Norma Sue Lewis
Beloved Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Sister and Friend
September 26, 1931 - August 31, 2024

Norma Sue Lewis passed away peacefully on the morning of August 31 surrounded by her family. She is now reunited with her departed husband and life-long soulmate Nathan “Nate” Lewis, whom she missed every day since his passing in 2010. Upon his passing, they had been married for 57 years.

The matriarch of the family and loved by everyone who knew her, Norma was born in Texas and lived a full life in California surrounded by her family. Norma was a hardworking wife and homemaker who raised nine children whilst supporting her husband in his logging career. Nate and Norma were married in 1954. They each brought two children to the marriage and then welcomed five more together over the years. She managed a hair salon in Garberville for many years where she made many good friends while also participating in the upbringing of her grandchildren. After her grandchildren were born, they started calling her “Momo,” a name that stuck and one which she would be known by many. Norma’s biggest accomplishment was her large family that she created with Nate.

Norma is preceded in death by her husband Nathan Lewis Sr, brothers Ray and Joe Bishop, sons Rolland and Raymond, granddaughter Tammy, and a great-grandbaby.

She is survived in life by her daughters Linda, Susan, Sibyl, Diane, and Joyce; sons Nathan Jr and Norman; sister Vera Madsen; twenty-three grandchildren, forty-nine great-grandchildren, and nineteen great-great-grandchildren.

Momo’s greatest times were spent with her family up on the hill. Nothing made her happier than a house and yard full of kids and family.

Upon her request, there will be no services observed. The family would like to thank the staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital, Jerold Phelps Assisted Living Facility, and Redwood Memorial Hospital.

Written with love by Kasey Detrick and Charity Marcelli, with contributions by Missy Gallaway.

###

Good news for those who see parking as the lifeblood of a thriving downtown: The City of Eureka will soon have a brand new parking lot with 42 spaces conveniently located along the boardwalk in Old Town. 

The asphalt-and-concrete lot is being built on a vacant 20,000-square-foot parcel north of First Street, just east of Bayfront Restaurant and vacation rentals. Maine-based property development firm Bay Front Company was granted a Coastal Development Permit way back in 2000 to build a three-story, 34-room lodging facility next to the Bayfront building, but it has yet to be constructed.

According to the latest plans on file with the city, Bay Front Company (a subsidiary of Atlantic National Trust) plans to further develop this property somewhere down the line. The paid parking lot will provide some economic return to the owners while preserving the parcel for future development.

“Various types and configurations of mixed-use projects that would benefit the Eureka waterfront have been considered,” says a 2022 report from SHN Consulting Engineers. “Unfortunately, construction costs and economic conditions have been such that none of those projects have been found to be economically viable … .”

The temporary parking lot will include two ADA-accessible spaces, six bicycle spaces and one motorcycle space. The site, which looks across the bay to Woodley Island Marina, was historically home to a lumber mill (in the late 1800s) and a ferry boat business (from 1945-1972), and for many years it was neighbored by a soil-polluting scrap metal operation.

In addition to offering paid parking for tourists and locals, the new lot will function as an impermeable “cap” encasing the toxic soils left behind by the scrap metal facility. Operations at G&R Metals Eureka, Inc., which remained in business until 1989, included disassembly, incineration and crushing of automobiles as well as storage of metals, batteries, radiators and miscellaneous refuse — right there along the Humboldt Bay.

G&R Metals performed remediation by removing contaminated soils in 1996 and 2017, but some contaminants in the ground (including lead, petroleum hydrocarbons and zinc) still exceed acceptable levels per the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The asphalt-concrete “cap” will block exposure pathways, according to a report prepared by local engineering firm GHD.

“It will also provide a public benefit by providing convenient access to the eastern end of the Eureka Boardwalk and additional parking for nearby commercial uses and events,” the SHN report says. “The intent is to sell parking passes to local businesses for use during the day and for guests and visitors after business hours. The public will also have access to the lot for hourly fee parking.”

This parking lot development arrives in the midst of a heated local political season in Eureka as the controversial Measure F pits the preservation of downtown parking spaces against the city’s plans for affordable housing developments. (Read more about Measure F via these links.)

Press release from Calfire:

What:Professionally controlled prescribed burn planned for the consumption of grass and timber understory on 50 acres of state land.

When: The prescribed burn will take place as conditions allow, Thursday, September 5th, 2024.

