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

Wisconsin mom mulls lawsuit alleging school district is pushing 'horrifying' race-based policy: 'Problematic'

Published

on

Wisconsin mom mulls lawsuit alleging school district is pushing 'horrifying' race-based policy: 'Problematic'

FIRST ON FOX: A Wisconsin parent is mulling legal action over a situation where she alleges her son was passed over being given the extra learning attention he needed due to language on the school’s website that says it prioritizes additional help for students based on race.

Attorneys for the Wisconsin Institute by Law & Liberty to the Green Bay Area Public School District, argue on behalf of their client, Mrs. Colbey Decker, that a “troubling” and “unlawful” policy in the district “explicitly prioritizes reading support resources based on race, thereby violating the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” according to a letter obtained by Fox News Digital.

“Mrs. Decker’s child, who suffers from dyslexia, has received different (and less favorable) services because he is white,” the letter states. “If he was Black, Hispanic, or Native American, Mrs. Decker’s son would have been treated more favorably and received different services.”

Decker told Fox News Digital that her son had been receiving one-on-one reading services in another district and that she assumed he would continue receiving that when he moved into the current district in January 2024 but that he was waitlisted for that additional help. 

NEARLY ALL FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES STILL MAINTAIN CORPORATE DEI COMMITMENTS: REPORT

Advertisement

Colbey Decker told Fox News Digital she believes her son was discriminated against by his Wisconsin school district (Fox News Digital)

Decker explained that she learned of the policy while looking at the school’s website.

I asked them point blank, does he receive less services or is he less of a priority because he’s white?” Decker said. “And even asking that question made me extremely uncomfortable because to think that someone isn’t getting the services they deserve because of the color of their skin is just horrifying. So the principal did respond to me, and much to my surprise, he was very excited to explain to me the work they do in these priority groups.”

The letter alleges, citing the school’s website, that the “district’s literacy policy establishes ‘priority groups’ race—namely, Black, Hispanic, and Native American students—and states that the school will conduct intentional work educating our focus students, prioritizing additional resources to First Nations, Black, and Hispanic students.”

“This policy is in effect and has been applied to Mrs. Decker’s son, according to multiple district employees.”

Advertisement

SCHOOLS ACROSS COUNTRY DISBANDING DEI PROGRAMS IN DROVES; EDUCATION EXPERT EXPLAINS WHY

classroom file

A Wisconsin mom said every parent ‘just wants their child to be treated equally’ (iStock)

The language on the school website also states next to an asterisk at the bottom of the page that, “Priority performance goals are established based on data that shows us we are meeting the needs of some student groups better than others.” 

“Focusing on a priority performance group of students will elevate our skills as educators and ultimately benefit all students.”

The letter to the district asks that the policy, known as the King Elementary School Success Plan, be rescinded in favor of a “colorblind approach” to resource allocation along with “immediate and adequate support” to Decker’s son “who has been unfairly excluded from the opportunity to receive necessary resources.”

“Seeing a policy that explicitly prioritizes resources based on race is really troubling, both morally and legally,” WILL associate counsel Cory Brewer told Fox News Digital. “The law demands that Colbey’s son and any child be treated equally to other children, regardless of their race. There should not be special treatment based on skin color. And the fact that this district is embracing the idea that they need to treat children differently based on race is really problematic.”

Advertisement

“We are asking the district to rescind its discriminatory policy immediately to implement a colorblind approach to how it allocates resources, focusing on the needs of the individual student. And we’re also asking the district to provide Colby’s son with the resources that he needs,” Brewer continued. “There’s no reason it should be taking this long for him to get that support. If the district does not change its discriminatory policy, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty will pursue all legal avenues to protect the rights of Colbey’s son.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Green Bay Area School District for comment and received the following statement on Tuesday, “The District received the letter from WILL yesterday and we are investigating the allegations. However, we can state unequivocally that the District does not have a policy that includes the language included in the letter.” 

“All District policies must be approved by the Board of Education and no such policy language exists.”

The spokesperson added that the language in the School Success Plan is “developed to outline the school’s goals toward continuous improvement, but would not be considered Board (District) policy” which the spokesperson called an “important distinction.”

Advertisement

Decker told Fox News Digital that other parents she has spoken to “can’t believe” the situation when told about it and every parent “just wants their child to be treated equally.”

“Any time a parent or a grandparent advocates for a child, I know that their sincere hope is that that child is just treated equally,” Decker said. “And that’s not what’s happening when someone is a priority. If someone is more of a priority than someone else’s child has to be less of a priority. And I don’t think that’s the way most of America wants to move forward with education.”

“I think everybody wants us to just be completely color-blind and look at children as simply being children. My son is in the 17th percentile in the state for reading, and there are children who are performing at a higher level than him that are more of a priority only because of their skin color. And I don’t think most parents want anything like that to ever happen in any educational setting ever.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court may sharply limit environmental impact statements that block energy development

Published

on

Supreme Court may sharply limit environmental impact statements that block energy development

The Supreme Court may be about to sharply limit the reach of so-called environmental impact statements, which gauge potential harm caused by new developments and can often block or scale back large projects.

For more than 50 years, federal law has required agencies to take a hard and broad look at the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of a building or development project before approving it.

The justices sounded ready on Tuesday to reconsider that approach in a case involving a proposed 88-mile railroad line in Utah that would allow crude oil to be shipped to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

“Focus on the project,” argued Paul Clement, a Washington attorney representing county governments in support of the project. He urged justices to consider only the direct impact of the rail line’s construction, and not potential secondary impacts that are “remote in time and space.”

In their comments and questions, the justices appeared to agree.

Advertisement

If so, their ruling could rein in the reach of environmental impact statements, an outcome that would be welcomed by developers and condemned by environmentalists.

Three years ago, the Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency which regulates freight railroads, approved the construction of the Utah rail project

But it did not weigh the environmental impact of drilling new oil wells in northeastern Utah, the extra air pollution at the refineries on the Gulf or the danger of sending nine more trains per day along the Colorado River and through the Rockies.

Environmentalists sued along with Eagle County, Colo., and won a ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year that said the board had failed to consider the “upstream and downstream” impacts on the environment.

The seven Utah counties appealed, arguing the D.C. court had gone too far.

Advertisement

Eight justices appeared to agree that decision should be reversed.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Colorado native who is a friend of billionaire Philip Anschutz, said last week that he would not participate in the decision. Anschutz is not a party to the case, but the Anschutz Exploration Group, which produces oil and gas in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief which urged the court to limit the law’s focus to environmental effects that are under the direct control of an agency.

Clement, who represented the seven Utah counties, said the court should rein in the “bloated and anti-development” impact statements that range too broadly.

He said it made sense for the federal board to consider the railroad’s potential impact on the bighorn sheep in the area, but not “imponderables,” such as a potential rail accident hundreds of miles away or extra air pollution on the Gulf Coast.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued to challenge the Utah railroad, said environmental impact statements have been crucial to protecting the environment since the early 1970s. It said agencies have been on notice “to consider whether their actions will have long-term, and potentially irreversible, environmental effects.”

Advertisement

These impact statements permit the government and the public to weigh the harms as well as the benefits of a new development.

Wendy Park, an attorney at the center, said “communities in the Uinta Basin and the Gulf Coast will suffer the most from this oil railroad, while oil companies enrich themselves at the expense of the environment and people’s health. It’s disgraceful the railroad’s backers want federal agencies to turn a blind eye to those harms.”

Continue Reading

Politics

How Biden – and Trump – helped make the pardon go haywire

Published

on

How Biden – and Trump – helped make the pardon go haywire

The pardon debate – individual, group, partisan, preemptive – is spinning out of control.

In his “Meet the Press” interview, Donald Trump mocked Joe Biden’s repeated assurances about Hunter: “‘I’m not going to give my son a pardon. I will not under any circumstances give him a pardon.’ I watch this and I always knew he was going to give him a pardon.”

In a portion of that interview that did not air but was posted online, the president-elect complained to Kristen Welker:

“The press was obviously unfair to me. The press, no president has ever gotten treated by the press like I was.”

