Connect with us

Politics

Ahead of second Trump term, California vows 'ironclad' abortion access

Published

on

Ahead of second Trump term, California vows 'ironclad' abortion access

California lawmakers are rushing to introduce legislation that reaffirms the state’s role as a reproductive rights “haven” as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House and abortion rights advocates warn of an uncertain future.

Abortion remains legal in California, home to the strongest reproductive rights in the nation — unlike in some states, there is no required waiting period or counseling before the procedure, and minors can get abortions without parental involvement. In 2022, voters solidified abortion access in the state Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right, limiting healthcare for millions of women.

But as Trump prepares to take the White House again, California’s Democratic leaders are adamant that not enough has been done to secure reproductive access in case of further federal rollbacks.

“The truth is, this is an urgent and dangerous situation,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said at a news conference in Sacramento on Monday, pointing to renewed legal challenges to the distribution of abortion pills. “The right-wing extremists continue to wage attack after attack on our bodily autonomy at the expense of the health or life of pregnant persons.”

Bonta, a Democrat, said new legislative proposals will make reproductive rights in California “ironclad.”

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s earlier focus on abortion rights after Trump’s first term — including ad campaigns in red states — have drawn criticism from California Republicans skeptical of his national political motives and praise from advocates who say it is better to be safe than sorry. He has signed dozens of bills firming up abortion access in recent years, but some of his plans have proved to be more flash than substance. A temporary law allowing doctors licensed in Arizona to provide abortions in California, for example, expired without any doctors using it.

“He makes the big pronouncements, but he’s not a very good executor of those policies,” said Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher of Yuba City. “It’s kind of become his M.O., to make a big splash and then nothing really ever comes of it.”

Democrats, however, see the need to shore up abortion access given the uncertainty of Trump’s plans. A bill introduced this week aims to ensure availability of mifepristone and misoprostol — the commonly used two-step medication abortion process — even if the Trump administration attempts to interfere.

At issue is how antiabortion government officials could revive and interpret the Comstock Act, a federal law that once banned the mailing of “obscene” materials related to abortions.

While Trump has said he has no plans to ban abortion nationwide, he has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue and taken credit for appointing conservative Supreme Court justices who reversed the federal right to abortion with their decision in the landmark Dobbs case.

Advertisement

Reproductive health advocates are worried that under his second term, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could limit access to abortion medication. To lead the FDA, Trump has tapped Dr. Marty Makary, who has echoed antiabortion messages on Fox News about fetal pain — something disputed by major medical organizations.

The California bill by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), a legislative newcomer and former Planned Parenthood attorney, aims to ensure that Californians continue to have access to medication abortion for the foreseeable future and protects “manufacturers, distributors, authorized healthcare providers and individuals” from any legal action for distributing or administering the pills.

“There are emerging threats to the availability of mifepristone and misoprostol, and California may not be able to guarantee a continued supply,” the bill states. “Previously, Governor Newsom implemented a plan to stockpile doses of misoprostol. While this effort was successful, the Legislature finds that the state needs to renew its stockpile to ensure that Californians can continue to exercise their constitutional rights.”

Last year, Newsom rushed to stockpile hundreds of thousands of abortion pills after a Texas judge ruled against the authorization of the medication.

“We will not cave to extremists who are trying to outlaw these critical abortion services. Medication abortion remains legal in California,” Newsom said then.

Advertisement

But, facing expiration dates, the state released the stockpile to the public before the U.S. Supreme Court decision that rejected the Texas court’s ruling.

In Washington, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee chose to hold on to a similar stockpile in case Trump was elected again.

A spokesperson for Newsom said California “remains ready” to procure more pills if needed.

In another precautionary move last year, Newsom signed a law that allowed abortion providers in Arizona to temporarily practice in California. The action came after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated an 1800s law that essentially banned all abortions.

No Arizona providers ended up using the program, which expired Dec. 1, according to the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Concerns settled in Arizona after Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a bill that repealed the court decision, and voters last month passed a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion.

Advertisement

The California legislation “was designed to serve as a swift stop gap measure to preserve continued access to abortion care, if necessary, during this very precarious moment,” California Department of Consumer Affairs spokesperson Monica Vargas said in an email when The Times asked for data about the program’s use.

Newsom also signed a law last year that allowed medical residents from states with “hostile” laws to get abortion training in California. The state does not require the California Medical Board to track whether that program is being used as intended, a spokesperson said.

For Republican critics like Gallagher, those programs are instances of “political theater” meant more to draw attention to an issue than provide substantive policy. Newsom this week called a special legislative session in Sacramento to prepare for legal combat with Trump on issues such as abortion and immigration — a move heralded by liberals as smart preparation for an unpredictable president and criticized by conservatives as unnecessary panic.

