Gavin newsom menopause
Executive summary
Halle Berry publicly criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom at the New York Times DealBook Summit for vetoing the Menopause Care Equity Act (AB 432), saying he “probably should not be our next president” and noting he vetoed the bill two years in a row [1] [2]. Newsom’s office defended the veto as intended to avoid raising health-care costs and to protect providers’ flexibility, while also saying the governor shares goals to expand menopause care [2] [3].
1. What happened onstage: a high-profile rebuke
At the DealBook Summit Halle Berry — who runs the menopause-focused company Respin and has been an active advocate on the issue — used her platform to sharply criticize Newsom for vetoing the Menopause Care Equity Act twice, arguing the decision devalues women in midlife and saying Newsom “probably should not be our next president” [1] [4]. Multiple outlets reported Berry framed the bill as essential to expand insurance coverage, require clinician education, and address workplace losses tied to menopausal symptoms [1] [5].
2. The bill’s aims: what AB 432 would have done
Reporting summarizes AB 432 as a measure to mandate coverage for medically necessary perimenopause and menopause treatments, push continuing medical education for physicians on menopause care, and direct the state medical board to develop curricula — steps supporters said would increase access and reduce workforce exits among symptomatic women [1] [5].
3. Newsom’s rationale: cost and provider concerns
Newsom vetoed the bill in October, and spokespeople explained the governor’s concerns centered on the bill being “too far‑reaching” and potentially raising health-care costs for working Californians, or placing limits on providers’ ability to treat patients — a defense repeated in statements after Berry’s critique [6] [7] [2]. His office also signaled willingness to work with advocates to expand access while avoiding higher premiums [2] [8].
4. The political stakes: presidency, optics and advocacy
Berry’s comments explicitly linked the veto to Newsom’s national ambitions, saying his treatment of women in midlife undermines his fitness for higher office — an argument media outlets noted comes as Newsom is discussed as a potential 2028 contender [1] [9]. Advocates frame the veto as a concrete policy failing; Newsom’s camp frames it as fiscal prudence and a negotiating position [5] [8].
5. Competing narratives and real-world impacts
Supporters of the bill emphasize statistics cited in coverage — for example, claims that one in six women leave the workforce because of menopausal symptoms — to show economic and social stakes of expanded care [1] [4]. Opponents, including Newsom’s team, argue the bill as drafted could raise premiums or constrain clinical judgment. Both positions are present in reporting; neither side in the provided sources offers independent actuarial studies in these articles to conclusively prove cost outcomes [1] [2].
6. Where coverage agrees — and where it doesn’t
All cited outlets agree Berry criticized Newsom publicly for vetoing the menopause bill twice and that Newsom vetoed AB 432 in October [2] [5]. They also agree Newsom expressed willingness to work with advocates. Differences appear in tone and emphasis: entertainment and tabloid outlets foreground Berry’s rhetoric and celebrity impact [2] [3], while politically focused coverage emphasizes the bill’s technical elements and fiscal arguments [6] [5].
7. Missing details and limitations in reporting
Available sources do not mention independent cost analyses or detailed insurer feedback assessing exactly how AB 432 would change premiums, nor do they quote comprehensive testimony from the California Medical Board or insurers within these stories — so claims about the veto’s precise fiscal impact remain unquantified in the cited coverage (not found in current reporting). Also, long‑term implementation models for clinician education and provider capacity are not shown in the pieces provided (not found in current reporting).
8. What to watch next
Expect continued public pressure from advocates and celebrities, potential revised bills or negotiated amendments addressing Newsom’s cost/provider concerns, and statements from insurers or independent analysts if legislators try again — those developments would directly test both sides’ claims about cost and access [2] [5].