BIDEN’S PARDONING OF HUNTER INDICATES HE HAS ‘A LOT MORE TO HIDE’: LARA TRUMP

Advertisement

Why did he appear on “Meet the Press”? “You’re very hostile,” Trump said. Her response: “Well, hopefully, you thought it was a fair interview. We covered a lot of policy grounds.”

“It’s fair only in that you allowed me to say what I say. But you know, the answers to questions are, you know, pretty nasty. But look, because I’ve seen you interview other people like Biden.”

“I’ve never interviewed President Biden,” Welker responded. Trump said he was speaking “metaphorically.”

The pardon debate has been re-invigorated by President Biden’s decision to issue one to his son, Hunter, despite repeated assurances of the contrary. (Reuters/Getty/AP Images)

“I’ve seen George Stephanopoulos interview. And he’s a tough interviewer. It’s the softest interview I’ve seen. CNN interview. They give these soft, you know, what’s your favorite ice cream? It’s a whole different deal. I don’t understand why.”

Advertisement

The strength of Welker’s approach is that she asked as many as half a dozen follow-ups on major topics, making more news. When she asked, for instance, whether he would actually deport 11 million illegal immigrants, as he’d said constantly on the campaign trail, he answered yes – which for some reason lots of news outlets led with. But a subsequent question got Trump to say he didn’t think the Dreamers should be expelled and would work it out with the Democrats.

As for Trump, he reminded me of the candidate I interviewed twice this year. He was sharp and serious, connecting on each pitch, fouling a few off. This was not the candidate talking about sharks at rallies. 

BIDEN, TRUMP BOTH RIP DOJ AFTER PRESIDENT PARDONS HUNTER

With one significant misstep, he made the case that he was not seeking retribution – even backing off a campaign pledge that he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden.

That misstep, when Trump couldn’t hold back, was in saying of the House Jan. 6 Committee members, including Liz Cheney: “For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail.”

Advertisement

He did add the caveat that he would let his attorney general and FBI chief make that decision, but it allowed media outlets to lead with Trump wanting his political opponents behind bars. For what it’s worth, there’s no crime in lawmakers holding hearings, and this business about them withholding information seems like a real stretch.

Now back to the pardons. This mushrooming debate was obviously triggered by the president breaking his repeated promise with a sweeping, decade-long pardon of his son, a 54-year-old convicted criminal.

But then, as first reported by Politico, we learned that the Biden White House is debating whether to issue a whole bunch of preemptive pardons to people perceived to be potential targets of Trumpian retaliation.

But the inconvenient truth is that anyone accepting such a pardon would essentially admit to the appearance of being guilty. That’s why Sen.-elect Adam Schiff says he doesn’t want a pardon and won’t accept one.

MEDIA ADMITS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TOO ‘WOKE’ AFTER KAMALA HARRIS’ 2024 LOSS

Advertisement

But many of those potential recipients don’t even know they’re under consideration for sweeping pardons covering anything they may or may not have done.

It is a truly awful idea, and with Biden and Trump both agreeing that DOJ engages in unfair and selective prosecutions – which in the Republican’s case made his numbers go up – the stage is set for endless rounds of payback against each previous administration.

I remember first thinking about the unchecked power of presidential pardons when Bill Clinton delivered a last-minute one to ally and super-wealthy Marc Rich.

Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton used his pardoning power to let off Marc Rich, an uber-wealthy ally of his. (Photo by Julia Beverly/Getty Images)

So it’s time to hear from Alexander Hamilton, who pushed it into the Constitution. Keep in mind that in that horse-and-buggy era, there were very few federal offenses because most law enforcement was done by the states.

In Federalist 74, published in 1788, Hamilton said a single person was better equipped than an unwieldy group, and such decisions should be broadly applied to help those in need.   

Advertisement

“In seasons of insurrection or rebellion,” the future Treasury secretary wrote, “there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth.”

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

Otherwise, it might be too late.

But another founding father, George Mason, opposed him, saying a president “may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”

An excellent argument, but Hamilton won out.

Advertisement

As Hamilton envisioned, George Washington, in 1794, granted clemency to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion to calm a fraught situation.

Something tells me that Biden, Trump and their allies aren’t poring over the Federalist papers. But it’s still an awful lot of sweeping power to place in the hands of one chief executive, for which the only remedy is impeachment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending