The Brief

Community colleges in California will be required to offer abortion medication through campus health centers starting in 2029, under a law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday.

Through the Community College Student Right to Access Act, California will extend the reproductive health service already required for public universities in the state. No specific dollar amount is mentioned in the new law, only that the implementation of abortion medication at community colleges will rely on the Legislature appropriating funding.

Community colleges were left out of Senate Bill 24, a law that was signed in 2019 and took effect in 2023, requiring University of California and California State University campuses to provide on-campus abortion medication at their health centers. The new law, authored by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, a Democrat from San Francisco, will require abortion pill access at community college campuses with existing health centers. Today, 92 out of 115 community college campuses have health centers.

“We are closing a critical gap by ensuring that community college students, one of the most diverse and economically vulnerable populations in our state, have the same access to care as their peers at four-year institutions,” Stefani said during the Assembly Health Committee hearing in April.

Students at UC, Cal State and community college campuses on the Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board supported the bill as part of Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, a national advocacy and reproductive justice organization. The student board works to expand education outreach for reproductive healthcare across the state.

“The system is clearly moving towards the better,” said Angelica Campos, a San Francisco City College student and advisory board member, in response to the governor’s signature.

Implementing the law

Medication abortion can be taken 10 to 11 weeks after the day of a person’s last period. It accounted for more than half of all U.S. abortions in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health.

Community college health services leaders were initially concerned about implementation due to the locally controlled model of the community college system. For this reason, community college health centers do not operate in the same way as university health centers.

While the law requires community colleges with health centers to start offering abortion medication, it does not require that it happens on campus, unlike the law for UC and Cal State campuses. Instead, community colleges have multiple options. They can prescribe the medication onsite via a licensed provider on staff or telehealth. The health center can utilize partnerships with an offsite provider who can prescribe abortion medication. Or, they can offer a “warm handoff” directing students to resources off campus, with follow-up care on their campus. Implementation cost will depend on the model community colleges choose to adopt.

Some community colleges, like El Camino College in Torrance, already have a “robust” healthcare system, according to Susan Nilles, faculty coordinator of El Camino College Student Health Services and a nurse practitioner. While the campus doesn’t currently offer abortion medication, Nilles said she does not anticipate challenges to comply with the law.

“We’re fortunate enough to where we can handle something like this. It’s nice to know that legally, we’re backed,” Nilles said.

College of the Redwoods, located in the Northern California coast city of Eureka, is one of the 23 community college campuses in the state without an on-campus health center. That campus relies on telehealth services, community partnerships and referrals to local healthcare organizations. Students can currently access medication abortion services through referrals from their telehealth provider, TimelyCare.

Stephanie Freyermuth, manager of Basic Needs, Housing Insecurity & Wellness at the college, said due to campus size, rural location and lack of medical community resources, she does not believe College of the Redwoods will adopt in-person services, including abortion medication, in the immediate future.

Dr. Rosafel A. Nogra, who serves as director of De Anza College's Student Health Services in Cupertino, said the law is an opportunity to expand their health center’s reproductive healthcare. The campus doesn’t offer abortion medication onsite currently. Instead, it offers services through the Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment Program provider that offers confidential reproductive health services at no cost to students who meet certain requirements.

Service costs may vary among colleges

The previous law requiring medication abortion services at public universities established the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund with private funds, which provided a $200,000 grant to each campus student health center to implement services. Community colleges were left out of that law because there was not enough capacity to extend funding to them all, Connie Leyva, a former Democratic state senator from Chino and the author of that bill, told CalMatters in a phone interview.

The cost for abortion medication at UC and Cal State campuses varies. Some Cal State campuses give it to students for free. For UC students, medication costs are covered by the required on-campus UC Student Health Insurance Plan.

Cal Poly Humboldt's costs are free due to grant funding from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, while Sonoma State covers the cost with mandatory student health fees and part of the implementation funding. Cal State San Marcos charges students $20 to $28 for the prescription.

