California's abortion 'trauma' sanctuary: Newsom refuses to extradite accused doctor to 'pro-life' Louisiana



Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) blasted California officials this week for refusing to extradite a doctor facing abortion charges.

Murrill said that it was "appalling" to see Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) "openly admitting that they will protect an individual from being held accountable for illegal, medically unethical, and dangerous conduct that led to a woman being coerced into terminating the life of her unborn child."

Remy Coeytaux was charged on Jan. 8 in St. Tammany Parish with criminal abortion by means of abortion-inducing drugs, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 50 years of hard labor.

'The trauma of my chemical abortion still haunts me.'

Murrill announced on Tuesday — several months after indicating that she would "pursue anyone and use any legal means available" to hold accountable those who distribute abortion pills in the Bayou State — that a criminal arrest warrant had been signed for Coeytaux and his name had been entered into the National Crime Information Center.

Roughly an hour later, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry indicated that he was "signing the extradition paperwork to bring this California doctor to justice."

"Louisiana has a zero tolerance policy for those who subvert our laws, seek to hurt women, and promote abortion," said Landry. "I know Gavin Newsom supports abortion in all its forms, but that doesn't work in Louisiana. We are unapologetically pro-life."

RELATED: Pro-abortion doctor gets dismantled by Hawley on men and pregnancy: 'I don't know how we can take you seriously'

Shuran Huang for the Washington Post via Getty Images

Newsom said in response that "Louisiana's request is denied."

"We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services. Not today. Not ever," said Newsom. "We will never be complicit with Trump’s war on women."

Newsom suggested that this frustration of Louisiana justice was consistent with his 2022 executive order directing California to decline extradition requests for doctors accused of providing or facilitating abortions.

Nancy Northup, the president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Coeytaux in a separate civil case, told the New York Times that the allegations "are unproven and should not be reported as fact."

"Women should also be able to get safe and legal abortion care in their own state," added Northup. "Thousands of women seek abortion pills via mail every year because abortion is banned in their state, and that will not change until abortion is legal everywhere."

While characterized as safe, abortion pills not only kill unborn children but endanger women's lives. The Ethics and Public Policy Center noted in a report last year that over 10% of women "experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion."

Coeytaux is accused in a federal lawsuit of sending abortion pills to a Louisiana woman in 2023 — a woman who has indicated she was pressured to take the drugs and is now "haunt[ed]" by her chemical abortion.

Rosalie Markezich, the recipient of the drug and now suffering from the fallout of the abortion, claimed in a September court filing that despite initially celebrating her pregnancy, her boyfriend "soon changed his mind," then used her personal email address and mailing address to obtain mifepristone and misoprostol "from an online provider that his sister has used multiple times before."

A few days after allegedly forwarding to Coeytaux the $150 her boyfriend sent her, Markezich received the drugs by mail.

According to her declaration, Markezich changed her mind about killing her child, but her boyfriend, who "had anger issues and a criminal record," allegedly coerced her into taking them — and she proved unable to throw them back up.

"The trauma of my chemical abortion still haunts me," said Markezich.

Coeytaux is also named in a civil complaint filed in July with the federal court for the Southern District of Texas. The Texas complaint alleges that a woman, Kendal Garza, was pressured by her estranged husband to use abortion drugs allegedly obtained from Coeytaux "to murder" Garza's unborn child by another man.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) ordered Coeytaux on Aug. 14 to cease and desist from mailing abortion drugs into the state of Texas and indicated such conduct not only violates Texas state law but the federal Comstock Act of 1873, which prohibits the mailing of abortion-related drugs.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Google, Gavin Newsom, and a woke university will partner on news and journalism. What could go wrong?



Last Wednesday, California’s state legislature announced a $250 million deal to partner with the big tech giant Google to fund local journalism and artificial intelligence research. In a draft summary released to Politico, the bill aims to “strengthen democracy and the future of work in an Artificial Intelligence future through a public-private partnership between Google and the state of California. Canada, France, and others have passed similar legislation to fund newsrooms in their countries, but California’s marks the first of these public-private partnerships in America.

Amidst declining demand for journalists and increasing layoffs in the industry, Google will contribute $55 million and California’s taxpayers will contribute $70 million toward the University of California, Berkeley, School of Journalism’s “News Transformation Fund” to provide financial resources to local newsrooms over the course of five years.

Instead of being charged for utilizing local news outlets’ content, Google acts as a quasi-investor, allowing the company to potentially advocate for its big tech agenda by shaping the direction of journalism to fit its narrative.

