Legal group warns abortion amendment could legalize incest, ‘sex changes’ for minors, and more in California by AshleySadler for Life Site News
‘The language of the amendment is so broad, it could create constitutional rights to everything having to [do] with the creation, destruction, or prevention of new human lives,’ said California Right to Life outreach director Mary Rose Short. ‘This is not an exaggeration.’
The vague wording of California’s radical ballot proposal to enshrine abortion-on-demand as a “fundamental right” in the state constitution could also pave the way for a bevy of extreme and radical interpretations, a conservative legal group warned.
According to an analysis by conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), California’s Proposition 1 — titled the Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment — would not only make abortion on-demand and up to the moment of birth a statewide constitutional right, it “could also allow men to avoid child support payments, force the state to procure women to be surrogate mothers, and allow children to remove healthy reproductive organs without parental knowledge or consent.”
Support Our Site
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
CALLING CALIFORNIANS!
TOMORROW
❌ Vote NO against painful late-term abortion.
❌ Vote NO against expanding taxpayer funding for abortion.
❌ Vote NO against making California an unrestricted abortion sanctuary.
❌ VOTE NO on Proposition 1!
#NoOnProp1 #Prop1 #California pic.twitter.com/YUjFMCdPxe— March for Life Action (@MFLAction) November 7, 2022
In addition to slamming the door on “common-sense limits and regulations on abortion,” the proposed constitutional amendment “would undermine the state’s ability to protect other fundamental rights, like conscience rights of doctors and nurses to not participate in ending a human life, parental rights to raise and educate children, rights of association for hospitals and care centers to hire mission-oriented employees, the free speech right to advocate for life-affirming care, and the fundamental right to life of every human being.”
The avalanche of implications that could flow from the proposition come as a result of its “intentionally vague terms,” the group said, arguing that the indistinct phrasing poses a threat to “the public health, safety, and general welfare of Californians.”
Specifically, the ADF flagged the term “reproductive freedom” found in the title of the proposal itself, which the legal advocacy group warned is too broad and open to interpretation by “activists” seeking to “expand the outer limits of ‘reproductive freedom,’” and enabling judges “to impose ever more expansive meanings.”
With the legal definition left unclear, the group argued that “any law regulating sexual conduct, including statutory rape laws and incest laws,” could be subject to re-examination, potentially giving “criminals who violate statutory rape and incest laws a defense for their heinous acts.”
