Governor Gavin Newsom said he will ensure that women in California continue to have access to critical health care services, including abortion. This follows the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks.
"I am outraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the ban on most abortions in Texas to go into effect. Quietly, in the dark of night, the Supreme Court has ?gutted? the fundamental protection of a woman's right to choose that ?the? Roe v. Wade has protected for the past 50 years."
This was stated by the governor on the same day the Supreme Court made its decision.
He also noted that California will continue to lead the nation in expanding access to sexual and reproductive health care.
"I will continue to appoint judges and justices who will faithfully follow the Constitution and precedent to uphold the rights of the people, unlike this disappointing inaction of the high court," he sentenced.
In 2019, Governor Newsom signed a Reproductive Freedom Proclamation, which reaffirmed California's commitment to protecting women's reproductive choices.
In addition, he advanced investments to expand access to sexual and reproductive health care and signed several bills protecting reproductive freedom, including SB 374 earlier this year and SB 24 and AB 1264 in 2019.
What happened to abortion in Texas?
The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to deny an emergency appeal by abortion providers and others seeking to block enforcement of the law that went into effect Wednesday, thereby keeping in place Texas' law banning most abortions after six weeks.
Texas law, signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott in May, bans abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and before most women know they are pregnant.
Abbott's law is the strictest abortion law in the entire country since Roe v. Wade in 1973, which was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects a pregnant woman's freedom to choose to have an abortion without undue government restriction.
While at least 12 other states have enacted bans on abortion in early pregnancy, all have been prevented from going into effect. And in this case there may still be appeals.
Revocation at the door
The situation comes in the midst of a recall election in California, driven by the Republican wing, which will decide whether Gavin Newson remains at the helm of the state or is replaced by one of the 46 mostly Republican candidates.
And yes, as in the state of Texas, there is a risk that advances in reproductive health, among others, could be slowed.
Notably, the Supreme Court's decision for Texas reproductive health also comes against a complex health backdrop, as the nation's second largest state experiences a spike in coronavirus hospitalizations.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported more than 14,000 Texans hospitalized due to COVID-19, which means that hospitals are at capacity.
In May, Governor Abbott issued an order prohibiting the state from ordering COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, which at the time included Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.
Governor Abbott's order stipulates that cities, counties, school districts, public universities and public hospitals are prohibited from requiring the vaccines.
In addition, any public or private entity that receives or will receive public resources through grants, contracts, loans or taxpayer money is prohibited from requiring proof of vaccination.
Also, if private entities receive or will receive money from taxpayers, they cannot limit assistance or services only to people who have an immunization card.
Added to this is a ban on so-called "vaccination passports" that have been requested by some businesses to provide service only to those who are immunized.
You may be interested in: To recall Newsom or not to recall Newsom? That's the dilemma
