Proposition 1E would cut $460 million in funding for the expansion of mental health services and place that money in the state's General Fund. It would do this by amending Prop. 63, which increased taxes on those earning more than $1 million per year to pay for new mental health programs. Although Prop. 1E earmarks the funding for the federally mandated Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program, it allows the legislature to take the same amount out of the General Fund and use it for other purposes. Given the state budget crisis, the likely result will be to diminish overall state funding for mental health programs.

Proposition 86, the Tobacco Tax Act of 2006, proposes to raise California’s state cigarette tax by $2.60 per pack ($0.13 per cigarette). If it passes, California smokers would face a total tax of $3.37 per pack (up from $0.77 per pack) starting January 1, 2007. Non-cigarette tobacco products would also become more expensive.

Revenues—projected to be about $2.1 billion in 2007—would be used to fund several public health programs, including affordable health insurance for every child, improved emergency care, tobacco prevention programs, and chronic disease research.

The Act was authored by the Coalition for a Healthy California, which initially comprised about a dozen health care and children’s advocacy groups. These included the California Hospital Association, the California division of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association of California, Children Now, PICO California, and the Children’s Partnership. Eighty health care organizations, clinics, hospitals, children’s advocacy groups, and smoking cessation groups are now members of the coalition. Gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides has also endorsed it.

The measure is opposed by the tobacco industry, taxpayer rights groups, such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in California, and some small business associations. The two committees formed to oppose Prop. 86 include “Californians Against Unaccountable Taxes,” sponsored by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and the “Committee to Stop the $2 Billion Tax Hike,” a coalition of business, law enforcement, taxpayer groups and Philip Morris USA.” Julie Soderlund, a spokesperson for Governor Schwarzenegger, says that the governor is also opposed to the measure, as well as to all tax increases. 

• Eligible employees are those who have worked for an employer for three months, and work at least 100 hours per month.
• Firms with 200 or more California employees are required to participate beginning January 1, 2006; coverage is required for both workers and their dependents.
• Firms with 50 to 199 California employees are required to participate beginning January 1, 2007; coverage is required for workers but not dependents.
• Firms with 20 to 49 employees are exempt unless the state of California provides a tax credit to those firms equal to 20 percent of the employer’s net cost of the fee.
• Firms with fewer than 20 employees are exempt.

The California Hospital Association’s California Hospital Committee on Issues, the California division of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association of California provided the bulk of funding. 

A system of accounts would be created, and administration of these accounts would be carried out through existing bodies:

• 60 percent of revenues raised would be deposited in the Emergency and Trauma Hospital Services Account for the reimbursement of hospitals and uncompensated emergency services. This account will be administered by the Department of Health Services.
• 30.5 percent will be deposited to the Emergency and Trauma Physician Uninsured Account for claims by physicians and surgeons who are not compensated for provided services. This account will also be administered by the Department of Health Services.
• 5 percent will be deposited in the Community Clinics Urgent Care Account for urgent care services for the uninsured. This account will be administered by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
• 3.75 percent will be deposited in the Emergency and Trauma First Responders Account toward equipment and training for firefighters and paramedics. This account will be administered by the Office of State Fire Marshall.
• 0.75 percent will be deposited in 911 Account for the improvement of the 911-telephone service. This account will be administered by the Department of General Services.

• Firms are required to pay a fee to a state fund for each eligible worker. Firms offering coverage that meets the minimum requirements of the bill will receive a credit against the fee.
• The State Health Purchasing Fund will be newly created and administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB), which also manages California’s Healthy Families program. MRMIB will set the fee and establish enrollee cost-sharing requirements (deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments).
• Employers that prefer to “play” (offer coverage) may apply to the Employment Development Department (EDD) for a credit against the fee. Coverage offered through the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) meets the requirement, as does coverage regulated by the Department of Insurance as long as maximum out-of-pocket costs do not exceed those offered through DMHC-regulated preferred provide organizations (PPOs). Accident-only, hospital indemnity, and other limited benefit plans do not qualify.
• Employers and employees are required to share the costs of coverage. Employers are required to contribute at least 80 percent; workers must contribute the remaining amount, up to 20 percent. Worker contributions are capped at 5 percent of wages for low-income workers (defined as up to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, about $18,000 for an individual or $30,500 for a family of three).
• MRMIB will coordinate coverage for those eligible for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.
• A related law, AB 1528, establishes a Health Care Quality Improvement and Cost Containment Commission that will report to the legislature by January 1, 2005, and make recommendations for health care cost containment.
• Market rules currently in place in the small group market (2 to 50 workers) will be expanded to cover firms with 51 to 199 workers, though a rate band of +/-15 percent will be applied rather than the +/-10 percent bands which currently apply in the small group market. (Rate bands restrict the range of prices health plans may charge based on the risk profile of the employer group.) In addition, health insurers may offer different products to firms with 51 to 199 workers than they offer to firms with 2 to 50 workers.

Revenue from the tax would go toward state and local programs that currently offer health insurance to indigent children, emergency rooms in public and private hospitals throughout the state, community clinics, schools, nursing education programs, tobacco control programs, local law enforcement agencies, and organizations and universities conducting research on a number of diseases, such as cancer, obesity, and heart disease.

In addition, proponents argue that the tax would reduce the number of smokers in the state, thereby reducing the number of smoking-related illnesses and deaths. This would not only benefit those who quit smoking or do not start as a result of the tax; it would also benefit Californians at large, whose tax dollars currently subsidize emergency health care services for people with smoking-related diseases.

The funds would be made available to two categories of hospitals:

Some $600 million (80 percent) would be made available to eligible nonprofit general acute care hospitals that focus on children with serious illnesses, with no more than $75 million going to any one hospital. The remaining $150 million (20 percent) will be distributed evenly between the five University of California general acute care children's hospitals, including:

1. Mattel Children's Hospital at University of California, Los Angeles
2. University Children's Hospital at University of California, Irvine
3. University of California, San Diego Hospital Children's Hospital
4. University of California, Davis Children's Hospital
5. University of California, San Francisco Children's Hospital

In the partial year 2004-05, 45 percent of revenues must be spent on education and training of mental health professionals; 45 percent will be spent on capital facilities and technology needs; 5 percent would be spent on local planning expenses; and the remaining 5 percent on state implementation expenses.

In 2005-08, 10 percent would be spent on education and training of mental health professionals; 10 percent on capital facilities and technology needs; 20 percent on prevention and early intervention programs; and 5 percent on innovative programs to increase access to and quality of mental health services. In addition, up to 5 percent could be used to offset state implementation costs and up to 5 percent could be used each year for county planning and administration. The remaining funds would be spent on mental health services for persons with severe mental illness, unless the county successfully meets requirements to use some of these funds for prevention and early intervention programs.

An increased tobacco tax could potentially pose a threat to all citizens by increasing smuggling and black-market-related crimes, which have spiked in states with tobacco tax hikes.

The nearly 300-percent tax increase may also affect small businesses, which could see profits decrease as smokers turn to other sources for cigarettes or quit altogether. Because such taxes hurt small businesses and increase state residents’ overall tax burden, opponents argue that, like all new taxes, the tax is bad for California’s economy as a whole.

Opponents say that Proposition 86 may also hurt those it sets out to benefit, as decreasing smoking rates translate into a diminishing source of revenue for the emergency room services and children’s health insurance programs it aims to fund.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, opponents argue that the tax punishes addiction while doing little to help the addicted. It also hits the poor harder than the rich, because the poor are on average far likelier to smoke. Ultimately, this means that wealth is transferred from a poor segment of the population to serve the whole. Poor smokers also must spend an increased proportion of their budgets compared to wealthier smokers to purchase the same number of cigarettes.

In order to receive grants from the Children's Hospital fund, a hospital must provide clinical care, teaching, research and advocacy for children; have a minimum of 160 licensed beds dedicated to infants and children; be a provider of comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for government programs; provide over 30,000 total child patient days (excluding newborns) over a one-year period and offer medical training to at least eight full-time pediatric specialty or subspecialty doctors in their residencies.

Funds would pay for building, remodeling, renovation, furnishings, equipment, financing, and refinancing, based on the following considerations:

1. Whether the grant contributes to expansion of or improvement to health care access by indigent, underserved, and uninsured children, and children eligible for governmental insurance programs
2. Whether the grant contributes toward improving the results of care
3. Whether the children's hospital provides services to vulnerable pediatric populations
4. Demonstration of project readiness and project feasibility.

In addition to new project costs, hospitals may be reimbursed for costs incurred after January 31, 2003 that are included in the grant application and approved.

Revenue from the tax—projected to be $2.1 billion in the first year—would be placed in a Tobacco Tax of 2006 Trust Fund.

Based on the $2.1 billion projection, the fund would provide an estimated $170 million to Prop. 10 programs, which would experience decreased funding due to Prop. 86’s effect on cigarette sales. (Prop. 10 instituted a 50-cent per pack tax on cigarettes in 1998 to fund early childhood development programs.) The remaining revenue would be distributed as follows:

• 52.75 percent (estimated at $1.1 billion) is earmarked for treatment-related concerns, including $758 million for hospital emergency care services, $92 million for nursing education, $66 million for emergency physicians, $58 million for community clinics, $18 million for prostate cancer treatment, and $18 million for smoking cessation services.

• 42.25 percent (estimated at $891 million) is earmarked for prevention efforts, including $371 million for children’s health insurance (the Healthy Families program), $267 million for programs to prevent chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and asthma, and $177 million for tobacco education, prevention, and law enforcement.

• 5 percent (estimated at $96.5 million) is earmarked for research on health and disease, including tobacco-related illnesses such as heart disease, lung disease, and cancer.

• Contribute to the improvement of children’s health care or pediatric patient outcomes;
• Provide uncompensated or undercompensated care to indigent or public pediatric patients;
• Provide services to vulnerable pediatric populations;
• Promote pediatric teaching or research programs; and
• Demonstrate that a project for potential grant funding is ready to begin and feasible.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research Education Trust (KFF/HRET) 2002 survey of California firms, 94 percent of firms with 50 to 199 works and 99 percent of firms with 200 or more workers offered health insurance. The remaining firms will be required to pay the fee if they choose not to begin offering coverage.

Other firms already offer health insurance, but will be required to increase their contribution to meet the 80 percent requirement.

• About 80 percent of firms with more than 50 workers contribute at least 80 percent of the premium for worker coverage. As a result of the legislation, the remaining 20 percent would need to upgrade their contribution to 80 percent (KFF/HRET).
• Only about half of firms with 200 or more workers pay the required 80 percent premium share for family coverage; the other half of firms would need to increase their premium share (KFF/HRET).

Proponents say that the higher tobacco tax from Prop. 86 would reduce cigarette consumption, increase state revenue, improve public health, and reduce health care costs in California.

As a basis for their arguments, proponents cite a study of Prop. 86 by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), which says that:

• Prop. 86 would reduce the number of cigarettes consumed in California by more than one quarter (26.3 percent).
• About half a million Californians would quit smoking.
• More than 700,000 children currently under 17 years of age would not become smokers in adulthood.
• The state would take in an additional $2.27 billion in revenues (this estimate is $170 million larger than the Legislative Analyst’s estimate of $2.1 billion).
• Total California tax revenues from cigarettes (excise tax of $3.47 per pack of cigarettes plus five percent sales tax) would increase more than $3 billion a year.
• The state would save more than $16 billion in health care costs.
• About 300,000 fewer premature deaths would occur, including nearly 180,000 deaths due to smoking among children currently under 17.

In addition, the Tobacco Tax Act would fund eligible hospitals to improve emergency rooms, update emergency equipment, offer additional emergency services, and train hospital staff in emergency procedures.

Prop. 86 would help to fund community clinics, which often provide emergency services to uninsured patients, and to nursing education programs to increase the number of nurses working in hospitals and emergency rooms throughout the state.

The Act would expand the eligibility criteria for California’s Healthy Families Program, so that the program would cover more children with family income too high to qualify for Medi-Cal but too low to purchase private insurance. Children whose family incomes are up to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level—now $60,000 for a family of four—would be eligible for Healthy Families.

The Act would make it easier for families to enroll their children by offering “express lane” enrollment through other programs, such as the National School Lunch Program and Food Stamp Program, and by simplifying paperwork and ensuring that Healthy Families and Medi-Cal operate as a single program from the consumer point of view, to minimize bureaucratic hassles and gaps in coverage. Read more about the California Healthy Families program.

