Things are snuck into a bill and then they just get through
In California, a proposed budget measure meant to close a long-standing gap in pregnancy protections for public school teachers has arrived at a deeper crossroads: whether a state may, for the first time, extend taxpayer-funded paid leave to cover elective abortion procedures. Assembly Bill 65, authored by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and backed by Governor Newsom, offers up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave to teachers historically excluded from the state's disability insurance system. The bill's inclusion of 'termination of pregnancy' has transformed a question of workplace equity into one of public conscience, as the Senate now weighs whether that language will survive, be amended, or quietly disappear before the measure becomes law.
- Teachers in California's public schools have long been shut out of the state disability insurance program, leaving them uniquely unprotected during pregnancy — a gap this bill was designed to close.
- The bill's phrase 'termination of pregnancy' has ignited a fierce debate, with critics warning it would make California the first state to fund elective abortions through taxpayer dollars.
- The absence of any annual cap on leave claims and the lack of a clear verification process have raised alarms about both fiscal exposure and the privacy of teachers who might be forced to disclose sensitive medical decisions to administrators.
- The Assembly passed the bill 62-17, but the bill's author has already signaled she expects pressure to strip the abortion language in the Senate — and that she can accept its removal as long as the core 14 weeks of paid leave survives.
- The Senate now holds the deciding hand: preserve the language and potentially pioneer publicly funded abortion leave, or amend it and let the equity argument stand on narrower, less contested ground.
California is moving toward paid pregnancy disability leave for public school teachers — a protection long denied to them because their collective bargaining agreements place them outside the state's disability insurance program. Assembly Bill 65, part of Governor Newsom's budget plan and authored by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, would grant teachers up to 14 weeks of paid leave. Supporters call it overdue equity.
But a single phrase has complicated the picture. The bill covers leave for 'termination of pregnancy,' which could make California the first state to provide taxpayer-funded paid leave for elective abortions. When pressed on whether that was the intent, Aguiar-Curry acknowledged the language might be amended — and that once the question became public, pressure to remove it would likely follow.
Lawmakers have also flagged two structural concerns: the bill sets no annual cap on how many leave claims a teacher may file, and it offers no clear mechanism for verification that doesn't require teachers to disclose intimate medical information to their employers. Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa, one of 17 who declined to vote, called the arrangement 'overly intrusive.'
The bill passed the Assembly 62-17 and now moves to the Senate. Legislative analysts note that controversial language frequently appears in early drafts as a negotiating position, and that most bills are amended in their second chamber. Aguiar-Curry has said her core goal is the 14 weeks of paid leave — and that if the abortion language is removed, she can accept that outcome. What the Senate decides will determine both the fate of that leave and whether California steps into new territory on publicly funded abortion policy.
California is moving toward a new kind of paid leave for teachers—one that would cover not just pregnancy and childbirth, but also abortion procedures. The proposal, part of Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget plan and authored by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry as Assembly Bill 65, would grant public school teachers up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave. On its surface, this addresses a real gap: unlike many private-sector workers, California's public school teachers operate under collective bargaining agreements that exclude them from the state's disability insurance program, leaving them without the pregnancy-related income protection available to others. Supporters frame the bill as overdue equity.
But the language extends further. The bill covers paid leave for "termination of pregnancy," which would potentially make California the first state to provide taxpayer-funded paid leave specifically for elective abortions. That phrase has become the flashpoint as the measure moves through the legislature. When CBS California asked Aguiar-Curry directly whether Democratic leadership intended to fund paid leave for elective abortion, she acknowledged the language could become controversial. "I think it could get amended," she said. "I'm hoping it doesn't, and now that you've brought it up and it's all over television, chances are I'm going to get more pressure to take it out."
The bill also contains no annual cap on how many pregnancy-related leave claims a teacher could file in a given year—a detail that has alarmed some lawmakers. Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa was among 17 legislators from both parties who declined to vote on the measure. His concerns centered on two points: the absence of a spending limit, and the practical problem of verification. How would school districts confirm a teacher's eligibility for leave without forcing her to disclose intimate medical details to administrators? "I think it's overly intrusive," Tangipa said, noting that teachers might effectively be required to tell their bosses about an abortion in order to claim the leave.
The Assembly passed the bill 62-17 with bipartisan support, and it now heads to the Senate. Legislative experts note that controversial provisions often appear in early drafts of bills as negotiating tools. "Ninety-nine percent of all bills get amended in their second house," said Chris Micheli, a law professor and legislative analyst. In California's one-party supermajority, however, controversial language sometimes survives the process and becomes law. Tangipa suggested the abortion language was deliberately embedded in the bill from the start. "Things are snuck into a bill and then they just get through," he said.
Aguiar-Curry has made clear that her core objective is securing the 14 weeks of paid leave for teachers. If the abortion language gets stripped out in the Senate, she said, she can accept that outcome. "If it is, so be it. I can live with it as long as I get the 14 weeks of paid leave for my teachers." The Senate now faces the decision: preserve the language as written, amend it, or remove it entirely before the bill reaches the governor's desk. What happens next will determine not only whether California teachers get the paid leave they lack, but whether the state becomes a pioneer in funding abortion-related leave through public dollars.
Citações Notáveis
I think it could get amended. I'm hoping it doesn't, and now that you've brought it up and it's all over television, chances are I'm going to get more pressure to take it out.— Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
I think it's overly intrusive. Teachers may have to effectively disclose abortions to administrators.— Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did this language about abortion end up in a bill about teacher pregnancy leave in the first place?
That's the question everyone's asking. Aguiar-Curry says her focus is the 14 weeks of paid leave—that's the real problem she's solving. The abortion language could be there as a deliberate expansion of what "pregnancy-related" means, or it could be there as a negotiating chip that gets removed later. Lawmakers do this all the time.
But if it's just a negotiating chip, why not take it out before the Assembly vote?
Because you don't know what you'll need to trade away in the Senate. You keep controversial language in early drafts to have leverage. The problem here is that in California's supermajority, sometimes those chips don't get traded—they just become law.
What's the actual harm people are worried about?
Two things. One is the money—there's no cap on claims, so theoretically a teacher could take paid leave multiple times a year for different procedures. The other is privacy. How does a school administrator verify that a teacher had an abortion without the teacher having to tell them? It puts teachers in an impossible position.
Could this bill pass the Senate as written?
It's possible, but unlikely. The abortion language is too hot. Even Aguiar-Curry seems resigned to losing it. The real question is whether the core benefit—the 14 weeks of paid leave—survives intact.
What does this say about how California legislates?
It shows how much can happen in the shadows of a budget bill. Most people don't read the fine print. By the time anyone noticed the abortion language, the Assembly had already voted.