Health Care & Reproductive Rights

U.S. Supreme Court temporarily preserves telehealth access to mifepristone following coalition brief 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta this morning urged the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a recent appellate decision that would restrict access to mifepristone, a safe and effective abortion medication, by reinstating a medically unnecessary requirement that it be dispensed in person. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s May 1, 2026 ruling is not supported by science, would create regulatory and administrative chaos nationwide, and would interfere with states’ ability to protect access to reproductive health care within their borders. Shortly after the coalition filed the amicus brief, Justice Samuel Alito granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing the Fifth Circuit’s ruling until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, May 11, 2026, while the Court considers applications for a full stay. In February 2026, while the case was pending in the district court, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate amicus brief to support the availability of mifepristone via telehealth.

“We urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and halt the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, and we welcome that it has temporarily done so. Telehealth has made it easier for women — especially in rural, low-income, and underserved communities — to access mifepristone and obtain reproductive health care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We should be guided by science, not politics. The in-person dispensing requirement was eliminated because it was medically unnecessary, and there is still no basis for reinstating it.”

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone in 2000, an estimated 7.5 million people in the United States have used the medication safely. Mifepristone, when used in combination with misoprostol, is the FDA-approved regimen used to terminate a pregnancy through 10 weeks. Medication abortion now accounts for 63 percent of all abortions in the formal U.S. health care system, with approximately one in four abortions provided via telehealth. 

In 2023, after extensive review, the FDA formally eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone as medically unnecessary. That decision followed years of evidence, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that mifepristone could be safely provided without requiring patients to appear in person. The FDA’s action allowed providers to offer mifepristone by mail through telehealth and enabled patients to obtain the medication from pharmacies, expanding access for patients who face significant barriers to in-person care.

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement would curtail telehealth access to mifepristone, forcing patients to rely on more difficult alternatives or travel for in-person care. Telehealth has become an increasingly important way for patients to access abortion care, with the share of abortions provided through telemedicine growing from five percent in 2022 to 27 percent in 2025.
• The Fifth Circuit’s ruling would disrupt care in states like California, where abortion remains legal and protected. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, clinics in states that protect abortion access have faced increased demand from both in-state and out-of-state patients. By forcing more patients to seek in-person care, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling would place new strain on clinics and health care systems that are already stretched.
• The Fifth Circuit’s ruling undermines states’ sovereign authority to protect and expand access to reproductive health care. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned regulation of abortion to the states, many states took swift executive and legislative action to safeguard reproductive rights and expand access to medication abortion. The attorneys general argue that courts cannot leverage medically unnecessary federal drug regulations to override those state policy choices or impose unnecessary barriers to care in states where abortion is legal. 

Today’s brief was co-led by Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of New York, Massachusetts, and Washington. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Coalition also requests meetings with each company to comprehensively address the unlawful sales

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced co-leading a bipartisan coalition of 25 attorneys general and the City of New York in sending letters to nine major credit card and payment processing companies urging them to take stronger action to prevent the unlawful sale of tobacco and nicotine products, particularly e-cigarettes, online and at brick-and-mortar stores. In the early 2000s, states partnered with credit card companies and payment processors to reduce youth access to conventional cigarettes sold online. While progress was made, e-cigarette use among young people has grown exponentially over the past fifteen years, creating new challenges that require a comprehensive solution. E-cigarettes are highly addictive and pose significant health risks.

The letters were sent to American Express, Capital One, Citigroup, Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, Stripe, Sezzle, and Block (operator of Square, Cash App, and Afterpay), and request that each company provide a response outlining its availability within 15 days. In the letters, the coalition also noted recent engagement by attorneys general with Shopify Inc. regarding unlawful e-cigarette sales occurring through its e-commerce platform as well as other actions they have taken against illegal online sellers, including litigation and referrals to federal authorities for placement on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ Noncompliant List.

“Illegal e-cigarette sales remain widespread, posing a serious public health concern and requiring a more robust response,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Payment processors and financial service companies have a responsibility to ensure their platforms are not being used to facilitate these illegal sales. We are calling on nine major credit card processors to be part of the solution and help protect our communities — especially our kids.”

Federal, state, and local governments across the nation have been working on accelerating policies and programs to reduce e-cigarette use among youth. 

Under federal law, every new tobacco product must receive authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before it can be legally marketed and sold in the United States. To date, the FDA has authorized only 41 e-cigarette products — none in flavors other than tobacco and menthol. Nearly all e-cigarettes sold by online retailers have not received FDA authorization and are therefore considered unlawful “adulterated” tobacco products under federal law. “Adulterated” tobacco products cannot legally be sold or shipped in interstate commerce. Additionally, the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act imposes strict requirements on online e-cigarette sellers, including age verification, labeling, tax compliance, and compliance with all laws applicable to the sale of e-cigarette products.

Many jurisdictions have enacted flavored tobacco bans, while some states prohibit all direct-to-consumer online e-cigarette sales entirely. For example, in California, Senate Bill 793 (Hill, 2020) banned flavored tobacco products (subject to certain exceptions) and tobacco product flavor enhancers. Assembly Bill 3218 (Wood, 2024), which went into effect on January 1, 2025, amended the flavor ban by expanding the definition of flavored products, expanding enforcement power, and creating an Unflavored Tobacco List (UTL). The UTL is a list of unflavored tobacco products that are lawful for sale in California. The Attorney General published the UTL on December 31, 2025.

Today’s letters were co-led by the offices of Attorney General Bonta, Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and the City of New York. They were joined by the offices of the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Funding helps combat the illegal sale of tobacco products to youth

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) is now accepting proposals for its 2026-2027 Tobacco Grant Program, which will provide approximately $28.5 million in grant funding to eligible local agencies. The program aims to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to our youth. Eligible applicants include any California local public agency with authority to enforce tobacco-related state or local laws on retail sales and marketing, such as law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, city attorneys, county counsels, public health departments, cities, counties, and public school and community college districts. This year’s funding will prioritize retail enforcement and retailer education as part of Attorney General Bonta’s commitment to fighting the illegal sales and marketing of tobacco products to minors. Information on the application process is available at oag.ca.gov/tobaccogrants.

“Protecting Californians — especially young people — from the harms of tobacco remains a priority,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These grants empower local agencies to enforce our laws and push back against unlawful tobacco sales and marketing. I encourage eligible applicants across the state to apply and join us in this critical work.”

DOJ will also hold a Zoom webinar on Tuesday, May 5, at 10:00 AM PT to provide guidance to those interested in applying for the Tobacco Grant Program. To RSVP for the webinar, please click here. The program is funded by Proposition 56, the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016. To date, the Tobacco Grant Program has distributed approximately $241 million in grant funding to approximately 544 grantees through a competitive process.

Companies target youth by making and marketing tobacco products with a myriad of kid-friendly flavors and loading those products with nicotine, a highly addictive chemical that harms the developing brains of children and young adults. Surveys show flavored tobacco products remain the products of choice for young people. In 2024, among students reporting current tobacco product use in California, 84.5% used flavored products. Tobacco usage during adolescence increases the risk for lifelong nicotine addiction and adverse health consequences.

DOJ’s Tobacco Grant Program aims to reduce childhood addiction to tobacco products by supporting local partners who:

• Enforce the statewide flavor ban and similar local flavor ordinances.
• Prosecute and penalize retailers who violate statewide and local tobacco laws, including those who sell or market tobacco products to youth under the age of 21, including over the internet.
• Conduct retail inspections to ensure compliance.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert warning Californians about deferred-interest medical credit cards. Frequently marketed as “zero interest” financing options for dental and medical care, deferred-interest medical credit cards allow consumers to delay interest charges for a limited promotional period, typically for 6 or 12 months. However, if a consumer misses a payment or does not repay the entire loan by the end of the promotional period, interest can be charged retroactively from the date of purchase, resulting in large and unexpected bills.