Google will also continue to provide $10 million annual grants to newsrooms, in addition to millions more for an AI accelerator program that proponents of the legislation claim will allow journalists to use and adapt to new technologies.

In a statement, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote, “This agreement represents a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California — leveraging substantial tech industry resources without imposing new taxes on Californians," and added that "the deal not only provides funding to support hundreds of new journalists but helps rebuild a robust and dynamic California press corps for years to come, reinforcing the vital role of journalism in our democracy."

However, others worry that the current iteration gives too much power to Google and that the added funding for the AI program will do more harm than good to journalists.

Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit advocating for aggressive antitrust and anti-monopoly policies, threw shade at the deal, calling it a “backroom deal” that “is bad for journalists, publishers, and all Californians.”

Union leaders, including leaders of the Media Guild of the West, the NewsGuild-CWA, and others also released a statement titled, “California's journalists do not consent to this shakedown” to voice their opposition to the bill since “the future of journalism should not be decided in backroom deals.”

“After two years of advocacy for strong antimonopoly action to start turning around the decline of local newsrooms, we are left almost without words,” they stated. “The publishers who claim to represent our industry are celebrating an opaque deal involving taxpayer funds, a vague AI accelerator project that could very well destroy journalism jobs, and minimal financial commitments from Google to return the wealth this monopoly has stolen from our newsrooms.”

Previously, Google staunchly opposed iterations of the bill and claimed that it would “put support of the news ecosystem at risk.” The original bill would have forced Google and other big tech giants to contribute a portion of their advertising revenues to local journalists and newsrooms in exchange for their content, whereas the current bill relies on a public-private partnership.

Jaffer Zaidi, Google’s vice president of global news partnerships, said that the previous bill would “create a ‘link tax’ that would require Google to pay for simply connecting Californians to news articles. … If passed,” Zaidi added, the bill “may result in significant changes to the services we can offer Californians and the traffic we can provide to California publishers.”

So Google decided to retaliate and temporarily blocked and blacklisted local outlets’ content from appearing in its searches, emulating its own tactics in response to similar legislation in other countries.

Later, California gave up and stripped the bill of its tax and replaced it with the current public-private partnership. As a result, Google and other big tech giants cheered for the bill’s success since the current iteration essentially grants Google access to influence local news outlets’ content in exchange for some funding, further expanding the company's monopoly power.

Instead of being charged for utilizing local news outlets’ content, Google acts as a quasi-investor, allowing the company to potentially advocate for its big tech agenda by shaping the direction of journalism to fit its narrative.

Kent Walker, president of global affairs and chief legal officer for Alphabet, Google’s parent company, praised California lawmakers and the tech and news industry for collaborating to support local journalism. “This public-private partnership builds on our long history of working with journalism and the local news ecosystem in our home state, while developing a national center of excellence on AI policy,” Walker said.

Similarly, Jason Kwon, chief strategy officer for OpenAI, stated, “A strong press is a key pillar of democracy, and [OpenAI] is proud to be part of this partnership to utilize AI in support of local journalism across America.”

The Rick & Bubba Show - LIVE - December 6, 2023
play icon

The Rick & Bubba Show - LIVE - December 6, 2023

The Rick & Bubba Show - LIVE - December 4, 2023
play icon

The Rick & Bubba Show - LIVE - December 4, 2023

The Rick & Bubba Show - LIVE - December 4, 2023
play icon

The Rick & Bubba Show - LIVE - December 4, 2023

'Clearly unconstitutional': Federal judge overturns California's 'high capacity' magazine ban



A federal judge has put a halt to California's ban on "high capacity" magazines for firearms after calling it "clearly unconstitutional" by way of restricting arms that are "in common use."

California's Proposition 63 titled "Firearms and Ammunitions Sales" was passed in 2016 with 63% voting in favor of the legislation.

Invoking mass shootings along with school shootings, the 2016 law sought to restrict individual residents from owning "military-style large-capacity ammunition magazines" because "no one except trained law enforcement should be able to possess" them.

Any person who was found in possession of one of such a magazine was subject to a misdemeanor along with a $100 fine for each violation and up to one year in prison.

Federal District Judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional, reportedly for the second time. The law was also struck down in 2020 by the same judge, RedState reported, only to be reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 'guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,'" Benitez wrote in his 71-page ruling.

"The guarantee protects 'the possession of weapons that are "in common use,"' or arms that are 'typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.' These are the decisions this Court is bound to apply," the federal judge continued.

"This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes. Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional. The detachable firearm magazine solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun. When more ammunition is needed in case of confrontation, a larger the magazine is required."

California Governor Gavin Newsom quickly took to his X account to label the judge an "extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life."

"Wake up, America. Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America," Newsom warned.

BREAKING: California's high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.\n\nWake up, America.\n\nOur gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional\u2026
— Gavin Newsom (@Gavin Newsom) 1695430121

Judge Benitez is a George W. Bush appointee.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NRA fires back at Gov. Newsom over his proposal to enshrine gun control with new constitutional amendment



That National Rifle Association rebuked California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Thursday for proposing to enshrine gun control into the United States Constitution.

What did Newsom propose?

The far-left governor is proposing a 28th Amendment to enshrine four gun-control regulations into the Constitution.

The proposed amendment would, according to Newsom:

  1. Raise "the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21"
  2. Mandate "universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime"
  3. Institute "a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases"
  4. Prohibit "civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time — weapons of war our nation's founders never foresaw"

Some Americans might find two or three of his proposals reasonable; after all, the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restrictions can be placed on the Second Amendment.

But there is a fundamental problem with his last proposal: it's too broad.

What constitutes an "assault weapon"? And even if we can hammer out a definition, does everyone agree that such firearms "serve no other purpose" but "to kill as many people as possible"? Indeed, Americans use semi-automatic rifles — those that Newsom would call "assault weapons" — every day in safe manner without murdering people.

In his announcement, Newsom claimed his proposal leaves the Second Amendment "unchanged" while "respecting America's gun-owning tradition."

And in a video, Newsom deployed a caricature polemic against defenders of the Second Amendment.

He claimed gun control opponents believe "thoughts and prayers are the best we can do" in response to gun violence. Of course, serious people do not say that is the solution. Rather, people offer their "thoughts and prayers" in response to tragedy.

\u201cNEW: I\u2019m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation\u2019s gun violence crisis.\n\nThe American people are sick of Congress\u2019 inaction.\n\nThe 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:\n\n1)\u2026\u201d
— Gavin Newsom (@Gavin Newsom) 1686227255

What was the response?

The NRA condemned Newsom's proposal as demonstrating "his unhinged contempt" for the Second Amendment.

"Newsom's latest publicly [sic] stunt once again shows that his unhinged contempt for the right to self-defense has no bounds," the organization said in a statement.

"California is a beacon for violence because of Newsom’s embrace of policies that champion the criminal and penalize the law-abiding," the statement continued. "That is why the majority of Americans rightfully reject his California-style gun control."

Fortunately, the amendment is not likely to become law.

According to Article V of the Constitution, two-thirds of states must agree to convene an amendment convention. Then, to become an amendment, a proposal needs support from three-quarters of states. The proposal will almost not receive the support it needs.

The last constitutional amendment was ratified in 1992.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Newsom tries to use mass shooting to score political points against DeSantis — but the truth gets in the way



California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) tried on Monday to blame Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for a mass shooting that happened in the Sunshine State.

But the attempt immediately fell flat.

What did Newsom say?

Nine people were injured when gunfire erupted on the Hollywood Oceanfront Boardwalk in south Florida on Memorial Day. Police believe the shooting stemmed from a dispute between two "groups." It's not immediately clear whether the shooting was gang-related.

In response, Newsom used the shooting to attack DeSantis.

"DeSantis signed a permit-less carry bill in April that removes requirements for: - background checks - instruction - training+oversight," he tweeted.

"Until our leaders have the courage to stop bowing down to the NRA and enact common sense gun safety this kind of senseless violence will continue," Newsom peacocked.

\u201cDeSantis signed a permit-less carry bill in April that removes requirements for:\n-background checks\n-instruction\n-training+oversight\n\nUntil our leaders have the courage to stop bowing down to the NRA and enact common sense gun safety this kind of senseless violence will continue.\u201d
— Gavin Newsom (@Gavin Newsom) 1685413237

But is that true?

Aside from the fact that DeSantis himself could not be responsible for a shooting with which he was not involved, the legislation that Newsom cited is not yet law in Florida.

It's true that DeSantis signed into law a bill legalizing permit-less concealed carry in Florida. However, that law does not actually take effect until July 1, 2023 — meaning Floridians still need a permit to conceal carry a firearm.

Moreover, it's true the law that DeSantis signed does not require state-sanctioned "instruction" or "training." However, it's not true that Floridans will be allowed to purchase firearms without a background check. Federal law mandates that federally licensed firearms dealers must submit background checks on gun purchasers.

Even if the law had already taken effect, two of the suspected perpetrators police apprehended would have been in violation of the law because they are not at least 21 years old. The permit-less concealed carry law requires that every Floridian carrying a concealed firearm be at least 21 years old.

It's not clear, then, what "common sense gun safety" law would have prevented Monday's shooting. Newsom did not actually suggest any.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gavin Newsom bashes Target CEO, says blacks, Asians, Jews, and women are next victims of 'systemic attack'



Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California criticized the CEO of Target after he appeared to back off on publicizing products for the LGBTQ agenda.

Newsom assailed the decision to move LGBTQ products to the back of stores after outrage from many on the right.

"CEO of Target Brian Cornell selling out the LGBTQ+ community to extremists is a real profile in courage. This isn’t just a couple stores in the South. There is a systematic attack on the gay community happening across the country," wrote Newsom in a tweet Tuesday.

\u201cCEO of Target Brian Cornell selling out the LGBTQ+ community to extremists is a real profile in courage.\n\nThis isn\u2019t just a couple stores in the South. There is a systematic attack on the gay community happening across the country.\n\nWake up America.\n\nThis doesn\u2019t stop here.\u2026\u201d
— Gavin Newsom (@Gavin Newsom) 1684896305

"Wake up America. This doesn’t stop here. You’re black? You’re Asian? You’re Jewish? You’re a woman? You’re next," he claimed.

Newsom's bizarre accusation was widely marked on social media.

"Target sells Hanukkah stuff every year. There has never been a boycott of Target based on that. Target celebrates Black History Month every year. There has never been a boycott of Target based on that. We just don't like the sexual indoctrination of the kids," responded Ben Shapiro.

"So @GavinNewsom supports woke giant corporations hiring designers who follow Satan to entice impressionable self-conscious teens into damaging their bodies. For profit. While claiming moral virtue for doing so. This is now the modern left and @TheDemocrats," replied Jordan Peterson.

"You want to be LGBT+fine, just stop cramming it down our throats & targeting children with clothing they don't even understand. This boycott response is the result of the left's cancel culture you all created. Conservatives are the consumer & they are talking with their wallets," read another popular response.

On Tuesday, a report said that Target executives held an emergency meeting to address the growing furor against their LGBTQ marketing campaign. On Wednesday, the company announced that it would be moving products to the back of the store in order to avoid physical threats allegedly being made against Target employees.

"I think those are just good business decisions, and it's the right thing for society, and it's the great thing for our brand," said Cornell on a podcast.

"Since introducing this year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team members' sense of safety and wellbeing while at work," read a statement from the company.

"Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior," it added.

Here's more about the controversy over Target's marketing:

Why Glenn is LOSING HIS MIND Over Target's Controversial LGBT Products www.youtube.com

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hillary: 'Ultra-MAGA' Florida 'isn't safe for people of color, LGBTQ+,' or even Disney



Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on her Twitter account that Florida is not safe for "people of color" nor "LGBTQ+" people under Governor Ron DeSantis.

Clinton also took a moment to call the state "Ultra-MAGA" and attached news clippings about Disney and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that were critical of Florida.

\u201cRon DeSantis's ultra-MAGA Florida isn't safe for people of color, LGBTQ+ people, or even multi-billion dollar corporations.\u201d
— Hillary Clinton (@Hillary Clinton) 1684859326

The first headline, "Civil rights groups warn tourists about traveling to Florida," is in reference to an Associated Press article that cited the NAACP's declaration that Florida is unsafe for black people.

The NAACP board of directors claimed the advisory is necessary to combat Florida's "aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools."

"Florida is openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color," the advisory stated.

Clinton's remarks also referenced Disney canceling plans to build a new office complex Florida, which would have created a significant number of jobs.

"It is clear to me that the power of this brand comes from our incredible people, and we are committed to handling this change with care and compassion,” said Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney’s parks, experiences, and products division.

The change in Disney's plans sparked comment toward DeSantis from critics such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, who said that it "turns out, bigoted policies have consequences. That's 2,000+ jobs that will be welcomed back with open arms to the Golden State. Thank you for doing the right thing, Disney."

\u201cTurns out, bigoted policies have consequences. \n\nThat's 2,000+ jobs that will be welcomed back with open arms to the Golden State.\n\nThank you for doing the right thing, @Disney. https://t.co/1wrN2Zmi9O\u201d
— Gavin Newsom (@Gavin Newsom) 1684434571

Clinton has been using her Twitter account to criticize Republican policy ahead of the 2024 election, saying on May 23, 2023, that "Eighty-six percent of transgender and nonbinary young people have said the recent raft of anti-trans bills have negatively affected their mental health."

Governor Ron DeSantis is expected to announce his candidacy for president alongside Elon Musk on Twitter.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!