Has California Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly discussed menopause or women's health policies?
Executive summary
Yes. Gov. Gavin Newsom has publicly engaged with women’s health policy broadly and, more specifically, his vetoes of the Menopause Care Equity Act (AB 432) prompted high-profile public criticism — including from Halle Berry — after he vetoed the bill in both 2024 and again in October 2025 (reported across multiple outlets) [1] [2]. The governor’s office defended the veto on cost and scope grounds while Newsom’s administration has simultaneously signed and promoted other women’s health measures, including expanded reproductive protections and a package of laws aimed at maternal health and product safety for women [3] [4] [5].
1. Newsom has been a visible actor on women’s health — but not on menopause the way advocates wanted
Newsom’s record includes signing numerous laws to expand reproductive care and maternal health initiatives, and running state programs to shield and expand access to abortion and perinatal services [4] [6] [7]. Those actions frame his public posture as pro–women’s health on several fronts, even as he has rejected the specific mandate for mandated insurance coverage and training on menopause care contained in AB 432 — the Menopause Care Equity Act — twice [1] [8].
2. The Menopause Care Equity Act and the vetoes that made the issue public
The Menopause Care Equity Act (AB 432) would have required insurers to cover evaluation and treatment for perimenopause and menopause symptoms and would have encouraged menopause education for clinicians; the bill passed the legislature but Newsom vetoed it, most recently in October 2025, prompting renewed media coverage and criticism [2] [1]. Newsom explained his veto by calling the mandate “too far‑reaching” and raising concerns about raising premiums or constraining providers, per his public messaging and spokesperson statements summarized by outlets [9] [10].
3. High‑profile backlash crystallized the story — Halle Berry’s public callout
Halle Berry used the New York Times DealBook Summit as a national spotlight to condemn Newsom’s repeated vetoes and tie them to questions about his judgment for higher office; outlets reported her saying Newsom “vetoed our menopause bill, not one but two years in a row” and argued the issue reflected “devaluing” women in midlife [11] [2] [1]. Newsom did not address her comments onstage that day, though his spokesperson later said the governor “deeply admires” Berry’s advocacy and looks forward to working with stakeholders on expanding access to menopause care [12].
4. Competing narratives in the coverage: costs vs. care
Reporting shows two distinct arguments: proponents and some policy analyses argued the law would expand needed care and have negligible premium impact (cited by opinion pieces and independent analyses), while the governor’s office and allies framed the bill as a costly, broad mandate that could increase premiums or limit insurer flexibility [13] [9] [10]. Media notes the California Health Benefits Review Program found negligible premium impact in at least one independent analysis cited by critics of the veto [13].
5. Broader administrative action on women’s health cushions the veto politically
Even as Newsom vetoed AB 432, his administration pressed other women’s health initiatives: substantial investments to support Planned Parenthood clinics and protections for abortion access, a maternal‑health TMaH program through Medicaid, new laws on reproductive care and patient privacy, and a package to improve product safety and maternal services [14] [6] [5] [4]. Those actions create a broader record Newsom’s team points to when defending his overall approach to women’s health [7].
6. What reporting does not settle — areas lacking in the current coverage
Available sources do not mention whether Newsom has given a detailed, sustained public speech devoted solely to menopause as a medical policy priority beyond statements tied to the veto and press responses (not found in current reporting). They also do not provide a full transcript of his October veto message beyond the summarized rationale that the mandate was too broad and risked higher costs for working families [9] [10].
7. What to watch next
Expect continued friction: the Legislative Women’s Caucus has kept menopause measures in its priority package for 2025/2026, signaling lawmakers will return with similar proposals [15]. Watch for revised bills that try to address Newsom’s cost and scope objections and for collaboration signals from his office — his spokespersons have publicly expressed willingness to work with advocates after the DealBook backlash [12] [15].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied reporting and official releases; it cites public statements and summarized analyses in those sources and does not attempt to adjudicate technical cost estimates beyond what those sources report [13] [9].