O F [rlE1'
'pA 'y M
■ / Qy.
oAaTFD JaNV 0.Ryry
® CITY COUNCIL
❑ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
❑ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
❑ BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT
❑ JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
Department: City Manager Item No:
D2
Prepared by: Amanda Lee, Assistant City Manager Meeting Date: September 27, 2022 Approved by: Patrick Johnson, City Manager Agenda Location: Discussion SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 1, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the proposed resolution to support California Proposition 1, Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and provide direction to staff.
CORRELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS: None.
PRIOR ACTION: None.
STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: Councilmember Melendez requested the City Manager place a discussion item on an upcoming City Council meeting agenda to discuss approving a resolution supporting California Proposition 1, Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom, on the upcoming November 8, 2022, ballot. A proposed resolution for adoption is provided by Councilmember Melendez and is attached as Exhibit 1.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the discussion item.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2022- , in support of Proposition 1, which, if passed by the voters in the general election on November 8, 2022, would amend the California constitution to expressly provide that the state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives
2. California Proposition 1, Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom Ballot Measure
3. California Proposition 1, Secretary of State Official Summary and Analysis ACTION: Discussed the proposed resolution to support California Proposition 1, Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. No resolution adopted.
Vote: 2-2-1 (Ritter and Contreras opposed, Melendez abstained) Clerk/Se retary
09/27/2022 D2 Page 1 of 8
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 1, WHICH, IF
PASSED BY THE VOTERS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, WOULD AMEND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT THE STATE SHALL NOT DENY OR
INTERFERE WITH AN INDIVIDUAL'S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM, WHICH
INCLUDES THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO HAVE AN
ABORTION AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE OR
REFUSE CONTRACEPTIVES
The City Council of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:
Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:
A. On June 24, 2022, in a historic and far-reaching decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the federal constitutional protection of abortion rights; and B. This rollback on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion has reverberated across the country, both galvanizing communities to denounce the decision and energizing others to impose strict limitations on individuals seeking an abortion; and C. Since the Supreme Court's reversal, more than 20 states have restricted access to abortions, imposing criminal sanctions on individuals receiving or performing an abortion, and in some cases, imposing civil offenses against any person who aids or abets a person from receiving an abortion; and
D. Access to reproductive health care should not depend on your zip code, and people should be able to access the reproductive health care they need without medically unnecessary barriers or restrictions; and
E. In addition, health care providers should be able to offer care without interference or fear of being criminalized; and
F. Reproductive freedom is intertwined with many issues of social justice such as economic, gender, and racial equity; therefore, a strong support system for reproductive freedom measures ensures that Californians of all backgrounds have access to the care they need; and G. Proposition 1, which will be voted on in the November 2022 election, will allow individuals and families to continue to have the freedom to determine what is best for them and their families, giving people the ability to plan their lives and make important reproductive decisions without the government interfering; and
H. By expressly stating the right to choose to have an abortion is a fundamental right in the California Constitution, Proposition 1 will also protect against potential future attacks at the federal level and erosion of those rights by the courts. 001088231 EXHIBIT 1
09/27/2022 D2 Page 2 of 8
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 2
2. Action.
The City Council hereby expresses its support for Proposition 1, which, if passed by the voters in the general election on November 8, 2022, would amend the California Constitution to expressly provide that the State shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.
3. Adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Vista held on September 27, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WALTER CHUNG, CITY ATTORNEY
IS
APPROVED
Walter C. Chung
20220919133134
JUDY RITTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KATHY VALDEZ, CITY CLERK
0 00108823 1
09/27/2022 D2 Page 3 of 8
TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
This amendment proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 of the 2021-2022 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 97, Statutes of 2022) expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I
That Section 1.1 is added to Article I thereof, to read: SEC. 1.1. The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.
EXHIBIT 2
09/27/2022 D2 Page 4 of 8
PROPOSITION
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on page 77 and the Secretary of State's website at voterguide.sos. ca.gov.
