Halle Berry, the Oscar-winning actress, has openly criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom for his stance on women’s issues, suggesting that he may not be fit for the presidency.
During her remarks at The New York Times’ Dealbook Summit, Berry expressed her discontent with Newsom’s lack of backing for the Menopause Care Fairness Act and his decision to veto similar measures.
“He seems to be ignoring half the population, namely women, by undervaluing our experiences during midlife. It makes him an unsuitable candidate for president,” she remarked.
Berry further pointed out the double standards regarding health issues. “If a man faced medical challenges impacting his sleep, cognitive function, and sexual health, it would be labeled a health crisis and prompt immediate action,” she noted.
“When women silently endure the challenges of perimenopause and menopause while trying to maintain their families, careers, and relationships, it’s not just their burden; it impacts everyone around them,” she added.
She stressed the broader implications: “It affects workplaces and economies. Statistics show that one in six women leaves their jobs due to menopausal symptoms, which ultimately concerns us all.”
Berry called for a collective effort from both men and women in this advocacy.
“I urge every woman in this country to stand with me, but let’s be clear: this issue extends beyond women. We need men and all our leaders involved. Everyone in this room has a role to play. Stay curious, ask questions—even if the topic feels strange or uncomfortable. Show some interest,” she insisted.
As reported by Variety, the proposed legislation aimed to “Require comprehensive insurance coverage for medically necessary menopause treatments, mandate continuing education for physicians on menopause, and task the Board of Health with creating a continuing education curriculum.”
When he vetoed the bill in October, Newsom explained that it would “restrict health plans’ ability to adopt practices necessary for providing adequate care while keeping costs manageable.”
He maintained that despite calls for tailored solutions, concerns persisted. “The broad coverage required by the bill, coupled with the UM ban, is excessive,” he argued.