The Act would also help to fund tobacco-use prevention programs, including smoking cessation programs. It would also provide funds to support local law enforcement agencies in enforcing tobacco-related laws.

Prop 73 would amend Article 1 of the California Constitution to bar abortion for a female under the age of 18 until 48 hours after a physician has notified the minor’s parent or legal guardian that the procedure is to be performed. Minors who are married or serving on active duty in the armed forces, or who have been declared emancipated by a court, would be exempted. Exceptions would also include a medical emergency or a parental waiver of the waiting period.

A minor could avoid the parental notification requirement by presenting clear and convincing evidence to a juvenile court judge that she is mature enough to make the decision alone or that the abortion is in her best interests. An adverse decision could be appealed. Hearings would be confidential and free, with representation by a court-appointed lawyer.

Physicians would have to report every abortion they perform on a minor, and the state would have to compile the statistics and publish an annual report that does not identify either the physician or the minor.

The state would also have to tally how many waiver petitions were received and granted by judges, by name, and make the information public.

Doctors who failed to provide notification would be liable to a civil suit by the parents; or parents could opt for a payment of $10,000 and attorney fees from the physician. Anyone who gives false information to enable an ineligible minor to receive an abortion would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

Minors would have to give their consent before undergoing an abortion unless they are mentally incapable or there is a medical emergency.

A minor who is being coerced to agree to an abortion could apply to the juvenile court for expedited relief.

Proposition 85 proposes to amend the California Constitution to forbid physicians from performing an abortion on anyone under the age of 18 until written notice has been delivered to her parent or legal guardian personally or by certified mail and a subsequent waiting period of at least 48 hours has elapsed.

The measure would not apply to pregnant girls who are married or serving on active duty in the armed forces, or those whom a court has declared emancipated. Parental notification would not be required if a physician documents and certifies in the minor’s medical record that the abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency. Parents or a guardian could also give the physician a signed and dated waiver of the waiting period on an official form to be designed by the state Department of Health Services. If not presented to the physician in person, the waiver form would have to be notarized.

A minor could also avoid the parental notification requirement by petitioning a juvenile court judge for a judicial waiver. A hearing would have to be held within two court days and a decision rendered within three additional days. The girl would have to offer clear and convincing evidence that she is mature enough to make the abortion decision alone, or that waiving parental notification is in her best interest. She could appeal an adverse decision by the judge. Hearings would be confidential and free, with representation by a court-appointed lawyer if requested.

Physicians would have to report details of every abortion they perform on a minor to the state Department of Health Services, and the agency would have to compile the statistics anonymously and publish an annual report.

The state Judicial Council would have to tally how many waiver petitions were received and granted by judges each year, county by county, and publish that information.

Doctors who fail to notify the parents or guardian could be sued for damages. At any time before a ruling by a judge, the parents or guardian could opt for a settlement payment of $10,000 plus attorney fees from the physician instead of receiving damages.

Anyone who gives false information to enable an ineligible minor to receive an abortion would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

No abortion could be performed on a minor without her consent, unless she is mentally incapable or experiencing a medical emergency. A minor who is being coerced to agree to an abortion could apply to the juvenile court for expedited relief.

Prop. 85 is a slightly revised version of Prop. 73, one of eight initiatives on the ballot in the November 8, 2005 special statewide election. Prop. 73 was defeated by a vote of 4,109,430 (53%) to 3,676,592 (47%).

A key difference between Props. 73 and 85 is that Prop. 73 would have defined an “unborn child” in the California Constitution as a “child conceived but not yet born.” This controversial language, which opponents feared might lead the way to making abortion illegal in California, does not appear in Prop. 85. Prop. 85 includes an option for parents or guardians to provide a waiver of the notification requirement in advance, valid for a period of either 30 days, until a specified date or until the minor’s 18th birthday. A Prop. 73 requirement that all judicial waivers of parental notification sought and granted be reported annually by named judges also does not appear in Prop. 85.

Prop. 89—designated by its sponsors “The California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006”—would make sweeping changes to existing state law on how election campaigns are financed. It would allow qualifying candidates for statewide and legislative elective offices to choose to rely only on taxpayer funds to underwrite their costs of campaigning.

The pool of public money available for this purpose, based on estimated state tax collections of $225 million annually, would be about $900 million per election. It would be amassed by raising the tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent.