• Existing California laws provide that
every individual has a fundamental right
to privacy in their personal reproductive
decisions, which includes the fundamental
right to choose to have an abortion and
the fundamental right to choose or refuse
contraceptives.
• This measure would amend the California
Constitution to expressly include these
fundamental rights and prohibit the
State from denying or interfering with an
individual's reproductive freedom in their
most intimate decisions.
• This amendment is intended to further the
existing California constitutional rights to
privacy and equal protection, and does not
narrow or limit these rights.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• No direct fiscal effect because
reproductive rights already are protected
by state law.
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SCA 10 (PROPOSITION 1) (CHAPTER 97, STATUTES OF 2022)
Senate: Ayes 29 Noes 8
Assembly: Ayes 58 Noes 17
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
FEDERALLAW
Due to Recent Court Case, Right to Abortion
No Longer Protected by U.S. Constitution. In
the past, the U.S. Supreme Court found that
the U.S. Constitution generally protected
the right to abortion. As a result, states
had limited ability to place restrictions
on abortions. However, in June 2022, the
U.S. Supreme Court decided that the U.S.
Constitution does not protect the right to
abortion. As such, states now have more
flexibility to decide whether to allow, limit, or
ban abortions.
Federal Law Protects Rights to Contraceptives.
The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the
U.S. Constitution protects the right to buy
and use contraceptives (such as condoms,
birth control pills, and other birth control
products). In addition, federal law requires
most health insurance plans to pay for
contraceptives.
STATE LAW
State Law Provides Right to Reproductive
Privacy. The California Constitution
guarantees everyone the right to privacy but
does not define what this right includes.
However, the California Supreme Court has
found that this right to privacy includes the
12 T ry1Analysis EXHIBIT 3
4272 1b22 D2 Page 5 of 8
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
right to make reproductive choices, such as
whether or not to have an abortion or use
contraceptives. In addition, state law was
later passed to expressly protect these rights.
State Law Places Some Restrictions on
Abortions. Because of the way California
courts have interpreted the right to privacy,
the state can only restrict abortions when
needed to meet certain state interests such
as public health and safety. For example,
California law requires abortion providers
to be licensed. In addition, abortions can
only be performed on a viable fetus if the
pregnancy puts the health or life of the
person who is pregnant at risk. Under state
law, a fetus is considered viable if the fetus
likely would be able to survive outside the
uterus.
STATE HELPS PAY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR MANY
CALIFORNIANS
California Provides Health Care to Many
Low -Income Californians. The federal -state
Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal
in California, provides health coverage to
eligible low-income California residents.
Health care services covered by Medi-Cal
include abortions and contraceptives. The
state and federal government share the
cost of most Medi-Cal services including
contraceptives. However, the state pays
the full cost of abortions provided through
Medi-Cal.
Many Californians Purchase Health Insurance
Through Covered California. About 2 million
Californians buy health insurance plans
through the state's health insurance market,
Covered California. Health care services
covered by these plans include abortions
and contraceptives. For most people enrolled
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. PROPOSITION LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 1
CONTINUED
in Covered California, the state and federal
government help pay for at least some of
the cost of buying these plans. However, the
state alone pays for the cost of the plans to
cover abortions for these people.
PROPOSAL
Proposition 1 changes the California
Constitution to say that the state cannot
deny or interfere with a person's reproductive
freedom and that people have the
fundamental right to choose:
e Whether or not to have an abortion.
e Whether or not to use contraceptives.
FISCAL EFFECTS
No Direct Fiscal Effect. Proposition 1
would change the California Constitution
to expressly include existing rights to
reproductive freedom. Because these rights
already exist in California, the proposition
would have no direct fiscal effect. However,
whether a court might interpret the
proposition to expand reproductive rights
beyond existing law is unclear. If a court
finds that the proposition expands these
rights, there could be fiscal effects to the
state.
