Posted on 09/29/2025 4:38:41 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Friday allowing healthcare workers the option of anonymously mailing abortion drugs into red states to skirt pro-life laws.
The law, AB 260, bolsters the state’s existing shield laws designed to protect abortionists from out-of-state prosecutions. Democrat Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry said she introduced the legislation in direct response to a Texas man suing a California doctor for sending his girlfriend abortion pills, Politico reported.
Newsom also signed a bill that would keep the abortion drug mifepristone available in the state, even if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to revoke its approval. The FDA, under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is conducting a review of the pill’s safety following a shocking study suggesting complications are much higher than previously reported. …
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Mifepristone is legal, unfortunately.
He can do this all he wants to. If the state determines they approve abortion, then that’s the bottom line. That’s what the tossing of Roe was all about. Getting it out of federal jurisdiction and to the states. But that means the states have to absorb the problems connected to it.
wy69
The thing is, this law is not for keeping things within California’s borders. Interstate commerce is a federal concern.
So is fentanyl.
EC
This guy is absolute, maniacal evil.
Is he the one they’ll push forward in ‘28?
Or is he pushing himself right now?
A Gavin / AOC ticket?
Keep praying, read your Bible, seek Christian friends and a church if you don’t have one.
But keep praying.
Can they send Ivermectin oit of state, too? Asking gor a friend.
Newsom knows his chances of being president is less then a snowball lasting in hell he’s grabbing for every low life democrat for a vote.
Futile is his fame
Protecting child predators who knock up underage girls. The California way. Roman Polansky and Jack Nicholson are still heroes in that state for raping a 13 year old.
“Interstate commerce is a federal concern.”
The laws are very misleading concerning the shipping of abortion pills. An older law, the Comstock Act, prohibits the interstate mailing of items intended to cause abortion. However, the Department of Justice has stated that mailing abortion pills does not violate the act if the sender does not know the drugs will be used illegally. And of course that thought would fall under any item being moved for illegal use. Additionally, the Dormant Commerce Clause restricts lawmakers from enacting laws that place an undue burden on interstate commerce. As long as it is being moved for legal use, the feds are hamstrung.
This battle has been going on for a number of years. Here’s a good article on the actions:
wy69
That does not seem to be a valid interpretation of what the DOJ’s stance is, sorry. And the POTUS is the enforcer here, not the DOJ per se.
“...not the DOJ per se...”
The DOJ are the federal enforcement, investigation, and witnessing part of the government that would have to step in if anything was going to happen concerning the legalities of pill interstate movement. And the POTUS doesn’t have the power, congress does. Wish it were that easy but it would put the POTUS position in a stance of ruler rather than president.
The primary legislative authority to regulate interstate commerce in the United States comes from the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants this power to Congress. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), have affirmed and expanded the scope of this power, establishing that Congress has broad authority to regulate all aspects of trade, traffic, and transportation between states.
Might find it here.
“https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/
wy69
The DOJ is supposed to serve the POTUS, not act independently of him. Remember the tirade Trump hit Bondi with a bit over a week ago?
The DOJ is supposed to serve the POTUS, not act independently of him. Remember the tirade Trump hit Bondi with a bit over a week ago?
The president cannot tell the attorney general (AG) what to do regarding specific criminal investigations or prosecutions. The AG and the Department of Justice are expected to maintain independence from political pressure to uphold the rule of law.
The attorney general’s duties and responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government include overseeing the United States Department of Justice, enforcing federal laws, and providing both formal and informal legal advice and opinions to the president of the United States, the cabinet, and the heads of executive departments and agencies. The attorney general represents the federal government in legal matters and supervises the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Attorneys, and the United States Marshals Service. They are the only cabinet position without the term secretary.
As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the AG has an ethical obligation to administer justice fairly, not as a political tool for the president. Prosecutors cannot unquestioningly follow a president’s direction if it violates ethical rules. It would place the questionability of creating a political tool for the president and the AG is required to stay impartial.
wy69
Where does the Constitution prohibit the POTUS from telling the AG what to do, as it were?
You’re veering into left-wing propaganda specifically against Trump now. The Constitution makes the POTUS the land’s highest law enforcer, not the AG who is not even in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not explicitly state that a President cannot tell the Department of Justice (DOJ) what to do; however, the concept of prosecutorial independence and the need for the DOJ to be impartial is well-established through professional norms and the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. While the Attorney General is a cabinet member who works for the President, the Attorney General and the DOJ have discretion over prosecutorial decisions to ensure the fair administration of justice. Directing prosecutorial decisions can be seen as an abuse of power, as it conflicts with the DOJ’s role in upholding the law in an impartial manner, according to the National Constitution Center.
Constitutional Basis for Executive Power
Article II, Section 1: of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power in the President.
Article II, Section 3: grants the President the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This principle underpins the President’s authority over the executive branch and its departments, including the DOJ.
Department of Justice Independence
The DOJ was established with the understanding that it should be an independent entity within the executive branch.
Prosecutors have significant leeway in making decisions about investigations and prosecutions.
This independence is not a written constitutional mandate but stems from professional norms and the need for fair and effective administration of justice.
The Role of the Attorney General
The Attorney General, who heads the DOJ, works for the President as a cabinet member.
However, the Attorney General and the DOJ have discretion in their operations, including prosecutorial decisions.
Potential for Conflict
A President can ask the DOJ to investigate a criminal act and has the power to appoint and remove the Attorney General.
However, a President cannot order a prosecution.
Directing prosecutorial decisions can be seen as a violation of the principles of impartiality and a form of obstruction of justice, even if not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
9-27.000 - Principles of Federal Prosecution - Department of Justice
Cir. 1965). This discretion exists by virtue of the prosecutor’s status as a member of the Executive Branch, and the President’s r...
Department of Justice (.gov)
Can the President Control the Department of Justice?
The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History
Article II: Presidential Immunity to Criminal and Civil Suits - FindLaw
Aug 1, 2024 — What does presidential immunity cover? Presidential immunity generally provides immunity for a president’s official act...
“You’re veering into left-wing propaganda specifically against Trump now.”
No, I’m veering into an area that has been misused by the past president, Biden, for the attacks on the Trump administration with the ignoring politically of offenses to the government like those done by Hilary and her computer, and actions like those accomplished by James Comey, Letta James and many others that directly attacked the president even to the point of ignoring actions done by Biden concerning OPSEC and COMSEC violations they went after with Trump. Trump has played by the rules. The previous administrations haven’t and Trump has to stay clean.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.