...where it receives a resounding no: "California voters were right to reject this...on the first two attempts. They should do so again."

The article also discusses anti-abortion ballot initiatives in South Dakota and Colorado, calling the measures, respectively, "unconstitutional" and "preposterous."

Prop 4, the initiative we face here in California, would require doctors to notify the parents of minors who are seeking abortions. The South Dakota initiative, like Prop 4, is nearly identical to an initiative that voters rejected in 2006. It would ban abortion in all circumstances, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. It's a deliberate attempt to take a challenge to abortion rights all the way to the Supreme Court. Finally, facing residents of Colorado is the question of whether or not fertilized eggs are people, too. That's fertilized, not implanted, despite the fact that in the world of science and medicine, a fertilized egg does not necessarily a pregnancy make. As the Times so aptly puts it, "A damaged fertilized egg might be eligible for monetary damages."

It's not a coincidence that South Dakota and California are facing these initiatives for a second time. Even if they don't pass, they successfully drain resources from supporters of reproductive health and justice, and bring anti-abortion hardliners out to vote. And if they do pass, even better for their proponents - they block access to abortion. In Colorado's case, the initiative could easily block access to contraception as well.

When put together, it becomes much more clear that what we're voting on in California is part of an anti-abortion strategy that is national, coordinated, and nothing if not extremely deliberate.

Photo by davidrossharris via Flickr