Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

ROB BONTA State of California

Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


1300 I STREET, SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550

Public: (916) 445-9555


Telephone: (916) 210-7894
Facsimile: (916) 324-5567
Email: [email protected]

September 23, 2022

Sent via email

Matt Rahn
Temecula Mayor
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
[email protected]

Zak Schwank
Mayor Pro Tem
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
[email protected]

Maryann Edwards
James “Stew” Stewart
Jessica Alexander
Temecula City Council Members
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: Proposal to Discuss a Resolution Banning Abortions in the City of Temecula

Dear Mayor Rahn, Mayor Pro Tem Schwank, and City Council Members:

It has come to the attention of the Attorney General’s Office that at the September 13,
2022 meeting of the Temecula City Council, a member of the City Council stated her intent to
introduce a resolution that would purport to ban abortions in the City of Temecula. It is our
understanding that such a resolution may be on the agenda for your next City Council meeting on
September 27, 2022.
September 23, 2022
Page 2

As I am sure you are well aware, local laws may not conflict with state laws. (See Cal.
Const. art. XI, § 7.) Local legislation that conflicts with the general laws of the state are void.
(Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 290; People ex rel Deukmejian v. County
of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476, 484.) A conflict exists if the ordinance duplicates,
contradicts, or enters an area occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative
implication. (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897.)

The California Legislature and the California Supreme Court have declared time and
again that California is a reproductive freedom state and that Californians have a right to access
abortion. In 1981, the California Supreme Court held that “all women in this state rich and poor
alike possess a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether or not to bear a child.”
(Comm. to Defend Reprod. Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252, 262.) Consistent with this
precedent, the Legislature enacted the Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA), which codified a
woman’s fundamental right to procreative choice. (Health & Saf. Code, § 123462.) To that end,
the Legislature forbid the state “and every county, city, town and municipal corporation” in the
state from interfering with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or to obtain an abortion.
(Health & Saf. Code, §§ 123464, subd. (c), 123466; see also Missionary Guadalupanas of Holy
Spirit Inv. v. Rouillard (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 421, 435 [abortions are a “basic health care
service” and must be covered by health plans].)

Any attempt by the City of Temecula to limit an individual’s ability to exercise their right
to reproductive choice and bodily autonomy would be a violation of state law. California’s
Attorney General takes seriously his obligation to protect Californians’ right to reproductive
freedom. Our office will not hesitate to take legal action should a local regulation conflict with
California state law.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

RENUKA GEORGE
Senior Assistant Attorney General

For ROB BONTA


Attorney General

cc: Peter Thorson, Shareholder, Richards, Watson, and Gershon, City Attorney for the City of
Temecula ([email protected])
SA2022302797
AG Letter to Temecula-9-23.docx

You might also like