Featured Image
California Gov. Gavin

SACRAMENTO, California (LifeSiteNews) – California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday a $125 million “Reproductive Health Package” of spending to make the so-called Golden State even more attractive to abortion seekers in anticipation of a potential Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft of a majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. The draft declares that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” and therefore it is “time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” In response, the Court announced the draft was authentic but “does not represent a final decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

It remains unclear whether the draft represents a final decision to overturn Roe, is a tentative decision subject to change, was prepared in anticipation of a majority to overturn, or was written in hopes of persuading Alito’s colleagues to sign on. Regardless, the leak has sent shockwaves across the political spectrum, with pro-lifers tentatively rejoicing, pro-abortion politicians and activists lashing out in anger, and many speculating that the leak may have been intended to pressure judges to flip their votes, or to incite hatred and threats against them.

“California will not stand idly by as extremists roll back our basic constitutional rights; we’re going to fight like hell, making sure that all women – not just those in California – know that this state continues to recognize and protect their fundamental rights,” Newsom declared. “We’re expanding access to these critical services, welcoming businesses and their employees fleeing anti-abortion states, and reaffirming our commitment to continuing to work closely with the Legislature and reproductive rights stakeholders to further solidify California’s leadership on abortion rights.”

The package includes $40 million for abortionists to spend on “low- and moderate-income individuals who do not have health care coverage” for abortions, $15 million for community-based abortion groups to engage in “outreach and education on sexual health and reproductive health issues,” $1 million to create a website containing the latest information on their legal rights to abortion under California law, on abortion providers, and on abortion coverage options; and $1 million for “research regarding the unmet needs for access to reproductive health care services.”

The new slate of spending follows a $68 million package Newsom proposed in January for similar purposes, including subsidizing abortion coverage as well as “scholarships and loan repayments to health care providers” that “commit to” abortions.

All of the above is to help “prepare for a potential influx of people from other states seeking reproductive health care and abortion services,” according to the press release.

The deep-blue state’s commitment to abortion-on-demand is nothing new; this year, the state legislature has seen bills to allow nurse practitioners to commit abortions without the supervision of an actual physician and potentially even effectively legalize infanticide. It does, however, highlight the fact that the pro-life movement’s work would be far from over in a post-Roe world.

If Alito’s opinion does prove to be the Supreme Court’s final decision, its ramifications will be drastic. More than 20 states currently have laws on the books that would effectively ban abortion within their borders upon Roe’s fall, from pre-Roe abortion bans that went unenforced to “trigger laws” designed not to take effect until a ruling like today’s. In those states, abortion would become illegal as soon as the ruling is issued.

More than a dozen other states plus the District of Columbia have laws on the books legally protecting abortion, at least three of which explicitly codify the practice as a “right.” Abortion would remain legal in those jurisdictions, as well as the remaining states that have not spelled out abortion’s status one way or another, but without Roe state residents would have the power to vote on the issue for themselves, or lobby their elected representatives to change the law in either direction.

Pro-lifers in Congress could pursue a nationwide abortion ban as well, and many pro-lifers will no doubt urge them to do so, in order to prevent state politicians like Newsom from attempting to keep interstate abortions thriving.