“Deferred-interest medical credit cards can sound like a good deal — service today, pay for it later with zero interest — but that’s not always how it plays out,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Even one missed payment or not fully paying off your bill on time can mean interest gets added from the very beginning. That can quickly drive up the cost of care and leave people with debt they didn’t see coming. These cards are not the only financing option available, and consumers should carefully consider alternatives before signing up.”

In the consumer alert, Attorney General Bonta cautions that consumers should not allow a dentist or doctor to pressure them into signing up for a medical credit card they do not fully understand. Specifically, consumers are encouraged to take the following steps:

• If an agreement is not in a language you understand, do not sign it. Ask a trusted interpreter to explain the terms of any medical credit product offered to you.
• Shop around for other lender options, including your local credit union.
• Do not apply for medical credit cards while you are undergoing treatment, and do not allow yourself to be rushed into a decision. 

Consumers are also advised to take the following steps:

• If you have insurance, ask for only services that your insurance will cover.
• Consult additional dental or medical providers to compare costs and treatment options.
• Ask for a payment plan directly with your dentist or doctor instead of a “third party” lender. With medical credit cards, you are borrowing money from a third party, usually a bank, not from your doctor or dentist.
• Before applying for a medical credit card or loan for hospital care, ask the hospital about its charity care and discounted payment policies, and whether you qualify. Charity care helps Californians who qualify and cannot afford to pay their hospital bills. 
• See if you qualify for the Medi-Cal Dental Program, which provides free or low-cost dental services to eligible California residents, including checkups, cleanings, x-rays, fillings, and dentures.
• Consider low-cost dental care programs at California dental schools.
• Before applying for a medical credit card, it may be a good idea to talk to your family, community, or faith leaders to see if they can help you pay for your care. 

Under California law, only the consumer may apply for a “deferred-interest” medical credit card, and the application must be completed directly with the lender. State law prohibits dentists, doctors, or their staff from filling out or submitting applications on a patient’s behalf. Consumers who believe they have been misled or improperly pressured can file a complaint with the California Department of Justice at oag.ca.gov/report.

Comment letter supports stronger disclosure requirements for PBMs, seeks clarity that proposed rule doesn’t preempt state PBM transparency laws 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a bipartisan coalition of 45 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter supporting a proposed U.S. Department of Labor (Department) rule that would require greater transparency from pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that service employer-funded health plans covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Created in the late 1960s to process prescription drug claims, PBMs now play a far broader and more powerful role in the health care system by managing prescription drug benefits for health insurers. This includes, among other things, negotiating rebates and reimbursements with drug manufacturers and determining which drugs are covered and at what cost. Approximately 136 million Americans receive health coverage through an employer — either their own job or a family member’s — and the proposed rule responds to concerns that employers often lack visibility into how PBMs are making money or why drug costs change. It would require PBMs to disclose twice a year how they generate revenue and would give employers the right to audit them. PBMs have also long sought to avoid state regulation by claiming federal preemption under ERISA. The attorneys general urge the Department to clarify that the proposed rule does not preempt state PBM transparency laws.

“PBMs have significant control over prescription drug pricing and coverage decisions, yet too often operate without transparency or accountability,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This proposed rule is an important step toward greater transparency in how PBMs operate across the country. In addition, my fellow attorneys general and I call on the Department of Labor to ensure that any final rule fully respects and preserves the ability of states to enforce their own laws designed to protect consumers from unfair and abusive PBM practices.”

Further, in the comment letter, the attorneys general ask the Department to clarify that it supports working with them to enforce the rule. According to the coalition, there should be mention that nothing in the rule is intended to prevent the Department from referring matters to state attorneys general, requesting their investigative or enforcement assistance, or coordinating with them when the Department discovers violations of state law.

