SQ 832 will undercut pro-life efforts by reducing economic stability

Economy, Culture & the Family

SQ 832 will undercut pro-life efforts by reducing economic stability

Jonathan Small, Dave Bond & Matt Oberdick  |  March 31, 2026

You’ve probably heard some version of this warning: good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. Economist Thomas Sowell put it best (as usual): “Good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences.” 

On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, Oklahomans will vote on SQ 832, which would impose what we call the California Minimum Wage model in our state. If approved, within a few years, a floor of $15 an hour would be set, but then that mandated amount would be required to compound and increase annually, forever, based on a national index that looks at price increases in high-cost-of-living areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco—despite Oklahoma’s far lower cost of living.

People are beginning to notice what this model has produced elsewhere. California’s aggressive wage mandates have contributed to the loss of an estimated 2 million jobs and some of the highest unemployment levels in the country. In California and other states where it has been adopted, it's killing small businesses and raising prices and costs at a significantly faster rate than working families can withstand. Because of the compounding, Oklahoma would eventually have government-mandated minimum wages of more than $35 an hour, regardless of the ability of small businesses and customers to pay. 

The measure also offers no protection against layoffs, automation, or increased workloads on the remaining employees. Small businesses in Oklahoma are becoming concerned that this will give an unfair advantage to big corporations, who can more easily replace workers with technology and gain more market share and more customers as small businesses are eliminated. Consumers would have fewer options for food and other needed services.

But the implications go beyond economics. There are serious concerns for those who are pro-life, including how SQ 832 may affect vulnerable women and the preborn.

It’s worth noting that some of the most aggressive pro-abortion organizations are spending big money in Oklahoma trying to enact the California minimum-wage structure here. The Washington, D.C.-based National Education Association has already poured in $500,000, according to state records. An Oklahoma billionaire who spent $5 million promoting an abortion-expansion measure in Florida has contributed $375,000 to push the California Minimum Wage model here. A group tied to a Swiss billionaire—one that put $1.4 million behind Nebraska’s abortion-expansion initiative and is now under investigation there by the state’s attorney general—has added another $50,000.

It’s worth asking: Why are abortion-rights activists so heavily invested in this wage mandate?

Regardless of one’s view on abortion, surveys consistently show that women considering abortion often cite fears about financial instability if they carry a pregnancy to term. But in states adopting California-style wage hikes, economic prospects for young, low-skilled, and developing workers have worsened dramatically. The very women who are more likely to choose life when they have stable opportunities end up facing fewer of them. Rising costs, shrinking job availability, and squeezed family budgets create precisely the kind of economic anxiety that abortion advocates use to promote their message.

One pro-abortion talking point—“You can’t afford a child”—becomes more persuasive as jobs disappear and affordability declines.

Research confirms the trend. In states that have adopted this model, costs have climbed faster while job opportunities have declined—particularly for the workers who need them most. Small businesses can only raise prices so far before customers walk away; at some point, they must cut staff. Meanwhile, basic necessities—groceries, transportation, childcare—grow more expensive at a rate families simply cannot match. Local economists note that roughly two-thirds of the research on minimum wage hikes finds negative employment effects.

For pro-life Oklahomans, the concern is clear: adopting the California wage structure would intensify the very economic pressures that make vulnerable women feel cornered. It would also hand abortion activists a talking point—“You can’t afford a child”—that becomes more persuasive as jobs disappear and affordability declines.

We’ve seen the destructive fallout of well-intended government mandates before: school closures during COVID that crippled learning for years in states like California and New York; isolation policies that left elderly family members to die alone; and bureaucratic decisions about which jobs were “essential,” wrecking livelihoods overnight.

We’ve also seen the financial strain created by the Obamacare Medicaid expansion—a ballot measure sold as “free”—which is now blowing a more than half-billion-dollar hole in Oklahoma’s budget. The same political forces behind that push also backed the David Boren tax proposal, which would have raised state sales taxes by 20 percent. And we’ve heard vocal advocates on the far left explicitly call for policies designed to increase dependence on government and “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

So why the sudden, intense, seven-figure push for SQ 832? Because when left-wing activists can’t pass their policies through state legislatures, they increasingly use ballot questions to bypass elected representatives. If they can get Oklahoma to adopt the California Minimum Wage model, they can replicate the strategy elsewhere—and build momentum for future initiatives, including those expanding abortion access. The economic damage caused by the wage mandate only strengthens their argument that women “can’t afford” to choose life.

Again, “good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences,” as Dr. Sowell said. As pro-life Oklahomans with a biblical understanding of work—its dignity, its importance, and its role in sustaining families—we have every reason to view SQ 832 with deep concern. The California Minimum Wage model has already produced well-documented harm. Bringing it here would threaten livelihoods, limit opportunities, and intensify pressures on the very women we hope to support.

No matter the intentions of its funders, SQ 832 would carry real and painful consequences—especially for women, families, and the preborn.

Jonathan Small President

Jonathan Small

President

Jonathan Small, C.P.A., serves as President and joined the staff in December of 2010. Previously, Jonathan served as a budget analyst for the Oklahoma Office of State Finance, as a fiscal policy analyst and research analyst for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and as director of government affairs for the Oklahoma Insurance Department. Small’s work includes co-authoring “Economics 101” with Dr. Arthur Laffer and Dr. Wayne Winegarden, and his policy expertise has been referenced by The Oklahoman, the Tulsa World, National Review, the L.A. Times, The Hill, the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post. His weekly column “Free Market Friday” is published by the Journal Record and syndicated in 27 markets. A recipient of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s prestigious Private Sector Member of the Year award, Small is nationally recognized for his work to promote free markets, limited government and innovative public policy reforms. Jonathan holds a B.A. in Accounting from the University of Central Oklahoma and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Dave Bond Vice President for Advocacy

Dave Bond

Vice President for Advocacy

Dave Bond serves as Vice President for Advocacy at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. He was previously the CEO of OCPA Impact, OCPA's 501(c)4 action partner. Since 2011, Dave has advocated at the Oklahoma Capitol on issues of free enterprise, individual initiative and limited government. He has been referred to in the Tulsa World as "a prominent Oklahoma anti-tax lobbyist". Prior to his advocacy efforts, Dave worked in Oklahoma elections, focused mostly on state legislative campaigns. He was the executive director of the Republican State House Committee, the campaign arm of the Republican caucus of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Dave also worked with the campaign consulting firm A.H. Strategies and with the inaugural campaign of former Corporation Commissioner Jeff Cloud. In addition, he served in the media and communications divisions of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Dave has lived in Oklahoma most of his life and is a graduate of Oklahoma State University. He and his wife Marsha have two sons and live in Yukon.

Matt Oberdick Director of the Center for Culture and the Family

Matt Oberdick

Director of the Center for Culture and the Family

Matt Oberdick is a lifelong Oklahoman and a graduate of OCPA’s J. Rufus Fears Fellowship program. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from the University of Oklahoma. Before entering public policy, Matt spent over a decade in ministry, serving in youth, children’s, and global missions leadership. He later served as Director of External Relations at the Oklahoma State Department of Education, where he worked to strengthen partnerships with parents, schools, and communities across the state. A graduate of the Family Policy Alliance Statesmen Academy, Matt is now the Director of the Center for Culture and the Family.

Loading Next