Groups fighting for immigrants' rights and health care access asked lawmakers in Sacramento on Tuesday to reject proposed cuts to Medi-Cal for undocumented adults.

In his updated May budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed freezing enrollment, charging people $100 a month for coverage and dropping dental, in-home care and long-term care benefits.

Maribel Cruz, associate director of the Long Beach-based nonprofit Órale, said the consequences could be dire.

"People are going to die because of this because they're not getting primary care," Cruz contended. "So many diseases are preventable if they are detected early enough. And how are you going to detect a disease when you can't even access a doctor? Most folks are going to end up in emergency rooms. This is people's lives, and this is real."

Gov. Newsom said the cuts are needed to balance the state budget, which faces a shortfall that he blames on tariffs and on higher-than-expected enrollment in Medi-Cal. Republicans in Congress are considering major cuts to Medicaid and a huge drop in funding to states offering health care to undocumented immigrants.

Rachel Linn Gish, communications director for the advocacy group Health Access California, thinks the state should not pull back on its goal of universal health coverage or balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable families.

"These are people that are scraping down the last penny to afford rent, to afford groceries, to make sure they have gas in their car, to get their kids to school or get themselves to work," Gish emphasized. "Asking them to spend another $100 a month to access the health care that they currently receive is cruel."

Masih Fouladi, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it is unjust to deny or charge people more for health care because of their immigration status.

"We don't see that as fair or equitable or aligned with California values," Fouladi stressed. "Especially given the impact that immigrants have, and what they do to make California the fourth-largest economy in the world."

Fouladi added he believes the proposed budget would take California backward and compromise the health of families and communities.

Gov. Greg Abbott has until June 22 to sign or veto Senate Bill 3, which would ban consumable THC products in Texas.

Banning items like vapes and gummies were a priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the legislative session. He said he would call a special session if a bill was not drafted. Patrick argued retailers are selling products with unsafe levels of THC to minors.

Morgan Deany's family owns a hemp farm in east Texas. She said her family switched from growing commercial chickens to hemp to provide a product that could help people suffering from different ailments.

"We wanted to make something to give back to animals and to people that was a healthy alternative versus the usual pharmaceutical products," Deany explained. "Hemp is so good for CBD."

Lawmakers authorized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019. Since then, thousands of cannabis dispensaries have opened across the state. The industry generates around $8 billion a year and has created approximately 50,000 jobs.

The bill has received pushback from both sides of the political aisle. Many THC users, including veterans, testified they use the products to ease chronic pain and anxiety. Patrick contended consumers, especially children, are buying products with dangerous amounts of THC but Deany countered it is not what they experienced.

"It came with some controversy," Deany acknowledged. "We had planes and helicopters flying over our property thinking that we were growing marijuana. Then we had to send off samples of our plants, pretty frequently, to make sure that it stayed underneath a certain level of THC."

If the governor doesn't sign or veto the measure, it will automatically become law.


get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: The name of the California law is the 'End of Life Option Act.' A previous version of the story used the word 'Options,' not 'Option.' (11:20 a.m. PDT, June 16, 2025)

California's law legalizing medical aid in dying could be made permanent if lawmakers approve a bill currently before the State Assembly.

Senate Bill 403 would eliminate the sunset clause in the 2015 End of Life Option Act.

The law allows mentally capable, terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to get a prescription to end their life.

Advocate Dan Diaz says his wife, Brittany Maynard, moved to Oregon in 2014 to make use of that state's Death With Dignity Act.

"Brittany is gone, so now I'm fighting for all terminally ill individuals that might find themselves in Brittany's predicament," said Diaz, "so that they don't have to do what she did, of leaving their home state after being told you have six months to live."

The End of Life Option Act is currently set to expire in five years. Medical aid in dying is legal in 11 states plus Washington D.C. -- but California is the only jurisdiction with a sunset provision.

Leslie Chinchilla, California state manager with Compassion & Choices Action Network, said over the past decade, there hasn't been a single substantiated case of abuse involving medical aid in dying statewide.

"The California Department of Health does a yearly report on medical aid in dying," said Chinchilla. "There has been no instance of coercion or abuse, and really the law is working as intended."

In 2023, more than 1,200 terminally ill Californians obtained prescriptions for medical aid in dying and 69% took the medication.

Patients with end-stage renal disease have two treatment options: dialysis or a kidney transplant but because donor kidneys are scarce and wait times are long, most will need to start dialysis while they remain on the transplant list.

Research from Arizona State University aims to better understand the differences in the decision-making process among clinicians about whether to accept or reject a donor kidney.

Ellen Green, associate professor of health solutions at Arizona State University, the study's principal investigator, said candidates are matched with an organ donor through the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing and once matches are made, they are sent out to clinics where patients with end-stage renal disease are on waiting lists.

Green and her co-investigators want to determine if an individual clinician's willingness plays a role in accepting or rejecting a kidney donation.

"In this initial study, we don't know whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing," Green observed. "It could be that the variability is demonstrating that some clinicians are pushing the envelope while other clinicians are learning and have resources to deal with certain types of transplants that maybe are higher risk."

There are about 90,000 people in the U.S. that are waiting for a kidney transplant, and 11 people die every day in that wait, according to UNOS. Studies show while many kidney donations are deemed viable, almost 30% are declined for transplantation despite strong demand. In Arizona, 730 kidney transplants were completed in 2024, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

As an economist, Green noted it is a challenge to understand how a system which is not driven by price operates. She acknowledged while their study looks to learn more about clinicians' willingness, she understands other variables can affect the decision-making process.

She hopes her work will help increase the availability of donated kidneys.

"What we want to better understand is, from a clinician-to-clinician perspective, is there something that we can do or better understand about this decision-making process that we can leverage to increase those chances," Green emphasized.

Green pointed out understanding individual decision-making is something flying under the radar and argued it needs to be incorporated into current models, otherwise opportunities to have successful kidney transplants could be negatively affected.