The Abortion-on-Demand Culture
    Download PDF

There has been exactly one bright spot in the legal aspect of the "abortion-on-demand" culture in the United States since the first laws were passed to liberalize abortion access in 1967. That bright spot was the April 18, 2007 US Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Carhart , which upheld the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

It was in January 1973 that the US Supreme Court created the federal constitutional right to abortion-on-demand, thereby invalidating all existing state laws which banned or curtailed the practice. The two decisions of the US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, rendered every state's anti-abortion statutes unconstitutional and established that protection of a nonviable fetus could not be justified as a matter of law. The court added that after viability, a statute could restrict abortions, but only with maximum justification.

Many people misunderstand the import of the Doe decision which imposed the "health of the woman" as an acceptable reason for abortion—thus giving us the "on-demand" part of the abortion right. That health exception as explicated in Doe was virtually anything: "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

In 1992, the U. S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reaffirmed Roe, but imposed a new standard in determining the validity of laws restricting abortions: State regulation must not have the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Among the state imposed restrictions allowed to stand under federal law were record-keeping, 24 hour waiting period, informed consent of the woman, and in the case of a minor, the consent of one parent (with a judicial bypass).

During the 1990s, Congress passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act twice—and twice President Clinton vetoed it for the stated reason that it contained no health exception for the woman. During that same time period, many states passed their own bans. The Nebraska statute was challenged in the state and federal Courts. In 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional—for the same reason that Clinton had vetoed it: no health exception for the woman.

In 2003, Congress again passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act-which was signed into law by President Bush. The law was challenged in the federal courts—and in every District Court where it was heard; it was ruled unconstitutional for the lack of the health exception. The 2007 US Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, reversed all of the lower court decisions, and affirmed the constitutionality of the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The ban contained a "narrow" health exception—when the actual life of the mother was at risk-but did not contain the broader exception that had bedeviled the efforts to restrict this particularly egregious type of abortion.

California Abortion Law History:

Until September 5, 2002, when Governor Davis signed SB 1301 into law, there was no specific law on the books in California that said that "abortion-on-demand" was legal. Abortion rights supporters—fearful that Roe v. Wade might be overturned and realizing that if that happened the decision on the legality of abortion would revert to the states—wanted to be secure in the knowledge that California would remain a state where a woman could demand an abortion for any reason.

It is important to remember that under our form of government, what is not expressly outlawed is judged legal. However even more important to remember is that because something is legal it does not necessarily follow that it is moral. That is why the abortion issue remains contentious. At some level, even those who defend the right to an abortion will admit that abortion is immoral.

Following is an historical overview:

California's Penal Code 274, on the books since 1850, defined abortion as a crime unless a physician determined it was necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. That law was similar to laws prohibiting abortion in all states.

In 1969, the California Supreme Court, in People v. Belous , ruled that Penal Code 274 was "vague and uncertain," and therefore deprived a person of due process of law. It went on to find a right of privacy or "liberty" in matters related to family and sexual relations and used this right as a springboard to find "the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children." This decision linked the two rights: that of life itself and that of choice to bear children because childbirth involved risk of death. And more importantly, for case law, this court specifically rejected the argument that the State had a compelling interest in the "embryo and fetus" equal to or greater than the mother's right to choice because "the law has always recognized that the pregnant woman's right to life takes precedence over any interest the state may have in the unborn." This decision was the first in the nation to strike down an abortion statute.

In 1967, the California Legislature enacted The Therapeutic Abortion Act, Health and Safety Code (sections 25950-25958), and Governor Reagan signed it. It was "sold" as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the "hard cases." This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court invalidated nearly all the provisions of the Therapeutic Abortion Act for many of the same reasons that it had overturned Penal Code 274: the language was vague and due process was not guaranteed. The only part of the law not ruled unconstitutional was the requirement that the abortion be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital.

Later in 1972, three months before Roe v. Wade, the people of California, by initiative, specifically added the right of "privacy" to the other inalienable rights of individuals enumerated in Article I, Section I, of the state constitution and stipulated that the rights in California's constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed in the U.S. constitution. It is interesting to note that Californians were convinced to vote for this amendment using a financial privacy argument. Ironically, following passage, abortion rights were guaranteed and we are still waiting for financial privacy.

As a direct result of the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court abortion rulings, the only part of California's Therapeutic Abortion Act that remained "constitutional" was that a physician must perform the abortion.

In the 1981 California Supreme Court decision, Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, the Medi-Cal ban on funding of abortions (because of the federal ban on Medicaid funding) was ruled unconstitutional because California's privacy law was not as narrow as that of the U.S. constitution. The justices in that decision found that the restriction (of not being able to afford to pay for an abortion) to be "an obstacle" to the exercising of the expressed constitutional right. The 1997 Supreme Court decision on parental consent for abortion, American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, also found that a minor's right to privacy superseded her parent's rights as guardians.

A recapping of current law in California is this:

• A woman has both a constitutional right and a statutory right to an abortion. The first right is the result of the 1973 US Supreme Court's ruling and the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the California Constitutional "privacy" amendment. The second right is as a result of the 2002 law, SB 1301. 
• Since the 20th week provision of the Therapeutic Abortion Act was invalidated by both Roe and Doe, a woman can get an abortion at anytime during her pregnancy by invoking Roe and claiming a threat to her life or health. 
• The woman may be a minor with no obligation to either notify her parents or seek their consent before securing an abortion. 
• A woman is under no obligation to inform or to secure consent from her husband or sexual partner before securing an abortion. 
• Women, including minors, who can not afford to pay for an abortion can request Medi-Cal services, thereby requiring taxpayers to subsidize her decision. 
• Public schools are allowed to arrange for an abortion and transport a minor to an off-campus site for the procedure without parental notification or permission. 
• A surgical abortion must be performed by a licensed physician although it may be performed in a free-standing clinic that does not have to pass the State Department of Health inspections that all other medical clinics must pass. 
• With the passage of SB 1301, a non-physician can now perform non-surgical abortions (RU-486). 
• There is no requirement to keep statistics on the numbers of abortions performed, the ethnicity of the women, the number of repeat clients, and most importantly, the number and types of complications. 
• There is no requirement to provide women contemplating an abortion with medical and biological facts, with statistics regarding possible complications and health risks, or with alternatives such as adoption. 
• There is no mandated "waiting period" between requesting and receiving an abortion.