIFORNIANS OPPOSED. WE ALSO
FEAR THE BOUNDLESS SCOPE OF THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH STARTS
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM, BUT DOES
NOT DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS IS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AS
pPROTECT ABORTION UP TO THE POINT
JUST PRIOR TO DELIVERY. IT IS
DISTRESSING THAT SO MANY
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS WOULD
SIGN THEIR NAMES TO LEGISLATION
THAT ALLOWS THE TAKING OF A
HUMAN LIFE MOMENTS BEFORE BIRTH.
IN THIS REGARD AS CEO 10 WOULD
MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED CALIFORNIA
WITH THE EXTREME ABORTION
POLICIES OF ONLY A FEW COUNTRIES
, RATHER THAN THOSE OF THE
MAJORITY OF WESTERN DEMOCRACIES
AND OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES. WHICH
DO NOT ALLOW LATE TERM ABORTIONS
IS UNNECESSARY. THE SAD REALITY
IS THAT CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS
SOME OF THE MOST ACCOMMODATING
ABORTION LAWS AND SERVICES IN
THE NATION. ALREADY IN
CALIFORNIA, THE REPRODUCTIVE
PRIVACY ACT DECLARES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO
BEAR A CHILD OR CHOOSE AND
OBTAIN AN ABORTION. THERE IS NO
LACK OF ABORTION ACCESS IN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THE STATE
ALREADY FUNDS ABORTION THROUGH
TAX DOLLARS WITH OVER 400
FACILITIES, PERFORMING ABORTION
AND ABORTION OFFERED BY NURSE
PRACTITIONERS. NURSE MIDWIVES
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANCE VIA
TELEHEALTH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES
AND THROUGH A DOZEN SOURCES
THROUGH MAIL. A CEO 10 IS
DANGEROUS. THE VAGUE LANGUAGE
CREATES A CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED RIGHT THAT IS NOT
ADEQUATELY DEFINED. MOST
CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT
COMMON SENSE LIMITS TO ABORTION.
NOT THE OPEN ENDED CREATION OF A
NEW RIGHT WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT
OR LIMITS FOR MINORS OR FOR
GESTATIONAL AGE OF THE FETUS.
AND PROVIDE BY PROVIDING
EXTENSIVE FUNDING FOR ABORTION
SERVICES WITHOUT ANY
CORRESPONDING EQUITABLE FUNDING
FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS.
THE STATE EXERCISES A
DESTRUCTIVE, COERCIVE POWER. IN
FAVOR OF ENDING INNOCENT LIVES
AND TRAINING. THIS AMENDMENTS
LANGUAGE INTO THE CONSTITUTION
WILL EXTEND THE DANGER OF
COERCIVE ABORTION, TWO BABIES
WITH UNQUESTIONED VIABILITY. IF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS
CREATING A NEW RIGHT TO ABORTION
IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THEN
WHAT IS THE CORRESPONDING
OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO
ENSURE THAT PEOPLE CAN ACCESS
ABORTION IN CALIFORNIA? THE
CONCERN IS THREEFOLD. 10 CREATES
AN OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO
PROVIDE FOR THIS NEWLY CREATED
RIGHT AND UNDERSTOOD IN CONTEXT
OF THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATION THAT
CAN MEAN PAYING FOR ABORTION FOR
WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA AND OUT OF
STATE. PAYING FOR ABORTION
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PAYING FOR
THE ABORTION WORKFORCE. TO
DETERMINE A TRUE FISCAL IMPACT.
WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET PROPOSALS, BUT NOT
ONLY ARE THEY NOT FINALIZED.
MANY OF THE BILLS OFFER
CONFLICTING INFORMATION BECAUSE
THEY ARE PROJECTING AN UNKNOWN
SITUATION. SO FOR A TRUE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE
PHYSICAL IMPACT, DO WE TAKE THE
$125 MILLION IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET AND FACTOR BY 10 OR 20 TO
HAVE A TRUE SENSE OF OUR
OBLIGATION FOR THE COMING YEARS?
