Abortion

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday rejected a request to extradite a California physician accused of providing abortion medication to a Louisiana patient, marking the latest clash between states with sharply different abortion laws following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

“Louisiana’s request is denied,” Newsom said in a statement. “My position on this has been clear since 2022: We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services. Not today. Not ever.”

The extradition request stems from criminal charges filed in Louisiana against Dr. Rémy Coeytaux, a California-based physician accused of prescribing and mailing abortion pills to a Louisiana resident in 2023 through a telemedicine service. Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill announced the indictment Tuesday, and Gov. Jeff Landry said he would sign an extradition order.

“It’s appalling to see the California Governor and Attorney General openly admitting that they will protect an individual from being held accountable for illegal, medically unethical, and dangerous conduct that led to a woman being coerced into terminating the life of her unborn child,” Murrill said in response to California’s actions.

Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion in 2022, a growing number of states have moved to criminalize reproductive care. About 16 states, including Texas and Louisiana, now ban abortion almost entirely, with some allowing criminal penalties or civil lawsuits against providers.

Those laws have heightened concerns among physicians about potential legal exposure when traveling to or practicing across state lines — even when their home states explicitly protect reproductive and gender-affirming care.

Newsom’s office said federal and state law give the governor discretion to decline extradition requests when the alleged conduct occurred in California. The governor pointed to an executive order he issued shortly after the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, as well as subsequent legislation, designed to shield California providers and patients from out-of-state investigations and prosecutions.

The case underscores a widening legal standoff between states with near-total abortion bans and those that have enacted so-called shield laws to protect providers who offer abortion care, including medication abortions, to patients from restrictive states. California is among at least eight states with such protections.

Newsom cast his decision to reject the extradition as part of a broader push by California to protect reproductive rights as Republican-led states move to restrict abortion access.

“We will never be complicit with Trump’s war on women,” Newsom said.

VATICAN CITY — In his most substantial critique of U.S., Russian and other military incursions in sovereign countries, Pope Leo XIV on Friday denounced how nations were using force to assert their dominion worldwide, “completely undermining” peace and the post-World War II international legal order.

“War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading,” Leo told ambassadors from around the world who represent their countries’ interests at the Holy See.

Leo didn’t name individual countries that have resorted to force in his lengthy speech, the bulk of which he delivered in English in a break from the Vatican’s traditional diplomatic protocol of Italian and French. But his speech came amid the backdrop of the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela to remove Nicolás Maduro from power, Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and other conflicts.

The occasion was the pope’s annual audience with the Vatican diplomatic corps, which traditionally amounts to his yearly foreign policy address.

In his first such encounter, history’s first U.S.-born pope delivered much more than the traditional roundup of global hotspots. In a speech that touched on threats to religious freedom and the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and surrogacy, Leo lamented how the United Nations and multilateralism as a whole were increasingly under threat.

“A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies,” he said. “The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined.”

“Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence,” he said.

A geopolitical roundup of conflicts and suffering

Leo did refer explicitly to tensions in Venezuela, calling for a peaceful political solution that keeps in mind the “common good of the peoples and not the defense of partisan interests.”

The U.S. military seized Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, in a surprise nighttime raid. The Trump administration is now seeking to control Venezuela’s oil resources and its government. The U.S. government has insisted Maduro’s capture was legal, saying drug cartels operating from Venezuela amounted to unlawful combatants and that the U.S. is now in an “armed conflict” with them.

Analysts and some world leaders have condemned the Venezuela mission, warning that Maduro’s ouster could pave the way for more military interventions and a further erosion of the global legal order.

On Ukraine, Leo repeated his appeal for an immediate ceasefire and urgently called for the international community “not to waver in its commitment to pursuing just and lasting solutions that will protect the most vulnerable and restore hope to the afflicted peoples.”

On Gaza, Leo repeated the Holy See’s call for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and insisted on the Palestinians’ right to live in Gaza and the West Bank “in their own land.”

In other comments, Leo said the persecution of Christians around the world was “one of the most widespread human rights crises today,” affecting one in seven Christians globally. He cited religiously motivated violence in Bangladesh, Nigeria, the Sahel, Mozambique and Syria but said religious discrimination was also present in Europe and the Americas.

There, Christians “are sometimes restricted in their ability to proclaim the truths of the Gospel for political or ideological reasons, especially when they defend the dignity of the weakest, the unborn, refugees and migrants, or promote the family.”

Leo repeated the church’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia and expressed “deep concern” about projects to provide cross-border access to mothers seeking abortion.

He also described surrogacy as a threat to life and dignity. “By transforming gestation into a negotiable service, this violates the dignity both of the child, who is reduced to a product, and of the mother, exploiting her body and the generative process, and distorting the original relational calling of the family,” he said.

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

HILTON HEAD ISLAND, S. C. — With the wounds from last week’s election defeats still tender, Republican governors and political leaders met Monday in this robustly sunny resort to chart a suddenly clouded political future.

Calls for increased emphasis on education and the environment were squelched by other sounds: teeth-gnashing, backbiting and bemoaning of the turn of political events.

Just a year ago, in the flush of George Bush’s presidential victory, Republicans saw the 1990 elections as a historic opportunity to overthrow the Democrats and control the powerful reapportionment process stemming from the 1990 census.

Now, as they looked forward, mostly what they saw was the troubling issue of abortion, which is credited with breathing new life into the Democratic Party and is at least partly responsible for last week’s Democratic gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia.

“If you look at last Tuesday’s results, you are hard pressed not to say . . . that the pro-choice coalition has indeed, definitely, become a force,” Republican pollster Linda DiVall warned the governors.

“If we in the Republican Party don’t recognize that, we are setting ourselves up for some major defeats.”

The emergence of abortion as a potent tool to be wielded against anti-abortion Republicans has sent the party scrambling to regain the offensive for 1990.

Strategy for 1990

In plans outlined Monday, party leaders detailed a two-pronged approach to next year’s elections–playing down abortion while pressing issues that could overshadow that emotional topic.

Vice President Dan Quayle, in a speech here Monday, pointedly did not mention abortion but tried to rally support for a more activist 1990 program modeled after Bush’s 1988 race.

“We will continue to work and identify with issues beyond peace and opportunity,” he said, “and (will) relate to opportunity the importance of education, the importance of the environment, the importance of enhancing our competitiveness, renewing an attack on poverty.

“These will be Republican issues,” he said.

Also, Quayle underlined the firm break between the 1990s-version Republican Party with its Reagan-era predecessor. He touted the importance of government–a position precisely the opposite of that pronounced by Ronald Reagan at the turn of the last decade.

“We cannot adopt an idea that somehow all government or any government is simply evil,” Quayle said. “That’s not the case.”

In talking to reporters later, the vice president said that an emphasis on popular topics like education and the environment will help Republican candidates. And he argued that the party’s anti-abortion stance “is going to be a neutral issue.”

But other Republicans roll their eyes at such rosy predictions and worry nervously that abortion will prove the difference in 1990’s elections.

Next year, 34 Senate seats, 36 governorships and all 435 House seats will be on the ballot. More important, the elections will put into office governors and state legislators who can shape new boundaries for political districts, which will remain in force for 10 years. Whoever wins in 1990, in short, has a distinct advantage for the next decade.

Republicans are still smarting over the last reapportionment, in which Democrats controlled the process and came away with strong holds on many states, most particularly California.

Despite the success of the GOP in winning the presidency, Democrats currently hold 29 governor’s seats and control 28 legislatures. Among the 1990 battlegrounds will be California, Texas and Florida, which have gained in population and thus will gain congressional seats, and the Northeast and Great Lakes states, which are losing seats.

Major GOP Efforts

Republicans will be mounting major efforts as well in states where they are close to holding a majority of legislators in a legislative body–Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Florida among them, Republicans here said.

Republicans acknowledge that there are limits to their ability to force abortion onto the back burner. The Supreme Court, which unleashed a fury of political activity with its July decision permitting the states to place some restrictions on abortion, is due to consider the subject again next term. And abortion rights groups, which mobilized in the wake of the court decision, have vowed to exact revenge on anti-abortion legislators in 1990.

But, as they shift focus to newly embraced issues like education and the environment, the Republicans hope to take the edge off of the abortion issue by instructing party candidates to announce their position and stick to it. Many Republicans here castigated their losing gubernatorial candidates–J. Marshall Coleman of Virginia and James Courter of New Jersey–for waffling on the issue.

“You don’t shift positions,” said Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, who after the Supreme Court decision called a special session of the Florida Legislature to adopt new abortion restrictions–only to have the Legislature table the proposals.

“If you’re shifting around on quicksand based on the political winds, you’re gonna die,” he added.

Conservative South Carolina Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. spoke what is rapidly becoming the party line–that voters will accept an anti-abortion stance as long as it is consistent and expressed sensitively.

There has been no large-scale test of the theory since the Supreme Court’s decision was announced.

“The problem with Republicans is that they have not gone out in advance and told the public what they believed in,” Campbell said.

“The Democrats in this instance (last week’s races) went out and defined the issue (and) left the Republican candidates there with no clear message of what they stood for. And I’m going to tell you something: You’ll beat nothing with something every time.”

Thompson Disagrees

Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson, a moderate who has opted not to run again in 1990, split ranks with Campbell on the direction that party candidates must take in the future.

“At least at the state level, a candidate in any party who takes a strong pro-life stance is going to lose,” Thompson said.

“The old days when only the pro-life movement was political are gone,” he added. “The Republican Party is going to be pushed in the direction of the pro-choice movement.”

Most Republicans agree that all but the most rabid anti-abortion activists will have to silence in 1990 their once-public demands for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and for other highly restrictive measures.

“There’s room for an offensive–but the offensive is clearly in the middle,” Republican National Committee member Haley Barbour of Mississippi said.

Like others, Barbour suggested that moderate attempts at abortion restrictions–like advocating that parents be notified when a young girl seeks to have an abortion–will remain on the agenda, because polls show Americans to be more sympathetic to them than to more comprehensive barriers.

“Politics is the art of the achievable,” he said.

The Bush Administration’s long-heralded gag order–a regulation that prevents federally funded family planning centers from providing abortion counseling–went into effect Thursday, leaving a bureaucratic ball of confusion for California clinics leading a nationwide fight to thwart the rule.

The state’s 220 clinics, which receive $12 million a year in federal family planning funds, have implemented an elaborate bookkeeping plan that takes advantage of state law, which contradicts the federal regulation by mandating that clinics suggest abortion as an option for pregnant women.

Under the plan, staff members whose salaries are paid with state or private money will continue to offer the counseling while those who are paid by the federal government will not.

Barbara Jackson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino counties, said her organization simply made adjustments to use state money for pregnancy testing and options counseling and to redirect federal money for approved services. “We’re not changing our service one iota,” Jackson said Thursday. “We’re providing the same level of care for our patients that we always have and always will.

“We had made the decision that we could not deny our patients information, and we’ve not renegged on that commitment to our patients. We’ve simply been practical and decided that if we can’t use federal money for that service, we’ll use other money for that service.”

At Planned Parenthood’s five Orange County clinics Thursday, patients found signs explaining that federal money was not sudisidizing pregnancy counseling or testing. Those patients who received those services signed release forms stating that they understood that their care was funded by the state, not the federal government.

“The only thing different is simply making it clear to our patients, to anyone that is concerned about this issue, that these particular services are not funded by federal dollars,” Jackson said.

Last year, Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino counties received $122,000 in Title 10 federal funds–those that cannot now be used for pregnancy testing and counseling. That is only about 3.7% of the program’s $3.3-million budget, which made it somewhat simple to divert the funds from the prohibited activities, Jackson said. Because California has a state family planning office that funds clinics, the ruling “has a much greater impact in other parts of the country.”

But even in Southern California, some clinic’s found Thursday that while the fund-diversion plan sounded good in theory, it was not easy in practice–and could put the clinics on shaky legal ground.

