One of the head-scratchers in California’s attempt to levy a one-time wealth tax is why Planned Parenthood, which usually links arms with other progressive institutions, is siding with California billionaires and Gov. Gavin Newsom in opposing the measure.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Santa Clara, who supports the tax, called it “the moral fight of our time for the party.”
But Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO Jodi Hicks contends it is not that simple.
She told me the organization isn’t abandoning its traditional allies, pointing to how the tax’s opponents include the California Teachers Association and Newsom, as well as Xavier Becerra, the Democratic candidate for governor.
Still, Planned Parenthood’s new bedfellows in opposing Proposition 40 include some of President Donald Trump’s key allies.
How could Planned Parenthood California, which led the national charge to pass legislation protecting abortion rights at the state level after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, be on the same side of an issue as Peter Thiel, the conservative billionaire who funded Trump’s first run for the White House, which led to the appointment of three conservative justices who helped kill Roe?
“We’re not taking a position because we agree with any of the billionaires that are affected or why they’re taking their position,” Hicks said.
Nor is the organization opposed to taxing the wealthy. It is supporting Proposition 3, which would permanently extend taxes on individuals earning at least $361,000 or joint filers making at least $721,000.
“We definitely appreciate the goals behind the Billionaire Tax Act,” Hicks said. “We believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share. We believe in a progressive tax structure.”
Billionaire tax supporters say it could raise an estimated $100 billion over five years for California’s state budget, which could benefit organizations like Planned Parenthood, as nearly one-third of female Medi-Cal recipients between the ages of 15 and 49 in California who receive family planning services, including contraceptive care, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, and cervical cancer screening, are Planned Parenthood clients, according to a KFF study.
Hicks said Planned Parenthood’s board voted to oppose the billionaire tax because it thought the measure was poorly written and would provide only a one-time revenue boost at a time when California needs ongoing funding to recover from the impact of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed in July 2025. The law’s Republican authors sought to “defund” Planned Parenthood by blocking the organization from receiving reimbursements for family planning services provided by Medi-Cal, which serves one-third of California residents.
The resulting $300 million hit to Planned Parenthoods across California forced one of its affiliates, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, to close five healthcare centers in Northern California. Planned Parenthood operations in Orange and San Bernardino counties closed their primary care services. State lawmakers came to the rescue with $230 million in funds and emergency grants.
Yet Planned Parenthood doesn’t think that the billionaire tax, which would raise “tens of billions of dollars,” according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst’s report, is the answer. Hicks said “the lack of specificity and accountability, where the funding is going toward” made it unappealing. The LAO report, however, specified that “90 percent of the money would have to be spent on health care services for the public. The rest would have to be spent on administration of the wealth tax, education, and food assistance.”
Part of Planned Parenthood’s objection is how the ballot measure came together. Hicks pointed out that healthcare-related organizations met for a year before supporting a 2025 ballot measure that made permanent a tax on healthcare insurance companies and other health-related services to help cover the state share of Medicaid healthcare costs. Planned Parenthood endorsed the tax, codified in Proposition 35, which passed easily with 68% support.
That coalition-building didn’t happen in this case, Hicks said. The measure was introduced and crafted by the healthcare workers union (and prolific ballot measure sponsors) Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. It largely did everything on its own. “It’s a conversation that I’ve never been a part of,” Hicks said.
“Healthcare is complicated, and it requires stable and long-term funding for healthcare providers to be able to make the decisions they need to provide access to care,” Hicks said. In the case of Proposition 35, she said, “that was a full year in the making that included healthcare stakeholders, it included policymakers, a lot of conversations and was very specific, specific in the solutions that were within that measure.”
But when UHW drafted the billionaire tax, it “did not have conversations with the healthcare stakeholder community.”
Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West leader Dave Regan said “the people who work at Planned Parenthood, the people that use Planned Parenthood for services are overwhelmingly on our side. This really is a disagreement among a handful of political operatives in the inside baseball game in Sacramento.”
SEIU, a different union that represents hundreds of Planned Parenthood workers in California, is still reviewing the measure and has not yet taken a formal position, said Ella Sogomonian, a spokesperson for SEIU 1021.
The California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Democratic Party have not yet taken positions on the tax, but are expected to by late this summer.
Hicks said Planned Parenthood isn’t opposing the measure to mirror the position of Newsom, its longtime ally who has been a national champion for abortion rights and forcefully corralled more funding for Planned Parenthood in California. Newsom, who is likely running for president in 2028, opposes the tax because he fears that it will drive billionaires — who contribute a large share of the state’s revenue in the progressively taxed state — to move out of state. If they do, according to the LAO report, the loss could be “hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.” But the measure’s supporters, including Khanna and progressive economists, say that argument is specious.
To inoculate himself against being seen as a shill for billionaires months before he goes before (typically more progressive) Democratic presidential primary voters, Newsom recently proposed a national wealth tax on people making more than $100 million. But that would have little chance of passing, even if Democrats retook the Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ recently proposed 5% wealth tax is stalled in Washington.
Khanna, also a likely 2028 presidential candidate who supports Sanders’ proposal, ripped Newsom as “a cheerleader for the billionaire class in trying to defeat” the California measure. Their division is one of many among Democrats — and their allies, like Planned Parenthood — that will shape the battle over California’s billionaire tax.
Joe Garofoli is the San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer, covering national and state politics.