Source: http://www.overruleroe.com/States/California.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:44:56+00:00

Document:
1 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25950 et seq. (West Supp. 1971), renumbered as § 123400 et seq. in 1995. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123400 et seq. (West 1996).
2 Cal. Pen. Code § 274 (West Supp. 1971).
3 Id. § 275. No prosecutions were reported under this statute.
5 Id. Unlike other statutes based upon § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code, the California Therapeutic Abortion Act did not expressly authorize an abortion for reasons of genetic defect. Alone among pre-Roe statutes with a mental health exception, California attempted to define what would qualify as a mental health related abortion in terms at least as strict as the standard for civil commitment, i.e., that the pregnant woman “would be dangerous to herself or to the person or property of others or is in need of supervision or restraint.” Id. § 25954, renumbered as § 123415 in 1995. Notwithstanding that narrow definition, more than 60,000 abortions were performed in California in 1970, 98.2% of which were performed for mental health reasons. People v. Barksdale, 503 P.2d 257, 265 (Cal. 1972). In Barksdale, the California Supreme Court expressed “[s]erious doubt . . . that such a considerable number of pregnant women could have been committed to a mental institution” as the result of becoming pregnant. Id. The experience in California strongly suggests that mental health exceptions in abortion statutes are inherently manipulable and subject to abuse.
6 Id. § 25952, renumbered as § 123407 in 1995.
7 Id. § 25953, renumbered as § 123410 in 1995.
8 See People v. Barksdale, supra, n. 5.
9 2000 Cal. Stat. ch. 692, § 2.
10 2002 Cal. Stat. ch. 385, §§ 2-7.
11 In repealing the Therapeutic Abortion Act, California enacted the “Reproductive Privacy Act.” Id. § 8, codified as Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123460 et seq. (West Supp. 2005). The Act declares that “every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions.” Id. § 123462. Consistent with that declaration, the Act expresses the public policy of the State of California that, “Every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose and to obtain an abortion, except as specifically limited by this article,” id.. § 123462(b), and that “The state shall not deny or interfere with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose to obtain an abortion, except as specifically limited by this article.” Id. § 123462(c). In repealing their pre-Roe statutes, several other States have enacted similar expressions of public policy. No such statement of public policy is required to make abortion legal. In the absence of specific legislation making abortion criminal (either pre- or post-Roe), abortion would remain legal even if Roe v. Wade were overruled.
12 Because of its undefined health exception, the California post-viability statute, see Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123468 (West Supp. 2005), would not effectively prohibit post-viability abortions. In interpreting the undefined health exception in the pre-Roe District of Columbia abortion statute, the Supreme Court held that “the general usage and modern understanding of the word ‘health’ . . . includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 72 (1971). See also Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973) (in determining whether an abortion is medically necessary, “all factors– physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well-being of the patient” may be considered). There would be few, if any, abortions that could not be justified on psychological or emotional grounds.
13 625 P.2d 779 (Cal. 1981).
14 Id., 625 P.2d at 784. In a decision striking down California’s parental consent statute sixteen years later, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed this holding. See American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 940 P.2d 797, 809-10 (Cal. 1997) (“the protection afforded by the California Constitution of a pregnant woman’s right of choice is broader than the constitutional protection afforded by the federal Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court”).

References: § 25950
 § 123400
 § 123400
 § 274
 § 275
 § 230
 § 25954
 § 123415
 v. 
 § 25952
 § 123407
 § 25953
 § 123410
 v. 
 § 2
 § 8
 § 123460
 § 123462
 § 123462
 § 123462
 v. 
 § 123468
 v. 
 v. 
 v.