The new law would cover candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, controller, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction, members of the board of equalization, the 40 state senators, and the 80 assembly members. Candidates could opt to forgo public funds and finance their campaigns strictly through private donors, as they now do. But the total amount of the contributions they could collect from any individual, corporation, or donor group would be dramatically reduced. Today, for example, a gubernatorial candidate can accept up to $22,300 from a single source; Prop. 89 would lower that maximum to $1,000.

Prop. 89 would also place a new limit—$10,000—on the total amount a for-profit corporation could contribute to support or oppose any state ballot initiative. There are no dollar restrictions on donors at present, and Prop. 89 would place none on organizations that quality as nonprofits. (Corporations could, however, collect voluntary donations from employees to fund partisan political action committees.) But if a candidate for state office—such as the governor—“has a significant influence on the actions or decisions” of a committee organized for or against a ballot measure, all contributions to that committee, even by individuals, would be capped at $10,000 per contributor.

Current limits on donations to candidates for state offices were established by Prop. 34, a measure put on the ballot by the legislature in November 2000. Those limits vary by office. A candidate for the state assembly or senate, for example, can accept up to $3,300 per individual, group, or corporate contributor. Candidates for statewide offices other than the governorship can accept up to $5,600. Political parties can give as much as they want to any candidate.

Prop. 89 would establish a system whereby candidates can finance their campaigns with tax money from the state treasury. In order to do so, they would first have to:

• Collect a certain number of $5 donations and endorsement signatures (“qualifying contributions”) before the primary election. These donations would revert to the state.
• Candidates could solicit and spend “start-up” donations totaling $10,000 to $250,000—depending on the office sought and election type—in increments of no more than $100 apiece up to 90 days before the primary.
• Candidates for public financing would not be permitted to spend their own money on a race.
• They could, however, receive and continue to receive limited funds from their political party.
• They would, as a condition of public support, have to participate in debates before the election.

The sum available from public monies to support a candidate’s electioneering would be pegged to the office in contention. An assembly candidate, for example, would receive $250,000 to seek the primary nomination and $400,000 to conduct a subsequent general election campaign. A gubernatorial candidate, in contrast, would receive $10 million to spend on the primary and $15 million on the general election.

What if a privately funded opponent were to spend more than that? Prop. 89 gives the publicly funded candidate additional funds to match deep-pocketed opposition dollar-for-dollar. There is a ceiling, however. Candidates for all offices except the governorship could collect no more than five times the basic Clean Money grant. That translates to $1.25 million in a primary race for an assembly seat and $2 million in the general election. A gubernatorial hopeful could spend up to four times the basic grant—$40 million in a primary race and $60 million in the general election. If an opposing candidate spends personal money, the basic grant could be increased up to ten times for non-gubernatorial candidates and up to eight times for gubernatorial candidates.

Minor-party and independent candidates can qualify for public funding, but in lower amounts—half the pot given major-party candidates, generally defined as those having received at least 10 percent of the vote in the previous election. However, a minor party candidate who collects twice the number of qualifying contributions can receive public financing equal to a major party candidate.

Successful Clean Money candidates would receive annual payments to cover expenses while in office: $50,000 to legislators, $100,000 to other state officials. Individuals and groups could donate no more than $15,000 a year total to support or oppose state candidates. Lobbyists would be forbidden to make donations to political committees or parties, as would holders of state contracts in many instances. Knowing violations of any of these provisions would be a misdemeanor potentially punishable by removal from office, fines of up to $25,000, or imprisonment for up to five years.

California voters approved Prop. 63 in 2004 with 53% of the vote. Prop. 63 taxed those earning more than $1 million per year to increase mental health funding for those who are ineligible for treatment through federally sponsored programs or their own health insurance plans. Prop. 63 revenues are used exclusively to develop and expand integrated mental health services for children, adults, and seniors, including prevention, early intervention, education, and training programs.

Critics argue that tobacco taxes hurt small businesses and state economies by increasing state tax burdens. They also lead to increases in crime as persistent smokers turn to illegal sources for tax-free cigarettes.

Opponents also point out that tobacco taxes are discriminatory and unfairly hurt the poor, who spend a greater fraction of personal income on cigarettes than wealthy smokers, and who smoke in greater numbers.

