oh, look, gavin newsom betrays trans people yet again. faefyx collington ('lgbtq nation') reports:
Over the weekend, California Governor Gavin Newsom went on a bill-vetoing spree. Among those that he shot down was a bill that prevented California from extraditing patients or providers as part of another state’s investigations into gender-affirming or reproductive care.
“I am returning Assembly Bill 2164 without my signature,” Governor Newsom wrote in his notice of veto. “This bill would prohibit future governors from recognizing a request for extradition of a person subject to criminal liability based on allegations that the person engaged in specified healthcare activities.”
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D) introduced Assembly Bill 2164 back in February. It passed the California Assembly in May and the California Senate in August. But it died on Governor Newsom’s desk.
California already has legal protections in place to prevent the prosecution of patients or providers for both “reproductive health care services” and “gender-affirming health care services.” Because of those protections, California is a sanctuary state where patients from states with laws against such care can travel to receive treatment.
However, under current California law, if another state wants to criminally prosecute someone in California, the governor has discretion over whether to extradite the person to the prosecuting state, even if the alleged crime involves the provision or receipt of protected healthcare.
While the bill would have closed that discretion loophole to prevent a governor from turning over someone for providing or receiving care, Newsom vetoed the bill.
In his veto notice, Newsom said he worries that if he allows the legislature to take that discretionary authority away from the governor on his way out the door, others will do the same in the future in a bid to limit the next governor’s power.
gavin newsom became a huge disappointment when he stopped being for equality. since his 1st betrayal of trans people, he's been off my list of people i'd vote for in a presidential race.
'general hospital'?
today britt walked in to the metro court and saw jason. she turned and left. he explained to sonny what had happened, he didn't believe her about her trying to figure out a way to save anna.
she went to the gym and bumped into felicia, emma and anna. she and anna exchanged words and emma got loud. later, in the locker room, britt told emma she didn't have a right to correct her and that she'd tell any joke she wanted after some 1 takes her out to the woods with a tarp and tries to kill her.
anna went to talk to britt and said that she was sorry and that she wasn't herself.
carly went to molly while cassadine and charlotte spoke. she asked molly if she could talk to scout about scout not telling her father (drew) about charlotte's plan to catch him on cell phone camera and set him up to pretend he was having an affair with an underage girl (her). molly said she'd try. cassadine tried to get it across to charlotte that what she did was dangerous, that drew might have physically struck her, he could have driven off in his car with her trapped inside, etc. charlotte didn't want to hear it - remember, charlotte thinks she knows everything. cassadine told her she wasn't seeing danny anymore. she countered that she'd see him at school. he said no. and he said the 2 of them together spells trouble. he's echoing what lulu told him a few weeks back when she found out charlotte was with danny when he took chase's car and got it banged up.
lulu and dante were waiting for rocco. he was talking to scout. he thought if they went to drew and talked to him, he might be okay with the 2 of them hanging out. scout's not so sure. dante texts rocco and rocco remembers he was supposed to be having dinner with his parents.
carly gets back to her office nd she tells valentine nd charlotte that molly's going to try to talk scout into not saying a word to drew about what charlotte planned.
acting a.g. janine had lunch with jordan and told her that brook lynn wouldn't be going to prison for leaving the scene of the crime. jordan said that was fine and that should have made every 1's jaw drop over the way jordan treated isaiah when she and curtis wrongly though isaiah had been the other driver.
later, jordan goes to get her car in the underground parking and sees janine kissing sonny.
let's close with c.i.'s 'The Snapshot:'
Washington, D.C. — Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, sent a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Ho K. Nieh about the broad changes being made at the NRC to regulations, security, organizational structure, and more, which could threaten worker safety at nuclear facilities and impair independent oversight. The NRC has been quickly making these changes and rehauling the organization without providing time for public input or transparency.
NRC, a statutorily independent agency, has been undertaking wholesale revision of its regulations, guidance, oversight processes, and organizational structure pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” that President Trump signed on May 23, 2025. These sweeping changes encompass 47 regulations, 27 rulemakings, and 71 guidance documents.
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is undertaking wholesale revision of its regulations, guidance, oversight processes, and organizational structure,” write Murray and Kaptur. “We support efforts to ensure that the NRC’s regulatory framework is efficient, risk-informed, and capable of supporting the safe and secure deployment of nuclear energy. However, the breadth of the changes currently underway raises significant questions about whether the NRC has adequately evaluated the cumulative effects of these reforms on nuclear safety, security, independent oversight, and public confidence.”
Murray and Kaptur express deep concern for NRC plans to remove “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) radiation safety requirements, endangering workers’ safety: “We are particularly concerned about the proposed revisions to the NRC’s radiation protection framework. The NRC proposes to remove regulatory requirements implementing the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) principle and replace them with a determinate, graded approach to dose management based on defined thresholds. The proposal would also establish a new planned occupational dose limit extension permitting multi-year averaging of doses, revise monitoring and reporting requirements, and allow licensees in certain circumstances to request higher public dose limits for controlled areas and restricted situations.”
“The scale of this regulatory revision effort also warrants greater transparency regarding its costs, benefits, and resource implications. Given the scope of these changes, Congress needs to understand the analytical basis for the NRC’s determination that the proposed reforms will improve efficiency without compromising safety, security, or regulatory effectiveness. In particular, the NRC should be able to identify the specific requirements being eliminated or modified, explain the basis for each change, and demonstrate how the revised framework will continue to provide adequate protection,” Murray and Kaptur continue.
Murray and Kaptur conclude by demanding more information about the NRC’s extensive changes to its regulations, guidance, oversight process, security programs, and organizational structure, and by urging caution and sorely needed transparency: “We therefore urge the NRC to proceed with appropriate caution and transparency as it implements these sweeping changes. Congress has a responsibility to understand how and why the Nation’s nuclear safety regulator is changing its regulatory framework, and to ensure that those changes do not inadvertently weaken the protections that are required to maintain the safety of the U.S. nuclear fleet.”
The full letter is available HERE and below:
Dear Chairman Nieh:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the “NRC” or “Agency”) is undertaking wholesale revision of its regulations, guidance, oversight processes, and organizational structure pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, encompassing 47 regulations, 27 rulemakings, and 71 guidance documents. The NRC has also updated and “rebaselined” its Reactor Oversight Process and security programs, completed a reorganization, and is proceeding with broader efforts to reform the Agency’s culture. We support efforts to ensure that the NRC’s regulatory framework is efficient, risk-informed, and capable of supporting the safe and secure deployment of nuclear energy. However, the breadth of the changes currently underway raises significant questions about whether the NRC has adequately evaluated the cumulative effects of these reforms on nuclear safety, security, independent oversight, and public confidence.
On July 15, 2026, the NRC published a proposed rule revising its radiation protection framework (91 Fed. Reg. 43456). We are particularly concerned about the proposed revisions to the NRC’s radiation protection framework. The NRC proposes to remove regulatory requirements implementing the “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle and replace them with a determinate, graded approach to dose management based on defined thresholds. The proposal would also establish a new planned occupational dose limit extension permitting multi-year averaging of doses, revise monitoring and reporting requirements, and allow licensees in certain circumstances to request higher public dose limits for controlled areas and restricted situations.
The scale of this regulatory revision effort also warrants greater transparency regarding its costs, benefits, and resource implications. Given the scope of these changes, Congress needs to understand the analytical basis for the NRC’s determination that the proposed reforms will improve efficiency without compromising safety, security, or regulatory effectiveness. In particular, the NRC should be able to identify the specific requirements being eliminated or modified, explain the basis for each change, and demonstrate how the revised framework will continue to provide adequate protection.
Accordingly, please provide the following information within 15 days of the date of this letter:
- A complete list of all NRC regulations, guidance documents, oversight processes, security programs, and other regulatory requirements that have been or are expected to be modified, eliminated, consolidated, or otherwise affected as part of the NRC’s implementation of E.O. 14300.
- For each regulation, guidance document, or other requirement that has been materially modified or eliminated, the NRC’s justification for the change, including the statutory, regulatory, technical, scientific, or operational basis relied upon.
