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.”

Politics

Video: ‘You Are Out of Line’: Acting Secret Service Director Clashes With Congressman

Published

on

Video: ‘You Are Out of Line’: Acting Secret Service Director Clashes With Congressman

new video loaded: ‘You Are Out of Line’: Acting Secret Service Director Clashes With Congressman

transcript

transcript

‘You Are Out of Line’: Acting Secret Service Director Clashes With Congressman

A congressional hearing on Thursday erupted into a shouting match. Ronald L. Rowe Jr., the acting Secret Service director, accused Representative Pat Fallon, Republican of Texas, of politicizing a 9/11 memorial event.

“Do you recognize this photo?” “Yes, sir, I do.” “OK. Is that a remembrance of Sept. 11?” “It was.” “Was it in New York?” “It was at ground zero.” “Who is usually at an event like this, closest to the president of the United States, security-wise?” “The SAC of the detail.” “Special agent in charge of the detail. Were you the special agent in charge of the detail that day?” “Actually, let me address this. Could you please, staff leave — no, leave that one up with the circle around me. Thank you. So actually, Congressman, what you’re not seeing is the SAC of the detail off out of the picture’s view. And that is the day where we remember the more than 3,000 people that have died on 9/11. I actually responded to ground zero. I was there going through the ashes of the World Trade Center. I was there at Fresh Kills.” “I’m not asking you that. I’m asking you —” “Congressman —” “Were you the special agent in charge —” “I was there to show respect for a Secret Service member that died on 9/11.” “You’re trying to be —” “Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes.” “I’m not. I’m invoking this —” “You are, sir.” “Gentleman —” “You are out of line.” “Committee will come to order.” “I’m asking you serious questions for the American people, and they’re very simple. They’re not trick questions. Were you the special agent in charge of that day?” “No, I wasn’t. I was there representing the United States Secret Service.” “I’m just asking you yes or no?” “Mr. Fallon, your time has expired.” “It did not affect —” “You know why you were there? Because you wanted to be visible, because you are auditioning for this job that you’re not going to get.” “I was there to pay respect for a fallen member of this agency.”

Advertisement

Recent episodes in U.S. & Politics

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump taps former Sen. David Perdue as ambassador to China

Published

on

Trump taps former Sen. David Perdue as ambassador to China

President-elect Trump has tapped former Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., to serve as U.S. Ambassador to China. 

In his announcement, Trump said Perdue “brings valuable expertise to help build our relationship with China,” citing his decades-long career in business. 

TRUMP’S PROPOSED TARIFFS ON MEXICO, CANADA, CHINA WILL INCREASE INFLATION, GOLDMAN SACHS WARNS

Former U.S. Senator David Perdue speaks at a campaign event for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump, at the Johnny Mercer Theatre Civic Center in Savannah, Georgia, U.S. September 24, 2024.   (REUTERS/Megan Varner)

“He will be instrumental in implementing my strategy to maintain Peace in the region, and a productive working relationship with China’s leaders,” Trump said on Truth Social. 

Advertisement

The appointment comes amid threats by Trump to impose additional tariffs on Chinese goods unless Beijing does more to stop the trafficking of the highly addictive narcotic fentanyl. 

BIDEN USCIS NOMINEE CALLED FOR PAUSING BORDER PATROL FUNDING

Trump also appointed Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, as ambassador to Chile. 

Brandon Judd and Donald Trump

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd speaks at a press conference alongside former President Donald Trump in Eagle Pass, Texas on February 29, 2024. (Fox News)

“Brandon helped me develop and implement the most effective Border Security policies in our Nation’s History,” Trump said. “I have also watched as Brandon tirelessly and honorably represented the Border Patrol Agents who elected him as their voice in all matters, especially in their efforts to secure our Great Country’s Borders, and keep all Americans safe.”

Advertisement

“I am confident Brandon will represent the United States in the same manner as he represented all rank-and-file Border Patrol Agents as the President of the National Border Patrol Council. Brandon will do our Country proud!” Trump added. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge in Hunter Biden's tax case denounces president's pardon

Published

on

Federal judge in Hunter Biden's tax case denounces president's pardon

The judge who presided over Hunter Biden’s federal tax case in Los Angeles rebuked President Biden on Tuesday for pardoning his son this week, saying he misrepresented the facts of his son’s criminal case when he announced the move.

In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi also accused the president of maligning law enforcement and the justice system in his rationale for issuing the clemency, and the judge even claimed that part of the pardon may be unconstitutional.

The blunt criticism of a sitting president from a federal judge adds to the condemnation by both Republicans and Democrats of the president’s extraordinary decision Sunday to give the “full and unconditional” pardon after repeatedly saying he wouldn’t.

On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against the president for reneging on a promise.

Scarsi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Trump, took issue with the claim of unequal, biased treatment that the president invoked to spare his son prison time in the tax case. The pardon, which absolves Hunter Biden of any and all federal offenses in an 11-year period, also wiped away the verdict by a Delaware jury that convicted him of illegally purchasing a handgun.

Advertisement

“The President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,’” Scarsi wrote. The judge explained what he sees as the flaw in that thinking: Hunter Biden had pleaded guilty to tax evasion that occurred after he became sober, when he misclassified personal expenses — like luxury clothing, escort services and his daughter’s tuition — as business expenses.

Scarsi also questioned President Biden’s assertion that no “reasonable person” could reach “any other conclusion” than Hunter Biden was singled out because of his last name.

“But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the president,” Scarsi wrote. “And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges.

“In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people,” the judge wrote.

Scarsi noted that President Biden has “broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States … but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.”

Advertisement

In his ruling, Scarsi said he would vacate Hunter Biden’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for Dec. 16, and dispose of his case. He wrote that the case would be terminated once the pardon signed by President Biden “is formally received.”

Hunter Biden’s attorneys submitted a copy of a signed pardon in a filing this week, but the judge noted that the document was “not substantiated by an authenticating declaration.”

Much of Scarsi’s ruling focused on the breadth of the 11-year time frame of the pardon, with the judge questioning its constitutionality. Scarsi reasoned that pardons cannot cover future events, but the clemency issued for Hunter extended to conduct “through Dec. 1” and was signed that day.

“The warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power,” Scarsi wrote. Scarsi said he was opting to understand the pardon as covering conduct “through the time of execution” on Sunday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending