By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaking at The New York Times’ DealBook Summit, Halle Berry criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom for vetoing a menopause care bill for the second year in a row. Berry, who is a strong advocate for women’s health and the founder of wellness company Respin Health, expressed her disappointment, emphasizing the devaluation of women in midlife within society. Newsom’s office later clarified the veto was due to concerns about potentially increasing healthcare costs for working women. Berry’s remarks occurred shortly before Newsom himself was scheduled to speak at the same event.
Read the original article here
Halle Berry Draws Gasps for Saying Gavin Newsom Is ‘Devaluing’ Women and ‘Shouldn’t Be Our Next President’ Moments Before He Comes on Stage
The unexpected criticism Halle Berry leveled against California Governor Gavin Newsom at the New York Times’ DealBook Summit has certainly sparked a reaction, and it’s easy to see why. Berry, known for her acting career and now an entrepreneur with a stake in women’s health, took the opportunity to publicly challenge Newsom, specifically referencing his veto of a bill related to menopause treatments. The immediate context of her comments, delivered just before Newsom was scheduled to take the stage, heightened the impact and undeniably created a buzz. One has to wonder, would she have been as forceful if her own company wasn’t directly related to the subject matter of the bill? The perception of self-interest inevitably colors the narrative.
Her primary criticism centers on Newsom’s veto of a bill supporting medical care for menopausal women, a bill she has publicly backed, and that would directly benefit her company, Respin. Berry framed this veto as “devaluing women,” a strong statement that clearly resonated with the audience. What’s striking is the broad scope of her critique; she not only took issue with the veto but also questioned Newsom’s fitness to be president based on this single issue. This kind of argument is likely to generate some strong opinions on both sides.
The core of the disagreement seems to stem from Newsom’s decision to veto a bill that Berry and her company supported, which aimed to facilitate access to medical treatments for menopause. While the specifics of the bill might be complex, Berry’s language suggests a broader indictment of his stance on women’s issues. The intensity of her reaction, however, raises questions about the scope of her critique. Was this about a specific technicality, a broader statement on how the bill would be implemented, or a more deeply held dissatisfaction with Newsom’s policies?
Berry’s framing of the situation as Newsom “overlooking women” and “devaluing us in midlife” is quite pointed and obviously provocative. It is important to remember that politicians make decisions on a wide range of issues, and sometimes have to make compromises and tradeoffs. It’s not uncommon for those impacted by a particular decision to feel unheard or even dismissed. However, directly linking a veto to a perceived disregard for an entire demographic is a very bold move.
The question of whether this is the best time and place to air such grievances comes into play as well. Some people might find it unproductive, or even a little bit self-serving, to air this grievance with Newsom on such a public stage. The fact that the bill in question would directly enrich her company understandably invites scrutiny. There is also the matter of the context of the bill itself. Did Berry thoroughly understand the details behind the veto, or was her argument based on a superficial understanding of a more complex piece of legislation?
The reactions to Berry’s comments highlight a recurring dynamic in political discussions: the tension between demanding perfection and supporting pragmatic choices. Some argue that Democrats, in particular, often struggle to unify because they require their candidates to align perfectly with their individual interests. When a candidate falls short of this ideal, the result is public criticism and, potentially, abstention from voting. This is contrasted with the perceived unity of the Republican party, which tends to rally behind a candidate even if there are disagreements.
A key point is the reality that voters often must choose the “lesser of two evils”. Finding a candidate who aligns with one’s views 100% is rare, if not impossible. A key consideration is that while Newsom might have shortcomings, he still represents a starkly different approach to governing than some other potential candidates. In a political landscape dominated by polarizing figures, the perceived flaws of one candidate can be easily overshadowed by the perceived dangers of another.
This leads to a larger debate about how Democrats often fail to unite, in contrast to the Republicans, who show solidarity, supporting their candidates even when they have reservations. The criticism of Newsom and the potential ramifications of this public scolding come under further scrutiny in this broader context. The debate underscores the fact that political reality frequently demands compromise and that, in any given election, the perfect can be the enemy of the good.