By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. My family and I will be on our vacation through August 27. I will occasionally add new items but for the most part we will repost “the best of the best” — the stories our readers have told us they especially liked.
When pro-abortionists as loony as former California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) oppose a pro-abortion initiative, you know it must make sense only to those for whom reason has no meaning.
We’re told that a final vote on a bill to require all California State and University of California college health centers to provide abortion drugs to students on campus for free by January 1, 2023 is expected by the end of August. If it reaches the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, he has already promised to sign the bill into law.
So why in October 2018 did Brown veto SB320?
“According to a study sponsored by supporters of this legislation, the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance,” Brown wrote in the veto letter. “Because the services required by this bill are widely available off-campus, this bill is not necessary.” There are 34 public campuses in the University of California and California State University systems.
As state Sen. Connie Leyva, the sponsor, promised, the bill is back.
Writing at The Federalist last week, Bernadette Tasy, a graduate of Fresno State, offered three primary reasons to oppose S.B. 24:
*First, the bill author, state Sen. Connie Leyva, continuously argues that the bill is about “access” to abortion and that public university campuses are not in close proximity to abortion pill providers. Most campuses, however, are within just a few miles of these facilities. The bill places the mandate on all 34 campuses, costing millions of dollars for a completely unnecessary program.
*Second, although the bill is supposed to save students money for car service transportation to off-campus abortion appointments, the public university systems have stated repeatedly that they will need to raise mandatory student fees to fund this on-campus program. And in California, Medi-Cal patients receive free transportation services to these appointments.
*Third, one of the author’s key witnesses testifying at several hearings in support of the bill co-authored an article demonstrating the failure rate of RU-486: If the student is six-weeks pregnant when she takes the pills, the failure rate is about 3 percent, but if the woman is nine- to 10-weeks pregnant, the failure rate is more than 15 percent. The author estimates 500 students will take these drugs statewide on campus each month, so at least 15-75 students will have a failed abortion each month and need a second, surgical abortion.
What about conscience protections, for student health center professionals and/or for objecting students whose mandatory fees will help fund the program? None.
Tasy’s essay puts the push for abortion pills on campus in the context of California’s increasingly militant support for extending abortion up, down, and sideways. All this set against this background:
California is one of the most aggressively pro-abortion states in America. It already has 150 abortion facilities and more than 500 abortion providers statewide, no restriction on race- or sex-selective abortion, and no requirement for verbal counseling including optional ultrasound information for women to make an informed decision about pregnancy.
In fact, California is the one and only state listed as “very supportive” of abortion rights in the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute’s latest analysis of state abortion laws.
According to the Catholic News Service
Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco is urging Catholics in the archdiocese to join in a novena for the defeat of a “dangerous and unprecedented” bill requiring California State and University of California college health centers to provide medication for abortions.
The statewide Aug. 3-11 novena asks for the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe to halt S.B. 24.