AND ACCORDING TO THE GUTTMACHER
INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA STANDS TO
GAIN AT 3000% INCREASE IN OUT OF
STATE ABORTIONS. HAS THIS
PROJECTION BEEN FACTORED INTO
THE ONGOING COST OF ABORTION IN
CALIFORNIA AS GUARANTEED BY
ASSOCIATING? THIS $125 MILLION
IS NOT LISTED AS A ONE TIME
EXPENDITURE, AND SINCE IT HAS TO
BE USED FOR ACCESS, IT SEEMS
REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS
COULD BE AN ONGOING EXPENSE TO
BE INCREASED AS THE NUMBER OF
ABORTIONS INCREASE IN
CALIFORNIA. THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE IS ACTIVELY
OPPOSING STHN AND IS INSTEAD
LOOKING TO PARTNER WITH PEOPLE
OF FAITH AND GOODWILL WHO
SUPPORT WOMEN, CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES. WE WORK TO EXPAND PAID
FAMILY LEAVE PRIORITY HOUSING
FOR PREGNANT AND PARENTING,
WOMEN, WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATIONS
AND OTHER SAFETY NET SERVICES
THAT ALLOW OUR MOST VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIA PARENTS TO
SUCCESSFULLY RAISED CHILDREN IN
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT FEELING
PRESSURED INTO CHOOSING
ABORTION. AS THEIR ONLY OPTION.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON STHN. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ARE THERE OTHERS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO
SCHNUR? WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND OPPOSITION. ALRIGHT SAYING
DONE, I WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, MR CHOLERA? THANK YOU
. MR CHAIRMAN AND I WANT TO
START BY THANKING OUR SENATE
PRESIDENT PRO TEM AND OUR
SPEAKER FOR SO QUICKLY BRING US
TOGETHER AND BY US, I MEAN, I'M
PROUD TO BE ONE OF THEM. MY MATH
IS CORRECT, 52. ASSEMBLY CO
AUTHORS AND 30 SENATE CO AUTHORS
DECEMBER TO THIS IMPORTANT PIECE
OF LEGISLATION AND I THINK IT
SPEAKS TO THE URGENCY OF ACTION.
UM BUT IT ALSO SPEAKS TO OUR
VALUES AND I REALLY WANT TO
THANK PLANNED PARENTHOOD,
CALIFORNIA AND SO MANY OTHER
ADVOCATES THAT ARE STANDING WITH
WOMEN. YOU KNOW THE REALITY IS
THAT THERE ARE SOME DECISIONS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT JUST HAD OF
AND WHEN IT COMES TO
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND CHOICES.
THE DECISION IS WITH ONE PERSON
AND ONE PERSON ALONE. THE WOMAN
SHE MAY CHOOSE. TO SPEAK WITH
HER PARTNER. SHE MAY CHOOSE TO
SPEAK WITH THEIR FAMILY. MEDICAL
PROFESSIONAL. SHE MAY CHOOSE TO
SPEAK WITH A PERSON OF FAITH
THAT SHE TRUSTS HIM. BUT
ULTIMATELY SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO OR EVER BE REQUIRED TO EITHER
CONSULT WITH OR BE DIRECTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT. AND SO I'M. I'M
GRATEFUL WE'RE COMING TOGETHER
FOR THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY HAVE
TO AND I THINK WHEN SOME FOLKS
SAY WELL, WHY IS IT NECESSARY?
CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE YOU
KNOW THE STRONGEST LAWS TO
PROTECT THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE?
WELL, I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS
NEVER EXPECTED THAT ROE V. WADE
WOULD BE ON THE VERGE OF BEING
OVERTURNED. YOU NEVER KNOW.
WE'RE HERE TODAY. WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE IN
FIVE YEARS. 10 YEARS 20 YEARS WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE
IT VERY CLEAR STATEMENT ALLOW
CALIFORNIANS TO MAKE IT VERY
CLEAR THAT THAT THEY STAND WITH
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. UM
AND I'M VERY PROUDLY SUPPORTING
THIS EFFORT TODAY AND BE HAPPY
TO MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU. WE
DO HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? AND THE SECOND. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO MR
MAIENSCHEIN, THE MR HANEY AND
THEN MR KILEY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK
MS ATKINS AND MISS HICKS IN
PARTICULAR. I REALLY WANT TO
THANK MS ATKINS, WHO I KNOW, UM,
I'VE WORKED WITH FOR A LONG
TIME. A LOT OF YEARS. BUT I KNOW
WHERE YOU CAME FROM. WHEN YOU
STARTED YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE THAT
THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE YOU YOU'VE
GIVEN A GOOD SIGNIFICANT PART OF
YOUR LIFE TO WORKING FOR PLANNED
PARENTHOOD. WORKING IN THIS
AREA, AND I KNOW THE DEEP
FEELINGS THAT THIS INSPIRES IN
YOU THAT THIS IS SORT OF CENTRAL
TO WHO YOU ARE, AND I THINK IN
IN MANY WAYS, DREW YOU INTO
PUBLIC SERVICE. SO I WANT TO
REALLY RECOGNIZE THAT AS
SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS YOUR HISTORY
PRETTY WELL AND WHO HAS HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE WITH YOU SO
LONG, UH, AND SAY THANK YOU FOR
THAT. I DO THINK THAT'S
IMPORTANT. THIS ISN'T A TIME FOR
NECESSARY VERY EXTENDED. I KNOW
IT'S THURSDAY. ALL OF US WANT TO
GET OUT OF GET HOME BACK TO THE
DISTRICTS. UM THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT AT LEAST FOR ME, I NEVER
THOUGHT I'D REALLY SEE IN MY
LIFETIME. I DON'T THERE HASN'T
BEEN A SITUATION WHERE THE
SUPREME COURT HAS TAKEN AWAY
SIGNIFICANT, FUNDAMENTAL, RIGHT?
SOMETHING THAT WE, AS A COUNTRY
HAVE COME TO RELY ON UM SINCE
ROE V. WADE WAS INITIALLY RULED
ON AND CERTAINLY AS STARRY
DECISIS OR ANY OTHER LEGAL
PRINCIPLE THAT WE HAVE WOULD
RELY ON THIS AS LITERALLY
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
IN OUR COUNTRY HAVE RELIED ON AH
, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO
SEE FROM THE SUPREME COURT IS A
HUGE DERELICTION AND EXTREME
REACTION AND TAKEN AWAY OF
REALLY A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. FOR
ALL OF US IN THIS FOR WOMEN AND
THEIR FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTRY.
I'M PLEASED. YOU KNOW, I ALSO CO
AUTHOR. I'M PLEASED TO BE AH TO
DO THAT, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT. WE BE UNEQUIVOCAL. IN
WHAT WE CAN CONTROL. WE CAN
CONTROL CALIFORNIA WERE STATE
LEGISLATORS. WE CAN WE HAVE A
DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AND
THIS WILL MAKE IT ON AMBIGUOUSLY
CLEAR. WHERE THIS STATE IS WHAT
OUR VALUES ARE. WHAT WE ARE HERE
TO PROTECT. UM I THINK YOU HAVE
MOTION REALLY HAVE EMOTION IN A
SECOND. BUT WITH THAT VERY
HONORED AND PLEASED TO BE A CO
AUTHOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
REALLY SIGNIFICANT WORK IN THIS
AREA AND PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS
HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. AND WE
HAVE HANEY, KYLIE AND ANDREAS.
MR HANEY. I WANT TO ECHO THOSE
COMMENTS OF GRATITUDE FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND TO PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AND THE SPONSORS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW
FOR ALL OF US, UH, EVEN THOUGH
CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN A LEADER,
THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR INACTION.
WE HAVE TO ENSHRINE AT THE
HIGHEST STRONGEST POSSIBLE
LEVELS. THIS RIGHT OF
REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND FREEDOM
. AH ABORTION IS FUNDAMENTALLY
HEALTHCARE, AND IT HAS BEEN A
RIGHT THAT WOMEN IN OUR COUNTRY
HAVE RELIED ON FOR DECADES AND
PEOPLE IN OUR STATE ARE SCARED
AND THEIR CONCERNS. AND WE KNOW
HERE IN THIS LEGISLATURE, THEIR
LAWS THAT WE PASS REGULARLY AND
THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, BUT THERE
IS NO HIGHER FORM FOR OUR STATE
OF PROTECTION THAN PUTTING
SOMETHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
AND SO THE PROTECTION ITSELF.
THE STATEMENT THAT IT BRINGS IS
CRITICAL. AND I AGREE. I'M PROUD
TO BE A CO AUTHOR, AND I WILL
SAY THAT THERE WERE SOME
STATEMENTS ABOUT UH, FOLKS IN
OTHER STATES, WOMEN AND OTHER
STATES WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ON
THAT RESPONSIBILITY. WE HAVE TO
TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROVIDE CARE FOR PEOPLE WHEN
THEY COME TO OUR STATE AND TO
PROTECT THEM HERE. AND SO THIS
IS ALSO A STATEMENT NOT ONLY FOR
OUR RESIDENTS, BUT FOR WOMEN
AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROTECTION
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING
. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP, AND I KNOW THAT WE
STAND UNITED AND THERE IS
TREMENDOUS URGENCY AROUND THIS,
SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS
TODAY. MR KILEY. AS SENATOR,
JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY IS
THAT THE INTENT OF THIS
LEGISLATION TO CREATE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN
ABORTION UP UNTIL THE MOMENT OF
BIRTH. UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. THAT
DECISION DOES NOT CHANGE FROM
WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. IT LEAVES
IT TO THE PROVIDER AND THE
PATIENT. I WOULD SAY IT IS NOT
PRACTICAL. AND I, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE HAD A DOCTOR BEFORE. AS
WE'VE PRESENTED. THIS S C A
TODAY WE HAVE MISS HICKS AND AN
ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK IT IS A
QUESTION TO ASK OF A DOCTOR. UM
BUT PRACTICALLY THAT IS NOT WHAT
HAPPENS IN CALIFORNIA NOW, AND I
DON'T ANTICIPATE IT WILL BE THE
CASE GOING FORWARD. AH TWO
THIRDS OF THE ABORTIONS THAT
HAPPENED IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL
AS IN THE STATE OR IN THE FIRST
TRIMESTER. THERE ARE LATER TERM
ABORTIONS THAT ARE THAT HAPPENED
IN THIS STATE. BUT THE
PRACTICALITY OF DOING A
PROCEDURE I TWO DAYS BEFORE I AM
NOT A DOCTOR, NOR AM I AN
ATTORNEY, BUT I CAN LOOK AT THE
STATISTICS OF WHAT HAS BEEN
PROVIDED IN CALIFORNIA TO DATE
AND SAY THAT IT IS NOT PRACTICAL
AND I WOULD ASK PRACTICALLY
BEING DONE. TO THAT DEGREE, AND
THAT WOULD BE A DETERMINATION BY
A MEDICAL DOCTOR BASED ON A
CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE PATIENT AT
THE TIME, AND IF MISS HICKS
WANTS TO ADD FROM THEIR
PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF BEING A
PRACTITIONER I WOULD, UH,
INDULGE AND ASK IF SHE CAN MAKE
COMMENT IF SHE PREFERS. THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED OF YOU. YOU
OKAY? THANK YOU, MRS X. THANK
YOU. AGAIN UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY
PROVIDE YOU MORE INFORMATION AND
CERTAINLY FROM A DOCTOR'S
PERSPECTIVE, SO I DON'T WANT TO
SPEAK FOR THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY
. ALTHOUGH SPEAKING FROM PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, ALL PROVIDERS THAT
PERFORM ABORTION SERVICES IN
CALIFORNIA ARE STILL REGULATED.
BY WHICH IS REGULATED BY THIS
BODY, THE MEDICAL BOARD AT THE
NURSING BOARD, ALL OF THE
REGULATORY, UM WAYS THAT THAT
THAT THEY ARE, AND THEY STILL
HAVE TO PERFORM MEDICAL CARE
UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS OF CARE
, AND THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE
THAT. IT WOULDN'T CHANGE. UM ANY
ANY WAYS THAT HEALTH CARE IS
BEING PERFORMED RIGHT NOW. I SEE
. IT'S JUST THAT THIS IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. AND SO
THIS IS NOT AN ORDINARY BILL SO
IT WOULD BIND FUTURE
LEGISLATURES. AND SO I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
PARAMETERS THAT. ARE BEING SET
FOR OUR SUCCESSORS FOR FUTURE
LEGISLATORS. SO IF THIS WERE TO
BE PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION AND
A FUTURE LEGISLATOR, LET'S SAY
WANTED TO PLACE LIMITS ON
PROCEDURES, POST VIABILITY OR
EVEN IN THE NINTH MONTH. AH
WOULD LEGISLATURE WOULD BE ABLE
TO DO THAT IF THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BECAME
LAW. AGAIN I SEE AT LEAST SIX
ATTORNEYS HERE. FAR BE IT FOR ME
TO ARGUE THAT BUT I THINK WHAT
IS CURRENT LAW WOULD CONTINUE TO
BE THE CASE. I MEAN, YOU COULD
PRESENT A BILL TODAY. THAT SAYS
THAT BUT WHETHER THE MEDICAL
ESTABLISHMENT AND WHETHER WHAT'S
CURRENT MEDICAL PRACTICE QUALITY
ASSURANCE. AH PROTOCOL STANDARD
AS PROCEDURES. ALL OF THOSE
THINGS I THINK THAT WOULD BE
DEBATED THAT WOULD BE DEBATED AS
LAW. IF SOMEONE WANTED TO
PRESENT A BILL TODAY OR 20 YEARS
FROM NOW. THAT WOULD BE A DEBATE
AND DISCUSSION THAT WOULD HAPPEN
AT THE TIME. BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANCES BUT WHAT WE ARE
DOING IN THIS SC A. IS NO
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT CURRENT
PRACTICE IS TODAY IN LAW AND THE
DIFFERENTIATION FOR THE S C A IS
TO MAKE SURE GIVEN THE LEAKED
OPINION THAT WE ANTICIPATE WILL
COME DOWN. AND THE DEFINITION OF
PRIVACY IN OUR STATE. WE HAVE
ALWAYS KNOWN THAT TO REFER TO
AND INCLUDE ABORTION. THE DRAFT
OPINION SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT
THAT UNDERMINES THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY AS IT RELATES TO,
INCLUDING ABORTION. SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DEAL
WITH. UM IF A FUTURE BODY WANTS
TO TRY TO DO A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT SPEAKS TO THAT
VERY ISSUE. UM THAT WOULD BE A
DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME, BUT
RIGHT NOW, THAT IS NOT WHAT
WE'RE DISCUSSING RESPECT. IT'S A
DISCUSSION FOR THIS TIME BECAUSE
OUR ACTIONS NOW WILL POTENTIALLY
BAR FUTURE LEGISLATURE FROM
PASSING SUCH A LAW. AND SO I
MEAN, I JUST LIKE YES OR NO?
WOULD IF THIS WERE TO BE PUT IN
OUR CONSTITUTION, WOULD A FUTURE
LEGISLATURE BE ABLE TO PLACE ANY
LIMITS ON WHAT SAY PROCEDURES IN
THE NINTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY? I
WILL ASK IF THE ATTORNEY WANTS
TO UPON. I CAN'T AS A AS A LEGAL
MATTER. THIS IS ON RIGHT? YES SO
IT'S A MATTER OF THIS. IT'S SORT
OF IN THE SCOPE OF THE SUPREME
COURT'S ROLE, AND I CAN'T SAY
FOR SURE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT
WILL DO WHAT THE LANGUAGE THE
LANGUAGE CLEARLY EXPRESSES THAT
UM, THE SCOPE OF PRIVACY AS IT
EXISTS IN STATUTORY LAW, RIGHT
RIGHT NOW, AND CALIFORNIA WILL
BE NOW PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. UM IT'S STATES
THAT THE RIGHT TO ABORTION IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT CHN STATES
THAT AND SO ANY STATE
RESTRICTION AND A STATE LAW
RESTRICTION ON THAT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO VERY RIGOROUS
SCRUTINY. UM BUT I COULDN'T TELL
YOU, YES OR NO. WHAT TYPES OF
REGULATIONS WE SUSTAINED. WE
CAN'T. I MEAN, WE'RE STILL
TRYING TO GUESS WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS
COMING DOWN FROM THE U. S.
SUPREME COURT. UM SO I'M NOT
SURE IF THAT'S RESPONSIVE TO
YOUR QUESTION. IT DOESN'T
PREVENT ALL REGULATION. OKAY I
APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE. THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GO
BEFORE THE VOTERS. I THINK THAT
THE VOTERS DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT
EXACTLY THEY ARE VOTING ON. AND
AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE HAND
SELECTED EXPERT FOR THE AUTHOR
OF THE LEGISLATION I CAN'T TELL
US THAT. I THINK THAT YOU KNOW,
WE SHOULD GIVE SOME SERIOUS
THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER IT'S
APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TO MOVE
FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THIS RACE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
I THINK. SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE STATE
FROM DENYING OR INTERFERING WITH
PERSONS OR WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM. IN HER MOST THOUGHTFUL
TIME IN HER MAKING THE MOST
INTIMATE DECISION I THINK IS
IMPORTANT FOR US. CALIFORNIA HAS
BEEN LEADER AND PROTECTING WOMEN
PROTECTING FAMILIES, AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
THE WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT
? AND I APPRECIATE SENATOR
ATKINS PROTEIN ATKINS YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN THIS ROLE AS WELL
AS THE LEADERSHIP OF, UH,
SPEAKER ANTHONY RENDON. IN
MAKING SURE THAT THIS COMES
BEFORE BOTH OUR HOUSES.
CALIFORNIA HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED
FAMILIES AND I HOPE WE CONTINUE
TO SUPPORT THE FAMILIES. WOMEN
THAT GO TO THAT MAY HAVE THIS
DECISION TO MAKE SOMETIMES
DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE THEIR CHILD AND CALIFORNIA
HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP.
WITH THAT CHILD AS WELL. AND I'M
GRATEFUL TO CALIFORNIA FOR
ALWAYS STEPPING FORWARD AND
HELPING WHEN THE WOMAN MAKES
THAT DECISION. BUT IN THE END,
MAKING SURE THAT WE PROTECT THE
WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MAKE THAT
DECISION IS KEY. WE ARE IN THE
MIDDLE OF AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM
SAN DIEGO HAS SAID. WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT OUR SUPREME COURT IS
GOING TO SAY ON ROE V. WADE. BUT
FOR CALIFORNIA, THESE
PROTECTIONS ARE KEY, AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP IN
THIS REGARD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
? MR. CUNNINGHAM HAD A QUESTION
FOR THE ATTORNEY OR LAW
PROFESSOR. UH IT'S SORT OF A
FOLLOW UP TO MR KYLIE'S QUESTION
, BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE
UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER. UM IT
OCCURS TO ME THAT UNDER THE
CURRENT SUPREME COURT CASE LAW,
CASEY UH, DRAWS THE LINE AT BY
ABILITY AND PRE VIABILITY ESTATE
CANNOT REGULATE. IN THIS ARENA
AND POST VIABILITY. THE STATE
CAN REGULATE IN THIS ARENA.
OKAY? I GET THE POINT THAT WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT'S ABOUT TO DO. RIGHT?
CONSIDERED. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL
WAITING FOR THAT. UM ACCORDING
TO POLLING, AND I HATE TO SAY
POLLING, BUT YOU DON'T REALLY
HAVE MUCH BETTER TO GO ON EVEN
CALIFORNIANS. YOU KNOW? FEEL
DIFFERENTLY ABOUT ABORTION
REGULATION IN THE FIRST
TRIMESTER, EARLY TERM OR PRE
VIABILITY, THEN THEY FEEL ABOUT
ABORTION REGULATIONS. IN THE
NINTH MONTH OR, YOU KNOW, POST
VIABILITY OR THE THIRD TRIMESTER
. WHATEVER FORMULATION YOU YOU
WANT TO USE? BUT IT OCCURS TO ME
THAT AS I READ. THE TEXT OF THIS
THAT IT SEEMS TO NOT USE THE
VIABILITY LINE THAT CASEY USE.
USED, OKAY? UM AND. SO BECAUSE
THIS WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT SHOULD THE VOTERS
ADOPTED IT WOULD TRUMP ANY
LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY A FUTURE
LEGISLATOR TO REGULATE AND SO
OPINION ON WHETHER IF THIS WERE
PASSED BY THE VOTERS AND
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION IN
THE TEXT THAT IN THE FORM OF THE
TEXT THAT I SEE BEFORE ME TODAY.
