…And Things That Shall Not Come To Pass

Aaaand we’re back!

Thank you so much for your patience with my non-existent cliffhanger skills as I completely neglected to leave room in my first post for vetoed bills. One of my favorite parts of the vetoed bills to examine is the statement. As a huge believer in context, I am always a huge fan of a window into the process. In my view, as I read through these vetoes, it seems that Newsom turned against wasteful and redundant laws, as well  as costly steps backward in key issue areas for the state. Kicking off one such issue area, we have a bill related to prison spending and overcrowding. Furthering his apparent passion for prison reform, Newsom vetoed AB 2178, which would legally cap the number of empty beds in California prisons. This would also create a minimum capacity requirement, creating a massive backslide in working towards a solution for prison overcrowding in the state. Note that prisons still take up a significant piece of the California State budget. Newsom’s veto statement said as much, and he stated that he didn’t grant the basic premise of the legislation. “We must leave the practice of warehousing incarcerated people in the past and instead focus on a future that provides humane and dignified housing that facilitates rehabilitation. Codifying this prescriptive approach to ‘empty beds’ will undermine this effort,” he said when he vetoed the bill. 

In the healthcare field, Newsom opted against potentially redundant oversight of private medical industry practices merging or being taken over. AB 3129 would have allowed the attorney general to oversee private industry businesses the same way nonprofit medical mergers and such are monitored. It would also give the AG’s office more oversight on transactions in the private medical sector, as I understand it. When Newsom vetoed the bill, he did so because of the existence of the Office of
Health Care Affordability, which performs duties very similar to what this bill would put on the shoulders of the Attorney General. 

Healthcare was featured heavily in the veto list, and I know this one has stirred a lot of opinions, my own included. AB 2442 would have sped up licenses for gender affirming care providers. The bill was likely inspired by a similar bill back in 2022 that was essentially California’s response to Roe v. Wade being overturned, but that bill requires review after a few years to check in if it's still necessary. Newsom’s veto message mirrors my own concerns. By not changing the process of getting licensed to practice, only prioritizing those that wish to provide certain kinds of care, many applicants will fall by the wayside, and by creating a higher demand to get things done quickly, fees could increase and availability to start a practice offering other types of care could become extremely limited. Although I believe that California should remain a safe haven for these increasingly endangered groups, I also know how hard it is to get an appointment with a doctor. I fear the process becoming more difficult and expensive in the long run. 

Continuing in the healthcare field, Governor Newsom vetoed SB 966 that would limit the power of Pharmacy benefit managers to control where patients fill prescriptions, as they can currently restrict options. Pharmacy Benefit Managers are sort of go-between actors between drug companies and insurance providers, and from what I understand, they make a lot of money doing it. The bill that was vetoed would also have required transparency regarding prices, as the lack thereof is, I gather, a huge source of income for PBMs, and require additionally that any savings they negotiate from the drug companies have to be granted to the insurance companies so that patients can benefit. When he vetoed the bill, Governor Newsom said that prices are too high for prescriptions, but vetoed the bill in favor of gathering more research on PBMs, ostensibly to see exactly how opaque PBMs currently are. In my mind, the instinct to get more information, while honorable, isn’t negated by passing a controlling measure. Drug prices are too high now. Why wait?

While healthcare is a huge issue, so is the health of outdoor workers as California continues to break temperature records every summer. SB 1299 would have protected farmworkers by making the process of applying for workers’ comp claims related to heat-induced illness simpler. Essentially, under the legislation, it would have been easier to show that the heat related illness was a result of their field of work. I firmly disagree with Newsom’s veto of this bill, as he gave the choices about workers safety back to OSHA, instead of directly intervening with the process of getting compensation. 

I thought this one was going to bum me out, but I actually ended up approving of this decision. SB 1047 would have required AI companies and creators to test their programs to see if they would pose “a critical harm to society.” The bill also included provisions for people working for these creators if they privately raised concerns to the Attorney General’s office. I believe whistleblower protection is absolutely essential to preserving the fundamentals of our democracy, and AI scares the hell out of me, and apparently, Newsom vetoed the bill because he wants us to stay scared. His veto statement included a quote about the false sense of security that might be the result of applying these tests to AI. I concur- feeling prepared is not the same as being prepared. 

I saved the best for last in my coverage, because I think this should have made big headlines. SB 804 would have allowed uniformed civilian employees of the police department to testify at preliminary evidence hearings. Currently, that right is for witnesses, victims, and uniformed officers. Newsom’s veto message made it clear that he did not support creating unreliable sources at such critical points in due process. His veto message included the following: “The bill raises concerns about the reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings, in which decisions are made regarding whether probable cause exists to charge defendants with felonies.” I completely agree with his veto decision on this, and I am eager to see what pieces of legislation are inspired by his statement and critiques.

And there you have it! This list was much shorter, which interests me to no end, but I will ponder that privately while I write about many other things. 

Please review the article linked in part one for a complete list and the source on the included quotes.

Keep an eye out for big announcements, and if you found this bill review helpful, tune in to my ballot review next week!

Until next time!