Prop 1
Reproductive Freedom
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom

Enshrines reproductive rights in the California constitution.

Vote YES

Jump to SPUR’s Recommendation

What the Measure Would Do

Proposition 1 would amend the California constitution to enshrine reproductive freedom. This amendment explicitly prohibits the state from interfering with one’s right to choose to have an abortion and one’s right to choose or refuse contraceptives. These same rights are currently guaranteed by the Reproductive Privacy Act, but this measure is designed to eliminate any possible future misinterpretation of the law that would limit reproductive freedom. If this measure passes, the constitution would be amended to include additional language to more explicitly enshrine reproductive rights. The current language that exists under the Reproductive Privacy Act is most often interpreted as fully protecting reproductive rights, but changing the language slightly under this measure would leave no room for interpretation. If Prop. 1 does not pass, the constitution would not change and the Reproductive Privacy Act would continue, for the time being, to guarantee one’s right to have an abortion and one’s right to choose or refuse contraceptives.

The Backstory

California recognized abortion rights under the state constitution in 1972 when Californians voted to pass Prop. 11, a constitutional amendment known as the Reproductive Privacy Act. This was just one year before the federal Roe v. Wade decision that protected individual privacy including the right to an abortion before fetal viability. The federal protection provided under this decision was overturned on June 24, 2022, by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In California, Prop. 1 was introduced in reaction to this U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The existing Reproductive Privacy Act provides that every individual possesses a fundamental right to privacy with respect to reproductive decisions, including (A) the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control, and (B) the fundamental right to choose to bear children or obtain an abortion.[1] This right to privacy has been interpreted as providing those rights themselves. Prop. 1 goes one step further to prohibit the state from denying or interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, as defined, or when necessary to protect her life and health.

This constitutional amendment was proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and was passed by supermajority votes in both the Senate and the Assembly. As a constitutional amendment, it needs a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

Abortion and contraception restrictions disproportionately impact low-income women and women of color.[2] Women who are denied access to abortion face hardship and insecurity; those who carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are four times more likely to live with their child under the federal poverty line.[3] People who are unable to receive the abortion care they seek are much more likely to struggle to afford basic needs such as food and housing.[4]


  • This amendment leaves no room for interpretation of the law that could limit reproductive rights.


  • SPUR could not identify any cons for this measure.
SPUR's Recommendation

The reproductive rights currently provided under the state constitution provide significant freedom for Californians. Guaranteeing those rights reduces the potential for misinterpretation of the law and goes one step further to ensure those rights. In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, it is important that the state ensures the strength and clarity of reproductive freedom law. SPUR recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. 1.

Vote YES on Prop 1 - Reproductive Freedom

[1] California Board of Registered Nursing, “Reproductive Privacy Act,” revised April 13, 2011,

[3] Diana Greene Foster et al., “Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 3, March 2018, pages 407–13,

[4] Sarah Miller, Laura Wherry and Diana Greene Foster, The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion, Working Paper 26662, National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2020,