Sonoma State listed their cost as $50 on their health center website but Tim Grace, director of the student health center, told CalMatters in an email it was free. After CalMatters asked about the cost, the college confirmed the medication is free and the website was updated.

The cost for abortion medication at community colleges will depend on how much the Legislature appropriates in the state budget for 2029 and may vary among campuses.

Bringing awareness to students

The law will require all campuses, both community colleges and universities, to inform students that abortion medication services are offered at their health centers. This was another component left out of the previous law.

Four years after she left office, Leyva said that she still receives calls from people frustrated by the lack of advertising about reproductive health services on campuses.

“That part of the bill is tangible and I think that can make a big difference for a lot of young women,” said Leyva, who is now the executive director for KVCR public media in San Bernardino.

The new law will require all campuses to post about medication abortion availability on their websites. Currently, all UC campuses have abortion medication listed on their websites. All Cal State campuses have it on their websites except Chico State, which does not explicitly mention abortion medication and instead highlights birth control and “comprehensive care tailored to specific gender-related health needs” for men and women. Chico State Media Relations Coordinator Michael Drummond said the school will comply with the awareness requirements outlined in the law.

Cal Poly Humboldt student Kaylee Luna works as the Sex, Health and Body Educator at the Women’s Resource Center at her university. Luna connects students to sexual health and reproductive resources on campus. While she was aware abortion medication was provided on campus, she didn’t know it was free until she researched it for her job. From her personal perspective, she feels abortion medication and reproductive resources aren't talked about enough.

“I don't think that students on campus are really aware of that. I mean, no one's really talking about it or, you know, making (social media) posts or flyers,” Luna said. “I feel like it is still a touchy subject for some folks but I don't think there's much awareness and I think there should be.”

Faith Chinnapong says in her work alongside college students as a California-based organizer for Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, she sees the knowledge gap across campuses.

“It's common to meet a student who is completely unaware of the services on her own campus," Chinnapong said. “When campuses especially are in these rural areas, it makes it more difficult for these young people to be able to go and seek these services, especially when they're working multiple jobs and taking care of their family.”

Students like Campos working on the Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board have heard student concerns first-hand. According to her, access can make all the difference, and going offsite can be a deterrent for some seeking care.

“Comfort is really important, and I think students sometimes feel more safe going to somewhere they're more familiar with, and oftentimes that's campus,” Campos said.

Moving forward 

The new law won’t take effect for more than two years, and only upon appropriation of funds by the state Legislature.

“Even if we’re not gonna see the changes potentially overnight, it’s really good that we’re here doing the foundational work,” Campos said.

Now, groups like Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board will work towards bringing more awareness about the law to students and campus health centers.

“Students should have the option to whatever they choose to decide on how to care for their bodies and having that access would just make it all the better on campus,” said Vanetta Godinez, a San Diego City College student and board member.

Noelle Doblado and Skylar Stock are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Starting Saturday, Nov. 7, the 63-year-old Vincent Thomas Bridge will shut down until at least March 2028 for major construction. Workers will replace its deck, which has become “severely deteriorated” from thousands of vehicles driving across it daily.

The Vincent Thomas, which connects San Pedro to Terminal Island, is the state’s fourth-longest suspension bridge. It handles an estimated 53,000 vehicles — including 4,600 heavy trucks — each day.

The bridge is often the quickest route between San Pedro and Long Beach. Detours along Anaheim Street or Pacific Coast Highway could double many people’s commute times.

Tate Allen and his San Pedro neighbors have begun referring to the closure as “Harborgeddon.”

The Vincent Thomas Bridge will close to traffic starting Saturday, Nov. 7 in San Pedro, Monday, Nov. 2, 2026. Photo by Thomas R. Cordova.Allen, with help from Claude AI, even put together a website bearing that name that has a countdown clock and a map of suggested detours.

Caltrans’ official detour recommends that drivers from San Pedro use the 110 Freeway to access Harry Bridges Boulevard, then take the 47 Freeway at Henry Ford Boulevard or the 710 Freeway.

That’s likely the route most truck drivers entering and exiting the Port of Long Beach will take, Allen said, and commute times could vary widely depending on the time of day.

He currently travels from San Pedro to his downtown Long Beach office three days a week. Once the bridge closes, his 15-minute drive will likely take 30-45 minutes, Allen estimated.

Ahead of the bridge closure, Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker, who represents District 15 including San Pedro and Wilmington, pushed for road improvements along the detours to prepare them for increased traffic.

In Wilmington, those efforts included “slurry sealing along Alameda Street and Harry Bridges Boulevard, with concrete repairs in some locations,” Sophie Gilchrist, the councilmember’s spokesperson, wrote in a statement.

McOsker is also asking the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to monitor traffic on Anaheim Street after the bridge closes and identify short-term and long-term fixes “if problems arise,” Gilchrist wrote.

Why is this happening now?

Caltrans began forming this plan after a 2021 inspection found that the bridge deck condition had dropped from “fair” to “poor” in part because of heavy truck traffic from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

That ultimately led to the $750 million bridge deck replacement project, which will also replace the center median, railing, fencing and install new seismic sensors and utilities on the bridge.

Caltrans officials say a full bridge closure was the most palatable of several unsavory options. Plans to just close the bridge at night would have stretched construction to 48 months. A mix of weekend and overnight closures to keep one lane open ranged between 25 and 32 months.

What does this mean for locals?

Business owners in San Pedro are worried that lengthy detours will frustrate potential customers and lead to a dip in sales.

Stephanie Crawford, who has owned Creative Pet Supply in San Pedro for the past 26 years, said construction on the 47 Freeway off-ramp just up the road from her business has already hurt.

Lately, she’s had “quite a few” customers from Long Beach asking how they’ll be able to visit her store once the bridge shuts down.

She’s been telling customers: “We’ll still be open, if you can get to us.”

The Vincent Thomas Bridge will be closed for repairs for over a year, starting Saturday, Nov. 7, in San Pedro, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026. Photo by Thomas R. Cordova.The closure might also be a headache for the historic Warner Grand Theatre in downtown San Pedro, which is just finishing up renovations of its own, albeit at an inopportune time, said Liz Schindler Johnson, executive director of the Grand Vision Foundation – a nonprofit arts organization that markets the theater’s events.

On average, roughly 10-15% of their audience comes from Long Beach, Schindler Johnson said. She’s hoping they won’t be put off by the longer drive, especially because the shows primarily take place on weekends.

Two of her eight employees typically commute over the bridge to their San Pedro office and are bracing for added drive time, she said.

“We don’t want to go back to remote work if we can help it,” Schindler Johnson said.

Meanwhile, Allen is trying to stay positive. The longer drive, he said, will give him an excuse to catch up on audiobooks and check out a new grocery store — the Northgate Market along Pacific Coast Highway in Wilmington.

Construction of the green metal fence around MacArthur Park will begin Monday, Nov. 16, with work scheduled to continue through fall 2027.

The city announced the start date Nov. 4, saying crews will install an 8-foot fence around the park’s perimeter. Nearby residents and businesses can expect some noise, dust and vibration during construction, although the city said mitigation measures will be in place.

Crews will work Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and the park will remain open while crews are working. 

The fence is the city’s latest attempt to tackle longstanding problems at MacArthur Park, including drug use, homelessness and crime.

The city first approved plans for the fence in October 2025, and the proposal has since drawn both support and criticism from residents and community groups.

Some say they hope the fence will make the park safer, while others question whether it will actually improve conditions there. Police and city officials say the fence will give them more control over the space and make it easier to enforce the law.

Ana Luz Vazquez, a street vendor near MacArthur Park, said her main concern about the fence is what will happen to the unhoused people who stay in the park throughout the day and whether the city plans to address that issue directly.

She is also concerned that construction during the day could affect her ability to work because of traffic, less parking availability and loud noise.

Vazquez said she would prefer construction to take place at night so it would have less of an impact on street vendors.

