View source for 2022 California Proposition 1

{{Short description|Successful referendum on enshrining reproductive rights in the state constitution}} 
{{Use American English|date=August 2022}}
{{Infobox referendum
| name                = Proposition 1
| country             = California
| location            = {{Flag|California}}
| date                = {{Start date|2022|11|08}}
| question            = '''Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom'''
| image               =
| image_width         =
| image_alt           =
| caption             =
| yes                 = 7,176,888
| no                  = 3,553,564
| total               = 11,146,620
| invalid             = 416,168
| electorate          = 21,940,274
| map                 = {{switcher
  | [[File:2022 California Proposition 1 results map by county.svg|300px]]
  | County results
  | [[File:2022 California Proposition 1 results map by congressional district.svg|300px]]
  | Congressional district results
  | [[File:2022 California Proposition 1 results map by state senate district.svg|300px]]
  | State senate district results
  | [[File:2022 California Proposition 1 results map by state assembly district.svg|300px]]
  | State assembly district results
  | default = 1}}
| map_size            =
| map_alt             =
| map_division        =
| map_caption         = 
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
'''Yes'''
{{legend|#2B2457|90–100% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#28497C|80–90% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#47729E|70–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-2}}
'''No'''
{{legend|#BCBC83|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#DEDEBD|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-end}}
| map2                =
| map_size2           =
| map_alt2            =
| mapdivision2        =
| mapcaption2         =
| notes               = Source: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230923080420/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/complete.pdf |date=September 23, 2023 |title=Statement of Vote}}
}}
{{ElectionsCA}}

'''Proposition 1''', titled '''Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom''' and initially known as '''Senate Constitutional Amendment&nbsp;10''' ('''SCA&nbsp;10'''), was a [[California ballot proposition]] and state [[constitutional amendment]] that was voted on in the [[2022 California elections|2022 general election]] on {{nobr|November 8}}. Passing with more than {{nobr|two-thirds}} of the vote, the proposition amended the [[Constitution of California]] to explicitly grant the [[Abortion rights|right to an abortion]] and [[contraceptives]], making [[California]] among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by ''[[Politico]]''{{'}}s publishing of a leaked draft [[Court opinion|opinion]] showing the [[United States Supreme Court]] overturning ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]''. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]] protected the right to an abortion.

The proposition was placed on the ballot as a result of a joint effort by California's leading Democrats: Governor [[Gavin Newsom]], [[President pro tempore of the California State Senate|Senate President pro tempore]] [[Toni Atkins]], and Assembly Speaker [[Anthony Rendon (politician)|Anthony Rendon]]. The constitutional amendment passed the [[California State Senate]] in a {{nobr|29–8}} vote on {{nobr|June 20, 2022}}, and the [[California State Assembly]] with a {{nobr|58–17}} vote on June&nbsp;27 – ahead of a June&nbsp;30 deadline to have the amendment voted on in November. On July&nbsp;1, California Secretary of State, [[Shirley Weber]], formally designated the amendment as Proposition&nbsp;1, making the proposed constitutional amendment the first {{nobr|abortion-related}} ballot measure in California since 2008, when [[2008 California Proposition 4|Proposition&nbsp;4]] – an [[Popular initiative|initiative]] that would have imposed a [[waiting period]] on abortions and required [[Parental notification (abortion)|parental notification]] in the case of minors – was rejected.

Polling on Proposition&nbsp;1 consistently showed that {{nobr|two-thirds}} to {{nobr|three-quarters}} of California voters supported the proposition, and suggested that the ballot measure would pass by a wide margin. The ballot measure derived most of its support from the [[California Democratic Party]], [[Feminism|feminists]], medical [[professional organization]]s, [[Labor union|labor unions]], and newspaper [[editorial board]]s. Some supporters said the amendment would codify existing law, and protect Californian women from restrictive abortion policies. Opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1 came from the [[California Republican Party]], some [[Christian]] organizations, and [[Anti-abortion movements|{{nobr|anti-abortion}} groups]]. Part of the opposition argued that the ballot measure would legalize [[Late-term abortion|{{nobr|late-term}} abortion]].

== Background ==
=== Constitutional amendment procedure ===
{{Main|Constitution of California#Amendments and revisions}}
{{See also|#Voting}}

Any [[Constitutional amendment|amendment]] to the [[Constitution of California]] requires the passage of a [[California ballot proposition]] by a simple majority of the voters.<ref name="simple majority">{{CalConst|XVIII|4|}}</ref> A constitutional amendment may be placed on the ballot by either a {{nobr|two-thirds}} vote in the [[California State Legislature]], or though an [[Popular initiative|initiative]] attaining signatures equal to eight percent of the votes cast in the last [[Governor of California|gubernatorial election]] through the exercise of the initiative power by the voters.<ref>{{CalConst|XVIII|1|}}</ref><ref>{{CalConst|II|8|}}</ref>

=== California abortion law ===
{{Further|Abortion in California}}
In the first session of the [[California State Legislature]] in 1850, the legislature passed the Crimes and Punishments Act, which criminalized an abortion in all circumstances except to save a woman's life.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Winchester |first1=J. |title=The Statutes of California, Passed at the First Session of the Legislature |date=1850 |location=San Jose |page=233 |url=https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1850/1850.pdf |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210626175106/https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1850/1850.pdf |archive-date=June 26, 2021 |chapter=Chap. 99}}</ref> The State Legislature amended California's abortion law in 1967 with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, signed by Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] in June, which extended the right to an abortion in cases of rape and incest up to 20 weeks of pregnancy.<ref>{{cite book |title=Statutes of California, Regular Session, 1967 |date=1967 |pages=1521–1522 |url=https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1967/67Vol1_Chapters.pdf |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220809223132/https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1967/67Vol1_Chapters.pdf |archive-date=August 9, 2022 |chapter=Chapter 327}}</ref> In 1969, the [[California Supreme Court]] issued a ruling in ''People v. Belous'' that upheld the right to an abortion and struck down section 274&nbsp;of the [[California Penal Code]], which had defined the punishment for people who provided, supplied, or administered an abortion.<ref name="California created">{{cite news |last1=Hwang |first1=Kristen |title=How California created the nation's easiest abortion access — and why it's poised to go further |url=https://calmatters.org/explainers/abortion-in-california-laws/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=August 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220713112658/https://calmatters.org/explainers/abortion-in-california-laws/ |archive-date=July 13, 2022 |date=June 28, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=People v. Belous |vol=71 |reporter=Cal.2d |opinion=954 |court=[[California Supreme Court]] |date=September 5, 1969 |url=https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-belous-22692 |access-date=August 15, 2022}}</ref> The state voted in 1972 to pass [[1972 California Proposition 11|Proposition&nbsp;11]], which amended the [[Constitution of California|state constitution]] to include a [[right to privacy]].<ref name="Right of privacy">{{cite web |title=RIGHT OF PRIVACY California Proposition&nbsp;11 (1972) |url=https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1761&context=ca_ballot_props |publisher=[[University of California, Hastings College of the Law]] |access-date=September 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021223735/https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1761&context=ca_ballot_props |archive-date=October 21, 2021 |page=2 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Brown |first1=Edmund G. Jr. |author1-link=Jerry Brown |title=Statement of Vote – General election – November 7, 1972 |date=1972 |publisher=California State Printing Office}}</ref> Through Proposition&nbsp;11, the California Supreme Court ruled in ''Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers'' in 1981 that the constitutionally protected right to privacy included the right to choose whether to have an abortion,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers |vol=29 |reporter=Cal.3d |opinion=252 |court=[[California Supreme Court]] |date=March 20, 1981 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/29/252.html |access-date=August 15, 2022}}</ref> preventing [[Medi-Cal]] from restricting abortion coverage.<ref name="California created"/>

In September&nbsp;1987, Governor [[George Deukmejian]] signed Assembly Bill&nbsp;2274, which required [[Emancipation of minors|unemancipated minors]] have [[Minors and abortion|parental consent]] before receiving an abortion, providing an exception for medical emergencies.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gregory |first1=Bion M. |title=Volume 3: Statutes of California and Digests of Measures, 1987 |date=1987 |page=4396 |url=https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1987/87Vol3.PDF |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327101535/https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1987/87Vol3.PDF |archive-date=March 27, 2019 |chapter=Chapter 1237}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gregory |first1=Bion M. |title=Volume 4: Statutes of California and Digests of Measures, 1987 |date=1987 |page=438 |url=https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1987/87Vol4_Chapters.pdf |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161228005649/https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1987/87Vol4_Chapters.pdf |archive-date=December 28, 2016}}</ref> The parental consent law was upheld in 1996 in a {{nobr|4–3}} ruling by the California Supreme Court in ''American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren'', with the majority stating that the constitutional right to privacy did not extend to minors due to them not having the same rights as adults.<ref name="Justices Uphold">{{cite web |last1=Dolan |first1=Maura |title=Justices Uphold Parent Consent in Teen Abortion |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-05-mn-55270-story.html |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816072443/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-05-mn-55270-story.html |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |location=San Francisco |date=April 5, 1996 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren |vol=16 |reporter=Cal. 4th |opinion=307 |court=[[California Supreme Court]] |date=August 5, 1997 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/12/1007.html |access-date=August 15, 2022}}</ref> The following year, the case was reheard after two members of the 1996 majority decision retired and were succeeded by Governor [[Pete Wilson]]'s appointees.<ref name="Law Is Overturned" /> The law was found unconstitutional, with the California Supreme Court ruling that AB&nbsp;2274 violated the right to privacy in the state constitution.<ref name="Law Is Overturned">{{cite journal |last1=Golden |first1=Tim |author1-link=Tim Golden (journalist) |title=Abortion Law Is Overturned in California |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/06/us/abortion-law-is-overturned-in-california.html |journal=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220813014500/https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/06/us/abortion-law-is-overturned-in-california.html |archive-date=August 13, 2022 |date=August 6, 1997 |pages=A12 |pmid=11648060 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren |vol=12 |reporter=Cal. 4th |opinion=1007 |court=[[California Supreme Court]] |date=April 4, 1996 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/16/307.html |access-date=August 16, 2022}}</ref>

In 2002, Governor [[Gray Davis]] signed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which legalized abortion up to [[fetal viability]], whereafter abortions can only be performed if continued pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gregory |first1=Bion M. |title=Volume 2: Statutes of California and Digests of Measures, 2002 |date=2002 |pages=2201–2203 |url=https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/2002/2002_Statutes_1667_Vol_2.pdf |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220815225031/https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/2002/2002_Statutes_1667_Vol_2.pdf |archive-date=August 15, 2022 |chapter=Chapter 386}}</ref> In 2015, Governor [[Jerry Brown]] signed the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, requiring [[crisis pregnancy center]]s to disclose that the state provides [[family planning]] services, [[prenatal care]], and abortion at low to no cost and state that they are unlicensed medical facilities.<ref>{{cite web |title=AB-775 Reproductive FACT Act |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB775 |publisher=California Legislative Information |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810050247if_/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB775 |archive-date=August 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The law was struck down as unconstitutional in a {{nobr|5–4}} ruling in 2018 by the [[United States Supreme Court]] in ''[[National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra]]'', finding that the FACT Act violated the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Totenberg |first1=Nina |last2=McCammon |first2=Sarah |author1-link=Nina Totenberg |author2-link=Sarah McCammon |title=Supreme Court Sides With California Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606427673/supreme-court-sides-with-california-anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers |publisher=[[NPR]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220728172227/https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606427673/supreme-court-sides-with-california-anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers |archive-date=July 28, 2022 |date=June 26, 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2019, Governor [[Gavin Newsom]] signed the College Student Right to Access Act, which required [[Public university|public universities]] to provide [[Medical abortion|abortion medication]] on campus from January&nbsp;2023, the first law of its kind in the United States.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lewis |first1=Sophie |title=California becomes first state to require access to abortion medication at public colleges |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-becomes-first-state-to-require-access-to-abortion-medication-at-public-colleges/ |publisher=[[CBS News]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220711152253/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-becomes-first-state-to-require-access-to-abortion-medication-at-public-colleges/ |archive-date=July 11, 2022 |date=October 11, 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> Newsom's predecessor, Brown, vetoed a similar bill in 2018.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sheeler |first1=Andrew |last2=Koseff |first2=Alexei |title=Abortion pill mandate for California universities vetoed by Brown |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article219003280.html |work=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109154502/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article219003280.html |archive-date=November 9, 2020 |date=October 2, 2018 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref>

In the [[California State Legislature, 2021–2022 session|{{nobr|2021–22}} session]] of the State Legislature, 16 bills were introduced in either the [[California State Assembly|Assembly]] or the [[California State Senate|Senate]] to improve abortion access and legal protections in the state. Before Senate Constitutional Amendment&nbsp;10 passed the legislature, two of the bills had been signed into law by Newsom, eliminating [[Out-of-pocket expense|{{nobr|out-of-pocket}} expenses]] for abortions and protecting Californians from [[civil liability]] cases in states with contradictory abortion laws.<ref name="California created"/> California's move to strengthen abortion rights was part of a broader effort throughout the United States in anticipation of the United States Supreme Court case ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', which would potentially result in the court overturning or weakening ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.<ref name="States Shoring Up">{{cite web |last1=Kilgore |first1=Ed |title=The States Shoring Up Abortion Rights for the End of Roe |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/blue-states-protecting-abortion-rights-end-of-roe.html |work=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |access-date=August 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220809230431/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/blue-states-protecting-abortion-rights-end-of-roe.html |archive-date=August 9, 2022 |date=February 19, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> The legislation and actions taken by Newsom represent California's intention to become a [[Sanctuary city|sanctuary state]] for abortion rights, a term previously used in reference to the state's response to immigration.<ref name="California prepares">{{cite web |last1=Lesnes |first1=Corine |title=California prepares to become a sanctuary state for abortion rights |url=https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/06/25/california-prepares-to-become-a-sanctuary-state-for-abortion-rights_5987950_4.html |work=[[Le Monde]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816125716/https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/06/25/california-prepares-to-become-a-sanctuary-state-for-abortion-rights_5987950_4.html |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |date=June 25, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref>

By the end of the session on August&nbsp;31, the State Legislature passed an additional series of legislation. One bill further protected residents from {{nobr|out-of-state}} litigation related to abortion, prohibiting [[List of law enforcement agencies in California|California law enforcement agencies]] from cooperating with authorities in other states on {{nobr|abortion-related}} investigations in cases where it is legal in California and increasing [[digital privacy]] protections by banning [[tech companies]] from providing the reproductive information they store with authorities enforcing abortion bans. Other legislation imposed limitations on the sharing of [[medical record]]s and ended the requirement for [[coroner]]s to investigate [[Self-induced abortion|{{nobr|self-induced}}]] or criminal abortions or allow prosecution or civil action against people based on a fetal death certificate. The legislation would also allow [[nurse practitioner]]s to carry out the procedure without physician supervision, limit the suspension of licensing and certification of abortion providers, permit {{nobr|out-of-state}} residents access to the Abortion Practical Support Fund to help them obtain abortions, create a website for {{nobr|in-state}} abortion services, and establishing [[Grant (money)|grants]] for providers and programs that assist {{nobr|low-income}} and {{nobr|at-risk}} communities.<ref name="California passes">{{cite web |last1=Stracqualursi |first1=Veronica |title=California passes 'historic' legislative package protecting or expanding abortion access |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics/california-abortion-bills-legislative-package-newsom/index.html |publisher=[[CNN]] |access-date=September 2, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220902045632/https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics/california-abortion-bills-legislative-package-newsom/index.html |archive-date=September 2, 2022 |date=September 1, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> After vetoing AB&nbsp;2320 on September&nbsp;22,<ref name="Newsom signs Cal">{{cite news |last1=Hwang |first1=Kristen |title=Newsom signs abortion protections into law |url=https://calmatters.org/health/2022/09/california-abortion-bills/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=September 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220928002700/https://calmatters.org/health/2022/09/california-abortion-bills/ |archive-date=September 28, 2022 |date=September 27, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Newsom signed 13 of the bills into law on September&nbsp;27.<ref name="Newsom signs LAT">{{cite web |last1=Gutierrez |first1=Melody |title=Newsom signs 13 abortion protection and reproductive health bills |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/newsom-signs-13-abortion-protection-and-reproductive-health-bills |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=October 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005121546/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/newsom-signs-13-abortion-protection-and-reproductive-health-bills |archive-date=October 5, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=September 27, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Previous propositions ===
{{Further|2005 California Proposition 73|2006 California Proposition 85|2008 California Proposition 4}}
In 2005, 2006, and 2008, there were three initiatives – [[2005 California Proposition 73|Proposition&nbsp;73]], [[2006 California Proposition 85|Proposition&nbsp;85]], and [[2008 California Proposition 4|Proposition&nbsp;4]] respectively – that would have established parental notification and a mandatory [[waiting period]] on abortions in California. All three proposals were rejected by the voters.<ref name="Initiatives">{{cite web |title=Initiatives by Title and Summary Year (1912-2020) |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/initiatives-by-title-and-summary-year.pdf |publisher=[[Secretary of State of California]] |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220331234951/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/initiatives-by-title-and-summary-year.pdf |archive-date=March 31, 2022 |pages=54–63 |url-status=live}}</ref> Proposition&nbsp;73 caused concern for its opponents by defining abortion as the "death of the unborn child" instead of using clinical terms such as fetus or embryo.<ref name="Campaign 2005">{{cite web |last1=Lucas |first1=Greg |title=CAMPAIGN 2005 / Prop. 73 -- next battle over abortion rights / Initiative to require doctor to notify a minor's parents |url=https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/CAMPAIGN-2005-Prop-73-next-battle-over-2567367.php |publisher=[[SFGate]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304121040/https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/CAMPAIGN-2005-Prop-73-next-battle-over-2567367.php |archive-date=March 4, 2021 |date=September 29, 2005 |url-status=live}}</ref> When Proposition&nbsp;85 was placed on the ballot in 2006, the proposed constitutional amendment instead defined abortion as "the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy".<ref name="Campaign 2006">{{cite web |last1=Gordon |first1=Rachel |title=CAMPAIGN 2006 / PROPOSITION 85 / Parental notification for abortion back on ballot / Voters rejected a similar measure in election last fall |url=https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/CAMPAIGN-2006-PROPOSITION-85-Parental-2486240.php |publisher=[[SFGate]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210625082104/https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/CAMPAIGN-2006-PROPOSITION-85-Parental-2486240.php |archive-date=June 25, 2021 |date=October 9, 2006 |url-status=live}}</ref> The parental notification initiative underwent another revision before appearing on the 2008 ballot, allowing doctors to notify an adult family member other than the parent if the latter was [[Child abuse|abusive]].<ref name="Sarah's Law">{{cite web |title=Opponents say 'Sarah's Law' deceptive |url=https://abc7.com/archive/6441988/ |publisher=[[KABC-TV]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210925031820/https://abc7.com/archive/6441988/ |archive-date=September 25, 2021 |location=Boyle Heights |date=October 25, 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> The {{nobr|three-time}} effort to establish a parental notification law in California was largely funded by ''[[San Diego Reader]]'' owner Jim Holman and winemaker [[Don Sebastiani]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ainsworth |first1=Bill |title=Abortion notification backers not giving up |url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080414-9999-1n14abort.html |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|{{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080928074543/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080414-9999-1n14abort.html |archive-date=September 28, 2008 |location=Sacramento |date=April 14, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> 2008 marked the last time California voters decided on an {{nobr|abortion-related}} proposition.<ref name="Initiatives"/>

=== Impetus for new proposition ===
{{See also|Abortion in the United States}}
[[File:2020 California State of the State with Newsom, Atkins, and Rendon.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Gavin Newsom]], [[Toni Atkins]], and [[Anthony Rendon (politician)|Anthony Rendon]] jointly called for a constitutional amendment on abortion after the leaked draft opinion of ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization|Dobbs]].'']]
On {{nobr|May 2, 2022}}, ''[[Politico]]'' published a leaked draft opinion of ''Dobbs'', which showed the Supreme Court overturning ''Roe'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' and determining that the federal constitution did not grant a right to an abortion.<ref name="Leaked opinion">{{cite web |last1=Gerstein |first1=Josh |last2=Ward |first2=Alexander |title=Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220807145546/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 |archive-date=August 7, 2022 |date=May 2, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In response to the draft opinion, Newsom, Senate President pro tempore [[Toni Atkins]], and Assembly Speaker [[Anthony Rendon (politician)|Anthony Rendon]] issued a joint statement of their intent to enshrine [[abortion rights]] in the state constitution through an amendment.<ref name="Leaders, Newsom announce">{{cite web |title=Following Draft SCOTUS Opinion, Legislative Leaders and Governor Newsom Announce Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine the Right to Choose in California |url=https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/05/02/following-draft-scotus-opinion-legislative-leaders-and-governor-newsom-announce-constitutional-amendment-to-enshrine-the-right-to-choose-in-california/ |publisher=[[Governor of California]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220802052643/https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/05/02/following-draft-scotus-opinion-legislative-leaders-and-governor-newsom-announce-constitutional-amendment-to-enshrine-the-right-to-choose-in-california/ |archive-date=August 2, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=May 2, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On June&nbsp;24, the Supreme Court overturned ''Roe'' and ''Casey'', with the final opinion being largely similar to the leaked draft opinion.<ref name="Court overturns">{{cite web |last1=de Vogue |first1=Ariane |last2=Sneed |first2=Tierney |last3=Duster |first3=Chandelis |last4=Cole |first4=Devan |title=Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html |publisher=[[CNN]] |access-date=August 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808022133/https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |date=June 24, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Due to the Supreme Court decision and abortion bans in other states, California experienced an increase of patients seeking abortions, with [[Planned Parenthood]] saying that the majority of new patients came from [[Abortion in Texas|Texas]].<ref name="California experiences">{{cite web |last1=Redd |first1=Kandace |title=California experiences an influx of abortion patients from out-of-state |url=https://www.abc10.com/article/news/community/race-and-culture/california-seeing-a-surge-in-patients-coming-from-out-of-state-for-abortion-care/103-4a5409bd-4859-4f95-a5e4-ce8f384cd97e |publisher=[[KXTV]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220712143411/https://www.abc10.com/article/news/community/race-and-culture/california-seeing-a-surge-in-patients-coming-from-out-of-state-for-abortion-care/103-4a5409bd-4859-4f95-a5e4-ce8f384cd97e |archive-date=July 12, 2022 |location=Sacramento County |date=July 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Just weeks after ''Roe''{{'}}s reversal, Planned Parenthood experienced an 847% increase in Arizona patients, with most {{nobr|out-of-state}} patients traveling along {{nobr|[[Interstate 8]]}} in [[Southern California]] and lengthening wait times at a Planned Parenthood clinic in [[El Centro, California|El Centro]].<ref name="More out-of-state">{{cite web |last1=Dickerson |first1=Karma |title=More out-of-state patients begin arriving in California for reproductive health services |url=https://fox40.com/news/fox40-focus/out-of-state-patients-reproductive-health-abortion-california/ |publisher=[[KTXL]] |access-date=September 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921234511/https://fox40.com/news/fox40-focus/out-of-state-patients-reproductive-health-abortion-california/ |archive-date=September 21, 2022 |date=September 20, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> With abortion [[Abortion in Arizona|banned]] in Arizona, some of the state's abortion providers stated their plans on opening clinics on the western side of the state border in California.<ref name="Arizona abortion providers">{{cite web |last1=Wright |first1=Anthony |title=Arizona abortion providers looking to set up shop in California |url=https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/arizona-abortion-providers-looking-to-set-up-shop-in-california |publisher=[[KERO-TV]] |access-date=September 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930201806/https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/arizona-abortion-providers-looking-to-set-up-shop-in-california |archive-date=September 30, 2022 |date=September 28, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> According to the [[Guttmacher Institute]], the number of patients seeking abortions in California could increase from 46,000 to 1.4&nbsp;million on an annual basis.<ref name="California experiences"/> The [[UCLA School of Law]] Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy made a more conservative estimate, approximating that 10,600 more people will come to California for abortion services each year.<ref name="People Traveling">{{cite web |last1=Sears |first1=Brad |last2=Cohen |first2=Cathren |last3=Stemple |first3=Lara |title=People Traveling to California and Los Angeles for Abortion Care if Roe v. Wade is Overturned |url=https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Center_on_Reproductive_Health/California_Abortion_Estimates.pdf |publisher=[[UCLA School of Law]] Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy |access-date=September 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220902203737/https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Center_on_Reproductive_Health/California_Abortion_Estimates.pdf |archive-date=September 2, 2022 |date=June 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