- A complete description of the process used to identify, develop, review, and approve the 27 E.O. 14300 rulemakings to date, including the roles of the NRC’s leadership, program offices, and the Office of the General Counsel; the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; and other independent or advisory bodies.
- For each of the rulemakings, the staff hours and full-time equivalents expended to date and projected through completion, by office, and the associated dollar cost by fiscal year.
- For those costs, an identification of what portion is recovered as a service fee under 10 C.F.R. Part 170, what portion is recovered through annual fees under 10 C.F.R. Part 171, and what portion is excluded from fee recovery under 42 U.S.C. 2215, together with the resulting effect on annual fees assessed to materials and medical licensees.
- All non-concurrences filed under the NRC’s Non-Concurrence Process and all differing professional opinions submitted under the Differing Professional Opinions Program relating to any rulemaking, guidance revision, oversight process change, or reorganization undertaken pursuant to E.O. 14300 to date, together with the management responses to each; all letters from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards addressing those actions and the staff’s responses; and, for each action the NRC has voted on, the vote sheets and any additional views of individual Commissioners.
- For each completed or proposed rulemaking, the analyses conducted to determine whether the changes could affect nuclear safety, radiation protection, physical security, emergency preparedness, environmental protection, or the NRC’s ability to conduct effective oversight.
- A description of the criteria the NRC is using to determine that revised or eliminated requirements will provide protection equivalent to or greater than the requirements they replace.
- With respect to the proposed radiation protection framework, a detailed explanation of the scientific and technical basis for replacing ALARA requirements with determinate dose thresholds, including the analyses used to evaluate the potential effects on workers and members of the public.
- With respect to the proposed changes to occupational dose limits and monitoring requirements, an explanation of the basis for allowing multi-year averaging of occupational doses and establishing a reporting threshold tied to a five-year assessment.
- A description of the NRC’s engagement with radiation workers and the organizations representing them on the proposed changes to occupational dose limits and monitoring requirements, including the dates, participants, and subject of any such engagement; any analysis of the effects of the proposed planned occupational dose limit extension on the health of the affected workforce, including any evaluation of collective dose; and occupational exposure data for the past 10 years sufficient to establish a baseline against which the effects of the revised framework can be measured.
- With respect to the proposed changes to public dose limits, identify the circumstances under which a licensee could receive authorization for a higher dose limit, the maximum limits contemplated, and the controls and review criteria that would apply to such requests.
- All regulatory analyses, cost-benefit analyses, safety evaluations, scientific assessments, risk assessments, technical reports, legal analyses, decision memoranda, and other documents used to support the changes being undertaken pursuant to E.O. 14300.
- A description of the NRC’s process for identifying and monitoring unintended consequences resulting from the regulatory changes, including deterioration in safety performance, reduced regulatory visibility, increased radiation exposure, or other adverse outcomes.
- The specific, outcome-oriented goals and performance measures the NRC will use to evaluate the implementation of E.O. 14300, including baseline data against which changes in safety performance, occupational exposure, public exposure, inspection findings, enforcement actions, licensing timelines, and other relevant outcomes will be measured.
- A description of the circumstances or performance thresholds that would cause the NRC to reconsider, modify, or restore a requirement that has been eliminated or substantially revised pursuant to E.O. 14300.
- An identification of any licensing review, inspection, or oversight activity that has been deferred, narrowed, or reprioritized to absorb this workload, by office and fiscal year, and the fiscal year 2026 appropriation and the fiscal year 2027 President’s Budget Request amounts that supports implementation of E.O. 14300.
The NRC plays a unique and important role in protecting the American public from the risks associated with nuclear technology. We recognize the importance of maintaining a regulatory framework that is efficient, predictable, risk-informed, and capable of supporting the continued operation of the existing nuclear fleet and the deployment of new nuclear technologies. The NRC’s own materials identify these objectives as central to its implementation of E.O. 14300.
We therefore urge the NRC to proceed with appropriate caution and transparency as it implements these sweeping changes. Congress has a responsibility to understand how and why the Nation’s nuclear safety regulator is changing its regulatory framework, and to ensure that those changes do not inadvertently weaken the protections that are required to maintain the safety of the U.S. nuclear fleet.
We look forward to your response within 15 days.
Sincerely,
###