Visit https.11 www.sos.ca.govlcampaign-
lobbying/cal-access-resources/measure-
contributions/2022-ballot-measure-contribution-
totals for a list of committees primarily formed
to support or oppose this measure.
Visit https.11 www.fppc.ca.govl
transparency/top-contributors. html
to access the committee's top 10 contributors.
For the ±71/ot�Rrapa�sition 1, see page 77. D2 Page'�'yo 13
PROPOSITION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. 1 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
* ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 1 *
VOTE YES ON PROP. 1.
It's simple: Proposition 1 will enshrine the fundamental right to an abortion and a fundamental right to
contraceptives in the California State Constitution.
For nearly 50 years, Americans have relied on the legal principle set by Roe v. Wade that allowed individuals to make their own reproductive health decisions privately.
Access to abortion is no longer federally protected and is under attack across the country.
YES ON PROP. 1 PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
Prop. 1 amends the California State Constitution to
explicitly prohibit interference with individual choices on reproductive health. It ensures a fundamental right
to choose to have an abortion and protects access to
contraceptives. These rights are consistent with existing state constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection under the law.
YES ON PROP. 1 WILL ENSURE THE CHOICE TO SEEK
COMPREHENSIVE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE,
INCLUDING ABORTION, WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTED
IN CALIFORNIA.
Millions in other states have already lost their right to an abortion. In those states, patients could be sent to prison for seeking abortions even in the case of miscarriages.
And most will be prevented from having abortions even
in cases of rape or incest. Their health care providers could also be held criminally liable.
DOCTORS, NURSES AND HEALTH PROVIDERS ALL
AGREE.
Yes on Prop. 1 is necessary to keep reproductive medical decisions where they belong —with individuals and their health care providers, based on scientific facts, not
political agendas.
Prop. 1 will also protect how a person decides to use
contraceptives and establishes guardrails that allow a
person to make the choice themselves on how to use or
to refuse contraceptives, based on their individual needs.
WE CANNOT —AND MUST NOT —GO BACKWARDS.
Before 1973, women needing essential reproductive
health care were often forced to travel long distances
or made to seek illegal care, even in the most extreme
cases.
Children growing up today should not have fewer rights
than their grandparents. But unless we pass Prop. 1, our rights in California could be at risk.
Access to affordable, comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, allows people to plan their lives and achieve their dreams. Yes on Prop. 1 protects access to the care that will give individuals and families the freedom to make those choices.
The California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood
Affiliates of California, and the League of Women Voters of California support Prop. 1 because no matter who or
what political party controls the government, a person's right to an abortion or contraceptives should be protected in California.
We must lead the way to ensure that those who need
access to care can get it in California.
Learn more at YESonlCA.com.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 1.
Shannon Udovic-Constant, M.D., Board Chair
California Medical Association
Jodi Hicks, President
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Carol Moon Goldberg, President
League of Women Voters of California
* REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 1 *
Proposition 1 is NOT needed to protect abortion rights.
But it WILL cost California taxpayers millions.
"California law already allows access to abortion and
contraception," says constitutional attorney Heather
Hacker. "But unlike state law, which limits late -term
abortions unless medically necessary, Proposition 1 has no limit on late -term abortions."
Like other constitutional amendments, Proposition 1 will face numerous lawsuits and court challenges, leaving its fate subject to judicial interpretation.
Do we really want judges deciding this issue?
Equally untrue are claims that Proposition 1 limits
late -term abortions. It does not.
Read Proposition 1 for yourself. It contains NO language limiting late -term abortions, nor does it prevent tax
money from being used to fund abortions.
The Legislature has already INCREASED abortion
funding by $200 million this year. But advocates
of Proposition 1 say that may not be enough. With
Proposition 1, the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar, at the expense of California taxpayers.
This is blatantly unfair.
According to The San Jose Mercury News, clinics in
San Diego, Riverside and Imperial counties have already seen a 1,246% increase in women seeking abortions —
just from Arizona.