“If they’re working in the day then how are we supposed to come here and who is going to help us survive,” Vazquez said.

Construction will happen in two phases

Phase 1

• Alvarado St. from W. 6th St. to Wilshire Blvd.
• S. Park View St. from Wilshire Blvd. to W. 6th St.
• Wilshire Blvd. from Alvarado St. to S. Park View St.

Phase 2

• Alvarado St. from Wilshire Blvd. to W. 7th St.
• S. Park View St. from W. 7th St. to Wilshire Blvd.
• Wilshire Blvd. from S. Park View St. to Alvarado St.
• W. 7th St. from Alvarado St. to S. Park View St.

Existing trees will be protected and monitored during the work, according to the Department of Recreation and Parks. Traffic control measures will be in place during work hours, and crews will post temporary “No Parking” signs near active work areas in advance.

Services at the park are expected to remain the same throughout construction. The schedule could change because of weather or other unforeseen circumstances, according to the city.

The city has allocated $2.3 million for the project, but officials have not said whether that will cover the full cost.

After the fence is installed, the city plans a second phase focused on adding decorative elements. Officials have said residents will have an opportunity to provide input on the design.

Residents with questions or concerns about the project can contact Recreation and Parks at RAP.PublicInfo@lacity.org or (213) 202-2700.

The post MacArthur Park fence construction to begin Nov. 16 appeared first on LA Local.

The California Coastal Commission voted Thursday to allow transportation authorities to build a quarter-mile-long seawall just south of San Clemente State Beach to protect the coastal railroad from rising sea levels and coastal erosion. The plan also includes a major influx of sand for local beaches.

Why this matters

The tracks that carry passengers on the Pacific Surfliner between Orange County and San Diego have shut down frequently in recent years due to rising sea levels and erosion. Rail authorities have dumped thousands of tons of boulders on the beach to buttress the tracks. Now, they’re hoping a seawall will buy them time to come up with a more permanent solution. Not everyone is happy about the plan. Critics say seawalls cause waves to refract and dig deeper, ultimately stripping away even more sand in the long run.

What else do I need to know?

Environmental groups and local tribal authorities say the emergency work has already ruined the beach. To mitigate the negative effects, authorities will haul in close to 700,000 cubic yards of new sand to San Clemente beaches over the coming year.

What's the official reaction?

Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley released a statement hailing the decision. “Today’s unanimous approval from the California Coastal Commission marks a major milestone to save our critical coastal rail corridor and restore San Clemente’s iconic beaches following decades of erosion and inaction,” Foley said. “The placement of 690,000 cubic yards of sand represents the region’s largest beach nourishment effort in decades and demonstrates our commitment to long-term coastal resilience."

She added: “Wide sandy beaches provide a natural buffer for our rail corridor while protecting our coastline, expanding public access, and supporting our local economy. Through continued collaboration with our state, regional, and local partners, we will advance lasting solutions that protect our beaches and preserve this vital transportation corridor for future generations.”

Can Long Beach police be trusted to uphold the constitutional right to a fair trial? That’s the question raised in a new court filing by a prominent defense attorney, who alleges the department failed his client, Lonnie Jacobs, when it comes to ensuring basic due process rights.

At issue is a now-former Long Beach Police Department officer’s long-undisclosed conviction for an out-of-state assault.

In his filing Thursday, Scott Sanders, a defense attorney, outlines how the department hid an arrest and conviction involving one of its officers from defendants and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for seven years. Sanders’ filing makes the case that the LBPD’s failure to disclose that information for so long suggests the problem goes well beyond this case.

It’s unclear how many potential cases could be affected.

“The defense submits that the repeated and varied efforts by the LBPD at concealment and deception … reveal a department that simply cannot be trusted to meet its disclosure obligations,” Sanders wrote in a motion to dismiss a case against Jacobs.

It’s a potentially major allegation. The 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland established that law enforcement — both prosecutors and investigating law enforcement working on behalf of the government — must turn over any information that could help the defense win its case. Failure to do so represents a violation of a defendant's right to due process and can result in mistrials or overturned convictions.

