Politics
Ahead of second Trump term, California vows 'ironclad' abortion access
SACRAMENTO — 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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
GOP AG predicts which side has advantage in historic SCOTUS transgender case with 'divided' justices
In oral aruments, Supreme Court justices discussed the high-profile, first-of-its-kind case involving transgender medical treatment for children.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the lawmaker at the center of the suit against the Biden administration, told Fox News Digital that over the next few months, the justices will be “thinking a lot about the case.”
When asked whether he ever foresaw himself in such a high-profile legal matter, he said, “not remotely.”
“I do think the fact that there’s so much disagreement weighs in favor of our side,” Skrmetti said in a phone interview. “This is an area where the court really shouldn’t come in and pick a winner. The data is still very underdeveloped.”
SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL ‘TREATMENTS’ TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS
“All the research that both sides point to is unresolved,” Skrmetti said. “This is an unsettled area of science, and in situations like that, the best way to resolve it is through the democratic process. Our legislators appropriate people to deal with that uncertainty and make the call for each individual state.”
The justices appeared divided on Wednesday after oral arguments, and the three appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session.
For its part, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Equal Protection Clause, which ensures equal treatment under the law for similarly situated individuals, bars states from prohibiting medical providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to help minors transition to a different gender. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti and is challenging Tennessee’s state law which bans medical procedures for minors.
Outside the court, hundreds of demonstrators rallied both for and against gender transition treatments for children. One of those rally-goers, detransitioner and activist Chloe Cole, told Fox News Digital in an interview that if the justices oppose the ban on trans medical treatments, “it’s going to make things a lot more difficult on legislative fronts in terms of protecting our children and our youth.”
‘THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING’: EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS
“If we want to create a precedent for other states, for first this law, to be upheld in courts and for other states to be upheld as well, we have to do this now,” Cole said.
Cole, who detransitioned at the age of 16, told Fox News Digital that doctors had done an “incredible disservice” to her at a young age by helping her transition in the first place.
“I’m never going to even have a chance at nursing my children with what God gave me,” Cole said. “An incredible disservice has been done to me by these irresponsible doctors who knew better. They knew better than to do this to a child. They still chose to do it. But they messed with the wrong kid, and I am going to make sure there is never another child in America who is abused in the same way I was ever again.”
The court’s decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. A decision is expected by July 2025.
“So if the court puts a thumb on the scale and says that the courts could be second-guessing state governments on these issues, I think you’re going to see an inhibited debate, and we’ve seen this happen before in other contexts where democracy is subverted by judges who step a little too far into the policy arena, and that ultimately hurts the country,” Skrmetti said.
“It de-legitimates the government,” he added. “It makes people feel alienated from the political process. The alternative is it stays open to our democratic system of resolving disagreements, and you’ll see a lot of debate, and different states will go in different directions, and over time, we’ll have better research, and people will have a chance to debate this extensively, and that’s just the better way to come to a resolution on such a hot button issue where the Constitution is silent.”
The Justices’ decision may also influence broader debates about whether sexual orientation and gender identity qualify as protected classes under civil rights laws, akin to protections for race and national origin.
SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE
When asked whether Skrmetti believes the incoming Trump administration could persuade the justices one way in the case, he said, “It’s ultimately up to the court how they want to handle that.” Trump promised during his campaign he would outlaw transgender medical procedures for minors and open the doorway to allowing individuals to sue medical providers for conducting them.
“But there is a path there for them to continue this, and I think it’s important that we get clarity soon, because there are so many cases involving these issues, and the lower courts have not been consistent and are looking for guidance, and it would do everyone good to have a more clear answer to the state of the law,” he said.
Fox News Digital’s Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Politics
Supreme Court sounds ready to OK laws that ban hormone treatments for trans teens
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives said Wednesday they are inclined to uphold state laws in half the nation that prohibit the use of hormone treatments for transgender teens.
Led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., they spoke of an evolving medical debate over the use of puberty blockers and sex hormones for adolescents who suffer from gender dysphoria.
Britain recently joined Sweden and Finland in sharply limiting these treatments for adolescents, they said. Roberts said the justices should be wary deciding disputes among medical experts.
“Doesn’t that make a stronger case of us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies rather than try to determine them for ourselves?” Roberts asked Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar as she opened her argument.
“My understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to
the people’s representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor.”
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed.
“It just seems to me the Constitution doesn’t take sides on how to resolve this,” he said.
“There is obviously an evolving debate” about the risks and benefits of these medical treatments, he said. “England’s pulling back and Sweden’s pulling back. It strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and to constitutionalize the whole area when the rest of the world is … pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett appeared to agree.
Alito chided the Biden administration’s solicitor general for telling the court there was an “overwhelming” medical consensus in favor of prescribing hormones for adolescents with gender dysphoria.
In response, Prelogar said Britain did not adopt a total ban on such treatments, even if they are now quite limited.
Meanwhile, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who wrote the court’s 2020 opinion that extended federal antidiscrimination protection to transgender employees, asked no questions during the three-hour argument.
However, the court’s three liberals argued strongly that the conservative state laws discriminate against transgender teens and should be struck down.
“Usually parents get to decide” what is the best medical treatment for their child, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “But Tennessee has decided to override them.”
Since 2021, Tennessee and 23 other states have adopted laws that forbid prescribing hormones and puberty blockers for those younger than 18 for the purpose of gender transition.
In defense of those laws, Tennessee Atty. Gen. Jonathan Skrmetti argued that the practice of medicine is a matter for the state, and lawmakers there said the hormone treatments are risky and unproven for adolescents.
The Biden administration urged the court to hear the Tennessee case and to rule the law discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Prelogar and ACLU attorney Chase Strangio urged the court to rule that because the laws discriminate based on sex and gender, they are suspect and should be struck down.
At a minimum, they said, the court should send the Tennessee case back to a lower court judge to decide whether the state can justify what Prelogar and Strangio called gender-based discrimination.
Strangio said the Tennessee law “has taken away the only treatment that relieved years of suffering for each of the adolescent plaintiffs.”
A ruling in favor of Tennessee would be a victory for the conservative states, but it would not directly affect California or other Democratic states, which put no similar limits on medical treatments for transgender youths.
However, President-elect Donald Trump campaigned against what he called “left-wing gender insanity.” Upon taking office, he said, he would instruct federal agencies to “cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.”
It’s also possible that after taking office in January, Trump’s Justice Department appointees could notify the court they would like to drop the government’s appeal in the Tennessee case.
The justices could choose to dismiss the case without ruling, or they could proceed by focusing only on the appeal lodged by the ACLU.
Kavanaugh and Barrett asked about competitive school sports and whether officials may limit participation by transgender girls. But they agreed that question will not be resolved in this case.
Politics
Iowa sues Biden administration to verify status of 2,000 registered voters who may be noncitizens
Iowa is suing the Biden administration over its alleged refusal to provide access to the citizenship status information of more than 2,000 registered voters whose status was questioned ahead of the 2024 election.
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Secretary of State Paul Pate filed the lawsuit on Tuesday, which claims U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “would not hand over” its “list of noncitizens illegally registered to vote in Iowa.”
Federal authorities’ “failure meant that the State had to rely on the best — imperfect — data it had available to ensure that no Iowan’s vote was canceled by an illegal, noncitizen vote,” Pate and Bird said in a joint statement.
Along with USCIS, the lawsuit names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as defendants.
IOWA REP. MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS BEATS DEM CHALLENGER IN STATE’S 1ST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment but did not immediately hear back.
The complaint details how state election officials checked voter rolls against a list of people who identified themselves as noncitizens with the state’s Department of Transportation. The vast majority of the 2,176 names had subsequently registered to vote or voted, meaning that some of those people could have become naturalized citizens in the lapsed time.
Pate told county elections officials during the state’s early voting to challenge the ballots cast by any of the individuals named on the list and have them cast a provisional ballot instead.
Pro-voting groups sued Pate over the move, though days later a judge ruled against them and allowed those named on Pate’s list to cast provisional ballots.
MISSOURI LAW REQUIRING PHOTO ID TO VOTE REMAINS INTACT: ‘HUGE WIN FOR ELECTION SECURITY’
At least 500 of the identified individuals proved their citizenship status and had their votes counted, the Des Moines Register reported, citing preliminary information collected from 97 of the state’s 99 counties.
Another 74 ballots were rejected, according to the Register, mostly because those people did not return to prove their citizenship status.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Most of the people on Pate’s list did not vote in the 2024 election, according to the Register’s data from county auditors.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
Science1 week ago
Despite warnings from bird flu experts, it's business as usual in California dairy country
-
Technology1 week ago
Lost access? Here’s how to reclaim your Facebook account
-
Entertainment1 week ago
Review: A tense household becomes a metaphor for Iran's divisions in 'The Seed of the Sacred Fig'
-
Technology7 days ago
US agriculture industry tests artificial intelligence: 'A lot of potential'
-
Technology5 days ago
Elon Musk targets OpenAI’s for-profit transition in a new filing
-
Sports5 days ago
One Black Friday 2024 free-agent deal for every MLB team
-
News3 days ago
Rassemblement National’s Jordan Bardella threatens to bring down French government
-
Technology4 days ago
9 ways scammers can use your phone number to try to trick you