Where: Redway, California (Eel River Conservation Camp)

Why: These burns are part of the prescribed fire program for vegetative management and hazardous fuels reduction. The treatment will help to enhance the health of the native plant communities, aid in the control of non-native plant species, protect and enhance grass habitat for animal species, aid in the reduction of hazardous fire fuels and mitigation of uncontrolled wildfire.

Who: CAL FIRE and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

During these prescribed fire operations, residents may see an increase in fire suppression resource traffic, smoke will be visible and traffic control may be in place. Please be cautious for your safety as well as those working on prescribed burns.

Learn more how you can prepare for wildfire by visiting: www.ReadyForWildfire.org.

For more information, please contact the CAL FIRE Humboldt – Del Norte Unit Public Information Officer line at: (707) 726-1285.

Press release from the Northern California Community Blood Bank:

The Northern California Community Blood Bank is in urgent need of type O- blood donations as supplies have reached critically low levels once again. The shortage is attributed to increased local demand for O- blood products, resulting in a strain on the available inventory.

O- blood is especially crucial as it is the universal blood type that can be safely transfused to patients of all blood types. Due to its versatility, O- blood is in high demand for emergency situations and for treating patients with unknown blood types.

The Northern California Community Blood Bank urges individuals with O- blood type to donate as soon as possible to help replenish the supply and ensure that patients in need can receive life-saving transfusions. Donating blood is a simple yet impactful way to give back to the community and potentially save lives.

To schedule a blood donation, please visit the Northern California Community Blood Bank’s website, nccbb.org, or call 707-443-8004

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Your support in spreading the word about the need for O- blood donations is greatly appreciated.

###

Late last week, the California Housing Defense Fund sent the following letter to each member of the Eureka City Council and senior members of city staff:

Dear City of Eureka,

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to inform the City of Eureka (“the City”) of the potential legal and financial consequences of ballot Measure F. CalHDF takes no position on the ballot measure itself and writes only for informational purposes.

Measure F Will Render the Housing Element Non-Compliant

The City’s Housing Element of its General Plan must provide an inventory of sites where housing is likely to be built in the upcoming cycle for each income level in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

The City’s RHNA includes the construction of 231 very low-income units (including 116 extremely low-income units) and 147 low-income units. The City’s Housing Element Site Inventory allocates 80 low-income units to vacant sites, 40 low-income units to non-vacant sites, 82 low-income units to City-owned sites, and 245 very low-income units to City-owned sites.

Measure F would amend the City’s Housing Element. Specifically, it would eliminate six City-owned parking lots from Table 65. At present those parking lots are slated for a total of 80 very low-income units and 47 low-income units. Several of these sites have already been awarded state housing subsidies and have development plans in the works. Were Measure F to pass, the City’s Housing Element Site Inventory would only accommodate 165 very low-income units, falling short of its RHNA by 66 very low-income units. Because Measure F would cause a shortfall of 66 very low-income units in the City’s Site Inventory, the City’s Housing Element would no longer be in substantial compliance with state law.

CalHDF notes that Measure F includes a program that would rezone the former Jacobs Middle School site (“the Jacobs site”) with an overlay that would allow high-density residential use. The Measure would not amend the Site Inventory to assign very low-income units to the Jacobs site. However, even if adequate low-income units were assigned to the Jacobs site, the City’s Housing Element would still not be in substantial compliance with state law for two reasons:

First, Measure F states that the rezoning of the Jacobs site will be accomplished with a zoning overlay, an overlay that permits low-density residential as well as non-residential uses. This is a problem: the California Court of Appeal, 5th District, recently held that a zoning overlay does not satisfy the 20 unit per acre minimum density requirement for low-income sites in Government Code section 65583.2(h). (See Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 244.) If the base zoning or the overlay permits a density below what the Housing Element Law requires – as it would do here – an overlay zone will not bring the City into compliance. (Ibid.)

Second, the Jacobs site may not actually be available for residential development. Gov Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include (emphasis added) “An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.”

Given that the school district is not committed to developing residential on the site, and indeed the highest current bid seems to be from the California Highway Patrol, it is doubtful that the City could, in good faith, deem the site available for residential development. (See Ibid.) The proposed ballot measure would be replacing sites with concrete development plans and funding awards with a site that is not established to be available for development. Eureka’s Sixth housing element cycle ends on August 31st, 2027. It is extremely unlikely that a new development plan can be designed, permitted, and constructed in the next three years when no plans exist today. The site is therefore not available for development in this planning cycle.

Therefore, Measure F would expose the City to a potential determination of substantial non-compliance by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65585, subdivision (i), HCD “shall review any action or failure to act by [the City] that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element…, including any failure to implement any program actions included in the housing element….” Moreover, if HCD “finds that the action or failure to act by [the City] does not substantially comply with this article,” HCD may revoke its findings that the City’s housing element is in compliance with Housing Element Law until it determines that the City has come into compliance with state law.

Additionally, an interested party may bring an action under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 to determine whether a housing element conforms to the statutory requirements and to compel a city to adopt a compliant housing element. (Gov. Code §§ 65587, 65751.) CalHDF regularly brings such lawsuits as part of its mission to expand the state’s housing supply to mitigate the crushing impact of the housing crisis.

The City Will Be Subject to the Builder’s Remedy

The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”) requires approval of certain affordable housing projects that are submitted during periods of local housing element noncompliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5).) Under the HAA, a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined “preliminary application” or a “complete development application” while the city’s housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. See California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.

In other words, developers will be able to propose any residential project, no matter how tall or large, as long as it is 20% affordable. And the City will be bound to approve all such projects even if the City laters comes back into compliance with housing element law, as long as the applicants submitted an SB 330 application during the period of non-compliance. For instance, in Santa Monica, a single developer proposed 4,260 housing units, including several 18-story buildings, when Santa Monica’s housing element fell out of compliance. If the City wrongfully denies such builder’s remedy applications, not only may the applicant seek judicial remedies, but the HAA specifically empowers housing organizations, such as CalHDF to enforce the act via litigation. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(i).)

And if the City contests such Builder’s Remedy applications, it may be liable for costs. For example, the HAA authorizes courts to award attorney’s fees and costs both to applicants and to housing organizations if they prevail in litigation to enforce the HAA. (Id. at subd. (k).) As an example, recently the City of Berkeley was fined $2.6 million and forced to pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees after incorrectly denying a housing development project in violation of the HAA.

⬢⬢⬢

As stated above, CalHDF takes no position on Measure F, and we write only so that the City is fully informed as to potential consequences were it to be approved by the voters. CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director

James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations

###

PREVIOUSLY

• Ballot Battles, Lawsuits and a Ticked-Off Millionaire: CalMatters on Eureka’s Parking Lot Wars
• Security National Has Spent $710,645 and Counting on Measure F, the ‘Housing for All’ Initiative
• Eureka City Schools’ Deal With a Mystery Developer for the Jacobs Campus is Dead
• Anonymous AMG Communities Confirms Death of Jacobs Campus Deal, Vows to Try Again After Election Results
• Security National Just Dropped Another $286K Into Measure F, Bringing Its Total Spending to Nearly $1M
• How Will the Collapse of the Jacobs Campus Deal Impact Measure F? It Won’t, Backers Insist.
• What’s Next for the Jacobs Campus? The Eureka City Schools Board of Trustees Will Consider Five Options at Thursday’s Meeting

Like many new political candidates at the time, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan first ran for the state Assembly in 2018 because she was troubled by the election of then-President Donald Trump and wanted California to fight back against his administration.

Six years later, that dynamic has flipped on its head. In the just-concluded regular legislative session, the San Ramon Democrat and her colleagues instead battled a surging rebellion from conservative California communities against the state’s liberal governance.

On issues including abortion access, election rules and LGBTQ rights, Democrats in Sacramento passed legislation this year to stifle emerging local policies that they argued undermine the state’s commitment to diversity, civil rights and other progressive values.

“In certain ways, we have the right to hold the line for our constituencies,” said Bauer-Kahan, who compared the relationship between the Legislature and local governments to a system of checks and balances. “And I think that’s what we’re doing right now — we’re checking them.”

Tensions over local control are nothing new in California politics, as anyone who has followed decades of debate about land use and housing development can attest. But the last few years have opened a new front of conflict around cultural grievances more typical of red states.

With Republican power waning in California — the party hasn’t elected a candidate to statewide office since 2006 and labors under a superminority in the Legislature — conservatives are increasingly using the relative autonomy of city councils, county boards of supervisors and school boards to protest liberal state policymaking and assert a competing vision for their communities.

“There’s just a lot of built-up frustration and that’s one valve that’s being used,” said Assemblymember Bill Essayli, a Corona Republican who is often an outspoken opponent of bills to shut down conservative defiance. “We’re in an era in politics where you need an adversary.”

The result has been local laws to require voter identification at the polls, block abortion clinics from opening, review children’s library books for sexual content and mandate parental notification when students change their gender identity at school — prompting legislative Democrats to respond with measures that would ban those policies.

“They don’t want free people to make up their own minds,” said Fresno County Supervisor Steve Brandau, who developed a library material review committee for his county because he was disturbed by the children’s books included in a Pride Month display at a local library. “We’re fighting for our lives, we’re fighting for our livelihoods, we’re fighting for our beliefs.”

The clash began intensifying last year, with a showdown over an elementary school social studies textbook. When a Riverside County school board refused to adopt the state-approved curriculum because it referenced assassinated LGBTQ rights activist Harvey Milk, Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to send the textbook directly to students and bill the district, which then reversed course. Legislators subsequently passed a law to penalize school boards that ban books because they include the history or culture of LGBTQ people and other diverse groups.

The Legislature also approved, and Newsom signed, a measure to limit when local governments can count ballots by hand, after Shasta County canceled its contract with a voting machine company because of unfounded election fraud claims pushed by Trump and his allies.

A spate of legislation has followed this year, most controversially Assembly Bill 1955 by Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat, which prevents school districts from alerting parents when a student starts identifying as another gender. Such parental notification policies began sprouting up across California after the 2022 election, when Republicans focused on winning control of school boards, but critics argue they amount to forced outing. Essayli and Democratic Assemblymember Corey Jackson nearly came to blows on the Assembly floor over AB 1955, which Newsom signed in July.

Several other measures are headed to the governor’s desk after receiving final approval from the Legislature last week, including Bauer-Kahan’s AB 2085 to streamline the permitting process for reproductive health clinics. Though California has positioned itself as an “abortion sanctuary” since the U.S Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion — even putting reproductive rights into the state constitution — local opposition has prevented clinics from opening in cities such as Beverly Hills and Fontana.

“We saw the voters say they overwhelmingly support abortion rights, so it’s important that we as a state step in to ensure this access that they said they want,” Bauer-Kahan said.

Senate Bill 1174 by state Sen. Dave Min, an Irvine Democrat, would prohibit local governments from requiring voter identification in municipal elections, which Huntington Beach adopted this past spring as a security measure despite criticisms that it would create unnecessary hurdles for poor and minority voters.

And AB 1825 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, would outlaw the sort of citizen review panels that Huntington Beach and Fresno County recently created to restrict access to library books with “sexual references” and “gender-identity content.” Supporters argue the committees can keep inappropriate material out of children’s hands, while opponents contend that they target books with LGBTQ themes for censorship.

The legislators behind these bills say they support local control on some issues, but it can go too far when communities use their power to challenge people’s rights or the values that Californians have broadly affirmed. That’s when they believe the state should step in.

“I see it as our responsibility for the Legislature to establish protections for all kids regardless of where they live,” said Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat.

The state Senate during a floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Aug. 29, 2024. Photo by Florence Middleton, CalMatters

Democratic lawmakers suggested the growing confrontation could be a symptom of the divisive politics of the Trump era. They said many conservatives took a signal from Trump’s refusal to accept his loss in the 2020 presidential election and, like liberal states during the Trump administration, are picking up the mantle to lead a political resistance — which they believe, in many cases, has gone too far.

“You’ve seen a lot of these people really thumb their nose at the rule of law,” Min said. “They’re trying to get around that through sneaky little tactics.”

Conservative politicians counter that they are simply reacting to a state government that has pushed much further left than their constituents by listening to the LGBTQ rights movement and other activists rather than the people who elected them. Essayli said the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature is over-representative of a progressive ideology compared to California voters, only 46% of whom are registered Democrats.

“There’s one side changing what the norm is,” he said. “Then we’re considered the instigators, the agitators, the provocateurs for saying, wait, that’s not the way it’s always been.”

A spokesperson for Newsom declined to comment on the legislation pending before him or when the governor thinks state intervention is necessary to override local policies. But even if he signs the bills on his desk, is it almost certainly not the end of this fight, as communities such as Huntington Beach — which has positioned itself over the past two years as a bulwark in the conservative war against “wokeism” — consider lawsuits and other forms of protest.

Gracey Van Der Mark, one of the conservative majority on the Huntington Beach City Council, in her City Hall office on Nov. 11, 2023. Photo by Lauren Justice for CalMatters

Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark has already introduced a “parents’ right to know” ordinance as a direct challenge to AB 1955, the law prohibiting schools from reporting when students change their gender identity.

She said her city is more at odds now with Sacramento because state politicians are trying to stamp out ideological diversity in California and force all parents to raise their children in a certain way.

