What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean for Fresno, Valley women? What both sides are saying
Pro-life advocates in central California were heartened, while pro-choice supporters disappointed, by Friday’s Supreme Court landmark opinion overturning the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade — allowing individual states to outlaw or regulate abortion.
“I’m glad the Supreme Court has overruled Roe v. Wade” and a subsequent 1992 case, said John Gerardi, CEO of Right to Life Central California. “I don’t think the Constitution protects the right to abortion. I think abortion has been a horrible bandage for national problems with providing quality prenatal health care for women.”
But Genoveva Islas, a health care advocate and Fresno Unified School District trustee who until last year was also on the board of San Jose-based Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, said she believes “today is a sad day for America.”
“I have granddaughters who will be living in a world with less rights than I had,” Islas said. “I’m a public health advocate who cares for the health and well being of our community, and I know this will be detrimental to a lot of women living in states that will immediately implement trigger laws that will decrease access to abortion.”
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte operates health clinics in Fresno, Madera, Merced and Tulare counties as well as throughout northern California.
In the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority opinion Friday, Justice Samuel Alito flatly concluded that “the Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion.”
Alito argued that the Roe case legalizing abortion in the U.S. in 1973, and a subsequent 1992 decision, both overstepped the Constitution.
“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey (the 1992 case) arrogated that authority,” Alito wrote. “We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
What the court’s decision may mean for women in Fresno and the Valley, however, is uncertain as abortion remains legal in California. “In California, we refuse to turn back the clock and let politicians exert control over a person’s body,” state Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “Despite the decision, abortion remains fully protected here in California.”
Since a draft of the court’s opinion was leaked in May, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders have worked to position the state as a place where access to abortion services will not only remain available, but expand to serve more women from states that move to impose strict limits on the procedure to end pregnancies.
Reactions in the Valley broke down along familiar lines about a woman’s right to make healthcare choices and the value of the life of an unborn infant.
“California has codified reproductive rights into law,” said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno. “It’s long overdue for the rest of the country to do the same.”
“Every woman in America deserves to make their own healthcare decisions,” Costa added. “This ruling strips women of their freedom to make their own decisions and the constitutional right to privacy.”
The Republican Party of Fresno County, in a statement issued by its chairman Fred Vanderhoof, described Roe v. Wade as “blatantly unconstitutional by … denying each state the right to decide this important issue” and said the 1973 case “cheapened the dignity and value of human life.”
“It is time to recognize that life is not expendable, but that all people, including the unborn, infirm and the elderly are sacred and made in the image of God,” Vanderhoof added. “As a country, as individuals let us celebrate that we have chosen life.”
Bishop Joseph V. Brennan, leader of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno, issued a statement to clergy throughout central California hailing the court’s decision. “Today, I not only encourage you to celebrate …, I also encourage you to pray for compassion, understanding and strength as the fight for life will continue in our state of California,” Brennan wrote.
The political fight that Brennan described will also be taken up by pro-choice advocates, said Ruben Zarate, chairman of the Fresno County Democratic Party.
“This ruling will primarily kill poor women, concentrating this culture of death and tragedy in minority communities,” Zarate said in a written statement. “Just as in the days before Roe, women of means will travel to progressive states and exercise their rightful freedoms. It is women without means who this ruling will leave isolated in deserts of oppression without choice and without opportunity.”
“Now we must get angry. Now we must fight,” Zarate added. “Now we must scream until our lungs ache and our throats are raw at these people, both men and women, who have shown they believe we deserve no protection.”
Fresno Police Chief Paco Balderrama issued a call for peace and order for any protests or demonstrations over the court’s ruling.
“We understand there will be disagreements here locally as well as nationally by various groups on this issue,” Balderrama said in a press conference. “Our job is to keep the peace and protect the rights of those who want to peacefully assemble and perhaps either protest or just have a demonstration.”
The chief said police have been consulting with state and federal law enforcement agencies with an eye toward intelligence about potential acts of violence. But as of midday Friday, he added, no threats had surfaced “and we are not anticipating any type of violence or any unlawful demonstrations.”
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte plans to hold an abortion rights rally starting at 8 a.m. Saturday at Fresno City Hall, on P Street between Fresno and Tulare streets in downtown Fresno.
What does it mean locally?
In the short term, there may little immediate impact on abortion services in Fresno and the Valley. But that could change over time.
Gerardi, whose organization operates a pregnancy care center that counsels alternatives to abortion, said that while he’s pleased with the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has concerns over what it will mean in California and the Valley in the longer term.
“These states that decide to limit abortion will legitimately need to do a better job of of addressing prenatal health care in their communities,” Gerardi said in an interview with The Fresno Bee. “The San Joaquin Valley is one of those areas that has problems with the provision of prenatal health care,” particularly women in low-income and underserved communities.
Gerardi said he fears that legislation working its way through the state Capitol “is basically going to turn California into the nation’s abortion magnet” by offering services at taxpayer expense to women coming in from other states with more restrictive laws. That number, he added, could increase from “tens of thousands (per year) to hundreds of thousands.”
“I think our state Legislature is reacting to (the Supreme Court decision) in a very extreme way,” he added. “I don’t think it’s reacting in a helpful way because the focus is just abortion rather than broader and more critical issues of health care that are not being addressed.”
That, Gerardi said, will likely mean an increase in the number of medical facilities offering abortions in the Valley over the next decade.
Islas agreed with Gerardi that there is “a provider deficit” for health care services for low-income women and women of color in the Valley.
But “I don’t share his concern that somehow we’re going to see or have seen this overuse of abortion services,” she added. “I would feel glad that we are providing services to people who need them. I hate the idea that people have to leave where they live to have access to this service.”
Islas said the focus on abortion ignores a range of other reproductive health services that Planned Parenthood provides to clients, including prenatal care, health education including prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, screening for early detection of cancer. “All of those services are really beneficial,” she said. “Abortion is just one component of the many services.”
“I am concerned that if a clinic or provider is having to change what services they are able to offer, if that impacts their ability to function, then I can see that having a huge consequence for access to health care,” Islas said. ”We cannot afford to regress in all the activities that we’ve been doing to try to create equity in access to health care.”
A possible ‘volume issue’ for care
Dr. Carolina Sueldo, a board certified obstetrician/gynecologist and reproductive specialist with the UCSF-Fresno medical education program, said that while much of the focus Friday was on abortion, the ramifications of overturning Roe v. Wade “extend significantly beyond abortion rights to all areas of reproductive care.”
Some states’ “personhood laws” that define life as beginning at fertilization “would dramatically impact the way that infertility treatment is provided to patients in those states,” Sueldo said. “We do assistive reproduction treatments not only for infertility, but for genetic diseases (and) recurrent miscarriages.” She added that in some states, colleagues have been restricted in managing medical emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies or life-threatening miscarriages.”
It is the kinds of reproductive services beyond abortion that are more likely to eventually have an effect in California, Sueldo told The Bee. “What we see in California is that Gov. Newsom has been very black-and-white on his position that California will support reproductive rights,” she said. “We do not believe the women of California will be directly impacted” by overturning Roe.”
“However, because CA will be considered a ‘haven state,’ we do anticipate an influx of patients from other states seeking care, not only for abortion but for all of these reproductive aspects, safe contraception and assisted reproduction technologies,” she added. “I believe it’s going to be a volume issue. ... If there is an influx of out-of-state patients, that may put a strain on the system, and that may ultimately impact patients’ ability to access care.”
Sueldo said that in many instances, the polarized terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are not necessarily applicable to the debate. As a reproductive specialist, “my patients want more than anything in the world to be parents, and my job is to help them bring life into this world.”
“I believe that all medical professionals are ‘pro-life,” she added. “Where I think the distinction is for me is that this is a medical decision that really needs to be made in the confines of a medical office between the provider and the patient. When you have legislation that is going to impact that relationship, there is a potential to ultimately end up in life-threatening situations.”
This story was originally published June 24, 2022 at 1:07 PM.
