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

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

Politics

A bright spot for Democrats as voters shifted right: Flipping 3 House seats in California

Published

on

A bright spot for Democrats as voters shifted right: Flipping 3 House seats in California

The electoral map in November was largely a sea of red, but there is a bright spot — or really, three — for Golden State Democrats.

In the Central Valley, the Antelope Valley and Orange County, a trio of Democratic congressional challengers unseated Republican incumbents as the party narrowed the GOP’s razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives.

The victories of Adam Gray, George Whitesides and Derek Tran — and a few Democratic House pickups elsewhere — were a silver lining for their party in a year that Republicans won both houses of Congress, Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump in all seven swing states, and California voters backed away from progressive ballot measures and criminal justice reform favored by many Democrats.

“If you told me all that, I’d ask: How many seats did California Democrats lose?” said Paul Mitchell, a Democratic campaign consultant and vice president of Political Data Inc. “The petri dish was so inhospitable to Democratic gains, but Democrats still somehow still gained.”

In the aerospace-heavy Antelope Valley, Whitesides ran on his biography as a former NASA chief of staff and Virgin Galactic chief executive to oust GOP Rep. Mike Garcia.

Advertisement

In Orange County, Tran narrowly defeated Republican Rep. Michelle Steel to become the first Vietnamese American candidate to win the congressional district that includes Little Saigon.

And in the Central Valley, Gray — a moderate Democrat and longtime Modesto lawmaker — beat GOP Rep. John Duarte by a wafer-thin margin of 187 votes. The photo-finish race, called Tuesday, was the last in the country to be decided.

“These candidates told amazing stories about their districts and they were reflective of the districts they’re representing,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

The candidates mostly talked about kitchen-table issues, he said, and also worked to show that the Republican incumbents had congressional voting records that were “out of step with their districts.”

Winning Democratic House candidates, from left, Adam Gray, Derek Tran and George Whitesides.

Advertisement

(Kori + Jared Photography; Derek Tran campaign; Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

The Orange County coast also delivered another key victory for Democrats, although not a flip. After Rep. Katie Porter chose not to run for reelection, Democrat Dave Min beat Republican Scott Baugh in the 47th Congressional District, keeping the seat blue.

All four victories were a vindication for California Democrats, who flipped seven House seats in the 2018 “blue wave,” only to lose four seats two years later and again in 2022.

“We knew from the onset how important these seats would be, and so did Republicans,” said Dan Gottlieb, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who worked on West Coast races.

Advertisement

He chalked up their victory to strong candidates with deep ties in their districts, weaknesses with the Republican incumbents and robust fundraising that allowed Democrats to “strain the GOP’s resources” and force them to play defense in more districts.

In the view of the Republican mayor of Newport Beach, however, despite Democrats’ gains, the party and its candidates didn’t spend enough time talking about crime and public safety. “That’s going to come back to bite Democrats really hard in two years, if that’s not a main focus,” Will O’Neill said at a panel at UC Irvine on Friday.

The swing-district candidates cast themselves as moderates who didn’t toe the party line. All four broke with party leaders in Sacramento to support Proposition 36, the criminal justice reform measure that passed with overwhelming support.

Democrats and their outside allies launched their candidates onto the airwaves early on in Southern California’s expensive advertising market — including, in Tran’s case, in Vietnamese-language media.

“We tried to project a message … that we were going to stay focused on kitchen-table issues of economic growth, local job growth, and bringing costs down, and that really resonated with people,” Whitesides said.

Advertisement

He said his fundraising haul of $10 million helped “bring to light my opponent’s record, which past campaigns didn’t have to the same extent.”

Republicans won California’s other two battleground House races by comfortable margins.

In the Central Valley, Rep. David Valadao cruised to reelection, beating Democrat Rudy Salas by a wider margin than two years ago as Kern County swung further right.

In Riverside County, voters reelected longtime GOP Rep. Ken Calvert over Democrat Will Rollins, a former federal prosecutor who raised nearly $12.5 million and sparked a wave of voter enthusiasm.

Rollins came 1 point closer than during his first run against Calvert in 2022. The 41st Congressional District supported Trump by a slim margin in 2020, but shifted nearly 5 points to the right this year.

Advertisement

In all, nine of California’s 58 counties flipped from supporting Biden in 2020 to Trump.

The Republican Party also picked up three seats in the state Legislature, flipping seats in Orange County, Riverside and the Inland Empire, suggesting Democrats in once-safe districts could see bigger fights in the future.

“There’s a massive shift right now in realignment of people willing to vote for a Republican, perhaps for the first time in their lives,” O’Neill said.

He said he would not be surprised if Republicans took back “a number of the seats” in 2026, including Tran’s, and said Min could have a tough path to reelection if Republicans choose the right candidate.

Aguilar said California’s rightward shift is proof that Democrats will need to work more to address, and talk more about, the economy, but a permanent rightward shift isn’t a foregone conclusion.

Advertisement

“They might have been Trump voters in November, but I don’t think these are Republican Party voters,” Aguilar said. “When they see unified control in Washington, and what a Donald Trump agenda looks like, I do think it will make them recoil.”

Particularly in the Central Valley’s 13th Congressional District, voters were saying “we want something different,” Gray said.

“When I went out and campaigned on my record of independence in Sacramento … and being unafraid to take on the political parties, either my own or the opposition, if I needed to — I think that’s what people voted for,” said Gray, a former member of the state Assembly.

Biden dropping out of the presidential race may also have moved the needle for Democratic candidates in some of the state’s most competitive House races — although Harris did not prove to be all that popular in her home state, either.

Although the state’s election data aren’t finalized, voter turnout fell in 2024 among Democrats and Harris received a lower share of the vote — 58.5% — than Barack Obama in 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

Advertisement

“We had an old-guy problem, and after the debate, we had a credibility problem,” said Orrin Evans, a consultant for the Min and Tran campaigns. “We fixed the old-guy problem, but the credibility problem remained.”

After the election, both parties launched massive efforts to hunt down every voter whose mail ballot was flagged for a technicality, such as a missing signature or a signature that did not match the voter’s information file.

Hundreds of volunteers and campaign staffers went door to door, sometimes returning to the same doorstep four or five times, to notify voters and walk them through how to correct the issues, a process known as “ballot curing.”

Republicans had 70 staff members working on the ballot-curing operation, finding and fixing more than 10 times as many ballots as they had in 2022, the party said. On the Democratic side, the campaign used hundreds of volunteers and paid canvassers, including some who drove from San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Pablo Rodriguez, who ran an independent expenditure committee that supported Gray, said his organization focused on turning out Latina voters and voters without a party preference in the 13th District, including following up during the ballot-curing process.

Advertisement

“It’s not anything complicated,” Rodriguez said. “The hard part is the labor-intensive part of finding folks and making sure they have a desire to have their vote counted, given that so much of the news has already told them: ‘The election is already over, this is already done.’”

Mitchell said state data showed that 1,310 registered Republicans fixed technical issues and had their flagged ballots counted, as did 2,186 Democrats — far more voters than the 187-vote margin of victory.

Times staff writer Hailey Branson-Potts contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

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

Published

on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

Jack Smith at lectern with US, DOJ flags behind him

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

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

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

Advertisement
Merrick Garland being sworn in to testify

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

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

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

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

Trump, Smith photo split

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

 

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

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending