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

Congress eyes 14.5% pay hike for junior troops, limits on transgender treatment in $895B defense bill

Published

on

Congress eyes 14.5% pay hike for junior troops, limits on transgender treatment in 5B defense bill

Congressional leaders have agreed to terms for this year’s defense policy bill, with nearly $900 billion in spending, new limits on transgender-related medical care and a significant raise for young U.S. service members.

Roughly 1,800 pages detailing the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), legislation that outlines U.S. defense and national security priorities each fiscal year, were released Saturday evening.

The bill details policy for $895.2 billion in federal spending.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the bill “refocuses our military on its core mission of defending America and its interests around the globe by supporting law enforcement operations and the deployment of the National Guard to the southwest border, expediting innovation and reducing the acquisition timeline for new weaponry, supporting our allies and strengthening our nuclear posture and missile defense programs.”

DOZENS OF PROMINENT VETERANS SIGN ONTO LETTER SUPPORTING ‘OUTSTANDING’ HEGSETH NOMINATION AMID CONTROVERSIES

Advertisement

Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will need to navigate passage of the NDAA this month (Reuters)

It includes a 14.5% pay raise for junior enlisted troops, according to the Republican leader’s office.

Another provision says “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18,” referring to the transgender children of U.S. service members.

The measure sparked backlash from the Human Rights Council, which called it an “attack” on military families.

“This cruel and hateful bill suddenly strips away access to medical care for families that members of our armed forces are counting on, and it could force service members to choose between staying in the military or providing health care for their children,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said in a statement.

Advertisement

TRUMP FLOATS DESANTIS AS POTENTIAL DEFENSE SECRETARY REPLACEMENT IF HEGSETH FALTERS

President Biden speaks to members of the 82nd Airborne Division at the G2A Arena, Friday, March 25, 2022, in Jasionka, Poland. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Biden speaks to members of the 82nd Airborne Division at the G2A Arena March 25, 2022, in Jasionka, Poland. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The bill also includes border security elements Republicans had previously pushed for, including a bipartisan initiative to create a Northern Border Mission Center under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

According to Johnson’s office, it would also “fully support the deployment of National Guard at the southwest border to intercept illegal aliens and drugs.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., touted the significant pay raise for junior troops. He also said the NDAA “puts our service members first by boosting compensation, improving housing, supporting the spouses of service members, increasing access to child care and ensuring access to medical care.” 

Other provisions also place limits on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)-based recruitment and the teaching of critical race theory in military-run schools.

Advertisement

GOP TENNESSEE AG REACTS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPREME COURT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS CASE: ‘FEEL REALLY GOOD’

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers touted the bill’s pay raise for junior troops. (Getty Images)

The House is expected to vote on the NDAA next week.

The policy bill traditionally has passed with wide bipartisan support, save for some progressives and conservatives who are normally critical of the U.S. defense industrial complex.

However, it’s not immediately clear how many Democrats will be put off enough by its anti-DEI and anti-transgender medical care provisions to vote against the must-pass legislation.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

California voters wanted stricter penalties for crime. Can reformers find a new message?

Published

on

California voters wanted stricter penalties for crime. Can reformers find a new message?

Criminal justice reform advocates spent the summer warning that efforts to oust California’s progressive district attorneys and undo sentencing reforms would undermine a decade of work aimed at reducing mass incarceration, prioritizing rehabilitation and holding police accountable for excessive force.

Come November, voters didn’t listen.

In Los Angeles County, Nathan Hochman, a former federal prosecutor and onetime Republican, unseated George Gascón as district attorney. Progressive firebrand Pamela Price was recalled in Alameda County. And Proposition 36, which will lengthen jail and prison sentences for some drug and theft charges, passed by double-digit margins in all but one of the state’s 58 counties.

After those resounding election defeats, some political strategists wonder whether reform-minded candidates need to readjust their messaging. Many reform movement leaders and progressive prosecutors, however, have shown no signs of backing down.

Roy Behr, a longtime consultant to Democratic campaigns in Los Angeles, warned that a perceived failure to find middle ground on criminal justice issues risks further alienating voters who want answers to visible signs of unrest — like smash-and-grab robberies and open-air drug use on city streets.

Advertisement

“The choices have basically been crackdown or it’s time for reform, and there’s been very little nuance in the back-and-forth,” said Behr. “Voters want police to behave fairly and justly. They also want to be able to go to a store and not worry if someone is going to come running through and do a smash and grab.”

In the L.A. County district attorney race, Gascón held tight to his vision of restorative justice and alternatives to prison, standing against Proposition 36 while polls showed broad public support for the measure.

Following his victory, Hochman told The Times he thinks his opponent and other progressives offered the public a false binary between reform and safety.

Although he spent much of his campaign positioning himself as someone who could restore justice in a version of Los Angeles County that he likened to “Gotham City” under Gascón, Hochman rejects the idea that he was a mere “tough on crime” candidate. Criminal justice, he argues, is more complex than that.

“For the first time in a very long time, a centrist running as an independent won a race where the media and my opponent were trying to hyper-politicize the race into different political camps,” Hochman said. “I think what will end up happening is that the idea that you don’t have to choose between prioritizing safety and instituting real and effective criminal justice reform will be proven over the next four years.”

Advertisement

Hochman said he thinks progressives have lost touch with the average California voter. He argued that Gascón excelled at highlighting problems — such as the need to prosecute police officers when they break the law and the over-incarceration of low-level criminals and nonviolent drug users — but did little to effect change in those areas.

“Gascón said it was very progressive not to charge people who were engaged in drug use, use of meth, heroin and fentanyl … but he had no answer for the fact that roughly six homeless people were dying every day from overdoses,” Hochman said.

Gascón declined an interview request. Other California reform advocates, however, rejected the idea that the election results were a repudiation of progressive policies.

Cristine Soto DeBerry — executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance, which advocates for progressive district attorneys in California — argued that frustrations over property crime and homelessness that drove voters to support Proposition 36 represented dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system at large, including the police.

Critics often say prosecutors like Gascón and Price — who often declined to file low-level misdemeanors and sought to keep most defendants out of jail before trial — can cause surges in petty crimes such as shoplifting and car burglaries. But DeBerry and others contend that it is the failure of police to make arrests that emboldens criminals.

Advertisement

According to California Department of Justice records, more than 9 million property crimes were reported in the state between 2014 and 2023. Police statewide solved approximately 711,000 of them, less than 1%, records show.

“These measures passed across the board, and most of the counties in this state are run by very traditional, regressive prosecutors, and their voters said you’re not doing enough,” DeBerry said.

Tinisch Hollins, the executive director of the reform-focused nonprofit Californians for Safety and Justice, said Proposition 36 “disguised itself” as a way to offer treatment for substance use disorders. The measure was presented to voters as rehabilitation-focused by including a tenet that offered defendants a choice between treatment and prison if convicted of an addiction-related felony for a third time.

Hollins said her biggest fear is that those in need of treatment still won’t receive it under the new measure.

“County jail will just become a holding tank for people who desperately need treatment,” she said.

Advertisement

Hollins said the reform movement “doesn’t need a rebrand” and will continue to focus on reducing California’s “reliance on incarceration” even as the state enters a “totally new environment” postelection.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and others have expressed similar concerns over the lack of funding needed in about a third of the 58 counties to carry out Proposition 36, specifically that there are not enough inpatient treatment beds.

A recent report from a nonpartisan research institute found that there was a statewide shortage of treatment beds for those with substance use disorder and that some facilities exclude those with prior involvement in the criminal justice system.

Greg Totten, who heads the California District Attorneys Assn. and was one of the main architects of Proposition 36, said the funding concerns are overblown. He said there are “significant funds” in behavioral health services that are available from Proposition 1, which is a $6.4-billion mental health bond measure voters passed earlier this year. He also said outpatient treatment could be an option if beds in inpatient facilities are full.

Some observers noted that progressive prosecutors elsewhere have had many successes, and said that while there are lessons to be learned from November’s results, ups and downs are also inevitable for long-term political movements.

Advertisement

Anne Irwin — the executive director of Smart Justice, an organization that educates policymakers on criminal justice reform — considers this election only “one step back.”

Irwin pointed to a study from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll from October that found a majority of voters who supported Proposition 36 also said they want to prioritize understanding the root causes of crime.

She also noted that many successful candidates this year ran their campaigns around the economy — a topic that intersected with Proposition 36. Retail chains including Walmart and Target were major donors, whose support largely came from a profit-loss standpoint.

Hochman successfully courted the support of business leaders, including L.A. mall magnate Rick Caruso and small-bakery owners, highlighting the economic effects of property crime. His “hard middle” approach, which focused on prioritizing public safety and working with police to crack down on violent criminals without completely eschewing reform-minded policies, also worked well, Irwin said.

“The newly evolved Nathan Hochman touted support for criminal justice reform,” she said. “We shall see if that pans out in the policies and practices he implements in the district attorney’s office.”

Advertisement

Hochman’s campaign aside, Totten and other proponents of Proposition 36 said that voters simply rejected “bad policy” that hurt public safety.

Voters “didn’t feel safe,” Totten said. “They wanted change. I think the problem was Californians see products locked up, they see thieves coming into stores and stealing.”

The dramatic shift in California voter behavior on criminal justice is borne out by data. A decade ago, 59% of Californians voted yes on Proposition 47, California’s landmark resentencing measure. This year, 68% of voters supported Proposition 36, which in effect repealed the 2014 measure.

Higher turnout also led to a huge increase in raw voter support this year. More than 10 million Californians cast a ballot to pass Proposition 36, as opposed to just 3.7 million who voted in support of the 2014 measure, according to secretary of state records.