WELL, WHAT WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO
THE FUTURE LEGISLATIVE, A FUTURE
LEGISLATURES ABILITY TO SAY. AH!
YOU KNOW, IN THE NIGHT IN THE
NINTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY, UH,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN FOR EXAMPLE,
I'LL JUST USE A HYPOTHETICAL, UH
, THAT THE STATE CAN CAN
REGULATE. ABORTION AND ALLOW IT
ONLY AND YOU KNOW WHEN THE
MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER OR
SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, RIGHT?
SO I DIDN'T I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
YOUR ANSWER. MR KYLIE'S QUESTION
ON THAT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE
THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS WOULD
AT LEAST GIVE AN ARGUMENT THAT
IT WOULD PROHIBIT A FUTURE
LEGISLATURE FROM DOING ANY
REGULATION ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL
PRESUMABLY THE MOMENT OF BIRTH.
SO WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION
ABOUT THAT? I'M NOT SURE THAT I
HAVE A FULLY FORMED OPINION
ABOUT THAT. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. SO. I'M GOING TO
START BY SAYING RESPECTFULLY. I
THINK THAT SORT OF SCENARIO OF
UH, ABORTION TWO DAYS BEFORE
BIRTH. UM IS IT'S A HORROR STORY
. IT'S A WILLIE HORTON TYPE OF A
TACTIC MEANT TO DEFEAT THESE
KINDS OF LAWS. THE LAW, THE S C.
A. 10 STANDS FOR UM, STRONG
PROTECTION AS STRONG AS WE CAN
MAKE IT OF A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO
DECIDE. UM AND. WITH RESPECT TO
YOUR QUESTION ABOUT VIABILITY.
I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF, NOT PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
UM WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION
ABOUT VIABILITY. YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT DOESN'T USE IT AS A REFERENCE
POINT. I WASN'T THERE WHEN THE
LAW WAS DRAFTED, I KNOW THAT
THERE WAS CERTAINLY A LOT OF
SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. GIVEN
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE
EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL
CASES. UM I THINK THE MAIN POINT
IS THAT CALIFORNIA'S
CONSTITUTION IS A STATE
CONSTITUTION. UM FEDERAL CASES
IN A IN A VERY GENERAL WAY, WITH
SOME CAVEATS. PROVIDE THE
BASELINE. THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF
PROTECTION STATES ARE ENTITLED
TO USE THEIR CONSTITUTIONS AND
THEIR STATUTORY POWERS. TO
PROVIDE GREATER PROTECTION.
WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE ROE VERSUS
WADE GO DOWN, AND THIS IS MEANT
TO FORESTALL THAT HAPPENING IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT DOESN'T
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS YOUR
QUESTION ABOUT VIABILITY, SO
IT'S NOT ENSHRINED. IN THE STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND IT MIGHT
BE THAT WE HAVE STRONGER
PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES. IN THEIR
DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN BODIES
DURING THE THIRD TRIMESTER THAN
YOU WOULD UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
THANK YOU OTHER QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS. ALRIGHT SEEING THAT,
AND SENATOR I WANT TO THANK YOU,
MADAM PRO TEM FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND WE FIND OURSELVES IN
A CIRCUMSTANCE. I NEVER REALLY
WOULD HAVE IMAGINED AND NOT ONLY
IS THE COURT SEEMINGLY POISED TO
OVERTURN ROE V. WADE BUT THE
COURT IS ACTING POLITICALLY. AND
IN THEIR ZEAL TO SOLVE A
POLITICAL QUESTION OR
POTENTIALLY OVERRUNNING. A
FAIRLY WELL ESTABLISHED RIGHT
THAT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF PRIVACY. AND I
SEE THIS MEASURE AS REALLY
REESTABLISHING THAT RIGHT OF
PRIVACY. AND THERE ARE
MECHANISMS FOR THE LEGISLATURE.
T. CLARIFY AND ADDRESS AND SET
SOME BOUNDARIES. OFTENTIMES IT
TAKES A TWO THIRDS VOTE. BUT
THOSE CAN POTENTIALLY HAPPEN.
IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT HERE. THIS IS A STATE
HAVING TO STEP IN. AND REAFFIRM
A RIGHT TO PRIVACY THAT HAS BEEN
THAT THAT IS UNDER ASSAULT AND
AGAIN FOR POLITICAL REASONS. NOT
REALLY FOR JURISPRUDENCE.
BECAUSE WHAT GETS THROWN OUT IS
ALSO GAY TRANSIT GENDER. MANY
OTHER ASPECTS OF PRIVACY,
INCLUDING A LOT OF THE WORK THAT
CALIFORNIA IS TRYING TO DO
AROUND PRIVACY, DIGITAL PRIVACY
AND OTHER THINGS. THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS HERE
THAT I'M NOT SURE THE SUPREME
COURT HAS THOUGHT THROUGH.
BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO DO
SOMETHING POLITICAL AS OPPOSED
TO JUST WITHIN THE REALM OF WHAT
COURTS NORMALLY DO. SO I THINK
THIS IS A VERY APPROPRIATE STAT.
AND THE FLOOR IS YOURS IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE, MR CHAIRMAN
, THANK YOU AND TO ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES AND TO ALL OF THE
SPEAKERS, I WOULD SAY THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, I WILL AGAIN SAY I
FIND MYSELF FREQUENTLY SAYING
THIS. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT
I WILL TELL YOU THIS WHEN I HEAR
DIFFERING COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE TO SEEK OUT INFORMATION
AND EXPERTS AND I THINK ALL OF
YOU, PARTICULARLY THE ATTORNEYS.
NO BETTER THAN ANYONE THAT WHEN
THERE ARE LAWS BEFORE OUR COURTS
, IT'S HARDLY EVER A YES OR NO
QUESTION. UM AND I THINK THAT
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT.
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THIS IS
PROTECTING WOMEN THE WAY THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS ALWAYS PROTECTED
THEM. AS IT RELATES TO THE
MEDICAL ASPECT. THERE'S THE
LEGAL ASPECT, THE POLITICAL
ASPECT, THE MEDICAL ASPECT. THIS
LEGISLATURE CONTINUES TO
REGULATE CURRENT STANDARD OF
CARE THROUGH AGENCY REGULATIONS
AND REGULATORY ISSUES THAT'S
GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. SO,
LIKE ALL MEDICAL PROCEDURES, YOU
HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE FUTURE
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT ARBITRARY.
IT'S UP TO SCIENCE. AND SO I
WOULD JUST SAY THESE ARE
IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS. THERE WAS
ONE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE, UM
I, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE
BUDGETARY ISSUE, OUR STATE
FUNDING MEDIC AL IS ELIGIBLE FOR
CALIFORNIA RESIDENT WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT PROVIDING HELP ASSISTANCE
TO OTHERS. THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
REALM OF STATE FUNDING. AND THAT
IS WHY YOU HEAR PEOPLE TALKING
ABOUT A FUND TO HELP THOSE WHO
MAY NEED THE ASSISTANCE WHEN
THEY COME HERE. UM I'M PROUD OF
THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE THROUGH
THE BUDGET THROUGH LEGISLATION
AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU
PARTICULARLY BEING HERE TODAY.
UM AND, UM, JUST WOULD ASK THAT
UM, THANK YOU. AND TO ASK THAT
YOU SUPPORT THIS AND TO LET YOU
KNOW THAT WHAT YOUR ACTION DOES
TODAY ALLOWS CALIFORNIANS TO SEE
THIS ON THE BALLOT AND TO
REAFFIRM THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
, RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
ROTEM. WE DO HAVE EMOTION IN A
SECOND. THAT MOTION IS THAT
SCHONBRUNN OPTED COLORADO,
PLEASE CUNNINGHAM. CUNNINGHAM NO
BLOOM, BY DAVIES HANEY. TANEY?
AYE, KALRA. COBRA. I KYLIE.
KYLIE NO, MAIENSCHEIN HIRASE
RACE I REVERSE REVERSE, AYE.
THANK YOU. THAT MEASURE IS OUT.
WE HAVE ONE MEMBER WHO IS
ABSENT. DO WE KNOW WHERE MISS
DAVIES IS? OKAY? SO THANK YOU
WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED.