Governor Gavin Newsom used his veto pen over the weekend to ax legislation aimed at protecting providers of gender-affirming care from being extradited to face charges for doing so by another state.

Assembly Bill 2164 authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would have prohibited California’s governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person related to their providing a legally protected healthcare activity in the Golden State to transgender individuals, or if they provide reproductive services. It provided certain exemptions, such as an extradition required by federal law.

  • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    10 days ago

    His reason, as I mentioned in another comment, was that this bill was intended to limit the governor’s rights. Since he is the outgoing governor, he didn’t think it would be right to sign a bill that limits the rights of the new governor. This is something Republicans have done to Democrats in the past and is also not OK.

    Be careful about getting triggered by a headline when there is nuance in the article.

    • toomanypancakes@crazypeople.onlineEnglish
      51·
      10 days ago

      Limit the governor’s power to do what exactly? Let’s see here…

      would have prohibited California’s governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person related to their providing a legally protected healthcare activity in the Golden State to transgender individuals, or if they provide reproductive services.

      You support here the governor being allowed to extradite anyone who provides medical care to trans people, as well as pregnant people. You argue to prevent this is not okay. And you don’t understand why trans people are upset? Are you even trying?

      • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        10 days ago

        Not every bill that has good things in it is good. It makes for a great rage bating headline, though.

        His actual comment if you care:

        While I share the author’s views on the importance of protecting these important healthcare services, extradition is an exclusively executive function. When discretionary, that discretion is appropriately placed with the Governor. I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor

        • tmyakal@infosec.pub
          4·
          10 days ago

          So you think a legislature trying to reign in executive power and put additional guardrails in place to curtail “executive authority” is a bad thing? Especially when this is the guy trying to replace Trump?

          Ignoring the healthcare aspect of this bill and just taking that argument at face value, there is no circumstance where I would elect a president who has no interest in ceding authority back to a legislature after this administration’s shitshow. We clearly need less executive authority, and if Newsom is treating that as a non-starter, he’s not fit for office.

          • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            10 days ago

            I think it’s different than vetoing a bill because he hates the Trans community. That’s what this headline implies, and people are going right along with it.

            there is no circumstance where I would elect a president who has no interest in ceding authority back to a legislature after this administration’s shitshow.

            This sounds like setting wildly unrealistic expectations about who is acceptable to vote for.

          • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            10 days ago

            We can agree to disagree. That’s fine. But you aren’t right just cause you think so strongly about it.