Abortion ruling trumps state law
Marin Independent Journal Whitney Hoyt: Abortion ruling trumps state law Whitney Hoyt, political director, NARAL Pro-Choice California
On April 18, five of nine justices signed onto a court opinion that effectively reversed established law and rolled back key protections that have been guaranteed since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling 34 years ago. This ban is now federal law, trumping state law.
This decision means a Bush-backed anti-choice law now trumps our state's greater protections for a woman's health and the right to choose.
California is a pro-choice state.
We're the most pro-choice state in the nation, in fact.
Our state lawmakers have even enacted safeguards for a woman's right to choose that go beyond the federal constitutional protections. For the past two years in a row, we voted our pro-choice values and defeated anti-choice ballot initiatives Propositions 73 and 85. In Marin, more than 75 percent of voters defeated both propositions in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
How will this ban affect California's women and their families? This ban has no health exception - even if a doctor determines that a banned procedure is the safest option. Under this law, doctors could receive up to two years in prison for acting in what they believe is the best interest of their patient.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - representing more than 90 percent of OB-GYNs in the country - and other leading medical organizations opposed this ban because it is harmful to women's health and interferes with medical decision making.
Further, this ban gives anti-choice politicians the green light to continue to interfere in personal, private medical decisions. These are not decisions to be left to politicians in Washington, D.C. These are decisions that should be made by a woman, in consultation with her doctor, her family and her conscience.
There is no mystery to how this happened. Bush won the White House twice and had the opportunity to put two new justices on the Supreme Court.
When running for president, Bush pledged to appoint judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, thus opening the door to further attacks on Roe. He succeeded.
What must Californians do now?
As mentioned earlier, we defeated back-to-back anti-choice ballot measures because we acted on our values in the voting booth.
We had conversations - at the dinner table, in our yards and at church - about the role of government, about not letting politicians interfere in our most personal, private medical decisions. We spoke up - and we won.
That's what must happen in 2008. California's early place on the primary calendar, Feb. 5, gives us newfound influence over the nomination process. The new president sitting in the White House must reflect our pro-choice values.
Thankfully, California's own Sen. Barbara Boxer spearheaded the introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would guarantee the protections of Roe at the federal level and protect women's health in all 50 states. She is joined by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and many members of our state's congressional delegation.
We applaud their leadership, but these pro-choice leaders need a pro-choice partner in the White House to make protecting a woman's right to choose for generations to come a reality.
If not, the next time California's women are delivered a medical opinion from politicians, they will have no where to turn for a second opinion.
Whitney Hoyt of Sausalito is the political director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, the political leader of the pro-choice movement.
| 