The Long Beach Police Department has not yet responded to a request for comment about this latest filing, but previously told LAist it complies with requirements under Brady.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office also has said it works with Long Beach to ensure Brady information is produced and has not responded to a request for comment on this story.

How we got here

Sanders, who exposed the consequential Orange County jailhouse informant scandal, was appointed to represent Jacobs by the court when felony charges were filed in May 2025.

Jacobs is facing up to four years in prison on charges that he brought a controlled substance into a jail.

Jacobs landed in jail after Erik Suarez, then a Long Beach police officer, arrested him in March 2025 on suspicion that he threatened a repo man with a gun. No charges were ever filed on that allegation, but Jacobs was taken to the sixth-floor jail at the Long Beach Police Department, where a jail staffer allegedly found a small bag of cocaine in his sock.

Sanders has argued the arrest that landed Jacobs in jail was based on misrepresentations and omissions of evidence from Suarez and another Long Beach police officer.

Lonnie Jacobs in a still from a police body cam on the night of his arrest.

(

Long Beach Police Department

/

L.A. County Superior Court filing

)

It wasn’t until Sanders attempted to subpoena Suarez, who left the Long Beach force in June 2026 and has since been hired by the Burbank Police Department, that the defense discovered he had been arrested in Cobb County, Georgia, in 2019 and convicted on battery charges in 2022.

What's next

Sanders is now asking the court to dismiss the case against Jacobs because not disclosing this information amounts to "outrageous governmental conduct” on the part of the Long Beach Police Department.

“One of the most important responsibilities placed upon law enforcement is that of disclosing evidence favorable and material to the defense,” Sanders wrote in the most recent motion, “and the willingness to do so even when said evidence is damaging to the credibility of one of its officers, hurts the chances of a successful prosecution, or damages a department’s reputation.”

The information is relevant under Brady, the filing said, because Suarez’s conduct in Georgia demonstrates “moral turpitude" — one of the standards that requires sharing information with defendants — that could be used to impeach him as a witness.

LAist has previously tried to reach Suarez twice by calling a phone number linked to him in public records. Each time, a man answered and said he was not Suarez, but that he was in contact with Suarez and had no interest in connecting him with a reporter.

The Long Beach Police Department told LAist it was aware of the 2019 arrest, but that the internal investigation was part of Suarez’s personnel file and not releasable under California law. It’s not clear when the department first learned of the case against Suarez, who initially faced felony battery charges. In 2023, Suarez was disciplined for excessive use of force. A report on that case, which has been released, references a two-day suspension for the Georgia altercation.

Former Long Beach Police Officer Erik Suarez received a two-day suspension after the 2019 arrest in Cobb County, Georgia.

(

Long Beach Police Department

)

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office previously told LAist it was unaware of Suarez’s arrest and conviction.

Why it matters

Sanders argues that would mean the Long Beach Police Department had ignored years of legal precedent, policy and agreements with local prosecutors.

The motion to dismiss Jacobs’ case outlines what Sanders calls a “shameful seven-year history” of hiding that arrest and subsequent conviction. Not disclosing that information, the filing argues, demonstrates the police department has an office-wide policy of intentionally withholding information that would reflect badly on its officers.

Two years before Suarez was arrested for assaulting a man in Georgia, then-District Attorney Jackie Lacey issued a special directive stating that “all law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County have agreed” to disclose the arrest and conviction of any officer who might show up in court as a witness.

And in 2019, in response to a Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury report about the availability of Brady information, the district attorney’s office told the report's authors that it conducted training at law enforcement agencies regarding Brady disclosures.

In the motion to dismiss the case, Sanders argues that, given these directives, the failure of Long Beach police to disclose Suarez’s arrest and conviction demonstrates "institutional untrustworthiness.”

The motion asks the court to hold an evidentiary hearing, where Long Beach officials would explain why the information was concealed, before considering the request to dismiss the underlying case.