California was one of six US states that voted on an {{nobr|abortion-related}} ballot measure in 2022, the most to occur in the US in a single year, with votes also occurring in [[2022 Kansas abortion referendum|Kansas]], [[2022 Kentucky Amendment 2|Kentucky]], [[2022 Michigan Proposal 3|Michigan]], [[2022 Montana Legislative Referendum 131|Montana]], and [[2022 Vermont Proposal 5|Vermont]]. Of the six, three – California, Michigan, and Vermont – asked voters to enshrine the right to an abortion in their respective state constitutions, while the other states worked to implement restrictive abortion policies.<ref name="Abortion battleground">{{cite web |last1=Weixel |first1=Nathaniel |title=State ballot measures are new abortion battleground |url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3608609-state-ballot-measures-are-new-abortion-battleground/ |work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |access-date=August 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220821203818/https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3608609-state-ballot-measures-are-new-abortion-battleground/ |archive-date=August 21, 2022 |date=August 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On August&nbsp;2, Kansas voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have stated that the [[Wyandotte Constitution|state constitution]] did not grant the right to an abortion.<ref name="Voters in Kansas">{{cite web |last1=Lysen |first1=Dylan |last2=Ziegler |first2=Laura |last3=Mesa |first3=Blaise |title=Voters in Kansas decide to keep abortion legal in the state, rejecting an amendment |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment |publisher=[[NPR]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814212717/https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |location=Lawrence |date=August 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> There was uncertainty whether abortion rights would be put to a vote in Michigan, with the initiative having collected more than 700,000 signatures, the most for any petition in state history, as the Michigan Board of State Canvassers rejected the initiative in a {{nobr|2–2}} vote split between Democrats and Republicans on August&nbsp;31.<ref>{{cite web |title=Michigan election board rejects ballot initiative to protect abortion rights |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-rights-michigan-ballot-initiative-election-board/ |website=[[CBS News]] |publisher=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=August 31, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831165953/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-rights-michigan-ballot-initiative-election-board/ |archive-date=August 31, 2022 |date=August 31, 2022}}</ref> On September&nbsp;8, the [[Michigan Supreme Court]] ordered the Board of State Canvassers to certify the initiative and place it on the ballot in a {{nobr|5–2}} decision,<ref name="Michigan Supreme Court">{{cite web |last1=Van Gilder |first1=Rachel |title=Michigan Supreme Court says abortion question must go on ballot |url=https://www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/michigan-supreme-court-says-abortion-question-must-go-on-ballot/ |publisher=[[WOOD-TV]] |access-date=September 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220908215622/https://www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/michigan-supreme-court-says-abortion-question-must-go-on-ballot/ |archive-date=September 8, 2022 |location=Grand Rapids |date=September 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> which the board did the next day on September&nbsp;9.<ref name="Voters in Michigan">{{cite web |last1=Wang |first1=Frances Kai-Hwa |author1-link=Frances Kai-Hwa Wang |title=Voters in Michigan will decide whether to protect abortion this November |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voters-in-michigan-will-decide-whether-to-protect-abortion-this-november |publisher=[[PBS]] |access-date=September 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220911234508/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voters-in-michigan-will-decide-whether-to-protect-abortion-this-november |archive-date=September 11, 2022 |date=September 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Legislative process ==

=== Proposed constitutional changes ===

The constitutional amendment would add Section&nbsp;1.1 to Article&nbsp;I of the state constitution to read:<ref name="SCA 10">{{cite web |title=Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 10 |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-10.pdf |publisher=[[Secretary of State of California]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220710211659/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-10.pdf |archive-date=July 10, 2022 |date=June 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

{{Quote frame|The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section&nbsp;1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section&nbsp;7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.}}

=== Senate ===
{{external media|float=right|video1=[https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-judiciary-committee-20220614/video Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on {{nobr|June 14, 2022}}] (1:46:20–2:45:21)|video2=[https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-elections-constitutional-amendments-committee-20220614/video Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee hearing on {{nobr|June 14, 2022}}]|video3=[https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-appropriations-committee-20220616/video Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on {{nobr|June 16, 2022}}] (0:02:38–0:18:44)|video4=[https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-floor-session-20220620/video Senate floor session on {{nobr|June 20, 2022}}] (1:26:24–1:51:00)}}
[[File:SCA 10 Senate Debate (2022).webm|thumb|left|[[California State Senate|Senate]] debate and vote on SCA&nbsp;10, {{nobr|June 20, 2022}}]]
[[File:Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 Senate voting map.svg|thumb|Result of the [[California State Senate|Senate]] vote by district<br />{{Legend0|#01387b|For}} {{Legend0|#feda00|Against}} {{Legend0|#808080|Did not vote}}]]
On {{nobr|June 8, 2022}}, Atkins introduced [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA10 Senate Constitutional Amendment&nbsp;10 (SCA 10)], {{nobr|co-authored}} by Rendon and other [[California Democratic Party|state Democrats]] to codify a constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Atkins stated that SCA&nbsp;10 would codify abortion and contraception protections that already existed in California state law. For the constitutional amendment to appear on the [[2022 California elections|November&nbsp;2022 ballot]], it had to receive a {{nobr|two-thirds}} vote in both houses of the legislature by June&nbsp;30.<ref name="Leaders move">{{cite web |last1=Gutierrez |first1=Melody |title=California leaders move to enshrine abortion, contraceptive rights in state Constitution |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-08/california-leaders-move-to-enshrine-abortion-contraceptive-rights-in-state-constitution |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220807130110/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-08/california-leaders-move-to-enshrine-abortion-contraceptive-rights-in-state-constitution |archive-date=August 7, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=June 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

SCA&nbsp;10 moved through the legislative process at an unusually fast pace.<ref name="How far along">{{cite web |last1=Porter |first1=Jacque |title=How far along in the process is California's constitutional amendment related to abortion access? |url=https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/how-far-along-in-the-process-is-californias-constitutional-amendment-related-to-abortion-access/ |publisher=[[KTXL]] |access-date=September 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220629105614/https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/how-far-along-in-the-process-is-californias-constitutional-amendment-related-to-abortion-access/ |archive-date=June 29, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=June 24, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On June&nbsp;14, SCA&nbsp;10 passed in a {{nobr|9–1}} vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the lone opposition vote coming from a [[California Republican Party|Republican]].<ref name="Lawmakers fast-track">{{cite web |last1=Zavala |first1=Ashley |title=California lawmakers fast-track bill on abortion, contraception |url=https://fox40.com/inside-california-politics/california-lawmakers-fast-track-bill-on-abortion-contraception/ |website=[[KTXL]] |publisher=[[Nexstar Media Group]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220622174342/https://fox40.com/inside-california-politics/california-lawmakers-fast-track-bill-on-abortion-contraception/ |archive-date=June 22, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=June 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The proposed amendment also passed the Senate Elections and Amendments Committee in a {{nobr|3–1}} vote on the same day.<ref name="PP ICYMI">{{cite web |last1=Richards |first1=June |title=ICYMI: Constitutional Amendment Legislation Sails Through First Two California Senate Hearings |url=https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-affiliates-california/media/icymi-constitutional-amendment-legislation-sails-through-first-t |publisher=[[Planned Parenthood]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707114739/https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-affiliates-california/media/icymi-constitutional-amendment-legislation-sails-through-first-t |archive-date=July 7, 2022 |date=June 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On June&nbsp;16, SCA&nbsp;10 passed {{nobr|5–2}} in the Senate Appropriations Committee. After having cleared the committees the amendment was assigned to, the Senate voted {{nobr|29–8}} on June 20 to pass SCA&nbsp;10, which occurred along [[Party line (politics)|party lines]]. Democratic senators [[Bob Archuleta]] and [[Bob Wieckowski]] and Republican senator [[Andreas Borgeas]] did not record a vote on the amendment.<ref name="SCA 10 votes">{{cite web |title=SCA-10 Reproductive freedom. |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA10 |publisher=California Legislative Information |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808031544/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA10 |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On June&nbsp;29, the Senate voted {{nobr|28–8}} to pass Senate Bill&nbsp;131, which required the [[California Secretary of State]] to designate SCA&nbsp;10 as Proposition&nbsp;1 on the ballot of the upcoming election.<ref name="SB-131 text">{{cite web |title={{nobr|SB-131}} November 8, 2022, statewide general election: ballot measures. (Text) |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB131 |publisher=California Legislative Information |access-date=September 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916011759if_/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB131 |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="SB-131 votes">{{cite web |title={{nobr|SB-131}} November 8, 2022, statewide general election: ballot measures. (Votes) |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB131 |access-date=September 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916011818if_/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB131 |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{Clear left}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width:50%"
|+ Senate Constitutional Amendment&nbsp;10 – Vote in the Senate ({{nobr|June 20, 2022}})<ref name="SCA 10 votes"/>
|-
! colspan="2" | Party
! style="width:20%;" | Votes for
! style="width:20%;" | Votes against
! style="width:20%;" | Not voting
|-
| {{party name with colour|California Democratic Party}} (31)
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''29'''
| –
| '''2'''
|-
| {{party name with colour|California Republican Party}} (9)
| –
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''8'''
| '''1'''
|-
! colspan="2" | Total (40)
! 29
! 8
! 3
|}

=== Assembly ===
[[File:SCA 10 Assembly Debate (2022).webm|thumb|left|[[California State Assembly|Assembly]] debate and vote on SCA&nbsp;10, {{nobr|June 27, 2022}}]]
{{external media|float=right|video1=[https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/assembly-judiciary-committee-20220623/video Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing on {{nobr|June 23, 2022}}]|video2=[https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/assembly-floor-session-20220627/video Assembly floor session on {{nobr|June 27, 2022}}] (1:38:09–2:36:52)}}
[[File:Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 Assembly voting map.svg|thumb|Result of the [[California State Assembly|Assembly]] vote by district<br />{{Legend0|#01387b|For}} {{Legend0|#feda00|Against}} {{Legend0|#808080|Did not vote}}]]
On June&nbsp;23, the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the amendment in a {{nobr|7–2}} vote. On June&nbsp;27, the Assembly voted {{nobr|58–17}} to pass SCA&nbsp;10,<ref name="SCA 10 votes"/> allowing the amendment to be put to a vote before California voters in the general election.<ref name="Voters to decide">{{cite web |last1=Flores |first1=Hilda |title=California voters to decide on enshrining abortion protections into state constitution |url=https://www.kcra.com/article/california-voters-abortion-protections-state-constitution/40437448# |publisher=[[KCRA-TV|KCRA]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707070618/https://www.kcra.com/article/california-voters-abortion-protections-state-constitution/40437448 |archive-date=July 7, 2022 |date=June 27, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> During the Assembly debate, Republican assemblymember [[Kevin Kiley (politician)|Kevin Kiley]] asked whether the constitutional amendment would change limitations on abortion past viability. After a 30 second pause, Rendon quietly spoke with other Democratic assemblymembers and asked for the question to be restated, thereafter promising to answer Kiley's question another time. The question remained unanswered.<ref name="V Word"/> [[Suzette Martinez Valladares]] was the only Republican to vote in favor of SCA&nbsp;10, with her justification being, "While I am personally {{nobr|[[pro-life]]}} with exceptions, I believe that voters should have a choice in deciding this issue in November."<ref name="Abortion rights land">{{cite web |last1=Colliver |first1=Victoria |title=Abortion rights land on California's November ballot |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/27/abortion-rights-california-november-ballot-00042668 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=August 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220720035013/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/27/abortion-rights-california-november-ballot-00042668 |archive-date=July 20, 2022 |date=June 27, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Democratic assemblymembers [[Ken Cooley]], [[Tim Grayson]], and [[Robert Rivas (politician)|Robert Rivas]], Republican assemblymember [[Phillip Chen]], and independent assemblymember [[Chad Mayes]] did not record a vote.<ref name="SCA 10 votes"/> On June&nbsp;29, the Assembly passed SB&nbsp;131 in a {{nobr|60–17}} vote, sending the bill to the governor, who approved the legislation the next day, making certain SCA&nbsp;10's designation as Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="SB-131 votes"/><ref name="SB-131 history">{{cite web |title={{nobr|SB-131}} November 8, 2022, statewide general election: ballot measures. (History) |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB131 |access-date=September 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916011814if_/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB131 |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
{{Clear left}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width:50%"
|+ Senate Constitutional Amendment&nbsp;10 – Vote in the Assembly ({{nobr|June 27, 2022}})<ref name="SCA 10 votes"/>
|-
! colspan="2" | Party
! style="width:20%;" | Votes for
! style="width:20%;" | Votes against
! style="width:20%;" | Not voting
|-
| {{party name with colour|California Democratic Party}} (60) 
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''57'''
| –
| '''3'''
|-
| {{party name with colour|California Republican Party}} (19)
| '''1'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''17'''
| '''1'''
|-
| {{party name with colour|Independent politician}} (1)
| –
| –
| style="background:#eee; color:#000;" | '''1'''
|-
! colspan="2" | Total (80)
! 58
! 17
! 5
|}

== Campaign ==

=== Designation and legislative analysis ===

On {{nobr|July 1, 2022}}, [[Secretary of State of California|California Secretary of State]] [[Shirley Weber]] designated SCA&nbsp;10 as Proposition&nbsp;1 for the [[2022 California elections|November 2022 election]], being one of seven ballot propositions in the general election.<ref name="Weber Assigns">{{cite web |title=Secretary of State Shirley Weber Assigns Numbers to November Ballot Measures, Invites Ballot Arguments |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2022-news-releases-and-advisories/proposition-numbers |publisher=[[Secretary of State of California]] |access-date=August 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220802180825/https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2022-news-releases-and-advisories/proposition-numbers |archive-date=August 2, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=July 1, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The constitutional amendment's designation as Proposition&nbsp;1 was pursuant to the requirement in SB&nbsp;131.<ref name="SB-131 text"/> Proposition&nbsp;1 was later given the ballot title "Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom" by July&nbsp;8.<ref name="Ballot title">{{cite web |title=Ballot title and summary |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-title-summary.pdf |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814064845/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-title-summary.pdf |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |date=July 8, 2022 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

For the voter information guide provided by the Secretary of State, the [[California Legislative Analyst's Office|Legislative Analyst's Office]] (LAO) did not find that Proposition&nbsp;1 had any fiscal effect, unless a court interpreted the proposition as expanding reproductive rights beyond existing law. The LAO also explained the effect of voting yes or no, which as follows:<ref name="LAO">{{cite web |title=Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2022 |publisher=[[California Legislative Analyst's Office|Legislative Analyst's Office]] |access-date=August 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220811065318/https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2022 |archive-date=August 11, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

{{Quote frame|A '''YES''' vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom—such as the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives.<br />A '''NO''' vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would not be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom. These rights, however, would continue to exist under other state law.}}

=== Arguments and rebuttals ===

The official argument in favor of Proposition&nbsp;1 was {{nobr|co-written}} by Shannon {{nobr|Udovic-Constant}}, Jodi Hicks, and Carol Moon Goldberg, each representing the [[California Medical Association]], the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the [[League of Women Voters]] of California respectively. In their argument, they wrote, in part, that "a person's right to an abortion or contraceptives should be protected in California".<ref name="Argument in favor">{{cite web |title=Argument in favor of Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-arg-in-favor.pdf |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814023515/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-arg-in-favor.pdf |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

California Alliance Pregnancy Care executive director Allison Martinez, [[Pacific Justice Institute]] president Brad Dacus, and [[gynecologist]] Vansen Wong {{nobr|co-wrote}} the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Proposition&nbsp;1, stating that the constitutional amendment was unnecessary in protecting abortion rights and focusing on the cost to taxpayers.<ref name="Rebuttal to favor">{{cite web |title=Rebuttal to argument in favor of Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-rebut-arg-in-favor.pdf |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814030103/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-rebut-arg-in-favor.pdf |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

The official argument against Proposition&nbsp;1 was {{nobr|co-written}} by gynecologist Anne Marie Adams, International Faith Based Coalition president Tak Allen, and Assemblymember [[Jim Patterson (California politician)|Jim Patterson]], which stated in part, "Proposition&nbsp;1 is an extreme, expensive, and pointless waste of tax money that will allow urestricted [[Late-term abortions|{{nobr|late-term}} abortions]] costing taxpayers millions."<ref name="Argument against">{{cite web |title=Argument against Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-arg-against.pdf |publisher=[[Secretary of State of California]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220729165816/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-arg-against.pdf |archive-date=July 29, 2022 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Rebutting the argument against Proposition&nbsp;1 were [[California Nurses Association]] president Sandy Reding, [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] District&nbsp;IX chair Kelly McCue, and UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy faculty director Cary Franklin, who wrote that "[e]xisting California law provides that women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability, or to protect the woman's life or health. Proposition&nbsp;1 will not change that."<ref name="Rebuttal to against">{{cite web |title=Rebuttal to argument against Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-rebut-arg-against.pdf |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814030222/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-1-rebut-arg-against.pdf |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Discussion on effects ===

[[Michele Goodwin]], a professor at the [[University of California, Irvine]], said the amendment would give legal opportunities to people who are denied contraceptives. [[University of Southern California]] professor {{ill|Dima Qato|ar|ديمة القطو}} offered support and criticism of Proposition&nbsp;1, "We don't need more laws when we don't address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in [{{nobr|low-income}} and minority] communities."<ref name="Measure goes">{{cite web |last1=Bluth |first1=Rachel |title=Abortion measure goes before California voters |url=https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/08/04/in-california-abortion-could-become-a-constitutional-right-so-could-birth-control/ |website=[[Santa Cruz Sentinel]] |publisher=[[Kaiser Health News]] |access-date=August 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810093513/https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/08/04/in-california-abortion-could-become-a-constitutional-right-so-could-birth-control/ |archive-date=August 10, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=August 6, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> On June&nbsp;22, [[UC Berkeley School of Law]] senior research fellow Allison Macbeth and [[UC Hastings College of Law]] student and ''[[Hastings Law Journal]]'' editor Elizabeth Bernal warned that the effects of constitutional amendment could be overturned in a case similar to ''Dobbs'' if the proposed amendment's language does not specify that it codifies the rulings made in ''Roe'', ''Casey'', and ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]''.<ref name="Fatal flaw">{{cite web |last1=Macbeth |first1=Allison |last2=Bernal |first2=Elizabeth |title=Fix the fatal flaw in SCA 10 |url=http://scocablog.com/fix-the-fatal-flaw-in-sca-10/ |publisher=SCOCAblog |access-date=August 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220702154926/http://scocablog.com/fix-the-fatal-flaw-in-sca-10/ |archive-date=July 2, 2022 |date=June 22, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center countered Macbeth and Bernal in stating that California's [[direct democracy]] imposes limitations on the [[Judiciary of California|state judiciary]] in overturning the constitutional amendment, writing that "further initiatives and [[retention election]]s are potent threats to courts that ignore majority preferences."<ref name="Good enough">{{cite web |title=Proposition&nbsp;1 is good enough |url=http://scocablog.com/proposition-1-is-good-enough/ |publisher=SCOCAblog |access-date=August 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220823194339/http://scocablog.com/proposition-1-is-good-enough/ |archive-date=August 23, 2022 |date=August 23, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Zócalo Public Square columnist Joe Mathews wrote in the ''[[Ventura County Star]]'' on August&nbsp;11 that Proposition&nbsp;1 represented an unnecessary risk, stating that "[s]ome freedoms are so fundamental that we shouldn't let the people vote to take them away."<ref name="Mathews">{{cite web |last1=Mathews |first1=Joe |title=California's abortion ballot measure is an unnecessary risk |url=https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/08/11/californias-abortion-ballot-measure-unnecessary-risk/10298742002/ |work=[[Ventura County Star]] |access-date=August 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220812065515/https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/08/11/californias-abortion-ballot-measure-unnecessary-risk/10298742002/ |archive-date=August 12, 2022 |date=August 11, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Campaign strategy ====

On June&nbsp;24, ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]''{{'}}s Sophia Bollag found that Republican candidates campaigning for statewide office in California were largely quiet about abortion rights and the effort to codify those rights into the state constitution.<ref name="California candidates">{{cite web |last1=Bollag |first1=Sophia |title=These California candidates oppose abortion rights or won't say where they stand |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-candidates-opposing-abortion-17263279.php |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=August 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220714060304/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-candidates-opposing-abortion-17263279.php |archive-date=July 14, 2022 |date=June 24, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> On the hesitance of Republican politicians to discuss abortion, [[Fullerton College]] professor Jodi Balma told the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', "I think Republicans in California would like to pretend [the abortion issue] doesn't exist."<ref name="Facing voter backlash">{{cite web |last1=Goodman |first1=Jasper |title=Facing voter backlash, California Republicans recalibrate their antiabortion stance |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-08-29/california-congressional-republicans-recalibrate-abortion-stance |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=August 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230814054110/https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-08-29/california-congressional-republicans-recalibrate-abortion-stance |archive-date=August 14, 2023 |date=August 29, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> The move by California Republicans to avoid discussing abortion followed a national strategy to keep {{nobr|anti-abortion}} positions absent from campaign websites and mailers while focusing on issues such as [[2021–2022 inflation surge|inflation]], [[Crime in California|crime]], [[Education in California|education]], and [[Homelessness in California|homelessness]].<ref name="Many California GOP">{{cite web |last1=Holden |first1=Lindsey |title=Many California GOP candidates are against abortion. They just don't like to talk about it |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article266867726.html |work=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=October 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221007032909/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article266867726.html |archive-date=October 7, 2022 |date=October 6, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> Janie Har of the [[Associated Press]] wrote on October&nbsp;14 that Proposition&nbsp;1 faced "minimal financial opposition from the [[California Republican Party]]."<ref name="California to vote">{{cite web |last1=Har |first1=Janie |title=California to vote on constitutional right to abortion |url=https://apnews.com/article/abortion-voting-rights-2022-midterm-elections-us-supreme-court-health-609602f2c648a9cafe3f8504aa7ea592 |publisher=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=October 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221014194557/https://apnews.com/article/abortion-voting-rights-2022-midterm-elections-us-supreme-court-health-609602f2c648a9cafe3f8504aa7ea592 |archive-date=October 14, 2022 |location=San Francisco |date=October 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Al Jazeera Media Network|Al Jazeera]] described the party as having "largely resigned itself to the measure's likely passage."<ref name="California voters expected">{{cite web |title=California voters expected to pass abortion rights measure |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/14/california-voters-expected-to-pass-abortion-rights-measure |publisher=[[Al Jazeera Media Network|Al Jazeera]] |access-date=October 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221014203731/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/14/california-voters-expected-to-pass-abortion-rights-measure |archive-date=October 14, 2022 |date=October 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Political Data Inc. vice president Paul Mitchell noted that California Democrats campaigned differently from the norm, stating, "Across the ticket, Democrats...employed a unique strategy — campaigning for abortion rights instead of campaigning for themselves."<ref name="Abortion rights starred"/>

==== Viability ====

On June&nbsp;27, [[Southern California News Group]] columnist Susan Shelley wrote that the amendment could overwrite existing statutory laws that impose limits on abortion, "If SCA&nbsp;10 is adopted, the 'except' language in current law could be interpreted by a court as an unconstitutional infringement of the 'fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.'"<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shelley |first1=Susan |title=Does the Legislature know what it's doing with the abortion amendment? |url=https://www.ocregister.com/2022/06/25/does-the-legislature-know-what-its-doing-with-the-abortion-amendment/ |work=[[The Orange County Register]] |access-date=September 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627173657/https://www.ocregister.com/2022/06/25/does-the-legislature-know-what-its-doing-with-the-abortion-amendment/ |archive-date=June 27, 2022 |date=June 27, 2022 |url-access=registration |url-status=live}}</ref> In an opinion article for the ''Los Angeles Times'' on July&nbsp;14, political columnist George Skelton wrote that Proposition&nbsp;1 could be interpreted as expanding abortion rights to include {{nobr|late-term}} abortion instead of the authors' view that the proposition codifies existing state law into the constitution. Skelton stated that the "drafters should have made clear in the measure's language that it was permissible to limit abortion after a fetus reaches viability."<ref name="Skelton">{{cite web |last1=Skelton |first1=George |title=Column: Would California's abortion ballot measure allow {{nobr|late-term}} abortions? Its author says no |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-14/skelton-california-abortion-ballot-measure-constitutional-amendment |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=August 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220811002402/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-14/skelton-california-abortion-ballot-measure-constitutional-amendment |archive-date=August 11, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=July 14, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> [[UC Davis School of Law]] professor [[Mary Ziegler]] said that Proposition&nbsp;1 "opens the door" to [[judicial interpretation]] as to whether the constitutional amendment changes existing viability limits on abortion in California.<ref name="V Word">{{cite web |last1=Dembosky |first1=April |title=The V Word: Proposition&nbsp;1 Revives Historic Abortion Debate Over 'Viability' in California |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11927597/the-v-word-proposition-1-revives-historic-abortion-debate-over-viability-in-california |publisher=[[KQED Inc.|KQED]] |access-date=October 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005043810/https://www.kqed.org/news/11927597/the-v-word-proposition-1-revives-historic-abortion-debate-over-viability-in-california |archive-date=October 5, 2022 |date=October 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> If Proposition&nbsp;1 removes the viability limit, California would become the seventh state to have no such limit, joining [[Abortion in Alaska|Alaska]], [[Abortion in Colorado|Colorado]], [[Abortion in New Jersey|New Jersey]], [[Abortion in New Mexico|New Mexico]], [[Abortion in Oregon|Oregon]], and [[Abortion in Vermont|Vermont]] along with [[Abortion in Washington, D.C.|Washington, D.C.]] in that regard.<ref name="States with Gestational Limits">{{cite web |title=States with Gestational Limits for Abortion |url=https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D |publisher=[[Kaiser Family Foundation]] |access-date=October 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221018162805/https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D |archive-date=October 18, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

UC Berkeley law school dean [[Erwin Chemerinsky]] argued that Proposition&nbsp;1 would not change the existing state law on viability, "Rights are not absolute even if enumerated. Free speech is an example. The same would be true of abortion rights." [[Loyola Law School]] professor Brietta Clark made a similar statement, saying that {{nobr|"[t]he}} state will still be able to regulate abortion...[as c]onstitutional rights are never absolute."<ref name="Backers challenge">{{cite news |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |title={{nobr|Prop. 1}} backers challenge claims that California ballot measure would remove all abortion restrictions |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prop-1-backers-challenge-claims-that-California-17542550.php |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=October 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221029030245/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prop-1-backers-challenge-claims-that-California-17542550.php |archive-date=October 29, 2022 |date=October 28, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Kimberly {{nobr|West-Faulcon}}, a fellow professor at Loyola, reached the same conclusion.<ref name="AP factcheck">{{cite web |last1=Massara |first1=Graph |last2=Phan |first2=Karena |title=California Prop 1 wouldn't legalize abortion until 'moment of birth' |url=https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-prop-1-abortion-517279250527 |publisher=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=November 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221105161606/https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-prop-1-abortion-517279250527 |archive-date=November 5, 2022 |date=November 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Melissa Murray (academic)|Melissa Murray]], a [[New York University]] law professor, said that the courts were unlikely to interpret Proposition&nbsp;1 as allowing abortion without restrictions, and the constitutional amendment was more likely to prevent future legislatures from imposing "unnecessary restrictions like the requirement of an ultrasound."<ref name="Experts say">{{cite web |last1=Gutierrez |first1=Melody |title=California Politics: What constitutional law experts say about the abortion ballot measure |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-10-14/california-politics-abortion-measure-gas-taxes-ca-politics |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=October 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221014201307/https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-10-14/california-politics-abortion-measure-gas-taxes-ca-politics |archive-date=October 14, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=October 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Santa Clara University School of Law]] professor Margaret Russell said that the courts could not disregard the intentions of Proposition&nbsp;1's authors, who stated that the language was a reaffirmation of existing law rather than a [[bait-and-switch]].<ref name="Legal experts say no">{{cite news |last1=Koseff |first1=Alexei |title=Would {{nobr|Prop. 1}} allow abortions after fetal viability? Legal experts say no |url=https://calmatters.org/politics/election-2022/2022/10/california-abortion-law-prop-1/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=October 31, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221031183441/https://calmatters.org/politics/election-2022/2022/10/california-abortion-law-prop-1/ |archive-date=October 31, 2022 |date=October 31, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Voter turnout ====

US President [[Joe Biden]] and his strategists watched Proposition&nbsp;1 and initiatives in other states to craft a national strategy to protect abortion rights as voters had done in Kansas, where the [[Democratic National Committee]] conducted digital [[canvassing]] to [[get out the vote]].<ref name="New Biden">{{cite web |last1=Bose |first1=Nandita |title=Exclusive: New Biden abortion rights push addresses both women and men |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-white-house-pushes-three-part-plan-abortion-rights-2022-08-16/ |publisher=[[Reuters]] |access-date=August 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220828082940/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-white-house-pushes-three-part-plan-abortion-rights-2022-08-16/ |archive-date=August 28, 2022 |location=Washington |date=August 16, 2022 |url-access=registration |url-status=live}}</ref> Multiple writers, such as Ed Kilgore for ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'', [[Ronald Brownstein]] for ''[[The Atlantic]]'', and Jeremy White for ''Politico'', wrote that [[voter turnout]] for Proposition&nbsp;1 could adversely affect the electoral performance of Republican congresspeople such as [[Ken Calvert]], [[Mike Garcia (politician)|Mike Garcia]], [[Young Kim]], [[Michelle Steel]], and [[David Valadao]] in the [[2022 United States House of Representatives elections in California|2022 election]] for the [[United States House of Representatives]],<ref name="Abortion Could Define">{{cite web |last1=Brownstein |first1=Ronald |author1-link=Ron Brownstein |title=Abortion Could Define California's Elections |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/09/how-abortion-will-impact-california-midterms/671319/ |work=[[The Atlantic]] |access-date=September 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905162055/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/09/how-abortion-will-impact-california-midterms/671319/ |archive-date=September 5, 2022 |date=September 2, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Jeremy B. |title=Five House races in California where abortion could be the difference |url=https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/09/five-house-races-in-california-where-abortion-could-be-the-difference-00057023 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=September 17, 2022 |location=Oakland |date=September 16, 2022 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=September 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171710/https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/09/five-house-races-in-california-where-abortion-could-be-the-difference-00057023 |url-status=live }}</ref> with Kilgore writing that "[k]eeping these seats in the GOP column (much less flipping Democratic ones) will be a lot harder than it might have been had the Supreme Court not abolished federal constitutional abortion rights."<ref name="Focus on Abortion">{{cite web |last1=Kilgore |first1=Ed |title=Focus on Abortion Rights Can Help Blue-State Democrats Too |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/08/focus-on-abortion-rights-can-help-blue-state-democrats-too.html |work=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |access-date=August 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827160559/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/08/focus-on-abortion-rights-can-help-blue-state-democrats-too.html |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |date=August 27, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> Ben Christopher wrote in a CalMatters newsletter on September&nbsp;15 that Proposition&nbsp;1 "serves a political purpose...[as] putting abortion on the ballot in 2022 tends to draw Democrats to the ballot."<ref name="Prop politics">{{cite news |last1=Christopher |first1=Ben |title=Newsom gets his court |url=https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2022/09/california-care-court-newsom/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=September 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916011417/https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2022/09/california-care-court-newsom/ |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |date=September 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Robin Swanson, a Democratic political strategist, told [[CapRadio]] that Democratic spending on Proposition&nbsp;1 was part of an effort to increase female turnout and play a deciding factor in the state's competitive elections.<ref name="Poised to pass">{{cite web |last1=Nixon |first1=Nicole |title=California's pro-abortion ballot measure is poised to pass. So why are Democrats spending so much time and money on it? |url=https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/10/17/californias-pro-abortion-ballot-measure-is-poised-to-pass-so-why-are-democrats-spending-so-much-time-and-money-on-it/ |publisher=[[CapRadio]] |access-date=October 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221018010641/https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/10/17/californias-pro-abortion-ballot-measure-is-poised-to-pass-so-why-are-democrats-spending-so-much-time-and-money-on-it/ |archive-date=October 18, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=October 17, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Some commentators, such as Republican political strategist Rob Stutzman, argued that Proposition&nbsp;1 could have unintended consequences for the Democrats, with Stutzman stating, "Newsom talking about California as a sanctuary state for abortions...may not sit well with more [[Political moderate|moderate voters]]." Richard Temple, the No campaign's chief political strategist, said, "[''Dobbs''] has opened up questions about abortions in large and small ways, and there are voters in the state, including Democratic voters, who differentiate on the issue in these ways."<ref name="Abortion measure brings">{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Scott |title=Abortion measure brings a hint of uncertainty to California's midterms |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/09/abortion-proposition-california-midterms/ |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=October 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221010025205/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/09/abortion-proposition-california-midterms/ |archive-date=October 10, 2022 |location=Santa Clarita |date=October 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> No campaign spokesperson Catherine Hadro argued that the possibility of fetal viability limitations being overturned by Proposition&nbsp;1 would help defeat the ballot measure.<ref name="Poised to pass"/> Hicks acknowledged that the short time frame in which Proposition&nbsp;1 was put on the ballot presented a challenge to voter awareness and turnout since ballot measure planning typically starts years in advance, not months.<ref name="There's little doubt">{{cite web |last1=Garofoli |first1=Joe |title=There's little doubt that {{nobr|Prop. 1}} will win. But abortion rights advocates need it to win big |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Prop-1-abortion-rights-17463282.php |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=September 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220925163950/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Prop-1-abortion-rights-17463282.php |archive-date=September 25, 2022 |date=September 25, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref>

''San Francisco Chronicle'' political writer Joe Garofoli wrote that the margin by which Proposition&nbsp;1 passed would determine whether the constitutional amendment "will send a national message that...will inspire other states to fight back against the Supreme Court decision."<ref name="There's little doubt"/> Following the strategy of the California Democratric Party, Kilgore wrote that Democrats elsewhere may try to have abortion referendums in their states in future elections due to the turnout it could produce in {{nobr|Democratic-leaning}} voters and how their votes could affect other elections on the ballot.<ref name="Abortion-Rights Votes">{{cite web |last1=Kilgore |first1=Ed |title=Abortion-Rights Votes Could Be a Democratic Turnout Machine |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/abortion-rights-votes-could-be-a-democratic-turnout-machine.html |work=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |access-date=October 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012001334/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/abortion-rights-votes-could-be-a-democratic-turnout-machine.html |archive-date=October 12, 2022 |date=October 11, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Federal precedence ====

Some of the commentary on Proposition&nbsp;1 centered on its effectiveness if the federal government imposes a national abortion ban. David Lightman and Lindsey Holden wrote an article in ''[[The Sacramento Bee]]'' on July&nbsp;18 that the ballot proposition and the wider issue of abortion could lead to the return of [[Nullification (U.S. Constitution)|nullification]] policies.<ref name="What would California do">{{cite web |last1=Lightman |first1=David |last2=Holden |first2=Lindsey |title=What would California do if Congress passed a national abortion ban? |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article263307233.html |work=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220718120453/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article263307233.html |archive-date=July 18, 2022 |location=Washington |date=July 18, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> After [[Lindsey Graham]] proposed a bill in the US Senate on September&nbsp;13 that would impose a national {{nobr|15-week}} abortion ban, ''Politico''{{'}}s Lara Korte, Jeremy White, and Sakura Cannestra wrote, "A federal ban would almost instantly trigger a slate of lawsuits from states that allow abortions past 15 weeks, but if the courts ultimately uphold it, states would have to fall into line." Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center executive director, David A. Carillo, told ''Politico'' that "[a] state constitutional right allows California's lawyers to position state sovereignty against federal [[commerce clause]] powers."<ref name="Can protections survive">{{cite web |last1=Korte |first1=Lara |last2=White |first2=Jeremy |last3=Cannestra |first3=Sakura |title=Can California's abortion protections survive a federal ban? |url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2022/09/14/can-californias-abortion-protections-survive-a-federal-ban-00056586 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220914210121/https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2022/09/14/can-californias-abortion-protections-survive-a-federal-ban-00056586 |archive-date=September 14, 2022 |date=September 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> ''The Sacramento Bee''{{'}}s Andrew Sheeler noted, "The [[Supremacy Clause]] of the U.S. Constitution usually gives federal law precedence over state statutes and even state constitutions."<ref name="California responds">{{cite web |last1=Sheeler |first1=Andrew |title=California responds to proposed abortion ban + Would Prop. 30 lead to smaller wildfires? |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article265735106.html |work=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220914231122/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article265735106.html |archive-date=September 14, 2022 |date=September 14, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref>

Chemerinsky said, "If Congress adopts a law prohibiting abortions (like Lindsey Graham's), that would pre-empt state laws to the contrary," such as Proposition&nbsp;1. Chemerinsky argued that ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'' would give Congress the standing to regulate abortion on commerce grounds, "I think abortion is economic activity... because it is a service bought and sold." Conversely, Chemerinsky said any federal law that guaranteed abortion rights would supersede any conflicting law at the state level. Bob Egelko, a ''San Francisco Chronicle'' writer, called the federal government's ability to supersede state abortion law "ironic, because the Supreme Court, in its June&nbsp;24 ruling, said regulation of abortion was a matter for the states and their elected representatives." [[University of San Francisco]] professor Luke Boso said that the Supreme Court would likely have to decide whether federal abortion law takes precedence over state law.<ref name="If California enshrines">{{cite web |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |title=If California enshrines abortion rights, and the GOP eventually passes a national ban, which policy wins out? |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-abortion-rights-vote-17447513.php |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=September 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220917190906/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-abortion-rights-vote-17447513.php |archive-date=September 17, 2022 |date=September 17, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> [[San José State University]] and [[Menlo College]] lecturer Donna Crane told the Associated Press that a federal ban or subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court would render California's abortion laws null.<ref name="California to vote"/>

=== Spending ===

In early August, neither supporters nor opponents of Proposition&nbsp;1 had yet to spend any money on the proposed constitutional amendment compared to the six other propositions on the 2022 general election ballot in California, in which US$461&nbsp;million had already been spent.<ref name="Ballot tracker August">{{cite web |last1=Nieves |first1=Alexander |last2=Ramirez |first2=Chris |last3=Doshi |first3=Juhi |last4=Cannestra |first4=Sakura |last5=Jin |first5=Beatrice |title=California Ballot Tracker: Interest groups prepare for expensive 2022 fights |url=https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=August 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814035933/https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> By August&nbsp;18, the Yes campaign raised $1.2&nbsp;million while the No campaign received comparatively little financial support except for a $1000 contribution from Sacramento bishop [[Jaime Soto]]. White and Korte from ''Politico'' wrote that the proposition's opponents "are certain to be outspent."<ref name="Energetic">{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Jeremy B. |last2=Korte |first2=Lara |last3=Cannestra |first3=Sakura |title=Energetic end-of-session enmity |url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2022/08/18/energetic-end-of-session-enmity-00052598 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=August 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220818153213/https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2022/08/18/energetic-end-of-session-enmity-00052598 |archive-date=August 18, 2022 |date=August 18, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> By September&nbsp;17, the Yes campaign received $3.2&nbsp;million in contributions, with about $130,000 in contributions going to the No campaign. Comparatively, the campaigns for the other California ballot propositions spent $564.8&nbsp;million by this time.<ref name="Ballot tracker September">{{cite web |last1=Nieves |first1=Alexander |last2=Ramirez |first2=Chris |last3=Doshi |first3=Juhi |last4=Cannestra |first4=Sakura |last5=Jin |first5=Beatrice |title=California Ballot Tracker: Interest groups prepare for expensive 2022 fights |url=https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=September 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220917025104/https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |archive-date=September 17, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Data from the [[California Fair Political Practices Commission]] showed the Yes campaign's top donors as of September&nbsp;13 were M. Quinn Delaney, several Planned Parenthood affiliates, the [[California Federation of Teachers]], the [[California Teachers Association]], the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] of Northern California, [[Lyft]], and the [[California Medical Association]], with the largest total contribution from one individual or group being $500,000. The commission stated that the No campaign did not attain the reporting threshold necessary for the disclosure of its top donors.<ref name="September 13 contributions">{{cite web |title=November 2022 General Election |url=https://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/top-contributors/nov-22-gen.html |publisher=[[California Fair Political Practices Commission]] |access-date=September 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916021956/https://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/top-contributors/nov-22-gen.html |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |date=September 13, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On September&nbsp;15, the [[Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria]] pledged $5&nbsp;million to the Yes campaign, representing the campaign's largest contribution to date.<ref name="Kounalakis Joins">{{cite web |title=Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis Joins With Federated Indians Of Graton Rancheria Tribal Leadership And Bay Area Physician Advocate In Support Of Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/lieutenant-governor-eleni-kounalakis-joins-with-federated-indians-of-graton-rancheria-tribal-leadership-and-bay-area-physician-advocate-in-support-of-proposition-1/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=September 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915222546/https://www.protectabortionca.com/lieutenant-governor-eleni-kounalakis-joins-with-federated-indians-of-graton-rancheria-tribal-leadership-and-bay-area-physician-advocate-in-support-of-proposition-1/ |archive-date=September 15, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=September 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Graton Rancheria pledges">{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Jeremy B. |title=Graton Rancheria pledges $5&nbsp;million for California abortion ballot initiative |url=https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/09/graton-rancheria-pledges-5-million-for-california-abortion-ballot-initiative-00057127 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=September 16, 2022 |date=September 15, 2022 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916024059/https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/09/graton-rancheria-pledges-5-million-for-california-abortion-ballot-initiative-00057127 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Steve Ballmer|Steve]] and Connie Ballmer, the former being the owner of the [[Los Angeles Clippers]] and former CEO of [[Microsoft]], each made $250,000 late September donations in support of Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Clippers Owner">{{cite web |last1=Sandler |first1=Rachel |title=LA Clippers Owner Steve Ballmer And His Wife Connie Donate $500,000 To California Pro-Choice Prop |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2022/10/04/la-clippers-owner-steve-ballmer-and-his-wife-connie-donate-500000-to-california-pro-choice-prop/ |work=[[Forbes]] |access-date=October 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005042852/https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2022/10/04/la-clippers-owner-steve-ballmer-and-his-wife-connie-donate-500000-to-california-pro-choice-prop/ |archive-date=October 5, 2022 |date=October 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

By late September, Garofoli stated that the Yes campaign had enough money for a week's worth of [[Campaign advertising|television advertisements]], and the No campaign only raised enough money for [[yard sign]]s in [[Temecula, California|Temecula]].<ref name="There's little doubt"/> In October, Newsom spent $2.5&nbsp;million for a television advertisement, which debuted on October&nbsp;10, promoting Proposition&nbsp;1 and urging Californians to vote for the constitutional amendment. The spending for the advertisement made Newsom the second-largest contributor to the Yes campaign, second only to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.<ref name="Newsom makes another">{{cite web |last1=Cadelago |first1=Christopher |title=Gavin Newsom makes another unorthodox play on abortion |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/gavin-newsom-abortion-ad-california-00061084 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=October 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221010215019/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/gavin-newsom-abortion-ad-california-00061084 |archive-date=October 10, 2022 |date=October 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On October&nbsp;12, the Yes campaign announced the beginning of its media campaign in multiple formats and languages.<ref name="Paid Media Effort">{{cite web |title=Yes On Proposition&nbsp;1 Campaign Launches Paid Media Effort |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/yes-on-proposition-1-campaign-launches-paid-media-effort/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=October 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221013170741/https://www.protectabortionca.com/yes-on-proposition-1-campaign-launches-paid-media-effort/ |archive-date=October 13, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=October 12, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In {{nobr|mid-October}}, [[2022 Los Angeles mayoral election|2022 Los Angeles mayoral]] candidate [[Rick Caruso]] donated $100,000 to the Yes campaign's committee.<ref name="Caruso gives">{{cite web |last1=Nieves |first1=Alexander |title=LA mayor candidate Caruso gives $100,000 to strong-polling California abortion rights ballot measure |url=https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/10/caruso-contributes-to-abortion-ballot-committee-months-after-pledge-00062602 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=October 26, 2022 |date=October 19, 2022 |archive-date=October 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221026202948/https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/10/caruso-contributes-to-abortion-ballot-committee-months-after-pledge-00062602 |url-status=live }}</ref> The donation came months after a May&nbsp;3 pledge Caruso made on [[Twitter]] to donate an initial $100,000 and, ultimately, $1&nbsp;million toward the constitutional amendment's passage.<ref name="Caruso pledged">{{cite web |last1=Wick |first1=Julia |title=Rick Caruso pledged $1&nbsp;million to support abortion rights proposition but has yet to donate |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-03/caruso-pledged-1-million-to-support-abortion-rights-proposition-but-has-yet-to-donate |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=October 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221023035225/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-03/caruso-pledged-1-million-to-support-abortion-rights-proposition-but-has-yet-to-donate |archive-date=October 23, 2022 |date=October 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> By late October, data showed that the Yes campaign spent $14&nbsp;million, and the No campaign spent $1.6&nbsp;million, with $681.4&nbsp;million spent in other California proposition campaigns.<ref name="Ballot tracker October">{{cite web |last1=Nieves |first1=Alexander |last2=Ramirez |first2=Chris |last3=Doshi |first3=Juhi |last4=Cannestra |first4=Sakura |last5=Jin |first5=Beatrice |title=California Ballot Tracker: Interest groups prepare for expensive 2022 fights |url=https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=October 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221026201657/https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |archive-date=October 26, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> By the end of the campaign, the Yes campaign raised 10 times as much money compared to the No campaign, raising $22&nbsp;million against the No campaign's $2.2&nbsp;million.<ref name="Ballot tracker November">{{cite web |last1=Nieves |first1=Alexander |last2=Ramirez |first2=Chris |last3=Doshi |first3=Juhi |last4=Cannestra |first4=Sakura |last5=Jin |first5=Beatrice |title=California Ballot Tracker: Interest groups prepare for expensive 2022 fights |url=https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=November 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116051642/https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/california-ballot-measures-propositions-guide-2022/ |archive-date=November 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Media ===

''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]]'' published two opinion articles representing both sides of the Proposition&nbsp;1 debate on August&nbsp;19, with Atkins and Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest CEO Darrah DiGiorgio Johnson representing Yes and Pregnancy Care Clinic development director and [[Cajon Valley Union School District]] board member Jo Alegria representing No.<ref name="SDUT Yes">{{cite web |last1=Atkins |first1=Toni |last2=DiGiorgio Johnson |first2=Darrah |author1-link=Toni Atkins |title=Yes on California Proposition&nbsp;1: People's decisions about abortion are theirs alone |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-19/opinion-toni-atkins-darrah-digiorgio-johnson-proposition-one-abortion |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=August 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220820003116/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-19/opinion-toni-atkins-darrah-digiorgio-johnson-proposition-one-abortion |archive-date=August 20, 2022 |date=August 19, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="SDUT No">{{cite web |last1=Alegria |first1=Jo |title=No on California Proposition&nbsp;1: Encourage our leaders to find real solutions to abortion |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-19/opinion-jo-alegria-no-proposition-one-abortion |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=August 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220820003118/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-19/opinion-jo-alegria-no-proposition-one-abortion |archive-date=August 20, 2022 |date=August 19, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> Constitutional lawyer Cary Franklin, who had previously co-wrote the rebuttal to the argument against Proposition&nbsp;1,<ref name="Rebuttal to against"/> authored commentary supportive of the amendment in a CalMatters article on September&nbsp;23.<ref name="Cement reproductive rights">{{cite news |last1=Franklin |first1=Cary |title=Cement reproductive rights in California's Constitution |url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/09/cement-reproductive-rights-in-californias-constitution/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=September 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220923170354/https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/09/cement-reproductive-rights-in-californias-constitution/ |archive-date=September 23, 2022 |date=September 23, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Right to Life of [[Kern County, California|Kern County]] executive director Judy Goad wrote an article in ''[[The Bakersfield Californian]]'' on September&nbsp;29, urging a vote against Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Community Voices">{{cite web |last1=Goad |first1=Judy |title=Community Voices: There are always 2 lives involved with abortion |url=https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community-voices/community-voices-there-are-always-2-lives-involved-with-abortion/article_94752010-3e8e-11ed-b16d-9b1767b31853.html |work=[[The Bakersfield Californian]] |access-date=September 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930053718/https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community-voices/community-voices-there-are-always-2-lives-involved-with-abortion/article_94752010-3e8e-11ed-b16d-9b1767b31853.html |archive-date=September 30, 2022 |date=September 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> San Francisco archbishop [[Salvatore Cordileone]] published videos in English and Spanish to also urge a No vote.<ref name="Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone">{{cite web |title=Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone calls on Californians to oppose Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/archbishop-salvatore-cordileone-calls-on-californians-to-oppose-proposition-1-301637268.html |publisher=[[PR Newswire]] |access-date=September 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930060135/https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/archbishop-salvatore-cordileone-calls-on-californians-to-oppose-proposition-1-301637268.html |archive-date=September 30, 2022 |location=San Francisco |date=September 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[KQED-FM]] held a [[podcast]] session on September&nbsp;29 in which a panel discussed Proposition&nbsp;1 as part of Prop Fest 2022.<ref name="California Has Strong">{{cite web |last1=Schwartz |first1=Katrina |title=Transcript: California Has Strong Abortion Access Laws, but {{nobr|Prop. 1}} Would Make Abortion Constitutional |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11926821/calif-has-strong-abortion-access-laws-but-prop-1-would-make-the-right-constitutional-transcript |publisher=[[KQED Inc.|KQED]] |access-date=September 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930052507/https://www.kqed.org/news/11926821/calif-has-strong-abortion-access-laws-but-prop-1-would-make-the-right-constitutional-transcript |archive-date=September 30, 2022 |date=September 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On October&nbsp;8, CalMatters' Emily Hoeven and David Lesher discussed Proposition&nbsp;1 and the other ballot propositions at Politifest, an event organized by ''[[Voice of San Diego]]'' at the [[University of San Diego]].<ref name="CalMatters editors">{{cite news |last1=Quick |first1=Sonya |title=CalMatters editors offer unique, nonpartisan insights on California's 2022 election propositions |url=https://calmatters.org/inside-calmatters/2022/10/california-propositions-calmatters-politifest/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=October 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221010163124/https://calmatters.org/inside-calmatters/2022/10/california-propositions-calmatters-politifest/ |archive-date=October 10, 2022 |date=October 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In San Francisco, former United States Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] moderated an October&nbsp;13 panel discussion on Proposition&nbsp;1 involving Lieutenant Governor [[Eleni Kounalakis]], [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] president Mini Timmaraju, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California president Jodi Hicks.<ref name="Clinton">{{cite web |last1=Garofoli |first1=Joe |title=California's abortion measure should win easily. Here's why Hillary Clinton came to campaign for it anyway |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/California-s-abortion-measure-should-win-17508349.php |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=October 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221014070429/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/California-s-abortion-measure-should-win-17508349.php |archive-date=October 14, 2022 |date=October 13, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[PolitiFact]] assessed the factuality of one of the No campaign's claims about Proposition&nbsp;1, finding that their statement that "the number of abortion seekers from other states will soar even higher, costing taxpayers millions more" was mostly false because the LAO concluded there was "no direct fiscal effect" stemming from the ballot measure, and the number of abortion cases in California would likely increase anyway due to the imposition of restrictive policies in other states.<ref name="Opponents of California's">{{cite web |last1=Bluth |first1=Rachel |title=Opponents of California's abortion rights measure mislead on expense to taxpayers |url=https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/21/california-together-no-proposition-1/opponents-californias-abortion-rights-measure-misl/ |publisher=[[PolitiFact]] |access-date=September 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921163825/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/21/california-together-no-proposition-1/opponents-californias-abortion-rights-measure-misl/ |archive-date=September 21, 2022 |date=September 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> A factcheck from the Associated Press determined that the claim of Proposition&nbsp;1 legalizing late-term abortion was "missing context" as there was no mention in the constitutional amendment and the courts were unlikely to interpret it as legalizing such abortions.<ref name="AP factcheck"/> PolitiFact's Gabrielle Settles and ''[[USA Today]]''{{'}}s Nate Trela reached the same conclusion in their factchecks of the claim.<ref name="Proposition 1 unlikely">{{cite web |last1=Settles |first1=Gabrielle |title=Proposition 1 unlikely to remove limits for when abortions are allowed, legal experts say |url=https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/nov/07/instagram-posts/proposition-1-unlikely-remove-limits-when-abortion/ |publisher=[[PolitiFact]] |access-date=November 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221107205754/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/nov/07/instagram-posts/proposition-1-unlikely-remove-limits-when-abortion/ |archive-date=November 7, 2022 |date=November 7, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Fact check: California">{{cite news |last1=Trela |first1=Nate |title=Fact check: California measure would add abortion rights to constitution, not define when it is allowed |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/11/07/fact-check-claim-exaggerates-nature-california-abortion-proposal-nine-months-birth/8261432001/ |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |access-date=November 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221108095521/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/11/07/fact-check-claim-exaggerates-nature-california-abortion-proposal-nine-months-birth/8261432001/ |archive-date=November 8, 2022 |date=November 7, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Protests ===
{{See also|2022 abortion protests}}

On August&nbsp;25, a [[Women's Equality Day]] event at [[San Francisco City Hall]] was interrupted while Supervisor [[Catherine Stefani]] was giving a speech by {{nobr|anti-abortion}} protesters demonstrating against Proposition&nbsp;1. A number of protesters had traveled from as far as South Carolina.<ref name="Protesters Travel">{{cite web |last1=Neville |first1=Michaela |last2=Cohen |first2=Camille |title=Anti-Abortion Protesters Travel From as Far as South Carolina to Crash San Francisco Women's Equality Speech |url=https://sfstandard.com/politics/pro-life-protestors-travel-from-as-far-as-south-carolina-to-crash-san-francisco-womens-equality-speech/ |work=[[San Francisco Standard]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901180531/https://sfstandard.com/politics/pro-life-protestors-travel-from-as-far-as-south-carolina-to-crash-san-francisco-womens-equality-speech/ |archive-date=September 1, 2022 |date=August 25, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Competing protests over Proposition&nbsp;1 occurred at [[Sather Gate]] on the [[University of California, Berkeley]] campus between Rise Up for Abortion Rights and {{nobr|Pro-Life}} San Francisco on August&nbsp;26, raising awareness of the proposed constitutional amendment.<ref name="Two opposing">{{cite web |last1=Davenport |first1=Charr |title=Two opposing groups attend abortion protest at University of California Berkeley |url=https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/two-opposing-groups-attend-abortion-protest-at-univerity-of-california-berkeley |publisher=[[KERO-TV]] |access-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829200650/https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/two-opposing-groups-attend-abortion-protest-at-univerity-of-california-berkeley |archive-date=August 29, 2022 |location=Berkeley |date=August 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Stand up">{{cite web |last1=Rupanagunta |first1=Ananya |title='You need to stand up': Abortion rally at Sather Gate brings in both sides of divided issue |url=https://www.dailycal.org/2022/08/29/you-need-to-stand-up-abortion-rally-at-sather-gate-brings-in-both-sides-of-divided-issue/ |work=[[The Daily Californian]] |access-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829202824/https://www.dailycal.org/2022/08/29/you-need-to-stand-up-abortion-rally-at-sather-gate-brings-in-both-sides-of-divided-issue/ |archive-date=August 29, 2022 |date=August 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On October&nbsp;8, [[2017 Women's March|Women's March]] held 450 marches across the United States.<ref name="Women's March rallies">{{cite web |title=Women's March rallies for reproductive rights in DC ahead of midterm elections |url=https://www.fox5dc.com/news/womens-march-rallies-for-reproductive-rights-in-dc-ahead-of-midterm-elections |publisher=[[WTTG]] |access-date=October 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221009043409/https://www.fox5dc.com/news/womens-march-rallies-for-reproductive-rights-in-dc-ahead-of-midterm-elections |archive-date=October 9, 2022 |location=Washington |date=October 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Some of the protests occurred in California, with one protest held in front of [[Oakland City Hall]] and co-organized by the East Bay [[Democratic Socialists of America]], Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte, and Oakland Education Association and attended by more than 100 protesters demonstrating in support of Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Rally in Oakland">{{cite web |last1=Li |first1=Roland |title=Abortion rights backers rally in Oakland for ballot measure as part of Women's March |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Abortion-rights-backers-rally-in-Oakland-for-17496249.php |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=October 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221009043658/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Abortion-rights-backers-rally-in-Oakland-for-17496249.php |archive-date=October 9, 2022 |date=October 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Positions ==

===Political parties ===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"
! colspan="2" | Political parties
! Position
! class="unsortable" | {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
|-
| {{party name with colour|California Democratic Party}}
| rowspan="4" style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | Yes
| <ref name="CADEM endorse"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|Green Party of California}}
| <ref name="Green endorse"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|Peace and Freedom Party}}
| <ref name="Peace and Freedom"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|California National Party}}
| <ref name="CNP"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|California Republican Party}}
| rowspan="3" style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | No
| <ref name="CAGOP oppose"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|American Solidarity Party}}
| <ref name="American Solidarity"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|Socialist Workers Party (United States)}}
| <ref name="SWP"/>
|-
| {{party name with colour|Libertarian Party of California}}
| style="background:#eee; color:#000;" | Neutral
| <ref name="LPC position"/>
|}

=== Support ===
[[File:Protect Abortion Rights, Yes on Proposition 1 logo.svg|thumb|Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 logo]]
With the effort to codify reproductive rights into the state constitution being initiated by the California's Democratic political leadership – Newsom, Atkins, and Rendon – the Yes campaign for Proposition&nbsp;1 received broad support from the [[California Democratic Party]] and its membership.<ref name="Leaders, Newsom announce"/><ref name="CADEM endorse">{{cite web |title=California Democratic Party: Statewide Propositions – Official Endorsements |url=https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CADEM-Prop-Final.pdf |publisher=[[California Democratic Party]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808034147/https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CADEM-Prop-Final.pdf |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Our Coalition">{{cite web |title=Our Coalition |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/our-coalition/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=October 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110180324/https://www.protectabortionca.com/our-coalition/ |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The campaign, led by Protect Abortion Rights, maintained a list of supporters that comprised the coalition in support of Proposition&nbsp;1 and explained in the [[Page footer|footer]] of their website that the campaign was largely supported by Atkins and the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In that list, California's two US senators, seven US representatives, 15 state senators, and 24 state assemblymembers were part of the Yes campaign's coalition.<ref name="Our Coalition"/> [[Dianne Feinstein]] and [[Alex Padilla]], the state's US senators, officially joined the coalition on July&nbsp;28.<ref name="Senators join">{{cite web |title=United States Senators Feinstein And Padilla Join California Constitutional Officers In Support Of Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/united-states-senators-feinstein-and-padilla-join-california-constitutional-officers-in-support-of-proposition-1/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808054936/https://www.protectabortionca.com/united-states-senators-feinstein-and-padilla-join-california-constitutional-officers-in-support-of-proposition-1/ |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=July 28, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> All of California's elected [[California executive branch|executive branch]] officials endorsed Proposition&nbsp;1, which includes Newsom, Lieutenant Governor [[Eleni Kounalakis]], Secretary of State [[Shirley Weber]], State Treasurer [[Fiona Ma]], State Controller [[Betty Yee]], State Superintendent of Public Instruction [[Tony Thurmond]], Insurance Commissioner [[Ricardo Lara]], and Attorney General [[Rob Bonta]].<ref name="Our Coalition"/><ref name="Rob Bonta Q&A">{{cite web |title=Nov. 2022 Election: Q&A with Rob Bonta, candidate for California attorney general |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-09-02/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-rob-bonta-candidate-for-california-attorney-general |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904041440/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-09-02/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-rob-bonta-candidate-for-california-attorney-general |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=September 2, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> Democratic candidates seeking elected office such as state controller candidate [[Malia Cohen]] and state assemblymember candidate Diane Papan also indicated their support for Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Malia Cohen Q&A">{{cite web |title=Nov. 2022 Election: Q&A with Malia Cohen, candidate for California state controller |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/story/2022-08-30/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-malia-cohen-candidate-for-california-state-controller |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904035418/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/story/2022-08-30/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-malia-cohen-candidate-for-california-state-controller |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=August 30, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Hale quits">{{cite web |last1=Mibach |first1=Emily |title=Hale quits Assembly race leaving Papan as the winner |url=https://padailypost.com/2022/07/22/hale-quits-assembly-race-leaving-papan-as-the-winner/ |work=[[Palo Alto Daily Post]] |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220726133116/http://padailypost.com/2022/07/22/hale-quits-assembly-race-leaving-papan-as-the-winner/ |archive-date=July 26, 2022 |date=July 22, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Some Republicans held divergent views from their party on Proposition&nbsp;1, the latter being opposed,<ref name="CAGOP oppose">{{cite web |title=CAGOP Announces Ballot Initiative Positions |url=https://www.cagop.org/s/blog/cagop-announces-ballot-initiative-positions-MCCM2AUIIOOFG7RK5ZKTMU4KH5MQ |publisher=[[California Republican Party]] |access-date=August 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220822225124/https://www.cagop.org/s/blog/cagop-announces-ballot-initiative-positions-MCCM2AUIIOOFG7RK5ZKTMU4KH5MQ |archive-date=August 22, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=August 19, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> with attorney general candidate [[Nathan Hochman]] telling ''The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}'' that, as long as "Proposition&nbsp;1 does as its authors state, which is to merely codify California's current law on abortion and the viability standard, I would support Proposition&nbsp;1".<ref name="Nathan Hochman Q&A">{{cite web |title=Nov. 2022 Election: Q&A with Nathan Hochman, candidate for California attorney general |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-09-02/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-nathan-hochman-candidate-for-california-attorney-general |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904042653/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-09-02/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-nathan-hochman-candidate-for-california-attorney-general |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=September 2, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> State controller candidate [[Lanhee Chen]] gave qualified support for enshrining California's existing abortion law into the state constitution, and expressing concern about Proposition&nbsp;1's language.<ref name="Lanhee Chen Q&A">{{cite web |title=Nov. 2022 Election: Q&A with Lanhee Chen, candidate for California state controller |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-30/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-lanhee-chen-candidate-for-california-state-controller |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904045259/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-30/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-lanhee-chen-candidate-for-california-state-controller |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=August 30, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Green Party of California]] endorsed Proposition&nbsp;1, sharing the party's Alameda County branch's voting guide, in which the branch stated, "[P]utting reproductive rights into the state constitution has significant benefits for women in California." The endorsement by the Green Party of Alameda County also came with criticism for the wording of Proposition&nbsp;1, "[W]omen merit no mention in the proposition, the right to choose abortion belonging to an 'individual'... The decision to have an abortion belongs to the pregnant woman alone, no one else. That should have been spelled out."<ref name="Green endorse">{{cite web |title=The Green Party of California State Voter Guide Nov 2022 |url=https://www.cagreens.org/elections/2022-Voter-Guide |publisher=[[Green Party of California]] |access-date=October 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015023705/https://www.cagreens.org/elections/2022-Voter-Guide |archive-date=October 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Alameda Greens">{{cite web |last1=Macleay |first1=Don |title=Our articles about the State Propositions |date=21 September 2022 |url=https://acgreens.wordpress.com/2022/09/20/our-articles-about-the-state-propositions/ |publisher=Green Party of Alameda County |access-date=October 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015024609/https://acgreens.wordpress.com/2022/09/20/our-articles-about-the-state-propositions/ |archive-date=October 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On September&nbsp;9, the [[Peace and Freedom Party]] announced its support for Proposition&nbsp;1 while criticizing the limited scope of the constitutional amending by stating, "It makes explicit the right to abortion and contraceptives in the California constitution. It does not include [[Universal health care|universal free health care]], [[Parental leave|paid family leave]], and [[child care]], which would give us real reproductive freedom. But still, this is a YES."<ref name="Peace and Freedom">{{cite web |title=Election 2022: PFP Recommendations on Ballot Propositions |url=https://www.peaceandfreedom.us/news/elections-campaigns/2022-ballot-propositions-pfp-recommends |publisher=[[Peace and Freedom Party]] |access-date=September 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220912000439/https://www.peaceandfreedom.us/news/elections-campaigns/2022-ballot-propositions-pfp-recommends |archive-date=September 12, 2022 |date=September 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On October&nbsp;11, the [[California National Party]] announced its support for voting Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 according to the positions stated in the party platform.<ref name="CNP">{{cite web |last1=Lescure |first1=David |title=Quick Reference Guide for Propositions |url=https://californianational.party/quick-reference-guide-for-propositions/ |publisher=[[California National Party]] |access-date=November 2, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221027173505/https://www.californianational.party/quick-reference-guide-for-propositions/ |archive-date=October 27, 2022 |date=October 11, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Local governments compose part of the Yes campaign.<ref name="Our Coalition"/> Five county [[Board of supervisors|boards of supervisors]] voted unanimously to support amending the state constitution to protect reproductive rights: [[Alameda County Board of Supervisors|Alameda]] on May&nbsp;10,<ref name="Alameda">{{cite press release |date=May 10, 2022 |title=Board of Supervisors Passes Resolution in Support of Reproductive Rights in Alameda County |url=https://district3.acgov.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/05/Roe-V-Wade-Press-Release.pdf |url-status=live |location=Oakland |agency=[[Alameda County Board of Supervisors]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220817205243/https://district3.acgov.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/05/Roe-V-Wade-Press-Release.pdf |archive-date=August 17, 2022 |access-date=August 17, 2022}}</ref> [[San Mateo County Board of Supervisors|San Mateo]] on August&nbsp;2,<ref name="San Mateo">{{cite web |title=San Mateo County Supervisors Approve Advocacy Agenda to Support Women's Reproductive Rights |url=https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/news/san-mateo-county-supervisors-approve-advocacy-agenda-support-womens-reproductive-rights |publisher=[[San Mateo County Board of Supervisors]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816231207/https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/news/san-mateo-county-supervisors-approve-advocacy-agenda-support-womens-reproductive-rights |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |location=Redwood City |date=August 2, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors|Santa Clara]] on August&nbsp;16,<ref name="Santa Clara">{{cite web |title=County of Santa Clara Supports Efforts to Make Reproductive Freedom a Constitutional Right in California |url=https://news.sccgov.org/news-release/county-santa-clara-supports-efforts-make-reproductive-freedom-constitutional-right |publisher=[[Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors]] |access-date=August 17, 2022 |location=Santa Clara County |date=August 16, 2022 |archive-date=August 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220817004834/https://news.sccgov.org/news-release/county-santa-clara-supports-efforts-make-reproductive-freedom-constitutional-right |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Humboldt County, California|Humboldt]] on October 4<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kemp |first=Kym |date=October 7, 2022 |title=Humboldt County Supes Unanimously Approve Reproductive Rights Resolution to Support CA Prop 1 |url=https://kymkemp.com/2022/10/07/humboldt-county-supes-unanimously-approve-reproductive-rights-resolution-to-support-ca-prop-1/ |access-date=March 20, 2023 |archive-date=March 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320074805/https://kymkemp.com/2022/10/07/humboldt-county-supes-unanimously-approve-reproductive-rights-resolution-to-support-ca-prop-1/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors|Los Angeles]] on November&nbsp;1.<ref name="Los Angeles">{{cite web |title=LA County Board of Supervisors votes to support {{nobr|Prop. 1}} |url=https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/orange-county/politics/2022/11/01/la-county-board-of-supervisors-votes-to-support-prop--1 |website=[[Spectrum News]] |publisher=[[City News Service]] |access-date=November 2, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221102202209/https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/orange-county/politics/2022/11/01/la-county-board-of-supervisors-votes-to-support-prop--1 |archive-date=November 2, 2022 |location=Los Angeles |date=November 1, 2022}}</ref> On May&nbsp;24, the [[San Diego County Board of Supervisors]] voted {{nobr|3–1}} to support a constitutional amendment for abortion rights, with the lone vote against being Republican [[Jim Desmond]].<ref name="San Diego">{{cite web |last1=Brennan |first1=Deborah Sullivan |title=County supervisors vote to assess and possibly expand access to abortion |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-05-24/county-supervisors-vote-to-assess-and-possibly-expand-access-to-abortion |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=August 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220626103545/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-05-24/county-supervisors-vote-to-assess-and-possibly-expand-access-to-abortion |archive-date=June 26, 2022 |location=San Diego |date=May 24, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Irvine City Council]] voted {{nobr|3–2}} on July&nbsp;12 to support the constitutional amendment.<ref name="Irvine minutes">{{cite web |title=Irvine City Council minutes |url=https://irvine.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=irvine_d1144be9842947f36dce07e5381c3172.pdf&view=1 |publisher=[[Irvine City Council]] |access-date=August 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220817214400/https://irvine.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=irvine_d1144be9842947f36dce07e5381c3172.pdf&view=1 |archive-date=August 17, 2022 |location=Irvine |date=July 12, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Resolution in Response to Roe v Wade Decision |url=https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2020&meta_id=129250 |access-date=August 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220817214452/https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2020&meta_id=129250 |archive-date=August 17, 2022 |date=June 27, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On August&nbsp;30, four members of the [[Oakland City Council]] announced a September&nbsp;20 vote on a resolution declaring [[Oakland, California|Oakland]]'s support for Proposition&nbsp;1,<ref name="Oakland announce">{{cite web |title=Oakland City Council members announce resolution supporting reproductive rights |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-city-council-resolution-reproductive-rights/ |publisher=[[CBS Bay Area]]/[[Bay City News]] |access-date=August 31, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831004404/https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-city-council-resolution-reproductive-rights/ |archive-date=August 31, 2022 |location=Oakland |date=August 30, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> which the city council adopted in an 8–0 vote.<ref name="Oakland resolution">{{cite web |title=Support State Proposition&nbsp;1 On Reproductive Freedom |url=https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5812335&GUID=2AA95CD0-F677-46CA-8E05-9204F237043C&Options=&Search= |publisher=[[Oakland, California|City of Oakland]] |access-date=September 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220925172014/https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5812335&GUID=2AA95CD0-F677-46CA-8E05-9204F237043C&Options=&Search= |archive-date=September 25, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In Los Angeles, [[Los Angeles City Council|city council]] president [[Nury Martinez]] and president pro tempore [[Mitch O'Farrell]] introduced a resolution on September&nbsp;20 supporting the proposition.<ref name="LA Council Leaders Introduce">{{cite web |title=LA Council Leaders Introduce Resolution Backing Abortion Rights Initiative |url=https://kfiam640.iheart.com/featured/la-local-news/content/2022-09-20-la-council-leaders-introduce-resolution-backing-abortion-rights-initiative/ |website=[[KFI]] |publisher=[[City News Service]] |access-date=September 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921042908/https://kfiam640.iheart.com/featured/la-local-news/content/2022-09-20-la-council-leaders-introduce-resolution-backing-abortion-rights-initiative/ |archive-date=September 21, 2022 |location=Los Angeles |date=September 20, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The city council passed the resolution on October&nbsp;25.<ref name="LA City Council Votes">{{cite web |title=LA City Council Votes To Support Prop&nbsp;1, The Abortion Rights Amendment |url=https://patch.com/california/northhollywood/la-city-council-votes-support-prop-1-abortion-rights-amendment |website=[[Patch (website)|Patch]] |publisher=[[City News Service]] |access-date=October 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221026204214/https://patch.com/california/northhollywood/la-city-council-votes-support-prop-1-abortion-rights-amendment |archive-date=October 26, 2022 |date=October 25, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Urging Californians to vote Yes, the League of Women Voters of California wrote that "Prop&nbsp;1 protects access to the care that will give individuals and families the freedom to make those choices".<ref name="LWVC recommendation">{{cite web |title=Prop&nbsp;1: Reproductive Freedom |date=25 August 2022 |url=https://lwvc.org/Prop1-recommendation |publisher=[[League of Women Voters]] of California |access-date=August 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221003075348/https://lwvc.org/Prop1-recommendation |archive-date=October 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[National Women's Political Caucus|National Women's Political Caucus of California]] endorsed Proposition&nbsp;1, stating that the constitutional amendment "will ensure robust protection for both California residents as well as anyone seeking abortions here".<ref name="NWPC-CA Statement">{{cite web |last1=Farrell Hinds |first1=Karriann |title=NWPC-CA Statement of Support for {{nobr|Prop. 1}} |url=https://www.nwpcca.org/news/nwpc-ca-statement-of-support-for-prop-1 |publisher=[[National Women's Political Caucus|National Women's Political Caucus of California]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808054230/https://www.nwpcca.org/news/nwpc-ca-statement-of-support-for-prop-1 |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |date=July 6, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[American Association of University Women]], Black Women for Wellness Action Project. the Los Angeles chapter of the [[National Coalition of 100 Black Women]], [[National Organization for Women|California National Organization for Women]], and [[Feminist Majority Foundation]] comprised additional organizations that were part of the Yes campaign.<ref name="Our Coalition"/> The [[Women's Foundation California]] supports the constitutional amendment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Franco |first1=Marisol |title=California's Reproductive Justice Future {{!}} Questions & Answers |url=https://womensfoundca.org/ca-reproductive-justice-future-q-and-a/ |publisher=[[Women's Foundation California]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816194034/https://womensfoundca.org/ca-reproductive-justice-future-q-and-a/ |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |date=July 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Multiple medical [[professional organization]]s expressed their support for Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Our Coalition"/> [[California Medical Association]] board chair Shannon {{nobr|Udovic-Constant}} issued a statement on July&nbsp;7 on the behalf of the CMA in support of Proposition&nbsp;1, stating that the organization "strongly believes that medical decisions – including those around abortion and contraception – should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers".<ref name="CMA board">{{cite web |title=CMA board chair issues statement in support of {{nobr|Prop. 1}} to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in CA |url=https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/49817/CMA-board-chair-issues-statement-in-support-of-Prop-1-to-enshrine-the-right-to-reproductive-freedom-in-CA |publisher=[[California Medical Association]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220715215310/https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/49817/CMA-board-chair-issues-statement-in-support-of-Prop-1-to-enshrine-the-right-to-reproductive-freedom-in-CA |archive-date=July 15, 2022 |date=July 7, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] explained their position supporting Proposition&nbsp;1 by stating that the proposal "would amend the California Constitution to guarantee the fundamental right for patients to make and clinicians to carry out reproductive decisions without medically unjustified legislative interference".<ref name="ACOG position">{{cite web |title=Vote YES on Proposition&nbsp;1, Right to Reproductive Freedom |url=https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/files/advocacy/ca-ballot-initiative.pdf?la=en&hash=52CE60A0072B6BC723BC659343636584 |publisher=[[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220815022431/https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/files/advocacy/ca-ballot-initiative.pdf?la=en&hash=52CE60A0072B6BC723BC659343636584 |archive-date=August 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Essential Access Health, [[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California]], and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare are {{nobr|co-sponsors}} for the Yes campaign.<ref name="Our Coalition"/><ref name="Major Health"/> On September&nbsp;8, Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties senior vice president Robert Armenta authored an opinion article in the ''Los Angeles Times'' in support of Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Armenta">{{cite web |last1=Armenta |first1=Robert |title=Commentary: Vote yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 to ensure the right of abortion in California |url=https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022-09-08/commentary-vote-yes-on-proposition-1-to-ensure-the-right-of-abortion-in-california |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220913073849/https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022-09-08/commentary-vote-yes-on-proposition-1-to-ensure-the-right-of-abortion-in-california |archive-date=September 13, 2022 |date=September 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Several [[labor union]]s in California joined the Yes campaign.<ref name="Our Coalition"/> On July&nbsp;25, the [[California Nurses Association]] endorsed Proposition&nbsp;1 as it would "ensure that those conversations around reproductive health care – including about abortion and contraception – remain between a provider and their patient and are based on science and facts, not someone else's political agenda".<ref name="CNA endorsement">{{cite web |title=California Nurses Association Endorses Yes On Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/california-nurses-association-endorses-yes-on-proposition-1/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221002090926/https://www.protectabortionca.com/california-nurses-association-endorses-yes-on-proposition-1/ |archive-date=October 2, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=July 25, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[California Teachers Association]] board of directors endorsed Proposition&nbsp;1, with CTA president E. Toby Boyd saying, "Our mothers, daughters, partners, sisters, and friends should have the freedom and right to determine their health care, and to make deeply personal decisions on their own, a fundamental human right."<ref name="CTA Supports">{{cite web |title=CTA Supports {{nobr|Prop. 1}}: Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare |url=https://www.cta.org/press-release/cta-supports-prop-1-protecting-access-to-reproductive-healthcare |publisher=[[California Teachers Association]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220721003538/https://www.cta.org/press-release/cta-supports-prop-1-protecting-access-to-reproductive-healthcare |archive-date=July 21, 2022 |location=Burlingame |date=July 20, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees]], [[Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance]] in Sacramento and San Francisco, [[California Faculty Association]], [[California Federation of Teachers]], California Labor Federation, [[Service Employees International Union|SEIU California State Council]], and [[United Food and Commercial Workers|United Food and Commercial Workers State Council]] are also part of the Yes campaign.<ref name="Our Coalition"/>

[[NARAL Pro-Choice America|NARAL {{nobr|Pro-Choice}} America]] president Mini Timmaraju expressed support for Proposition&nbsp;1 and said that the constitutional amendment "sends a clear message across the country that California will never stop protecting the freedom to decide".<ref name="Major Health">{{cite web |title=Major Health Care And Reproductive Justice Organizations Endorse Yes On Prop&nbsp;1; Campaign Starts Strong With Broad, Diverse Coalition |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/major-health-care-and-reproductive-justice-organizations-endorse-yes-on-prop-1campaign-starts-strong-with-broad-diverse-coalition/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=August 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808193951/https://www.protectabortionca.com/major-health-care-and-reproductive-justice-organizations-endorse-yes-on-prop-1campaign-starts-strong-with-broad-diverse-coalition/ |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=July 6, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On August&nbsp;3, [[Equality California]] expressed support for Proposition&nbsp;1, calling it an "opportunity to further solidify California's long-time standing as a nationwide leader in reproductive rights".<ref name="Equality California Supports">{{cite web |title=Equality California Supports CA Proposition&nbsp;1: Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare |url=https://www.eqca.org/eqca-supports-prop-1/ |publisher=[[Equality California]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806035250/https://www.eqca.org/eqca-supports-prop-1/ |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=August 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On August&nbsp;16, [[Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California]] announced its support for Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Joe |first1=Connie Chung |title=Our Active Steps in Response to the Overturning of Roe vs. Wade |url=https://www.ajsocal.org/2022/08/16/in-response-to-roe-v-wade/ |publisher=[[Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California]] |access-date=August 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816193309/https://www.ajsocal.org/2022/08/16/in-response-to-roe-v-wade/ |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |date=August 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Courage California]] endorsed voting for Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Courage California">{{cite web |title=Abortion Rights |url=https://couragecalifornia.org/abortion-rights/ |publisher=[[Courage California]] |access-date=August 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220712231837/https://couragecalifornia.org/abortion-rights/ |archive-date=July 12, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Disability Rights California gave its support for Proposition&nbsp;1 on September&nbsp;30 on the basis that "[p]eople with disabilities and communities of color are disproportionately impacted by restrictions to contraceptives and abortions".<ref name="Disability Rights California">{{cite web |title=2022 Ballot Proposition Positions |url=https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/latest-news/2022-ballot-proposition-positions |publisher=Disability Rights California |access-date=December 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221129213245/https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/latest-news/2022-ballot-proposition-positions |archive-date=November 29, 2022 |date=September 30, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Sierra Club|Sierra Club California]]'s position on Proposition&nbsp;1 is Yes, writing that "Sierra Club works to advance environmental and social justice, and support for Proposition&nbsp;1 is consistent with those values".<ref name="Sierra Club">{{cite web |title=2022 Endorsements - SCC Political Committee |url=https://www.sierraclub.org/california/2022-endorsements-scc-political-committee-test-unlisted |publisher=[[Sierra Club|Sierra Club California]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904040332/https://www.sierraclub.org/california/2022-endorsements-scc-political-committee-test-unlisted |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[California Environmental Voters]] also endorsed Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="EnviroVoters">{{cite web |title=Statewide Endorsements |url=https://www.envirovoters.org/elections/2022-statewide-endorsements/ |publisher=[[California Environmental Voters]] |access-date=September 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905071023/https://www.envirovoters.org/elections/2022-statewide-endorsements/ |archive-date=September 5, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On October&nbsp;3, the [[Human Rights Campaign]] announced its support for voting Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1, with senior vice president JoDee Winterhof stating, "[T]he Human Rights Campaign is endorsing positions on 11 ballot measures in an effort to help strengthen our democracy, and preserve our rights and freedoms."<ref name="Human Rights Campaign">{{cite web |title=Human Rights Campaign Endorses Positions on 11 Ballot Measures Across 9 States |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-endorses-positions-on-11-ballot-measures-across-9-states |publisher=[[Human Rights Campaign]] |access-date=October 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221003195743/https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-endorses-positions-on-11-ballot-measures-across-9-states |archive-date=October 3, 2022 |location=Washington |date=October 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Joining the Yes campaign are the [[Advocates for Youth]], [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Environmental Health Coalition]], [[League of United Latin American Citizens|California League of United Latin American Citizens]], [[Media Alliance]], and [[Natural Resources Defense Council]].<ref name="Our Coalition"/>

[[Editorial board]]s representing 14 of California's newspapers published articles in support of Proposition&nbsp;1: the ''[[East Bay Times]]'' and ''[[The Mercury News]]'' jointly on August&nbsp;13 (republished by the ''[[Marin Independent Journal]]'' on September&nbsp;19);<ref name="Mercury East Bay editorial">{{cite web |title=Editorial: California {{nobr|Prop. 1}} would protect women's reproductive rights |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/13/editorial-vote-yes-on-prop-1-protect-womens-right-to-reproductive-freedom/ |work=[[The Mercury News]] |access-date=August 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220813212335/https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/13/editorial-vote-yes-on-prop-1-protect-womens-right-to-reproductive-freedom/ |archive-date=August 13, 2022 |date=August 13, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="MIJ endorsement">{{cite web |title=Editorial: California {{nobr|Prop. 1}} would protect women's reproductive rights |url=https://www.marinij.com/2022/09/19/editorial-california-prop-1-would-protect-womens-reproductive-rights/ |website=[[Marin Independent Journal]] |publisher=[[Bay Area News Group]] |access-date=September 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230402002424/https://www.marinij.com/2022/09/19/editorial-california-prop-1-would-protect-womens-reproductive-rights/ |archive-date=April 2, 2023 |date=September 19, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> the ''[[Santa Cruz Sentinel]]'' on August&nbsp;30;<ref name="Santa Cruz Sentinel">{{cite web |title=Editorial {{!}} With reservations, we recommend a 'yes' vote on {{nobr|Prop. 1}}, to protect women's reproductive rights |url=https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/08/30/editorial-with-reservations-we-recommend-a-yes-vote-on-prop-1-to-protect-womens-reproductive-rights/ |work=[[Santa Cruz Sentinel]] |access-date=August 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220830192244/https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2022/08/30/editorial-with-reservations-we-recommend-a-yes-vote-on-prop-1-to-protect-womens-reproductive-rights/ |archive-date=August 30, 2022 |date=August 30, 2022 |url-access=registration |url-status=live}}</ref> the ''[[Bay Area Reporter]]'' on August&nbsp;31;<ref name="BAR endorsement">{{cite web |title=Editorial: B.A.R. CA prop recommendations |url=https://www.ebar.com/story.php?ch=news&sc=news&id=318578 |work=[[Bay Area Reporter]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904040647/https://www.ebar.com/story.php?ch=news&sc=news&id=318578 |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=August 31, 2022}}</ref> the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' on September&nbsp;5;<ref name="LAT endorsement">{{cite web |title=Endorsement: Yes on Prop&nbsp;1. Even in progressive California, abortion rights need constitutional protection |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-05/protect-abortion-rights-in-california-and-vote-yes-on-proposition-1 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=September 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905181423/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-05/protect-abortion-rights-in-california-and-vote-yes-on-proposition-1 |archive-date=September 5, 2022 |date=September 5, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[The Press Democrat]]'' on September&nbsp;16;<ref name="PD Endorsement">{{cite web |title=PD Endorsement: {{nobr|Prop. 1}} safeguards the right to choose |url=https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-prop-1-safeguards-the-right-to-choose/ |work=[[The Press Democrat]] |access-date=September 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220916140007/https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-prop-1-safeguards-the-right-to-choose/ |archive-date=September 16, 2022 |date=September 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> the ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' on September&nbsp;18;<ref name="Chronicle endorsement">{{cite web |title=Endorsement: Don't leave California reproductive rights to chance. Vote yes on {{nobr|Prop. 1}} |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Endorsement-prop-1-abortion-rights-17447932.php |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=September 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220918131143/https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Endorsement-prop-1-abortion-rights-17447932.php |archive-date=September 18, 2022 |date=September 18, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[The Bakersfield Californian]]'' on September&nbsp;25;<ref name="The Bakersfield Californian">{{cite web |title=Our View: Proposition&nbsp;1 – Reproductive Rights – Vote YES |url=https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/our-view/our-view-proposition-1-reproductive-rights-vote-yes/article_49de525e-3b66-11ed-a7ed-4351761387bf.html |work=[[The Bakersfield Californian]] |access-date=September 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220925190537/https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/our-view/our-view-proposition-1-reproductive-rights-vote-yes/article_49de525e-3b66-11ed-a7ed-4351761387bf.html |archive-date=September 25, 2022 |date=September 25, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> and ''[[The Sacramento Bee]]'', ''[[The Fresno Bee]]'', ''[[The Modesto Bee]]'', and ''[[San Luis Obispo Tribune]]'' jointly on September&nbsp;26;<ref name="McClatchy endorsement">{{cite web |title=Proposition&nbsp;1 could ensure that access to abortion becomes enshrined law in California |url=https://amp.sacbee.com/article266205556.html |work=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=September 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220926145806/https://amp.sacbee.com/article266205556.html |archive-date=September 26, 2022 |date=September 26, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> and ''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]]'' on October&nbsp;5.<ref name="SSDUT endorsement">{{cite web |title=Endorsement: Vote yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 to firmly preserve Californians' reproductive rights |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2022-10-05/opinion-yes-on-california-proposition-1-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=October 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221006074944/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2022-10-05/opinion-yes-on-california-proposition-1-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade |archive-date=October 6, 2022 |date=October 5, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> The ''Santa Cruz Sentinel''{{'}}s endorsement was qualified, expressing the need for limitations on {{nobr|late-term}} abortion: "[T]he Legislature can, and should, pass laws establishing the parameters of when an abortion could be performed, just as legislators do for other established constitutional rights."<ref name="Santa Cruz Sentinel"/> Larry Wilson, a [[Southern California News Group]] editorial board member, wrote about his support for Proposition&nbsp;1 in the ''[[Pasadena Star-News]]''.<ref name="Larry Wilson">{{cite web |last1=Wilson |first1=Larry |title=California must lead the nation in defending abortion rights: Larry Wilson |url=https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2022/09/18/california-must-lead-the-nation-in-defending-abortion-rights-larry-wilson/ |work=[[Pasadena Star-News]] |access-date=September 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220918201008/https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2022/09/18/california-must-lead-the-nation-in-defending-abortion-rights-larry-wilson/ |archive-date=September 18, 2022 |date=September 18, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref>

Religious organizations representing the Yes campaign include [[American Atheists]]; Atheists United; [[Catholics for Choice]]; [[Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization of America]];<ref name="Hadassah">{{cite web |title=Hadassah for Choice |url=https://www.hadassah.org/get-involved/choice |publisher=[[Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization of America]] |access-date=August 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220814225058/https://www.hadassah.org/get-involved/choice |archive-date=August 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> the [[Jewish Community Relations Council]] of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties; the [[National Council of Jewish Women|National Council of Jewish Women CA]]; and the Pilgrim [[United Church of Christ]].<ref name="Our Coalition"/> On October&nbsp;17, the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]] announced their support for Proposition&nbsp;1 "to make sure that religious ideologues cannot impose their will on California residents when it comes to reproductive health".<ref name="Action Alert California">{{cite web |title=Action Alert California: Vote YES on Proposition&nbsp;1 to protect abortion rights! |url=https://ffrf.org/news/action/item/41531-vote-yes-on-proposition-1-to-protect-abortion-rights |publisher=[[Freedom From Religion Foundation]] |access-date=October 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221018094711/https://ffrf.org/news/action/item/41531-vote-yes-on-proposition-1-to-protect-abortion-rights |archive-date=October 18, 2022 |date=October 17, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On September&nbsp;15, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria tribal chairman [[Greg Sarris]] endorsed voting Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 and stated: "It is most important to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria that all women, particularly indigenous women and all {{nobr|low-income}} and women of color, continue to have sovereign rights over their bodies and access to all existing health care available to them."<ref name="Kounalakis Joins"/> [[Thomas Jefferson School of Law]] professor emerita [[Marjorie Cohn]] wrote an opinion article in [[Truthout]] on September&nbsp;21 of the need to pass Proposition&nbsp;1 because "the California Constitution does not explicitly contain the right to abortion. A future California Supreme Court could overrule ''Myers'', and hold that the constitutional right to privacy does not extend to abortion."<ref name="States Need Constitutional">{{cite web |last1=Cohn |first1=Marjorie |author1-link=Marjorie Cohn |title=States Need Constitutional Amendments to Protect Abortion From Right-Wing Judges |url=https://truthout.org/articles/states-need-constitutional-amendments-to-protect-abortion-from-right-wing-judges/ |publisher=[[Truthout]] |access-date=September 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921190623/https://truthout.org/articles/states-need-constitutional-amendments-to-protect-abortion-from-right-wing-judges/ |archive-date=September 21, 2022 |date=September 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association]] recommended voting Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1, writing that "it is important that the state ensures the strength and clarity of reproductive freedom law".<ref name="SPUR">{{cite web |title=California Prop&nbsp;1 – Reproductive Freedom {{!}} SPUR |date=26 September 2022 |url=https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2022-11/ca-prop-1-reproductive-freedom |publisher=[[SPUR (San Francisco organization)|SPUR]] |access-date=August 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320161406/https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2022-11/ca-prop-1-reproductive-freedom |archive-date=March 20, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Bay Area Council]] represents one business group that joined the Yes campaign.<ref name="Our Coalition"/>

=== Opposition ===
[[File:California Together, No on Proposition 1 logo.svg|thumb|No on Proposition&nbsp;1 logo]]
The group leading the campaign against Proposition&nbsp;1 was California Together.<ref name="California Together">{{cite web |title=California Together, No on Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.noproposition1.com/ |publisher=California Together |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220914094530/https://www.noproposition1.com/ |archive-date=September 14, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[California Republican Party]] announced its opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1 on August&nbsp;19.<ref name="CAGOP oppose"/> The No campaign was supported by state senator [[Brian Dahle]] and assemblymembers [[Megan Dahle]] and [[Jim Patterson (California politician)|Jim Patterson]],<ref name="We Oppose">{{cite web |title=We Oppose Prop&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.noproposition1.com/endorsements |publisher=No on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829225039/https://www.noproposition1.com/endorsements |archive-date=August 29, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> the latter of whom {{nobr|co-wrote}} the official argument against Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Argument against"/> State treasurer candidate Jack Guerrero cited his Roman Catholic faith and called the proposed constitutional amendment a "radical agenda...which would legalize taxpayer-funded abortion on demand to the moment of birth for any reason or no reason at all."<ref name="Jack Guerrero Q&A">{{cite web |title=Nov. 2022 Election: Q&A with Jack Guerrero, candidate for California state treasurer |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-09-01/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-jack-guerrero-candidate-for-california-state-treasurer |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904043149/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-09-01/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-jack-guerrero-candidate-for-california-state-treasurer |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=September 1, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> State superintendent of public instruction candidate Lance Christensen opposes the ballot measure.<ref name="In nonpartisan race">{{cite web |last1=Mays |first1=Mackenzie |title=In nonpartisan race for California superintendent of public instruction, it's all politics |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-20/california-superintendent-of-public-instruction-race-thurmond-vs-christensen |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=September 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921162832/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-20/california-superintendent-of-public-instruction-race-thurmond-vs-christensen |archive-date=September 21, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=September 20, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Carl DeMaio]], a member of the [[San Diego City Council]] from 2008 to 2012 and chairman of Reform California, recommended a No vote on Proposition&nbsp;1, stating that the amendment "would repeal the current ban on abortions after 23 weeks of a pregnancy and allow the right to a {{nobr|late-term}} abortion up to the moment of birth."<ref name="Plain English">{{cite web |title=A Plain English Guide to Propositions on California's November 2022 Ballot |url=https://reformcalifornia.org/a-plain-english-guide-to-propositions-on-californias-november-2022-ballot/ |publisher=Reform California |access-date=August 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220808195414/https://reformcalifornia.org/a-plain-english-guide-to-propositions-on-californias-november-2022-ballot/ |archive-date=August 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In early August, [[San Clemente, California|San Clemente]] city council member Steve Knoblock proposed an {{nobr|anti-abortion}} resolution to show his opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="San Clemente">{{cite web |last1=D'Urso |first1=William |title=San Clemente City Council member wants to ban abortion |url=https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/politics/2022/08/05/san-clemente-city-council-member-wants-to-ban-abortion- |publisher=[[Spectrum News]] |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220815025702/https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/politics/2022/08/05/san-clemente-city-council-member-wants-to-ban-abortion- |archive-date=August 15, 2022 |location=San Clemente |date=August 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Tom Campbell (California politician)|Tom Campbell]], a [[Chapman University]] professor and former US representative, wrote an opinion article in ''[[The Orange County Register]]'' on August&nbsp;20, stating that the State Legislature should "withdraw Proposition&nbsp;1 and offer an alternative that protects the right to an abortion up to viability – current state law."<ref name="Sacramento should withdraw">{{cite web |last1=Campbell |first1=Tom |author1-link=Tom Campbell (California politician) |title=Sacramento should withdraw Proposition&nbsp;1 to specify post-viability abortion limits |url=https://www.ocregister.com/2022/08/20/sacramento-should-withdraw-proposition-1-to-specify-post-viability-abortion-limits/ |work=[[The Orange County Register]] |access-date=August 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220820190318/https://www.ocregister.com/2022/08/20/sacramento-should-withdraw-proposition-1-to-specify-post-viability-abortion-limits/ |archive-date=August 20, 2022 |date=August 20, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref>

In [[San Mateo, California|San Mateo]], Rod Linhares was the lone city council candidate who did not share their position on either abortion or Proposition&nbsp;1, with all other candidates for the San Mateo City Council affirming their support for both.<ref name="Linhares">{{cite web |title=Pro-Choice Advocates Criticize San Mateo Council Candidate Rod Linhares Abortion Stance |url=https://climaterwc.com/2022/09/08/pro-choice-advocates-criticize-san-mateo-council-candidate-rod-linhares-abortion-stance/ |publisher=Climate Online |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220914204413/https://climaterwc.com/2022/09/08/pro-choice-advocates-criticize-san-mateo-council-candidate-rod-linhares-abortion-stance/ |archive-date=September 14, 2022 |date=September 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On November&nbsp;2, Linhares emailed the ''[[San Mateo Daily Journal]]''{{'}}s Mark Simon, stating his opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1 and claiming that the ballot measure "allows abortion in the last three months" of pregnancy.<ref name="Disappointing election cycle">{{cite news |last1=Simon |first1=Mark |title=Disappointing election cycle |url=https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/disappointing-election-cycle/article_c06a8b46-5b2c-11ed-958c-93fcf5f18738.html |newspaper=[[San Mateo Daily Journal]] |access-date=November 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221104061449/https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/disappointing-election-cycle/article_c06a8b46-5b2c-11ed-958c-93fcf5f18738.html |archive-date=November 4, 2022 |date=November 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The California Catholic Conference issued a statement opposing SCA&nbsp;10, stating that the amendment would "legalize and protect abortion up to the point just prior to delivery" and calling for Catholics in the state to oppose the ballot measure. The statement was signed by Los Angeles Archbishop [[José Horacio Gómez]], San Francisco Archbishop [[Salvatore Cordileone]], and bishops from 10 other California dioceses.<ref name="CCC opposes">{{cite web |title=The California Catholic Conference vehemently opposes Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 10 |url=https://static1.squarespace.com/enwiki/static/62c70f13e254bb0205935889/t/62f6a023913baa79f4002df8/1660330020547/CA-STMT-SCA10.pdf |publisher=California Catholic Conference |access-date=August 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220812214630/https://static1.squarespace.com/enwiki/static/62c70f13e254bb0205935889/t/62f6a023913baa79f4002df8/1660330020547/CA-STMT-SCA10.pdf |archive-date=August 12, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Two of the bishops who signed onto the statement, San Jose bishop [[Oscar Cantú]] and Orange bishop [[Kevin Vann]], coauthored an ''[[America (magazine)|America]]'' opinion article with Orange auxiliary bishop and California Catholic Conference secretary–treasurer Timothy Freyer on November&nbsp;4 to express their opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1, writing in part that "[t]he California Legislature is prioritizing abortion over all other social safety net concerns."<ref name="Cantú Vann Freyer">{{cite web |last1=Cantú |first1=Oscar |last2=Vann |first2=Kevin |last3=Freyer |first3=Timothy |author1-link=Oscar Cantú |author2-link=Kevin Vann |title=California bishops: Women deserve better than {{nobr|Prop. 1's}} extreme expansion of late-term abortion. |url=https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/11/04/proposition-one-california-abortion-244093 |magazine=[[America (magazine)|America]] |access-date=August 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230528222008/https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/11/04/proposition-one-california-abortion-244093 |archive-date=May 28, 2023 |date=November 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The organization crafted pew cards and [[Flyer (pamphlet)|flyers]] in English and Spanish, also producing the former in Korean and Vietnamese, to distribute to churchgoers, instructing them to vote against Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Pew cards">{{cite web |title=California bishops offer pew cards, flyers on Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://www.cal-catholic.com/california-bishops-offer-pew-cards-flyers-on-proposition-1/ |publisher=California Catholic Daily |access-date=August 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819205258/https://www.cal-catholic.com/california-bishops-offer-pew-cards-flyers-on-proposition-1/ |archive-date=August 19, 2022 |date=August 19, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Hope and prayer">{{cite news |last1=Koseff |first1=Alexei |title=Hope and prayer: California churches battle abortion ballot measure |url=https://calmatters.org/politics/election-2022/2022/10/california-ballot-measure-abortion-churches/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=October 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221003194034/https://calmatters.org/politics/election-2022/2022/10/california-ballot-measure-abortion-churches/ |archive-date=October 3, 2022 |date=October 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The California Family Council wrote that "Proposition&nbsp;1 is an extreme and costly proposal that does nothing to advance women's health."<ref name="CFC">{{cite web |title=Proposition&nbsp;1 |date=July 2022 |url=https://www.californiafamily.org/prop-1/ |publisher=California Family Council |access-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220828010403/https://www.californiafamily.org/prop-1/ |archive-date=August 28, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The American Council of Evangelicals and [[Knights of Columbus|California Knights of Columbus]] also represent part of the No campaign.<ref name="We Oppose"/>

The [[American Solidarity Party]] of California stated their opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1, "No other state has ever tried to amend into its state constitution the right to abortion at any stage, even {{nobr|late-term}} abortions."<ref name="American Solidarity">{{cite web |title=No on Proposition&nbsp;1 |url=https://ca.solidarity-party.org/learn_more/ |publisher=[[American Solidarity Party]] of California |access-date=August 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220815023524/https://ca.solidarity-party.org/learn_more/ |archive-date=August 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On November&nbsp;5, Betsey Stone announced the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers Party]]'s opposition to the constitutional amendment in ''[[The Militant]]'', arguing that "we need to fight to make abortion rarer by changing the social conditions that have led to its widespread use."<ref name="SWP">{{cite news |last1=Stone |first1=Betsey |title=California referendum is blow to women's emancipation |url=https://themilitant.com/2022/11/05/california-referendum-is-blow-to-womens-emancipation/ |newspaper=[[The Militant]] |access-date=November 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221106045007/https://themilitant.com/2022/11/05/california-referendum-is-blow-to-womens-emancipation/ |archive-date=November 6, 2022 |location=Oakland |date=November 5, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Feminists for Life]] opposed Senate Constitutional Amendment&nbsp;10, with its president, Serrin Foster, stating in part, "Rather than assist families and pregnant women with practical resources, California legislators seek to codify abortion in a constitutional amendment — and make California an abortion destination."<ref name="Women deserve">{{cite web |last1=Geminder |first1=Damian J. |title=California women deserve better than SCA 10! |url=https://www.feministsforlife.org/california-women-deserve-better-than-sca-10/ |publisher=[[Feminists for Life]] |access-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220702162739/https://www.feministsforlife.org/california-women-deserve-better-than-sca-10/ |archive-date=July 2, 2022 |date=June 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The organization later joined the campaign against Proposition&nbsp;1 with the [[Christian Medical and Dental Associations]], [[Democrats for Life]], [[Live Action (organization)|Live Action]], [[Students for Life]], [[Walk for Life West Coast]], and [[William Jessup University]].<ref name="We Oppose"/>

Southern California News Group editorial board member John Seiler wrote an opinion article in ''[[The San Bernardino Sun]]'' on September&nbsp;3 in which he stated that he would vote against Proposition&nbsp;1, noting that the ballot measure will still pass.<ref name="Seiler">{{cite web |last1=Seiler |first1=John |title=Proposition&nbsp;1 and the return of democracy to abortion |url=https://www.sbsun.com/2022/09/03/proposition-1-and-the-return-of-democracy-to-abortion/ |work=[[The San Bernardino Sun]] |access-date=September 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905203634/https://www.sbsun.com/2022/09/03/proposition-1-and-the-return-of-democracy-to-abortion/ |archive-date=September 5, 2022 |date=September 3, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> Writing in ''[[The Press-Enterprise]]'' on September&nbsp;18, SCNG editorial writer Susan Shelley joined Seiler in opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1, writing that the constitutional amendment "will legalize abortion in California at any stage of any pregnancy, right up to birth, for any reason."<ref name="Shelley">{{cite web |last1=Shelley |first1=Susan |title=Proposition&nbsp;1 goes too far and risks unintended consequences, vote no: Susan Shelley |url=https://www.pe.com/2022/09/18/proposition-1-goes-too-far-and-risks-unintended-consequences-vote-no-susan-shelley/ |work=[[The Press-Enterprise]] |access-date=September 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220918224622/https://www.pe.com/2022/09/18/proposition-1-goes-too-far-and-risks-unintended-consequences-vote-no-susan-shelley/ |archive-date=September 18, 2022 |date=September 18, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Catholic News Agency]] senior writer Kevin J. Jones stated his opposition to Proposition&nbsp;1 on October&nbsp;6 by writing that "[u]nlimited abortion would become a fundamental right, as would abortion on viable unborn children."<ref name="California voters must reject">{{cite web |last1=Jones |first1=Kevin J. |title=California voters must reject 'no limit' Proposition&nbsp;1 abortion amendment, critics say |url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252492/california-voters-must-reject-no-limit-proposition-1-abortion-amendment-critics-say |publisher=[[Catholic News Agency]] |access-date=October 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221007034136/https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252492/california-voters-must-reject-no-limit-proposition-1-abortion-amendment-critics-say |archive-date=October 7, 2022 |date=October 6, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Neutral or no position ===

The [[Libertarian Party of California]] published a voter guide that stated the party's position on candidates and ballot measures. Sharing the party's position on all other state propositions, the Libertarian Party omitted its position on Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="LPC position">{{cite web |title=LPCA 2022 November Voter Guide for Candidates, State Propositions & County Measures |url=https://ca.lp.org/voter-guide/ |publisher=[[Libertarian Party of California]] |access-date=October 24, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221022203352/https://ca.lp.org/voter-guide/ |archive-date=October 22, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[The Orange County Register]]''{{'}}s editorial board opted not to publish a position on Proposition&nbsp;1, instead taking positions on the state's other ballot measures.<ref name="OCR endorsements">{{cite news |title=Orange County Register endorsements for the Nov. 8, 2022 midterm election |url=https://www.ocregister.com/2022/09/06/endorsements-for-the-nov-8-2022-midterms/ |newspaper=[[The Orange County Register]] |access-date=November 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116065302/https://www.ocregister.com/2022/09/06/endorsements-for-the-nov-8-2022-midterms/ |archive-date=November 16, 2022 |date=October 27, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Along with all of the state's other propositions, the California branch of the [[Council on American–Islamic Relations]] claimed no position on Proposition&nbsp;1, stating that "though the issues on the ballot are of great importance they fall outside the scope of CAIR-CA's focus and mission."<ref name="CAIR voter guide">{{cite web |title=2022 California Voter Guide |url=https://ca.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CAIR-2022-Voter-Guide-Web.pdf |publisher=[[Council on American–Islamic Relations]] |access-date=August 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019234624/https://ca.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CAIR-2022-Voter-Guide-Web.pdf |archive-date=October 19, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In a question and answer interview with ''The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}'', insurance commissioner candidate Robert Howell did not share his position on Proposition&nbsp;1, writing in part, "I do not think the Insurance Commissioner's Office has any control of this issue. We will need to see what the people of California have to say in November."<ref name="Robert Howell Q&A">{{cite web |title=Opinion: Nov. 2022 Election: Q&A with Robert Howell, candidate for California insurance commissioner |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-31/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-robert-howell-candidate-for-california-insurance-commissioner |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune|The San Diego {{nobr|Union-Tribune}}]] |access-date=September 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904041406/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2022-08-31/nov-2022-election-q-a-with-robert-howell-candidate-for-california-insurance-commissioner |archive-date=September 4, 2022 |date=August 31, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> At the American Liberty Forum in [[Ramona, San Diego County, California|Ramona]] on September&nbsp;24, [[San Diego County Sheriff's Department|San Diego County Sheriff]] candidate John Hemmerling, endorsed by the Republican Party, refused to "take any position on state propositions or proposed federal legislation related to abortion."<ref name="San Diego GOP Conflicted">{{cite web |last1=Stone |first1=Ken |title=San Diego GOP Conflicted on Abortion? Three in Ramona Evidence a Wide Split |url=https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/09/26/san-diego-gop-conflicted-on-abortion-three-in-ramona-evidenced-a-wide-split/ |work=[[Times of San Diego]] |access-date=September 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220927033543/https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/09/26/san-diego-gop-conflicted-on-abortion-three-in-ramona-evidenced-a-wide-split/ |archive-date=September 27, 2022 |date=September 26, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On October&nbsp;4, the [[San Marcos, California|San Marcos]] City Council voted {{nobr|3–2}} against a resolution affirming the city's support for Proposition&nbsp;1 as the majority determined that the city should not take a position on the issue and let the voters decide its fate.<ref name="San Marcos">{{cite web |last1=Place |first1=Laura |title=San Marcos City Council disagrees on pro-choice support resolution |url=https://thecoastnews.com/san-marcos-city-council-disagrees-on-pro-choice-support-resolution/ |work=[[The Coast News]] |access-date=October 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005050152/https://thecoastnews.com/san-marcos-city-council-disagrees-on-pro-choice-support-resolution/ |archive-date=October 5, 2022 |location=[[San Marcos, California|San Marcos]] |date=October 4, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Opinion polling ==

=== Estimates ===
{{Graph:Chart
| legend      = Legend

| y1Title     = Yes
| y1          = 0.73, 0.68, 0.67, 0.66, 0.71, 0.69, 0.59, 0.69, 0.64, 0.67

| y2Title     = No
| y2          = 0.27, 0.29, 0.29, 0.27, 0.18, 0.25, 0.33, 0.37, 0.29, 0.33

| y3title     = Undecided
| y3          = 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.10, 0.06, 0.08,     , 0.07,     

| xAxisTitle  = Date
| xAxisAngle  = -40
| xAxisFormat = %B %d
| xGrid       = yes
| xType       = date
| x           = 2022/07/15, 2022/07/15, 2022/08/09, 2022/08/11, 2022/08/15, 2022/09/11, 2022/10/12, 2022/11/06, 2022/11/06, 2022/11/08

| yAxisTitle  = Percentage
| yAxisFormat = %
| yGrid       = yes

| interpolate = bundle
| height      = 300
| width       = 800
| vannotatonsline  = 2022/11/08
| vannotatonslabel = Election
| colors      = #01387b, #feda00, #808080, grey
| type        = line
| showSymbols = 1
}}

=== Preferences ===
{{Row hover highlight}}
{| class="mw-datatable wikitable sortable" style="font-size:90%; text-align:center;"
|-
! rowspan="2" | Poll source
! rowspan="2" | Date(s)
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" data-sort-type="number" | Sample{{efn|Sample size key:<br />A – all adults<br />DV – Decided voters<br />RV – registered voters<br />LV – likely voters<br />V – unclear|name=Key}}
! rowspan="2" | Margin<br />of error
! style="background-color:#01387b; width:100px;" | 
! style="background-color:#feda00; width:100px;" | 
! style="background-color:#808080; width:100px;" | 
! rowspan="2" | Lead
! rowspan="2" class="unsortable" | {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
|-
! Yes{{efn|The figures provided under Yes are represented by poll responses that include yes, favor, and support.|name=Yes}}
! No{{efn|The figures provided under No are represented by poll responses that include no and oppose.|name=No}}
! Undecided{{efn|The figures provided under Undecided are represented by poll responses that include undecided, don't know, and not sure.|name=Undecided}}
|-
| style="text-align:left;" rowspan="2" | Research Co.
| data-sort-value="2022-11-06" rowspan="2" | {{nobr|November 4–6, 2022}}
| 420
| {{abbr|DV|Decided voters}}
| {{Unknown}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''69%'''
| 31%
| —
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 38%
| rowspan="2" | <ref name="Research Co. November DV LV">{{cite web |last1=Canseco |first1=Mario |title=Florida and Ohio Are Red States in U.S. Midterm Election |url=https://researchco.ca/2022/11/07/2022-midterm-uspoli/ |publisher=Research Co. |access-date=November 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221108093123/https://researchco.ca/2022/11/07/2022-midterm-uspoli/ |archive-date=November 8, 2022 |location=Vancouver |date=November 7, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Research Co. November DV LV tables">{{cite web |title=Polls conducted by Research Co. in the United States – November 7, 2022 |url=https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Tables_StateRaces_USA_07Nov2022.pdf |publisher=Research Co. |access-date=November 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221108092617/https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Tables_StateRaces_USA_07Nov2022.pdf |archive-date=November 8, 2022 |page=3 |date=November 7, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| 450
| {{abbr|LV|Likely voters}}
| ±&nbsp;4.6%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''64%'''
| 29%
| 7%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 35%
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Rasmussen Reports]]
| data-sort-value="2022-10-12" | {{nobr|October 12, 2022}}
| 1,216
| {{abbr|LV|Likely voters}}
| ±&nbsp;3.0%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''59%'''
| 33%
| 8%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 26%
| <ref name="Rasmussen October LV">{{cite web |title=Toplines – Stop Prop&nbsp;1 – October 12, 2022 |url=https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/toplines_stop_prop_1_october_12_2022 |publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] |access-date=October 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221018165213/https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/toplines_stop_prop_1_october_12_2022 |archive-date=October 18, 2022 |date=October 18, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|Carnegie Endowment]]/[[YouGov]]
| data-sort-value="2022-09-26" | {{nobr|September 9–26, 2022}}
| 927
| {{abbr|A|All adults}}{{efn|The poll conducted by the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|Carnegie Endowment]] and [[YouGov]] was a survey among [[Asian Americans in California]] and not representative of all Californians.<ref name="Carnegie"/>}}
| ±&nbsp;3.0%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''65%'''
| 17%
| 18%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 48%
| <ref name="Carnegie">{{cite web |last1=Vaishnav |first1=Milan |last2=Labh |first2=Nitya |title=What do Asian American Voters in California Want?
 |url=https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/11/03/what-do-asian-american-voters-in-california-want-pub-88305 |publisher=[[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] |access-date=December 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221215182513/https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/11/03/what-do-asian-american-voters-in-california-want-pub-88305 |archive-date=December 15, 2022 |date=November 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Public Policy Institute of California]]
| data-sort-value="2022-09-11" | {{nobr|September 2–11, 2022}}
| 1,060
| {{abbr|LV|Likely voters}}
| ±&nbsp;5.4%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''69%'''
| 25%
| 6%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 44%
| <ref name="PPIC September LV">{{cite web |title=PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government |url=https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2022/ |publisher=[[Public Policy Institute of California]] |access-date=September 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915080924/https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2022/ |archive-date=September 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Institute of Governmental Studies|Berkeley IGS]]
| data-sort-value="2022-08-15" | {{nobr|August 9–15, 2022}}
| 9,254
| {{abbr|RV|Registered voters}}
| ±&nbsp;2.0%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''71%'''
| 18%
| 10%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 53%
| <ref name="Berkeley IGS August RV">{{cite web |last1=DiCamillo |first1=Mark |title=Tabulations from an August 2022 Survey of California Registered Voters about the Overturning Roe vs. Wade and the Importance of the Issue of Abortion in this year's Elections |url=https://escholarship.org/content/qt5nw7q8gz/qt5nw7q8gz.pdf |publisher=[[Institute of Governmental Studies]] |access-date=August 24, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220824203838/https://escholarship.org/content/qt5nw7q8gz/qt5nw7q8gz.pdf |archive-date=August 24, 2022 |date=August 24, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Rasmussen Reports]]
| data-sort-value="2022-08-11" | {{nobr|August 10–11, 2022}}
| 1,006
| {{abbr|LV|Likely voters}}
| ±&nbsp;2.0%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''66%'''
| 27%
| 7%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 39%
| <ref name="Rasmussen August LV">{{cite web |title=Most California Voters Support Limits on Abortion |url=https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/most_california_voters_support_limits_on_abortion |publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] |access-date=August 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220823192149/https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/most_california_voters_support_limits_on_abortion |archive-date=August 23, 2022 |date=August 23, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Probolsky Research
| data-sort-value="2022-08-09" | {{nobr|August 4–9, 2022}}
| 900
| {{abbr|LV|Likely voters}}
| ±&nbsp;3.3%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''67%'''
| 29%
| 4%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 38%
| <ref name="Probolsky August LV">{{cite web |title=Proposition&nbsp;1: Constitutional Amendment on Abortion Rights Winning with Super-Majority Support in CA |url=https://www.probolskyresearch.com/2022/08/11/proposition-1-constitutional-amendment-on-abortion-rights-winning-with-super-majority-support-in-ca/ |publisher=Probolsky Research |access-date=August 19, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819230433/https://www.probolskyresearch.com/2022/08/11/proposition-1-constitutional-amendment-on-abortion-rights-winning-with-super-majority-support-in-ca/ |archive-date=August 19, 2022 |date=August 11, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" rowspan="2" | [[Public Policy Institute of California]]
| data-sort-value="2022-07-15" rowspan="2" | {{nobr|July 8–15, 2022}}
| 1,648
| {{abbr|A|All adults}}
| ±&nbsp;3.4%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''68%'''
| 29%
| 2%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 39%
| <ref name="PPIC July A">{{cite web |title=PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment – All Adults – July 2022 |url=https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-all-adults-0722.pdf |publisher=[[Public Policy Institute of California]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816045734/https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-all-adults-0722.pdf |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |pages=i, 63 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
| 1,132
| {{abbr|LV|Likely voters}}
| ±&nbsp;4.1%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''73%'''
| 27%
| 1%
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 46%
| <ref name="PPIC July LV">{{cite web |title=PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment – Likely Voters – July 2022 |url=https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-likely-voters-0722.pdf |publisher=[[Public Policy Institute of California]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220803095311/https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-likely-voters-0722.pdf |archive-date=August 3, 2022 |pages=i, 64 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|}