Proposition 86 in particular has additional drawbacks, according to opponents. They say that while the tax is billed as an effective way to reduce smoking rates, it does relatively little to help smokers quit or to stop youth from smoking. The tax will benefit hospital corporations and HMOs (slated to receive about 40 percent of revenues), as well as research into non-tobacco-related health problems, such as obesity, while opponents say it earmarks just 10 percent of revenue for smoking cessation and prevention. 

Opponents also argue that the measure would exempt hospitals from certain anti-trust laws.

Proponents of the measure claim that data from states with “similar” laws indicate that passage of the initiative will “change teen behavior, resulting in fewer unwanted teen pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions.” (Of 34 states with parental involvement laws on the books, 18 require a minor to obtain a parental consent for an abortion.)

“Given California’s size and current abortion rate, it is reasonable to expect a minimum of 20,000 fewer abortions during the first year following passage of the initiative,” according to the Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection/Yes on 73 campaign. In 2000, the latest year for which estimates are available, 16,730 abortions were performed for pregnant minors statewide.

Opponents of the measure claim that “in other states, when parental notification laws make teenagers choose between talking with parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion—even though it is dangerous.” According to the Campaign for Teen Safety, these laws “also cause teens to delay access to medical care and/or travel out of state.” There are no reliable data to quantify these effects.

The nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) says that “studies of other states with laws similar to the one proposed in this measure suggest that it could result in a reduction in the number of abortions obtained by minors within California. This reduction... might be offset to an unknown extent by an increase in the number of out-of-state abortions obtained by California minors.” Of the states that share a border with California, only Arizona has a parental involvement law in effect. Abortion is illegal in Mexico.

The Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection/Yes on 85 campaign claims no formal organizational support as of August 18.

The California Catholic Conference, representing 11,000 Roman Catholic parishes in the state, endorsed Prop. 73 in 2005 and “will assist the campaign and educate our membership” about Prop. 85, according to communications director Carol Hogan.

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Prop. 73 and his campaign spokesman said in late July 2006 that “the governor’s position on parental notification has not changed.”

Prop 89. is supported by the California Nurses Association—its author and sponsor—as well as the League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, the California Clean Money Campaign, the Consumer Federation of California, and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. View a complete list of supporters.

Prop. 89 was formally endorsed by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides at an August appearance at CNA headquarters in Oakland. He characterized the current system as “a dialing for dollars democracy, with the unjust influence of the special interests silencing the voices of Californians.”

The California Legislature placed Prop. 1E on the May 19, 2009, special election ballot by a two-thirds majority vote. It is one of six ballot measures designed to reduce the state's $42 billion budget gap.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that passage of Prop 73 could result in net costs to the state that would “probably not exceed several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, the courts, and state administration combined.” None of these costs, the LAO notes, is significant compared to total state spending in those areas.

The principal costs to the state would be incurred if the measure resulted in more births to minors in low-income families eligible for publicly funded (Medi-Cal) services during pregnancy; deliveries and infant care; and cash assistance and services to needy families, the LAO explains. However state costs would be reduced to the extent that fewer Medi-Cal funded abortions were performed. In 2002, 3,841 minors under the age of 18 obtained Medi-Cal fee-for-service abortions.

Opponents include district, state, and local chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Civil Liberties Union (of Northern and Southern California), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the California Medical Association, the National Organization for Women, the California Nurses Association, Catholics for a Free Choice, the League of Women Voters, NARAL Pro-Choice, the National Association of Social Workers, Planned Parenthood Affiliates, and the AFL-CIO Executive Council.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides opposed Prop. 73 and in July stated his opposition to Prop. 85 as well.

Prop.89 is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Business Roundtable, the California Taxpayers Association, the California Teachers Association, and the California State Council of Laborers. View a complete list of opponents.

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Prop. 89, he says, because it would increase taxes and because he disapproves of public financing of campaigns based on his experiences in Europe.

In the California Senate, 36 out of 39 senators voted to place Prop. 1E on the May 19  ballot. Two senators voted against it and one either abstained or failed to vote (Senate District 26 is vacant). In the California Assembly, 76 members supported and 4 opposed placing the measure on the ballot.