“That’s none of the state’s business,” she said. “We’re sick and tired of it. We need to push back.”

“It would be great if Sacramento could focus on homelessness, crime,” she added, “and leave the parenting to the parents.”

###

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

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris stand far apart on most issues, and health care is no exception. The November election carries major implications for Californians’ access to health care and the cost they pay for it.

While neither candidate has put forth a comprehensive health care agenda, both have track records from their respective time in the White House or previous posts that offer a glimpse on where they might stand on key health issues.

The cost of health care is a top concern for Californians and voters across the nation, millions of whom are saddled with medical debt or take less medication than prescribed because of the cost. While both candidates have acknowledged that health costs are a major burden to Americans, the difference will be in how they go about providing relief.

How the next president goes about strengthening — or chipping away — at the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights will also directly affect voters’ lives. Below are examples of both candidates’ records on key health issues and what they’ve promised to voters so far.

The future of the Affordable Care Act

TRUMP. Trump as president tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the signature legislative achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama. As recently as last year, Trump vowed to try again if he’s reelected.

The idea of overhauling the health law would be a much harder sell today than in Trump’s presidency, some experts say, because the law is generally more popular. Some Republicans who opposed the law in the past have come to accept that it is here to stay or have moved on to other issues.

Nowadays Trump says he wants to “improve” the the Affordable Care Act and make it “less expensive.” He hasn’t offered any details as to what that would entail, but experts say any changes would likely come in the form of chipping away at certain provisions of the law.

Trump as president made one major change to the Affordable Care Act: He signed a tax cut law that also eliminated a penalty levied on people without health insurance. The idea behind this provision of the Affordable Care Act was that a penalty, charged when people filed their income taxes, would encourage people to sign up for health insurance. And getting more people insured, especially the young and healthy, drives down the cost of coverage for everyone. Today, uninsured Californians still pay a penalty of up to $850 per adult because Gov. Gavin Newsom enacted a state version of this mandate.

HARRIS. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Harris promoted a version of Medicare for All, a government-run single-payer system. Today, health policy experts expect Harris to continue the current administration’s efforts to promote and build on the Affordable Care Act rather than move the country toward a new system.

Some California lawmakers are still interested in exploring a single-payer-like health care system. Last year, Newsom signed a law that directs the state to map out next steps in creating a “unified financing” system that would cover all Californians. Getting anywhere near this goal will require federal permission and resources, which are more likely to happen under a Harris administration, experts involved in these discussions say.

“A Harris presidency, I think, is going to view a waiver application from the state of California favorably,” said Gerald Kominski, a senior fellow at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, who has served as a consultant to a state commission exploring this issue. “It’s not to say that it will sail through…getting a waiver to pool federal and state funding is still going to be a challenge, but I think her administration is going to find a way to work with California to make it happen.”

More people than ever, 21 million, signed up for health insurance under Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2024. Marketplace officials across the country say that’s in part because of the increased premium subsidies made available under the COVID-19 relief laws known as the American Rescue Plan and later the Inflation Reduction Act. That enhanced financial aid is currently set to expire at the end of 2025. About 90% of enrollees in Covered California receive financial assistance. The odds of continuing that enhanced aid are better under a Harris administration, experts say.

The cost of health care

HARRIS. As attorney general of California, Harris went after large health companies by moving to restrict mergers and investigate anti-competitive behaviors that research shows can drive up the cost of care.

She launched an investigation into several California health systems, examining their market power and their influence on prices. That investigation led her successor, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, to file a lawsuit against Sutter Health, a nonprofit hospital and clinic system in Northern California. In the lawsuit, Becerra accused Sutter of using its market power to drive up prices in Northern California. In 2019 Sutter settled the case for $575 million, although it did not admit wrongdoing.

Harris has also taken a leading role in the current administration’s efforts to address the medical debt that burdens millions of families. In June, she proposed rules to remove medical debt from credit reports. California lawmakers have a similar proposal currently sitting on Newsom’s desk. About 4 in 10 Californians report having some type of medical debt, according to the California Health Care Foundation.

Among Harris’ campaign promises: “Work with states to cancel medical debt for millions of Americans.” While she hasn’t said how exactly she plans to do this, her work with North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper may offer a preview: Starting next year, North Carolina will roll out a program that incentivizes hospitals to forgive patients’ medical debt in exchange for additional Medicaid dollars.

TRUMP. Perhaps some of Trump’s most significant contributions to reigning in health care costs came in the form of price transparency rules. He signed an executive order that led to requirements for hospitals to disclose prices for common services on their websites. And in 2020 Trump signed the No Surprises Act, a law designed to protect consumers against surprise medical bills when receiving care from out-of-network providers. This often happens when people receive emergency care and are not in a position to choose their providers. Surprise medical bills tend to rank among the public’s top concerns.

The Trump administration greenlit some major health care mergers, but it did so with certain conditions signaling some caution in approving such deals. One example — CVS Health’s $69 billion acquisition of insurance giant Aetna, one of the biggest health mergers of all time. Aetna and CVS Health were competitors in the sale of Medicare drug plans. As a condition to approve the merger, Trump’s Department of Justice required that Aetna sell part of its Medicare drug business to another company as a way to preserve competition.

“That one was really contentious, and it took a long time, but we definitely didn’t see a rubber stamp,” said Rachel Nuzum, senior vice president of policy at The Commonwealth Fund. . “There was an acknowledgement that the size and scope of these mergers could be problematic for consumers.”

Abortion in the 2024 election

Pro-abortion rights supporters marched in protest of a Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade, in Sacramento on June 25, 2022. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

TRUMP. No other health issue has received as much attention this election cycle than abortion and reproductive health. In California, Democrats have tried to cement abortion rights into state law, and this is often the first issue they use to go after Trump. That’s because the Supreme Court justices he appointed made the difference in overturning the 1973 ruling that had protected abortion rights, Roe v. Wade.

Trump has given inconsistent messages about abortion rights. Earlier this year, Trump made headlines for suggesting that if he were re-elected he’d support a national ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. A few weeks later he changed his tune, saying abortion should be left up to the states. He has indicated that he would not ban mail delivery of medication abortion pills, and has said he wants insurance to cover the cost of in vitro fertilization treatment, or IVF, “because we want more babies.”

HARRIS. Harris has leaned heavily into abortion and reproductive rights, an issue she has remained consistent on throughout her career. She is often the voice and face for reproductive health in Biden’s administration, and has expressed support for restoring abortion access through federal law.

As vice president she launched a nationwide tour to promote reproductive rights with events across the country. It included a visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic, reportedly the first ever such visit by a sitting VP or president.

As attorney general in California, Harris sponsored state law that aimed to regulate crisis pregnancy centers. These are often religiously affiliated and known for trying to prevent women from getting abortions. The law required these centers to display a notice, letting people know that comprehensive family planning services including contraception and abortion were available through state programs. The U.S Supreme Court eventually overturned that law.

How they’d curb prescription drug prices

Shelves full of prescription medication at La Clinic pharmacy in Oakland on Sept. 26, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

TRUMP. Trump often takes credit for lowering the price of insulin for millions of Americans — but that’s not totally accurate. What his administration did was establish a temporary program known as the Part D Senior Savings Model. This program reduced copayments for insulin to $35 a month for about 800,000 seniors on certain Medicare plans. It lasted two years, expiring at the end of 2023. The Biden administration went further in the Inflation Reduction Act, which included a provision that capped insulin copay prices at $35 a month for about 3.3 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Trump also took the first steps to allow states to import prescription drugs from Canada, as a way to increase competition and lower drug prices. This move was heavily opposed by the pharmaceutical industry and the Canadian government. This idea came to fruition earlier this year when the FDA approved Florida’s plan to import prescription drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, mental illness and prostate cancer. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said that importing medications from Canada will save the state about $180 million in year one.

HARRIS. For the first time, the Biden administration empowered the In addition to expanding insulin copay caps to more seniors, Biden-Harris’ Inflation Reduction Act also directed its Health and Human Services agency to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers for certain high-cost drugs covered under Medicare. The 10 drugs in the first round of negotiations included medications to treat diabetes, heart failure, blood clots and rheumatoid arthritis. The negotiations resulted in discounts between 38% to 79%. The new negotiated prices are set to go into effect in 2026.

The Inflation Reduction Act — for which Harris likes to remind voters she casted the tie-breaking vote — also caps the total annual out-of-pocket drug spending for people on Medicare. This means that starting in 2025, seniors will pay no more than $2,000 a year for all their medications. About 3.2 million Medicare beneficiaries are expected to reach this limit in 2025, including 271,000 in California, according to recent estimates from the AARP.

Harris has said she wants to expand these cost-saving efforts to everyone, not just seniors. She has also pledged to go after drug companies and pharmaceutical middlemen that thwart competition and drive up costs.

###

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.