Last month, California State Senate Bill 24 passed the California State Assembly Higher Education Committee.
The bill will require all college campuses in the state to provide access to abortion-inducing drugs on campus, at no cost, to students who are up to 10 weeks pregnant. Well, no cost to the students at the time of abortion, that is.
Former California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2018, saying that it was not necessary since research showed college students already had access to abortion facilities within five to seven miles of their campuses.
The current governor, far-left Gavin Newsom has shown support for the bill and will likely sign it if it reaches his desk.
Surprisingly, not all California colleges and universities are on board with this idea. According to CBS 13 Sacramento, The University of California said:
“…estimates proposed grants would be insufficient to cover costs in the readiness phase (2019-2023). We estimate a funding shortfall of $4.6 to $7.8 million across the 11 UC student health centers. Beginning January 1, 2023, no source of funding is provided in SB 24. Without funding, the student health centers will incur ongoing costs in the range of $2.2 to $3.2 annually. Unless financing is made available post 2023, by the state or foundation, this cost will fall to students.”
The bill only calls for $200,000 in grants to each school’s student health center, which is taxpayer-funded. As you can clearly see, that is just a drop in the bucket. The whole idea is to provide students with the means to kill their babies for free. Just like all other leftist ideas, not only is this not free, but eventually it will end up costing the people of California —even the ones who didn’t ask for it, don’t want it, and oppose it.
The California Family Counsel notes’ the long list of grievances the CSU posed for the bill:
- Equipment costs. Campuses will need to buy equipment to be in compliance. The CSU assumes a cost of $37,556 for ultrasound at each of our campuses (total of $863,788), and additional ongoing maintenance costs.
- Training costs. $10,067 per campus to provide training (total of $231,541).
- Establishing agreements with local hospitals. CSU doctors do not do inpatient care via the CSU, or have hospital admission privileges. Agreements are difficult to negotiate with local hospitals because CSU students are not required to have insurance, and it is unclear who would be responsible for paying the costs associated with the emergency room visit if the student did not have insurance.
- Liability. The CSU’s existing health malpractice insurance would likely cover the costs (settlements, judgments, defense attorney fees and costs), assuming a possibility that underwriters may increase premiums based on the number of claims. For any incident related to SB 24, the CSU would be responsible for the first $5 million of costs. Campus deductibles would range from $35,000 to $900,000, depending on the campus. The remaining costs would be covered by the California State University Risk Management Authority (CSURMA) fund, which is a system-wide pool to support all CSU risk financing operations.
- Billing. The CSU does not currently bill insurance, and it would be extremely costly to move to a billing system. While 12 CSU campuses utilize Family PACT, a publicly-funded, family planning clinical services program administered through the Department of Health Care Services, this is not the same as billing Medi-Cal or private insurers. Insurance-billing is not a viable option for CSU health centers.
Yikes. This bill is too extreme even for the notoriously progressive state university system in the notoriously progressive state of California. Let that sink in.
Family Research Council’s Director of Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy, Patrina Mosley, spoke out against this bill in a publication titled, “California’s Campus Abortion Mandate is Bad Model Legislation.” She brings up some really excellent points worth repeating:
“The state of California is vying to be the first state in the nation that would force institutions of education to become abortion facilities–with no safeguards for protecting taxpayer dollars.
“Chemical abortions are traumatic multi-day processes that come with a risk of serious adverse effect. No dormitory community is prepared to handle the liabilities such a mandate creates. The physical and psychological health of women is at considerable risk, and no state should consider it for model legislation.”
Not only is this bill entirely immoral, not only is it unsafe, it is also highly deceptive. Nothing is “free.” Not only will these students still end up footing the bill for on-demand murder on campus, but Californians who morally oppose abortion will too.
California lawmakers have made it clear the fight for abortion is no longer about making sure it is safe, legal, and rare. Abortion on demand is taking on a whole new meaning.
If you are resident of California, please contact your State Assembly member and tell them to vote NO on this immoral bill!
If you appreciate the work we are doing to fight the leftist assault on our values, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!