Proposition O on San Francisco’s November ballot would bolster reproductive healthcare in the city by loosening zoning laws, providing more information to patients seeking an abortion, and creating financial resources for them.
It would also require signs to be installed at anti-abortion clinics known as limited-service pregnancy centers or crisis pregnancy centers to make the difference clear.
Limited-service pregnancy centers provide prenatal care but do not provide abortions or refer patients to providers. They have been accused in the past by the city of spreading false and misleading information.
A 2011 ordinance that prevented such communications was upheld by a federal appeals court after being challenged by a limited-service provider.
Then-city attorney Dennis Herrera said limited-service centers were lobbying patients not to seek abortions and accused them of providing false information to patients facing time-sensitive decisions.
“These groups are entitled to be advocates, but they’re not entitled to break the law. False and misleading advertising by these clinics is a deceitful practice that preys on women when they least suspect it,” Herrera said in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the lower court’s decision, letting the ordinance stand.
Proposition O would also loosen land regulations for abortion providers. Now restricted to the ground floor of buildings, the proposition would allow them to operate on any floor and in any nonresidential zone.
Proposition O would also create a website and non-emergency phone hotline run by the Department of Public Health with information on care providers that both do and do not perform abortions.
The measure would also create a “Reproductive Rights Fund” to help women and other patients seeking abortions, and direct city staff to identify potential money for the fund. The fund could accept private donations.
It would also prohibit health clinics from requiring medical certifications beyond what state and federal law require.
The proposition would declare it city policy to be a “safe and welcoming place” for patients seeking reproductive care and would enact policies to maintain confidentiality by prohibiting city employees or providers that accept city funding from cooperating with law enforcement in investigations of women seeking abortions.
The proposition would also create an “Abortion Providers Appreciation Day” on March 10 or any day the Board of Supervisors chose.
The appreciation day was just one aspect of the proposition that abortion rights opponent Melanie Salazar, the executive director of the nonprofit Pro-Life San Francisco, objected to in the ballot opposition argument to voters.
She also objected to the website that would direct patients to abortion care providers and the restriction of funds from the new Reproductive Rights Fund from being used to support clinics that do not provide abortions.
“This special treatment limits the expansion of services that life-affirming facilities can make available to the public,” Salazar wrote.
“Passing Prop O is not just about preserving rights; it’s about protecting lives. … Prop O ensures that women and all people who can become pregnant are not forced into dangerous or untenable situations.”
Mayor London Breed
Mayor London Breed wrote the ballot proponent argument to voters. She said the measure “affirms that we all deserve the right to make private health decisions without government interference.”
“Passing Prop O is not just about preserving rights; it’s about protecting lives,” Breed wrote. “Comprehensive reproductive care leads to healthier families and communities. Prop O ensures that women and all people who can become pregnant are not forced into dangerous or untenable situations.”
The proposition’s cost would be about $8,000 a year for the maintenance of signs, according to City Controller Greg Wagner. He wrote in his analysis that it would be hard to determine costs associated with the special fund until the mayor and Board of Supervisors made funding decisions for it.