California lawmakers are moving to pass a bill that would take abortion shield laws out of the hands of the governor, aiming to prevent future administrations from reversing protections for out-of-state providers.
The proposed legislation, introduced by Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would require governors to deny extradition requests for healthcare providers who prescribe abortion medication or administer gender-affirming care. It would also shield anyone in California who helps patients travel to the state for legal treatment. While opponents of “shield laws” view them as an intrusion on other states’ authority, supporters see them as necessary insurance. California’s Attorney General, Democrat Xavier Becerra, has stated he would deny extradition requests, but Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who is backed by former President Donald Trump, has vowed to honor such requests if elected.
Twenty-one other states and Washington, D.C., have similar shield laws, but Arizona, California, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania rely on executive orders. These orders could be reversed by a successor governor, leaving providers vulnerable to prosecution in states that ban abortion. This dynamic creates a precarious environment for medical professionals who operate across state lines. The tension highlights a broader conflict between states that have legalized abortion and those that have criminalized it, a tit-for-tat that has intensified since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Related: Newsom Backs Medicaid Spending on Housing and Food as GOP Cries Fraud
Physicians in California are increasingly anxious about the possibility of being charged with a crime for providing quality medical care. Sacramento emergency room doctor Kamara Graham, who supports the new bill, noted that this fear is driving some medical professionals out of the field. Graham explained that doctors struggle to balance their ethical duty to treat patients with the fear of being extradited and separated from their families.
“Protecting providers from prosecution should not rely on shifting political winds or a single person’s decision,” said Alyssa Sherer, a nurse practitioner and medical director at Hey Jane, a telehealth medication abortion provider.
Thirteen states have banned abortion outright, and 28 other states ban it between six weeks and viability. At the same time, people living in states with total abortion bans are increasingly getting abortion pills prescribed via telehealth, with numbers rising from 74,000 abortions in 2024 to 92,000 in 2025 according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Related: The Strategic Framework for High-Impact Clinical Briefing
The legal battle over these laws often plays out in the courts. In January, Louisiana tried to extradite a California doctor accused of mailing abortion pills to a patient, but Gov. Gavin Newsom denied the request. Texas, meanwhile, has taken a different legal tact, suing doctors in other states. Attorney General Ken Paxton obtained a default judgment against a New York doctor, though a judge dismissed it citing New York’s shield law. Critics like Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, argue that states have a legitimate interest in enforcing their own statutes and that shield laws represent an attempt by some states to nullify the legal decisions of others.
While California lawmakers work to insulate these protections from future political changes, the setting remains volatile. The availability of medication used in most abortions could soon change nationwide. Under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the FDA recently confirmed it is conducting a safety review of mifepristone, one of two medications used in pill form abortions. The FDA maintains the drug is safe and effective. If the FDA were to decide that mifepristone is not safe, such a ruling would supersede state laws, even in states where abortion is legal. Law professor Mary Ziegler suggests that the Trump administration could make moves to put national limits on access to abortions, adding that the federal courts’ reactions remain uncertain.