Proposition 1 is a multi -million -dollar waste of tax money that is not needed to protect women's reproductive
freedom. It allows late -term abortions without limitation, and will ignite a protracted legal battle that could take years and cost millions.
To protect taxpayers and existing abortion rights, and to preserve reasonable limits on late -term abortions, vote "NO" on Proposition 1.
Allison Martinez, Executive Director
California Alliance of Pregnancy Care
Brad Dacus, President
Pacific Justice Institute
Dr. Vansen Wong, Gynecologist
14 ��r � O22 Arguments printed on this page he opinions of the authors and have not been checked for F#., y 7, bfa8gency.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. PROPOSITION LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 1
* ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 1 *
Those of us signing this argument have differing views on many issues, including abortion.
But we all agree Proposition 1 is an extreme, expensive, and pointless waste of tax money that will allow
unrestricted late -term abortions costing taxpayers
millions. This is not the answer.
Proposition 1 was put on the ballot for one reason —to
score political points, not to make serious policy.
Women already have the right to choose under current
California law. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling
did not and will not change this. Proposition 1 is NOT
needed to protect women's health or their reproductive
rights.
Abortions are already legal in California with reasonable limits on late -term abortions, which are allowed if
medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.
Proposition 1 will destroy this important balance and
bake the most extreme abortion law possible into our
state constitution.
Proposition 1 will allow late -term abortions at taxpayer expense WITHOUT limitation for any reason at any time
up to the moment of birth —even when the mother's
life is not in danger, even when the healthy baby could survive outside the womb.
Instead of preserving our state's compassionate and
carefully balanced limits on late -term abortions,
Proposition 1 will push California far outside the
mainstream. Today, most states and 47 European
countries limit late -term abortions, including California.
A recent Harris Poll found that 90% of Americans
support limits on late -term abortions. Likewise, recent polling shows that most California voters support
limitations on late -term abortions, as well.
By allowing abortion without limit, Proposition 1 will
turn California into a "sanctuary state" for thousands, possibly millions, of abortion seekers from other states, at a staggering cost to taxpayers.
The pro -abortion Guttmacher Institute estimates that
California could see a nearly 3,000% increase in the
number of people from other states seeking abortions
here, with many coming for more expensive late -term
abortions. According to the report, California's annual out-of-state patient load could climb from 46,000
people a year to 1.4 million.
Without limits on late -term abortions, Proposition 1 will push these numbers even higher, draining millions of
tax dollars at a time when taxpayers are struggling with inflation and sky-high gas prices.
The Legislature has already committed over $200 million this year to expand abortion and reproductive services, including tens of millions to pay the expenses for
abortion seekers from other states. With a 3,000%
increase in the number of people from other states
wanting abortions, millions of dollars more will be
required to meet soaring demand.
Proposition 1 is an extreme and costly proposal that
does nothing to advance women's health or their right to choose. It punishes taxpayers and eliminates all limits on late -term abortions in defiance of what most voters want.
Proposition 1 is a cynical political stunt that was put on the ballot to score political points, not make sensible policy. As usual, taxpayers will pay the price.
We urge a "NO" vote on Proposition 1. It deserves
defeat.
Dr. Anne Marie Adams, Gynecologist
Tak Allen, President
International Faith Based Coalition
Assemblymember Jim Patterson
* REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 1 *
Proposition 1 ensures that reproductive health care —
including the right to an abortion —is protected in the State Constitution. This amendment explicitly defines in the State Constitution that people have the freedom to
access abortions and contraceptives. This would prevent those rights from being taken from Californians just as it was recently stripped by the conservative U.S. Supreme
Court.
Don't be misled by opponents. We can't go back.
Prop. 1 does not change how or when a person can
access an abortion in California.
Existing California law provides that women have the
right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability, or to protect the woman's life or health. Proposition 1 will not change that.