At the T.H.E. Clinic for Women in Los Angeles’ Crenshaw district–where 2,500 largely poor, mostly minority women come each year for family planning services–nurse practitioners must account for every hour of their time and who is paying for it.

If a woman tests positive for pregnancy in the morning, when the nurses are being paid with state funds, she will receive counseling and pamphlets outlining her options–carrying the baby to term and raising it, placing the child up for adoption or in a foster home, or terminating the pregnancy.

But if a patient visits in the afternoon, when the nurses’ salaries are drawn from federal money, any discussion of abortion will be taboo and the woman will be told euphemistically to come back another time if she wants to talk about further options.

Across the nation, many family planning centers are following California’s lead, said Judith DeSarno, executive director of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn., which represents 90% of the nation’s 4,000 federally funded family planning clinics. “Everyone is trying a variation of the California theme,” she said.

The new system was put to the test Thursday morning at T.H.E. Clinic for Women, when nursing director Marilyn Norwood received a visit from a 21-year-old college student who is 10 weeks pregnant and wanted information about abortion. During the session, Norwood told the young woman–who had not heard of the gag order–that she would have been out of luck if she had arrived an hour later. Norwood found the encounter frustrating–and infuriating.

“I am angry,” said the bespectacled, 61-year-old nurse practitioner who has worked at the clinic for 18 years. “Now, (in the afternoons) all of a sudden I have to sit there like I have tape across my mouth?”

To Sylvia Drew Ivie, the clinic’s executive director, the plan is “a real bureaucratic nightmare. . . . We have never before had to account for time spent on what you are permitted to say and what you are not permitted to say.”

But the real hardship, Ivie said, will be on patients, many of whom have to take public transportation to the clinic and have difficulty coming for visits–let alone coming back a second time at a precise hour for counseling that was once available any time.

In rural Tulare County, Family Planning Program Inc. serves 7,000 patients each year in its three clinics. Executive Director Kay Truesdale said the program’s one full-time bookkeeper must design a system for keeping track of which money is spent on what. Truesdale is worried that the clinics will be forced to spend more on administration, which could mean a cutback in other services.

“It’s going to be difficult. We are a very small agency and it’s going to add a burden to our clinic. . . . Each layer of (bureaucracy) adds to the cost of doing business and that takes away from the money that we can use to see patients, no matter how you slice it.”

The gag order, initiated by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, goes into effect amid a flurry of activity in Washington that has opponents hoping the regulation will not remain in effect for long. The Senate on Thursday overrode President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have nullified the regulation, although the House is expected to sustain the veto.

Meanwhile, two legal challenges are pending. A federal judge in Washington may rule today on a request brought by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. for an injunction to delay implementation of the rule. And an appeals court hearing is scheduled Oct. 14 in another lawsuit, also brought by that group.

In the interim, DeSarno said, her organization is concerned that the government could crack down on California and other states that are using creative maneuvers to get around the rule, particularly because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not given explicit approval to their methods. Health and Human Services officials have only said that the California plan is under review.

“There are severe federal penalties if you say you are going to comply with regulations and then you don’t,” DeSarno said. “It’s considered fraud. We now don’t know–are we complying or are we not complying? People are being put at great risk. The California clinics may be put at great risk.”

California clinic administrators have been outspoken opponents of the abortion gag rules. Officials of the California Family Planning Council said more than a year ago that the clinics would forfeit federal assistance rather than deny women full discussion of their options. Instead, the clinics decided to try the new plan–a decision that was encouraged by a favorable court ruling in one of the lawsuits and wavering by the federal government on the precise scope of the regulations.

Sima Michaels, associate director of the council, said the organization has instructed its member clinics to post signs informing clients that federal funds are not being used for pregnancy counseling. In addition, she said, patients are being asked to sign consent forms stating that they understand that federal money is not being used for the services.

“So far,” she said, “we have not heard that our plan is not acceptable. We are complying with the gag rule. We’re just being creative about it.”

Times staff writer Jodi Wilgoren contributed to this story.

DIVISIVE ISSUE: Senate votes to override Bush abortion counseling veto. A27