newsom healthcare mental-health care-court forced-treatment civil-liberties homelessness conservatorship sb43 criminalize-poverty
related: Single-Payer Broken Promise | Homelessness Spending and Encampments | _Gavin Newsom Master Profile donors: Kaiser Permanente · Blue Shield of California
Overview
This is the most ideologically interesting piece of the healthcare record from a left perspective because it doesn’t fit a simple “pro-industry” frame — it’s more about using healthcare language to criminalize poverty and homelessness.
CARE Court (2022)
In 2022, Newsom launched CARE Court — a program that allows family members, first responders, and behavioral health workers to petition a court to compel people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders into a court-ordered treatment plan. Continued refusal could lead to conservatorship — involuntary confinement.
SB 43 (2023)
In 2023, Newsom signed SB 43, which expanded the definition of “gravely disabled” — the threshold for involuntary commitment — for the first time since 1967. The new definition now includes people unable to care for their medical needs due to severe mental illness or substance use disorder.
The Civil Liberties Critique
Disability Rights California, the ACLU, and disability advocates argued the state is conflating homelessness with mental illness, using healthcare framing to clear streets and lock people up without building the community resources that would actually help.
“For no one to oppose this huge erosion of civil rights is just a really concerning change in the state legislature.” — Samuel Jain, Disability Rights California, as quoted by CalMatters.
Results as of Late 2025
The state spent roughly $160 million on CARE Court. Fewer than 550 people have received services. No county has ever been fined for failing to provide court-ordered services — despite that being Newsom’s stated enforcement mechanism. The ACLU called it a “very expensive” way to coordinate services that didn’t previously exist. — CalMatters, December 2025.
As of March 2026, Newsom is threatening to withhold funding from counties for not using the program enough — while the program itself has not delivered on its promises. — CalMatters, March 2026.
The Language
Newsom has repeatedly used language like “people with their clothes off defecating and urinating in the middle of the streets” to describe people experiencing homelessness. That’s not healthcare language. That’s punitive language dressed in healthcare framing. It’s worth tracking because it reveals the actual political logic behind CARE Court — optics and encampment clearance, not treatment capacity.
Key Quote
“For no one to oppose this huge erosion of civil rights is just a really concerning change in the state legislature.” — Samuel Jain, Disability Rights California.
Money
Pharmaceutical & Behavioral Health Industry Funding: Kaiser Permanente and Blue Shield of California have donated $150K+ to Newsom since 2018. CARE Court’s involuntary treatment model and SB 43’s expanded conservatorship threshold position these vendors for expanded patient bases and institutional purchasing power — more involuntary clients flowing into their systems. Newsom’s framing of homelessness as a healthcare problem requiring pharmaceutical intervention directly benefits insurers and behavioral health corporations.
Contradiction
Forced Treatment vs. Civil Liberties: Newsom frames CARE Court as compassionate mental health intervention while advocates like Disability Rights California and the ACLU document it as an erosion of civil rights — the first expansion of involuntary commitment criteria since 1967. The contradiction: Newsom presents himself as protecting vulnerable people while using healthcare language to criminalize homelessness and poverty without funding the community resources that would actually help.
Donation-to-Policy Timeline
| Date | Event/Contribution | Amount | Policy Action/Outcome | Time Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018–2022 | Kaiser Permanente ongoing campaign contributions | $150K+ | CARE Court launch (2022) — pharma/health donor benefits from institutionalization model | Ongoing |
| 2020 | Blue Shield receives no-bid COVID contract | $15M | Newsom appoints to testing task force; no-bid contract follows | 2–3 months |
| 2022 | CARE Court signed into law | $160M state budget allocation | Program launched statewide; <550 served by late 2025 | — |
| 2023 | SB 43 signed (expanded “gravely disabled” definition) | Budget neutral | Involuntary commitment threshold expanded; pharma vendors positioned for expanded patient base | — |
| 2025 | CARE Court underperformance documented | — | Newsom threatens counties to use program more despite failure | 3 years post-launch |
Analytical Patterns
The Genuine Win + Structural Limit
CARE Court presents itself as a mental health treatment framework — a win for both compassionate care and public safety. The genuine win: creating a court system to offer mental health services is better than purely criminal justice responses. The structural limit: the program doesn’t build community resources, doesn’t address root causes (housing, poverty, drug access), and doesn’t solve the question of what to do when court-ordered treatment fails. A person can be court-ordered into a plan that doesn’t exist in their county. The $160 million budget for CARE Court was never accompanied by equivalent funding for community mental health infrastructure — the actual services people need.
The Villain Framing
Newsom frames homelessness and street conditions using language like “people with their clothes off defecating and urinating in the middle of the streets.” This is villain framing — homelessness is presented not as a housing crisis or poverty crisis, but as a pathology problem requiring criminalized intervention. CARE Court, dressed in healthcare language, becomes a tool to clear streets and criminalize poverty rather than solve it. The villain is the person on the street; the solution is involuntary psychiatric intervention. The real structural issue — the shortage of affordable housing and community mental health services — disappears from the frame.
The Two-Audience Problem
CARE Court speaks to two audiences simultaneously. To progressives and health advocates, it’s framed as a compassionate mental health intervention (genuine win). To law-and-order constituencies and business groups concerned about encampments, it’s framed as a tool to clear streets and manage visible poverty (discipline). Newsom can campaign on compassion while delivering encampment clearance because both audiences are hearing what they want to hear. The bill doesn’t impose hard choices between these framings; it allows both.
The Pilot Program Trap
The CARE Court pattern is classic pilot program dynamics: launch with fanfare, allocate budget to a shiny new program, underfund the community infrastructure that would make it work, then declare victory (or threaten counties) without addressing root causes. By late 2025, fewer than 550 people had been served. No county had been fined for failing to provide services. The program is simultaneously heralded as a success and failing on its own metrics.
Sources
- California Senate Bill 43: Conservatorship expansion legislation text (Tier 1)
- CalMatters: CARE Court what actually became law (Tier 2)
- KQED: SB 43 conservatorship expansion signed (Tier 2)
- IJPR / CalMatters: CARE Court numbers (fewer than 550 served) (Tier 2)
- CalMatters: Newsom threatens counties on CARE Court (March 2026) (Tier 2)
- ACLU California: CARE Court civil liberties analysis (Tier 2)
- Disability Rights California: SB 43 impact analysis (Tier 2)
- Journal of Health Economics: involuntary commitment and outcomes data (Tier 2)
content-readiness:: ready