Gov. Gavin Newsom is getting hammered by abortion rights supporters in California after a controversial veto.

The Democratic governor on Sunday vetoed AB 2164, the Care Without Fear Act, which would have restricted future governors from granting extradition requests from other states targeting people for legally protected abortion and gender care. 

Cheyenne Hunt, a social media influencer who helped publicize sexual assault allegations against disgraced ex-congressman Eric Swalwell, ripped into Newsom in an Instagram post Wednesday — calling Newsom’s veto a massive “red flag.”

“I would like Gavin Newsom to publicly explain why he just vetoed a bill that would have provided essential protections to women coming to California to seek reproductive health care,” Hunt said.

“In his letter explaining the veto, Newsom tries to describe this bill as if it’s really extreme and suggests that the decisions on extradition need to lay within the discretion of the governor, but 18 other states have already passed similar legislation. So how extreme could this be?”

The fight over extradition stems from the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to state abortion bans and efforts to prosecute providers across state lines.

The issue came to a head in January, when Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill announced an indictment against Sonoma County physician Dr. Rémy Coeytaux for allegedly providing abortion pills to a Louisiana resident. The state’s governor, Jeff Landry, sought Coeytaux’s extradition.

Newsom exercised his authority as governor to block extradition of Coeytaux for prosecution in Louisiana, but he rejected AB 2164. Coeytaux could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The bill — authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) — would have barred specified extradition demands involving legally protected health care, subject to existing statutory requirements. It also would have extended protections to people whose assistance with care was lawful in another U.S. jurisdiction.

“While I share the author’s views on the importance of protecting these important healthcare services, extradition is an exclusively executive function,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

“When discretionary, that discretion is appropriately placed with the governor.”

The veto leaves existing restrictions on arrests and cooperation with outside investigations intact. But advocates say the governor’s remaining discretion creates uncertainty that legislation could reduce.

“California cannot call itself a safe haven for reproductive freedom while leaving abortion providers just one election away from extradition,” Pavitra Abraham, director of state campaigns for Reproductive Freedom for All, told Mother Jones.

Newsom’s explanation focused on protecting the powers of whoever replaces him.

“I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming governor based on their shared policy preferences, regardless of how righteous and well-intentioned those actions may be,” he wrote.

Newsom’s office said he had nothing further to add when reached for comment on the criticism.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

For supporters of the bill, the potential for a Republican or right-leaning governor on the issue of abortion is precisely why it was needed.

Amanda Barrow, a senior staff attorney at UCLA’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, told Mother Jones that signed laws “are just on firmer footing when there are political changes at the executive level.”

Newsom, in his veto message, pointed to his record of strengthening health care protections, but Hunt countered in her social media post that the veto sends an unsettling signal.

“I don’t know what message he was trying to send with this veto, or to who,” Hunt said. 

“But as someone who cares deeply about reproductive health care, the only message I’m getting is a big fat red flag.”