, window.addEvent('domready', function() { $$('.hasTip').each(function(el) { var title = el.get('title'); if (title) { var parts = title.split('::', 2); el.store('tip:title', parts[0]); el.store('tip:text', parts[1]); } }); var JTooltips = new Tips($$('.hasTip'), { maxTitleChars: 50, fixed: false}); });
 

Action

LEGISLATION 2023 ARCHIVE//

  • Print

2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION OUTCOME

The California State Legislature ended its annual session on Sept. 14, and Governor Gavin Newsom signed and vetoed the final bills on his desk on Oct. 13.

SIGNED by Democrat Party Governor Gavin Newsom

AB 5 forcing all teachers and employees of California government schools in grades 7 through 12 to be brainwashed with "LGBTQ cultural competency training." The number of participating employees in this required in-service training would be posted on the school district's website and reported to the California Department of Education.

AB 223 making it harder for parents to know of their child's name/"gender" change and making it impossible for legal authorities from other states, who are trying to protect their resident children from irreversible harm.

AB 352 hiding from dads and moms their pre-teens' and teens' records on those children receiving mind-altering drugs, drug addiction treatment, fornicating advice, sexually transmitted disease treatments, "intimate partner violence," abortions, and sex-change procedures/operations.

AB 443 investigating and punishing pro-family-values social media (the bill calls this "hate groups") or 2 natural sexes (the bill labels this “biased conduct” against anything "LGBTQIA+") of moral/religious police officers and officer candidates.

AB 659 coercing and deceiving pre-teens and their families, and collegians, to receive in their arms unneeded, ineffective, injurious (and painful) Gardasil shots. Letters or emails would be sent to parents of all children in government-run or private schools (including boys and church schools) before they enter 8th grade, and for college students 26 and younger at government-run UC, CSU, and community colleges, notifying them that Gardasil is "recommended" as the "public policy of the state," and "advising that the pupil be fully immunized against HPV before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level level."

AB 665 emancipating 12-year-olds for any reason (the bill eliminates parental consent and the conditions of abuse or incest), then taking them to a government-funded "residential shelter" for "mental health treatment or counseling services.”

AB 1078 putting the State in charge of school district's curriculum choices, punishing pro-family school districts that want traditional history and social studies curriculum, and mandating new curriculum teaching children to admire "LGBTQ+ Americans."

AB 1194 hiding that a minor girl is "accessing, procuring, or searching for abortion services." For all practical purposes, this means prohibiting saving these young mothers' lives if "something goes wrong." The proponents like this bill to hide abortions done on minor girls from other states.

AB 1720 penalizing pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that show pregnant women ultrasound of their pre-born babies without a license. The fine is $2,500 "for a first offense" and $5,000 "for each subsequent offense." AB 1720 is a new harassment tool making it harder for otherwise compliant pro-life CPCs to save pre-born babies, because they can now be "charged" with violating the ultrasound law.

SB 345 removing all legal hurdles to children from other states being brought to California for abortions and "sex change" procedures and operations; eliminating certain peaceful, free speech activities of California pro-lifers; exempting from murder "a mother who committed the act that resulted in the death of the fetus"; and erasing from state law references that a preborn baby is a "child" and "person."

SB 385 permitting physician assistants to engage in "performing an abortion by aspiration techniques" (a suction abortion that vacuums out a preborn baby -- dismembering, torturing, and killing a little boy or girl). SB 385 expands on last year's bill allowing nurses to perform "aspiration" (suction) abortions.

SB 407 requiring foster parents to agree with and support everything "LGBTQIA+" for a child, even if they know "LGBTQIA+" behavior unnatural, harmful, or wrong, and requires counties to "ensure" that each foster parents "supports" homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual behavior ("all...sexual orientations, gender identities").

SB 760 requiring all government-run schools, including charter schools, for grades 1 through 12 to "maintain at least one all-gender restroom," "unlocked," with "all-gender" signage.

VETOED by Democrat Party Governor Gavin Newsom

AB 576 fully funding chemical abortions under the state's Medi-Cal (welfare) program (deceptively doing so by ordering the State Department of Health Care Services to "the department shall update its Medi-Cal coverage policies for medication abortion as needed to align with evidence-based clinical guidelines."

AB 957 requiring state judges in child custody cases to disfavor parents who don't "affirm" their own children acting as "trans" (the bill would have ordered judges to see "affirming" transsexuality in a child as essential to the "the health, safety, and welfare of the child").

AB 1432 requiring group health insurance carriers that sell policies in California to "cover" the killing of preborn babies (the bill calls this "abortion" and "abortion-related services") and "sex changes" (the bill calls this "gender-affirming care"). 

SB 58 legalizing the mind-altering, "hallucinogenic substances" of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline. This bill, by legalizing these harmful, "recreational drugs" for 21-year-olds, would have, for all practical purposes, opened the door to teens and pre-teens getting it. A stoned society is not a safe society.

SB 541 requiring "internal and external condoms" be made available "to all pupils free of charge" in grades 9 through 12 at government-controlled junior high and high schools (includes charter schools); permitting school districts to give condoms to children as young as 7th grade; and prohibiting retail stores from checking ID or denying "nonprescription contraception" purchases to children of any age. 

SB 596 empowering chairpersons of liberal school boards to subjectively claim members of the public who speak at meetings have caused "substantial disorder," so they'll be promptly arrested and subsequently charged with a misdemeanor offense. 

DEAD FOR THE YEAR (did not pass the Legislature) 

AB 315 permitting civil lawsuits based on "emotional distress" against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for "false or misleading statements." This anti-child, anti-First-Amendment bill is an attempted "end run" around the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a previous Democrat bill requiring pro-abortion signage at California CPCs. (But see AB 1720, which the ruling Democrats passed and Gov. Newsom signed).

AB 492 funding a pilot project to give state and federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists to treat "mild-to-moderate behavioral health conditions." This bill attempted to add to Planned Parenthood's cover story of "comprehensive," non-abortion "services," and at its core aims to replace wiser counsel from parents, pastors, and psychologists. Bottom line, AB 492 would spend taxpayer money on lie-based, pro-abortion counseling at Planned Parenthood killing centers. Mothers, babies, and taxpayers all lose.

AB 598 forcing abortion referrals and invasive questionnaires upon public schools by requiring children in government school grades 7 to 12 to all receive "physical or digital" referrals to abortions. The bill would have also mandated the anti-family "California Healthy Kids Survey" upon all school districts to impose in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11. This bill would have also required these invasive questionnaires to include "questions about sexual and reproductive health care as a core survey module for pupils in grades 7, 9, and 11."

AB 1120 forcing every government-controlled school "that serves pupils in grades 6 to 12" to "adopt a policy on universal mental health screening of pupils for youth behavior disorders." The big problem here is what is defined as a "youth behavior disorder?" Additionally, this bill did not require written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out for parents.

AB 1352 permitting 3 or 4 anti-family, pro-immorality school board members to remove a moral-values, pro-family board member from office.

AB 1450 requiring California government-run elementary and secondary schools "to conduct universal screenings for adverse childhood experiences." But what defines whether an experience was "adverse"? Under AB 1450, would good parents' loving training and discipline be labeled "adverse"? The bill contained no written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out.

SB 36 prohibiting California judges, law enforcement, or bail professionals from doing anything to help save pre-born babies or save children from "LGBTQIA+" mutilation. (But see SB 345, which the ruling Democrats passed and Gov. Newsom signed)

SB 729 requiring health insurance plans to pay for artificial insemination of surrogate women so that homosexual men or transsexuals -- can "have babies."

*  *  *  *  *

Full Description & Status: Top Bills We Tracked in 2023

This California bills section goes in-depth with information, analysis, bills links, and status.

The section below is organized as follows:

• Assembly Bills
• House and Senate Pro-'LGBTQIA+' Resolutions
• ACA 5 'Marriage Equality'
• Senate Bills 
• INSIGHT: Why do so many bad bills pass and good bills fail?
• Archive: 2022 & 2021 Bills Tracked & Outcomes

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
AB 5 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Rick Zbur would require all teachers and employees of California government schools in grades 7 through 12 to be brainwashed with "LGBTQ cultural competency training."

As amended May 2, this anti-family bill has been changed as following:

1. Instead of being a continous annual requirement, the pro-"LGBTQIA+" teacher training would "sunset" in 2030. This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, with the author coming back in a couple years with a new bill to make it permanent, now that everyone's "gotten used to it."

2. Instead of 4 hours of in-service training every 3 years, the amended AB 5 mandates "one hour of required training annually."

3. Instead of requiring a each school district to achieve a 95% completion rate of this pro-"LGBTQIA+" teacher training, the amended AB 5 now requires tracking the number of employees who are thusly indoctrinated, and posting that number on the school district's website and reporting it to the California Department of Education.

Before the Democrat author amended his own bill, the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's Office analyzed AB 5, as amended April 17: "This bill would require the State Department of Education, on or before July 1, 2025, to finalize the development of an online training delivery platform and an online training curriculum to support LGBTQ cultural competency training for teachers and other certificated employees, as specified. The bill...would require, commencing with the 2025–26 school year, each local educational agency, as defined, serving pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to use the online training delivery platform and curriculum, or an in-service alternative, to provide at least 4 hours of training at least once every 3 years to teachers and other certificated employees at those schools, as provided. The bill would require each local educational agency to ensure a 95% completion rate of the training required pursuant to these provisions within each 3-year training period, and would require the department to report specified completion data to the Legislature, as provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require these provisions to be known as the Safe and Supportive Schools Act."

Status | Votes: AB 5 has been sent to Governor Gavin Newsom after passing the Assembly on Sept. 11 (voting yes were 61 Democrats and 4 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Josh Hoover, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; abstaining were 14 Republicans and Democrat Carlos Villapudua). On Sept. 7, this bad bill passed the floor of the Democrat-controlled State Senate (all Democrats voted yes, 3 Republicans voted no (Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto), and 5 Republicans abstained (Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk). This bad bill was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee after its July 12 passage in the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats voted yes; abstaining were the two Republicans: Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk). Previously, on May 22, this bad bill passed the State Assembly with 64 yes votes (nearly all Democrats) and 4 no votes. Republicans voting yes were Juan Alanis, Josh Hoover, Marie Waldron, and Greg Wallis; Republicans voting no were Megan Dahle, Gallagher, Jim Patterson, and Joe Patterson; Republicans not voting were Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Kate Sanchez, and Tri Ta; Democrats not voting were Sharon Quirk-Silva and Carlos Villapudua. Previously, this bad bill was sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee's "suspense file." Earlier, on April 26, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee, where all the Democrats and Republican Josh Hoover voted yes for this bad bill, while Republican Megan Dahle abstained.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
AB 223 by "LGBTQIA+" Democrat activists (4 Democrat assemblymembers + 5 Democrat state senators) on June 5 was amended to give parents access to court information regarding a minor's legal change of name or "gender identity," but will essentially hide this information from legal authorities (particularly from other states trying to protect their resident children from irreversible harm).

Status | Votes: AB 223 was signed by Democrat Governor Newsom on Sept. 23 after passing the Senate floor on Sept. 6 (Democrats for, Republicans against) and the Assembly floor on Sept. 6, on a concurrence vote (voting yes were all 62 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Diane Dixon and Greg Wallis; voting no were 8 Republicans: Phillip Chen, Megan Dahle, Vince Fong, Devon Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta; abstaining were 8 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, James Gallagher, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Marie Waldron). Earlier, this bad bill passed June 13 in the Democrat-controlled State Senate Judiciary Committee (8 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no, and Democrat Henry Stern did not vote). Previously, on March 23, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor. Joining the supermajority Assembly Democrats in voting yes on AB 223 were 3 Republicans: Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, and Greg Wallis. The rest of the Republicans abstained, as did Democrats Sabrina Cervantes and Brian Maienschein. Previously, on March 14, the bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee. Joining all the committee's Democrats in voting yes were Republicans Dixon and Essayli, while Republican Kate Sanchez voted no.

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 315 by Democrat Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would allow civil lawsuits based on "emotional distress" against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for "false or misleading statements." This anti-child, anti-First-Amendment bill is an attempted "end run" around the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a previous Democrat bill requiring pro-abortion signage at California CPCs.

Status | Votes: This bad bill is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it did not escape the Assembly Appropriations by the May 19 deadline to pass fiscal bills to the floor (last action on May 18: "held under submission"). Previously, on May 3, AB 315 was put on the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Earlier, on March 21, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (all 8 Democrats voted yes; all 3 Republicans voted no). 

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
AB 352 by Democrat Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would hide from dads and moms their pre-teens' and teens' records on those children receiving mind-altering drugs, drug addiction treatment, fornicating advice, sexually transmitted disease treatments, "intimate partner violence," abortions, and sex-change procedures/operations. The bill would hide this "health information" by requiring:

a) any entity that electronically stores or maintain medical information to take specific steps to hide these "sensitive services"
b) the health care profession to refuse to cooperating with any inquiry or investigation in these "sensitive services" from within California or other states
c) a state advisory group to exclude these "sensitive services" in their statewide health information sharing policy.

The Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office explains AB 352, as amended Sept. 8:

This bill would require specified businesses that electronically store or maintain medical information on the provision of sensitive services on behalf of a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, contractor, or employer to develop capabilities, policies, and procedures, on or before July 1, 2024, to enable certain security features, including limiting user access privileges and segregating medical information related to gender affirming care, abortion and abortion-related services, and contraception, as specified. The bill would additionally prohibit a provider of health care, health care service plan, contractor, or employer from cooperating with any inquiry or investigation by, or from providing medical information to, an individual, agency, or department from another state or, to the extent permitted by federal law, to a federal law enforcement agency that would identify an individual or that is related to an individual seeking or obtaining an abortion or abortion-related services that are lawful under the laws of this state, unless the request for medical information is authorized in accordance with specified existing provisions of law. The bill would exempt a provider of health care from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions relating to cooperating with, or providing medical information to, another state or a federal law enforcement agency before January 31, 2026, if the provider of health care is working diligently and in good faith to comply with the prohibition. Because the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would exclude the exchange of health information related to abortion and abortion-related services from automatically being shared on the California Health and Human Services Data Exchange Framework.

Status | Votes: AB 352 was signed by Democrat Governor Newsom on Sept. 27, after passing the Democrat-controlled State Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 14 (voting yes were all 62 Dems + Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; voting no were the rest of the Republicans, except Diane Dixon and Josh Hoover abstained). The day prior, Sept. 13, this bad bill passed the State Senate floor (voting yes were 31 Democrats + Republican Scott Wilk; voting no were the rest of the Republicans; abstaining was Democrat Anna Caballero), following its Aug. 14 passage in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on July 12, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (Democrats voted yes, while Republicans Shannon Grove and Janet Nguyen did not vote). Previously, on June 27, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all the committee's Democrats voted yes, along with Republican Scott Wilk voting yes, while Republican Roger Niello voted no). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were all the Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); voting no were 12 Republicans: Megan Dahle, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, and Marie Waldron; abstaining were 4 Republicans: Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Heath Flora, and Josh Hoover. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committtee on May 18 (Democrats for except Robert Rivas not voting, all 4 Republicans voted no). Previously, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (all Democrats voted yes, voting no were Republicans Vince Fong and Joe Patterson, and Republican Bill Essayli abstained. On April 11, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; voting no were Republicans Vince Fong, Joe Patterson, and Marie Waldron; abstaining was Republican Heath Flora.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
AB 443 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson builds upon last year's AB 2229, which aimed to prohibiting sincerely religious law enforcement officers. This new bill, AB 443, would require the state's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to unconstitutionally define “biased conduct” in order to punish current police officers and police force applicants based on what a state commission finds on social media. AB 443 reads: "The commission shall develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective Internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. The guidance shall include, at minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for, and identifying, content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups." With family values organizations labeled as "hate groups" by the discredited SPLC, you know where this is going. Free-speech attorneys, prepare your federal lawsuits now!

Status | Votes: Governor Newsom signed AB 443 on Oct. 8, following its Sept. 13 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 Democrats + 4 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; voting no was Republican Jim Patterson; abstaining were the rest of the Republicans, including Democrats Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, James Ramos, Blanca Rubio). Earlier that same day, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate (voting yes were 28 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans + Democrat Melissa Hurtado; abstaining were Democrats Marie Alvarado-Gil, Anna Caballero, Dave Min). Previously, on Sept. 1, this intolerant bill passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Earlier, on July 11, this bad bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee (voting yes were 3 Democrats; abstaining were Democrat Aisha Wahab and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh). Previously, on May 13, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were 58 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); zero legislators voted no; abstaining were the rest of the Republicans and 4 Democrats (Blanca Pacheco, James Ramos, Freddie Rodriguez, and Blanca Rubio). Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; Republican Megan Dahle voted no; Republicans who abstained were Diane Dixon, Devon Mathis, Kate Sanchez). Earlier, on March 14, this unconstitutional bill unanimously passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee (the 6 Democrats and 2 Republicans -- Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey -- all voted yes).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 492 by Democrat Assemblymember Gail Pellerin this bill would seek to spend state and federal funds to create a pilot project adding the treatment of "mild-to-moderate behaviorial health conditions" to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists, which are defined in the bill "as a Medi-Cal provider that is enrolled in the Family PACT Program and that provides abortion- and contraception-related services." This bill attempts to add to Planned Parenthood's cover story of "comprehensive," non-abortion "services," and at its core aims to replace wiser counsel from parents, pastors, and psychologists. Bottom line, AB 492 would spend taxpayer money on lie-based, pro-abortion counseling at Planned Parenthood killing centers. Mothers, babies, and taxpayers all lose.

Status | Votes: This bad bill is DEAD FOR THE YEAR, since it has had no action since June 14, when it was referred to the State Senate Health Committee. Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were all 62 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); voting no were the remaining 16 Republicans. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Earlier, on April 18, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on a party-line vote (all 11 Democrats voted yes; all 4 Republicans voted no).

VETOED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM (his Oct. 7 signing message)
AB 576 by Democrat Assemblymember Akilah Weber would fully fund chemical abortions under the state's Medi-Cal (welfare) program. The previous version of the bill ordered the State of California to "fully reimburse providers for the provision of medication to terminate a pregnancy." However, the May 18 amendments to the bill, while striking this sentence, added new langugage to deceitfully permit the same thing:

SECTION 1. Section 14131.07 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
14131.07. (a) (1) By March 1, 2024, the department shall review and update Medi-Cal coverage policies for medication abortion to align with current evidence-based clinical guidelines.
(2) After the initial review, the department shall update its Medi-Cal coverage policies for medication abortion as needed to align with evidence-based clinical guidelines.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (a), the department shall allow flexibility for providers to exercise their clinical judgment when services are performed in a manner that aligns with one or more evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Status | Votes: Governor Newsom vetoed AB 576 on Oct. 7 (see his "unnecessary" signing message). Previously, this bad bill had passed the Senate floor on Sept. 11 (voting yes were 30 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans; abstaining were Democrats Marie Alvarado-Gil and Anna Caballero). Earlier, on Sept. 1, this baby-killing bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Previously, on June 28, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; abstaining were both Republicans, Shannon Grove and Janet Nguyen). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were 61 Democrats + 1 Republican (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area); voting no were the rest of the Republicans, except Diane Dixon abstained; also abstaining was Democrat Timothy Grayson. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Previously, this bad bill passed the  Assembly Health Committee on April 11 (voting yes were all the Democrats, except Carlos Villapudua abstained; voting no were all the Republicans).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 598 by Democrat Assemblymember Buffy Wicks would require that children at junior high and high schools all receive "physical or digital" referrals to abortions. The bill would also mandate the anti-family "California Healthy Kids Survey" upon all school districts to impose in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11. This bill would also require these invasive questionnaires include "questions about sexual and reproductive health care as a core survey module for pupils in grades 7, 9, and 11."

Status | Votes: AB 598 has had no action since July 5, has been languishing in the State Senate Education Committee, and is DEAD FOR THE YEAR. Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were all 62 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); voting no were the remaining 16 Republicans. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Earlier, on April 12, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; all the Republicans voted no).

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
AB 665 by Democrat Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo would permit minors 12 and above to consent to "mental health counseling" and "mental health treatment" at a government-funded "residential shelter." Parents would be cut out -- no parental notification or consent. Because children's brains are not fully developed until age 25, children cannot give informed consent, which is why parents are essential to making decisions on any medical or psychological treatment of their children. By removing any conditions for a child's "consent," AB 665 permits adults to both manipulate and legally "kidnap" impressionable children.

See Californian Erin Friday's AB 665 analysis and meeting with the author's staff

EXISTING LAW IN CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE 6924(b):
(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services.
(2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.

BUT AB 665 REPLACES THESE WORDS WITH:
(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if the minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services.

This change would give children who are 12 years old and up 100% unconditional consent to receive “mental health treatment or counseling” or to go live at a “residential shelter," without parental consent and without a "harm" or "abuse" reason.

By deleting existing law that prohibits taking away children from home unless “The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse,” AB 665 erases parental consent in this section of Family Code.

AB 665’s change would permit children 12 years and up, who are neither harming themselves nor are victims of abuse, to “consent” to “mental health treatment or counseling services” or to go live at a “residential shelter.” Again, current law requires parental consent, but this bill wipes out parental consent.

AB 665 would replace the existing law’s two exceptions by letting children as young as 12 somehow “consent” to “treatment,” “counseling,” and a secret “residential shelter,” without parental involvement, parental, or even requiring proof of efforts to notify parents, if a “professional person” (under AB 665, this could be non-experts, such as “a psychological trainee, an associate clinical social worker, a social work intern, a clinical counselor trainee”) simply opines the minor is “mature enough to participate intelligently.” By deleting the current law’s harm or abuse conditions, AB 665 eliminates parental consent prior to children being taken away to live a “residential shelter” to receive “mental health treatment.”

Status | Votes: Governor Newsom signed AB 665 on Oct. 7 (see his deceptive signing message), one month after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on Sept. 7 (60 Democrats voted yes, all 18 Republicans voted no, and 2 Democrats, Al Muratsuchi and Sharon Quirk-Silva, abstained), after passing the State Senate on Sept. 6 (31 Democrats voted yes, all 8 Republicans voted no, and 1 Democrat, Marie Alvarado-Gil, abstained). Earlier, on June 20, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Previously, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor on April 10 with 55 yes votes (all Democrats), 10 no votes (all Republicans: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Lackey, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Ta), and the rest of the Republicans and several Democrats abstained. Previously, AB 665 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 28, during which all but one of the majority Democrats voted yes; voting no were Republicans Bill Essayli and Kate Sanchez; not voting were Republican Diane Dixon and Democrat Ash Kalra.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
AB 659 by Democrat Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry would promote unneeded, ineffective, injurious Gardasil shots for all children in government-run or private (including church) schools before they enter 8th grade, and for college students 26 and younger at government-run UC, CSU, and community colleges. The bill requires government schools and private schools to notify parents (via letter or email or both) that Gardasil is "recommended" as the "public policy of the state." Additionally, these written notifications have to be "advising that the pupil be fully immunized against HPV before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level level."

Gardasil has injured and killed many. Yet Big Pharma Democrats are maniacally still pushing it. As amended, AB 659 still threatens pre-teens, teens, and college students by purporting “it is the public policy of the state” that children and young adults "are recommended" to be jabbed with Gardasil "before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school" and "before first-time enrollment at an institution of the California State University, the University of California, or the California Community Colleges." Previous versions of the bill (as amended April 12 and May 22), falsely claimed the shots "are expected," while earlier versions blatantly mandated Gardasil shots.

See our analysis of the Sept. 8 final amended version of AB 659, and take action

DETAILS OF THE JULY 3 AMENDED VERSION OF AB 659 (REPLACED "EXPECTED" WITH "RECOMMENDED")

SEC. 2. Section 48980.4 is added to the Education Code, to read:
48980.4. (a) The notification required pursuant to Section 48980 for pupils admitted to, or advancing to, the sixth grade shall include a notification to the pupil’s parent or guardian containing a statement about the state’s public policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 120336 of the Health and Safety Code, advising that the pupil be fully immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level.
(b) The notification sent pursuant to subdivision (a) shall conform to the notification requirements outlined in this article.

SEC. 4. Section 120336 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
120336. (a) It is the public policy of the state that pupils are recommended to be fully immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) before admission or advancement to the 8th eighth grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school.
(b) Upon a pupil’s admission or advancement to the sixth grade level, the governing authority of any private or public elementary or secondary school shall submit to the pupil and their parent or guardian a notification containing a statement about the state’s public policy described in subdivision (a) and advising that the pupil be fully immunized against HPV before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level, in compliance with the notification requirements of Article 4 (commencing with Section 48980) of Chapter 6 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code.
(c) This section does not apply to a pupil in a home-based private school.

SEC. 5. Section 120390 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
120390. The department, in consultation with the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as applicable, shall adopt and enforce all regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.

SEC. 6. Section 120390.6 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
120390.6. It is the public policy of the state that students who are 26 years of age or younger are recommended to be fully immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) before first-time enrollment at an institution of the California State University, the University of California, or the California Community Colleges.

Bottom line, as amended July 3, AB 659 continues to pressure California families, telling them "it is the public policy of the state" that pre-teens, teens, and college students "are expected" to receive at least two Gardasil jabs before advancing in their education. This bad bill pushes a dishonest product by pressuring and coercing millions of California families with children and college students!

Status | Votes: On Oct. 13, Governor Newsom signed AB 659, following its Sept. 13 passage in the Assembly (voting yes were 59 Democrats and 1 Republican, Greg Wallis; voting no or abstaining were the rest of the Republicans). On Sept. 12, this bad bill passed the State Senate (voting yes were 31 Democrats and 1 Republican, Scott Wilk; voting no were the rest of the Republicans, except for Shannon Grove, who abstained, as did Democrat Anna Caballero). Earlier, on Sept. 1, this harmful bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). After passing the Senate floor, it must pass the Assembly floor on a concurrence vote (agreeing with Senate amendments). This bad bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee after its July 12 passage in the Senate Education Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). Previously, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee on June 28 (voting yes were all the the committee's Democrats; Republican Janet Nguyen voted no, while Republican Shannon Grove abstained). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. When the bill passed the 80-member Assembly, it had 52 yes votes (11 more than the 41 majority-vote threshold). Voting yes were 51 Democrats and 1 Republican (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area); voting no were 12 Republicans (later Phillip Chen and James Gallagher added their "no" votes); Republicans who abstained were Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, and Tom Lackey; abstaining Democrats were Jasmeet Bains, Blanca Pacheco, Sharon Quirk-Silva, and Akilah Weber. See our May 31 report and new action step. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 17 (11 Democrats voted yes, 4 Republicans voted no, and Democrat Akilah Weber abstained. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on April 18 on a party-line vote (all the Democrats voted yes, except Democrat Akilah Weber abstained; all Republicans voted no). 

VETOED BY GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 22 veto message)
AB 957 by Democrat Assemblymember Lori Wilson, as amended July 3, still declares "the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes...a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression." Does this mean if a parent does not support the transsexuality of his or her own child, they have committed "neglect" or "abuse"? Under this bill, in a legal depute over determination of child custody and visitation, the parent supporting God's design of the two sexes would likely lose. This unscientific, pro-child-mutiliation bill would instruct the courts to oppose what's truly best for children and families.

And the August 17 amendments to AB 957 amount to "technical clean-up," and do nothing to accomodate religious parents, who do not and cannot support transsexuality.

DETAILS OF THE JULY 3 AMENDED VERSION OF AB 957:

As amended July 3, AB 957 continues to require “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression” in order to avoid a family court judge disfavoring and denying custodial-parent status to a non-affirming parent.

AB 957 still discriminates against otherwise loving parents who have a sincere religious faith by declaring: “As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.” -- AB 957’s July 3 amendment to Family Code §3011(a)(1)(B)

This amendment is double-speak. The first sentence instructs judges that health, safety, and welfare cannot exist for a transitioning child without the inclusion of “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.” Then, in the second sentence, it claims “affirmation” can mean other things, but then absolutely demands “but in every case must promote” a transitioning child’s “overall health and well-being” -- words synonymous with the bill’s revised definition of health, safety, and welfare, which now “includes... a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.” This creates a new requirement in family court that a custody-seeking parent must “affirm” the gender-transition of a child. Consequently, AB 957’s new edict “dings” religious parents who disagree with gender fluidity, threatening to deny otherwise good parents custodial-parent status and other custody and visitation rights.

In light of the absolute “affirmation” mandate and the severe lack of religious accommodation in the amended bill, the July 5 Senate Floor Analysis is misleading and inaccurate where it claims: “This bill does not compel the court to come to a particular outcome based on this factor or override the court’s discretion to reach a determination about the child’s best interest in light of all of the facts; it merely makes explicit the fact that affirmance of a child’s gender identity or gender expression is an important component of a child’s overall health, safety, and welfare which should be considered by the family court.”

On the contrary, AB 957 doesn’t say “affirmation” of child’s gender identity or gender expression” is “important,” but does say “affirmation” is required because the revised definition of health, safety, and welfare of a transitioning child now always “includes” verbal support – “affirmation” – of that gender transition. What’s more, in its amendment of Family Code §3011(a)(1)(B), AB 957 pounds in its exclusion of religious parents who disagree with gender fluidity by mandating “affirmation...in every case must promote” a transitioning child’s “overall health and well-being,” -- synonymous with health, safety, and welfare, which now “includes... a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.”

Status | Votes: AB 957 was vetoed by Gov. Newsom on Sept. 22 after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 8 (61 Democrats voted yes, 16 Republicans voted no, and 2 Republicans, Devon Mathis and Jim Patterson, abstained, as did Democrat Timothy Grayson), after passing the State Senate on Sept. 6 (30 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no, as did 1 Democrat, Marie Alvarado-Gil; abstaining was Democrat Melissa Hurtado). Realize the bill's several amendments this summer do not provide the religious accommodation for parents that 4 Democrat committee members called for. Previously, on June 13, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate Judiciary Committee (8 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no, and Democrat Henry Stern did not vote). Previously, on March 30, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly floor. Assemblymembers voting yes were 50 Democrats and 1 Republican, Greg Wallis; voting no were 13 Republicans; abstaining were 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans (Juan Alanis, Philip Chen, Heath Flora, Devon Mathis). Previously, on March 21, it passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no).

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 25 signing message)
AB 1078 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson, as amended July 13, attempts to push its intolerant "LGBTQIA+" agenda by mixing it in "Latino Americans" and "other ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic status groups," demanding and shaming pro-family school board members and newly empowering the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to punish school boards (such as Temecula's pro-family school board] that don't fully embrace homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. 

Here are the main parts of AB 1078, as amended Sept. 1, by the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Digest, with our notes in bolded brackets:

This bill would require that policy [the "policy" is a 2011 law dubbed the "Safe Place to Learn Act," which forced "acceptance" of everything "LGBTQIA+" and stifled constitutional dissent, including scientific facts of male-female differences] to include a statement that the policy applies to all acts of the governing board or body of the local educational agency, the superintendent of the school district, and the county superintendent of schools [this is to try to scare local school districts into supporting everything "LGBTQIA+" -- or else] in enacting policies and procedures that govern the local educational agency. Because this provision would impose an additional requirement on local educational agency officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the department, [this is the California Department of Education] no later than July 1, 2025, to develop guidance and public educational materials [this is threatening, overly-broad, lie-based "LGBTQIA+" propaganda] to ensure that all Californians can access information about educational laws and policies that safeguard the right to an accurate and inclusive curriculum [so no school district deviates from the State's "LGBTQIA+" propaganda lies, which mislead, confuse, and harm children].

This bill would revise the list of the above-described culturally and racially diverse groups to instead include materials that accurately portray the contributions of people of all genders and the role and contributions of Latino Americans, LGBTQ+ Americans [promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality as "admirable"] and other ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic status groups. By imposing new obligations on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department, no later than July 1, 2025, to issue guidance related to how to help school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and school personnel manage conversations about race and gender, and how to review instructional materials to ensure that they represent diverse perspectives and are culturally relevant.

The bill would prohibit the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school [this is the State eliminating local control of schools] from refusing to approve or prohibiting the use of any textbook, instructional material, or other curriculum or any book or other resource in a school library on the basis that it includes [descriptions of "LGBTQIA+" relationships, behaviors, and agendas must be included] a study of the role and contributions of any individual or group consistent with the above-described requirements relating to instruction in social sciences and the adoption of instructional materials that accurately [omitting uncomfortable, even shocking, "LGBTQIA+ details is not permitted] portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society. The bill would also prohibit the governing board of a school district or a county board of education from prohibiting the continued use of an appropriately adopted textbook, instructional material, or curriculum on the basis that it contains inclusive and diverse perspectives [local control of schools on sexual content would be abolished]. By imposing new obligations on local educational agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Status | Votes: AB 1078 was signed by Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 25 after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 7 (61 Democrats voted yes; 17 Republicans voted no; and Republican Bill Essayli and Democrat Jacqui Irwin abstained), after passing the State Senate, also on Sept. 7 (31 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no, as did 1 Democrat, Marie Alvarado-Gil). Earlier, on July 5, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (all Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Earlier, on May 30, this bad bill passed the State Assembly (voting yes were Republican Greg Wallis and all the Democrats, except Timothy Grayson, who abstained; the rest of the Republicans voted no, except Juan Alanis, who abstained). Earlier, on May 18, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Previously, on April 26, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (all Democrats voted yes; both Republican voted no).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 1120 by Democrat Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel would require every government-controlled school "that serves pupils in grades 6 to 12" to "adopt a policy on universal mental health screening of pupils for youth behavior disorders." The big problem here is what is defined as a "youth behavior disorder?" Since more and more Democrat-driven agendas are to extinguish biblical or moral or traditional values, this bill could easily call right wrong and good bad. Another problem is AB 1120 does not require written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out, saying only that the local educational agency will determine "The manner in which parents or guardians of pupils will be notified and given the option to object to the mental health screenings."

Status: This bad bill is DEAD FOR THE YEAR. Its last action on March 29 in the Assembly Education Committee, but then, "Hearing canceled at the request of author."

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 8 signing message)
AB 1194 by Democrat Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo would hide the fact that a minor girl is "accessing, procuring, or searching for abortion services." For all practical purposes, this means prohibiting saving these young mothers' lives if "something goes wrong." As the California-based Right to Life League explains: "The bill does not protect consumers; rather it is designed to protect abortion providers at the cost of women’s health. AB 1194 creates an exception to the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) which will block the ability to disclose personal information of a consumer where the consumer is at risk of danger of death or serious physical injury. The bill does so by proclaiming that a consumer who seeks abortion care services does not constitute a natural person being at risk or danger of death or serious physical injury. This carve out makes no sense and is very dangerous for women. AB 1194 ignores the very real physical risk to women of surgical and chemical abortions. Surgical abortions can result in the death of women. According to the FDA, 28 women have died in association with taking the abortion pill."

Status | Votes: In a convoluted message, which ethically should have been a veto message, Governor Newsom signed AB 1194 on Oct. 8, following its Sept. 13 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 62 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Greg Wallis; most of the other Republicans voted no, except abstaining were Republicans Diane Dixon, Josh Hoover, Marie Waldron). The day prior, Sept. 12, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate floor (voting yes were 29 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk; voting no were Republicans Brian Dahle, Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Roger Niello, Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Shannon Grove and Democrats Anna Caballero, Lena Gonzalez, Monique Limón). Earlier, on Aug. 14, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, this bad bill passed on June 20 in the State Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats plus Republican Scott Wilk; abstaining was Republican Roger Niello). Earlier, on May 22, this bad bill passed the State Assembly. Voting yes were 61 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Alanis, Mathis, Wallis); voting no were 8 Republicans (Megan Dahle, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, and Tri Ta); abstaining were 6 Republicans (Phillip Chen, Diane Dixon, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Jim Patterson, Marie Waldron) and 2 Democrats (Sharon Quirk-Silva and Ash Kalra). On May 10, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle and Kate Sanchez, and not voting were Republicans Diane Dixon and Devon Mathis). Earlier, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Committee (Democrats voted yes; Republican Vince Fong voted no; Republicans Bill Essayli and Joe Patterson did not vote).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 1352 by Democrat Assemblywoman Mia Bonta would permit 3 or 4 anti-family, pro-immorality school board members to remove a moral-values, pro-family board member from office. Support family values? Oppose the "LGBTQIA+" agenda? Support the Constitution? Believe the Bible? Under AB 1352, you're gone, because California law no longer tolerates any school board member who "adopts a policy that contradicts any existing law requiring a school district to have inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum."

While not defined in the bill, "inclusive" nowadays means supporting the entire "LGBTQIA+" agenda. But what is "adopts a policy"? So if you think about moral standards or have voted for parental rights or haven't hired a trassexual lately -- have you now "adopted" a "policy" against "inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum"? This non-inclusive bill would kick true Christians and other moral-values school board members out of office!

As described by the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Office: "This bill would expressly prohibit the governing board of a school district from taking an action that contradicts any existing law requiring a school district to have inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum. The bill would authorize the governing board of a school district to censure a member or, by a 2/3 vote of the governing board, remove a member from office if the member prevents the governing board from conducting its business or adopts a policy that contradicts any existing law requiring a school district to have inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum."

Status | Votes: AB 1352 has had no action since June 28 and is DEAD FOR THE YEAR. Earlier, this intolerant bill was re-referred to the State Senate Education Committee after being withdrawn June 21 from the Senate Human Services Committee, following its initial June 14 passage in the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats + both Republicans, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk). Is this bad bill in trouble or a legislative priority of the ruling Democrats? Earlier, on May 25, this anti-family-values bill passed the Assembly floor with the support of 75 out of 80 assemblymembers (the only abstentions came from Democrats Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Lisa Calderon, Ash Kalra, and Diane Papan, and Republican Devon Mathis).

VETOED BY GAVIN NEWSOM (his Oct. 7 veto message)
AB 1432 by Democrat Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo would require group health insurance carriers that sell policies in California to "cover" the killing of preborn babies via abortion and "sex changes" (the bill calls this "gender-affirming care"). Beyond the lie and harm of these "operations," AB 1432 would raise the cost of insurance for the rest of us.

According to the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office, AB 1432 -- as amended August 23 -- "would subject a policy or certificate of group health insurance that is marketed, issued, or delivered to a California resident to all provisions of the Insurance Code requiring coverage of abortion, abortion-related services, and gender-affirming care, regardless of the situs of the contract or master group policyholder."

Status | Votes: AB 1432 was vetoed on Oct. 7 by Governor Newsom. Previously, on Sept. 7, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote (62 Democrats voted yes, along with Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; 15 Republicans voted no; Republican Bill Essayli abstained), a day after passing the State Senate on Sept. 6 (all 32 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no). Earlier this summer, on June 21, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Previously, on May 18, this bad bill passed the State Assembly. Voting yes were 59 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Alanis, Wallis); voting no were 13 Republicans (Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta); abstaining were 3 Republicans (Dixon, Vince Fong, Waldron) and 3 Democrats (Cervantes, Friedman, Wilson). Earlier, this bad bill on May 10 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle, Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez; not voting was Republican Devon Mathis). Previously, AB 1432 passed the Assembly Health Committee on April 18 (all Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 1450 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson would require every California government-run elementary and secondary school "to conduct universal screenings for adverse childhood experiences." But what defines whether an experience was "adverse"? Under AB 1450, will good parents' loving training and discipline be labeled "adverse," so get these children into "re-education" counseling right away? The bill contains no written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out.

Status: AB 1450 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it never had a hearing in the Assembly Education Committee and never passed that committee or any other committees.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
AB 1720 by Democrat Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan will penalize pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that show pregnant women ultrasound of their pre-born babies without a license. The fine is $2,500 "for a first offense," and $5,000 "for each subsequent offense." It can be enforced by the California Attorney general, county district attorney, or city attorney. This new law will hurt CPCs that aren't themselves licensed for ultrasound, but invite in licensed physicians to provide eye-opening ultrasound images to expectant mothers. As the Right to Life League of California explains, "AB 1720’s regulation of ultrasound settings invites arbitrary state enforcement threatening the constitutionally protected professional speech pro-life pregnancy centers that do not offer ultrasounds, but refer to licensed physicians who provide ultrasounds as sole proprietors on-site." AB 1720 is a new harrassment tool making it harder for otherwise compliant pro-life CPCs to save pre-born babies, because they can now be "charged" with violating the ultrasound law.

Status | Votes: AB 1720 was signed Sept. 27 by Gov. Newsom, after this bad bill's final passage in the Legislature on Sept. 14. Voting yes in the State Assembly and State Senate were all the Democrats, except State Senator Anna Caballero abstained; voting no in both houses were all the Republicans, except State Assemblyman Heath Flora abstained.   

Pro-'LGBTQIA+' Resolutions

HR 33 and SR 33 are resolutions (public statements of the Legislature) with the same text, except for the Assembly and Senate labels in the final paragraphs.

HR 33 includes the following proclamations:

  • "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are...serving as role models for all"
  • "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people...enrich our national life"
  • "An unprecedented number of adults in the United States identify as LGBTQ+, with a jump from 5.6 percent to 7.1 percent of Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer in 2022. Young people, especially Generation Z, are driving the increase"
  • "The transgender community in particular, has gained newfound prominence in the media, entertainment, sports, and business, raising awareness about gender identity and the obstacles this community continues to face"
  • "In January 2023, California became the first state legislature in the nation to reach 10 percent representation for LGBTQ+ individuals"
  • "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer rights are targeted by state legislators all across the nation with over 450 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in 2023 alone, according to American Civil Liberties Union. Making it increasingly pertinent for advocates and lawmakers to continue fighting for and protecting LGBTQ+ rights in the state of California."
  • "the Assembly proclaims June 2023 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) Pride Month, urges all Californians to join in celebrating the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people, and encourages the people of California to work to help advance the cause of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people, and their families"

HOW THEY VOTED: On June 5, HR 33 was adopted by a voice vote on the Assembly floor, after individual votes to add coauthors. Joining most of the Democrats as coauthors were Republicans Juan Alanis, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis. Also on June 5, SR 33 was approved by individual votes of state senators -- 30 Democrats + Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh voted yes, while 7 Republicans abstained, as did Democrats Dave Min and Anthony Portantino.

ACA 5 'Marriage Equality'

PASSED THE LEGISLATURE TO BE PLACED ON THE MARCH 2024 BALLOT
ACA 5 is coauthored by 77 Democrat senators and assemblymembers, plus 1 Republican assemblymember, Greg Wallis. If passed by two-thirds of both houses of the California State Legislature, this proposed state constitutional amendment would place so-called "marriage equality" on the March 5, 2024 California ballot.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Digest describes: "The California Constitution provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, and federal law permanently enjoins the state from enforcing this constitutional provision. This measure would repeal this unenforceable constitutional provision and would instead provide that the right to marry is a fundamental right, as specified."

The overly-broad words of ACA 5, which would go into the California Constitution, are: "The right to marry is a fundamental right." This has no definition at all. It would permit unlimited spouses and extreme polygamy; it would destroy the current minimum age for marriage, thus ushering in "child marriages"; and it fails to even mention or define "spouse," thus someone could argue "a fundamental right" to "marry" an animal, an object, or even "themself." Again, marriage is completely undefined, rendering ACA 5 "marriage anarchy."

This is all about symbolism and lies versus truth. In 2008, California voters placed into the California State Constitution, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal striking down Prop. 8, and homosexual marriages started happening in California.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that homosexuals can obtain marriage licenses in all 50 states. And even though Prop. 8 is legally dead, "LGBTQIA+" activists hate seeing the 14 words of truth about marriage in the California Constitution. So they're trying to remove it the only way possible, by passing a state constitutional amendment and getting a majority of California voters to support it.

Status | Votes: ACA 5 passed the State Senate floor on July 13 with the "yes" votes of 30 Democrats and 1 Republican, Scott Wilk (the rest of the Republicans and 2 Democrats abstained). ACA 5 will now go on the November 2024 ballot (proposed state constitutional amendments by the Legislature go to the People, not the governor, for ratification). Previously, on July 10, this very bad measure passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (all the committee's Democrats voted yes, and the committee's two Republicans -- Brian Jones and Kelly Seyarto -- both abstained). Earlier, on July 5, ACA 5 passed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee (all Democrats voted yes, while Republican Janet Nguyen abastained). Previously, on June 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved this radical immoral state constitutional amendment (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats, including Republicans Roger Niello and Scott Wilk). The day before, on June 26, this anti-natural-family measure passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 58 Democrats and 9 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Josh Hoover, Devon Mathis, Marie Waldron, and Greg Wallis). Earlier, on June 21, ACA 5 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were 9 Democrats + Republicans Diane Dixon and Devon Mathis; no one opposed it; abstaining were Republicans Megan Dahle and Kate Sanchez and Democrats Isaac Bryan, Josh Lowenthal and Diane Papan). Previously, on June 13, this proposed constitutional amendment passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all 8 Democrats + Republican Diane Dixon; voting no was Republican Kate Sanchez; abstaining was Republican Bill Essayli). Earlier, on February 14, ACA 5 was introduced on the Assembly floor, at that time gaining most of its coauthors.

Bad bills by Senate Democrats

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SB 36 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would prevent California judges, law enforcement, or bail professionals from helping save pre-born human life or save kids from "LGBTQIA+" mutilation. As the Democrat-run Public Safety Committee said, SB 36 does four things to prohibit any California "authority" from helping with the arrest and detention of out-of-state residents seeking California abortions and "sex changes":

(1) Prohibit a magistrate from issuing a warrant for the arrest of a bail fugitive whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of another state’s laws that criminalize abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or gender-affirming care that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state, regardless of the individual’s location;
2) State that it is a misdemeanor for a bail fugitive recovery agent or bail bondsman to take into custody a bail fugitive whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of another state’s laws that criminalize abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or genderaffirming care that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state and makes them ineligible for a license to operate in California;
3) Prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency from providing information or assistance to specified entities regarding legally protected health care activity, which includes abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or gender-affirming care that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state; and,
4) State that a person who is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody and confinement after conviction, for the above-described acts, is not ineligible for the California Work Opportunity

Status | Votes: SB 36 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it never escaped the State Senate Appropriations Committee by its May 19 deadline. Last action on May 18: "Held in committee and under submission." Earlier, on April 18, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, except Angelique Ashby abstained; all the Republicans voted no). Earlier, on March 14, this bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee (all 4 Democrats voted yes, and the sole Republican abstained).

VETOED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM (his Oct. 7 veto message)
SB 58 by Democrat State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Scott Wiener would legalize the mind-altering, "hallucinogenic substances" of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline. This bill, by legalizing these harmful, "recreational drugs" for 21-year-olds, would, for all practical purposes, open the door to teens and pre-teens getting it. A stoned society is not a safe society.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office describes SB 58, as amended Sept. 1:

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the possession, preparation, obtaining, or transportation of, specified quantities of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline, for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older. The bill would provide penalties for possession of these substances on school grounds, or possession by, or transferring to, persons under 21 years of age.

The bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a workgroup to study and make recommendations on the establishment of a framework governing the therapeutic use, including facilitated or supported use, of those substances. The bill would require that workgroup to send a report to the Legislature containing those recommendations on or before January 1, 2025.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the cultivation or transportation of specified quantities of spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other materials that contain psilocybin or psilocyn for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older.

This bill would exempt from this prohibition, paraphernalia related, as specified, to these specific substances. The bill would also exempt from the prohibition items used for the testing and analysis of controlled substances.

Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the messages and information provided by various state drug and alcohol programs promote no unlawful use of any drugs or alcohol. This bill would repeal those provisions.

Status | Votes: Governor Newsom vetoed SB 58 on Oct. 7, a month after passing the Democrat-controlled State Senate on Sept. 7 with no votes to spare (21 Democrats voted yes, while all 8 Republicans and 11 Democrats either voted no or abstained), after passing the Assembly on Sept. 6 with only two votes to spare (41 Democrats voted yes, along with 3 Republicans: Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Marie Waldron). Previously, this bad bill passed on July 11 in the Assembly Health Committee (voting "yes" were 7 Democrats + Republicans Heath Flora and Marie Waldron; voting "no" were Republicans Vince Fong and Joe Patterson; abstaining were Democrats Wendy Carrillo, Brian Maienschein, Freddie Rodriguez, and Akilah Weber). Previously, on June 27, this bad bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were most of the committee's Democrats; voting no were Republicans Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey). Earlier, on May 24, this bad bill passed the State Senate with a bare minimum of 21 yes votes from Democrats. Voting no were all 8 Republicans + 6 Democrats (Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Glazer, Hurtado, Umberg, Wahab). Abstaining were 3 Democrats (Blakespear, Limón, Min). Earlier, this bad bill on May 1 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on March 21, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate Public Safety Committee by the narrowest of margins (3 Democrats voted yes, Democrat Aisha Wahab voted no, while Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh did not vote).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SB 59 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would dramatically expand "free menstual products" in California. If this bill were only about using taxpayer money to "stock menstrual products" in women's restrooms in state-and-local-government buildings and state-funded hospitals, it would simply be another big-government "nanny government" program. Yet by mimicking existing bad law requiring "free menstual products" at certain public schools' "all-gender restrooms, and in at least one men’s restroom," SB 59 descends into lunacy by claiming men have a uterus that can discharge blood, and requiring menstual pads "in at least one men’s restroom" in government buildings and most hospitals. If this passes, expect a future bill that would require "free menstual products" be stocked by private-sector businesses.

Status | Votes: SB 59 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it did not escape the State Senate Appropriations Committee's "suspense file" by the May 19 deadline. Earlier, on March 29, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all 10 Democrats, voting no was Republican Shannon Grove, abstaining was Republican Janet Nguyen). Earlier, on March 14, this bad bill passed the Senate Governmental Organization (all Democrats voted yes; all Republicans voted no).

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
SB 274 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would eliminate government-school suspensions or expulsions based on "disrupting school activities" or "willful defiance" of teachers, staff, or school administrators. Yet the SB 274 amendments still permit teachers to suspend disruptive or defiant students for less than two days -- "for the day of the suspension and the day following." What's more, SB 274 would prohibit suspensions or expulsions based on a student's unexcused absences.

The August 14 amendments don't make the bill better. The author of SB 274 is actually playing a trick by calling her bill "temporary" by inserting a 2029 "sunset" provision.

As the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office describes the amended bill: "This bill would extend the prohibition against the suspension of pupils enrolled in any of grades 6 to 8, inclusive, including those pupils enrolled in a charter school, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties to all grades, by 4 years to instead be until July 1, 2029, and, commencing July 1, 2024, would prohibit the suspension of pupils enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, including those pupils enrolled in a charter school, for those acts until July 1, 2029, but would retain a teacher’s existing authorization to suspend any pupil in any grade from class for any of the listed acts, including willful defiance, for the day of the suspension and the day following, as provided."

Status | Votes: Governor Newsom signed SB 274 on Oct. 8, following this bad bill's Sept. 6 passage in the State Senate on a concurrence vote (31 Democrats voted yes, along with Republican Brian Dahle; 6 Republicans voted no; abstaining were Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Democrat Melissa Hurtado), after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 7 (61 Democrats voted yes; 13 Republicans voted no; 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat abstained). Earlier, this bad bill on July 12 passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; abstaining were both Republicans: Megan Dahle and Josh Hoover). Previously, on May 11, this bad bill passed the State Senate (all Democrats voted yes and so did Republicans Brian Dahle, Janet Nguyen, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, and Scott Wilk; voting no were Republicans Brian Jones, Roger Niello, and Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Shannon Grove). On April 12, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (joining all the Democrats in voting yes were both Republicans, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk).

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
SB 345 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would make California even more pro-abortion and pro-"sex changes" than ever. The bill would stop any preborn baby from being referred to as "child" and "person" in California's statutes. SB 345 also aims to remove all legal hurdles to children from other states being brought to California for abortions and "sex change" procedures and operations. What's more, the bill would eliminate certain peaceful, free speech activities of California pro-lifers, stating very broadly, "A person or business shall not collect, use, disclose, or retain the personal information of a person who is physically located at, or in close proximity to, a family planning center." And SB 345 would exempt from murder "a mother who committed the act that resulted in the death of the fetus."

The Democrat-run Legislative Counsel office's described SB 345, as amended Sept. 1:

This bill would prohibit a healing arts board, as defined, from denying an application for a license or imposing discipline upon a licensee or health care practitioner on the basis of a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or disciplinary action in another state if that judgment, conviction, or disciplinary action is based solely on the application of another state’s law that interferes with a person’s right to receive sensitive services, as defined, that would be lawful if provided in this state, regardless of the patient’s location. The bill would further provide that the performance, recommendation, or provision of a legally protected health care activity by a licensee or health care practitioner acting within their scope of practice for a patient who resides in a state in which the performance, recommendation, or provision of that legally protected health care activity is illegal, does not, by itself, constitute professional misconduct, upon which discipline or other penalty may be taken.

In this connection, the bill would define a “legally protected health care activity” to mean specified acts, including, among others, the exercise and enjoyment, or attempted exercise and enjoyment, by a person of rights related to reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services secured by the Constitution or laws of this state or the provision of by a health care service plan contract or a policy, or a certificate of health insurance, that provides for those services.

Our previous analysis:

Specifically, this bill does its utmost to hide abortions done on minors and "sex changes" done on minors as "legally protected health care activities." SB 345 would prohibit the state's medical, dental, and other medical boards from suspending or revoking a license from providing a service or treatment of a "legally protected health care activity," which the bill defines as "reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care service." Expanding existing pro-abortion law, SB 345 would declare criminal or civil action by other states over those bringing pregnant teenagers across state lines to California to be "contrary to the public policy of this state" and states that "California law governs in any action against a person who provides or receives by any means, including telehealth, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."

In addition, SB 345 declares that "interference" and any "public act or record of a foreign jurisdiction" suing any California entity in order to rescue children from "reproductive or gender-affirming health care services" is "a violation of public policy." What's more, the bill permits any Californian who's sued for violating another jurisdiction's policies against aborting babies and mutilating children via "sex change" procedures/operations to countersue the initiator of the lawsuit as a perpetrator of "abusive litigation." And SB 345 would require California courts to "stay" ("pause") another state's money judgment for the liability of spriting away minors for dangerous abortions and injurious "sex changes." Finally, this bill prohibits the governor of California from extraditing to another state anyone in California who's been charged by another state for pushing an abortion or "sex change" on a minor, and prohibits state and local law enforcement from doing anything to apprehend the suspect.

SB 345 would also legalize DIY abortions and perhaps even infanticide by exempting from a charge of murder "a mother who committed the act that resulted in the death of the fetus." What's more, throughout California statutes, SB 345 would replace “unborn child” with “fetus," and “unborn person” with “unborn beneficiary.”

The July 6 amendments, making the bill even worse, do the following:

  • Replaces "abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or gender-affirming care" with "sexual or reproductive health care"
  • Replaces "mother of the fetus" with "person pregant with the fetus"
  • Repeals existing law prohibiting "an abortion from being performed upon an unemancipated minor unless she first has given her written consent to the abortion and also has obtained the written consent of one of her parents or legal guardian."
  • Exempts "a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or contractor" from SB 345's prohibition of collecting, using, disclosing, or retaining the personal information of a person who is physically located 1,850 square feet within an abortion "clinic."

Status | Votes: SB 345 was signed by Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 27 after passing the State Senate on Sept. 7 on a concurrence vote (all 32 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no), after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on Sept. 6 (61 Democrats voted yes, as did Republican Greg Wallis); 15 Republicans voted no; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, and Democrat Timothy Grayson). Earlier, this bad bill passed July 11 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no was Republican Tom Lackey; abstaining was Republican Juan Alanis). Previously, on July 5, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, Republicans Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez voted no, Republican Bill Essayli abstained). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Voting yes were all 32 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans. Earlier, this bad bill on May 18 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrat yes, Republicans no). Previously, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats voted yes except for Democrat Henry Stern, who did not vote; both Republicans voted no). Earlier, this bad bill was approved April 18 by the Senate Public Safety Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no).

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM
SB 385 by Democrat State Senator and former abortion clinic director Toni Atkins would expand on last year's bill allowing nurses -- and now letting physician assistants -- to engage in "performing an abortion by aspiration techniques" (a suction abortion that vacuums a preborn baby -- dismembering, torturing, and killing a little boy or girl). SB 385 would also lower training standards for physician assistants performing abortions (this means greater risk to mothers). What's more, SB 385 would remove virtually all legal and regulatory accountability, declaring, "A person authorized to perform abortion by aspiration techniques...shall not be punished, held liable for damages in a civil action, or denied any right or privilege for any action relating to the evaluation of clinical competency of a physician assistant." This bill is an abortionist's dream (and the worst nightmare for preborn babies).

Status | Votes: SB 385 was signed by Governor Newsom on Sept. 8, following this baby-killing bill's Aug. 24 passage in the State Senate, passing earlier that same day in the Assembly (57 Democrats and Republican Greg Wallis voted yes; 15 Republicans voted no; abstaining were 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats). Previously, on August 16, this bad bill passed the Democrat Assembly Appropriations Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). Earlier, this bad bill on June 27 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were the committee's Democrats; voting no were Republicans Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez; not voting was Republican Bill Essayli). Previously, this bad bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee (most Democrats voted yes, most Republicans voted no; abstaining was Republican Juan Alanis and Democrat Mike Gipson). Earlier, on May 8, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate floor (voting yes were 28 Democrats, voting no were all 8 Republicans, and abstaining were 4 Democrats: Marie Alvarado-Gil, Melissa Hurtado, Dave Min, and Richard Roth). Previously, on May 1, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. Earlier, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; all the Republicans voted no). Previously, this bad bill passed April 10 in the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Voting yes were all the Democrats; all the Republicans voted no.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
SB 407 by Democrat State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Scott Wiener would make California foster parents -- even those with biblical, moral values -- support the "LGBTQIA+" agenda to the extreme. According to the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Office, as amended Sept. 7, with our analysis in brackets and bolded:

This bill would require a resource family to demonstrate an ability and willingness to meet the needs of a child [agree with and support everything "LGBTQIA+" for a child], regardless of the child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as specified [no "LGBTQIA+" behavior is ever wrong or detrimental]. To the extent this bill would create new duties for counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require counties to ensure [instructing them not to permit moral/religious foster parents] that the caregiver training described above supports children of all races, ethnic group identifications, ancestries, national origins, colors, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, [this is the unnatural behavior this bill is pushing], mental or physical disabilities, or HIV statuses in foster care. To the extent this bill would create new duties for counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Status | Votes: SB 407 was signed by Governor Newsom on Sept. 23, soon after passing the Senate floor on a concurrence vote on Sept. 14 (all Democrats voted yes and all Republicans voted no). The day prior, Sept. 13, this bad bill passed the Assembly (voting yes were 61 Democrats; voting no were 14 Republicans: Megan Dahle, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta; abstaining was Democrat Avelino Valencia and Republicans Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis). Earlier, on Sept. 1, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11 Democrats voted yes; all Republicans voted no; Democrat Esmeralda Soria abstained). Earlier, this bad bill on June 20 passed the Assembly Human Services Committee (all Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Previously, on May 24, this bad bill passed the State Senate (31 Democrats yes, 5 Republicans no -- Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Seyarto, Wilk -- and abstaining were 3 Republicans (Dahle, Grove, Ochoa Bogh) + 1 Democrat (Limón). Earlier, on May 18, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Previously, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats voted yes except for Democrat Henry Stern, who did not vote; both Republicans voted no). Earlier, on April 17, this bad bill passed the Senate Human Services Committee by just one vote (3 Democrats voted yes, Democrat Melissa Hurtado abstained and so did Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh).

VETOED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM (his Oct. 8 veto message)
SB 541 by Democrat State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Caroline Menjivar requires "internal and external condoms" to be made available "to all pupils free of charge" in grades 9 through 12 at government-controlled junior high and high schools (includes charter schools). SB 541 would also permit school districts to give condoms to children as young as 7th grade.  This bill would also "prohibit a retail establishment, as defined, from refusing to furnish nonprescription contraception to a person solely on the basis of age by means of any conduct, including, but not limited to, requiring the customer to present identification for purposes of demonstrating their age." What's more, the bill would subsidize with taxpayer money Gardasil injections (the so-called "HPV vaccine) by the abortion giant Planned Parenthood and others that provide "comprehensive clinical family planning services."

What's more, SB 541 prohibits schools from stopping "school-based health centers" from "making internal and external condoms available and easily accessible to pupils." And if there's no budget money for SB 541's condom distribution, "The bill would authorize a state agency, the State Department of Education, or a public school to accept gifts, grants, and donations from any source for the support of a public school carrying out these provisions, including, but not limited to, the acceptance of condoms from a manufacturer or wholesaler."

Status | Votes: SB 541 has been sent to Governor Newsom after its Sept. 11 passage in the Democrat-controlled State Senate (voting yes were 30 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans and Democrat Marie Alvarado-Gil; abstaining was Democrat Anna Caballero). This followed this bill's Sept. 7 passage in the Assembly (all 62 Democrats voted yes, as did Republicans Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Marie Waldron; 11 Republicans voted no; 4 Republicans abstained -- Phillip Chen, Bill Essayli, Josh Hoover, Greg Wallis). Earlier this summer, this bad bill on July 11 passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats + Republican Marie Waldron; voting no were Republicans Heath Flora, Vince Fong, and Joe Patterson). Previously, on June 28, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Commmittee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no was Republican Megan Dahle; not voting was Republican Josh Hoover). Earlier, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Voting yes were 31 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans + Democrat Marie Alvarado-Gil. Previously, this bad bill on May 18 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a party-line vote -- Democrats for; Republicans against. Earlier, on April 12, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (all Democrats voted yes; voting no was Republican Janet Nguyen; abstaining was Republican Shannon Grove. Earlier, on March 29 SB 41 passed the Senate Education Committee (all Democrats voted yes; both Republicans voted no).

VETOED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM (his Oct. 8 veto message)
SB 596 by Democrat State Senator Anthony Portantino would give chairpersons of liberal school boards the power to subjectively claim members of the public who speak at meetings have caused "substantial disorder," so they'll be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor crime.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office describes this intolerant bill, "substantial disorder” includes substantial disorder at any meeting of the governing board of a school district, the governing body of a charter school, a county board of education, or the State Board of Education. 

So, if the liberal chair dislikes you because you're pro-family or raised your voice or are "disrespectful," you can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor crime? There's nothing in the bill to protect free speech or clearly define "substantial disorder." Yet the bill specifically says you can be fined $1,000 and jailed for a whole year.