The voters may have spoken, but DeBerry said progressive prosecutors’ “values do not change” because of election results. She challenged Californians to keep an eye on crime data in the coming years and hold policies and politicians to account if their methods don’t have an impact.

Advertisement

“After this election cycle, they own it all,” she said. “So if we don’t see drug use subside and we see prison populations exploding and we see crime continue to exist, I hope that voters and the media and everybody will say, ‘You promised this as the solution, and it’s not better.’”

Continue Reading

Politics

Conservative group compiles list of 'woke' senior officers they want Pete Hegseth to fire

Published

on

Conservative group compiles list of 'woke' senior officers they want Pete Hegseth to fire

As Pete Hegseth continues to rally support for his nomination to lead the Department of Defense, a conservative research group has compiled a list of “woke” senior officers they want him to sack should he be confirmed to lead the Pentagon.

In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) sent a letter to Hegseth with a list of 20 general officers or senior admirals whom it says are excessively focused on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and other similar left-wing initiatives. Eight of those 20 are women.

Those on the list in many cases seem to be targeted for public comments they made either in interviews or at events on diversity, and in some cases for retweeting posts that promote diversity. AAF says that focusing on such policies is an impediment to national security, while some miliary leaders have expressed concern about the list.

DOZENS OF PROMINENT VETERANS SIGN ONTO LETTER SUPPORTING ‘OUTSTANDING’ HEGSETH NOMINATION AMID CONTROVERSIES

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to defense secretary, is seen before a meeting with Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., in Hart building on Dec. 5. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images, left, US Army, right.)

Advertisement

“The woke takeover of the military is a major threat to our national security,” AAF President Thomas Jones wrote in the letter to Hegseth dated Tuesday and first published by the New York Post.

“As global tensions rise, with Iran on the march, Russia at war, and China in the midst of a massive military buildup, we cannot afford to have a military distracted and demoralized by leftist ideology,” he added. “Those who were responsible for these policies being instituted in the first place must be dismissed.”

The term “woke” is often used in reference to progressive, politically correct stances on race, gender ideology and other hot-button topics.

The group posted on X that the woke leaders need to be fired on day one. “Wokeness has no place in the military,” the group wrote. 

On Friday, the AAF doubled down on its position. 

Advertisement

“Many don’t want to hear this, but it’s the truth: DEI in the military is going to get people killed. STOP IT NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE,” AAF posted on X.

Hegseth, a former Minnesota National Guard officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, has embraced Trump’s effort to end programs that promote diversity in the ranks and fire those who reflect those values. He has long railed against the military embracing DEI policies instead of meritocracy, complaining it also diverts focus away from war preparedness. 

TRUMP FLOATS DESANTIS AS POTENTIAL DEFENSE SECRETARY REPLACEMENT IF HEGSETH FALTERS

Pete Hegseth

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary, is joined by his wife Jennifer Rauchet, as they walk through the basement of the Capitol, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

If confirmed to the role, Hegseth would be in charge of 1.3 million active-duty service members and the nearly 1 million civilians who work for the military.

Some of those on the list include Air Force Col. Ben Jonsson, who penned an op-ed in July 2020 demanding his white colleagues “to give a damn” and “address our blind spots around race,” according to the letter.

Advertisement

Also in the AAF crosshairs is Navy vice admiral Jeffery Hughes, who spoke at DEI summit in 2022 and underscored the importance of DEI recruiting “exceptional talent.”

Air Force Maj. Gen. Elizabeth Arledge also made the list and was noted by AAF for making “woke posts” on her social media.

In one post, Arledge shared articles that featured “discussions of whiteness in org[anization] theory and the ways in which whiteness (verb) has become naturalized as the ideal in orgs.”

Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield was also listed and panned for a 2015 speech where she bemoaned that lawmakers in the House of Representatives at the time were 80% males, proclaiming that “our diversity is our strength.”

Navy vice admiral Shoshana Chatfield

Navy vice admiral Shoshana Chatfield was one of 20 people on the list. (Noam Galai/Getty Images for Ellis Island Honors Society))

Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, said in a statement that “No policy should be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump.”

Advertisement

A defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the list said senior leaders are hoping that once Trump is sworn in, they will be able to discuss the issue further. They are prepared to provide additional context to the incoming administration, the official told The Associated Press, which reports it is not publishing the names to protect service members’ privacy.

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday that the list would have “considerable, wide and deep consequences.” He said when military members see people singled out, they will start focusing on their own survival rather than the mission or their job.

Multiple sources confirmed to Fox News that Trump is reportedly considering nominating Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as defense secretary in place of Hegseth amid allegations against him.

But Hegseth brushed off the potential replacement, telling reporters that he was prepared to fight. 

Advertisement

“As long as Donald Trump wants me in this fight, I’m going to be standing right here in this fight, fighting to bring our Pentagon back to what it needs to be,” he said. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

READ THE LETTER BELOW. APP USERS CLICK HERE.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending