NEWS

ARTICLES

LETTERS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 1999
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

NEWS
SEPTEMBER 1999

---

WHEN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE approved the final state budget on June 16, it approved funding for abortions performed under the Medi-Cal program. In 1997 alone, there were 112,000 Medi-Cal funded abortions in the state at a cost of around $40 million. While a handful of pro-life members in the assembly and Senate can be counted on never to vote for the budget because it contains abortion funding, many pro-life legislators do vote for the budget. They argue that since the California Supreme Court requires the state to fund abortions, a holdout vote on the budget amounts to a symbolic gesture. Republican pro-life legislation that seeks to, for example, require abortion clinics to have the same standards as other health clinics, are dead in committee by April in the Democrat dominated legislature. So that by June, the only vehicle for debating abortion is the budget, which pays for around 10,000 abortions per month. Assemblyman Bill Campbell (R-Villa Park) is one member of the Republican caucus that does not vote for the budget bill. But when I asked him whether a 'no' vote on the final budget is a symbolic pro-life gesture. "That's correct," said Assemblyman Campbell. "I have not read the cases, but that is my understanding." Campbell added that he regularly opposes the budget for pro-life reasons but also because state spending has increased more than 9 percent in recent years.

In the early 1980s, the Deukmejian administration twice tried to remove Medi-Cal abortion funding from the state budget and was struck down both times by the courts. In one decision, the state supreme court ruled that since the state subsidizes live births, it must fund abortions. Governor Deukmejian and pro-life legislators tried disconnecting Medi-Cal obstetrics from other health programs without success. Some argue that the 1981 decision Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, which came down during the reign of Chief Justice Rose Bird, goes against established precedent and is ripe for overturning. Indeed, one year earlier in 1980, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld both federal and state funding restrictions for abortion. And in 1992, in the Richmond school bailout case, the California Supreme Court expressed the view that the judiciary lacks the authority to order an appropriation. While the state supreme court has been almost entirely reconstituted by two Republican governors, any optimism by the pro-life community is tempered by the court's decision to declare parental consent for minors' abortions unconstitutional. And the George court's refusal so far to take up the Medi-Cal issue is disappointing for pro-lifers. However, former Justice Marcus Kaufman, speaking at a California Judges Association conference in 1988, cautioned that the court's refusal to hear a legal challenge to Medi-Cal abortion funding should not be interpreted as agreement with prior pro-abortion court decisions.

Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster), vice-chair of assembly budget committee, voted for the budget this year and is considered a pro-life legislator. Assemblyman Runner said, "In light of the court decisions guaranteeing abortion funding for women, simply voting no on the budget is no longer an effective way to deal with this issue. If members of the legislature want to influence the budget process in a pro-family direction, they have to be willing to consider voting for the budget." This view reflects the deal making nature of the budget process, which involves Republican participation insofar that a two-thirds majority is needed to pass the budget. Those legislators who are a certain 'no' vote find they have no leverage on issues like funding for abstinence education. One pro-life legislator told this reporter on background that of all causes in Sacramento, the pro-life community is the least politically astute. "Many of these want me to help hold up the budget until November in order to gain nothing -- merely a symbolic gesture. I ask them what the point of the exercise is and they respond by saying that some woman who sees the debate may not choose to get an abortion. That is a very weak reason to hold up a budget for three months for no positive change.... 13 percent of those who voted for Lungren did so solely because of his position on abortion. 12 percent of those who voted for Davis did so strictly because of his position on abortion. What would happen if those 13 percent of Lungren supporters would actually get out and walk precincts and help enroll pro-life voters? I know that those on the other (pro-abortion) side actually follow through."

While many pro-life voters do end up supporting passage of the final budget bill, all pro-life legislators regularly vote for a series of amendments to the budget bill that try to do away with publicly financed abortions, or limit the number of abortions, among other things. These are quickly disposed of by the Democrat majority through parliamentary procedures. In legislative parlance, this is called a "floor drill." While the pro-life amendments to the budget are seen as a political drill, many also regard the amendments as important for the sake of educating the public on the abortion funding issue. Jan Carrol, of the California ProLife Council, said of the amendments, "No budget should get out of the legislature without someone taking notice that the budget will kill nearly 115,000 children in a single year."

When asked what he thought the next step for the pro-life movement should be, Assemblyman Campbell said, "Number one, prayer. Number two, we have to continue our efforts to defend life and I think the people of America are starting to come around, especially on specific issues like partial-birth abortions, and even publicly funded abortions." He continued, "Another issue that has promising support is parental consent.... In 1996, there were 49,000 reported abortions performed on kids between 15-17 years of age. There are 33 states that have parental consent laws, and in these, they have reduced abortions by between 20 and 30 percent. If we had parental consent, or notification, we could save as many as 50,000 lives a year." Assemblyman Campbell is backing a statewide parental notification initiative for the ballot in November of 2000.

TOP