Don't fall for scare tactics from opponents.
Prop. 1 simply amends the State Constitution to prohibit interference with individual choices on reproductive
health care and the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.
Decisions about abortion and contraception are deeply
personal. They are best made with a health care provider who can provide expert guidance and are bound by
professional and ethical standards. Prop. 1 protects that right.
Don't let California go backwards. While the
U.S. Supreme Court has turned its back on science,
safety and equality with a reversal of Roe v. Wade,
Prop. 1 ensures that the choice to seek comprehensive
reproductive health care will always be protected in
California.
Reproductive medical decisions should be made with
health care providers, based on scientific facts, free of politics.
YESon 1 CA. com
Vote YES on Prop. 1.
Sandy Reding, R.N., President
California Nurses Association
Kelly McCue, M.D., District IX Chair
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Cary Franklin, 1.D., Faculty Director
UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy
Argumeryf�ri e¢grr#I are the opinions of the authors and have not been check�d�fehaccuracy by any official agency. Page � 15
SUBSTITUTE
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING PROPOSITION 1, WHICH, IF
PASSED BY THE VOTERS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, WOULD AMEND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT "THE STATE SHALL NOT DENY OR
INTERFERE WITH AN INDIVIDUAL' S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM, WHICH
INCLUDES THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO HAVE AN
ABORTION AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE OR
REFUSE CONTRACEPTIVES"
The City Council of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:
1 Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:
A. On June 24, 2022, in the decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women' s Health Organization, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, eliminating federal jurisdiction over abortion law; and
B. The laws of the State of California currently protect a woman's right to reproductive choice; and
C. Proposition 1, if passed by the voters in the general election on November 8, 2022, would amend the California Constitution to expressly provide that "The State shall not deny or interfere with an individual' s reproductive freedom, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives;" and D. The people of Vista understand the issues involved with abortion & contraceptive policy and have the right to choose to include these rights in the State Constitution; and E. Decisions about abortion and contraceptive policies are deeply personal.
2. Action.
The City Council hereby resolves:
A. That members of the City Council have sworn or affirmed an oath to support and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and
B. That the City of Vista and its Council respects the will of the voters, and their right to include such rights as they shall choose in the Constitution of the State of California;
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 2
3. Adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Vista held on September 27, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WALTER CHUNG, CITY ATTORNEY
JUDY RITTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KATHY VALDEZ, CITY CLERK
By By:
ADD TO PACKET
FROM THE DESK OF
NORMA
September 24, 2022
To Council meeting September 27th, 2022 D2. ,
I'm a Mexican born woman. The discussion on reproduction should be in the Gynecologist or primary care physician's office, prescribing the woman one or more forms of contraceptives if she decides against pregnancy, in this day and age no woman should get pregnant without her consent, especially considering the current advancements in medicine.
The political discussion about abortion should start with the wisdom of the Declaration of Independence against tyranny:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are L& Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The right to life comes first. They knew that over 250 years ago.
Humans in the womb have rights and are legally considered people. If a pregnant woman gets murdered the perpetrator gets two counts of murder.
We all know Planned Parenthood, the major abortion organization, since its inception, has killed over 10 million unborn humans, primarily minorities. Proof of it is the location of their clinics, the largest concentrations being in Vista and Escondido where hispanics are the majority of the population. No clinics are available in Oceanside, Carlsbad, San Marcos, Encinitas, Del Mar or Rancho Santa Fe.
We all know that Planned Parenthood receives tax payer money in the billions to conduct business, and is lobbied by democrat politicians in office. In addition, Planned Parenthood gives politicians, mostly democrats, kickbacks in the form of campaign donations in exchange for receiving tax payer funding, which is a violation of both the Federal and State Anti -Kickback Laws.
We were also informed by the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein that Planned Parenthood is engaged in "donating" unborn human body parts for research, and from other sources, that Planned Parenthood delivers the unborn human body parts for a high delivery fee, which is how abortion is a multi billion dollar industry that obviously cares nothing for women, humans, or minorities, and is completely profit -focused.
Any member of the Vista City Council that has received campaign donations from Planned Parenthood or any other abortion clinic should abstain from voting in this matter as they are in a massive conflict of interest, not representing the constituency, but rather their billion dollar donors who influence their vote.
Women can easily prevent unwanted pregnancies with the help of a primary care physician Rape should be persecuted to the full extent of the Law.
Planned Parenthood offers abortions to under age girls without parent consent. That action protects the rapist. D2
If Planned Parenthood was really doing theirjob of helping women stop unwanted pregnancies with the tax payers' billions of funding, it should result in zero abortions.
The way the California politicians are deciding if they will continue to legalize killing the unborn, as well as legalizing other despicable acts is reminiscent of the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party deciding how to legalize killing Jews.
Do what is right stop killing innocent humans, make women aware that they also have a choice to use contraceptives before suffering the physical trauma of having an abortion.
Sincerely,
Norma
From: [email protected]
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message Date: September 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM
To:
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator for California
Thank you for contacting me regarding Planned Parenthood. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome opportunity to respond.
n
I understand you are concerned by recently released videos depicting Planned Parenthood representatives i affiliates discussing the donation of fetal tissue for medical research. The regulated donation of fetal tissue medical research is a legal practice, and to date, it is my understanding that none of the videos released have nonstrated any unlawful activity by Planned Parenthood or its affiliates. It is also important to note that a -nsics company uncovered that both the initially released and "full footage" versions of these videos are heavily ted and misrepresent their full content.
Lawful fetal tissue research has taken place in the United States for several decades, and has directly led to kcal breakthroughs including the polio vaccine and innovative treatments for HIV and AIDS. Recent research also yielded promising discoveries in treatment for Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. ;e 1993, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been fully authorized to both facilitate and elate these types of legitimate research.
You may be interested to know that current law prohibits the sale of fetal tissue and imposes harsh criminal alties for doing so. Tissue may only be donated, not sold, and by law a woman must give written consent )re donating fetal tissue. Consent may not be given or requested prior to a woman's decision to obtain an rtion, and the statement of consent must be made available to HHS for audit in order to verify compliance with law.
I understand that you support withholding federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Since coming to the ate, I have consistently supported federal funding for reproductive health care under the Title X Family fining Program, including Planned Parenthood. These funds do not go toward abortion services, and instead to provide contraceptives, cancer screenings, and other health services to millions of low-income women and i. According to a report published by the Guttmacher Institute, these preventative services resulted in nearly ,000 fewer abortions in 2013 alone, the latest year for which statistics are available.
I recognize that this is a topic of great personal importance for many people and that the debate on this ssue has significant meaning to you. Please know that I respect your opinion and will be mindful of your views as he Senate continues to discuss this matter.
Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to contact me regarding issues of importance to you. uld you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C., office at !) 224-3841. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
rther information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, istein.senate.gov. And please visit my YouTube. Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.
ADD TO PACKET
From: Nanci Oechsle
To: Public Comments
Subject: D2- California Proposition 1, Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 1:50:00 PM
Dear Madame Mayor and Councilmembers; Contreras, Franklin, Green and Melendez,
I'm writing today to encourage the city of Vista to support the resolution presented by Councilmember Melendez on supporting Prop 1, that would codify the right to reproductive health here in the state of California. Legislators should not be the ones making decisions that by all rights are between and an individual and their doctor.
There are countless reasons why someone needs an abortion and it's none of anyone's business why. Just to put it out there: finding out the fetus you are carrying is no longer viable. Not having the means to support one more family member.
Having a job or going to school and not being offered maternity leave or childcare. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that it is none of our business and they have the right to make the choice about their own body.
Thank you,
Nanci Oechsle (33 year resident of Vista)
she/her/hers