Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

San Francisco ballot amendment would expand abortion and attack pregnancy centers
Live Action News ^ | October 25, 2024 | Bridget Sielicki

Posted on 10/25/2024 7:38:02 PM PDT by Morgana

San Francisco voters are poised to decide the fate of a ballot measure that would expand abortion in the city during the upcoming election.

Mayor London Breed stood alongside pro-abortion leaders at a Planned Parenthood facility in June to announce Proposition O, which Breed herself co-authored. Also called the “San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act,” the proposition would loosen zoning laws, allowing abortion facilities to operate on any floor in a building in a non-residential zone, establish an official Department of Health website pointing pregnant women to abortion businesses, establish an “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day” in the city, and establish a “Reproductive Rights Fund” to help fund abortion.

It would also block city funding for any “reproductive health care facility” that does not commit or refer for abortions, and it would directly target the city’s pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) by using taxpayer funds to install signs outside these facilities saying they are “limited services pregnancy organizations.”

Critics of the ballot measure fear these signs would invite vandals to target these centers — a legitimate fear, as PRCs have been the victims of pro-abortion violence across the country.

City leaders say the measure is necessary to strengthen abortion against any future legislation that would limit the killing of preborn children. “We are battening down the hatches,” said Kimberly Ellis, director of the city’s Department on the Status of Women, “Because if there’s one thing we have learned from the pandemic, and from the fall of Roe v. Wade, it is that this is not a drill.”

Those campaigning against the measure include a number of pro-life groups and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

“This measure goes way beyond ‘pro-life versus pro-choice,'” stated Melanie Salazar, the executive director of the nonprofit Pro-Life San Francisco. “Prop O will discriminate against life-affirming healthcare facilities that San Francisco citizens depend on and lessen the number of services they can provide to the community.”

Prop. O needs a simple majority of votes in the November 5th election to pass.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: abortion; california; election2024; prolife; propositiono; sanfrancisco
NO on Proposition O
1 posted on 10/25/2024 7:38:02 PM PDT by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Horrible. After what happened in 1906, they are foolish to tempt the Almighty God.

2 posted on 10/25/2024 7:42:32 PM PDT by Governor Dinwiddie (O give thanks unto the Lord, for He is gracious, and His mercy endureth forever. — Psalm 106)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Governor Dinwiddie

They have been tempting Him since the 60’s with all this gay crap so why stop there?


3 posted on 10/25/2024 7:55:09 PM PDT by Morgana ( “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” — Alice Paul )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

When will there be enough slaughtered babies to make these people happy? Never.


4 posted on 10/25/2024 8:36:27 PM PDT by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

They want to make sure wimmin are the only group of people that can legally murder another person for any reason at all.


5 posted on 10/25/2024 8:49:30 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

I guess London does not intend to breed


6 posted on 10/25/2024 8:51:35 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Next step, forced abortions for all pregnancies.
Insane.


7 posted on 10/25/2024 8:53:27 PM PDT by grumpygresh ( Civil disobedience by non-compliance; jury and state nullification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Sure seems that way.


8 posted on 10/25/2024 9:09:48 PM PDT by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

I vote in S.F., and of course I’m voting NO on this. However, any pro-abortion measure on an S.F. ballot has an approximately 100% chance of passage.

A measure like this can’t be defeated at the ballot box in San Francisco. The pro-life pregnancy centers in S.F. will end up having to make 1st amendment challenges in court against the measure’s the pro-abortion signage requirements.


9 posted on 10/25/2024 9:34:59 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
Talking of things San Francisco, for what it's worth, SF native Phil Lesh, bass player for The Grateful Dead died today. He was 84. They were fun back in the day, the old GD. RIP Phil.
10 posted on 10/25/2024 11:35:04 PM PDT by jmacusa (Liberals. Too stupid to be idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

I believe it was Pope Paul VI who said something along the lines of once abortion is legalized, sooner or later they will make it mandatory.


11 posted on 10/25/2024 11:43:32 PM PDT by Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi ( Gen. 12:3: a warning to all antisemites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I wonder the mayor react if someone were to to dump a bucket of blood or red paint in front of city hall.


12 posted on 10/25/2024 11:46:29 PM PDT by Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi ( Gen. 12:3: a warning to all antisemites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Just posted this a few minutes ago:
“From what I see many women must think birth control is much more difficult to use than it is to have an abortion.”


13 posted on 10/26/2024 6:50:12 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

San Francisco ballot amendment decoded DON’T LET LIBERALS BREED.


14 posted on 10/26/2024 6:55:41 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler
. The pro-life pregnancy centers in S.F. will end up having to make 1st amendment challenges in court against the measure’s the pro-abortion signage requirements.

And how would that do anything? The city is doing the installation, it'll be a hard argument to make, especially if they're installed outside of the pregnancy center's owned property.
15 posted on 10/27/2024 8:35:11 PM PDT by Svartalfiar (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

Well, the text of the proposition states that “DPH shall install the signage in the public right of way at or near the entrance to the facility.” A lot of going to depend on how that sign placement works out in the real world. If the sign is on premises owned or leased by center, then it starts to look like compelled speech. If the sign is on a public sidewalk, then the city probably gets away with it. We’ll see.


16 posted on 10/27/2024 8:54:55 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson