SB 18: Attacks parental rights //


Say NO to SB 18 -- Protect parental rights in California

Drag down SB 18 before SB 18 drags away and kills off your parental rights


If you know that parents are essential to family (how else do you conceive children?) and if you recognize that Creator God has given parents the incontrovertible right to raise and educate their own boys and girls, then please pick up your phone right now.

California's state legislators (2/3rds of them Democrats) are pushing a terrible bill to destroy parental rights.

About SB 18

SB 18 gives the State control over all California children. Under this so-called "children's rights" bill, the government would get new, subjective powers to remove children from good parents. This is unconstitutional, tyrannical, and anti-child. Ultimately, it means liberal politicians become the de facto parent.

Watch this video commentary explaining SB 18.

SB 18 by Democrat state senator Richard Pan is a horrible, direct attack upon California parents that MUST be stopped. Realize that every legal right given to a child is a legal right stripped from parents!

Homeschooling families, Christian families, parents who discipline, parents who own guns, parents against controversial vaccines -- they're all targeted by SB 18.

See how SB 18 gives the government new powers to decide what's "best" and "optimal" and "healthy" and "appropriate" for children.

And if parents disagree with the State, the parents lose! In fact, under the perfectionist, subjective terminology of SB 18, any parents who aren't doing what's "best," "optimal," "healthy" or "appropriate" in the eyes of the State are now BAD PARENTS whose children (or grandchildren) could be taken away from them.

As the parental rights experts at Family Protection Ministries report: 

The wording in this first version of SB 18 is broad, vague, and complex. If the introduced version of SB 18 became law in California, it would, at the very least, be a dangerous attack on parents having the legal right to make decisions for their children (ages 17 and younger) in every area of life (e.g., religion, education, social involvement, health, friendships, etc).

These are some of the reasons SB 18 is of great concern to us:

  • The state would become the enforcer of these newly created children’s rights (e.g. a heathy and safe environment; social and emotional well-being; an appropriate and quality education; and appropriate and quality health care).
  • It could override the current Constitutional law, which recognizes that parents have a FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL RIGHT to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
  • It could result in violations of families’ FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL RIGHTS to be secure in their homes against unreasonable state intrusion.

Tell them "Hands off our kids" -- Make these easy calls

WHO TO CALL: Please call the 5 members of the State Senate Rules Committee, and call your own state senator and assemblymember at both their Sacramento and district offices.

WHAT TO SAY: In your message say: "I'm calling to urge (legislator's name) to STOP SB 18, which attacks basic parental rights and empowers the State to remove children from good parents. Hands off our kids -- NO on SB 18."

IMPORTANT: Leave voicemails between 7pm and 7am. Do not reveal your name, city, or contact information (if you mistakenly do, they will likely disregard your call unless you're in their district).

1. Call the 5 members of the Senate Rules Committee, in this order. They can refuse to assign and advance SB 18 for a hearing in a policy committee:

Connie Leyva (D) (916) 651-4020 and (909) 591-7016
Anthony Cannella (R) (916) 651-4012 and (209) 581-9827
Tom Berryhill (R) (916) 651-4008 and (559) 253-7122
Kevin de León (D) (916) 651-4024 and (213) 483-9300
Toni Atkins (D) (916) 651-4039 and (619) 645-3133

2. Call your own California state senator and assemblymember at both their Sacramento offices and district offices. Click here to find your two California state legislators (Call them at both their Capitol and district offices -- that's just 4 calls; it's effective to reveal you live in the district of your own state senator or assemblymember, and yes, you can call them day or night)

3. Urge Governor Jerry Brown to veto SB 18 if it reaches his desk. Say: "Tell Governor Jerry Brown to veto SB 18 if it reaches his desk. This bill is unnecessary and attacks basic parental rights. SB 18 also threatens good parents with the overbearing and very broad new powers of government, and invades the sanctity of the home."

CALL: 916-445-2841 (during regular business hours)
FAX: 916-558-3160 | EMAIL: Use this webform

Quick facts on parental Involvement

» Children who have parental support are likely to have better health as adults.

» Students with involved parents tend to earn higher grades, have better social skills, and are more likely to graduate and go on to post-secondary education.

» Children are more likely to be socially competent and have better communication skills when they have parents who are sensitive to their needs and emotions.

» Teens who are monitored by their parents are one-quarter as likely as teens with "hands-off" parents to smoke, drink, and use drugs.

Parents play an irreplaceable role in the lives of their children. This vital relationship positively impacts a child's physical, mental, and emotional well-being. The right of parents to maintain a strong involvement in their children's lives has been continually upheld by Supreme Court doctrine. It is deeply valued by millions of American families. "The Vital Child-Parent Relationship,"

Digging deeper: Even 'thinking' media are suspicious of SB 18

1. From the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board

"Editorial: A lofty — and troubling — proposed bill of rights for California kids"  
February 7, 2017 full story link

Still, in the vague yet overly ambitious language of the bill so far, it’s possible to see the points of contention. It declares that children have a right to parents who act in their best interests. It calls for other rights that reflect “research-based essential needs.” Children also would have the right to attain “optimal cognitive, physical and social development.”

The point, Pan says, is to lay out a broad framework for what the state plans to do for children. But who decides what constitutes acting in a child’s best interests? What if parents don’t want their children in preschool but the state determines that preschool is best for 3-year-olds? Then there’s the question of how many parents can actually provide “optimal” development for their children. Most parents do their best, but optimal? It’s disturbing to contemplate what that could mean and who gets to decide it.

 The first people who quail at the language, though, should be state officials, especially the ones holding the purse strings. If California is going to pass laws conferring broad and almost unattainable rights for children, it could expose itself to enormous lawsuits. Cities could claim that lack of state funding for full and free universal childcare, preschool and wraparound daycare violates children’s rights under the law. Parks advocates could sue over lack of adequate green space in densely populated urban areas, because children miss out on optimal physical exercise. Your kid has an OK but less than fabulous teacher one year? That’s less than optimal, too. And so on down the road.

2. See how a "moderate" reporter at a local paper covered SB 18 author Richard Pan's South Sacramento meeting this week:

"Hands Off My Kids! Guns, Vaccines, Child Rights, Parental Control and SB 18"  
March 1, 2017 by Michael Monasky Elk Grove News

Angry parents picketed, protested, and lashed out at California Senator Richard Pan, as he and a panel of supporters rolled out Senate Bill 18 Tuesday night at a town hall  meeting in one of last night in one of Sacramento's poorest neighborhoods.

Titled The Bill of Rights for Children and Youth, it aspires to improve delivery of educational and social services to California's children. Ironically, Pan repeatedly referred to Jim Steyer and his privately-owned, child-media review company, Common Sense Media, as the sponsor of the bill.

Meanwhile, there was ample evidence at the local town hall meeting that kids and their parents are falling through the cracks in our social safety net. A psychiatric nurse gave testimony that abused kids with mental illness did not receive needed treatment; Senator Pan, like a true clinician, beamed a pediatric smile and solved the problem by defining it as “adverse childhood events and toxic stress.” Phil Serna, who chairs the Sacramento County First Five Commission (which should be taking the lead sponsorship as a public agency-not CSM), welcomed state funding and declared that there is “room for improvement.”             Another mother walked her autistic, special needs son to the microphone, complaining that he regularly leaves the school site. Again, Pan inserted his incomplete diagnosis, stating that there are “walls between [agency] silos” such as the school, Alta Regional services, etc; while failing to mention that insufficient state funding for child protection social workers prevents special needs children from receiving comprehensive, coordinated wrap-around services.

Greg Burt of the California Family Council, associated with Focus On The Family, home-schooled his kids and asked: “Do kids have the right to sue parents?” Assemblyman Kevin McCarty said “we're shortchanging our schools and building prisons.” Mr. Burt had to repeat his question and was frustrated by the panel's responses.

It's further troubling that SB 18's vague yet strident language establishing civil rights for kids could make it possible for chartered cities, counties, and school districts to sue the state for less than “optimal” schools, parks, and funding for child care, etc. Under this bill, it's likely possible that a child and his parents could have legal standing to sue the state school system for not providing the most “optimal” emotional, social, psychological, physical, and spiritual experiences possible.

Another mother, who complained of a three month delay in her child's speech therapy, questioned the panel's veracity in delivering such “optimal” childhood experiences when her child's most basic needs aren't being met. Supervisor Serna interjected that SB 18 provides counties a “declaratory value,” prioritizing the state's conflicting and unfunded mandates.

Perhaps the ugliest shouting matches of the evening engaged parents whose anger has been smoldering since the 2015 passage of Senator Pan's SB 277, vaccination exemptions for personal beliefs. Pan as pediatrician touts the value of herd immunity for highly communicable diseases for which vaccinations are available. There are rare, adverse reactions to vaccines; that's why many pharmaceutical companies no longer make them. Recurring incidents of these diseases in affluent communities prompted passage of SB 277.

Steyer left the panel early with the imperative: “show me something more important than kids in California.” (Parents, perhaps?) Dave Gilbert said he was concerned that, as a gun owner, the state could rule his possessions inappropriate for his children, come into his home and seize his weapons. Another mother declared, “I own guns, I home-school, and I don't vaccinate my kids.” Senator Pan responded: “The intent of SB 18 is not to punish parents.” Nonetheless, parents perceived the panel's shaming and muttered objections to feeling second-rate and not “optimal.”

Perhaps there are lessons for pediatrician-Senator Richard Pan in these brisk, public confrontations. First, parents have a powerfully emotional stake in raising their kids as they see fit. Second, there is a broad spectrum of perfectly acceptable and legal parental behaviors wedged between outright negligence and abuse. Third, people want to be heard and understood. Fourth, public agencies, like Sacramento County First Five Commission, should take charge and responsibility for research and development of such sensitive public policies; not privately-owned and privately-controlled commissions like Common Sense Media, which have a private, fiduciary conflict of interest to influence public policy. Fifth, poor and minority neighborhoods might need support, but it was primarily an affluent and white group, some from Elk Grove, that was most vocal at Tuesday night's town hall. It would be “optimal” for Senator Pan to ignore neither constituent.

* * *

Eye-opening quote from "The Creepiest Story About Government Replacing the Family That You'll Read Today,", July 24, 2014:

"Just like a good personal trainer, we want the robots to be able to guide the child toward a behavior that we desire,” said Brian Scassellati, a computer science professor at Yale and principal investigator for the study. "What we want to do is move these robots out of the laboratory and into schools and homes and clinics, places where we can directly help children on a day-to-day basis," he said. The NSF grant said the project is necessary due to "critical societal problems."