Lawmakers react to abortion ruling + Amendment to ban slavery + Dog and cat bill of rights
Good morning and welcome to the A.M. Alert!
CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS REACT TO SCOTUS ABORTION RULING
California lawmakers were quick to respond when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision Friday overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion legal in all 50 states.
Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who has authored SCA 10 to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, tweeted Friday that she shares “the seething fury” of many Americans scared and angry about the SCOTUS decision.
“We will not be shoved back into the dark days of desperate decisions. California will not leave people vulnerable to the tyranny of a loud minority,” Atkins wrote in a tweet.
Her counterpart in the Assembly, Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, whose legislative body is set to hear SCA 10 on Monday, also tweeted his anger.
“We are in free fall. A reactionary Supreme Court, enemies of our collective human liberty, has stripped away the constitutional rights of women. And they won’t stop here- same-sex marriage and and contraception may be next,” Rendon wrote in a tweet.
Rendon wasn’t the only lawmaker to warn that the SCOTUS wouldn’t stop at abortion.
Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said that in addition to going after same-sex marriage and contraception, the Supreme Court will also pave the way for the return of anti-sodomy laws.
“This is a battle for the soul of our nation & whether we’ll remain a place where people get to be who we are & make decisions about our lives,” Wiener wrote in a tweet.
Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, who chairs the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, wrote in a tweet, “This is the 1st time my generation has lost a fundamental right — the right to choose, especially if you’re black, brown, LGBTQ+, immigrant, or low-income. This decision is dangerous and will not stop abortions, but instead lead to unnecessary complications and deaths.”
California legislative Republicans were largely quiet on the subject on Friday, though Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, tweeted about the decision, writing, “Today we celebrate life!!!”
Sen. Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, posted tweets labeling Democratic congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters “insurrectionists” for speaking out against the SCOTUS decision and also warned in a tweet, without evidence, of violence from the left “because their ability to kill innocent babies is taken away.”
Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, who is running for Congress, also took exception to Waters’ remarks, writing in a tweet, “California Congresswoman Maxine Waters says ‘the hell with the Supreme Court, we will defy them.’ I condemn this dangerous statement. Will Newsom and Pelosi?”
SENATE GRAPPLES WITH ANTI-SLAVERY AMENDMENT
Today, more than a century-and-a-half after the United States fought a civil war to abolish slavery in this country, California lawmakers are set to consider a constitutional amendment that would formally prohibit the brutal institution.
In 2022, that doesn’t seem controversial. Or is it?
ACA 3, authored by then-Assemblymember(and now Senator) Sydney Kamlager, D-Los Angeles, originally would have removed language in the state constitution that allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.
Recall that while the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawed slavery, it carved out an exemption for “punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” The California Constitution likewise makes that exception.
In other words, prisoners can be forced to do labor.
As Kamlager pointed out in an interview with The Bee, prison inmates in California lack protections afforded other unincarcerated workers, such as a minimum wage, the ability to collectively bargain or OSHA protections.
“So if that formula is not similar to the slave trade, I don’t know what else to tell you,” Kamlager said.
Though ACA 3 sailed through the Assembly with unanimous support, the bill stalled in the Senate on Thursday, with 21 senators voting in favor, seven votes short of the two-thirds requirement for passage of a proposed constitutional amendment.
Kamlager wasn’t shy about voicing her frustration on Twitter, at one point writing, “Way to go, Confederates,” and mentioning that while Sens. Atkins, Bob Archuleta, Ben Hueso and Bob Wieckowski were legitimately absent from the floor during the vote, she couldn’t speak for anyone else who didn’t vote on the amendment.
The Senate granted ACA 3 reconsideration, and it will be heard on Monday. In its amended form, it simply changes state law to read that “Slavery, in any form, is prohibited,” and that for the purposes of the law, slavery’s definition included “forced labor compelled by the use or threat of physical or legal coercion.”
The lone Democrat to vote with Republicans against the amendment was Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda.
Glazer on Friday released a statement saying that banning forced inmate labor would undermine the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation programs to make prisons safer to manage. He said it would add more than $1 billion to the cost of running the system.
“It could also cut into the restitution that inmates pay to help victims cope with the effects of the crimes committed against them – if prisoners simply decide not to work,” Glazer said. “And as those problems arise — and surely they will — every attempt to address them by the Legislature or the prison system will be met with litigation.”
Glazer has proposed an amendment to the bill that would prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, but exempt “any rehabilitative activity required of an incarcerated person including education, vocational training, or behavioral or substance abuse counseling, or any work tasks required of an incarcerated person that generally benefit the residents of the facility in which the person is incarcerated, such as cooking, cleaning, grounds keeping, and laundry.”
Kamlager told The Bee that while Glazer, who chairs the Senate Elections Committee that voted to approve ACA 3, had plenty of chances to offer an amendment leading up to its floor vote Thursday. She said she didn’t see his amendment until the day of the vote.
She was far from bullish on ACA 3’s prospects for reconsideration on in the Senate on Monday.
“Honestly, I don’t know if I will find seven extra votes. At the heart of this, what I heard, this is about punishment and being able to force people to do something that you want them to do. And that is akin to being a slave,” she said.
CALANIMALS COME OUT SWINGING AGAINST DOG AND CAT BILL OF RIGHTS
And now for another bill that is more controversial than you might expect.
Recall my previous coverage of AB 1881, a bill to establish a bill of rights for dogs and cats.
The bill is authored by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, and sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation, an animal welfare activist group.
The bill has changed since it was first introduced, and in its amended form it requires public animal control agencies, shelters and certain rescue groups to post a notice, on both their premises and their website, “related to essential needs and care for dogs and cats,” according to a legislative analysis summary.
The bill is opposed by the California Animal Welfare Association, or CalAnimals, which urges lawmakers to vote no.
Jill Tucker, CEO of CalAnimals, told The Bee that while she supports the idea behind the bill, and would support it if it had been a proclamation, it instead tells shelters how to do their job.
“This is our business and this is what we do,” Tucker said.
Tucker called the measure “a feel-good bill” that has many problems. Its focus on dogs and cats puts shelters in an awkward position when it comes to adopting out other animals, she said. And it implies that people are mass-returning animals to shelters when that isn’t the case. Instead, people turn their animals into the shelter because there is incompatibility with the animal or an economic inability to support it, she said.
“We’re just trying to get some education out about it,” Tucker said. “To us, it feels like the sponsor’s just kind of pulling the wool over the eyes of our lawmakers.”
SCIL’s Judie Mancuso took exception to that characterization.
“I mean, oh my God, it’s just so shameful,” Mancuso told The Bee.
She added that, “They’re taking it so personally.”
Mancuso said that CalAnimals should be ashamed of themselves for opposing the bill.
AB 1881 is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is set to be heard by that committee on Tuesday.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Abortion is legal in California. It will remain that way. I just signed a bill that makes our state a safe haven for women across the nation. We will not cooperate with any states that attempt to prosecute women or doctors for receiving or providing reproductive care.”
- Gov. Gavin Newsom, via Twitter.
Best of the Bee:
A string of bills aimed at solidifying California’s protection of reproductive rights, from funding for clinics to protection of medical records, is moving through the Legislature, via Owen Tucker-Smith and Lindsey Holden.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving the issue of whether to outlaw abortions to the states, via Lindsey Holden and Andrew Sheeler.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, called the court decision “the most important pro-life ruling in American history…the people have won a victory. The right to life has been vindicated. The voiceless will finally have a voice,” via David Lightman.
California Democrats again vowed on Friday to codify the right to an abortion into federal law after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But they face an enormous roadblock: the U.S. Senate, via Gillian Brassil and Andrew Sheeler.
California elected officials and same-sex marriage advocates, reacting to Friday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down abortion rights, warned that the court might outlaw gay marriages as well, via Dale Kasler.