###

Press release from the FBI field office in San Francisco:

The FBI San Francisco field office is working to raise awareness about online romance scams, also called confidence fraud. In this type of fraud, scammers take advantage of people looking for romantic partners on dating websites, apps, or social media by obtaining access to their financial or personal identifying information. Romance scams are prevalent, especially during this time of year.

In 2023, complaints filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) showed that victims within the FBI San Francisco division’s territory lost more than $27 million to romance scams.

Romance scam victims were reported in every county within the FBI San Francisco division’s territory last year. The county with the highest victim reporting count was Santa Clara County, followed by Alameda County, and Contra Costa County.

The county with the highest dollar amount loss was Alameda County, followed by Contra Costa County, and Santa Clara County. While Santa Clara County had 102 victim complaints filed with losses of over $6 million in 2023, Alameda County had only 68 complaints but incurred losses of over $9 million.

As in previous years, the age group with the highest victim reports within our region was 60 years and older, with a victim count of 138 and a dollar amount loss of over $14 million last year. While the total reported local victim count and dollar amount loss was lower in 2023 compared to 493 victims and losses of over $46 million in 2022, the actual numbers are likely much higher because many victims are too embarrassed to report they’ve been scammed.

The FBI San Francisco has seen a rising trend in which romance scammers are persuading individuals to send money to invest or trade cryptocurrency. After gaining the confidence and trust of the victim, the scammer then directs the victim to a fraudulent website or application for an investment opportunity. After the victim has invested an initial amount on the platform and sees an alleged profit, the scammers allow the victim to withdraw a small amount of money.

Eventually, the scammer instructs the victim to invest a more considerable amount. When the victim is ready to withdraw funds again, the scammers create reasons why this cannot happen. The victim is informed additional taxes or fees need to be paid, or the minimum account balance has not been met to allow a withdrawal. Sometimes, a “customer service group” gets involved, which is also part of the scam. Ultimately, victims cannot withdraw any money, and the scammers most often stop communicating with the victim after they cease to send additional funds.

2023 ROMANCE SCAM DATA

TOTAL:

• Loss: $27,278,098
• Victims: 397

Victims over 60:

• Loss: $14,722,438
• Victims: 138

Alameda County:

• Loss: $9,427,814
• Victims: 68

Contra Costa County:

• Loss: $6,776,481
• Victims: 65

Del Norte County:

• Loss: $0
• Victims: 1

Humboldt County:

• Loss: $248,398
• Victims: 10

Lake County:

• Loss: $1,800
• Victims: 3

Marin County:

• Loss: $285,105
• Victims: 9

Mendocino County:

• Loss: $5,000
• Victims: 3

Monterey County:

• Loss: $604,925
• Victims: 17

Napa County:

• Loss: $377,000
• Victims: 7

San Benito County:

• Loss: $1,500
• Victims: 2

San Francisco County:

• Loss: $1,611,997
• Victims: 45

San Mateo County:

• Loss: $1,420,341
• Victims: 29

Santa Clara County:

• Loss: $6,158,575
• Victims: 102

Santa Cruz County:

• Loss: $173,548
• Victims: 18

Sonoma County:

• Loss: $185,613
• Victims: 18

Tips to Protect Yourself:

• Never send money, trade, or invest per the advice of someone you have solely met online.
• Do not disclose your current financial status to unknown and untrusted individuals.
• Do not provide your banking information, Social Security Number, copies of your identification or passport, or any other sensitive information to anyone online or to a site you do not know is legitimate.
• If an online investment or trading site is promoting unbelievable profits, it is most likely that—unbelievable.
• Be cautious of individuals who claim to have exclusive investment opportunities and urge you to act fast.

If you believe you are a victim of a romance scam, the FBI recommends reporting the activity to the IC3 at ic3.gov and immediately contacting your financial institution.

###

Well, that was nice while it lasted. 

After Humboldt enjoyed an unseasonably sunny weekend, the National Weather Service reports that the mild weather we’ve been experiencing will not continue, with moderate to heavy rain and gusty wind returning to our area this week.  Sigh.

