What menopause-related legislation has California passed under Gavin Newsom's administration?
Executive summary
California lawmakers passed no new menopause-specific law during Governor Gavin Newsom’s current administration; the most prominent effort, the Menopause Care Equity Act (AB 432), passed the Legislature with near-unanimous support but was vetoed by Governor Newsom in October 2025 [1] [2]. Independent analysis found the bill would have required insurance coverage and clinician training and estimated negligible premium impact; Newsom’s veto message said similar mandates could raise costs for working families [3] [4].
1. The bill that almost became law: what AB 432 would have done
AB 432, the Menopause Care Equity Act authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer‑Kahan, would have required health plans to cover medically necessary evaluation and treatment for perimenopause and menopause — including hormone therapy and osteoporosis prevention — and would have required expanded menopause-focused continuing medical education for many physicians [2] [5] [6]. The bill also would have required plans or insurers to annually provide clinical care recommendations for hormone therapy to contracted primary care providers and offered continuing‑education credit for qualifying coursework between July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2032 [7] [6].
2. Where the Legislature stood: near‑unanimous votes and a caucus priority
The Legislature moved AB 432 quickly and with broad support: the bill passed the Assembly and Senate overwhelmingly (reported votes cited by the author and sponsor show margins like 70‑1 in the Assembly and 39‑0 in the Senate), and the Legislative Women’s Caucus listed the measure as a 2025 priority [1] [8]. The sponsor framed the bill as closing a care gap that affects “half the population” and as both a coverage and provider‑education fix [2] [9].
3. The governor’s rejection: fiscal and policy rationales
Governor Newsom vetoed AB 432 in October 2025. His veto rationale, as summarized in media reporting and the governor’s office release, argued the bill risked increasing health care costs and limited health plans’ ability to manage care and control unnecessary spending — concerns Newsom said would particularly harm working families [4] [10]. His office offered willingness to collaborate on expanding access to menopause care while resisting the bill’s mandatory approach [11] [4].
4. What independent analysis said about costs and impact
The California Health Benefits Review Program (CHBRP) analyzed AB 432 and considered similar prior proposals; CHBRP’s assessment included that the bill would create coverage mandates such as insurer guidance on hormone therapy and clinician training — and suggested the legislation’s impact on premiums would be small or negligible according to its analysis [3]. CHBRP’s role is technical: it models benefit mandates and their likely effects, and it noted the bill’s requirements for insurers and for continuing education credits [3] [6].
5. Advocacy, celebrity pressure, and the political fallout
High‑profile advocates including actress and entrepreneur Halle Berry publicly criticized Newsom after the veto, saying he had vetoed similar menopause legislation twice and questioning his fitness for higher office; media outlets covered Berry’s remarks at the New York Times DealBook Summit and reported immediate pushback from Newsom staff who signaled openness to work together [12] [10] [11]. Coverage shows a clear political split: advocates portrayed the veto as dismissing women’s health needs, while the governor framed it as protecting consumers from premium increases [1] [4].
6. Limits of the reporting and what’s not in the sources
Available sources do not mention any other menopause‑specific bills successfully signed into law under Newsom’s administration; reporting focuses almost exclusively on AB 432 and related advocacy (not found in current reporting). Detailed actuarial numbers Newsom relied on in his veto message are not provided in the sources we have; the CHBRP analysis is summarized but the full premium modeling details would be in the CHBRP report [3].
7. The practical takeaway for Californians and observers
For now, California has no enacted Menopause Care Equity Act; AB 432’s substantive mandates were stopped by the governor’s veto despite legislative consensus and a CHBRP finding of minimal premium effect [1] [3]. The governor’s office says it supports expanding access to menopause care in principle and seeks a collaborative, less prescriptive approach; advocates want binding coverage and training requirements immediately [4] [2]. Political pressure and technical analysis suggest the issue will return to Sacramento, with the dispute centered on whether mandates or negotiated reforms better expand care without raising costs [3] [1].