Life Legal attorneys appeared in court last week to argue against California’s “Abortion Accessibility Act” (SB 245). As you may be aware, Life Legal sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta and various state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of the Act, which prohibits co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses for abortion, but not for maternity care. This constitutes impermissible discrimination against women who want to carry their babies to term or who need care and treatment for a miscarriage.
By favoring abortion over continued pregnancy and childbirth, the law creates perverse financial incentives for women to abort their children. The sponsors of SB 245 insist that, “each person deserves the right to decide if, when, and how they grow their family regardless of income and without stigma and shame.” However, the law clearly provides financial advantages for killing yet unborn family members and penalizes women who choose to grow their families.
Not surprisingly, SB 245 was the brain child of abortion lobbyists Planned Parenthood and NARAL, who partnered with other abortionists to get the legislature to pass a slew of deadly laws since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Life Legal’s challenge to SB 245 is the first lawsuit filed in opposition to the abortion cartel’s murderous agenda.
The state is arguing that the applicable legal standard in this case is the rational basis test, which means the government only has to show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This standard of review is the most deferential to the government, making it difficult to invalidate the law. We contend that this law should be evaluated under a more rigorous standard of review—strict scrutiny—because it violates equal protection by treating women in similar circumstances unequally, which is unconstitutional. Under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the law is the least restrictive way to achieve a compelling government interest. We argue that incentivizing abortion is not a compelling interest for the state.
Despite the legal hurdle posed by the rational basis standard, Life Legal’s Chief Legal Officer, Katie Short, remains confident in her efforts to demonstrate the law’s unconstitutionality. After the trial last week, attorney Short expressed optimism, noting that her team had presented a compelling case, include the successful admission of critical evidence to bolster Life Legal’s challenge.