Newsom Vetoes Bill to Lock In California's Abortion 'Sanctuary' Protections
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has angered parts of his own base by vetoing a bill that would have written the state's abortion "sanctuary" protections permanently into law.
The measure, Assembly Bill 2164, would have barred California governors from extraditing people charged by other states with crimes tied to reproductive or gender-related health care that is legal in California.
Progressive groups had pushed hard for the bill. Newsom said his objection was about protecting the constitutional authority of the governor's office, not about any disagreement with the state's protections for abortion and transgender medical care.
A Policy He Created Himself
The veto surprised abortion-rights organizations, because the bill largely turned into law a policy Newsom himself put in place by executive order in 2022.
READ MORE: Newsom Faces Backlash From Prosecutors Over Plan to Review Death Row Commutations
That order tells California officials to turn down certain extradition requests involving reproductive health care that is legal in the state.
The dispute is no longer theoretical. Earlier this year, Louisiana sought the extradition of a California doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills through telehealth to a Louisiana patient. Newsom refused.
"Louisiana's request is denied," he said at the time. "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."
'One Election Away'
AB 2164 would have locked those protections into state law, making it harder for a future governor to change course. With the veto, the protections stay in place while Newsom is in office, but his successor could take a different approach.
That prospect has alarmed abortion-rights activists. Pavitra Abraham, state campaigns director for Reproductive Freedom for All, warned that providers remain "just one election away from extradition."
Supporters of the bill argue doctors should not have to depend on the politics of whoever holds the governor's office.
READ MORE: Virginia Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment Expanding Abortion Rights
Opponents welcomed the veto for a different reason. Groups that oppose gender-related medical treatments for minors argued the bill could have shielded California doctors from accountability when their patients lived in states that restrict those treatments. The bill covered both "reproductive health care services" and "gender affirming health care services."
Critics also raised constitutional concerns, including the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the duty of states to recognize certain legal proceedings from other states.
Shield Laws Remain
The veto does not mark a broader retreat on abortion. California has built an extensive network of shield laws since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, limiting cooperation with out-of-state investigations into providers.
Newsom strengthened those protections again in 2025, signing AB 260, which expanded protections for doctors prescribing abortion pills and in some cases allows them to leave their names off prescription labels.
Those laws matter because abortion pills can cross state lines without the doctor or patient ever traveling. Providers in states like California and New York can prescribe mifepristone through telehealth and mail it to patients in states with strict limits.
Louisiana is fighting that system in court, challenging the Food and Drug Administration's rules that allow mifepristone to be prescribed online and sent by mail. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard arguments in the case.