+- The Catacombs (https://thecatacombs.org)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Against the Children (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=40)
+---- Forum: Abortion (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=41)
+---- Thread: Proposition 1: California abortion rights now enshrined in state constitution (/showthread.php?tid=4494)
Proposition 1: California abortion rights now enshrined in state constitution - Stone - 11-14-2022
The person forwarding this to me pointed out that 'This allows the murder of a fetus or a baby up until 28 days after birth, no questions asked. It made it illegal for law enforcement to open an investigation, and the death is exempted for any other kind of "manslaughter" or "murder" laws. Wicked. Truly wicked!'
Proposition 1: California abortion rights now enshrined in state constitution
![[Image: SJM-L-CLINTON-1014-13.jpg?w=799]](https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SJM-L-CLINTON-1014-13.jpg?w=799)
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA – OCTOBER 13: Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at a Planned Parenthood clinic in San Francisco, Calif., on Thursday, Oct. 13, 2022. Clinton paid a visit to support abortion rights and California Proposition 1. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)
OCR | November 8, 2022
Californians have approved Proposition 1, which will amend the state constitution to enshrine access to abortion and contraception throughout the state.
Democrats rallied around Prop. 1 to gin up turnout in a midterm election which otherwise may have been defined by troubling economic headwinds. Hillary Clinton even visited the Bay Area last month to rally support.
Prop. 1 backers, including pro-choice groups and the California Democratic party, say that enshrining abortion rights in the state’s constitution is essential after the the Supreme court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, ending national abortion protections.
Groups opposed to Prop. 1, including pro-life groups and the California Republican party, say that the measure is unnecessary given the state’s already-existing protections for abortion access. They also claim the proposition is vaguely written and could expand access to late-term abortion treatments, though experts say that is untrue.