Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Reads 9651

By Joan Hartmann & Gregg Hart

This past June, the Conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the nearly 50-year, precedent-setting 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established the constitutional right to privacy including the right to an abortion. In response, legislators from both political parties in the California Legislature moved to add Proposition 1 to the upcoming November 8 ballot. The Supreme Court’s action returned abortion to states to regulate. Prop 1 is a constitutional amendment that would codify the right to reproductive freedom in the California constitution. Even in California, we need a constitutional amendment to protect reproductive freedom and we urge you to vote yes on Prop 1.

In accordance with an overwhelming majority of Americans, we unequivocally believe that private and personal medical decisions should remain between patients and their health care providers and that doctors and nurses should not be threatened with legal or criminal penalties for providing basic health care to patients. Whether, when and who to have a child with are the most intimate and personal decisions people make and the government should not insert itself into such choices.

California has long been recognized as a state supportive of reproductive rights with strong individual privacy protections. Our state legalized abortion prior to Roe with the Therapeutic Abortion Act signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. But the right to obtain an abortion is not explicitly enshrined in our state constitution, rather it exists in statute. In overturning Roe, Justice Samuel Alito opined that the right to privacy does not exist within the U.S. constitutional framework. Given that so many of our basic rights, freedoms, and individual liberties are predicated on the right to privacy - now under activist judicial threat - we must act to enshrine basic rights into our state constitution to help ensure that they cannot be taken away from us. In California only a majority of voters - not legislators - can amend our state constitution.

Passage of Prop 1 means that politicians, now or in the future, cannot deny or interfere with reproductive freedoms without a majority vote of the people of California. This very state constitutional mechanism is what the voters of Kansas valiantly rallied to protect earlier this summer when anti-abortion activists tried to usurp the power of regulating abortion out of the state constitution and put it into the hands of zealous conservative politicians, with the goal of outlawing abortion. Voters overwhelmingly rejected this effort and abortion remains legal in Kansas. 

Abortion is a personal decision and people should be able to make private medical decisions with their health care providers without political interference. 

Prior to Roe, abortion was illegal throughout much of the country. The dismantling of Roe leaves the U.S. with a chaotic web of rules and regulations, that zealous conservative politicians will continue to work to erode. Many seek to outlaw abortion altogether. But across the U.S. voters are revolting and turning out in unprecedented numbers to protect abortion at the ballot box. Recognizing this, extreme GOP Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation for a nationwide abortion ban in the Senate last month.

More than a dozen states already have full abortion bans in place forcing thousands of pregnant individuals to travel to California, including to the Central Coast, for care. Our state is a symbol of compassion, hope, and progress and we have a moral obligation to help people access the basic health care they need.

Prop 1 protects the most vulnerable. Research suggests that the health of pregnant individuals is put at risk without the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term or choose to safely end a pregnancy. The U.S. already has the highest maternal death rate among industrialized nations globally. Maternal deaths are disproportionately concentrated among people with low incomes and among people of color - with Black Americans three times more likely to die during childbirth than white Americans.

Currently, one in four of those who can become pregnant in the U.S. will obtain an abortion by the age of 45 and a majority of those in the U.S. who obtain abortions have already given birth. Studies show that the choice to plan, delay, and space births greatly increases U.S. women’s opportunities, workforce participation and wages, and attainment of a college education. Individuals should retain the freedom to decide how to best live their lives and plan their families.

As political leaders, we must do all we can to protect and advance the rights of those who we represent, this includes ensuring abortion is legal and accessible and that important health care decisions are left to individuals and their health care providers. We can achieve this by voting YES on Prop 1.

The views and opinions expressed are those of Joan Hartmann and Gregg Hart as individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the entities they represent. For identification purposes only, Joan Hartmann is elected to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors representing the Third District and Gregg Hart is elected to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors representing the Second District and is a current candidate for the State Assembly, District 37.

Op-Ed's are written by community members and local organizations, not edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.

Login to add Comments


Show Comments
a-1665329871 Oct 09, 2022 08:37 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Some further information on late-term abortions, in terms of Sen. Graham's proposed national ban on abortions after 15 weeks:

"It notably lacks exceptions for fetal abnormalities. As such, it would sharply restrict options for the growing numbers of older women with pregnancies that are long-delayed and much wanted.
The median childbearing age in the United States has increased in recent decades, reaching 30 in 2019, up from 27 in 1990. But older mothers are more likely to conceive fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities, and the test most commonly used to detect those disorders can only be performed after a pregnancy is 15 weeks along, beyond Mr. Graham’s proposed window for abortion.
Some anatomical anomalies, too, cannot be diagnosed until later in pregnancy.

In 2019, 95.6 percent of abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention occurred before the 16th week.

Amniocentesis and the all-important mid-pregnancy ultrasound that detects structural anomalies, can only be carried out after 15 weeks and at 20 weeks of gestation, respectively. ... the comprehensive head-to-toe anatomy scan is done at 20 weeks.
“There are many structural abnormalities, including some really severe conditions involving the brain, heart, kidneys and skeletal structure that can’t be suspected until late in the second trimester or even the third trimester,” Dr. Chasen said.
“The majority of structural abnormalities would not be diagnosed or suspected before 15 weeks,” he added. “A 15-week ban would preclude women with those pregnancies from the opportunity to consider an abortion.”

GeneralTree Oct 07, 2022 08:29 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

The far-right supreme court decides to leave it up to the states - and then the far-right looney's get upset when the state doesn't agree with their white Jesus sky warrior.

SBWoman Oct 09, 2022 12:50 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Govt mandates, interference in medical freedom is concerning. The SCOTUS decision returning one specific medical procedure back to the states is outrageous. If employment or other responsibilities take me or any female to a restrictive state, we’re captive unless we’ve financial resources to travel to a safe state. Wonder if SCOTUS will turn treatment of prostate cancer or some male matter back to the states to decide. I don’t get the logic or legal basis for SCOTUS ruling.

SBLetsGetAlong Oct 07, 2022 07:44 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Women already have the right to abortion under current CA law.
CA Health & Safety Code

Who commenting here has read
Article 2.5
Section 123462
The Legislature finds and declares that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the State of California that:

(c)  The state shall not deny or interfere with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose to obtain an abortion, except as specifically permitted by this article.

Section 123466.
  (a) The state shall not deny or interfere with a woman’s or pregnant person’s right to choose or obtain an abortion before the viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman or pregnant person.

A woman already has a choice up till 24 weeks.. After that the baby is considered a living human being under CA law. I order to kill the living baby after 24 weeks the mothers life needs to be endangered.

Let the unborn child have a voice.
Or are you all saying CA should follow states like NY & allow the killing of babies up till term?


MarcelK Oct 08, 2022 05:33 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

@OGSB Right wingers don't care about babies. And they call fetuses babies to own the libs and oppress women.

GeneralTree Oct 07, 2022 08:18 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Do we really need to explain basic civics to you? Codifying would enshrine the right in the State constitution.

Ahchooo Oct 07, 2022 08:16 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

The right to abortion needs to be in the state constitution , not just in various statutes.

OGSB Oct 07, 2022 08:04 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

SB- Yeah, but they need to stamp it on everyone's head that it's okay. You also have to THINK it's okay. It's the same as wearing a condom, taking a pill, and killing a baby. All the same. Don't worry about it, at least it didn't happen to you!!

JoeG Oct 07, 2022 05:30 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Roe v. Wade allowed for an abortion up to the date of “viability”. The proposition that Gregg Hart supports would allow abortions up to the day before the baby is born. Proposition 1 would change California’s state constitution to ignore the viability clause in Roe v. Wade. Gregg Hart apparently believes that our society should embrace, and codify the abortion of a baby that is several weeks beyond the point of viability, up to and including the day before birth.. I’m all for the woman’s “right to choose”, but Proposition 1 sounds like a ghoulish proposal that doesn’t belong in our state’s constitution.

MarcelK Oct 08, 2022 05:31 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Every word of JoeG's comment is a lie. Roe v. Wade had a 3 trimester formula that allowed--but did not require--states to prohibit third trimester abortions if they didn't threaten the mother's life or health. Planned Parenthood v. Casey replaced the trimester formula with a viability standard, but again *allowed* states to prohibit abortions past that point but didn't *require* them to--and abortions up to the moment of birth were always been allowed if the mother's health or life was threatened ... *until* Alito's misogynist ruling based on 13th century standards.

biguglystick Oct 07, 2022 03:37 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

THANK YOU for posting this. I really hope that California can fight and maintain a state of decency for women. I am so sick and tired of the GOP and far right wing zealots making decisions for the majority of us. I was a volunteer at Planned Parenthood for 7 years. I fought alongside many other feminists for our basic rights, went to marches, voted, donated... and yet here we are, still having to fight this CRAP. Elect pro-choice candidates. Vote Blue. For your daughters and grandaughters should not have less rights than we have had.

Voice of Reason Oct 07, 2022 01:06 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

"people should be able to make private medical decisions with their health care providers without political interference. " ---- that's how you know this is all done for political capital as the State of CA, the UC system and many other State institutions STILL have vaccine/booster requirements. So to say they "unequivocally believe that private and personal medical decisions should remain between patients and their health care providers" they are unequivocally full of BS.

a-1665345522 Oct 09, 2022 12:58 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Vaccination greatly reduces transmission, except among the unvaccinated. But, you know that already if you know anything at all about the subject. You just need to maintain a political fiction.

Voice of Reason Oct 09, 2022 10:24 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

So you’re saying there are exceptions to medical privacy issues? Not very ‘unequivocal’ then. Also, when the vaccination doesn’t reduce transmission the public health argument goes out the window.

a-1665262798 Oct 08, 2022 01:59 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Not much in the way of a medical privacy issue when dealing with public health measures like vaccination in a pandemic. Unless, of course, you're a sociopath.

Voice of Reason Oct 08, 2022 12:21 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

The UC system most certainly has a mandate in place. Get the booster or loose your job. So much for medical privacy….

ChillinGrillin Oct 07, 2022 04:47 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

VOR: You're just triggered that Dank Brandon ended Covid instead of Orange Jesus.

a-1665185385 Oct 07, 2022 04:29 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

There's nothing political about public health measures. Unless you're a sociopath.

bicyclist Oct 07, 2022 03:59 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

spellcheck kills me again! it was supposed to say "I can't get..." Maybe I should just post the whole ballad. (just don't want to take "Credit") it only seemed appropriate.

bicyclist Oct 07, 2022 03:47 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

I can get this ditty outta my head: "...1 string bass solo" is really sweet!

sacjon Oct 07, 2022 03:27 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

They weren't "lying," they were announcing their beliefs. Here, look at what you quoted: "unequivocally believe." When you say you believe something, it's not lying. It's only lying when you assert a statement as a fact that is verifiably wrong (like saying I said something I never said and putting it in quotes, etc) as you tend to do on a daily basis.

Again though you insist on being off-topic and then will cry and moaned once your flagged posts get removed, along with mine for responding to a violating comment.

biguglystick Oct 07, 2022 03:24 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

VOICE, Get out of here with that malarky!!! This is about women's reproductive rights, KEEP UP.

Voice of Reason Oct 07, 2022 02:53 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Great comment Chillin, very insightful and value add....

Voice of Reason Oct 07, 2022 02:53 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Sacjon, I was pointing out the authors where lying and motivated by political posturing when they said they "unequivocally believe that private and personal medical decisions should remain between patients and their health care providers" The proof of their lie and political motivations is their continued insistence of covid vaccine and booster mandates, which completely contradicts their statement.

ChillinGrillin Oct 07, 2022 02:15 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

VOR wants ivermectin horse dewormer or malaria medicine requirements instead, just what the cult leader prescribed when he was advocating quack medicine instead of organizing a serious response. The latter required actual work and intelligence so we had to wait until over a million people died.

sacjon Oct 07, 2022 02:10 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Oh stop. Where in this article are covid vaccine requirements brought up? Cite the language.

Voice of Reason Oct 07, 2022 01:57 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

My comment was very much on topic, yours, yet again, is not.

sacjon Oct 07, 2022 01:17 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

VOICE - stop making everything about you and your agenda. Stay on topic or wait for a covid article to belch out your anger.

CelesteBarber Oct 07, 2022 09:51 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

First, I do support a woman's right to reproductive control over her body, including the right to abortion. But my concern here is with the two supervisors' decision to replace the word, "woman," with "people" or "individual." Those two words appear throughout the piece in an attempt to extend birthing to males, an absurd notion. The editorial decision was, of course, ideologically motivated. Only women can become pregnant, give birth (or not), and nurse their infants. Increasingly though, language itself is hijacked to suit a particular agenda -- to accommodate the radical end of the transgender movement. Homo Sapiens are higher order mammals. Mammals are born either male or female. This is also true for most animal life: birds, insects, reptiles, fish. Yes, "science is real," to take from the current mantra. So to deny basic human evolution and biology is an assault on biological females: the denial that only women have the ability to create human life in our wombs and then nurture an infant through our bodies. It's tough enough to be born female, and now we are commanded to compete with men for our own scrap of biological autonomy. Female human beings carry the XX sex chromosome; males carry the XY (and in rare cases, the XYY). Those sex-specific chromosomes are located in every cell within the human body: skin, brain, heart, muscle tissue -- every cell. There is no disputing this scientific fact. "People" do not conceive, carry to full term, and go into labor. As a feminist, I do not understand why other women will not speak out for biological women and girls. Why must we permit language itself to deny who and what we are, and were from the instant we were conceived in our mother's womb. Newspeak is the major thread that runs through George Orwell's 1984; language becomes the means through which government can control its people. (And why the novel was written on the heels of publication of his excellent essay, "Politics and the English Language." Read it. ) Reproductive Choice is a woman's right. Period.

a-1665617333 Oct 12, 2022 04:28 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Just ask Alex Jones. I hope the verdict holds up, and we crush that cockroach and his copycats.

a-1665330290 Oct 09, 2022 08:44 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

More Americans used to support the saying: "I don't like what you have to say but I'll defend your right to say it."

a-1665266823 Oct 08, 2022 03:07 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Interesting Celeste how you address the lawsuit but completely ignore the comments about you being discriminatory against trans and nonbinary people.

CelesteBarber Oct 08, 2022 11:14 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Normally I refrain from replying to responses from my posts. But in this case, regarding "GeneralTree's" comment about my lawsuit against SBCC in 2019, I shall. It's important to correct misperceptions about the lawsuit and my motivation behind the action. First, mine was not the typical lawsuit against a governmental entity in which the plaintiff walks away with a wheelbarrow-ful of money. I sought no financial compensation, including for my legal counsel which I paid out of pocket. That's information readily available in the paperwork. I did not receive a penny upon settlement, but I did receive much more: the upholding of the right to speak, and to do so without intimidation. I sued the college solely for recognition that my civil rights had been violated in two public meetings that year: February 2019 at the Trustees' public meeting; in May at the Academic Senate meeting, also public. And, so that no one else would ever be shut down again at a public meeting on that campus.
The right to speak during Public Comment is considered a sacred right in our country, one protected under the Bill of Rights, and here in California, under the Brown Act. Those rights were violated when faculty in the audience (NOT STUDENTS as has been erroneously reported) attempted to intimidate me and demand that the trustees shut me down -- during Public Comment. When I attended the Academic Senate meeting in May, and again attempted to speak after being recognized for Public Comment, the attempt was made to silence lawful speech and then the AS president ordered the room cleared while I spoke -- an egregious violation of the right to speak in a public assembly. Shortly before we were scheduled to go to court, the trustees settled on advice of their own attorneys. The college attorneys clearly understood that my rights had been violated. The decision that stands will protect every person who comes to speak before the trustees or any other publicly-noticed body at the college -- including you, GeneralTree. That extends to any person: faculty member; student; community member; citizen or non-citizen. I'd also like to add this: If you attend an SBCC Board of Trustees meeting, you will find yourself seated in a large lecture hall. You will notice that the door to the classroom remains open throughout the proceedings. Folks are welcome to walk into the meeting room at any time and take a seat to observe college governance at work. Think about the fact that this scenario -- replicated at public meetings everywhere in our country -- is still rare in most of the world. I lived in East Berlin in 1988. When we would walk downtown past their city hall ("Rathaus"), I was always startled to see armed police guarding the entry. The right to speak when recognized, the right to attend public meetings without threat, those are precious rights. The faculty that attempted to deprive me of those rights set a terrible example to our students, and displayed themselves for what they were: a mob. I would do it again.

GeneralTree Oct 07, 2022 04:27 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Great video of Celeste.

GeneralTree Oct 07, 2022 04:20 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Celeste Barber - have you filed any more silly lawsuits against Santa Barbara City College recently? You sound like a real hoot.

a-1665182224 Oct 07, 2022 03:37 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Celeste - time to walk out of the Stone Age. People have different gender identities than male or female regardless of their biological sex. Saying "individual" or "person" is being inclusive and welcoming to EVERYONE, something that's kind and generous, right? Grow up Celeste.

biguglystick Oct 07, 2022 03:27 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Celeste, WOW. Transphobic much?? I suggest you listen to the podcast about a trans man who gave birth. It's very insightful. Truly, it takes NOTHING away from women (or anyone else) to be inclusive to trans people. Here's a link if you care to open your mind and heart to empathy. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/06/157101/pregnant-transgender-man

GeneralTree Oct 07, 2022 01:38 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Celeste - it sounds like you have a lot of hang ups about transgender people. Why not allow people to be called whatever they'd like to be called. Who really cares? We all end up worm-dust in the end anyway. Does it trouble you that deeply - maybe time for some soul searching. There are a lot of better things to oneself with.

PitLocal Oct 07, 2022 10:28 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

Hey EdHat, I guess you're not even gonna show the comments that you deleted, are you?

PitLocal Oct 07, 2022 09:52 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

SacJon you're right, but it sure is awful when EdHat deletes comments simply because they contain a viewpoint that even slightly differs from that of it's editorial staff - its a suppression of debate, it's a suppression of speech. Debate and freedom of speech are essential for healthy democracy. When the left leaning media works so hard to suppress debate it engenders distrust. What's wrong with just talking about issues? I guess that's just not allowed in todays ever enlightened progressive world.

PitLocal Oct 07, 2022 09:33 AM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

I used to think abortion was no big deal. I had friends in college get abortions and it was hard on them, but they handled it okay, from what I could see (admittedly distant). Years later came marriage and three children. Having been the father through all of that, feeling the babies move in her womb, going through the pregnancy process, I started to think a little differently about it. My wife became pregnant with baby #4, and the baby died in utero, we believe from a door that unexpectedly fell onto her belly. She had to give birth to the deceased fetus. I didn't think it would affect me that much because I never got to meet the baby. I could not have been more wrong. I grieved heavily and still grieve from it. It had a profound impact on me to hold my deceased son after he had been born. Ever since then I've realized that an unspoken and unexplainably deep bond develops between the child and it's parents (fathers too) during the pregnancy process. My views on abortion have changed. It's not something to be taken lightly.

a-1665181918 Oct 07, 2022 03:31 PM
Op-Ed: Vote Yes on Prop 1

@Pit - you don't seem to understand how deletions work on edhat. Contact them at ed@edhat.com and ask your question instead of venting nonsense in the comments, they're responsive


Please Login or Register to comment on this.