Old St. Mary's Cathedral / Adobe Stock (Left), Adobe Stock (Right)
CV NEWS FEED // The Archdiocese of San Francisco is calling on voters to reject Proposition O, the “Reproductive Freedom Act,” arguing that the measure unfairly targets health clinics that provide life-affirming support for pregnant women without offering abortions.
According to a September 23 report from the Archdiocese, Proposition O, which San Francisco Mayor London Breed introduced for the November ballot, would target these clinics by requiring taxpayer-funded signage to be installed outside the clinics that identify them as “limited services pregnancy organizations.”
According to the Archdiocesan report, during a press conference introducing the proposition, Breed “specifically singled out” two life-affirming reproductive health care clinics in the city that do not provide or refer for abortion.
“Both organizations targeted by Proposition O help women, children, and the entire family without regard to their ability to pay. Both are state-licensed medical facilities,” states the Archdiocesan report’s author, Valerie Schmalz, who is director of the Office of Human Life & Dignity.
Schmalz points out that not only could these signs endanger staff, volunteers, and patients, but also adds that the Proposition is “an unnecessary measure,” as “California is already a ‘sanctuary state’” for abortion. A constitutional amendment passed in 2022 allows abortion up to birth.
Schmalz contends that the taxpayer-funded signs would not only expose the pregnancy clinics to hostility and abuse from opponents, but also would contradict the stated goal of allowing access to all reproductive healthcare services without fear or threat.
“[Proposition O] flies in the face of the measure’s language ‘People in San Francisco should always be able to access reproductive healthcare services free from coercion, threat, violence or fear.’ Having babies is at the heart of reproductive health care!” Schmalz wrote.
Schmalz also questioned why similar signage is not required outside abortion clinics directing women to facilities that support giving birth, and noted that in contrast, Breed uses taxpayer funds to provide security guards outside of Planned Parenthood facilities in the city.
“Apparently, under the rationale of those who wrote Proposition O, only those who choose abortion deserve protection from those who might attack them for their reproductive health choices,” Schmalz wrote.
According to the “Yes on San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act” website, the proposition also aims to establish that “city funds only support comprehensive reproductive health service providers.”
According to the “Vote No on San Francisco’s Proposition O” website, the proposition would also “Establish an ‘Abortion Provider Appreciation Day’ in the city.”