“In California, abortion is constitutionally protected, and you have a president-elect who has said very clearly he will not support any national abortion ban,” Gallagher said. “This perceived threat that they’re trying to make into a political volley … it’s just Newsom drawing attention to himself.”

Some abortion advocates said that they’d rather have a nimble governor like Newsom and be cautious even if the emergency plans don’t always pan out.

Advertisement

“Now more than ever is the time for innovative policy solutions,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, a spokesperson for Essential Health Access. “And inevitably, it is going to be the case that not all solutions we put forth will be equally effective.”

Other bills introduced this week seeking to fill California’s reproductive health access gaps include a proposal to financially penalize cities and counties that block the building of abortion clinics, as has happened in Beverly Hills and Fontana.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) introduced a package of bills that would ensure hospitals enforce laws that require emergency rooms to provide abortion care; make it easier for Medi-Cal recipients to get birth control; and prevent birthing centers from closing.

About 40% of California counties don’t have abortion clinics, including rural areas where transportation can be a hurdle. In September, the state sued a Humboldt County Catholic hospital after a patient said she was denied an emergency abortion even as she feared for her life because of miscarriage risks.

“We have to be absolutely clear-eyed about the political and social moment we’re in right now … when we have a proven misogynist as a president,” said Mia Bonta, who is married to the attorney general, referring to Trump’s sexual abuse allegations and “your body, my choice” refrains that surged after his election.

Advertisement

“I think while California has done an amazing job, we still have a lot of work to do to shore up the infrastructure of support for people who are seeking healthcare and abortion access and protection of our reproductive and sexual freedoms.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Special Counsel Jack Smith required to submit Trump findings to DOJ before leaving. What happens next?

Published

on

Special Counsel Jack Smith required to submit Trump findings to DOJ before leaving. What happens next?

Special Counsel Jack Smith is required to submit to the Justice Department a report summarizing the results of his dual investigations into President-elect Trump — an action that will put a formal end to his two-year probe and one that will punt all next steps, including whether to make public the results of the report, to outgoing Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Smith — a longtime prosecutor who worked in The Hague and at the Justice Department, including as chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section — was tapped by Garland in 2022 to investigate both the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Florida residence. 

Justice Department regulations mandate that a special counsel submit to the attorney general a confidential report detailing the findings of their investigation after it is concluded, and explaining any prosecution or declination decisions they reached as a result of the probe.

In Smith’s case, the prosecution decision is immaterial, given Trump’s status as president-elect and longstanding Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. 

TIM WALZ ADMITS HE WAS SURPRISED BY ELECTION DEFEAT: ‘THOUGHT THE COUNTRY WAS READY’

Advertisement

Special Counsel Jack Smith arrives to give remarks on a recently unsealed indictment including four felony counts against former President Trump in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

But he still must outline the investigation and its findings in his report to Garland, who will then decide whether to share it publicly. 

Notably, Garland has opted to release the reports from two other special counsels whose investigations concluded during his tenure — publishing both the summary reports submitted by John Durham, who was tapped by then-Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019 to review law enforcement and intelligence gathering during the 2016 presidential campaign and the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, as well as the final report from Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney whom he tapped in 2023 to investigate President Biden’s handling of classified documents.

These reports were made public at the same time as they were shared with members of Congress. But it is unclear whether Garland will move to do the same with Smith’s findings, given their sensitivity and Trump’s status as president-elect.

The Justice Department declined to respond to Fox News’s request for comment on the status of the report or whether Garland plans to share it publicly. 

Advertisement

Smith has long pointed to Dec. 2 as the deadline for his team to submit their final status reports to the federal judges in the D.C. and the 11th Circuit Courts summarizing the results of their investigations into the cases against Trump, which were dismissed without prejudice late last month.

Under Justice Department regulations, a special counsel is required at the conclusion of their work to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached.”

TRUMP’S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Jack Smith at lectern with US, DOJ flags behind him

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith recently requested to dismiss charges he brought against Trump in a case alleging his interference in the certification of the 2020 election. (Bill OLeary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Garland has the authority to decide whether to make Smith’s report public before Biden leaves office, or whether to punt it to the incoming Trump administration. 

It is unclear how he will act, however, and the Justice Department did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for more information on the matter.

Advertisement
Merrick Garland being sworn in to testify

Attorney General Merrick Garland is seen before his Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 27, 2021. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Smith had indicted Trump in D.C. earlier this year on charges stemming from the former president’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election outcome, and his team also brought federal charges against Trump in Florida in the classified documents case. 

Trump, for his part, had railed against the special counsel investigation as a politically motivated “witch hunt” and vowed during his presidential campaign to fire Smith “within two seconds,” if elected. Smith, for his part, is expected to resign before Trump’s inauguration, and his team of prosecutors has moved in recent weeks to wind down their cases against Trump.

‘IT’S A SETBACK’: DEMOCRATS CRITICIZE BIDEN OVER HUNTER PARDON

Trump, Smith photo split

President-elect Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith. (Fox News Digital)

Late last month, Smith filed motions to vacate deadlines in both cases against Trump following his election, citing an Office of Legal Counsel memo that states it is against Department of Justice policy to investigate a sitting president for federal criminal charges and is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. 

They have also cited a July Supreme Court decision that widened the criteria for immunity for sitting presidents.

Advertisement

Smith’s team stressed in their most recent court filing that their motion to vacate the case is based solely on the Office of Legal Counsel policy, and not on the merits of the investigation itself.

 

“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” Smith’s office wrote in their motion to dismiss the election interference case.

“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed. But the circumstances have,” they added. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: The backlash on the backlash against the Hunter Biden pardon

Published

on

Column: The backlash on the backlash against the Hunter Biden pardon

Days later I’m still seething that President Biden gave a “full and unconditional” pardon to his troublesome surviving son.

And yet, reluctantly, I have to say that I’d have done the same thing — minus some of the self-pitying and misleading passages in Biden’s official statement.

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

First the bad stuff. With the pardon of Hunter Biden, who’d pleaded guilty to tax evasion and was separately convicted of lying about his drug addiction on a gun application, Joe Biden put his family ahead of his fealty to the animating pledge of his presidency: to restore governing norms and the rule of law after both were shredded by his predecessor, Donald Trump. Biden, who’s otherwise been stingy in using the Constitution’s mighty presidential power, by his nepotistic act adds to the pile of rancid pardons amassed by modern presidents of both parties, including Trump’s first-term grants to a scofflaw family member, sordid allies, donors and war criminals.

In Biden’s statement justifying his stay-out-of-jail-free card for Hunter, he echoed Trump’s tirades about a weaponized justice system. That alone contributes to many Americans’ loss of faith in their own institutions and gives Trump cover for his false claims of victimhood. Though Hunter Biden’s name does explain why he faced gun and tax charges for which most Americans wouldn’t be similarly prosecuted — as even Republicans have acknowledged — there is a flip side: Hunter traded on that name to peddle his purported influence globally. Despite years of probing by the feds and House Republicans, however, he faced no charges for those dealings.

The biggest reason to oppose the pardon is this: Joe Biden lied to us.

Advertisement

The man who likes to say “I give you my word as a Biden” broke it here, betraying himself and us. He didn’t have to make the “no pardon” promise, or allow his spokeswoman to do so as recently as last month. He could have dodged the question.

Instead, in June, then-candidate Biden said he would “abide by the jury decision” that had just convicted Hunter for the gun lie. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre assured reporters the following month that a pardon was “still a no. It will be a no.” And last month, after Trump’s election and in advance of Hunter Biden’s sentencing scheduled for Dec. 16, Jean-Pierre underscored: “Our answer stands, which is no.”

So Joe deserves the bipartisan backlash he’s getting. But how about some backlash to the backlash? For me, one consideration trumps all others, pun intended, to excuse the president: The deplorable Trump is about to reclaim power.

Had any other Republican in the 2024 mix been elected — say, Nikki Haley or Tim Scott, even Ron DeSanctimonious — there’d be no justification for absolving Hunter. But those Republicans weren’t elected, Trump was, and he’s the vengeful former and future president who vowed last year to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.”

Given such explicit threats, and Trump’s first-term record of trying to politicize the Justice Department and FBI, why should Biden leave his son to Trump’s nonexistent mercies? Especially once Trump showed by his picks of willing enforcers for his new administration just how serious he is about retribution.

Advertisement

The president-elect’s first choice for attorney general, attack dog and former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, fell under the weight of his own legal woes. Then Trump turned to former Florida Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, a longtime loyalist who has explicitly called for revenge against those deemed responsible for Trump’s legal travails: “The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted. … The investigators will be investigated.”

And on Saturday, Trump tapped MAGA henchman Kash Patel to be FBI director. Patel’s credentials? Last year he produced a literal enemies list for Trump and separately said he’d prosecute Hunter Biden as a foreign agent, never mind past investigations that produced nothing.

As former federal prosecutor and law professor Joyce Vance wrote recently, by way of justifying the pardon, Trump as president could have made Hunter Biden’s life in federal prison “extremely difficult.”

And a Trumpian Justice Department could have redoubled efforts to charge him for foreign dealings going back to his father’s time as veep, as Patel has suggested. The pardon preempts that sort of actual witch hunt.

President Biden has time to make up for the all but unpardonable pardon. He could endorse an effort, even if it’s a pipe dream, to amend the Constitution to repeal or at least reform presidents’ unchecked pardon power.

Advertisement

Better yet — because it’s achievable by Jan. 20 — Biden could put aides to work on a long list of pardons for obscure Americans truly wronged by the justice system and deserving mercy. This pattern of presidents sullying the office as they leave it with clemency for the connected should end, even if the pardon power lives on.

@jackiekcalmes

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Pete Hegseth says he had ‘substantive conversation’ with Joni Ernst as Trump signals support

Published

on

Pete Hegseth says he had ‘substantive conversation’ with Joni Ernst as Trump signals support

President-elect Trump expressed public support for embattled defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth Friday, and the nominee said he had a “substantive conversation” with Sen. Joni Ernst. 

Hegseth, a former National Guard officer, has been meeting with Republican senators this week to rally support as allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking have surfaced. He has denied any wrongdoing. 

Ernst has not committed to voting for Hegseth. 

“Looks like Pete is doing well now,” Trump told Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” Friday. “I mean, people were a little bit concerned. He’s a young guy with a tremendous track record, actually. Went to Princeton, went to Harvard. He was a good student at both, but he loves the military. And I think people are starting to see it. So, we’ll be working on his nomination along with a lot of others.”

Advertisement

PETE HEGSETH SAYS HE WILL BE ‘STANDING RIGHT HERE IN THIS FIGHT’ AFTER MEETING WITH SENATORS

President-elect Trump gave his public support to embattled defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth Friday, and the nominee said he had a “substantive conversation” with Sen. Joni Ernst.  (Allison Robbert-Pool/Getty Images; AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Trump confirmed he still has confidence in Hegseth.

“He’s a very smart guy,” Trump said. “I’ve known him through Fox, but I’ve known him for a long time. I mean, he’s basically a military guy. I mean, every time I talk to him, all he wants to talk about is the military.”

Trump said that while he didn’t have assurances from senators that his nomination would be confirmed, he believes he will get it through. 

Advertisement

“I’ve had a lot of senators calling me up saying he’s fantastic,” Trump said. 

Asked by Welker about the allegations of excessive drinking, Trump said, “Well, I’ve spoken to people that know him very well, and they say he does not have a drinking problem.” 

INCOMING WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ADDRESSES TRUMP’S SUPPORT OF HEGSETH

Trump also supported Hegseth on Truth Social on Friday, writing, “Pete Hegseth is doing very well. His support is strong and deep. He was a great student – Princeton/Harvard educated – with a Military state of mind. He will be a fantastic, high energy, Secretary of Defense, one who leads with charisma and skill. Pete is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that.”

Joni Ernst

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, speaks to reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol Oct. 17, 2023, in Washington, D.C.  ( Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Hegseth wrote on his X account Friday: “I just had another substantive conversation with Senator Ernst, I appreciate her sincere commitment to defense policy, and I look forward to meeting with her again next week.”

Advertisement

Ernst also called their meeting “constructive” on her account, adding that the two plan to meet again next week. 

“Pete Hegseth and I will continue our constructive conversations as we move forward together in this process. We plan to meet again next week. At a minimum, we agree that he deserves the opportunity to lay out his vision for our warfighters at a fair hearing,” she said. 

Vice President-elect JD Vance also told reporters Friday that Hegseth has the incoming administration’s full support and won’t face a “sham hearing before the American media.”

Pete Hegseth with reporters on Capitol Hill

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary, walks through the basement of the Capitol Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

TRUMP FLOATS DESANTIS AS POTENTIAL DEFENSE SECRETARY REPLACEMENT IF HEGSETH FALTERS

“Pete Hegseth is going to get his hearing before the Senate Armed Forces Committee, not a sham hearing before the American media,” Vance told reporters while in North Carolina. “We believe Pete Hegseth is the right guy to lead the Department of Defense. That’s why Trump nominated him. We’re not abandoning this nomination.

Advertisement

“I fully support Pete. I think Pete’s going to get confirmed, and we are completely behind him. I have talked to Joni [Ernst]. I’ve talked to a number of my colleagues about this nomination and about other nominations. All I’m asking is people actually allow the Senate nomination process to work. We do not determine important government officials based on anonymous sourcing from the American media.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending