ReportWire

Tag: rob bonta

  • California AG announces lawsuit over frozen family assistance funds

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta held a rare evening press conference Thursday, announcing new legal action against the Trump administration. Bonta said California was joining other states suing the administration over a funding freeze for child care and family services. The other states taking part in the lawsuit include New York, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, which Bonta notes are all led by Democrats.Across all five states, around $10 billion is frozen, affecting the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund, and Social Services Block Grant programs. Approximately $5 billion of the funds are frozen in California. The Trump administration claims there is widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer money in the five states. Bonta and his office allege that the funding freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Separation of Powers by freezing funds already approved by Congress, and the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and Spending Clause.”There’s a process for concerns about waste fraud and abuse to occur,” Bonta said during the press conference. “This is the federal government, without any evidence sent to us, cited to in their letter, and I don’t believe they have any, saying that there is fraud in these five Democratic states’ programs and cutting off all funding. And I think it’s very telling as they are cutting off the funding, they are asking for information. You usually ask for the information first.”This marks the 53rd lawsuit by California against the Trump administration in less than a year.Watch the full press conference in the video below: See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta held a rare evening press conference Thursday, announcing new legal action against the Trump administration.

    Bonta said California was joining other states suing the administration over a funding freeze for child care and family services.

    The other states taking part in the lawsuit include New York, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, which Bonta notes are all led by Democrats.

    Across all five states, around $10 billion is frozen, affecting the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund, and Social Services Block Grant programs. Approximately $5 billion of the funds are frozen in California.

    The Trump administration claims there is widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer money in the five states.

    Bonta and his office allege that the funding freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Separation of Powers by freezing funds already approved by Congress, and the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and Spending Clause.

    “There’s a process for concerns about waste fraud and abuse to occur,” Bonta said during the press conference. “This is the federal government, without any evidence sent to us, cited to in their letter, and I don’t believe they have any, saying that there is fraud in these five Democratic states’ programs and cutting off all funding. And I think it’s very telling as they are cutting off the funding, they are asking for information. You usually ask for the information first.”

    This marks the 53rd lawsuit by California against the Trump administration in less than a year.

    Watch the full press conference in the video below:

    This content is imported from YouTube.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Judge panel rules California’s open carry ban unconstitutional

    A dissenting panel of federal judges for the Ninth Circuit on Friday deemed California’s open carry ban in most counties unconstitutional.The ruling comes following a challenge by Mark Baird, who the San Francisco Chronicle identifies as a gun owner from Siskiyou County. Baird specifically challenged California’s restriction on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200,000.(Video Above: California ammunition background check law is unconstitutional)The panel ruled 2-1 in Baird’s favor. In favor of Baird, Judge Lawrence VanDyke noted that the restrictions apply to roughly 95% of the state’s population. And for those counties with populations under 200,000, the judge notes that those wanting to open carry need to apply for a license allowing them to do so, but that the ability to secure the license is “unclear.””California admits that it has no record of even one open-carry license being issued, and one potential reason is that California has misled its citizens about how to apply for an open-carry license,” the ruling’s summary states, referring to the opinions of VanDyke and Judge Kenneth K. Lee. The panel held that the open carry ban was inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applied to states under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also referred to the standard applied in 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that “historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.”Judge N. Randy Smith, who dissented in part, noted that “open carry is not conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Smith also noted that reasoning in the Bruen case allows California to lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect citizens, “so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense.”Smith asserted that because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.While the court primarily sided with Baird, it also rejected his related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents. Those counties may issue open-carry permits.See the full ruling here. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office slammed the ruling on social media Friday. “California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West. California’s law was carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment and we’re confident this decision will not stand,” the Newsom’s office said.KCRA 3 has reached out to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Office for comment.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    A dissenting panel of federal judges for the Ninth Circuit on Friday deemed California’s open carry ban in most counties unconstitutional.

    The ruling comes following a challenge by Mark Baird, who the San Francisco Chronicle identifies as a gun owner from Siskiyou County. Baird specifically challenged California’s restriction on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200,000.

    (Video Above: California ammunition background check law is unconstitutional)

    The panel ruled 2-1 in Baird’s favor.

    In favor of Baird, Judge Lawrence VanDyke noted that the restrictions apply to roughly 95% of the state’s population. And for those counties with populations under 200,000, the judge notes that those wanting to open carry need to apply for a license allowing them to do so, but that the ability to secure the license is “unclear.”

    “California admits that it has no record of even one open-carry license being issued, and one potential reason is that California has misled its citizens about how to apply for an open-carry license,” the ruling’s summary states, referring to the opinions of VanDyke and Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

    The panel held that the open carry ban was inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applied to states under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also referred to the standard applied in 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that “historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.”

    Judge N. Randy Smith, who dissented in part, noted that “open carry is not conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Smith also noted that reasoning in the Bruen case allows California to lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect citizens, “so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense.”

    Smith asserted that because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.

    While the court primarily sided with Baird, it also rejected his related challenge to California’s licensing requirements in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents. Those counties may issue open-carry permits.

    See the full ruling here.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office slammed the ruling on social media Friday.

    “California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West. California’s law was carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment and we’re confident this decision will not stand,” the Newsom’s office said.

    KCRA 3 has reached out to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Office for comment.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Sex trafficking sting in San Diego County frees 19 victims, leads to 10 Arrests

    An officer talks with a sex trafficking victim. (File photo courtesy of the FBI)

    An anti-sex trafficking operation carried out by law enforcement agencies in San Diego, Chula Vista and National City earlier this month resulted in 10 arrests and the recovery of 19 alleged trafficking victims, it was announced Tuesday.

    Operation Home for the Holidays was conducted over a three-day period and involved undercover officers posing as sex buyers in order to encounter potential traffickers and trafficking victims.

    Those arrested during the operation include four men charged with pimping, pandering and violating a protective order, who face anywhere between six and 20 years in prison if convicted, according to the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. Six others were issued misdemeanor citations for allegedly attempting to purchase sex.

    The 19 recovered individuals were offered support services, which the DA’s Office said will “help them escape and heal from exploitation and human trafficking.”

    Operation Home for the Holidays is an annual initiative conducted by the multi-agency San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force, which includes local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement that the operation “is a key part of our efforts to keep our communities safe for the holidays and all year round.”

    Similar operations are conducted throughout the year in San Diego County, including an annual operation held during Comic-Con weekend that resulted in 13 arrests and 10 victims recovered this year, and an operation conducted last month in National City and southern San Diego that led to the rescues of two minors.

    “The ugly truth is that sex trafficking remains a lucrative criminal industry fueled by demand that generating over $810 million a year in San Diego County,” District Atty Summer Stephan said.

    “I’m proud of our work with the San Diego Regional Human Trafficking Task Force, my office’s Sex Crimes and Human Trafficking Division and all our partners that work around the clock to recover victims as young as 12,” she said.

    “Together they hold human traffickers and criminal buyers accountable for their crimes. The ongoing efforts of the task force demonstrate that law enforcement will not tolerate this modern-day slavery of vulnerable victims who are bought and sold like a slice of pizza.”

    Officials asked that anyone who is or knows someone being coerced or forced to engage in sexual activity or labor call the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 to access help.


    Source link

  • California lawsuit says makers of plastic bags lied about products being recyclable

    California ramped up its efforts to curb plastic pollution Friday — suing three plastic-bag makers, alleging the companies falsely claimed their products were recyclable.State Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said companies Novolex Holdings, Inteplast Group and Mettler Packaging violated a state law passed in 2014 that banned plastic bags that weren’t recyclable.Under the law, shoppers could pay 10 cents for thicker plastic bags that needed to be reusable and recyclable. But the makers of the bags labeled them as recyclable even though they were not — recycling facilities cannot process them and they end up dumped in landfills, incinerated, or in the state’s waterways, Bonta said.“In California, we’re making it clear,” he said at a news conference. “Truth matters. Public trust matters. Environmental protection matters.”The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The state filed a similar lawsuit against ExxonMobil about a year ago over the oil giant’s plastic products. The lawsuit said the company deceived the public by falsely promising that its plastic products would be recycled. The oil giant said California’s recycling system was ineffective and that the state should have worked with the company to keep plastics out of landfills.California lawmakers later decided the 2014 law didn’t go far enough. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last year that will ban all plastic shopping bags at grocery stores starting next year.At least a dozen states have some type of statewide plastic bag ban, according to the environmental advocacy group Environment America Research and Policy Center. Hundreds of cities also have their own bans.Bonta announced Friday the state reached settlements with four other companies California alleged violated the 2014 law: Revolution Sustainable Solutions, Metro Poly, PreZero US Packaging and Advance Polybag. The businesses agreed to collectively pay the state nearly $1.8 million and halt plastic bag sales in California after selling the rest of their existing stock.The lawsuit and settlements hold companies accountable for mislabeling their products as recyclable, said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for environmental group Californians Against Waste.“Plastic bags are a uniquely wasteful product,” he said in an email. “Nothing we use for minutes should pollute our environment for centuries, especially something so lightweight that it’s practically designed to become litter.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California ramped up its efforts to curb plastic pollution Friday — suing three plastic-bag makers, alleging the companies falsely claimed their products were recyclable.

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said companies Novolex Holdings, Inteplast Group and Mettler Packaging violated a state law passed in 2014 that banned plastic bags that weren’t recyclable.

    Under the law, shoppers could pay 10 cents for thicker plastic bags that needed to be reusable and recyclable. But the makers of the bags labeled them as recyclable even though they were not — recycling facilities cannot process them and they end up dumped in landfills, incinerated, or in the state’s waterways, Bonta said.

    “In California, we’re making it clear,” he said at a news conference. “Truth matters. Public trust matters. Environmental protection matters.”

    The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The state filed a similar lawsuit against ExxonMobil about a year ago over the oil giant’s plastic products. The lawsuit said the company deceived the public by falsely promising that its plastic products would be recycled. The oil giant said California’s recycling system was ineffective and that the state should have worked with the company to keep plastics out of landfills.

    California lawmakers later decided the 2014 law didn’t go far enough. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last year that will ban all plastic shopping bags at grocery stores starting next year.

    At least a dozen states have some type of statewide plastic bag ban, according to the environmental advocacy group Environment America Research and Policy Center. Hundreds of cities also have their own bans.

    Bonta announced Friday the state reached settlements with four other companies California alleged violated the 2014 law: Revolution Sustainable Solutions, Metro Poly, PreZero US Packaging and Advance Polybag. The businesses agreed to collectively pay the state nearly $1.8 million and halt plastic bag sales in California after selling the rest of their existing stock.

    The lawsuit and settlements hold companies accountable for mislabeling their products as recyclable, said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for environmental group Californians Against Waste.

    “Plastic bags are a uniquely wasteful product,” he said in an email. “Nothing we use for minutes should pollute our environment for centuries, especially something so lightweight that it’s practically designed to become litter.”

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Why plastic bags will be gone from California grocery stores by the end of the year

    “Paper or plastic?” Your days are numbered.

    The question that millions of shoppers have heard for years when they roll up to the checkout aisle at grocery stores will soon be a thing of the past.

    On Friday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a legal settlement with four major plastic bag manufacturing companies, who agreed to stop selling the bags in California.

    Bonta had charged that the companies were violating a California law — first signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2014 and then reaffirmed after an industry challenge by voters in a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 67, in 2016. That law banned the flimsy single-use bags at supermarkets and retail stores as a way to reduce litter and ocean pollution. It allowed an exception, however, for thicker plastic bags as long as they were “reusable” or recyclable. Bonta said Friday that the thicker bags are actually not recyclable in California, and the companies were knowingly breaking the law by selling them.

    “Billions of plastic carryout bags end up in landfills, incinerators, and the environment instead of being recycled as the bags proclaim,” Bonta said. “Our legal actions today make it clear: No corporation is above the law.”

    For shoppers, the settlement was largely moot, however.

    Some store chains, including Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, already provide only paper bags at the checkout counter. All stores allow shoppers to bring their own reusable bags.

    And under a law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, the thicker plastic bags were required to be phased out anyway at all California supermarkets and retail stores, effective Jan. 1, 2026.

    That law, SB 1053, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, came after investigations showed the thicker plastic bags weren’t being recycled, as their manufacturers claimed.

    An investigation by ABC News in 2023 found that when journalists put electronic tracking tags on 46 bundles of plastic bags left in recycling bins in WalMart and Target stores around the country, only four ended up at recycling centers. Half went to landfills and waste incinerators, seven stopped pinging at transfer stations that don’t recycle or sort plastic bags, six last pinged at the store where they were dropped off, and three ended up in Indonesia and Malaysia.

    Although the bags were on the way out in less than three months anyway, environmental groups said Friday they were pleased with Bonta’s settlement.

    “It doesn’t make sense for something you use for minutes to last for centuries,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, a non-profit group based in Sacramento. “Plastic bags end up in the environment. They are eaten by marine mammals. They cause litter. They are so lightweight they float out of garbage trucks.”

    Under Friday’s announcement, four plastic bag producers, Revolution Sustainable Solutions LLC, Metro Poly Corp., PreZero US Packaging LLC, and Advance Polybag, Inc., agreed to stop selling the thicker plastic bags in California, and agreed to collectively pay $1.7 million in penalties to the state.

    Three other large plastic bag makers did not settle. On Friday, Bonta sued them. The lawsuit alleges that  Novolex Holdings LLC, Inteplast Group Corp., and Mettler Packaging LLC violated state law.

    After being subpoenaed by Bonta’s office, the lawsuit notes, the companies were unable to produce any documents showing how many of the plastic bags they make are recycled at their own facilities; or to provide any evidence that recycling facilities in California recycle plastic bags, including facilities the companies identified as those they believe recycle their bags. Nor could they identify the percentage of plastic bags they sold to stores in California that were recycled.

    The attorney general’s office surveyed 69  waste processing and recycling facilities as part of the investigation. Only two claimed to accept plastic bags, Bonta said. But even they could not confirm the bags were actually recycled.

    “These bags are not recyclable at any meaningful scale anywhere in California,” he said. “The only thing being recycled are the false claims of the manufacturers.”

    After Jan. 1, there will still be some plastic bags left. They are allowed under state law in retail stores that don’t sell food. And very thin bags — often presented in large rolls that shoppers tear off — are still legal for use in supermarkets for produce and meat.

    But those bags, under another law signed by Newsom in 2022, must made of compostable plastic.

    Republicans and some retail and grocery industry associations have called the various plastic bag laws overkill and the latest example of California behaving like a “nanny state.”

    “There are too many mandates on what people can and can’t do,” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Chico, last year after the Legislature passed the ban on the thicker plastic bags. “What kind of car they can drive, things like that. I don’t see there’s a big need for it. Let people make the decisions they want to make.”

    Environmental groups and coastal advocates say the laws are helping reduce litter and harm to fish, birds, marine mammals, and other wildlife, which can eat the plastic, or become entangled in it and die.

    In 2009, plastic grocery bags made up 8.7% of the pieces of litter found in California by volunteers during the annual Coastal Cleanup Day. Last year, they totaled just 1.6%.

    “If anyone ever tells you plastic bag bans don’t work this proves them wrong,” said Eben Schwartz, marine debris program manager at the California Coastal Commission. “It’s a huge success story. There has been a steady drop.”

     

     

    Originally Published:

    Paul Rogers

    Source link

  • Beverly Hills Pushes Back on Trump Crime Claims

    Beverly Hills officials dismiss Trump’s claims that residents leave their cars unlocked to prevent damage from thieves

    Credit: Andy via Adobe Stock

    This week, the city of Beverly Hills responded after President Donald Trump claimed residents intentionally leave their cars unlocked to avoid damage from thieves.

    Trump claimed residents in the wealthy neighborhood take extreme measures to protect property while speaking in the Oval Office about crime in U.S. cities. “They leave their trunk open for their car because they know they’re gonna be vandalized,” Trump said. “They don’t want the trunk ripped off in order for them to steal what’s in the bag. They leave the doors open, so when they go in to steal the radio or whatever they take, that they don’t rip off the door.”

    Trump made this comment as he defended his decision to deploy National Guard troops to cities like Los Angeles and Washington D.C., under the claim that local leaders failed to restore order.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta dismissed Trump’s claim, saying, “Unfortunately, he doesn’t make fact-based, evidence-based decisions. He has an agenda.”

    In a statement, Beverly Hills officials responded, saying they are not aware of residents leaving vehicles unlocked or open to prevent damage from thieves. Police data shows overall crime in the city increased in 2022 and 2023, but decreased in 2024.

    This is not the first time Trump has singled out Beverly Hills. He made similar claims about crime at a Republican National Convention event in Orange County, failing to cite law enforcement sources in both cases.

    Elizabeth Ahern

    Source link

  • OpenAI picks labor icon Dolores Huerta and other philanthropy advisers as it moves toward for-profit

    OpenAI has named labor leader Dolores Huerta and three others to a temporary advisory board that will help guide the artificial intelligence company’s philanthropy as it attempts to shift itself into a for-profit business.

    Huerta, who turned 95 last week, formed the first farmworkers union with Cesar Chavez in the early 1960s and will now voice her ideas on the direction of philanthropic initiatives that OpenAI says will consider “both the promise and risks of AI.”

    The group will have just 90 days to make their suggestions.

    “She recognizes the significance of AI in today’s world and anybody who’s been paying attention for the last 50 years knows she will be a force in this conversation,” said Daniel Zingale, the convener of OpenAI’s new nonprofit commission and a former adviser to three California governors.

    Huerta’s advice won’t be binding but the presence of a social activist icon could be influential as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman attempts a costly restructuring of the San Francisco company’s corporate governance, which requires the approval of California’s attorney general and others.

    Another coalition of labor leaders and nonprofits recently petitioned state Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, to investigate OpenAI, halt the proposed conversion and “protect billions of dollars that are under threat as profit-driven hunger for power yields conflicts of interest.”

    OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, started out in 2015 as a nonprofit research laboratory dedicated to safely building better-than-human AI that benefits humanity.

    It later formed a for-profit arm and shifted most of its staff there, but is still controlled by a nonprofit board of directors. It is now trying to convert itself more fully into a for-profit corporation but faces a number of hurdles, including getting the approval of California and Delaware attorneys general, potentially buying out the nonprofit’s pricy assets and fighting a lawsuit from co-founder and early investor Elon Musk.

    Backed by Japanese tech giant SoftBank, OpenAI last month said it’s working to raise $40 billion in funding, putting its value at $300 billion.

    Huerta will be joined on the new advisory commission by former Spanish-language media executive Monica Lozano; Robert Ross, the recently retired president of The California Endowment; and Jack Oliver, an attorney and longtime Republican campaign fundraiser. Zingale, the group’s convener, is a former aide to California governors including Democrat Gavin Newsom and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    “We’re interested in how you put the power of AI in the hands of everyday people and the community organizations that serve them,” Zingale said in an interview Wednesday. “Because, if AI is going to bring a renaissance, or a dark age, these are the people you want to tip the scale in favor of humanity.”

    The group is now tasked with gathering community feedback for the problems OpenAI’s philanthropy could work to address. But for California nonprofit leaders pushing for legal action from the state attorney general, it doesn’t alter what they view as the state’s duty to pause the restructuring, assess the value of OpenAI’s charitable assets and make sure they are used in the public’s interest.

    “As impressive as the individual members of OpenAI’s advisory commission are, the commission itself appears to be a calculated distraction from the core problem: OpenAI misappropriating its nonprofit assets for private gain,” said Orson Aguilar, the CEO and founding president of LatinoProsperity, in a written statement.

    ——————————-

    The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP’s text archives.

    Source link

  • California sues Catholic hospital for denying emergency abortion to woman having a miscarriage

    California sues Catholic hospital for denying emergency abortion to woman having a miscarriage

    California attorney general sues hospital accused of denying emergency abortion


    California attorney general sues hospital accused of denying emergency abortion

    02:39

    California is suing a Catholic hospital for denying an emergency abortion to a woman who was miscarrying and sending her instead to another hospital miles away with a bucket and towels in case anything happened in the car on the way, according to the complaint.

    At a press conference Monday in Sacramento, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit against Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, Humboldt County. He was joined by the patient, Anna Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins when she went to the hospital on February 23 after her water broke.

    Anna Nusslock, California Attorney General Rob Bonta
    Anna Nusslock speaks at a press conference where California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a lawsuit against a Providence St. Joseph Hospital for allegedly denying Nusslock emergency abortion care, September 30, 2024.

    KOVR


    According to the complaint, the doctor diagnosed Nusslock with previable preterm rupture of membranes (PPROM) and said her twins would not survive. The diagnosis also meant Nusslock was at risk for serious complications, including hemorrhaging, infection and death as the minutes passed without treatment.

    However, instead of providing emergency abortion care to preserve her health, according to the complaint:

    The doctor at Providence Hospital informed Anna that hospital policy prohibited them from providing Anna the needed treatment so long as one of Anna’s twins had detectable heart tones, unless Anna’s life was sufficiently at risk – that is, more at risk that it already was. Until such time, all they could do was watch and wait. Despite every doctor agreeing that Anna needed immediate intervention, Providence Hospital police would not allow it.

    Complaint: California v. St. Joseph Health Northern California

    As a result, Nusslock had to be driven to a small community hospital about 20 minutes away, with the hospital providing her with a bucket and towels “in case something happen[ed] in the car” on the way, the complaint said. By the time she reached the operating room at the second hospital, Nussbaum was “actively hemorrhaging,” according to the lawsuit. 

    Bonta said California law requires all hospitals to provide emergency abortion care and that Providence St. Joseph violated the state’s Emergency Services Law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The attorney general said he also moved for an injunction to guarantee that Providence St. Joseph patients receive prompt emergency abortion care. 

    “So even in California, a champion for reproductive freedom, we are not immune from practices like the one we’re seeing today,” said Bonta. “We will not stand by as it occurs. We will take action as we’re doing today and move to end it immediately.”

    According to the lawsuit, the Providence doctor recommended to Nusslock that she be helicoptered to the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF) to obtain the emergency abortion, but Nusslock knew that her insurance would not cover the $40,000 cost of the flight. As stated in the complaint:

    When Anna asked whether it would be advisable to drive to UCSF instead, her doctor told her: “If you try to drive, you will hemorrhage and die before you get to a place that can help you.”

    “Providence Hospital’s policy resulted in the denial of emergency medical care that my doctors recommended,” said Nusslock. “It inflicted on me, needless protracted pain, bleeding and trauma. It subjected me to further risk of medical complications by delaying the care I needed.”

    Providence St. Joseph told CBS News Sacramento it was reviewing the lawsuit. 

    “We are heartbroken over Dr. Nusslock’s experience earlier this year,” Providence said in an emailed statement. “Because the case is in active litigation and due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on the matter.” 

    Carlos Castañeda

    Source link

  • Interstate cannabis sales put California at risk of federal enforcement, AG says

    Interstate cannabis sales put California at risk of federal enforcement, AG says

    A letter from California Attorney General Rob Bonta to state regulators all but ended marijuana industry hopes of interstate cannabis commerce.

    In a 36-page letter sent Dec. 19 to the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), the state’s chief cannabis regulator, Bonta wrote that marijuana activity between legal out-of-state businesses and California licensees could result in “significant legal risk to the State of California under the federal Controlled Substances Act.”

    The warning – first reported by Marijuana Moment – is not a surprise, considering federal prohibition of the plant, which cast long odds a state law allowing such sales would be put to the test.

    California hopes for interstate cannabis sales rose in September 2022, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1326 to create interstate commerce pacts, overriding a longstanding prohibition on the transportation and distribution of marijuana products across state lines.

    Enactment of the law, however, was contingent on several triggers, including federal legalization, approvals from the Department of Justice and other major U.S. marijuana policy shifts.

    SB 1326 went into effect on Jan. 1 2023, and shortly thereafter, the DCC asked Bonta, a longtime industry advocate as an Assembly member, to provide some guidance on interstate sales.

    In a statement sent to MJBizDaily and other news outlets, the DCC said that “we appreciate the attorney general’s conclusion that the arguments supporting interstate agreements are strong. Unfortunately, even strong arguments cannot put novel questions beyond all debate.”

    Bonta’s response also made a passing reference to protecting state employees who might be open to legal risks by greenlighting interstate cannabis commerce.

    “Courts have disagreed about the scope of federal preemption in the cannabis context, and no court has ever considered a preemption challenge to a state law authorizing interstate cannabis sales,” the letter noted.

    “The law is also unsettled as to whether state officials could be federally prosecuted for implementing state law in this area.”

    In May, Washington became the third state to create an interstate cannabis commerce law, thought the statute also was contingent on the U.S. government legalizing marijuana or allowing such transactions between states.

    Oregon became the first state with an interstate marijuana commerce provision in June 2019 when its governor signed such activity into law.

    Chris Casacchia

    Source link