Saturday, October 1, 2022, 2:47 pm | Randy Thomasson
By the end of his September 30 signing deadline, tyrannical Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom had signed hundreds of foolish, unconstitutional, and downright evil bills.
I’m reporting this not to depress you, but so you become so concerned that you’ll share this information with your friends and reasonable acquaintances, so they’ll become energized to vote this election.
While the final week of bill signings saw Newsom’s vetoes of two big, anti-parent bills — SB 70 and AB 1940 (he vetoed them because of their huge, ongoing costs), he signed the rest of the anti-parent bills, and many unconstitutional bills.
Here are the big ones that could and should be struck down:
AB 587pressures social media companies to censor speech the Democrat-controlled government doesn’t like, such as, the truth about “Covid vaccines,” the harm of the “LGBTQIA+” agenda, the reality of election fraud, and the facts about life in the womb. AB 587 actually forces online platforms to report to the government whether they are blocking “Hate speech or racism,” “Extremism or radicalization,” “Disinformation or misinformation,” and, if so, how. These subjective terms are designed to censor your free speech, but the supporters of AB 587 think they can avoid constitutional scrutiny by forcing social media platforms to do their dirty work. Yet their fingerprints are all over this attack on the First Amendment. The larger conservative or free-speech-supporting platforms, such as Gab, Telegram, Truth Social, Rumble, Gettr, and Frank Speech should sue in federal court to repel this unconstitutional attack upon them and us.
AB 1797 will create a statewide vaccine registry, mandating most Californians’ vaccine status and “race and ethnicity” be reported to the government by “health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies.” AB 1797 is ripe for both a state and federal lawsuit, because it violates the California State Constitution’s explicit right to privacy. There’s even a California Supreme Court ruling from 1975 prohibiting any surveillance of Californians when there’s no suspected illegal activity. In addition, there’s California’s voter-approved prohibition of racial preferences (Proposition 209 from 1996). There are also federal medical privacy laws.
AB 2098 will punish doctors who have studied and tell their patients the facts about Covid (the non-threat of the “variants,”) the efficacy of natural and traditional therapeutics, and the risk of injury and death from the unsafe “Covid vaccines.” Because AB 2098 tramples medical ethics, informed consent, and the doctor-patient relationship, it must be sued and struck down in federal court. Specifically, AB 2098 infringes on the fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech in the U.S. and California constitutions. And professionally, it destroys the ethic of a second opinion — when a doctor disagrees with another doctor or even differs from so-called “consensus.”
AB 2223 permitting the killing of already-born infants and toddlers by prohibiting and punishing investigations by authorities of deaths occurring during the “perinatal period” (which a world-renowned child development authority said extends “18 to 24 months after the birth of the child.” This infanticide bill AB 2223 deserves a federal lawsuit based on the 14th Amendment‘s guarantee that States cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Who are the constitutional California district attorneys and sheriff-coroners who will sue AB 2223 on its face?
AB 2229 will discriminate against law enforcement officer candidates (police officers, sheriff’s deputies, California Highway Patrol officers) who are practicing Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and conservative Jews. As the Legislative Counsel describes AB 2229: “Existing law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum standards, including, among other requirements, that peace officers be evaluated by a physician and surgeon or psychologist and found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer. This bill would require that evaluation to include bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.” According to current California law: “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality …“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.” AB 2229 needs to be sued in federal court by law enforcement candidates who will be, or have been, discriminated against because of their religious values, on the strength of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act.
SB 107 empowers “LGBTQIA+” activists to legally kidnap and mutilate kids. If parents in other states want to help their boys or girls overcome sexual confusion, “LGBTQIA+” groups will scheme to bring these children to California, then their attorneys will go to court and use SB 107 to give California “jurisdiction” over the children, and then California tax-funded hormone injections and “sex change” surgeries will follow. “Counseling” is part of this process, during which SB 107 will convince biological girls they’re “boys” and biological boys they’re “girls” (SB 107 calls this “gender-affirming mental health care”), then the hormone injections and irreversible “sex change” operations (which SB 107 calls “gender-affirming health care”) will follow. Federal lawsuits should be filed by state attorney generals in Republican states for this blatant violation of parental consent laws and other laws in their states. And it might require the U.S. Supreme Court to deliver a clarifying parental rights decision.
Other anti-parent bills that were signed — SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479 — probably have no lawsuit potential (unless SCOTUS delivers a crystal-clear parental decision that California parents can use to regain their rights).
Religious hospitals might become exempt from SB 923‘s tyrannical transsexual indoctrination of health care providers if they sue and win in federal court on religious-freedom grounds. But pro-abortion bills, such as SB 1375 permitting nurses to kill pre-born babies and the 11 other pro-abortion bills Newsom signed, will survive all legal challenges because pro-abortion Democrat and RINO governors have built an unconstitutional, pro-abortion California Supreme Court, which callously guards “abortion rights.”
Overall, Newsom signed 997 bills this year, which were from Democrat authors or Democrat committees around 90% of the time.
We’re living in historic, even revolutionary, times. As the U.S. Supreme Court acts for the sake of constitutional justice, here’s some perspective to help you make sense of it all.
No more Roe won’t help California babies
Finally, after 49 years of Roe v. Wade’s unconstitutional, murderous agenda, it’s gone and abortion policies revert to 50 states.
Yet the demise of Roe won’t help California or other states ruled by abortion-loving Democrats. This is all the more reason to stand up for life. Especially since Newsom & Co. want to force California taxpayers to subsidize out-of-state abortions.
A top need of California pro-lifers this fall is to defeat SCA 10, which would go on the ballot to “codify” abortion on-demand in the California State Constitution. By proclaiming “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion,” SCA 10 would continue the California carnage of taxpayer-funded abortion procedures or pills for any girl or woman, regardless of a girl’s age, the number of abortions she’s already had, or her ability to pay. To be placed on the November ballot, SCA 10 requires a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate (it already passed the Senate), followed by an affirmative majority vote of the People.
Today’s SCOTUS ruling striking down the unconstitutional, unscientific 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinions was 6 to 3 (Republican-president-nominated judges for the Constitution and life vs. Democrat-president-nominated judges for unconstitutional murder of pre-born babies). Read the history-making decision yourself
Get ready for more gun-owner freedoms
Unlike abortion, the “sacred cow” idol of Democrat politicians, and which is again a question of states’ rights, the fundamental rights of safety-conscious, constitutional gun owners will likely increase in California now that the U.S. Supreme Court has majorly upheld the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The June 23 ruling portends a new era of constitutional equity for gun owners in America. Relying on the God-given liberties preceding our Constitution, it concludes:
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The practical effect in California is this much-needed, admirable ruling will be used in both state and local lawsuits against the unconstitutional laws of the Democrat politicians. It might take a couple of years, but gun-owner rights organizations are planning to use the New York State decision against California’s unconstitutional ban on “assault weapons,” California’s unconstitutional ban on magazines over 10 rounds, California’s unconstitutional background checks, and the unconstitutional ban of concealed weapon permits in Democrat-controlled counties, such as Los Angeles. So have hope!
Just the facts: Why gas prices are so high
Why isn’t there a second Revolutionary War over oppressive gas prices? Because the godless government schools have been very successful at avoiding teaching children the Bible, the Constitution, real history, principles of logic, evidence-based research, and truisms such as the commerce law of Supply and Demand.
This week, SaveCalifornia.com produced and posted these three slides to help people realize who to blame for robbing them of their God-given resources and raising gas prices. Please enjoy and share!
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813, Scottish advocate, judge, writer and historian
If you haven’t heard yet, on May 26, the Democrats that rule the California State Assembly powered through Covid medical tyranny bills AB 2098 and AB 1797 and the infanticide legalization bill AB 2223.
AB 2098 revokes licenses of doctors that counsel patients against the “Covid vaccine”
AB 1797 puts Californians into a database, segregating them by “Covid vaccine” status
AB 2223 prohibits law enforcement from investigating infant deaths
That was the worst thing of all. But the second worst was zero Republicans spoke against any of these bad bills. All 19 of them refused to speak to expose these bills’ great harms.
And I have to tell you, based on other times this week that Assembly Republicans vigorously spoke out (such as on protecting Central Valley water), I believe these medical tyranny bills and infanticide bill could have been defeated if exposed in a verbal floor fight.
If you were in this fight, you have my sincere thanks and admiration for calling Sacramento in an effort to stop these horrific bills. We had to try, because last year a vaccine passport bill and a forced jab bill were pulled for lack of support. And this year, several Covid tyranny bills have already been dropped by their authors.
The votes Despite no Assembly floor fight exposing how bad these 3 bills are, the initial votes were still close. With our goal of denying these bills a majority vote (41 yes votes), we successfully pulled off more than a dozen Democrats; so AB 2098 was declared “passed” by just 5 votes, AB 1797 by only 2 votes, and AB 2223 by 4 votes). However, by the end of the session, votes had changed, both sides coalesced, and vote disparities increased.
See the final votes (members are allowed to change their votes by the end of the session as long as they don’t change whether the bill passed or not): AB 2098 | AB 1797 | AB 2223
The future At this point, the only way I see to defeat these 3 awful bills is IF they’re amended in the State Senate, are sent back to the Assembly floor for concurrence votes — but this time, Republicans lovingly raise their microphones to shockingly expose and defeat these bills.
However, if AB 2098, AB 1797, and AB 2223 pass the entire California Legislature in August, and are signed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, what then? I strongly believe there should be constitutional lawsuits filed against them all. Here’s why:
AB 2098 squashing medical independence on the “Covid vaccine” is an unconstitutional regulation of speech. By targeting doctors for Covid-related “misinformation or disinformation,” AB 2098 unconstitutionally targets professional speech. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Pickup v. Brown (2013), “…doctor-patient communications about medical treatment receive substantial First Amendment protection.”
The appellate court also stated, “where a professional is engaged in a public dialogue, First Amendment protection is at its greatest. Thus, for example, a doctor who publicly advocates a treatment that the medical establishment considers outside the mainstream, or even dangerous, is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment—just as any person is.”
The author of AB 2098 knows his bill might be unconstitutional: On April 20, he amended AB 2098 to make its provisions “severable … if any provision of this act or its application is held invalid.”
AB 1797 segregating Californians by vaccine status, race and ethnicity, violates Californians’ privacy rights by eliminating confidentiality. By requiring, as the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 1797 describes, “health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies to disclose the specified immunization information,” this bill violates the constitutional privacy rights of many Californians.
In 1972, California voters overwhelmingly added “privacy” to the list of “inalienable rights” guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution. In 1975, the California Supreme Court, in White v. Davis, relied on California’s newly-affirmed constitutional right of privacy to prevent police officers from posing as college students and gathering intelligence on what is said in the classroom when the intelligence gathered bore no relation to any suspected illegal activity.
As the court wrote: Moreover, the surveillance alleged in the complaint also constitutes a prima facie violation of the explicit “right of privacy” recently added to our state Constitution. As we point out, a principal aim of the constitutional provision is to limit the infringement upon personal privacy arising from the government’s increasing collection and retention of data relating to all facets of an individual’s life.
By violating Californians’ medical privacy – in the classroom and otherwise – AB 1797 is in direct conflict with the California Constitution.
AB 2223 robs already-born babies of their constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Since this isn’t about abortion, but infanticide — which is murder — we can foresee a federal constitutional lawsuit demanding the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If should be tried, if there’s indeed a pro-life majority at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thank you again for fighting these awful bills through your phone calls or by donating to SaveCalifornia.com. We had to try, and I’m grateful you did your part. But most Assembly Democrats shirked their constitutional pledges and all the Republicans went mute.
Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. Proverbs 31:8
If you faint in the day of adversity, Your strength is small. Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. Proverbs 24:10-11
RSS 2.0 Feed