By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Here's everything you need to know about the bills, their authors, and Newsom's actions in recent weeks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, provided the local LGBTQ+ community with a mixed response to a series of bills approved by the California state legislature in recent days.
Newsom signed two bills providing IVF coverage for the community and another banning censorship of LGBTQ+ books in school libraries, but he vetoed two bills that would have created an expedited process for licensing out-of-state doctors who provide gender-affirming care.
Here’s a quick explanation of all four bills, with responses from their authors and Newsom.
Authored by State Senator Caroline Menjivar (D – San Fernando Valley), SB-729 mandates group health insurers provide IVF coverage to plan holders regardless of sexual or gender identity, or the plan holder’s marital status. Newsom signed the bill on Sunday.
“Today is a personal and emotional victory. And, it is a triumph for the many Californians who have been denied a path towards family-building because of the financial barriers that come with fertility treatment, their relationship status, or are blatantly discriminated against as a member of the LGBTQ+ community,” Menjivar said in a statement following the signing. “When attacks on reproductive rights are occurring across the nation, Governor Newsom stood on the right side of history by expanding coverage for approximately nine million Californians, including LGBTQ+ folks who were previously withheld equal opportunity to become parents under an archaic law that erased their rights.”
Authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D - Torrance) and co-authored by Senator Dave Min (D - Irvine), AB-1825 seeks to “fight back against book bans that silence communities of color and LGBTQ voices” by prohibiting “libraries from banning books based on partisan or political reasons, viewpoint discrimination, gender, sexual identity, religion, disability, or on the basis that the books contain inclusive and diverse perspectives.” Newsom signed the bill on Sunday.
“California has an obligation to protect the fundamental right of access to diverse and inclusive books and library materials for everyone. The freedom to read is not only a fundamental right under our constitution, it’s at the heart of our nation’s democracy,” Min said in a joint statement following the bill’s passage in August. “Censorship and book bans are not new in America. At an earlier, uglier time in our history, bans were placed on works by Shakespeare, the Diary of Anne Frank, and even Robin Hood.”
“Our freedom to read is a cornerstone of our democracy, and libraries provide a special place in the public's civic education. Unfortunately, there is a growing movement to ban books across the country, including in California,” Muratsuchi said in the joint statement. “Book banning proponents are disproportionately targeting materials containing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQ and communities of color. We need to fight this movement to ensure that Californians have access to books that offer diverse perspectives from people of all backgrounds, ideas, and beliefs.”
AB-2442 and SB-1067 sought to create an expedited process for providing an expedited process for licensing out-of-state physicians specializing in gender-affirming care. Newsom vetoed the bill on Friday.
While he commended the bill’s authors for “addressing healthcare gaps in the state” for gender-affirming care, he expressed concern about the long-term impacts of the legislation and the need to gather and examine data on the issue.
“As the number of applicants who qualify for expedited licensure grows through legislation, the benefits of mandated prioritization may start to diminish, at the expense of potential negative impacts to other applicants. Additionally, the increase in staff needed to ensure expedited applications may lead to licensing fee increases,” Newsom wrote in his official veto message. “It would be prudent to allow time for the current expedited licensure processes to continue so that we can gather data on their effectiveness. This will allow the state to be well informed on the efficacy of this practice before pursuing additional frameworks for expedited licensure and confirm these processes do not lead to unintended consequences on the broader healthcare workforce.”
