- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Assembly Bill 432 would require insurance coverage for menopause treatments after Gov. Newsom vetoed similar legislation last year.
- Fifteen states have introduced menopause bills this summer, creating what experts call a “national movement” for better treatment access.
- The debate reflects larger questions about women’s healthcare rights and California’s potential leadership role on reproductive health issues.
Among the many audiences Gov. Gavin Newsom has provoked lately, one cohort is particularly fired up: menopausal women. I know I felt a rush of adrenaline (or perhaps it was a hot flash?) when I saw actor Halle Berry take to Instagram this week to demand the governor make menopause a public policy priority.
From Hollywood to Capitol Hill, menopause continues to be having a moment. But no entity has succeeded more than state lawmakers in transforming all the buzzy headlines into meaningful action.
Earlier this summer, CNN and NPR declared a “national movement” for menopause legislative activity, reporting a record 15 states introducing upward of two dozen bills as of July. So rapid and robust was this agenda, the digital news outlet Axios dubbed menopause policy “the new tampon tax” — another seemingly out-of-the-blue but wildly popular reform that swept through statehouses in recent years. (California is one of 22 states that has repealed sales tax on menstrual products over the last decade.)
The momentum was not so unexpected to me, though. I’ve written over many years on menstruation and menopause. I have engaged firsthand with lawmakers of all political stripes committed to these issues — for example, those who passed laws to ease the burden of the cost of period products. After the 2024 elections, I suspected there could be new political will to tackle menopause and embrace policies that could help ameliorate the challenges of finding adequate care and treatment for all its disruptive symptoms.
This conviction led me to team up with leading medical experts to publish a Citizen’s Guide to Menopause Advocacy back in January, with a foreword by the journalist and former California first lady Maria Shriver. We set forth many of the reforms that states are now embracing — things like better education for doctors and better information provided by public health departments, improved access to and insurance coverage of menopause treatments, and more robust workplace protections and accommodations.
Today, seven states have menopause laws on the books; California is one of them, having codified support for limited continuing medical education opportunities for providers. The tally will surely grow as several more states tee up new proposals for 2026 — like in Michigan, where a bipartisan pair of lawmakers recently filed several bills and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer kicked off a listening tour in communities around the state.
Here and now, all eyes should be on California’s latest legislative move. A 2025 bill championed by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, AB 432, now poised for passage, addresses two key needs — affordability of care (requiring health insurance plans to cover menopause treatments) and quality of care (incentivizing clinicians to incorporate menopause-specific training as part of their professional licensing continuing education requirement).
AB 432 is a modified version of prior legislation that passed last year but was vetoed by Newsom, who argued at the time its provisions were “too far-reaching.” The current legislative language is responsive to his concerns, for example limiting coverage to FDA-approved menopause treatments. But there’s no guarantee of a gubernatorial green light, given statewide infighting over a broader array of health insurance practices and policies.
There is something much deeper than a single law at stake in California. The state is in a position to be a leader on menopause issues — not so much in the specific provisions, but in the culture.
California would not be the first state to pass the provisions that are in AB 432. As for insurance coverage, Louisiana holds that banner; its legislature became the first in the nation to require Medicaid and private health insurance plans to cover perimenopause and menopause treatments. Among other states at the fore, Illinois now has a dedicated Menopause Awareness Week, Maine passed funding for state health department educational resources, and Rhode Island is the first to establish workplace accommodation protections.
But Newsom’s own brand as a modern democracy avenger — California’s role in driving the national redistricting crisis response, the state’s self-proclaimed status as a safe haven for abortion rights — makes for a ripe opportunity to demonstrate and articulate that menopause belongs squarely in the pro-democracy discourse too.
Menopausal women are a contingent 75 million strong in the U.S. and entitled to accessible, competent healthcare and treatment. Our accumulated wisdom and experience contribute profoundly to the economy, to culture, to the body politic. We have every right to demand lawmakers and political leaders invest in our well-being, our dignity, our humanity. And we know that when we fight for ourselves, we also fight for our daughters — and for the future.
Halle Berry’s campaign is cleverly called “Turn Up the Heat.” Who better than an army of menopausal women to do so? Our democracy will be stronger for it.
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is the executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at New York University School of Law.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author argues that menopause policy represents a critical opportunity for California to demonstrate leadership on women’s health issues, positioning the state alongside its existing role as a “safe haven for abortion rights” and advocate for modern democracy. The perspective emphasizes that AB 432 addresses two fundamental healthcare needs: making menopause treatments more affordable through required insurance coverage and improving care quality by incentivizing clinician education[1][2].
Advocates maintain that the current legislative momentum reflects a broader “national movement” for menopause policy, with 15 states introducing over two dozen bills as of summer 2025, making this issue comparable to the successful campaign to eliminate sales taxes on menstrual products. The bill specifically requires coverage for evaluation and treatment options for perimenopause and menopause without utilization management, as determined medically necessary by treating providers[1][2].
Supporters emphasize that menopause affects approximately 50% of the population yet remains inadequately researched and covered by healthcare systems, creating significant disparities in care particularly for women of color who often experience more severe symptoms[3][4]. The legislation mandates that physicians whose patient population is more than 25% women participate in continuing medical education courses on menopause, addressing concerning gaps in provider knowledge[3][4].
The author frames menopausal women as a powerful political constituency of 75 million Americans who deserve accessible, competent healthcare and argues that investing in their well-being strengthens democratic institutions. This perspective positions menopause policy within broader pro-democracy discourse, suggesting that supporting this legislation benefits not only current patients but future generations[4].
Different views on the topic
Previous gubernatorial opposition centered on concerns that menopause legislation provisions were “too far-reaching,” leading to the veto of similar legislation in the prior year. The current version attempts to address these concerns by limiting coverage specifically to FDA-approved menopause treatments, though uncertainty remains about whether these modifications will satisfy administrative objections[1][2].
Healthcare policy analysts note potential cost implications and acknowledge that while similar health impacts could be expected following implementation, “possible changes in medical science and other aspects of health make stability of impacts less certain as time goes by.” The analysis indicates that in 2026, AB 432 would apply to the health insurance of approximately 22,207,000 enrollees, suggesting significant fiscal considerations[1][2].
Concerns exist regarding the continuing medical education requirements for physicians, particularly the mandate that doctors with patient populations composed of 25% or more women must complete menopause coursework. This requirement may potentially impact physician knowledge and comfort levels but also represents additional professional obligations and administrative burdens for healthcare providers[1][2].
Broader healthcare policy debates continue regarding insurance practices and coverage mandates statewide, creating political uncertainty around passage of menopause-specific legislation. The bill’s success remains contingent on navigating these larger healthcare policy disputes and securing gubernatorial approval despite previous resistance to similar measures[1][2].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In our first episode, the L.A. Times columnist George Skelton sizes up the governors he’s known, what made them successful and whether the next one can measure up.
On screen, Errol Flynn played a series of daredevils, fortune hunters, and suave romantics. Off screen, he lived a life of outsize debauchery and recklessness, including a persistent interest in underage girls. In 1943, at the height of his fame, he faced trial in Los Angeles on charges of statutory rape.
Why would someone decide to risk their life for a country that is not their own? What might they be searching for? Call Sign Condor is a podcast about the thousands of Latin American soldiers who are fighting in Ukraine — for Ukraine.