== Voting ==
[[File:2022 general election San Diego County sample ballot (propositions).pdf|thumb|Sample ballot for [[San Diego County]] voters featuring Proposition&nbsp;1]]
Voting on Proposition&nbsp;1 coincided with all other [[2022 California elections|elections]] in California on {{nobr|November 8, 2022}}, with polls open from 7:00&nbsp;am to 8:00&nbsp;pm [[Pacific Time Zone|PST]] ([[UTC−8]]).<ref name="Official voter guide">{{cite book |title=California General Election November 8, 2022 Official Voter Information Guide |url=https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2022/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |pages=1, 10, 127 |access-date=August 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819050257/https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2022/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf |archive-date=August 19, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> All active registered voters in California were [[Postal voting|mailed a ballot]] ahead of the election, which began no later than October&nbsp;10. For a ballot to be considered valid, it had to be returned and postmarked on or before November&nbsp;8 and received by November&nbsp;15. The ballot could also have been delivered {{nobr|in-person}} at a [[ballot drop box]], [[polling place]], or county elections office by 8:00&nbsp;pm on November&nbsp;8.<ref name="2022 California General">{{cite web |title=2022 California General |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810182205/https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections |archive-date=August 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Throughout California, there was at least one ballot drop box for every 15,000 registered voters. Voters had the ability to track their ballots' status to ensure that they were received and counted.<ref name="Non-Partisan Voter Guide">{{cite web |last1=Chappelle |first1=Lina |title=Here's Your Non-Partisan Voter Guide to the 2022 General Election |url=https://kfiam640.iheart.com/featured/la-local-news/content/2022-10-03-heres-your-non-partisan-voter-guide-to-the-2022-general-election/ |publisher=[[KFI]] |access-date=October 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221003200733/https://kfiam640.iheart.com/featured/la-local-news/content/2022-10-03-heres-your-non-partisan-voter-guide-to-the-2022-general-election/ |archive-date=October 3, 2022 |date=October 3, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The deadline for eligible voters to [[Voter registration|register]] online or by mail was 15&nbsp;days before the election – October&nbsp;24.<ref name="CalMatters voter guide">{{cite news |title=2022 voter guide |url=https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2022/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |date=18 April 2022 |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816220334/https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2022/ |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |url-status=live|last1=Christopher |first1=Ben }}</ref><ref name="Voter Registration">{{cite web |title=Voter Registration |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816214121/https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Eligible voters who registered after the October&nbsp;24 deadline had to do so at a county elections office, polling place, or vote center to cast their vote in the election,<ref name="Same Day">{{cite web |title=Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration) |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/same-day-reg |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816214308/https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/same-day-reg |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> but had until 8:00&nbsp;pm on November&nbsp;8 to do so.<ref name="2022 California General"/> Voters in 27 of the 58 [[List of counties in California|counties]] had the option to [[Early voting|vote early]] in person from October&nbsp;29 to November&nbsp;8.<ref name="Official voter guide"/> According to the [[California Voter Bill of Rights]], people who were already in line by 8:00&nbsp;pm to vote can cast one, even if it was past the deadline.<ref>{{cite web |title=Voter Bill of Rights |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-bill-rights |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=August 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816214206/https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-bill-rights |archive-date=August 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> California voters were able to receive information and assistance in 10 languages: [[English language|English]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]], [[Chinese language|Chinese]], [[Hindi]], [[Japanese language|Japanese]], [[Khmer language|Khmer]], [[Korean language|Korean]], [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]], [[Thai language|Thai]] and [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]].<ref name="Voting in California">{{cite web |title=Voting in California |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=September 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905081014/https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california |archive-date=September 5, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Several different [[Tabulating machine|tabulation systems]] were used in the election by the state's 58 counties, such as [[Dominion Voting Systems|Dominion ImageCast]], [[Hart InterCivic|Hart Verity]], and [[Election Systems & Software|ES&S EVS]].<ref name="Statement of Vote">{{cite web |last1=Weber |first1=Shirley |author1-link=Shirley Weber |title=Statement of Vote, November 4, 2008 {{!}} General Election |date=December 16, 2022 |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/complete.pdf |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=December 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221217022740/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/complete.pdf |archive-date=December 17, 2022 |pages=5, 14 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Los Angeles County]] used its own publicly-owned system, VSAP, for tabulation.<ref name="Statement of Vote"/><ref name="VSAP">{{cite web |title=Los Angeles County Launches VSAP 2.1 Voting System Certified |url=https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2020-news-releases-and-advisories/ap20091-los-angeles-county-vsap-21-voting-system-certified |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=December 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221205235430/https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2020-news-releases-and-advisories/ap20091-los-angeles-county-vsap-21-voting-system-certified |archive-date=December 5, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=October 1, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== Results ==
For Proposition&nbsp;1 to pass, it needed approval from a majority of the voters.<ref name="simple majority"/> By the time polls closed, about a third of the votes had already been counted from those cast in early voting and showed Yes votes outnumbering No about two votes to one.<ref name="Measure to add">{{cite news |last1=Plachta |first1=Ari |title=Measure to add abortion rights to California Constitution takes big lead in early voting |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268285217.html |newspaper=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=November 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116045221/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268285217.html |archive-date=November 16, 2022 |date=November 8, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> On the night of the election, multiple news outlets called the results in favor of the Yes vote, with [[NBC News]] doing so at 8:40&nbsp;pm PST,<ref name="NBC projects">{{Cite tweet |user=NBCLA |number=1590202584928636928 |date=November 8, 2022 |title=California votes to amend the State Constitution to make reproductive freedom a fundamental right |access-date=November 9, 2022 |link=https://twitter.com/NBCLA/status/1590202584928636928 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109061607/https://twitter.com/NBCLA/status/1590202584928636928 |archive-date=November 9, 2022 |quote=#Prop1: California votes to amend the State Constitution to make reproductive freedom a fundamental right, @NBCNews projects. #ElectionDay |ref=}}
</ref> [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] by 8:50&nbsp;pm,<ref name="ABC projects">{{cite web |last1=Kreutz |first1=Liz |title=ABC News projects Prop 1 will pass, making abortions fundamental right for Californians |url=https://abc7news.com/proposition-1-california-2022-ca-abortion-amendment-birth-control-election/12294452/ |publisher=[[KGO-TV]] |access-date=November 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109051245/https://abc7news.com/proposition-1-california-2022-ca-abortion-amendment-birth-control-election/12294452/ |archive-date=November 9, 2022 |location=San Francisco |date=November 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> and the [[Associated Press]] at 10:38&nbsp;pm.<ref name="Measure to add"/> [[CNN]] made the same projection at 2:18 am on November&nbsp;9.<ref name="CNN Projection">{{cite web |last1=Stracqualursi |first1=Veronica |last2=Cole |first2=Devan |title=CNN Projection: Californians vote to explicitly protect abortion rights in the state |website=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/midterm-election-results-livestream-voting-11-08-2022/h_f9345799222d843d8ba4bc2febffa109 |access-date=November 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110083300/https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/midterm-election-results-livestream-voting-11-08-2022/h_f9345799222d843d8ba4bc2febffa109 |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Secretary of State [[Shirley Weber]] certified the election on December 16, affirming the passage of Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="A look at">{{cite web |last1=Zavala |first1=Ashley |title=A look at voter turnout in California's now certified election |url=https://www.kcra.com/article/california-voter-turnout-election-november-state-county/42271634 |publisher=[[KCRA]] |access-date=December 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221217040931/https://www.kcra.com/article/california-voter-turnout-election-november-state-county/42271634 |archive-date=December 17, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=December 16, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> With the ballot measure passing, it entered into effect on December&nbsp;21.<ref name="Officially put">{{cite web |last1=Tovar |first1=Ricardo |title=Reproductive freedom officially put into California Constitution |url=https://kion546.com/news/2022/12/21/reproductive-freedom-officially-put-into-california-constitution/ |publisher=[[KION-TV]] |access-date=December 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221234614/https://kion546.com/news/2022/12/21/reproductive-freedom-officially-put-into-california-constitution/ |archive-date=December 21, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=December 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Statewide ===
{{Row hover highlight}}
{{Referendum
| title      = Proposition 1
| yes        = 7,176,883
| yespct     = 66.88
| no         = 3,553,561
| nopct      = 33.12
| valid      = 10,730,444
| validpct   = 96.27
| invalid    = 416,166
| invalidpct = 3.73
| total      = 11,146,610
| turnoutpct = 50.80
| electorate = 21,940,274
| source     = {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230923080420/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/complete.pdf |date=September 23, 2023 |title=Statement of Vote}}
}}

{{Referendum bar
| title = Proposition 1

| text1       = Yes
| vote1       = 7,176,883
| background1 = #01387b
| textcolor1  = #fff

| text2       = No
| vote2       = 3,553,561
| background2 = #feda00
| textcolor2  = #000
}}
[[File:2022 California Proposition 1 results map by county.svg|thumb|Result by county<br />{{legend0|#7D9CBB|Yes}} {{legend0|#BCBC83|No}}]]
=== By county ===
{| class="mw-datatable wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right;"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="3" | County
! colspan="2" style="background-color:#01387b;" | 
! colspan="2" style="background-color:#feda00;" | 
! colspan="3" rowspan="2" | Votes
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | Registered
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | Eligible
|-
! colspan="2" | Yes
! colspan="2" | No
|-
! data-sort-type="number" | Votes
! {{abbr|Per.|Percentage}}
! data-sort-type="number" | Votes
! {{abbr|Per.|Percentage}}
! data-sort-type="number" | Valid
! data-sort-type="number" | Invalid
! data-sort-type="number" | Total
! data-sort-type="number" | Total
! Turnout
! data-sort-type="number" | Total
! Turnout
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Alameda County, California|Alameda]]{{efn|Voters in the following 27 [[List of counties in California|counties]] had the option to [[Early voting|vote early]] in person from October&nbsp;29 to November&nbsp;8: [[Alameda County, California|Alameda]], [[Amador County, California|Amador]], [[Butte County, California|Butte]], [[Calaveras County, California|Calaveras]], [[El Dorado County, California|El Dorado]], [[Fresno County, California|Fresno]], [[Kings County, California|Kings]], [[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles]], [[Madera County, California|Madera]], [[Marin County, California|Marin]], [[Mariposa County, California|Mariposa]], [[Merced County, California|Merced]], [[Napa County, California|Napa]], [[Nevada County, California|Nevada]], [[Orange County, California|Orange]], [[Riverside County, California|Riverside]], [[Sacramento County, California|Sacramento]], [[San Benito County, California|San Benito]], [[San Diego County, California|San Diego]], [[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo]], [[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara]], [[Santa Cruz County, California|Santa Cruz]], [[Sonoma County, California|Sonoma]], [[Stanislaus County, California|Stanislaus]], [[Tuolumne County, California|Tuolumne]], [[Ventura County, California|Ventura]], and [[Yolo County, California|Yolo]].<ref name="Official voter guide"/>|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''390,357'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''83.9%'''
| 74,916
| 16.1%
| 465,273
| 30,852
| 496,125
| 931,130
| 53.28%
| 1,140,774
| 43.49%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Alpine County, California|Alpine]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''427'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''71.6%'''
| 169
| 28.4%
| 596
| 27
| 623
| 915
| 68.09%
| 1,015
| 61.38%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Amador County, California|Amador]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| 8,974
| 49.3%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''9,216'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''50.7%'''
| 18,190
| 728
| 18,918
| 25,954
| 72.89%
| 29,593
| 63.93%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Butte County, California|Butte]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''41,855'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''59.0%'''
| 29,072
| 41.0%
| 70,927
| 2,284
| 73,211
| 123,935
| 59.07%
| 164,755
| 44.44%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Calaveras County, California|Calaveras]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''10,532'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''50.6%'''
| 10,266
| 49.4%
| 20,798
| 768
| 21,566
| 32,172
| 67.03%
| 36,563
| 58.98%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Colusa County, California|Colusa]]
| 2,490
| 45.9%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''2,939'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''54.1%'''
| 5,429
| 188
| 5,617
| 10,144
| 55.37%
| 13,214
| 42.51%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Contra Costa County, California|Contra Costa]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''290,527'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''75.6%'''
| 93,584
| 24.4%
| 384,111
| 10,042
| 394,153
| 701,969
| 56.15%
| 803,842
| 49.03%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Del Norte County, California|Del Norte]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''4,216'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''51.5%'''
| 3,967
| 48.5%
| 8,183
| 267
| 8,450
| 14,943
| 56.55%
| 19,219
| 43.97%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[El Dorado County, California|El Dorado]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''47,021'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''54.1%'''
| 39,853
| 45.9%
| 86,874
| 2,949
| 89,823
| 138,537
| 64.84%
| 145,060
| 61.92%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Fresno County, California|Fresno]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''114,340'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''53.4%'''
| 99,612
| 46.6%
| 213,952
| 7,467
| 221,419
| 500,076
| 44.28%
| 642,412
| 34.47%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Glenn County, California|Glenn]]
| 3,532
| 45.8%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''4,185'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''54.2%'''
| 7,717
| 269
| 7,986
| 14,346
| 55.67%
| 18,865
| 42.33%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Humboldt County, California|Humboldt]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''34,634'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''73.3%'''
| 12,587
| 26.7%
| 47,221
| 1,520
| 48,741
| 84,756
| 57.51%
| 107,016
| 45.55%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Imperial County, California|Imperial]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''15,962'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''54.3%'''
| 13,419
| 45.7%
| 29,381
| 1,005
| 30,386
| 86,942
| 34.95%
| 109,738
| 27.69%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Inyo County, California|Inyo]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''4,207'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''59.3%'''
| 2,883
| 40.7%
| 7,090
| 487
| 7,577
| 10,729
| 70.62%
| 14,619
| 51.83%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Kern County, California|Kern]]
| 87,619
| 47.4%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''97,191'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''52.6%'''
| 184,818
| 5,887
| 190,705
| 435,872
| 43.75%
| 561,276
| 33.98%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Kings County, California|Kings]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| 12,148
| 45.7%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''14,420'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''54.3%'''
| 26,568
| 557
| 27,125
| 61,535
| 44.08%
| 86,806
| 31.25%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Lake County, California|Lake]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''12,336'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''62.4%'''
| 7,432
| 37.6%
| 19,768
| 594
| 20,362
| 37,154
| 54.80%
| 51,231
| 39.75%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Lassen County, California|Lassen]]
| 3,522
| 39.3%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''5,434'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''60.7%'''
| 8,956
| 315
| 9,271
| 14,757
| 62.82%
| 21,275
| 43.58%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''1,710,784'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''72.9%'''
| 635,668
| 27.1%
| 2,346,452
| 110,249
| 2,456,701
| 5,601,835
| 43.86%
| 6,658,099
| 36.90%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Madera County, California|Madera]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| 16,918
| 46.4%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''19,544'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''53.6%'''
| 36,462
| 883
| 37,345
| 72,865
| 51.25%
| 93,789
| 39.82%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Marin County, California|Marin]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''101,549'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''85.8%'''
| 16,872
| 14.2%
| 118,421
| 2,981
| 121,402
| 170,545
| 71.18%
| 185,951
| 65.29%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Mariposa County, California|Mariposa]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''3,936'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''51.0%'''
| 3,783
| 49.0%
| 7,719
| 209
| 7,928
| 11,558
| 68.59%
| 13,813
| 57.40%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Mendocino County, California|Mendocino]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''22,207'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''74.5%'''
| 7,590
| 25.5%
| 29,797
| 1,211
| 31,008
| 53,105
| 58.39%
| 67,114
| 46.20%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Merced County, California|Merced]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''28,957'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''53.4%'''
| 25,237
| 46.6%
| 54,194
| 1,656
| 55,850
| 124,659
| 44.80%
| 172,198
| 32.43%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Modoc County, California|Modoc]]
| 1,347
| 40.5%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''1,980'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''59.5%'''
| 3,327
| 114
| 3,441
| 5,197
| 66.21%
| 6,740
| 51.05%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Mono County, California|Mono]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''3,118'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''69.2%'''
| 1,387
| 30.8%
| 4,505
| 128
| 4,633
| 7,710
| 60.09%
| 9,399
| 49.29%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Monterey County, California|Monterey]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''71,966'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''71.3%'''
| 28,956
| 28.7%
| 100,922
| 2,225
| 103,147
| 209,045
| 49.34%
| 251,193
| 41.06%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Napa County, California|Napa]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''36,414'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''73.2%'''
| 13,358
| 26.8%
| 49,772
| 1,016
| 50,788
| 83,480
| 60.84%
| 97,321
| 52.19%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Nevada County, California|Nevada]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''32,680'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''65.9%'''
| 16,907
| 34.1%
| 49,587
| 1,783
| 51,370
| 74,488
| 68.96%
| 81,891
| 62.73%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Orange County, California|Orange]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''550,256'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''57.2%'''
| 412,417
| 42.8%
| 962,673
| 31,604
| 994,277
| 1,817,583
| 54.70%
| 2,203,252
| 45.13%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Placer County, California|Placer]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''97,558'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''54.9%'''
| 80,296
| 45.1%
| 177,854
| 6,653
| 184,507
| 279,016
| 66.13%
| 301,467
| 61.20%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Plumas County, California|Plumas]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''4,557'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''53.8%'''
| 3,910
| 46.2%
| 8,467
| 254
| 8,721
| 13,848
| 62.98%
| 15,245
| 57.21%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Riverside County, California|Riverside]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''330,757'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''56.5%'''
| 254,691
| 43.5%
| 585,448
| 19,169
| 604,617
| 1,310,505
| 46.14%
| 1,637,165
| 36.93%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Sacramento County, California|Sacramento]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''306,720'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''68.2%'''
| 143,182
| 31.8%
| 449,902
| 34,413
| 484,315
| 865,225
| 55.98%
| 1,112,665
| 43.53%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Benito County, California|San Benito]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''12,486'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''64.7%'''
| 6,809
| 35.3%
| 19,295
| 550
| 19,845
| 37,750
| 52.57%
| 43,559
| 45.56%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Bernardino County, California|San Bernardino]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''235,743'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''53.4%'''
| 205,726
| 46.6%
| 441,469
| 17,477
| 458,946
| 1,138,818
| 40.30%
| 1,472,696
| 31.16%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Diego County, California|San Diego]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''648,166'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''64.3%'''
| 359,290
| 35.7%
| 1,007,456
| 36,034
| 1,043,490
| 1,924,634
| 54.22%
| 2,349,554
| 44.41%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Francisco]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''270,509'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''89.5%'''
| 31,657
| 10.5%
| 302,166
| 7,905
| 310,071
| 498,197
| 62.24%
| 660,132
| 46.97%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Joaquin County, California|San Joaquin]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''100,809'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''58.2%'''
| 72,332
| 41.8%
| 173,141
| 6,192
| 179,333
| 388,635
| 46.14%
| 509,377
| 35.21%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Luis Obispo County, California|San Luis Obispo]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''72,266'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''61.7%'''
| 44,830
| 38.3%
| 117,096
| 4,060
| 121,156
| 182,340
| 66.45%
| 221,071
| 54.80%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''193,880'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''79.6%'''
| 49,724
| 20.4%
| 243,604
| 8,629
| 252,233
| 432,734
| 58.29%
| 515,759
| 48.91%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Santa Barbara County, California|Santa Barbara]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''90,581'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''68.0%'''
| 42,636
| 32.0%
| 133,217
| 3,827
| 137,044
| 237,759
| 57.64%
| 303,842
| 45.10%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''407,714'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''76.1%'''
| 127,939
| 23.9%
| 535,653
| 14,949
| 550,602
| 1,009,422
| 54.55%
| 1,259,821
| 43.70%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Santa Cruz County, California|Santa Cruz]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''83,669'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''81.0%'''
| 19,654
| 19.0%
| 103,323
| 2,721
| 106,044
| 167,442
| 63.33%
| 197,659
| 53.65%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Shasta County, California|Shasta]]
| 30,005
| 45.1%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''36,561'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''54.9%'''
| 66,566
| 2,420
| 68,986
| 111,628
| 61.80%
| 138,293
| 49.88%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Sierra County, California|Sierra]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''787'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''51.2%'''
| 749
| 48.8%
| 1,536
| 49
| 1,585
| 2,219
| 71.43%
| 2,673
| 59.30%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Siskiyou County, California|Siskiyou]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''9,118'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''52.7%'''
| 8,175
| 47.3%
| 17,293
| 614
| 17,907
| 28,725
| 62.34%
| 34,986
| 51.18%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Solano County, California|Solano]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''86,268'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''66.9%'''
| 42,646
| 33.1%
| 128,914
| 3,330
| 132,244
| 260,358
| 50.79%
| 318,503
| 41.52%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Sonoma County, California|Sonoma]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''155,741'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''79.4%'''
| 40,453
| 20.6%
| 196,194
| 4,153
| 200,347
| 304,017
| 65.90%
| 356,905
| 56.13%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Stanislaus County, California|Stanislaus]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''65,342'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''51.0%'''
| 62,830
| 49.0%
| 128,172
| 3,970
| 132,142
| 282,393
| 46.79%
| 363,595
| 36.34%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Sutter County, California|Sutter]]
| 13,334
| 49.4%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''13,685'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''50.6%'''
| 27,019
| 1,502
| 28,521
| 52,896
| 53.92%
| 65,666
| 43.43%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Tehama County, California|Tehama]]
| 8,911
| 44.3%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''11,199'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''55.7%'''
| 20,110
| 709
| 20,819
| 37,131
| 56.07%
| 46,966
| 44.33%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Trinity County, California|Trinity]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''2,664'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''59.3%'''
| 1,831
| 40.7%
| 4,495
| 113
| 4,608
| 7,309
| 63.05%
| 13,168
| 34.99%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Tulare County, California|Tulare]]
| 40,882
| 45.5%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''48,891'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''54.5%'''
| 89,773
| 2,631
| 92,404
| 208,863
| 44.24%
| 287,885
| 32.10%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Tuolumne County, California|Tuolumne]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''11,554'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''51.1%'''
| 11,035
| 48.9%
| 22,589
| 893
| 23,482
| 35,355
| 66.42%
| 43,682
| 53.76%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Ventura County, California|Ventura]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''172,853'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''63.2%'''
| 100,532
| 36.8%
| 273,385
| 10,628
| 284,013
| 505,110
| 56.23%
| 584,861
| 48.56%
|-
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Yolo County, California|Yolo]]{{efn|name=eip}}
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''49,468'''
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | '''73.7%'''
| 17,689
| 26.3%
| 67,157
| 1,637
| 68,794
| 118,797
| 57.91%
| 155,109
| 44.35%
|-
| style="background:#fea;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[Yuba County, California|Yuba]]
| 9,710
| 49.9%
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''9,765'''
| style="background:#fea; color:#000;" | '''50.1%'''
| 19,475
| 411
| 19,886
| 41,212
| 48.25%
| 56,463
| 35.22%
|- class="sortbottom"
! colspan="13" | 
|- class="sortbottom" style="font-weight:bold;"
| style="background:#acf;" | &nbsp;
| style="text-align:left;" | [[California]]
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 7,176,883
| style="background:#acf; color:#000;" | 66.9%
| 3,553,561
| 33.1%
| 10,730,444
| 416,166
| 11,146,610
| 21,940,274
| 50.80%
| 26,876,800
| 41.47%
|- class="sortbottom"
! colspan="2" rowspan="3" | Total
! Votes
! {{abbr|Per.|Percentage}}
! Votes
! {{abbr|Per.|Percentage}}
! Valid
! Invalid
! Total
! Total
! Turnout
! Total
! Turnout
|- class="sortbottom"
! colspan="2" | Yes
! colspan="2" | No
! colspan="3" rowspan="2" | Votes
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | Registered
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | Eligible
|- class="sortbottom"
! colspan="2" style="background-color:#01387b;" | 
! colspan="2" style="background-color:#feda00;" | 
|- class="sortbottom"
| colspan="13" style="font-size:85%; text-align:left;" | Source: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221217022740/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/complete.pdf |date=December 17, 2022 |title=Statement of Vote}}
|}

====By congressional district====
Yes won 49 of 52 congressional districts, including nine that elected Republicans.<ref>{{cite web |title=Counties by Congressional Districts for State Ballot Measures |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/ssov/ballot-measures-congressional.pdf |access-date=29 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240712212920/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/ssov/ballot-measures-congressional.pdf |archive-date=12 July 2024 |language=en |date=8 November 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable"

! District
! Yes
! No
! Representative
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|1|1st}}
| '''50.3%'''
| 49.7%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Doug LaMalfa]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|2|2nd}}
| '''79%'''
| 21%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Jared Huffman]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|3|3rd}}
| '''58%'''
| 42%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Kevin Kiley (politician)|Kevin Kiley]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|4|4th}}
| '''72%'''
| 28%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Mike Thompson (California politician)|Mike Thompson]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|5|5th}}
| '''50.4%'''
| 49.6%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Tom McClintock]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|6|6th}}
| '''66%'''
| 34%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Ami Bera]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|7|7th}}
| '''72%'''
| 28%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Doris Matsui]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|8|8th}}
| '''77%'''
| 23%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[John Garamendi]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|9|9th}}
| '''58%'''
| 42%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Josh Harder]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|10|10th}}
| '''74%'''
| 26%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Mark DeSaulnier]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|11|11th}}
| '''90%'''
| 10%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Nancy Pelosi]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|12|12th}}
| '''92%'''
| 8%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Barbara Lee]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|13|13th}}
| '''53%'''
| 47%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[John Duarte (politician)|John Duarte]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|14|14th}}
| '''76%'''
| 24%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Eric Swalwell]]
|- align=center
! rowspan=2 style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|15|15th}}
| rowspan=2|'''79%'''
| rowspan=2|21%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Jackie Speier]] ([[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]])
|- align=center
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Kevin Mullin]] ([[118th United States Congress|118th Congress]])
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|16|16th}}
| '''79%'''
| 21%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Anna Eshoo]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|17|17th}}
| '''76%'''
| 24%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Ro Khanna]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|18|18th}}
| '''71%'''
| 29%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Zoe Lofgren]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|19|19th}}
| '''73%'''
| 27%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Jimmy Panetta]]
|- align=center
!style="background: rgb(248, 193, 190);"|{{ushr|California|20|20th}}
| 43%
| '''57%'''
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Kevin McCarthy]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|21|21st}}
| '''56%'''
| 44%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Jim Costa]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|22|22nd}}
| '''54%'''
| 46%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[David Valadao]]
|- align=center
!style="background: rgb(248, 193, 190);"|{{ushr|California|23|23rd}}
| 49.5%
| '''50.5%'''
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Jay Obernolte]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|24|24th}}
| '''68%'''
| 32%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Salud Carbajal]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|25|25th}}
| '''59%'''
| 41%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Raul Ruiz (politician)|Raul Ruiz]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|26|26th}}
| '''63%'''
| 37%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Julia Brownley]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|27|27th}}
| '''59%'''
| 41%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Mike Garcia (politician)|Mike Garcia]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|28|28th}}
| '''70%'''
| 30%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Judy Chu]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|29|29th}}
| '''75%'''
| 25%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Tony Cárdenas]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|30|30th}}
| '''81%'''
| 19%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Adam Schiff]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|31|31st}}
| '''62%'''
| 38%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Grace Napolitano]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|32|32nd}}
| '''77%'''
| 23%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Brad Sherman]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|33|33rd}}
| '''58%'''
| 42%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Pete Aguilar]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|34|34th}}
| '''81%'''
| 19%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Jimmy Gomez]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|35|35th}}
| '''58%'''
| 42%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Norma Torres]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|36|36th}}
| '''77%'''
| 23%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Ted Lieu]]
|- align=center
! rowspan=2 style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|37|37th}}
| rowspan=2|'''84%'''
| rowspan=2|16%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Karen Bass]] ([[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]])
|- align=center
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Sydney Kamlager-Dove]] ([[118th United States Congress|118th Congress]])
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|38|38th}}
| '''61%'''
| 39%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Linda Sánchez]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|39|39th}}
| '''59%'''
| 41%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Mark Takano]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|40|40th}}
| '''54%'''
| 46%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Young Kim]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|41|41st}}
| '''56%'''
| 44%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Ken Calvert]]
|- align=center
! rowspan=2 style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|42|42nd}}
| rowspan=2|'''70%'''
| rowspan=2|30%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Lucille Roybal-Allard]] ([[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]])
|- align=center
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Robert Garcia (California politician)|Robert Garcia]] ([[118th United States Congress|118th Congress]])
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|43|43rd}}
| '''76%'''
| 24%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Maxine Waters]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|44|44th}}
| '''70%'''
| 30%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Nanette Barragán]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|45|45th}}
| '''55%'''
| 45%
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Michelle Steel]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|46|46th}}
| '''60%'''
| 40%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Lou Correa]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|47|47th}}
| '''61%'''
| 39%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Katie Porter]]
|- align=center
!style="background: rgb(248, 193, 190);"|{{ushr|California|48|48th}}
| 49.6%
| '''50.4%'''
| {{party shading/Republican}}|[[Darrell Issa]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|49|49th}}
| '''61%'''
| 39%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Mike Levin]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|50|50th}}
| '''71%'''
| 29%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Scott Peters (politician)|Scott Peters]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|51|51st}}
| '''67%'''
| 33%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Sara Jacobs]]
|- align=center
!style="background: #B6C8D9;"|{{ushr|California|52|52th}}
| '''65%'''
| 35%
| {{party shading/Democratic}}|[[Juan Vargas]]
|}

== Aftermath ==

=== Reactions ===

Democratic candidates across California wore [[Pink#Social movements|pink]] on November&nbsp;8 in support of Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="Abortion rights starred">{{cite news |last1=Kendall |first1=Marisa |title=Abortion rights starred in election in California and nationwide. And the impact was much broader. |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/09/abortion-was-the-star-of-the-election-in-california-and-nationwide/ |newspaper=[[The Mercury News]] |access-date=November 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110003105/https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/09/abortion-was-the-star-of-the-election-in-california-and-nationwide/ |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |date=November 9, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> After Proposition&nbsp;1's outcome was projected by several media outlets, the Yes campaign declared victory, with Atkins and Hicks stating in part, "Californians didn't just vote to protect abortion – they showed up overwhelming to make it clear: abortion is a fundamental right."<ref name="Soars to Victory">{{cite web |title=Proposition 1 Soars to Victory – Abortion and Contraception Protections Added to California State Constitution |url=https://www.protectabortionca.com/proposition-1-soars-to-victory-abortion-and-contraception-protections-added-to-california-state-constitution/ |publisher=Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 |access-date=November 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110170301/https://www.protectabortionca.com/proposition-1-soars-to-victory-abortion-and-contraception-protections-added-to-california-state-constitution/ |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |location=Sacramento |date=November 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Newsom called California's protection of abortion rights a "point of pride,"<ref name="California voters guarantee">{{cite web |last1=Colliver |first1=Victoria |title=California voters guarantee abortion rights in state constitution |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/09/california-abortion-rights-state-constitution-00065820 |publisher=[[Politico]] |access-date=November 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110000749/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/09/california-abortion-rights-state-constitution-00065820 |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |location=Oakland |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> further stating that the voters "affirmed we are a true freedom state."<ref name="US states vote">{{cite news |last1=Noor |first1=Poppy |last2=Canon |first2=Gabrielle |title=US states vote to protect reproductive rights in rebuke to {{nobr|anti-abortion}} push |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/09/vermont-abortion-vote-first-us-state-constitution |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=November 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110010909/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/09/vermont-abortion-vote-first-us-state-constitution |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Timmaraju said Proposition&nbsp;1's passage ensures that "[n]o matter where [Californians] live, no matter who is in office—[Californians'] right to decide when and how to start or expand a family should be [theirs and theirs] alone."<ref name="NARAL Celebrates">{{cite web |title=NARAL Pro-Choice America Celebrates Passage of Proposition 1 in California |url=https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2022/11/09/naral-pro-choice-america-celebrates-passage-of-proposition-1-in-california/ |publisher=[[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] |access-date=November 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112160347/https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2022/11/09/naral-pro-choice-america-celebrates-passage-of-proposition-1-in-california/ |archive-date=November 12, 2022 |location=Los Angeles |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Catherine Hadro, the No campaign's media relations director, issued a statement on the outcome, "The battle now shifts to the courts and the legislature. Our coalition will fight all attempts to reinterpret rights or conform state law to what is now known as the nation's most extreme abortion amendment. The California Catholic Conference said that Proposition&nbsp;1 "opened the door to unregulated, {{nobr|late-term}} abortions, all at taxpayer expense, redirecting state funding away from solutions for the greatest needs of California families."<ref name="Yoder">{{cite web |last1=Yoder |first1=Katie |title=Proposition 1: California votes for abortion in midterms 2022 |url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252768/proposition-1-california-votes-for-abortion-in-midterms-2022 |publisher=[[Catholic News Agency]] |access-date=November 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109074402/https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252768/proposition-1-california-votes-for-abortion-in-midterms-2022 |archive-date=November 9, 2022 |location=Washington, D.C. |date=November 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> On the night of the election, the California Family Council held a [[vigil]] at the [[California State Capitol]].<ref name="Californians overwhelmingly">{{cite web |last1=Molina |first1=Alejandra |title=Californians overwhelmingly support abortion rights over Catholic bishops' objections |url=https://religionnews.com/2022/11/09/ca-overwhelmingly-supports-measure-enshrining-abortion-rights-amid-christian-opposition/ |publisher=[[Religion News Service]] |access-date=November 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109171207/https://religionnews.com/2022/11/09/ca-overwhelmingly-supports-measure-enshrining-abortion-rights-amid-christian-opposition/ |archive-date=November 9, 2022 |location=Los Angeles |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Cordileone stated that "{{nobr|Prop. 1}} will inevitably be challenged in the courts."<ref name="We weep with Jesus">{{cite web |last1=Jones |first1=Kevin J. |title='We weep with Jesus': Catholic bishops lament pro-abortion ballot victories |url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252790/catholic-bishops-reaction-to-abortion-state-ballot-defeats |publisher=[[Catholic News Agency]] |access-date=November 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112035916/https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252790/catholic-bishops-reaction-to-abortion-state-ballot-defeats |archive-date=November 12, 2022 |location=Denver |date=November 11, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Following Proposition&nbsp;1's passage, the Guttmacher Institute reclassified California's abortion policy as "very protective," the {{nobr|second-highest}} level of protection categorized by Guttmacher.<ref name="Resounding Victories">{{cite web |last1=Nash |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Guarnieri |first2=Isabel |title=In the US Midterm Elections, Resounding Victories for Abortion on State Ballot Measures |url=https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/11/us-midterm-elections-resounding-victories-abortion-state-ballot-measures |publisher=[[Guttmacher Institute]] |access-date=August 16, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230729135547/https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/11/us-midterm-elections-resounding-victories-abortion-state-ballot-measures |archive-date=July 29, 2023 |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== National effect ===

Along with California, voters in Michigan and Vermont affirmed the right to an abortion in their state constitutions respectively with [[2022 Michigan Proposal 3|Proposal&nbsp;3]] and [[2022 Vermont Proposal 5|Proposal&nbsp;5]], becoming the first three states in the nation to do so.<ref name="California Becomes First">{{cite web |last1=Austin |first1=Paige |title=California Becomes First State With Constitutional Right To Abortion |url=https://patch.com/california/across-ca/real-time-election-results-prop-1 |publisher=[[Patch (website)|Patch]] |access-date=November 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114213640/https://patch.com/california/across-ca/real-time-election-results-prop-1 |archive-date=November 14, 2022 |location=California |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Michigan, California and Vermont">{{cite news |last1=Smith |first1=Mitch |last2=Sasani |first2=Ava |title=Michigan, California and Vermont Affirm Abortion Rights in Ballot Proposals |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/abortion-rights-ballot-proposals.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=November 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114085713/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/abortion-rights-ballot-proposals.html |archive-date=November 14, 2022 |date=November 10, 2022 |url-access=limited |url-status=live}}</ref> In Kentucky and Montana, the former's [[2022 Kentucky Amendment 2|Amendment&nbsp;2]] and the latter's [[2022 Montana Legislative Referendum 131|Legislative Referendum 131]], which would have restricted abortion rights, were rejected by the two states' voters. As such, all five states voted to preserve abortion rights.<ref name="Abortion rights won">{{cite web |last1=Merelli |first1=Annalisa |title=Abortion rights won the US midterms |url=https://qz.com/abortion-rights-won-the-us-midterms-1849762288 |publisher=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]] |access-date=November 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110010214/https://qz.com/abortion-rights-won-the-us-midterms-1849762288 |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |date=November 9, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Based on the success of Proposition&nbsp;1, similar measures in Michigan and Vermont, and the rejection of restrictive ballot measures in Kentucky and Montana, some abortion rights groups planned on putting abortion ballot measures up for a vote in other states in future elections, with [[American Civil Liberties Union]] executive director [[Anthony Romero]] stating, "Let's go to states, and let's prove that we can win in some challenging environment. Let's put this to the people." The ACLU and the [[Fairness Project]] planned such measures in [[Abortion in Arkansas|Arkansas]], [[Abortion in Florida|Florida]], [[Abortion in Missouri|Missouri]], [[Abortion in Ohio|Ohio]], [[Abortion in Oklahoma|Oklahoma]], and [[Abortion in South Dakota|South Dakota]]. [[Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America]] president [[Marjorie Dannenfelser]] stated her belief that other states may try to replicate Proposition&nbsp;1.<ref name="After wins">{{cite web |last1=McCammon |first1=Sarah |title=After wins at the ballot, abortion rights groups want to 'put this to the people' |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135757008/after-wins-at-the-ballot-abortion-rights-groups-want-to-put-this-to-the-people |publisher=[[NPR]] |access-date=November 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111064536/https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135757008/after-wins-at-the-ballot-abortion-rights-groups-want-to-put-this-to-the-people |archive-date=November 11, 2022 |date=November 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Rene Almeling and Adora Svitak, respectively a sociology professor and graduate student at [[Yale University]], wrote that a national abortion ban remained a possibility, even after California's passage of Proposition&nbsp;1, if Republicans regain full control of the federal government in the [[2024 United States elections|2024 elections]].<ref name="There's still reason">{{cite news |last1=Almeling |first1=Rene |last2=Svitak |first2=Adora |title=Yes, there's still reason to be worried about a national abortion ban. Here's why |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/abortion-ban-election-republicans-17569898.php |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=November 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115191002/https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/abortion-ban-election-republicans-17569898.php |archive-date=November 15, 2022 |date=November 15, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Northeastern University]] law professor [[Martha Davis (author)|Martha Davis]] stated that the failure to pass abortion restrictions in {{nobr|Republican-leaning}} states such as [[2022 Kansas abortion referendum|Kansas]] and Kentucky, make it more difficult for Republicans in Congress to legislate federal restrictions that undermine and override Proposition&nbsp;1 and constitutional abortion protections in other states.<ref name="What Do the Midterm">{{cite web |last1=Mello-Klein |first1=Cody |title=What Do the Midterm Results Say about the Future of Abortion Rights? |url=https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/11/10/midterms-abortion-rights/ |publisher=[[Northeastern University]] |access-date=November 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111143544/https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/11/10/midterms-abortion-rights/ |archive-date=November 11, 2022 |date=November 10, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In response to the results of the abortion ballot measures, Kilgore wrote that "[t]he door to state abortion bans opened by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year when it reversed ''Roe v. Wade'' is being closed by voters whenever they have the opportunity to weigh in on the matter."<ref name="Abortion-Rights Winning Streak">{{cite magazine |last=Kilgore |first=Ed |date=November 9, 2022 |title=The {{nobr|Abortion-Rights}} Winning Streak Continues |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/election-results-abortion-rights-winning-streak-continues.html |url-status=live |magazine=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221110141046/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/election-results-abortion-rights-winning-streak-continues.html |archive-date=November 10, 2022 |access-date=November 16, 2022}}</ref>

=== Analysis ===

[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]'s Annalisa Merelli stated that "the midterm results so far suggest that supporting measures against reproductive rights proved counterproductive for Republicans, who had better success galvanizing the {{nobr|anti-choice}} vote when the right to abortions was still a constitutional guarantee nationwide."<ref name="Abortion rights won"/> Among some figures in the anti-abortion movement, such as [[Marilyn Musgrave]], Republican reticence toward discussing abortion resulted in measures like Proposition&nbsp;1 passing.<ref name="Anti-abortion groups blame">{{cite news |last1=Ollstein |first1=Alice Miranda |last2=Messerly |first2=Megan |title=Anti-abortion groups blame GOP silence for election defeat |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/21/anti-abortion-groups-election-loss-00069569 |newspaper=[[Politico]] |access-date=November 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121163338/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/21/anti-abortion-groups-election-loss-00069569 |archive-date=November 21, 2022 |date=November 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Franklin said Proposition&nbsp;1 "will get media attention and people will be made more aware that California is a place they can go."<ref name="US states vote"/> Jackie Fortiér, a reporter for [[KPCC (FM)|KPCC]], wrote that the "[c]ourts may have to sort out the details later, but passage of the constitutional amendment cements California as an abortion sanctuary."<ref name="California voters enshrine">{{cite web |last1=Fortiér |first1=Jackie |title=California voters enshrine right to abortion and contraception in state constitution |url=https://www.kpcc.org/npr-news/2022-11-08/california-voters-enshrine-right-to-abortion-and-contraception-in-state-constitution |publisher=[[KPCC (FM)|KPCC]] |access-date=November 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113044654/https://www.kpcc.org/npr-news/2022-11-08/california-voters-enshrine-right-to-abortion-and-contraception-in-state-constitution |archive-date=November 13, 2022 |location=Los Angeles |date=November 8, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[SFGATE]] writer Sam Moore said Proposition&nbsp;1 may have little effect in rural California counties, particularly [[Tulare County]], which lacks a Planned Parenthood clinic due to local conservative opposition. A 2019 study by the [[Kaiser Family Foundation]] determined that the county's residents had to travel at least 50 miles to access an abortion provider.<ref name="Prop 1 may mean nothing">{{cite web |last1=Moore |first1=Sam |title=The conservative California county where {{nobr|Prop. 1}} may mean nothing for abortion |url=https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/california-prop-1-tulare-county-17553944.php |publisher=[[SFGATE]] |access-date=November 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112043710/https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/california-prop-1-tulare-county-17553944.php |archive-date=November 12, 2022 |date=November 7, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Bay Area News Group]] reporter Marisa Kendall stated that support for Proposition&nbsp;1 was tied to Newsom's support in California, "Newsom backed {{nobr|Prop. 1}} from the beginning, and experts say its runaway victory is a nod toward the governor's continuing power and influence."<ref name="Abortion rights starred"/> Kendall's colleague, Harriet Blair Rowan, found that the Yes votes for Proposition&nbsp;1 was one of the cheapest among the state's other ballot propositions when taking campaign spending into account, standing at $2.85 per Yes vote, second only to the Yes votes for [[2022 California Proposition 28|Proposition&nbsp;28]] and 50 times less than the Yes votes for [[2022 California Proposition 27|Proposition&nbsp;27]].<ref name="Failed California ballot">{{cite news |last1=Rowan |first1=Harriet Blair |title=This failed California ballot prop. spent 50 times more for each yes vote than the abortion measure |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/13/this-failed-california-ballot-prop-spent-50-times-more-for-each-yes-vote-than-the-abortion-measure/ |newspaper=[[The Mercury News]] |access-date=November 13, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221113191134/https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/13/this-failed-california-ballot-prop-spent-50-times-more-for-each-yes-vote-than-the-abortion-measure/ |archive-date=November 13, 2022 |date=November 13, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> A KFF and AP VoteCast poll conducted between October&nbsp;31 and November&nbsp;8 found that 44% of California voters and 55% of California women aged 18–49 said ''Roe''{{'}}s overturning was a major factor in getting them to vote.<ref name="KFF AP poll">{{cite web |last1=Kirzinger |first1=Ashley |last2=Kearney |first2=Audrey |last3=Stokes |first3=Mellisha |last4=Montero |first4=Alex |last5=Hamel |first5=Liz |last6=Brodie |first6=Mollyann |title=How The Supreme Court's Dobbs Decision Played In 2022 Midterm Election: KFF/AP VoteCast Analysis |url=https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/2022-midterm-election-kff-ap-votecast-analysis/ |publisher=[[Kaiser Family Foundation]] |access-date=November 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111225047/https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/2022-midterm-election-kff-ap-votecast-analysis/ |archive-date=November 11, 2022 |date=November 11, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In some places, the proposition earned support in conservative counties where {{nobr|anti-abortion}} candidates won, with Republican political consultant Mike Madrid stating, "What you saw on election night was the defection of Republican {{nobr|college-educated}} women voting against the Republican Party and voting {{nobr|pro-choice}} where they could."<ref name="In some conservative">{{cite news |last1=Hatch |first1=Jenavieve |title=In some conservative California counties where anti-abortion candidates win, so does abortion |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268647057.html |newspaper=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=November 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114161055/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268647057.html |archive-date=November 14, 2022 |date=November 14, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live}}</ref> Based on votes counted by November&nbsp;15, Proposition&nbsp;1 outperformed California's statewide Democratic candidates, with the same occurring in [[2022 Michigan elections|Michigan]] and [[2022 Vermont elections|Vermont]].<ref name="Support for abortion">{{cite web |last1=Panetta |first1=Grace |title=Support for abortion measures was greater than support for Democratic candidates in some states |url=https://19thnews.org/2022/11/support-abortion-measures-outperformed-democratic-candidates/ |publisher=[[The 19th]] |access-date=November 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115233937/https://19thnews.org/2022/11/support-abortion-measures-outperformed-democratic-candidates/ |archive-date=November 15, 2022 |date=November 15, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Compared to the other ballot measures, Proposition&nbsp;1 was the most popular across the state, particularly along the Pacific coast, where Democrats generally outnumber Republicans. Additionally, the ballot measure's performance in each county nearly matched Newsom's performance in the [[2022 California gubernatorial election|gubernatorial election]].<ref name="Most interesting numbers">{{cite news |last1=Christopher |first1=Ben |title=California election results: The most interesting numbers |url=https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-election-results-numbers/ |newspaper=[[CalMatters]] |access-date=November 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118192329/https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-election-results-numbers/ |archive-date=November 18, 2022 |date=November 18, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Melanie Mason, Seema Mehta, and Hannah Fry wrote in the ''Los Angeles Times'' that "Democrats did not see the same electoral boost in [[2022 United States House of Representatives elections in California|California congressional races]] as they did in states where abortion rights [were] more threatened, such as [[2022 Michigan elections|Michigan]]."<ref name="Both parties had high hopes">{{cite news |last1=Mason |first1=Melanie |last2=Mehta |first2=Seema |last3=Fry |first3=Hannah |title=Both parties had high hopes for California in the midterms. Neither saw their dreams fully come true |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-11-21/california-role-2022-midterm-elections |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=November 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121224811/https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-11-21/california-role-2022-midterm-elections |archive-date=November 21, 2022 |date=November 21, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> After the election was certified by the Secretary of State, Political Data Inc. vice president Paul Mitchell credited Proposition&nbsp;1 for preventing lower voter turnout in the midterm election.<ref name="A look at"/>

=== Subsequent legislation ===

In 2023, the California State Legislature introduced a series of abortion-related legislation designed to further entrench reproductive rights in the state. Atkins proposed two bills that would prevent insurers from inflicting penalties on California providers who perform abortions and allow [[physician assistant]]s to perform first-trimester abortions without a physician supervising them.<ref name="Reproductive rights are">{{cite web |title=Reproductive rights are under attack. Here's how California can fight back {{!}} Opinion |url=https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article277434303.html |newspaper=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=August 2, 2023 |date=July 20, 2023}}</ref><ref name="California lawmakers seek">{{cite web |last1=Wolffe |first1=Kate |title=California lawmakers seek to bolster the state as an "abortion sanctuary" |url=https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/02/17/california-lawmakers-seek-to-bolster-the-state-as-an-abortion-sanctuary/ |publisher=[[CapRadio]] |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629164425/https://www.capradio.org/articles/2023/02/17/california-lawmakers-seek-to-bolster-the-state-as-an-abortion-sanctuary/ |archive-date=June 29, 2023 |location=Sacramento |date=February 17, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> Legislation introduced by Assemblymembers [[Tasha Boerner]] and [[Rebecca Bauer-Kahan]] would redefine eligibility from "pregnant women" to "pregnant people" to ensure abortion access for [[transgender men]] and [[non-binary people]].<ref name="Reproductive rights are"/> Assemblymember [[Mia Bonta]] put forward a bill prohibiting [[Reverse search warrant#Keyword warrant|reverse keyword]] and [[geofence warrant]]s for California law enforcement and disallowing California-based companies from complying with them, which could be used to identify people who searched for or sought out abortion services.<ref name="Abortion Rights, Privacy Activists">{{cite web |last1=Farivar |first1=Cyrus |title=Abortion Rights, Privacy Activists Push For California Ban On 'Digital Dragnet' Warrants |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/05/02/abortion-rights-privacy-activists-push-for-california-ban-on-digital-dragnet-warrants/ |magazine=[[Forbes]] |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603104049/https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/05/02/abortion-rights-privacy-activists-push-for-california-ban-on-digital-dragnet-warrants/ |archive-date=June 3, 2023 |date=May 2, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Abortion in California]]
{{Portal|California|Feminism|Law|Politics}}
* Preceding international referendums
** {{annotated link|Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland}}
** {{annotated link|2021 Gibraltar abortion referendum}}
** {{annotated link|2021 San Marino abortion referendum}}
* 2022 United States referendums
** {{annotated link|2022 Kansas abortion referendum}}
** {{annotated link|2022 Kentucky Amendment 2}}
** {{annotated link|2022 Michigan Proposal 3}}
** {{annotated link|2022 Montana Legislative Referendum 131}}
** [[2022 Vermont Proposal 5]]
* 2023 United States referendums
** {{annotated link|November 2023 Ohio Issue 1}}
* 2024 United States referendums
** [[2024 Arizona Proposition 139]]
** [[2024 Colorado Amendment 79]]
** [[2024 Florida Amendment 4]]
** [[2024 Maryland Question 1]]
** [[2024 Missouri Amendment 3]]
** [[2024 Montana Initiative 128]]
** [[2024 Nebraska Initiative 439]]
** [[Nevada Question 6|2024 Nevada Question 6]]
** [[2024 New York Proposal 1]]
** [[2024 South Dakota Amendment G]]

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
; Campaigns
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111172256/https://www.protectabortionca.com/ |date=November 11, 2022 |title=Protect Abortion Rights, Yes on Proposition&nbsp;1 campaign website}}
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111172251/https://www.noproposition1.com/ |date=November 11, 2022 |title=California Together, No on Proposition&nbsp;1 campaign website}}
; Ballotpedia
* {{Ballotpedia|California_Proposition_1,_Right_to_Reproductive_Freedom_Amendment_(2022)|California Proposition&nbsp;1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2022)}}
; Voter guides
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115223348/https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/1/index.htm |date=November 15, 2022 |title=California Official Voter Information Guide entry}}
* [https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/proposition-1-abortion-amendment KQED California Voter Guide entry]
* [https://votersedge.org/en/ca/ballot/election/2022-11-08/measure/proposition-1 Voter's Edge California voter guide entry]

{{2022 United States elections}}
{{California elections}}

[[Category:2022 California ballot propositions]]
[[Category:Abortion referendums]]
[[Category:Amendments to the Constitution of California]]
[[Category:Feminism in California]]
[[Category:Gavin Newsom]]
[[Category:November 2022 events in the United States]]
[[Category:Reproductive rights in the United States]]
[[Category:United States state abortion legislation]]
[[Category:Women in California]]