The Supreme Court's ruling that upheld the Federal Abortion Ban is a wake-up call for Californians who believe that our status as the nation's most pro-choice state makes us immune to anti-choice political attacks in Washington, D.C.
Five of nine Justices signed onto a Court opinion that effectively reversed established law and rolled back key protections that have been guaranteed since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling 34 years ago.
In short, the pro-choice American majority has just been handed a stark reminder that elections matter, especially as the ten candidates currently running for the Republican presidential nomination converge on our state for their first debate.
First, there is a consequence many legal observers haven't discussed much: federal law trumps state law.
In practical terms, it means President Bush won and California's pro-choice majority lost.
Even though California voters have repeatedly reaffirmed their pro-choice values at the ballot box, including the decisive defeat of anti-choice ballot measures Props. 73 and 85 in 2005 and 2006, respectively, the Supreme Court made it possible for a law supported by Bush and notorious anti-choice figures like Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay to be imposed across all 50 states.
It doesn't matter that our state lawmakers have chosen to enact safeguards for a woman's right to choose that go beyond the federal constitutional protections.
This ban has no health exception -- even if a doctor decides that a banned procedure is the safest option. Under this law, doctors could receive up to two years in prison for acting in what they believe is the best interest of their patient.
There is no mystery to how this happened. Bush won the White House twice and had the opportunity to put two new Justices on the Supreme Court.
When running for president, Bush pledged to appoint judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, thus opening the door to further attacks on Roe. He succeeded.
The second point: all the Republican presidential candidates sided with President Bush and the anti-choice Justices on the Federal Abortion Ban decision. Even former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose past record includes support for a woman's right to choose, called the decision the "correct conclusion."
His counterparts, including John McCain and Mitt Romney, tried to outdo each other in capitulating to the far right.
The third point is how candidates' support for this decision exposes their policy inconsistencies.
When defending their ant-choice positions, many of these same candidates state that they believe the issue of abortion care should not be decided at the federal level, but instead left up to the individual states to legislate.
In fact, McCain told ABC's This Week, "...I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."
Really, Sen. McCain? But he endorsed a Supreme Court decision that overrides California laws.
The inconsistency from candidates like McCain is unacceptable with so much at stake for a woman's right to choose--but, fortunately, there is something that pro-choice voters can do about it.
As mentioned earlier, we defeated back-to-back anti-choice ballot measures because we acted on our values in the voting booth.
We had conversations--at the dinner table, in our yards, and at church-- about the role of government, about not letting politicians interfere our most personal, private medical decisions. We spoke up--and we won.
That's what must happen in 2008--and California's early place on the primary calendar, February 5, gives us new found influence over the nomination process.
It is clear that that the ten candidates debating at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley picked Bush's ban over their party's principles of limited government and individual liberty, but they should hear what a mistake that is from voters across this state.
Thankfully, California's own Sen. Barbara Boxer spearheaded the introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the protections of Roe at the federal level and protect women's health in all 50 states. She is joined by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and many members of our state's congressional delegation.
We applaud their leadership, but these pro-choice leaders need a pro-choice partner in the White House to make protecting a woman's right to choose for generations to come a reality. There's no debate about that.