“Rain and wind will return to the North Coast Wednesday with a relatively weak storm passing the area,” NWS Eureka posted to social media this morning. “Wind gusts will increase late Tuesday night into Wednesday with peak southerly gusts up to 40 mph in wind exposed areas. Moderate rainfall is expected with 1 to 2 inches on the high terrain of Humboldt and Del Norte, less elsewhere.” 

Though the rain starting mid-week will not be heavy, NWS warns of much more severe weather hitting our area next weekend that may be bring more hazardous rain, wind and flooding to most of California. 

“More impactful rain, wind, and snow is likely to return to Northwest California late next week into the following week, from February 16-21,” NWS posted over the weekend. “The NOAA NWS Climate Prediction Center is indicating a high risk of heavy rain/snow and moderate risk of strong winds.”

You can view more information on the storm expected this weekend to next week below.  Stay warm and dry, y’all. 

Press release from the Trinidad Rancheria:

The Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (Trinidad Rancheria) proposes a range of roadway improvements in Humboldt County along United States Highway 101 (US 101) between post mile (PM) 99.6 and PM 101.1 (project). The proposed project would include improvements to the existing US 101/Trinidad-Main Street interchange; construction of a new US 101 interchange or a pedestrian overcrossing of US 101 at Cher-Ae Lane with no connection to US 101, and improvements to US 101 mainline and Scenic Drive.

The Trinidad Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe having a government-to-government relationship with the United States is not a public agency, and therefore cannot be the CEQA lead agency for this project. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 1, as the permitting agency, will be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will be assuming responsibilities of lead agency for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assignment. Caltrans plans to prepare a joint environmental document—an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (known as an EIR/EA)—pursuant to CEQA and NEPA.

Scoping Process

The scoping process for the project includes early consultation with public agencies and the general public. A public scoping meeting is planned for February 20, 2024, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at The Heights Casino – Bingo Hall, 27 Scenic Drive, Trinidad, California. The meeting will provide interested parties the opportunity to learn about the proposed project and to submit comments to assist the project team in the Draft EIR development process. The meeting will be held in-person and not hybrid. The Trinidad Rancheria has hired a professional videographer and will make the recording available for viewing following the meeting.

Caltrans is accepting written comments until March 15, 2024, by mail and/or email at the addresses below.

Jason Meyer, Environmental Branch Chief
California Department of Transportation District 1
1656 Union Street
Eureka, CA 95501
trinidadaccess@dot.ca.gov

The Notice of Preparation with additional project information is available for review on the Trinidad Rancheria Tribal Website, https://trinidad-rancheria.org/news-announcements/, or you may request a copy by emailing, Leslie Sanders, Transportation and Land-Use Director at lsanders@trinidadrancheria.com.

From fundraising emails to debate speeches, it’s everywhere: The “No Corporate PAC money” pledge is front and center in the campaign for California’s next U.S. Senator.

It is a promise shared by all three top Democrats, who hold largely similar voting records in Congress on a wide range of issues and who are trying to finish in the top two in the March 5 primary.

But it’s also a point of distinction: Rep. Katie Porter — who, of the three, has the shortest tenure in Congress — notes that her campaign has never received corporate PAC money, while Reps. Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee only began to reject corporate PAC money this election. The issue could come up again tonight, when the three Democrats and Republican Steve Garvey face off in the second televised U.S. Senate debate, hosted by KTLA, KRON and other Nexstar Media Group stations.

The Democrats’ rejection of corporate PAC contribution reflects similar pledges made by a growing number of members of Congress in recent years. The goal? To signal to voters a willingness to stand up to corporate interests and root out that influence in their decision making.

“It is something that helps members of Congress build trust with their voters and it ultimately makes sure that no corporation can walk into a member’s office and say, ‘Hey, I gave you this check. You owe me something here,’” said Jonas Edwards-Jenks, spokesperson for liberal advocacy group End Citizens United, which spearheaded the pledge.