Today, the top three PBMs manage approximately 80% of prescription drug claims. Due to the power imbalance held by PBMs and the negative effects of such power on drug pricing, all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted laws to rein them in. Common provisions include limits on patient out-of-pocket costs, bans on “gag clauses” that prevent pharmacists from telling patients they could save money by paying for their prescription out of pocket instead of using insurance, and protections against unfair treatment of independent pharmacies. For example, California law requires PBMs, upon request, to disclose detailed financial information for each health plan or employer they serve, including drug costs, rebates, fees, and pharmacy payments. This helps clarify the true cost of prescription drugs and how money is distributed among PBMs, insurers, drug companies, and pharmacies.

Attorney General Bonta co-led today’s comment letter along with the attorneys general of Minnesota, Ohio, and Oklahoma. They are joined by the attorneys general of Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that, after multistate negotiations, an agreement in principle has been reached on monetary terms that would require grocery chain Albertsons to pay up to $773,787,782.93 to address its role in the opioid epidemic. Albertsons operates in California through a number of subsidiaries, including Safeway and Vons. While the parties have reached agreement on the total potential payment that Albertsons would make to eligible state and local governments, important negotiations — including with respect to injunctive relief — remain.

“This agreement is part of our ongoing fight to bring help and healing to communities harmed by the opioid crisis,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The California Department of Justice has worked closely with our coalition partners to hold corporate actors accountable for fueling this public health crisis. We will continue to address the epidemic from all angles and support individuals and families affected by it.” 

The negotiations with Albertsons have been led by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York, today sent a letter to the Trump Administration expressing deep concern over its review of a federal rule that ensures unaccompanied minors have access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion care. Announced by the Biden Administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2024, the rule has helped provide this essential medical care to young people who have experienced sexual violence in their home countries or during the dangerous journey to the United States. Although the specific regulatory action under consideration is unclear, as no summary is available, recent reporting suggests the Trump Administration is taking action to limit abortion access. 

“Unaccompanied minors, who often face assault on their perilous journey to the United States, are among the most vulnerable and deserve access to reproductive healthcare,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Any rollback of the Biden-era rule could put them at risk of serious health complications and additional trauma. We are requesting a meeting with the Trump Administration to share more information about our position and the considerations we believe must guide any decision.”

Current regulations require that:

• Pregnant unaccompanied minors be provided with information about and access to reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy and abortion care. 
• The federal government prioritize placing minors in shelters where abortion is legal because any pregnant minor could experience miscarriage or complications that require life- or health-saving abortion care.  If a minor is in a shelter in a state with an abortion ban and she requests an abortion, the federal government must transfer her to a state where abortion is legal.

According to a recent NPR article, “The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas. The decision was made over urgent objections from some of the administration's own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need.” During the first Trump Administration, unaccompanied minors were prevented from accessing abortion care, and the attorneys general are concerned that similar restrictions could be officially reinstated.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced filing an amicus brief in Art Center Holdings, Inc., et al. v. WCE CA Art, et al., a case before the California Second District Court of Appeal involving a dispute between a physician who owned a medical practice and a private equity-backed management services organization (MSO). In California, only licensed medical professionals can practice medicine. For nearly a century, California has prohibited corporations and non-physicians from engaging — either directly or indirectly — in the practice of medicine. This ensures that medical judgment remains independent and focused on patient care. While medical professionals may contract with MSOs to assist with administrative, back-office support, MSOs are vendors and cannot own or operate medical practices, nor can they exert undue influence over licensed medical professionals. Increasingly, however, private equity-backed MSOs have expanded into healthcare, chasing profits at the expense of patient care. In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta argues that the trial court correctly held that contractual provisions giving the MSO excessive control over the medical practice — including the power to replace the physician-owner of the medical practice — violate California’s ban on the corporate practice of medicine. 

“State law is clear: medical decisions must be made by licensed physicians, not unduly influenced by corporate interests,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As private equity investment in healthcare grows, we must reaffirm our commitment to California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine and ensure patients remain our top priority.”

In the amicus brief, which supports neither party since both parties seek to weaken the prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine, Attorney General Bonta argues that:

• Important public policy reasons underlie California’s ban on the corporate practice of medicine. Among other things, it protects patients from commercial exploitation, prevents profit-driven corporations from interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, and ensures that doctors' loyalties remain with patients. Medical professionals should be the ones making decisions that affect patient lives as they are trained and licensed to make decisions in patients’ best interests.
• When an agreement gives an unlicensed corporation the right to replace the physician-owner of a medical practice with a different physician of its choice, the corporation effectively owns the practice. Likewise, when the practice’s ostensible physician owner cannot replace the unlicensed MSO without fear of losing ownership over their practice, the MSO has undue control over that practice. 

In filing this amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta wrote only to support the trial court’s holding regarding the corporate practice of medicine.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a multistate coalition, asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to enforce its preliminary injunction blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from obtaining and using the data of Medicaid recipients who are lawfully residing in the United States. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition’s recent communications with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) indicate that HHS shared with ICE a “a large and complex data set” of Medicaid recipient data, even though the Court unambiguously held that much Medicaid data, including that of citizens and lawful permanent residents, is “off limits.” The exact contents of this data set are unclear. In filing its motion to enforce, the coalition also asks the court to confirm the scope of its original order includes all individuals lawfully residing in the U.S. and require the federal government to explain what data has been shared by HHS, and how ICE is using that data.

“The Trump Administration appears to be defying a direct court order blocking it from sharing the personal, sensitive data of individuals including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. It’s invasive — and deeply troubling,” said Attorney General Bonta. “When Californians signed up for Medi-Cal, they did so with the understanding that their data would not be used for purposes unrelated to administering this program. I urge the court to enforce its earlier order and make clear that these guardrails exist for anyone who is lawfully residing in the United States.” 

BACKGROUND

Created in 1965, Medicaid is an essential source of health insurance for lower-income individuals and particular underserved population groups, including children, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. The Medicaid program allows each participating state to develop and administer its own unique health plans; states must meet threshold federal statutory criteria, but they can tailor their plans’ eligibility standards and coverage options to residents’ needs. As of January 2025, 78.4 million people were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) nationwide.  

California’s Medi-Cal program provides healthcare coverage for one out of every three Californians, including more than two million noncitizens. Noncitizens include green card holders, refugees, individuals who hold temporary protected status, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival recipients, and others. Not all noncitizens are eligible for federally funded Medi-Cal services, and so California uses state-only funds to provide a version of the Medi-Cal program to all eligible state residents, regardless of their immigration status. 

On July 1, 2025, California led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration arguing that HHS's mass transfer of Medicaid data to ICE violates the law and asking the court to block any new transfer or use of this data for immigration enforcement purposes. The lawsuit highlighted that the Trump Administration’s illegal actions are creating fear and confusion leading noncitizens and their family members to disenroll, or refuse to enroll, in emergency Medicaid for which they are otherwise eligible, leaving states and their safety net hospitals to foot the bill for federally mandated emergency healthcare services. 

In a limited preliminary injunction order, the court allowed some data transfers, but enjoined ICE’s broader efforts to obtain sensitive health data; data of citizens, lawful permanent residents, and others residing lawfully in the U.S.; and data from other CMS administered health programs. 

In filing this motion, Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Kentucky.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced sponsoring three bills that strengthen protections for patient access to and provider delivery of reproductive health care and gender-affirming care in California. The bills — Assembly Bill (AB) 1854 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), AB 1930 by Democratic Caucus Chair and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood), and AB 2448 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) — are in response to continued attacks on these essential medical services by the Trump Administration and Republican officials nationwide. 

“California is a safe haven for reproductive rights and gender-affirming care. In the face of ongoing attacks by the Trump Administration, I’m proud to sponsor legislation that strengthens our role as a safe haven,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “These medical decisions are deeply personal and should be made by patients with their providers, free from interference by politicians. California will not be intimidated into abandoning our values.”     

AB 1854 — Clarifying California Shield Laws

Authored by Assemblymember Krell, AB 1854 would add provisions to the Penal Code that prohibit a broader range of California businesses and individuals from complying with out-of-state legal demands for protected information. It also creates a notification process so the Attorney General can intervene and stop improper disclosures. 

In addition, this bill would clarify that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the Governor refuses an extradition request. This is relevant because Louisiana recently sought to extradite a California abortion provider for allegedly sending abortion medication to a Louisiana resident. Governor Gavin Newsom promptly rejected this request.

“AB 1854 continues California’s long and proud history of defending reproductive health care freedoms by strengthening California’s shield laws to better stop out-of-state anti-abortion prosecutions and extradition attempts at our border,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell. “At a time when anti-abortion states are stepping up efforts to target those who legally provide or receive reproductive health care in California, it’s vital we step up our protections.”

AB 1930 — Defending Protected Health Care in California

Authored by Assemblymember Zbur and co-sponsored by Equality California, AB 1930 would add provisions to the Civil Code requiring business entities in California to notify the Office of the Attorney General if they intend to respond to a subpoena or inquiry regarding legally protected health care activity and would authorize the Attorney General to intervene to prevent disclosure of legally protected health care activity. Thus, AB 1930 will help the Attorney General protect patients who receive, and providers of, legally protected health care in California.  

By strengthening California’s existing protections, this bill helps ensure that patients and providers can access and deliver medically necessary care without fear of harassment or retaliation from hostile jurisdictions. It will be heard in policy committee in the coming weeks.

“Patients seeking reproductive health care or gender-affirming care — including access to legal, safe abortion and care for transgender people — deserve the same fundamental protections as anyone else receiving medical treatment: privacy, dignity, and the freedom to make decisions about their health without fear,” said Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur. “California has made clear that this care is legal, medically necessary, and protected under our laws. AB 1930 strengthens those protections by ensuring that when individuals or entities attempt to obtain private medical information or intimidate providers, the State of California can step in to defend the patients, families, and health professionals who rely on or provide these services. No one should have to worry that seeking lawful medical care in California could put their safety or privacy at risk.”

“Across the country, we are seeing coordinated efforts to weaponize the legal system to target patients and providers for seeking or delivering lawful, medically necessary health care,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang. “AB 1930 builds on California’s existing protections for transgender people, those seeking reproductive health care, and the providers who serve them by establishing critical safeguards against out-of-state subpoenas and investigations that threaten privacy, safety, and access to care. At a time of escalating political attacks, this bill sends a clear message: California will continue to stand with transgender people and defend the providers who care for them.”

AB 2448 — Protecting Privacy of Abortion-Related Patient Data

Jointly authored by Assemblymembers Berman and Bauer-Kahan and co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood of California, AB 2448 would ensure that health care providers have the technological capabilities to segregate sensitive health data in electronic medical records. The bill advances California’s commitment to protecting the confidentiality of medical information by requiring entities that maintain electronic health records for sensitive services to implement meaningful, operational safeguards to secure that data. 

"In a post-Dobbs world, protecting the privacy of patients seeking reproductive care is not just good policy, but a moral imperative. I'm proud to partner with Attorney General Bonta, Assemblymember Berman, and Planned Parenthood to protect reproductive rights and gender equity by ensuring the sanctity of the patient/provider relationship,” said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. “Women should be able to come here and know they are getting safe, effective, and confidential care.”

"In the years since Roe was overturned, attacks on reproductive and gender affirming care have steadily intensified, threatening access to healthcare services for millions of Californians," said Assemblymember Marc Berman. "In these dangerous times, it is critical that medical providers have access to technology to protect sensitive medical information so that patients who have received reproductive and gender affirming care cannot be identified and targeted. AB 2448 requires the implementation of this technology to protect the privacy and security of medical records, so all Californians can access critical healthcare services without fear."

“With our current federal government hell bent on attacking vulnerable communities, patient privacy, and access to essential health care, PPAC is proud to co-sponsor AB 2448 with Attorney General Bonta to ensure Californians’ sensitive health records are secure,” said President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Jodi Hicks. “We are grateful to Assemblymembers Berman and Bauer-Kahan for authoring this bill and to Attorney General Bonta for his ongoing partnership and commitment to protecting patients’ rights and reproductive freedom.”