As amended Sept. 7, this bad bill still subjects any adult to being arrested and charged with a misdemeanor who a school board member subjectively claims "harassment." Because the bill's subjective definition means any moral citizen that a liberal school board member feels uncomfortable with can be put in handcuffs:

“Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.

Status | Votes: Governor Newsom vetoed SB 596 on Oct. 8, following its Sept. 12 passage on the State Senate floor (voting yes were 30 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans; abstaining were Democrats Anna Caballero and Susan Eggman). This followed the bill's Sept. 11 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were all 62 Democrats + Republicans Diane Dixon, Josh Hoover, Greg Wallis; the rest of the Republicans either voted no or abstained). Previously, on July 11, this bad bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were 4 Democrats + Republican Juan Alanis, abstaining were Democrat Reggie Jones-Sawyer and Republican Tom Lackey). Earlier, on June 28, this anti-free-speech bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrat members, including Republican Josh Hoover; abstaining was Republican Megan Dahle). Earlier, on May 24, this unconstitutional bill passed the State Senate floor with 30 Democrats voting yes, while all 8 Republicans voted no. 

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SB 729 by homosexual activist and Democrat State Senator Caroline Menjivar would require health insurance plans to pay for artificial insemination of surrogate women so that homosexual men or transsexuals -- can have babies. This redefines morality, turns the definition of family upside down, and will further increase the cost of health insurance for everyone else.

As the Washington Free Beacon explains:

California already requires health care insurance providers to cover fertility treatments other than in vitro fertilization for policyholders who are medically infertile. The law defines infertility based on a physician's diagnosis or according to the widely accepted definition of not being able to have a child after a year or more of trying.

Emma Waters, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation, pointed to concerns about nontraditional families and forms of reproduction, including surrogacy and IVF.

"Under this bill, most insurance plans would be required to provide in vitro fertilization services based on someone’s relationship status or sexual orientation," Waters said. "For single men or male same-sex couples, this means they would need to access a surrogate to carry their child. So the bill is outlining what adults have the right to, but nowhere does it address the needs of the child or safety concerns regarding the child either in IVF or in gestational surrogacy."

The fertility insurance bill would expand the coverage mandate for employers to include IVF and expand the legal definition of infertility to include, "A person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention." Infertility would no longer be defined only as a disease or medical condition but also as a "status," such as being in a gay or lesbian relationship or being single.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office described the August 14 amended bill: "This bill would require large and small group health care service plan contracts and disability insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2024, to provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility and fertility services. With respect to large group health care service plan contracts and disability insurance policies, the bill would require coverage for a maximum of 3 completed oocyte retrievals, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of infertility, and would remove the exclusion of in vitro fertilization from coverage. The bill would also delete a requirement that a health care service plan contract and disability insurance policy provide infertility treatment under agreed-upon terms that are communicated to all group contractholders and policyholders. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or disability insurer from placing different conditions or coverage limitations on fertility medications or services, or the diagnosis and treatment of infertility and fertility services, than would apply to other conditions, as specified. The bill would make these requirements inapplicable to a religious employer, as defined, and specified contracts and policies."

Status | Votes: SB 729 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR and is now a "two-year bill." Before being stopped in the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on July 11 (voting yes were 9 Democrat members + Republican Marie Waldron; voting no was Republican Vince Fong; abstaining were Democrats Carlos Villapudua and Akilah Weber and Republicans Heath Flora and Joe Patterson). Earlier, this unnatural, immoral, costly bill passed the State Senate floor on May 24 (voting yes were 31 of 32 Democrats, voting no were Republicans Brian Jones, Roger Niello, and Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Democrat Marie Alvarado-Gil and Republicans Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Janet Nguyen, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, and Scott Wilk.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
SB 760, authored by Democrat State Senator Josh Newman and co-authored by four openly homosexual Democrat legislators, would require all K-12 government schools, including charter schools, to have "at least one all-gender restroom...stocked with menstrual products" for students in first grade and onward.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office described SB 760, as amended August 14: "The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2026, each school district, county office of education, and charter school, including charter schools operating in a school district facility, maintaining any combination of classes from grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide and maintain at least one all-gender restroom for voluntary pupil use at each of its schoolsites that meet specified criteria. The bill would require the all-gender restroom to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that it has signage identifying the bathroom facility as being open to all genders and is unlocked, unobstructed, and easily accessible by any pupil. The bill would require the local educational agency to designate a staff member to serve as a point of contact for these purposes and to post a notice regarding these requirements in a prominent and conspicuous location outside at least one all-gender restroom. The bill would require these requirements to be subject to compliance review, as specified. By imposing additional requirements on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a local educational agency to use an existing restroom to satisfy these requirements, as provided. The bill would require the State Department of Education to post on its internet website guidance for implementation of these provisions."

Status | Votes: SB 760 was signed by Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 23 after its Sept. 11 passage on the Senate floor (voting yes were 31 Democrats and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; voting no were the rest of the Republicans; abstaining was Democrat Anna Caballero). This followed this bill's Sept. 7 passage in the State Assembly (all 62 Democrats voted yes, as did Republicans Juan Alanis, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; 6 Republicans voted no: Megan Dahle, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Devon Mathis, Joe Patterson, Tri Ta; 9 Republicans abstained: Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Jim Patterson, Kate Sanchez). Previously, this bad bill on July 12 passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were 4 Democrats; abstaining were Democrat Kevin McCarty and Republicans Megan Dahle and Josh Hoover). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Voting yes were all 32 Democrats + Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh: voting no were 6 Republicans: Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Roger Niello, and Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Scott Wilk. Earlier, on May 18, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committtee (Democrats yes, 1 Republicans no). Before that, on April 12, this bad bill passed the State Senate Education Committee. Voting yes were all 4 Democrats and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; abstaining was Republican Scott Wilk.

*  *  *  *  *  *

INSIGHT: Why do so many bad bills pass and good bills fail?

Who's behind the aborting of pre-born babies with your tax dollars, the brainwashing of children, tyranny against free speech, religious freedom, and private property, a lot of sexually-transmitted diseases, depression and suicide stemming from sexual addictions?

In California, the abortion industry and homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activists and their Democrat politicians, who dominate the California State Legislature, are pushing a raft of awful bills. And by extension, anyone who supports abortion or "gay rights" and votes for Democrats is, intentionally or unintentionally, behind these bills too.

For example, "Equality California," composed of homosexual and transsexual activists, pushes an endless number of "genders," opposes parental rights, religious freedom, private property rights, and fairness for dissenting views; and defies science proving the harm of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. Yet no one can change their sex.

*  *  *  *  *  *  

Archive: 2022 & 2021 Bills Tracked & Outcomes

See the 2022 legislative year's bills and their outcomes

See the 2021 legislative year's bills and their outcomes

 

 

 

LEGISLATION 2021 ARCHIVE//

  • Print

2021 CALIFORNIA BILLS

Here are the worst bills of 2021's regular legislative session, which adjourned Sept. 10:

BAD BILLS signed by Gavin Newsom

Signed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on September 22:

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two anti-parent, pro-abortion bills, AB 1184 and AB 1356, both sponsored by Planned Parenthood, California's top killer of babies.

Gavin Newsom loves these two bills, calling them "Access to Reproductive Care and Protecting Patients"

AB 1184 prohibits medical providers and insurance companies from disclosing to parents if a child is getting an abortion, "changing" his or her sex," has a drug abuse problem, has a mental illness, is a victim of domestic violence, or has contracted a sexually-transmitted disease.

According to the Democrat-run State Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1184:

3) Defines “protected individual” as a covered adult or, a minor who can consent to a health care service without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. Specifies that “protected individual” does not include an individual that lacks the capacity to give informed consent for health care pursuant to existing law.

4) Requires health plans/insurers to recognize the right of a protected individual to exclusively exercise rights granted under this bill regarding medical information related to “sensitive services” that the protected individual has received.

5) Updates the definition of “sensitive services” to further clarify that mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender affirming care, and intimate partner violence are included.

AB 1356 attacks the First Amendment of free speech and the moral people who want to protect women from danger and innocent preborn babies from torturous, bloody deaths.

According to the Democrat-run Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1356:
"This bill increases penalties for current crimes under the California Freedom of Access to Clinic Act (Act), making them wobblers; creates new crimes under the Act directed at videotaping, photographing, or recording patients or providers within 100 feet of the facility (“buffer” zone) or disclosing or distributing those images and makes these new crimes wobblers; increases current misdemeanor hate crime penalties making them wobblers; and, updates and expands online privacy laws and peace officer trainings relative to antireproduction-rights offenses."

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Unscientific tyranny against children and families and private businesses
AB 1084 by Evan Low (Democrat). Requires large stores that sell children's items to eliminate all references to "girls" and "boys,” despite the incontrovertible science showing if you’ve inherited a Y chromosome from your father, you’re male; if you have not, you’re female. This biological difference is unchanging and undeniable, making this bill a tyrannical lie. See the sciences of the sexes.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys. Beginning on January 1, 2024, the bill would make a retail department store that fails to comply with these provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for a first violation or $500 for a subsequent violation, as provided."

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 9. On September 2, this bad bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled State Assembly: 48 Democrats and 1 "independent" (Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley) voted "yes"; 15 Republicans (Bigelow, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Davies, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Patterson, Seyarto, Smith, Valladares, Voepel, Waldron) and 1 Democrat (Adam Gray) voted "no." A day earlier, AB 1084 was approved by the Democrat-controlled State Senate (29 Democrats voted "yes" and all 9 Republicans voted "no"). Voting yes were 29 Democrats (Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Becker, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hueso, Hurtado, Kamlager, Laird, Leyva, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener); voting no were all 9 Republicans (Bates, Borgeas, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Melendez, Nielsen, Ochoa Bogh, Wilk); abstaining were two Democrats (Min, Stern). On June 30, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. The vote was 8 Democrats yes, 3 Republicans no. AB 1084 nows goes to the Senate Judiary Committee. On June 1, passed the Democrat-controlled passed California State Assembly, after passing May 20 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The floor vote was 51 yes (50 Dems + 1 independent Chad Mayes); 18 no (17 Republicans + Democrat Adam Gray); and 10 not voting (8 Dems + 2 Republicans: Phillip Chen and Heath Flora). Is currently in the State Senate. Earlier, on April 27, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee. Voting yes were 7 Democrats (Chiu, Lorena Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Maienschein, Reyes, Stone), voting no were all 3 Republicans (Davies, Gallagher, Kiley). Not voting was 1 Democrat (Chau). Sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 6, AB 1084 passed its first committee, with 11 Democrats voting yes, 4 Republicans voting no, and 4 Democrats not voting.

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Teaching dark-skinned children to hate white-skinned children
See Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley's comment about AB 101, the "CRT bill"
AB 101 by Jose Medina (Democrat). Forces all children in California K-12 government schools, before graduation, to take and complete a course indoctrinating them with revamped "ethnic studies"/"critical race theory" ideas -- based on the model curriculum approved by the State Board of Education, which teaches non-whites they are "oppressed" and need to fight against and overthrow their "oppressors." This curriculum teaches children to reject their identity as an American, and to become soldiers of the Political Left.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would add the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies, meeting specified requirements, to the high school graduation requirements commencing with pupils graduating in the 2029–30 school year, including for pupils enrolled in a charter school. The bill would expressly authorize local educational agencies, including charter schools, to require a full-year course in ethnic studies at their discretion."

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 8. On September 8, AB 101 passed both the Democrat-controlled State Senate and State Assembly, with only Democrats voting "yes" and only Republicans voting "no." Earlier, on August 26, AB 101 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). On July 14, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Education Committee (4 of 5 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). On May 27, passed the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly. The vote to approve AB 101 was 58 yes: 57 Dems + 1 Republican (Steven Choi of Orange County); 9 no (all Republicans); and 11 not voting: 9 Republicans + 1 Democrat (Timothy Grayson) + 1 Independent (Chad Mayes). Already passed Democrat-controlled committees on May 20 and April 7.

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Making assisted suicide/euthanasia easier
SB 380 by Susan Eggman (Democrat). No one has to die in pain, as expert pharmicists know. Yet the 2015 California law promoting suicide as an "answer" is being made worse by killing the 15-day waiting period. Instead, it can be a rash decision, even induced by others (including inheriting relatives), with the confused and uninformed patient reportedly making two undefined "oral requests" 48 hours apart. SB 380 is based on the awful pro-suicide law, AB2X-15. Expert attorney Margaret Dore of Choice Is An Illusion says SB 380 further weakens patient protections.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would allow for an individual to qualify for aid-in-dying medication by making 2 oral requests a minimum of 48 hours apart. The bill would eliminate the requirement that an individual who is prescribed and ingests aid-in-dying medication make a final attestation. The bill would require that the date of all oral and written requests be documented in an individual’s medical record and would require that upon a transfer of care, that record be provided to the qualified individual. The bill would extend the operation of the act indefinitely, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by extending the operation of crimes for specified violations of the act ... This bill would require a health care provider who is unable or unwilling to participate in activities authorized by the act to inform the individual seeking an aid-in-dying medication that they do not participate, document the date of the individual’s request and the provider’s notice of their objection, and transfer their relevant medical record upon request ... This bill would instead authorize health care facilities to prohibit employees and contractors, as specified, from prescribing aid-in-dying drugs while on the facility premises or in the course of their employment. The bill would prohibit a health care provider or health care facility from engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive practices relating to their willingness to qualify an individual or provide a prescription for an aid-in-dying medication to a qualified individual. The bill would require a health care facility to post its current policy regarding medical aid in dying on its internet website."

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 5. On September 10, this bad bill passed both the Democrat-controlled Senate and Assembly floors. In the 40-member State Senate, all 26 "yes" votes for SB 380 were from Democrats; all 8 "yes" votes were from Republicans. In the 80-member State Assembly, all 51 "yes" votes for SB 380 were from Democrats; 15 "no" votes were from Republicans, with 1 "no" vote from a Democrat (Patrick O'Donnell). On August 26, SB 380 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (10 of 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). On July 6, SB 380 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (6 Democrats voting "yes,"; 2 Republicans voting "no." On June 22, SB 380 passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were 9 Democrats and 1 Independent -- Chad Mayes; voting no were all 3 Republicans). This bill now goes to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. On May 28, it passed the Democrat-controlled California State Senate. The floor vote to approve SB 380 was 26 yes (all Democrats), 8 no (all Republicans), and 6 not voting (5 Democrats + 1 Republican). This pro-suicide bill already passed three Democrat-controlled committees. 

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
More promotion of destructive drugs to depressed and vulnerable Californians (and by extension, to teenagers)
SB 73 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Lowers the criminal penalties on users and dealers of heroin, opiates or opium derivatives, salts, cannabis, phencyclidine (PCP), and other dangerous drugs. Any vice legalized for adults eventually gets into the hands of children. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing or agreeing to sell or transport opiates or opium derivatives, possessing or transporting cannabis, planting or cultivating peyote, and various crimes relating to forging or altering prescriptions, among other crimes, if the person has previously been convicted of any one of specified felony offenses relating to controlled substances. Existing law also prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing for sale or selling 14.25 grams or more of a substance containing heroin and possessing for sale 14.25 grams or more of any salt or solution of phencyclidine or its analogs, among other crimes. This bill would delete various crimes relating to controlled substances, including, but not limited to, the crimes described above, from those prohibitions against granting probation or a suspended sentence. The bill would authorize the remaining prohibitions on probation to be waived by a court in the interests of justice.”

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 5. On September 10, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate floor, with 23 Democrats voting "yes" and all 9 Republicans voting "no." A day earlier, SB 73 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly floor, with 42 Democrats voting "yes" and all Republicans voting "no." On August 26, SB 73 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). On June 15, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Assembly Public Safety Committee. Voting yes on SB 73 were 6 Democrats; voting no was 1 Republican; not voting was 1 Republican. On April 12, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled California State Senate. Voting yes were 25 Democrats; voting no were 8 Republicans and 2 Democrats; not voting were 4 Democrats and 1 Republican.
James Lambert column: "Dems are now pushing to legalize LSD in California"

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Destroying people’s freedom of conscience to support scientific truth
AB 465 by Adrin Nazarian (Democrat). Forces "LGBTQIA+" brainwashing upon professional fiduciaries (trusted persons who handle affairs on someone else’s behalf while they are still alive or after they have died; AgingCare.com explains: "Individuals who serve as professional fiduciaries tend to be trust company officers, certified public accountants, or attorneys." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill, beginning January 1, 2023, would require the prelicensing education courses to include at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency.” From the bill text: “cultural competency” means understanding and applying cultural and ethnic data to the process of care that includes, but is not limited to, information on the appropriate treatment of, and provision of care to, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities, ethnic communities, and religious communities.” Also from the bill: “a licensee shall complete at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency every three years.”

Status | Votes On September 16, Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 465 without comment. On September 1, AB 465 passed Democrat-controlled Assembly and was sent to the Governor. Voting yes were 61 Democrats + 11 Republicans (Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Davies, Flora, Fong, Lackey, Mathis, Valladares, Voepel, Waldron). On August 30, AB 465 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate (voting yes were 29 Democrats and 2 Republicans -- Ochoa Bogh and Wilk); voting no was 1 Republican (Jones). On June 7 this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Voting yes were 9 Democrats and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; voting no was 1 Republican (Brian Jones); not voting were 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. On May 3, AB 465 passed the floor of the California State Assembly with the yes votes of 58 Democrats + 10 Republicans + 1 Independent (Republicans voting yes on AB 465 were these 10 Republicans: Bigelow, Chen, Choi, Flora, Fong, Mathis, Nguyen, Smith, Voepel, Waldron (not voting were 8 Republicans and 1 Democrat). On April 21, AB 465 passed its second committee, with all 3 Republicans (Bigelow, Dahle, Fong) joining the majority Democrats in voting yes. On April 6, passed first committee, with 13 Democrats and all 5 Republicans (Chen, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Valladares) voting yes.

In addition, Newsom has signed these bills to radically change life as we know it:

AB 1346 outlawing the sale of new gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers and chain saws as soon as 2024 more 
AB 367 requiring "poor" government-controlled junior high and high schools to stock free menstrual pads and tampons "in all women’s restrooms and all-gender restrooms, and in at least one men’s restroom" more
AB 173 giving personal information about California gunowners to California universities to "study" more

BAD BILLS that are dead for the year

Dead for the year (see why)
Permitting companies to fire health-conscious employees unless they get the "jab"
AB 1102 (as proposed to be "gutted and amended") by Bay Area Democrat and homosexual activist Evan Low would specify that state law does not prevent employers from requiring a "Covid vaccine" injection, as well as "booster shots," as a condition of employment. As such, AB 1102 would eliminate any wrongful termination claim for an employee fired for not wanting a risky injection that has killed and injured people.

Dead for the year (see why)
Requiring "Covid vaccine passports" statewide to discriminate against, segregate, and punish health-conscious Californians opposed to injections that have killed tens of thousands and injured millions
AB 455 (as proposed to be "gutted and amended") by six Democrats, including Richard Pan of Sacramento and Scott Wiener of San Francisco. This draft bill would require most Californians to show proof they've been injected with a "Covid vaccine" by displaying a card or paper or a document on their phone -- or else they cannot enter most "places of public accommodation," which is very broadly defined in California law to apply to nearly every type of commerce in California, exceeding even this exhaustive list in the federal ADA law: 

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; 
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; 
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
Status (note that AB 455 is still a transportation bill and has not yet been "gutted and amended")

Dead for the year
Kicking out duly-elected state assemblymembers unless they get the "jab"
HR 71 by four Assembly Democrats would force the "Covid vaccine" upon members of the California State Assembly, "or else the Member shall be suspended from exercising the powers of the office, and shall forfeit all salary and benefits derived from the office."

Dead for the year
Targeting California police officers who are conservative or religious
AB 655 by Ash Kalra (Democrat). Forces state CHP, county sheriff's departments, city police departments, prison guards, and any other entity employing or contracting with peace officers in California to discriminate against a candidate for employment (a new or transferring officer), as well as current officers, who have expressed conservative or religious views. How the bill defines the disqualifying act of "public expression of hate” is broad, vague, and open to subjective interpretation.

Although the March 25 amendments to AB 655 made the bill less bad (the phrase "the denial of constitutional rights of" was deleted), the words "threatens" and "threatening" have been added, supplying the Radical Left with subjective power to falsely accuse conservatives of "threatening violence" because their words make some liberals irrationally fearful. Using AB 655 to prohibit conservative or religious peace officers from having informed opinions regarding the American judicial principle of equal justice under law, regarding Black Lives Matter's "defund the police" agenda, regarding the unconstitutionality of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, and regarding the science of the sexes proving only two sexes -- male and female -- would trample constitutional free speech with blatant, chilling effect. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would require that background investigation to include an inquiry into whether a candidate for specified peace officer positions has engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate, as those terms are defined. The bill would provide that certain findings would disqualify a person from employment ... This bill would require an agency to investigate, as specified, any internal complaint or complaint made by the public that alleges, as specified, that a peace officer engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate. The bill would provide that certain findings would be grounds for termination. This bill would also require the Department of Justice to adopt and promulgate guidelines for the investigation and adjudication of these complaints by local agencies." From the bill text: "Public expression of hate” means any explicit expression, either on duty or off duty and while identifying oneself as, or reasonably identifiable by others as, a peace officer, in a public forum, on social media including in a private discussion forum, in writing, or in speech, advocating for, supporting, or threating the genocide of, or violence towards, any individual or group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability ... “Public expression of hate” also includes the public display of any tattoo, uniform, insignia, flag, or logo that indicates support for the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."

Status | Votes This bill is "dead for the year." On May 20 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 655's hearing was postponed and the bill was put on the suspense file, from which it did not escape before the May 21 deadline to pass the committee. On April 6, passed first committee, with all 5 Democrats voting yes and all 3 Republicans voting no.
See this analysis of AB 655

Dead for the year
Threatening the safety of law-abiding individuals and families
AB 1223 by Marc Levine (Democrat): Imposes a $25 tax on guns and a tax on ammunition, providing a financial disincentive to attaining or improving one’s personal defense. Even for those who want to eliminate firearms, this won’t work, because “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would, until January 1, 2028, impose an excise tax on a retailer in the amount of $25 per firearm on the sale in this state of a handgun or semiautomatic rifle or shotgun sold as new, as provided, and an excise tax on a retailer in the amount of ___% of the gross receipts from any sale of ammunition. The tax would be collected by the state pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require that the revenues collected be deposited in the CalVIP Firearm and Ammunition Tax Fund, which the bill would create. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys in that fund to the Board of State and Community Corrections to provide CalVIP grants, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would also extend the operation of the CalVIP program until January 1, 2028. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII   A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

Status | Votes Never brought up for a vote before the Assembly adjourned on September 10, therefore it's "dead for the year." Back on the floor of the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly after failing in early June, AB 1223 needs 2/3rds approval since it would raise taxes (2/3rds is 54 of 80 members). There was earlier confusion over whether this bill had actually passed the Assembly --  it has not. The June 11 vote (which was 4 votes short) was 50 yes (all Democrats); 17 no (all Republicans); 12 not voting (10 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Phillip Chen and Steven Choi). Earlier, AB 1223 had passed two Democrat-controlled committees.

Dead for the year
Forcing insurance policies to fully subsidize the killing of pre-born babies
SB 245 by Lena Gonzalez (Democrat). This bill forces insurers to violate their moral consciences and pay for unlimited abortions of pre-born babies absolutely free of charge, making killing these babies a favored policy. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a health care service plan or an individual or group policy of disability insurance that is issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2022, from imposing a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on coverage for all abortion services, as specified, and additionally would prohibit cost sharing from being imposed on a Medi-Cal beneficiary for those services. The bill would apply the same benefits with respect to an enrollee’s or insured’s covered spouse and covered nonspouse dependents. The bill would not require an individual or group health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy to cover an experimental or investigational treatment. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program." 

Status | Votes Did not come up for an Assembly floor vote before the September 10 adjournment. On August 26, SB 245's hearing was "postponed by commmittee" (the Assembly Appropriations Committee). Earlier, on June 25, the June 30 hearing on SB 245 was postponed; on July 7, the bill was placed on the "suspense file" (meaning it might be too expensive or otherwise problematic). On June 22, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; all the Republicans voted no). It goes next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. On June 1, passed the Democrat-controlled California State Senate. The floor vote to approve SB 245 was 31 yes (all Democrats), 8 no (all Republicans), and 1 not voting. Earlier, this bill passed Democrat-controlled committees, on May 20 and April 7.

Dead for the year
Harming people’s health and lives by promoting destructive drug use and abuse
SB 57 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Creates so-called "safe injection sites" in Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would, until January 1, 2027, authorize the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland to approve entities to operate overdose prevention programs for persons that satisfy specified requirements, including, among other things, providing a hygienic space supervised by trained staff where people who use drugs can consume preobtained drugs, providing sterile consumption supplies, and providing access or referrals to substance use disorder treatment. The bill would require the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland, prior to authorizing an overdose prevention program in its jurisdiction, to provide local law enforcement officials, local public health officials, and the public with an opportunity to comment in a public meeting. The bill would require an entity operating a program to provide an annual report to the city or the city and county, as specified. The bill would exempt a person from, among other things, civil liability, professional discipline, or existing criminal sanctions, solely for actions, conduct, or omissions in compliance with an overdose prevention program authorized by the city or the city and county. The bill would clarify that the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California is authorized to take disciplinary action against a licensee related to the operation of an overdose prevention program that violates the Medical Practice Act. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland.”

Status | Votes On July 6, SB 57's author announced his bill is dead for the year, but could return in January. On July 5, SB 57 was sent to the Assembly Health Committee. On May 28, this bill was double-referred to the Assembly Health and Public Safety committees. On April 22, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate floor after passing two Democrat-controlled committees. The Senate floor vote was 21 yes, 11 no, 8 not voting (21 yes votes are needed for a bill to pass); all 9 Republicans voted no, including Democrats Glazer and Hurtado, and 8 Democrats abstained.
James Lambert column: "Dems are now pushing to legalize LSD in California"

Dead for the year despite passing the Legislature
Promoting, not prohibiting, disease-spreading and dehumanizing prostitution
SB 357 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Eliminates law against loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law prohibits soliciting or engaging in an act of prostitution, as specified. Existing law also prohibits loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, as defined, or directing, supervising, recruiting, or aiding a person who is loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, or collecting or receiving all or part of the proceeds of an act of prostitution. Under existing law, a violation of any of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would repeal those provisions related to loitering with the intent to commit prostitution and would make other conforming changes. This bill would also authorize a person convicted of a violation of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution to petition the court for the dismissal and sealing of their case, and resentencing, if applicable.”

Status | Votes After passing the Legislature and "ordered to engrossing and enrolling," SB 357 was "withdrawn from engrossing and enrolling" and "ordered held at the desk." This means the Senate Democrat leader did a favor to Governor Gavin Newsom by preventing him from receiving this radical bill that essentially legalized publicly promoting prostitution on California streets and streetcorners. On August 26, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all 12 Democrats, voting no were all 4 Republicans). On June 1 passed Democrat-controlled California State Senate. Voting yes on SB 357 were 29 Democrats; voting no were all 9 Republicans; not voting were 2 Democrats. Earlier, this bill passed two Democrat-controlled Senate committees.

Dead for the year
Prohibiting doctors from performing corrective surgery for children with abnormal or ambiguous genitals
Withdrawn from committee April 5
SB 225 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Very similar to the author’s previous bill, which died in committee (SB 201 in 2019-2020). Prohibits parents from deciding, or a physician from recommending, corrective surgery for babies born biologically male or female, according to their XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes, respectively, but who have deformed, abnormal or opposite-sex genital deformity that can be surgically corrected in infancy so that the child grows up without being confused by it or ridiculed for it. Severely trampling parental rights and the well-being of children, this bill attacks fathers and mothers, while destroying what is often a simple solution that greatly helps biological boys' or biological girls' bodies, minds, and emotions. See the science of the sexes. From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a physician and surgeon from performing certain sex organ modification procedures on an individual born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 12 years of age unless the procedure is a surgery required to address an immediate risk of physical harm, as specified. The bill would make any violation of these provisions subject to disciplinary action by the board, but not criminal prosecution.” 

Status | Votes Withdrawn from committee on April 5 and is likely dead for the year

Dead for the year
Attacking the conscience rights and religious freedom of health care facilities and workers
SB 379 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Prohibit the University of California from contracting with any hospital, health facility, or individual that refuses to participate in abortions or "sex change" procedures.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit the University of California, on and after January 1, 2022, from entering into, amending, or renewing any contract with any health facility contractor or subcontractor in which a health care practitioner employed by the University of California or a trainee of the University of California providing care in the health facility under that contract would be limited in the practitioner’s or trainee’s ability to provide patients with medical information or medical services due to policy-based restrictions on care in the health facility. The bill would require any contract between the University of California and a health facility pursuant to which a University of California-employed health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California provides care in the health facility to include a provision restating the substance of that prohibition. The bill would require any contract between the University of California and a health facility pursuant to which a University of California-employed health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California provides care in the health facility to provide that, in the event the health facility contractor or subcontractor violates the prohibition, the contract shall be terminated for noncompliance, and the contractor or subcontractor shall forfeit penalties to the University of California, as appropriate, in an amount equal to the amount paid by the university for the percentage of work that was performed. The bill would exempt from its provisions contracts between the University of California and prescribed health facility contractors or subcontractors. The bill would require the University of California to ensure that a health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California is able to complete their training. The bill would prohibit the University of California from extending or delaying a health practitioner’s training due to the loss of a clinical training rotation. The bill would require the University of California, before January 1, 2025, to find alternative facilities for trainees to complete their training. The bill would define terms for these purposes."

Status | Votes On May 20, the Democrat-dominated Senate Appropriations Committee "Held in committee and under submission," effectively shelving for the year this bill depleting UC of a significant number of paying customers. Earlier, SB 379 had passed two Democrat-controlled committees.

GOOD BILLS -- all killed in Democrat-controlled State Legislature

Ending the unnecessary, unmerited, unproven, unconstitutional, destructive, year-long "state of emergency"
SCR 5 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). This concurrent resolution which requires a majority vote to pass the State Senate (which would then be transmitted to the State Assembly), is based on California Government Code, Section 8629, which reads: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end, thereby terminating the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation."

Status | Votes No votes yet, because the super-supermajority Democrats have not yet scheduled a hearing

Also ending the unnecessary, unmerited, unproven, unconstitutional, destructive, year-long "state of emergency"
ACR 46 by Kevin Kiley (Republican). This concurrent resolution which requires a majority vote to pass the State Assembly (which would then be transmitted to the State Senate), is based on California Government Code, Section 8629, which reads: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end and terminate the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation."

Status | Votes No votes yet, because the super-supermajority Democrats have not yet scheduled a hearing

Recognizing and protecting constitutional free exercise of religion
SB 397 by Brian Jones (Republican). Requires religious services to be deemed "essential" like big box stores, especially since free exercise of religion is in both the state and federal constitutions. It is unconstitutional to “shut down” churches, because the Constitution is above any state official. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill, the Religion is Essential Act, would, during a state of emergency or local emergency, require the Governor or the local government to deem religious services to be an essential service and to be necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from taking a discriminatory action against a religious organization, as those terms are defined, and would require the state and local government to permit a religious organization to continue operating and engaging in religious services during a state of emergency to the same or greater extent that other organizations or businesses that provide essential services that are necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are permitted to operate. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from enforcing any health, safety, or occupancy requirement that imposes a substantial burden on a religious service unless the state or local government demonstrates that applying the burden to the religious service is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This bill would authorize a religious organization to assert a violation of these provisions as a claim against the state or a local government in a judicial or administrative proceeding or as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, as specified. The bill would entitle a religious organization that successfully asserts a claim or defense to certain relief, as specified.”

Status | Votes Defeated April 13 in the State Senate Judiciary Committee. Voting yes were both Republicans (Borgeas, Jones); voting no were 7 of 9 Democrats (Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Laird, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener); not voting were Democrats Caballero and Stern.

Respecting basic parental rights (your God-given right to oversee your children’s upbringing and education)
SB 217 by Brian Dahle (Republican). Requires government school districts to post sex education lessons online for easy parent access, so that the deceptive hiding of these sexual agenda plans will no longer be functionally prohibited to parents in violation of state law. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “The California Healthy Youth Act requires school districts, defined to include county boards of education, county superintendents of schools, the California School for the Deaf, the California School for the Blind, and, commencing with the 2019–20 school year, charter schools, to ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education, as specified. The act authorizes a school district to provide that education earlier than grade 7 with age-appropriate and medically accurate information. The act requires each school district to notify parents and guardians of pupils about its plan to provide sexual health education and HIV prevention instruction for the upcoming school year and to inform them, among other things, that the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education are available for inspection. This bill would require the above-described notice to parents and guardians of pupils and the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education to be translated if certain conditions are met, as specified. The bill would require the governing board of a school district to adopt a policy at a publicly noticed meeting specifying how parents and guardians of pupils may inspect the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education, including that the materials, including applicable translations and updates or changes to the materials, are made available, within prescribed timeframes, at each schoolsite and, except as provided, publicly posted on the school district’s internet website or, if applicable, on a school district’s parent or guardian portal, as specified.”

Status | Votes Killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (was scheduled for a May 17 hearing, was put on the "suspense" file and did not come up for a vote before the May 21 deadline to pass bills from fiscal committee). On April 28, passed by 1 vote in the Senate Education Committee, with the yes votes of both Republicans (Dahle and Ochoa Bogh) and two Democrats (Leyva and Glazer). Voting no was one Democrat (McGuire) and not voting were two Democrats (Cortese and Pan).

Stopping Gavin Newsom's rogue departments from falsely charging innocent small business owners
SB 102 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Prohibits two state departments from fining or revoking a license or forcibly closing or otherwise punishing California businesses for staying open, to work and earn.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would prohibit the Department of Consumer Affairs, a board within the Department of Consumer Affairs that does not regulate healing arts licensees, and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control from revoking a license or imposing a fine or penalty for failure to comply with any COVID-19 state of emergency orders or COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, unless the board or department can prove that lack of compliance resulted in transmission of COVID-19. The bill would specify that the provisions do not preclude issuance of fines, penalties, or revoking a license for any action that is not related to the issuance of any COVID-19 state of emergency orders or COVID-19 stay-at-home order. The provisions of the bill would remain in effect until either the COVID-19 state of emergency is terminated or all COVID-19 stay-at-home orders are no longer in effect, whichever occurs later, but in no case would the provisions remain in effect after January 1, 2024. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute."

Status | Votes Failed by 2 votes on March 5 (even though Democrats Hurtado and Roth joined Republicans in supporting the bill)

Protecting adults' constitutional freedom of association
SB 238 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Requires legal protection for political affiliation (part of your constitutional free speech), thus protecting against unfair discrimination against your political values and opinions when seeking employment or housing. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “(1) Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would extend the protections of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to persons regardless of political belief or affiliation. The bill would specify that these provisions are declarative of existing law. (2) Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), protects the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of specified characteristics and prescribes various employment, labor, and apprenticeship practices, among other things, in this regard. Among the protected characteristics are race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and military or veteran status. FEHA also makes unlawful various practices connected to obtaining and financing housing accommodations, among other things, if those practices discriminate based on specified characteristics. Existing law creates the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to administer and enforce these provisions. This bill would add political affiliation as a protected characteristic in connection with the above-described employment and housing provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing its employees to adopt or refrain from adopting any particular course or line of political action or activity. This bill would prohibit an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant for employment based on their political affiliation or lack of political affiliation or their membership or association with a political organization, as specified."

Status | Votes Defeated in committee April 20 (both Republicans yes, all 9 Democrats no)
More from SB 238’s author

Providing an equal playing field for constitutional political expression at government schools
SB 249 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Protects political affiliation in K-12 public schools, because it’s unfair and unconstitutional for government schools to allow – on personal clothing, for example -- “liberal” messages, but not “conservative” speech. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law states the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. Existing law requires the State Department of Education to assess whether local educational agencies have taken certain actions related to educational equity, including adopting a policy that prohibits, and adopting a process for receiving and investigating complaints of, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on those actual or perceived specified characteristics. This bill would include political affiliation for purposes of those provisions.”

Status | Votes Defeated in committee April 20 (both Republicans yes, all 9 Democrats no)
More from SB 238’s author 


INSIGHT: Why do so many bad bills pass and good bills fail? 

Who's behind the aborting of pre-born babies with your tax dollars, the brainwashing of children, tyranny against free speech, religious freedom, and private property, a lot of sexually-transmitted diseases, depression and suicide stemming from sexual addictions?

In California, the abortion industry and homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activists and their Democrat politicians, who dominate the California State Legislature, are pushing a raft of awful bills. And by extension, anyone who supports abortion or "gay rights" and votes for Democrats is, intentionally or unintentionally, behind these bills too.

For example, "Equality California," composed of homosexual and transsexual activists, pushes an endless number of "genders," opposes parental rights, religious freedom, private property rights, and fairness for dissenting views; and defies science proving the harm of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. Yet no one can change their sex.

Harvey Milk Day//

  • Print

 

Protect your children from 'Harvey Milk Gay Day'

Why is a predator of teens being honored in schools?

Every year, Harvey Milk "celebrations" are held at participating government schools in K-12 classrooms and assemblies -- around May 22. Get informed and protect your child.

How "Harvey Milk Gay Day" is indoctrinating children in classrooms and assemblies


WATCH: The facts about Harvey Milk (3-min)

California parents, our video will help you understand why you need to protect your K-12 children in public school each year from Harvey Milk Day. Parental discretion advised.

See video below OR if on a mobile device or iPad, watch video here.

A state law signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009 calls upon all K-12 government schools to teach children as young as 5 years old to honor homosexual activist and sexual predator* Harvey Milk.

This means individual teachers or school administrators or school district board members will decide each May whether kids will perform pro-Milk "exercises" (the week before or after May 22, Milk's birthday). There is NO parental permission or notification.

IN 2019, MAY 22 FALLS ON A WEDNESDAY. Ask teachers and principals if they plan to honor Milk in any way. If yes or they won’t say, please keep your child home 3 school days -- May 22-24 -- or to be extra safe, 5 school days -- May 20-24.


YOUR ACTION STEPS -- (scroll down for details)

     

 

#1: EMAIL YOUR CHILD'S TEACHERS AND SCHOOL

Instructions: Send an email message to EVERY teacher your child has, the school principal and school trustees. Your email should ask if they are mentioning Harvey Milk in any way, and give them some facts about Milk (see below). Your email should also inform them that you'll keep your children home from school if they do plan to positively mention Milk in any way, whether in classrooms or school assemblies. See the school's and the school district's websites for email addresses.

Questions and issues addressed on this page

» What is Harvey Milk Day and why should I be concerned?
» When is Harvey Milk Day and will my permission be required?
» What were Harvey Milk's values?
» What could Harvey Milk Day look like in public schools?
» How do I protect my child from this sexual indoctrination?
» Documentation on Harvey Milk
» The facts that LGBT activists want to hide
» Further background
» How do I pull my kids from public school PERMANENTLY?


DISTRIBUTE this flyer: Download the Harvey Milk flyer » (PDF)
EMAIL this page link to friends: http://savecalifornia.com/harvey-milk-day.html
SHARE this page on Facebook & Twitter: Copy link http://bit.ly/1GrVC1i

 


Listen now: The LGBT school agenda exposed »

This is a special re-broadcast, originally released in May 2010. Former homosexual activist Michael Glatze talks candidly with Randy Thomasson on the sexual indoctrination agenda targeting kids.

Listen now: Michael Glatze interview » | Listen on iTunes »  

 

Q: What is Harvey Milk Day and why should I be concerned?

Despite the outcry of parents and concerned Californians, in 2009 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 572, which establishes every May 22 as "Harvey Milk Day" in K-12 public schools in California. But for all practical purposes, "Harvey Milk" activities could occur in classrooms and on campuses several days before or after May 22.

Teachers, schools and school districts that participate will teach children to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist Harvey Milk, of whom the bill states: "...perhaps more than any other modern figure, Harvey Milk's life and political career embody the rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement in California, across the nation, and throughout the world."

Under SB 572, children will perform "suitable commemorative exercises," remembering the "life," "accomplishments," and "contributions"of Harvey Milk -- in other words, the entire homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda for which Milk advocated.

There is no definition or limit to these "exercises," which, at participating schools, could include gay-pride parades, cross-dressing contests and mock gay weddings, or anything else Milk supported.

Every teacher or school or school district that opts to celebrate Milk Day is endorsing Milk’s values to impressionable children as young as kindergarten!

Learn more about SB 572 and why Harvey Milk is a horrible role model »


Q: When is Milk Day and is parental permission required?

Harvey Milk Day is officially on May 22, Milk's birthday. If it falls on a weekend, it will be moved to a nearby weekday. But there is a danger period of indoctrination exercises and "celebrations" several days before or after May 22. It's up to teachers, principals, and school districts whether to promote Harvey Milk's homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda to impressionable children. And Harvey Milk Day exercises and activities will occur behind parents' backs because the law does not require teachers or school officials to seek your permission or even notify you. This is why parents have to quiz teachers and principals to see whether Harvey Milk will be honored in classrooms, in a school assembly, through a school-wide announcement, etc.

Q: What were Harvey Milk's values?**

1. Harvey Milk supported the entire homosexual, bisexual, and cross-dressing agenda
2. Milk refused to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by this behavior
3. Milk was a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems
4. Milk advocated having multiple sexual relationships at the same time
5. Milk promoted lying to get ahead

Whether taught directly or indirectly, these values are wrong to teach to children as acceptable!

**[Scroll down for Milk documentation]

Q: What could Harvey Milk day look like in public schools?

Click here to see just one example of what happened in a Southern Calif. school.

The "suitable commemorative exercises," remembering the "life," "accomplishments," and "contributions"of Harvey Milk are UNDEFINED in this law, and could include:

» Pro-Harvey Milk reading and writing assignments and tests
» Making children watch the fictional film “Milk” in class
» Having children participate in cross-dressing contests, mock gay-pride parades and mock gay weddings
» School assemblies teaching children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are good and natural and maybe even for them

In sum, children could be taught just about anything school officials or individual teachers think up (and no, there’s no state law prohibiting the promotion of homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual lifestyles to impressionable children).

 

PARENTS, BE CLEAR... YOU MUST CONTACT EVERY SINGLE TEACHER OF YOUR CHILD AND THE PRINCIPAL OF YOUR SCHOOL AT THE BEGINNING OF MAY. Even if your school board or district says they have no plans to celebrate "Harvey Milk Gay Day" or have even passed a resolution opposing it, the POWER and the THREAT is from anti-family teachers and principals.

THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IN EACH CLASSROOM AT YOUR LOCAL SCHOOL, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION OR NOTIFICATION. That's why you must call every one of them to ask "Are you going to honor or mention Harvey Milk to the children, on any day, in any way?" If you get a "yes" or a fuzzy answer, keep your children home that day or several days.

EMAIL YOUR SCHOOL IN EARLY MAY:
Instructions: Send an email message to EVERY teacher your child has, PLUS the school principal AND school trustees. Your email should ask if they are honoring predator of teens, Harvey Milk, and should give them some facts about Milk (pull facts from this page). Your email needs to also inform them that you'll keep your children home from school if they do plan to honor Milk in any way -- in classrooms or school assemblies. See the school's and the school district's websites for email addresses.

DON'T BE DECEIVED. SCROLL DOWN FOR DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS.

Q: How do I protect my child from this sexual indoctrination?

You need to remove your child from school to protect him or her. Depending on the day May 22 falls, school districts, schools and teachers that want to promote Harvey Milk to students can do their indoctrination several days before or after May 22.

CONTACT ALL OF YOUR CHILD’S TEACHERS + THE PRINCIPAL:

Parents with children in government-controlled schools who oppose this “LGBTQ” indoctrination must CALL OR EMAIL every single one of their children’s teachers as well as the school principal.

DEMAND ANSWERS:

Ask whether Harvey Milk will be honored or mentioned in the classroom or on the school's campus in ANY WAY in May.

IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," realize that teachers only control themselves and principals won't prohibit liberal teachers from promoting Harvey Milk's values through "commemorative exercies" unless principals issue an order to all teachers. Ask principals if they will prevent Milk discussions and ask how this prohibition will be enforced. Thank individual teachers who promise not to promote or mention Harvey Milk in a postive light.

IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," express your disappointment and ask what days the Harvey Milk instruction or pro-LBGT activities will occur because you will keep your children home those days.

IF YOU GET A FUZZY ANSWER, DISRESPECT OR OTHER OPPOSITION, we recommend you keep your child home between several days before and after May 22 to be completely safe from the Milk indoctrination and "exercises." Whether you keep them home a day, a week, or two weeks, this is your opportunity to be in charge, be creative and bond more deeply with your children. Have your child continue to do homework and turn in assignments that you drop by the school office. Consider requesting to switch to independent study, especially if the teacher or school is uncooperative. If you cannot have your child with you during the day, find a friend or relative who can, unless your child is well trained enough to be home alone.

HOW TO REQUEST INDEPENDENT STUDY:
Visit California Dept. of Education »

Note: Under state law, parents can keep their children home for two days (unexcused) and more days (excused). Parents will NOT be arrested, but may be mailed a truancy notice, which are rarely followed up on.

NEGOTIATING WITH THE SCHOOL ABOUT YOUR CHILD:
To keep your child home three days or more, we recommend that you first request an "excused absence" based on California Education Code, Section 48205(a)(7), which allows excused absences "For justifiable personal reasons, including, but not limited to..." This will be an agreement to have your child do schoolwork at home those days.

If the school will not agree to give your child the number of excused absences you request, then escalate things by requesting independent study. This may shock the school official into granting your request for excused absences. But doing independent study will get the school off your back about "absences," because independent study means your child will be educated at home -- for as short or long period as you wish -- under the general supervision of the school district.

If the school won't grant you excused absences or independent study, you have come face to face with antagonistic educrats who think your child is theirs. At this point, you are morally obligated to take your child out of the government school system and home school or church school them. Learn how at RescueYourChild.com. Learn the first step to withdraw your child from public school.

 


Randy Shilts, a homosexual San Francisco Chronicle reporter, wrote a favorable and sordid biography of Milk in "The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk."

According to this reputable biography, Milk repeatedly engaged in adult-child sex, advocated for polygamous homosexual relationships, and told a very public lie because he thought it would get him ahead. Since SB 572 would do "exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk," kids could be taught to support and emulate these very bad values.

Read "Drinking Harvey Milk's Kool-Aid" by researcher Daniel Flynn

A SEXUAL PREDATOR OF TEENS

Shilts' 1982 book detailed Milk's sexual relationships with a 16-year-old, a 19-year-old and other young men:

"...sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure...At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him." (pages 30-31)

"It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20's that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life." (page 24)

"Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems."
(page 180)

"Harvey confided one night that at twenty-four, Doug was the oldest man Harvey had ever started an affair with." (page 237)

ADVOCATED MULTIPLE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS AT THE SAME TIME

Explaining Milk's many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Shilts writes how Milk told one "lover" why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously:

"As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model...We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it. We should be developing our own life-style. There's no reason why you can't love more than one person at a time. You don't have to love them all the same. You love some less, love some more -- and always be honest with everybody about where you're at. They in turn can do the same thing and it can open up a bigger sphere." (pages 237-238)

PUBLICLY LIED FOR YEARS ABOUT HIS MILITARY CAREER

"He had not suffered this disgrace, he told a later campaign manager, but he knew the story would make good copy. If anyone said something to Harvey about his fondness for such stunts, he would gesture wildly as launched into a lecture. 'Symbols, symbols, symbols,' he insisted. Sure, he had not been kicked out of the military...The point of the story was to let people know that service people routinely do get kicked out. Besides, he once confided, 'Maybe people will read it, feel sorry for me, and then vote for me.'"
(p. 78-79)

The facts that 'LGBT' activists want to hide:

» The dishonorable deeds of Harvey Milk
» Harvey Milk was a liar
» The negative effect of SB 572 upon schoolchildren
» SB 572 targets kindergarteners and tramples parental rights
» "Drinking Harvey Milk's Kool-Aid" by Daniel Flynn
» Poll shows 4 out of 5 Californians oppose "Harvey Milk Day"
» The health hazards of homosexuality and bisexuality
» 71-78% of HIV transmissions from homosexuality and bisexuality*

* 2017 California HIV Surveillance Report, Table 1b: 71.4% MSM (men who have sex with men) + 2.6% HRH ("high risk heterosexual contact" = includes women who have sex with bisexual men) + 4.2% MSM/IDU (MSM and intravenous drug user) = 78.2%

Read Harvey Milk and Jonestown. And see Harvey Milk's letter to President Jimmy Carter, calling for a young boy to remain in Jim Jones’ custody (less than nine months later Jones killed the boy).

Further background

» SaveCalifornia.com floor alert to legislators before the SB 572 vote
» Read the text of SB 572

 

Q: How do I pull my kids from public school PERMANENTLY?

Parents are waking up and taking their children back from the government school system permanently -- as they should. California laws have changed so radically in the last few years that your child WILL be sexually indoctrinated and subjected to very negative influences starting at AGE 5 if left in the government school system. Check out the positive alternatives, and the Top 10 reasons to rescue your child now, and more.

» Visit our special website RescueYourChild.com
» Read this before you withdraw your child from public school PERMANENTLY

 

School Indoctrination Center

  • Print

 

California School Indoctrination Center

California parents and grandparents -- do you know what non-academic agendas are being pushed upon your children and grandchildren in California K-12 public schools?

Let SaveCalifornia.com help you understand the real battle going on for the minds, hearts, bodies, and souls of your children in the government-controlled public school system. Because no parent should be in the dark. 

This page contains must-see videos and information you need to know. KEEP SCROLLING DOWN.

We also urge you to visit RescueYourChild.com -- a special, mobile-friendly website we created for parents and grandparents.

There you'll find:  

13 California sexual indoctrination laws being pushed on K-12 children (most behind the backs of parents)

10 more reasons to be concerned about leaving your children in the hands of government "educators."

Solutions that will empower you to give your precious boys and girls the best that they deserve, in the 17 years you have to raise them on YOUR terms with YOUR values.

Visit RescueYourChild.com here


SUMMARY OF THIS PAGE

1. Facts about sexual indoctrination curriculum AB 329
2. Videos that explain the threat of this curriculum
3. How to attempt to opt-out your child
4. Ten more school indoctrination laws
5. Permanently exit public schools for home or private education


On this School Indoctrination Center page, you'll learn the facts about the latest public school sexual indoctrination law (AB 329) that has concerned parents up in arms. You'll also learn about 10 other sexual indoctrination laws. And you'll be equipped to take your children back from a system that has ceased to be your family's friend. We provide helpful forms and links to empower you.

See for yourself how children are being force-fed sexual anarchy for all 12 years of elementary, middle, and high school. This fact-free agenda tramples your values and God's design of marriage, family, and sex.

Unlike days of old, public schools are no longer places that represents the wholesome values you want for your children. Nor is it any longer a place for solid academia. Sadly, despite some wonderful teachers and administrators, the system is corrupt and driven by radical Left lawmakers and their pro-"LGBTQIA+" allies. 

In fact, "LGBTQIA+" groups have been pushing their sexual brainwashing bills at the State Capitol for two decades now. Today, they're indoctrinating vulnerable kids, teaching sexual lies as "love" and "truth."

NEW OUTRAGEOUS TEXTBOOK CURRICULUM

The latest law impacting children is AB 329, which teaches all kinds of sexual examples and practices upon children, including “fisting,” “blood play,” masturbation, oral sex, teen fornication, homosexuality, transsexuality, and unlimited “genders,” as well as promoting abortion.

Read this shocking article
View this eye-opening video

Under the guise of “health” education, AB 329, dubbed the “California Healthy Youth Act,” creates new curriculum that is mandatory for grades 7-12 and is optional for younger grades. It is a new statewide mandate to require redefined “sex education” and also to eliminate parents' “opt-in” rights.

EYE-OPENING VIDEOS

Watch these short videos to understand the threat to your children.

1. Human Rights Campaign / Inclusive Lessons 


YouTube link to above video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g134pSNrhf0

This video explains that while, AB 329's teachings on "gender identity" are optional for school districts to impose or not impose upon kindergarten through fifth graders, homosexual and transsexual activists are heavily lobbying school districts and teachers to voluntarily teach these young children that there are unlimited sexual genders that they can switch in and out of.

For example, one children's schoolbook encourages children to use new sexual pronouns for themselves: "they," "she," "he," "ze," "tree," etc. This book's advice has teeth, because of the official "nondiscrimination" policy of the California School Board Association policy: "If a student so chooses, district personnel shall be required to address the student by a name and the pronouns consistent with his/her gender identity..."

There’s another book that teaches children to believe they are a "boy," a "girl," or neither" based on their feelings.

Another gender-bending book "calls legislative officials who supported Proposition 8 [California's initiative in 2008 defining marriage between a man and a woman] 'mean stink bugs' and shows kids how to vote and kick these 'stink bugs' out of office."

2. California Educational Laws


YouTube link to above video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFLAJe0_U74

AB 329 is a new California law that adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to public school sex education curriculum, and mandates positive portrayals of these non-biological behaviors for junior high/middle school students and high school students. AB 329 specifies that parents may opt their child out of the “sexual reproduction” or “HIV prevention” instruction, but may not opt-out of the “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” instruction.

And another sexual indoctrination law, SB 48, is a requirement for all grades' textbooks to teach positive portrayals of "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans," without any parental notification.

Education Code 51932(b) says parents may not opt out or excuse their child from any instruction that discusses gender identity or expression.

Part of this statewide redefinition of gender is SB 179, which offers an official third gender, called “non-binary” on California drivers’ licenses. This definition is both subjective and unlimited.

The California Teachers Association (CTA), which supported all these "LGBTQIA+" laws, says that parents "almost never" can prevent their children from receiving objectionable public-school instruction, and that parents can absolutely not opt-out their children from “gender, sexual orientation, family life” instruction.

Even more blatant is the ACLU, which says “parents do not have the right to dictate what curriculum is used or what information is provided to students in public schools. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that parents do not have any constitutional right 'to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.'"

3. California Health Framework 2019 


YouTube link to above video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6-uBPNHtdU

While AB 329 states the framework based on the “Healthy Youth Act” is optional for school districts, these is definite pressure for districts to approve it.

The California Department of Education framework gives a priority to the so-called "Gender Spectrum," stating:

“Gender identity refers to one's internal, deeply-held sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or other gender(s) and may not necessarily correspond with an individuals' sex assigned at birth.”

“Students may not conform to the social norms of binary gender identities of male and female (e.g. gender non-binary, gender nonconforming, androgynous, genderqueer, gender fluid).”

The California teachers union, CTA, in its California Educator magazine March 2017 article, "Embracing the Gender Spectrum,” claims there are at least 5 categories of "genders":

1. Gender Non-Conforming
2. Ambigender (pronouns of they, them, theirs)
3. Agender (pronouns of ze, hir, hirs, hirself)
4. Gender Fluid (pronouns also fluxuate)
5. Questioning (gender in process or unrealized)

While AB 329's "Healthy Youth Act" framework lists 7 "sexual orientations":

1. Heterosexual
2. Gay or Lesbian
3. Bisexual
4. Asexual
5. Pansexual
6. Polysexual
7. Queer

From Middle School "Teen Talk": "PAN means any or all. Someone who is pansexual might find themselves attracted to men, women, non-binary people, trans people, gender queer people, and many more!"

4. California Curriculum Samples 


YouTube link to above video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkwyAqguDpM

AB 329 mandates education promoting gender identity (transsexuality) and sexual orientation (homosexuality, bisexuality) for middle school and high school students; however, for K-6 grades, it’s optional.

But homosexual-bisexual-transsexual organizations are pushing books, videos, and other material upon elementary school districts and teachers in an effort to get them to implement AB 329 on their own.

Teen Talk, a private curriculum promoting abortion and the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, is highly recommended for middle school and high school students. One of their videos promotes teen transsexuality and defines "gender" or "absence of gender" based on feelings, not science. 

The video states, "Kids don't have a hang-up about gender the way adults do. We all have gender, or do we? School is the place to change and experiment. Young people know exactly who they are and what they need.”

This elimination of the science of the two sexes and the promotion of a subjective definition of unlimited “genders” is official throughout the laws of the State of California.

For example, California Education Code 210.7 states: “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. 

Books promoting transsexuality that have been sent to elementary school districts and teachers include:
"A Princess Boy,” "Red: A Crayon's Story,” “I am Jazz,” and “10,000 Dresses." All these books subjectively teach and promote “non-binary genders” and transgenderism in unlimited forms. Another book, "Who Are You?", which is recommended by the State Board of Education’s AB 329 framework, reads in part:

"Some people say there are only two genders. But really there are really many genders. I am girl, boy, both, neither, just me! And for some people, there are more than just two choices. These are just a few words people use: trans, genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, gender neutral, agender, neutrios, bigender, third gender, two-spirit … and there are even more words people are using to describe their experience. This is called the gender spectrum."

5. California Parent Rights 


YouTube link to above video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWAYOHFVoIU

Parents still have some rights in the California Education Code. And if your children are in government schools and you don’t plan to exit these soon, you need to study and demand your existing rights. 

Education Code, Section 60002 states, "Each district board shall provide for substantial teacher involvement in the selection of instructional materials and shall promote the involvement of parents and other members of the community in the selection of instructional materials." 

Therefore, parents and other community members can request to see materials related to AB 329 at the school district office. Also, you can ask your child's teacher to show you the AB 329 instructional materials will be taught or provided on any subject.

If your school district says, "We're in piloting process," then parents still have rights to participate in a pilot program. 

More potential rights include Education Code, Sections 51500 and 51501, which state that these programs must not reflect negatively content must not reflect adversely on any person's religious beliefs. 

51500 says, "A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of ... religion." Therefore, instruction cannot be biased in any way that would make any of the students, including religious students, feel excluded or depicted negatively.

51501 prohibits "any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of ... religion." Therefore, schools and teachers should avoid disparaging any specific religious view concerning homosexuality or gender. 

And 51933 says, “Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.” This applies to all grades and also means no instruction or materials may critique religious opposition to "LGBTQIA+" behavior.

Know your rights, know the Education Code, and, if necessary, show district staff your existing right on paper or on your phone.

CAN I OPT OUT MY CHILD?

Q: “Can I opt-out my child from this?”

A: California state law says you can, so you can try. Here's how to opt-out of AB 329's "health," "Sex education," and "HIV prevention education."

1. Download this AB 329 opt-out form (sample form | Spanish form)

2. Fill out the opt-out form and deliver it to your child’s school principal.

It is based on existing California laws guaranteeing the rights of parents to excuse their children from “health” and “sex education” (or “sexual health education”).

"California Education Code § 51240 requires a school, upon receipt of a written request from a parent or guardian, to excuse a student from all aspects of a school’s instruction in health that conflict with the religious training and beliefs of the family."

California Education Code § 51240 states “If any part of a school’s instruction in health conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs” or “personal moral convictions” of the family.

In addition, Section 51938 of the Education Code protects the right of parents “to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sex education, HIV prevention education, and assessments related to that education.” Parents can excuse their child by submitting “their request in writing to the school district.”

Q: What if my claim of parental rights is rejected by a school or school district? 

A: Immediately request legal help at https://www.adflegal.org/request-legal-help


10 ADDITIONAL SEXUAL INDOCTRINATION LAWS

This is going to hurt. But even if you successfully opt-out your child from all instruction related to AB 329, you won't be able to escape the rest of California’s sexual indoctrination laws.

That’s because, even before the California State Legislature passed AB 329, there were 10 other statewide school sexual indoctrination laws already on the books for K-12 government schools. They target your child, and parents CANNOT OPT-OUT their children.  

Keep scrolling to see the 10 other school indoctrination laws. 
You can also download a list here

Realize that the only way to protect your children from sexual brainwashing is to opt them out permanently from the government school system and powerfully loving your children with a church school or homeschooling.

Click here to see how to permanently rescue your child 

The other 10 California school sexual indoctrination laws are:

AB 1266 requires all K-12 public schools to permit biological boys in girls' restrooms, showers, clubs, and sports teams; and biological girls in boys' restrooms, showers, clubs, and sports teams.

SB 48 mandates that children from kindergarten through 12th grade, in all "instruction in social sciences," admire "the role and contributions of...lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans."

SB 543 permits teachers and administrators to remove sexually-confused children in 6th grade and up from campus and take them to counselors who will encourage them to embrace homosexuality or transsexuality.

ACR 82 (optional) creates de facto “morality-free zones” at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official “Discrimination-Free Zones” will "enact procedures" (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of “hate,” “intolerance,” or “discrimination.”

SB 572 (optional) establishes "Harvey Milk Day" in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools, and school districts that participate, children will now be taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco the month of May.

SB 777 prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old.

AB 394 effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents, and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials.

SB 71 teaches children as young as 5th grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”

AB 1785 require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, which promotes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality under a "diversity" label that also redefines "sex" and "gender."

AB 537 permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.

HOW TO PERMANENTLY EXIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Understanding that government schools do more damage than good for their children, many parents have decided to permanently remove their children and placing them in church school or do homeschooling. 

Today's homeschooling can be customized to match what's best for your children and family's schedule. It offers many resources, curriculum options, and opportunities for connection, socialization, and activities in your community. You'll find some wonderful home school groups to get the support, help, and encouragement you need to be successful.

Lean more here on our special website Rescue Your Child 

The undermining of Prop. 8//

  • Print

OCT. 12, 2009: Arnold Schwarzenegger has SIGNED SB 54.  

THE FACTS: SB 54 undermines Prop. 8 by recognizing same-sex "marriages" from other states and nations.

Senate Bill 54 by homosexual activist and Democrat state senator Mark Leno would violate the clear reading of Prop. 8 by recognizing homosexual “marriages” from other states and other countries as “marriages” here.

This is despite Prop. 8 (now Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution) reading: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Ultra-liberal city governments in San Francisco and West Hollywood have already passed resolutions supporting SB 54.

THE VOTES: The Sept. 9 Senate vote was 23-14 (21 votes needed for passage: see the vote tally), with only Democrats voting to undermine marriage. Earlier, the Assembly vote was 47 to 29 (41 votes needed for passage: see the vote tally), with only Democrats voting to undermine marriage.

More Articles...

  1. Day of Silence WALK OUT//
  2. California Legislation Center//
  3. LEGISLATION 2022 ARCHIVE//
  4. Pro-life Will To Live//