The anti-corporate message may strike a chord with a wide audience: 80% of Americans polled last year said they believe donors have too much influence on members of Congress, and 73% believed lobbyists and special interest groups are too influential, according to the Pew Research Center.

What many voters care about is ensuring that “the government does not favor the interests of the rich and well-connected over ordinary people,” said Casey Dominguez, a political science professor at the University of San Diego.

But what does the pledge really mean?

“Corporation PACs” — as designated by the Federal Election Commission and more commonly referred to as corporate PACs — are political action committees operated by a single corporation that collect contributions from its executives, managers, stockholders and their families.

Sometimes, rejecting corporate PAC donations can mean leaving a significant amount of money on the table. During the 2022 election cycle, corporation-operated PACs (including non-stock companies) gave $150 million to federal candidates, accounting for 35% of all PAC contributions that election.

But the promise does not necessarily mean that the candidate has completely cut themselves off from corporate influence, or even corporate-linked money.

While Lee, Porter and Schiff are relying heavily on individual donors this election and have abided by the letter of their pledge, their campaigns have a history of accepting — and continue to accept — money from corporate executives and PACs operated by trade associations and professional organizations that represent the interests of a specific industry or group of businesses, according to a CalMatters analysis of campaign finance data compiled by OpenSecrets.

Also, corporations do not need to go through corporate PACs to exert influence. They can spend directly on lobbying activities, or contribute an unlimited amount of money to super PACs — political committees that can spend on independent expenditures to boost or oppose candidates — and to 501(c)(4) groups, tax-exempt politically-active entities often dubbed as “dark money groups” because they are not required to disclose their donors.

The rejection is therefore largely symbolic, allowing candidates to appeal to voters while raising enough money from elsewhere to run a statewide campaign, some watchdog groups and political science experts argue.

“Refusing corporate PAC money is not going to close off all avenues by which a corporate interest might try to influence a lawmaker,” said Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of the investigative news outlet Documented and former director of federal reform at the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center.

Champions of the “No Corporate PAC money” pledge, while acknowledging that it’s incremental, argue the promise is a step toward systemic reform.

“Rejecting corporate PAC money is a small step that some politicians choose to take to signal to voters that they want to work to fix a broken campaign finance system that too frequently gives special access to wealthy special interests,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a nonprofit advocating for campaign finance reform.

But the National Association of Business Political Action Committees, a trade group representing roughly 300 corporations and trade associations, deems the rejection a “dishonest attempt to silence employees.”

Micaela Isler, executive director of the association, said corporate PACs are a more regulated and transparent avenue of political contributions compared to super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups.

“If you get rid of us in our most regulated form of giving, I think … it would further exacerbate some of the concerns that (advocacy groups) have,” Isler said. “We are not the problem.”

Fundamentally, Fischer said, rooting out corruption would require an overhaul of the campaign finance system. “Pledges like this are important … but not sufficient,” he said. “A patchwork of voluntary pledges is not going to really limit corruption in the political system, writ large.”

Lee, Porter and Schiff have all touted their campaign finance reform efforts beyond the pledge, and all support public financing of political campaigns.

Porter, in her “Shake up the Senate” plan, calls for banning contributions from corporate PACs and federally registered lobbyists, although similar legislation has gone nowhere. Schiff has repeatedly introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 that prohibited government restrictions on corporate, nonprofit and labor unions’ political campaign spending. Lee has also co-sponsored the amendment and wants to “eradicate dark money and get to public financing of political campaigns,” according to her campaign.

What counts as corporate PAC money?

Companies themselves cannot give money to federal candidates. So sometimes, they set up corporate PACs to advocate for their interests.

But those PACs are not funded by companies themselves. Rather, corporate PACs collect donations from certain donors, who do not often include low-level employees.

Not all contributing employees get to decide where the money goes. Instead, a board of directors governing the PAC makes that decision “in the best interest of the organization,” Isler said, noting that some companies have diversified their boards to “ensure they have more voices at the table.”

Corporate PACs often spread out their political contributions to maximize their access to members of Congress, said Robert Mcguire, research director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group.

“Their aim is to get in the room with these members, to talk to them and be in their ear, whether or not they actually get the bills and policies that they are seeking,” he said.

As of June 2023, there were more than 1,600 federal corporate PACs — the largest group of any kind, according to the Federal Election Commission. But corporate PACs can only raise a maximum $5,000 per election from each donor. And, like most other PACs, corporate PACs can only give a maximum $5,000 per election to any candidate.

Both Schiff and Porter’s campaigns follow the FEC designation of corporate PACs. Lee’s campaign has a narrower definition, excluding PACs formed by a limited liability company or partnership.

Before they swore off corporate PAC money, Schiff and Lee both received contributions from corporate PACs to their congressional campaigns. Porter, first elected to Congress in 2018, has never taken direct campaign contributions from corporate PACs.

Historically, more corporate PACs reported giving to Schiff’s campaign: A total of 186 reported contributing $2 million to Schiff between 1999 and 2022, the data analysis shows. Schiff’s campaign received contributions from PACs, lobbyists and executives connected to for-profit companies for which he delivered millions of dollars in federal funding early in his career, Politico reported.

For Lee, who was first elected to Congress in 1998, 163 corporate PACs reported giving her campaign $860,000 by the end of 2022.

Corporate PACs have continued to contribute to Schiff and Lee’s campaign accounts this cycle, despite their pledge, campaign finance data shows.

Paramount Global PAC, affiliated with the entertainment giant, reported giving Schiff’s congressional campaign $5,000 in January. That check was never cashed by the campaign, Schiff’s spokesperson Marisol Samayoa told CalMatters in an email.

Five corporate PACs reported giving a total $18,350 to Lee’s congressional or Senate campaign accounts, including $10,000 from Akerman LLP PAC, $5,000 from FedEx Corporation PAC, $2,500 from Comcast Corporation PAC, $500 from Maxim Healthcare Services’ PAC and $350 from Meta Platforms Inc’s PAC.

Lee’s campaign said it accepted the check from Akerman because it does not count the law firm as a corporation, despite FEC’s designation for its PAC. A Lee spokesperson also said the Comcast PAC donation was received in early February — two weeks before Lee launched her campaign — and therefore does not violate the pledge. The rest of the checks were either voided or never received, the campaign said.

But other than contributing directly to candidates’ campaigns, corporate PACs have multiple avenues to benefit the candidates they support.

One way is to give to candidates’ leadership PACs — accounts created by members of Congress primarily to support other candidates.

While donations to leadership PACs may not directly go into the candidates’ own campaigns, the money still helps them build relationships. Some watchdog groups have also argued that leadership PAC money can be used as “slush funds” to pay for luxurious travels, hotel stays and more.

Lee, Porter and Schiff’s campaigns all told CalMatters their pledge also applies to their leadership PACs, and none of those accounts took corporate PAC money this election cycle. But corporate PACs have sent checks to all three in the past.

Frontline USA — Schiff’s leadership PAC — received $187,000 throughout his career, data shows. In comparison, Lee’s One Voice PAC received $14,500 in corporate PAC contributions.

While healthcare technology company Masimo Corp.’s PAC wrote a $5,000 check to Porter’s Truth to Power in 2021, the check was eventually voided, according to a copy provided by Porter’s campaign.

What corporate PAC money isn’t

Corporate PACs do not include trade association PACs or professional organization PACs, although trade groups often represent a wider array of industry interests.

“Trade associations can take positions or make statements or, in this case, make donations that individual corporations … may not want to be associated with or accountable for,” Fischer said. “Ultimately, the PAC money is used to advance corporate interests.”

They are included in the definition of “business PACs” used by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. It counts corporate PACs as well as “cooperative and trade association PACs that receive dues from businesses with a stake in these influential industries.”

A total of 519 business PACs tracked by OpenSecrets have contributed to the three Democrats’ campaigns at some point in their congressional careers. Only 297 of them count as corporation PACs under the federal definition.

Business PACs have reported giving the campaign accounts for Lee, Porter and Schiff $5.5 million during their time in Congress, the data shows. Roughly half of that — $2.9 million — came from corporation PACs.

Other business PACs reported giving $1.5 million to Schiff, $935,000 to Lee and $170,000 to Porter’s campaign over the years.

The political arm of National Association of Realtors — the largest trade group representing the real estate industry, with 1.5 million members — is the top non-corporate business PAC contributing to the three Democrats, reported giving a collective $240,000 to the campaigns. It’s Lee’s biggest trade association PAC contributor historically and ranks near the top among business PACs giving to Schiff and Porter, although it has only written a check to Schiff’s campaign this year for $2,000.

The Realtors’ PAC has consistently ranked among the top PACs contributing to candidates over the years, federal data shows. It was both the top spending business PAC and the top spender on lobbying in the 2022 election cycle and scored “advocacy wins” such as removing a dozen tax increase provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and securing a GOP sponsor for providing grants to under-utilized shopping centers, OpenSecrets reported.

Corporate executives continue to give

Through the “No corporate PAC money” pledge, candidates “are trying to look as if they are not accepting money from wealthy people,” said Ann Ravel, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and former chairperson of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

“That is not exactly true,” she said.

All three Democrats have also received contributions from individual executives this election cycle — another way corporate leaders can influence policymaking in Washington, experts say.

Donors who self-identify as CEOs or holding other executive positions have given Schiff’s campaign at least $648,000, according to a CalMatters analysis of self-reported occupation data from the Federal Election Commission.

Donors identifying themselves as executives have given Lee’s campaign at least $204,000 and Porter’s at least $197,000, the data shows.

The analysis is likely not comprehensive due to inconsistent reporting, since some executive donors can report themselves as self-employed or even unemployed.

Porter is the only one of the three Democrats to reject contributions from federally registered lobbyists and Wall Street executives, although her campaign has accepted money from several donors who meet the criteria, The Daily Beast reported.

She’s also the only one to reject money from executives from three specific industries — banking, pharmaceuticals and oil and gas, according to her ActBlue page. Porter told CalMatters in November that she rejects contributions from executives of those industries because they “are three of the most powerful, if not the three most powerful lobbyists in Washington.”

“A cynical person would say these are just industries that Americans generally have a negative view of and therefore … it is an effective messaging strategy to single them out,” Mcguire said, arguing other sectors — such as renewable energy and real estate — are just as powerful.

Porter’s campaign has accepted contributions from health care, tech and TV executives, as have Schiff and Lee.

Individual executives and their family members have also contributed to super PACs that boost Lee, Schiff and Porter, although these PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates.

Patty Quillin, Netflix executive chairman Reed Hastings’ wife, in June gave $500,000 to She Speaks for Me, a pro-Lee super PAC, accounting for a third of that PAC’s fundraising last year.

OVRSITE PAC, a pro-Porter super PAC, reported raising $25,000 last year from a single donor — Mark Rees, CEO of Celmol Inc., a Christmas decor wholesale company in Santa Ana. The PAC has launched a $500,000 TV ad blitz to try to ensure Porter’s spot in the top two, Politico reported.

Backed mainly by labor unions and Democratic leadership dollars, the pro-Schiff super PAC Standing Strong reported raising $2.7 million for the election cycle and entered the year with $2 million in the bank. It reported receiving almost $350,000 from corporate executives, including $125,000 from James Abrams, chief operating officer of healthcare company Medline Industries, and $100,000 from Bill Harris Jr., founder of Personal Capital and former CEO of PayPal and Intuit.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Madeleine Wisner dreamed of making community midwife services available to all expecting parents regardless of their income when she opened Welcome Home Community Birth Center in south Sacramento.

But 451 births and five years later, Wisner is packing up her family and moving from California to New Zealand, where government policies are far more favorable to midwifery. She closed her birth center in October.

Wisner was the only licensed community midwife who took Medi-Cal patients in the greater Sacramento region, but she’s leaving, she said, because it was impossible to sustain the birth center. Insurance refused to pay two out of every three claims she submitted for services including prenatal visits, labor and delivery, at-home postpartum check ups, and lactation consultations, Wisner said.

“The entire system is not made for us,” Wisner said. “I look at Medi-Cal as the standard of care, and midwives should be part of the standard of care.”

Her experience and decision to leave reflects larger problems for California midwives highlighted in a new study released today from UC San Francisco’s Osher Center for Integrative Health. It focuses on community midwives who work outside of hospitals but have licenses and training to perform much of the same reproductive care doctors provide to women with low-risk pregnancies.

The report warns that access to maternity care will worsen in California if the state does not increase the number of community midwives who are Medi-Cal providers at a time when hospitals are shutting down labor and delivery wards and maternal mortality is trending upwards.

Seventy-five community midwives are registered with Medi-Cal, according to data provided by the state. More than 1,000 nurse midwives are registered with Medi-Cal, but the majority of those providers work in hospitals and not in community settings, researchers said.

Outdated licensing requirements, tortuous state regulations and cumbersome insurance policies make it nearly impossible for community midwives to accept Medi-Cal patients, the UCSF report found.

Medi-Cal is the state’s health insurance program for extremely low-income residents. It pays for 40% of all births statewide, and midwife care is a guaranteed benefit for expecting mothers.

On paper, the benefit includes community midwifery, which focuses on providing care close to where people live either at a birth center or in the home. But the reality is different, researchers and providers say.

“So many people who have taken Medi-Cal in the past have had to stop or close their practices, and so many people who want to have not been able to make it happen,” said Ariana Thompson-Lastad, lead author of the study.

California’s ‘Momnibus’ Act

The UCSF findings come at a time when the state is trying to make inroads against persistent maternal and infant health disparities, particularly among Black families. Statewide surveys show Black mothers are the most interested in alternative birth support through doulas and midwives, which have been shown to improve a variety of birth outcomes.

Doulas are birth workers who provide non-medical social and emotional support during and after pregnancy while licensed midwives are clinically trained professionals who can provide a range of independent reproductive care for low-risk moms and babies.

In an effort to chip away at inequities, state lawmakers passed the “California Momnibus Act” three years ago. It required Medi-Cal to cover postpartum care for a full year after birth — the period when most maternal deaths happen — and added doula benefits. In January, rate increases for California doulas made them the highest-paid in the nation.

But state regulations simply aren’t designed to accommodate the services community midwives provide, UCSF researchers found.

For example, the Medi-Cal application until recently asked midwives to list a supervising physician even though licensed midwives are authorized to practice independently. Providers also said most community midwives conduct home visits during pregnancy and especially after birth, but Medi-Cal billing policies make it difficult to get reimbursed for services that happen outside of a clinical facility.

“The overarching policy issue for licensed midwives in California is that we continue to be regulated under a very dysfunctional arrangement,” said Rosanna Davis, president of the California Association of Licensed Midwives.

Midwife Madeleine Wisner measures Chloé Mick’s belly during a maternity care consultation at Mick’s home in Sacramento on Feb. 6, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

Wisner, who served mostly Medi-Cal patients, said on average insurance reimbursed just 17% of her costs — roughly $1,451 out of $8,500 for a full course of prenatal, birth and postpartum care — and frequently took months to pay her.

“We’ve had people have two or three babies with us before we get paid for the first one,” Wisner said.

The state is trying to make improvements, said Holly Smith, co-lead of the California Midwifery Learning Collaborative, but the system is still “failing a lot of people.” The midwifery learning collaborative is a five-state initiative aimed at improving access to midwife care. The state agency that oversees Medi-Cal recently joined, Smith said.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Health Care Services said it is working closely with the midwifery learning collaborative to help midwives “successfully navigate and work within Medi-Cal.” The department is using a document drafted by the collaborative to “continue making program and policy improvements” on issues related to billing and applications, the statement said.

Midwives could help fill maternity gaps

Large studies of birth center and at-home birth outcomes show that when trained midwives care for low-risk patients, cesarean section and preterm birth rates decrease while breastfeeding rates and reports of satisfactory birth experiences increase. Severe outcomes and deaths of mother and baby are exceedingly rare and similar to the rates found in planned hospital births. UCSF researchers also found that community midwives see patients more frequently before and after birth and are able to catch complications early.

The majority of Medi-Cal births — more than 80% — are babies of color. They and their mothers suffer some of the worst infant and maternal health outcomes. Even though the state has made improvements overall, it has struggled to curb severe pregnancy complications and death among Black women and babies. Black women of all income levels are more than four times as likely as white women to die from pregnancy-related complications and their babies are nearly three times as likely to die within a year, according to state data.

Physicians deliver the vast majority of babies in California, and while the percentage of babies delivered by certified nurse midwives has increased slightly in the past decade most certified nurse midwives work in hospital maternity wards under doctors. Often when maternity services end, providers leave the area.

At least 46 hospitals have closed maternity wards since 2012, leaving a dozen counties without a single hospital delivering babies, a CalMatters investigation found.

Smith, with the midwifery learning collaborative, said historically state laws and policies have supported physician-only maternity care.

“It’s not safe anymore to do that,” Smith said. “We have a maternity desert situation. Literally hospitals are closing, and birth centers will be a necessary strategy for that.”

One of her last California patients

Midwife Madeleine Wisner speaks with Chloé Mick during a maternal care consultation at Mick’s home in Sacramento on Feb. 6, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

In a cozy house in Sacramento’s Oak Park neighborhood, Wisner has Chloé Mick lie back on her couch while her kids and husband play outside. Wisner measures the length of Mick’s uterus, feels for the baby’s position and they both listen to the baby’s heartbeat. Mick is 25 weeks pregnant and tired.

“I feel the most depleted probably just from having two other children that I hope I have the inner strength to not get a bad attitude during the process and make it through,” Mick tells Wisner.

Wisner responded, “Has it occurred to you that having a bad attitude is OK?”

Mick is planning a home birth, and Wisner assures her that going to the hospital would not be “giving up.” It would be listening to her body’s needs and responding appropriately. They make plans for what to do if the baby is breech or if Wisner’s New Zealand visa comes before Mick gives birth. When Mick’s second child was born, she was on Medi-Cal and Wisner was the only midwife who would take her.

“(The hospital) really feels like a business. You’re in and out, and you don’t have a rapport or relationship with them…It feels like your bodily autonomy is taken away,” Mick said. “And then you look back, and you wish you had done things different.”

Midwife Madeleine Wisner uses a fetal doppler on Chloé Mick’s belly during a maternal care consultation at Mick’s home in Sacramento on Feb. 6, 2024. Wisner is listening to the fetal heartbeat. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

Wisner wishes her birth center’s story had ended differently. Her practice finally had enough patient volume to maybe be sustainable, she said, but the other community midwives who worked with her didn’t want to argue with Medi-Cal insurers day in and day out. Over the past five years, Wisner estimates she poured $250,000 into the birth center to keep it open. It’s a big reason why she’s leaving California for another country where she’ll make $60,000 a year working four days a week with a team of other midwives.

“There was always this promise that the system would be reformed, you know, Medi-Cal is gonna get reformed,” Wisner said. “I was really let down.”

###

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

If you’re not happy here and now, you never will be.

— Taisen Deshimaru

###

I’ve been saving quotations for years and years. I’ll be reading something (or watching a movie) and a line will just speak to me, a few words summing up a world of ideas and feelings. Or just something that makes me splutter with laughter over my morning coffee. Every so often, I’ll upload these precious gems into a book under the title Open Anywhere. It’s just for my own amusement and edification; the wonderful world of on-demand printing doesn’t care if I get one or a thousand copies, and for ten bucks, I’ve got all these worthy notions in a handy-dandy book.

All this by way of saying, one of the perennial section titles in on-going editions of Open Anywhere is “Happiness.” Since my in-box seems to be the receptacle for endless ways to achieve this (apparently) worthy goal, I thought I’d revisit the subject yet again, calling on those writers far wiser and more experienced than me to add their two cents, starting with author Geneen Roth:

“We spend at least half our lives in either physical or emotional discomfort, yet we persist in believing that happiness is our natural, normal condition and that when we’re not happy, we’re not normal.”

I can so relate to this! I’ve created a “set-point” of happiness (hence Roth’s “half our lives”) from which any deviation — up or down —immediately gets labeled, in my fickle mind, as “good” or “bad.” Why is the “good” so much easier to accept than the “bad”? That’s easy. Feeling bad was what got our ancestors through the rough-and-tumble of the Pleistocene, when contentment was likely a sure route to extinction! (Better to live in anxiety — Where’s the next meal was coming from? Will the waterhole last the dry season? Will she spend the night with me? — than bliss out and get eaten by the next carnivore that comes along.) Discontent and survival were practically synonymous on the savanna a million years ago, and we’ve inherited most of our ancestors’ traits.

I’ve written about Dan Gilbert’s take on happiness before, but it’s worth repeating. Gilbert is a happiologist, if that’s a word, at Harvard. In his book Stumbling on Happiness, he writes that we treat our future selves as though they were our children, “… spending most of the hours of most of our days constructing tomorrows that we hope will make them happy.” I think, “If I work double shift, I can pay off my Visa card in a year, and then I’ll be happy.” Twelve months later, I’m out of debt…but I’m worn to a frazzle and put on ten pounds and wonder if it was all worth it. Or I’ve just shifted my set-point higher and forgotten to appreciate my improved circumstances.

Then there’s the whole business of thinking of ourselves as “projects that can be tweaked and reworked and adjusted to improve the inner experience,” quoting author Geraldine Bell. As movie critic Anthony Lane puts it (in his rollicking review of Arthur Brooks’ and Oprah Winfrey’s book Build the Life You Want): “Restructuring your inward being, and increasing its turnover, is now akin to running a company. Personhood, like religion and politics, is a business.” At some point in my life, I guess I made the decision to stop aiming for more of everything — happiness, sex, money, fame and all the rest — and settle for what I’ve actually got, warts and all. Otherwise it’s just a non-stop fucking struggle. (Louisa just read that and said, “Really? You’re done?” “Literary license,” I said.)

And anyway, as far as future happiness goes, Tolstoy nailed it, as usual, in Anna Karenina: “[Vronsky] soon felt that the fulfillment of his desires gave him only one grain of the mountain of happiness he had expected. This fulfillment showed him the eternal error men make in imagining that their happiness depends on the realization of their desires.”

I’ll end quoting myself, ‘cos why not? “My next life, I’m coming back as a dog. A self-satisfied, tail-wagging, unconditionally loving border collie who won’t give a woof about happiness.”

Humboldt County’s transmission infrastructure is old. Connections to the larger grid are weak and undersized, forcing Humboldt to be reliant on the fracked gas-burning Humboldt Bay Generating Station because we cannot pull enough power from our grid connections to keep the lights on. And, conversely, those same undersized powerlines mean we cannot export the power that would be generated from offshore wind. Until new grid infrastructure is operational, offshore wind can’t be operational.

While offshore wind is driving grid improvements, grid improvements can also benefit Humboldt. With improved grid connections, we can shut down our greenhouse gas-spewing power plant. And improvements to the grid can improve energy resiliency for communities like Hoopa that frequently experience outages.

Arne Jacobson of the Schatz Energy Research Lab joins the EcoNews to discuss recent research produced by Schatz on transmission infrastructure planning.

REQUIRED READING:

• Northern California and Southern Oregon Offshore Wind Transmission Study