A California doctor accused of sending abortion pills to a patient in Louisiana has stayed out of Louisiana’s reach.
Gov. Gavin Newsom made sure of that in January. Right now, his personal policy is the only thing keeping it that way.
Louisiana had demanded that California hand over the physician.
Officials there accused the doctor of prescribing abortion medication by telehealth to a patient in their state. Newsom shut the request down.
“Louisiana’s request is denied,” Newsom 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.”
Late last week, Newsom declined to lock that position into law. He vetoed Assembly Bill 2164, a measure his own party’s allies had championed.
The bill would have barred California governors from extraditing anyone accused by another state of crimes tied to reproductive or gender-related health care that is legal in California.
Newsom said his objection centered on preserving the constitutional authority of the governor. He did not say he disagreed with the state’s broader protections for abortion and transgender medical care.
Abortion-rights organizations did not see the veto coming.
Lawmakers drafted the bill largely to codify an executive order Newsom signed in 2022, which tells state officials to decline certain extradition requests involving reproductive health care that California permits.
The veto changes nothing while Newsom holds office, and the current protections stay in force. A future governor, however, could handle extradition requests differently.
Pavitra Abraham, state campaigns director for Reproductive Freedom for All, warned that abortion providers remain “just one election away from extradition.”
Backers of the bill make the same point in broader terms. They argue that providers should not have to rely on the political views of whoever sits in the governor’s office.
Other groups took the opposite view and welcomed the veto.
Several organizations that oppose gender-related medical interventions for minors argued the bill could have protected California doctors from legal accountability when their patients lived in states that restrict such treatments.
The bill covered both “reproductive health care services” and “gender affirming health care services.”
Critics also raised constitutional questions. They pointed to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and to the duty states have to recognize certain legal proceedings that begin in another state.
Newsom’s veto does not reverse California’s course on abortion. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the state has assembled an extensive web of shield laws.
Those laws restrict California’s cooperation with investigations and court proceedings that other states launch to punish abortion providers for conduct that is lawful in California.
Newsom strengthened them again in 2025.
That year he signed AB 260.
The law expanded protections for providers who prescribe abortion medication. In certain circumstances, it also allows doctors to prescribe the drugs without printing their names on prescription labels.
Telehealth has raised the stakes. Abortion medication can cross state lines without the doctor or the patient traveling.
Doctors in states such as California and New York can prescribe mifepristone remotely and mail it to patients in states with heavy abortion restrictions.
New York’s shield law explicitly protects providers who are physically located in New York and offer reproductive health care by telehealth to patients outside the state.
That arrangement has pushed states toward a constitutional collision. Louisiana’s ongoing challenge to Food and Drug Administration rules on mifepristone is one example.
Louisiana and other challengers want tighter federal limits on the drug. They argue the FDA improperly loosened safeguards that once required more in-person medical supervision.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard arguments in the case.
Current FDA rules allow mifepristone to be prescribed through telehealth and delivered by mail.
That makes it considerably easier for providers in shield-law states to reach patients elsewhere. Louisiana argues the federal rules interfere with its ability to enforce its own abortion laws.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment