SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law on Tuesday that will make abortions cheaper for people on private insurance plans, the first of more than a dozen bills the state’s Democratic leaders plan to pass this year to prepare for a potential U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could overturn Roe v. Wade.

The new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that banned states from outlawing abortion. If they do, at least 26 states are likely to either ban abortion outright or severely limit access, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that supports abortion rights.

That would force lots of women to travel to other states to get abortions, prompting Democratic-led states like California to propose and pass new laws to prepare for them. Last week, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law aimed at banning legal action against people who aid or receive an abortion, a measure responding to a law in Texas that lets people sue abortion providers or those who assist them.

Oregon lawmakers included $15 million in their state budget to help pay for people to travel to the state to get abortions. California has a similar bill, one of 14 proposals aimed at expanding and protecting access to abortion in the nation’s most populous state. The bills were inspired by a report from the Future of Abortion Council, a group Newsom convened last year to advise him on how to respond should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

“We’re looking at 26 states that will introduce some sort of ban and restriction on abortion, so you have the other half of the country that will need to prepare for how we take care of those patients,” said Jodi Hicks, CEO and President of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. “We’re all imagining and trying to prepare correctly for what that impact will be.”

California already requires health insurance companies to cover abortions. But insurers often charge things like co-pays and deductibles that can add an average of $543 to the cost of a medication abortion and $887 to the cost of a procedural abortion, according to an analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program.

The law Newsom signed on Tuesday eliminates those fees. While the law will make abortions cheaper, it will also slightly increase monthly premiums for patients and their employers. But the savings from eliminating the fees will be greater than the increased premiums, according to an analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program.

The law, authored by state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, makes California the fourth state to ban these fees — joining Illinois, New York and Oregon.

“As states across the country attempt to move us backwards by restricting fundamental reproductive rights, California continues to protect and advance reproductive freedom for all,” Newsom said.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this summer whether to uphold a law in Mississippi that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. During a public hearing on the case last year, a majority of justices indicated they were willing to uphold the law and even overturn Roe v. Wade.

That case has prompted swift action in state Legislatures across the country. Last week, lawmakers in Idaho sent a bill to the governor that would ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. In Missouri, lawmakers introduced a bill that would make it illegal for the state’s residents to get abortions in other states.

States like California, however, are drafting proposals to counter those measures. They include bills to ban disclosing abortion medical records to police or other out-of-state entities and protect patients and providers from civil liability. They would expand California’s abortion workforce, allowing some nurse practitioners to perform the procedure without the supervision of a doctor and setting up a scholarship program for people studying reproductive health who agree to work in underserved areas.

And they would set up funds that would help pay for people to get abortions, including compensating providers who provide free care to low-income patients and assisting with things like travel, lodging and child care for women seeking the procedure in California.

“This legislative package is robust, it’s bold, it’s responsive and it’s innovative, and that’s exactly what we need right now,” said Amy Moy, chief external affairs officer for Essential Access Health and a member of the steering committee for the Future of Abortion Council. “We have a unique opportunity and a pressing responsibility to make sure that anyone seeking time sensitive and potentially life changing abortion care within our state’s boarders can do so with dignity and respect and safety.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California governor signs law making abortions cheaper appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“Facebook wants you to get caught up in a long, drawn out debate over the minutiae of different legislative approaches. Please don’t fall into that trap,” Haugen testified at a hearing by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. “Time is of the essence. There is a lot at stake here. You have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create new rules for our online world. I came forward, at great personal risk, because I believe we still have time to act. But we must act now.”

Lawmakers brought forward proposals after Haugen presented a case in October that Facebook’s systems amplify online hate and extremism and fail to protect young users from harmful content.

Her previous disclosures have energized legislative and regulatory efforts around the world aimed at cracking down on Big Tech, and she made a series of appearances recently before European lawmakers and officials who are drawing up rules for social media companies.

Haugen, a data scientist who worked as a product manager in Facebook’s civic integrity unit, buttressed her assertions with a massive trove of internal company documents she secretly copied and provided to federal securities regulators and Congress.

When she made her first public appearance this fall, laying out a far-reaching condemnation of the social network giant before a Senate Commerce subcommittee, she shared how she believes Facebook’s platforms could be made safer and offered prescriptions for action by Congress. She rejected the idea of breaking up the tech giant as many lawmakers are calling for, favoring instead targeted legislative remedies.

Most notably, they include new curbs on the long-standing legal protections for speech posted on social media platforms. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have called for stripping away some of the protections granted by a provision in a 25-year-old law — generally known as Section 230 — that shields internet companies from liability for what users post.

“Let’s work together on bipartisan legislation because we can’t continue to wait,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., the chairman of the communications and technology subcommittee. The tech giants want nothing more than partisan division and dithering over the legislation, he said.

Facebook and other social media companies use computer algorithms to rank and recommend content. They govern what shows up on users’ news feeds. Haugen’s idea is to remove the protections in cases where dominant content driven by algorithms favors massive engagement by users over public safety.

“Facebook will not change until the incentives change,” Haugen told the House panel. “I hope that you guys act because our children deserve much better.”

That’s the thought behind the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, which was introduced by senior House Democrats about a week after Haugen testified to the Senate panel in October. The bill would hold social media companies responsible by removing their protection under Section 230 for tailored recommendations to users that are deemed to cause harm. A platform would lose the immunity in cases where it “knowingly or recklessly” promoted harmful content.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who heads the full Energy and Commerce committee, said a proposal from its senior Republican, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, isn’t identical to the Democrats’ bill but represents a good start for potential compromise.

“Big Tech should not be the arbiter of truth,” Rodgers said, renewing conservatives’ assertions that social media platforms censor those viewpoints. Rodgers’ proposal would allow conservatives to challenge the platforms’ content decisions.

All of the legislative proposals face a heavy lift toward final enactment by Congress. Some experts who support stricter regulation of social media say the Democrats’ legislation as written could have unintended consequences. It doesn’t make clear enough which specific algorithmic behaviors would lead to loss of the liability protection, they suggest, making it hard to see how it would work in practice and leading to wide disagreement over what it might actually do.

Meta Platforms, the new name of Facebook’s parent company, has declined to comment on specific legislative proposals. The company says it has long advocated for updated regulations.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has suggested changes that would only give internet platforms legal protection if they can prove that their systems for identifying illegal content are up to snuff. That requirement, however, might be more difficult for smaller tech companies and startups to meet, leading critics to charge that it would ultimately favor Facebook.

Other social media companies have urged caution in any legislative changes to Section 230.

MARCY GORDON | AP News

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Haugen urges lawmakers to avert impasse on social media laws appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Passage of Recreational Cannabis Laws Leads to Some Rise In Use But Not For All Demographics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.