AB 1540 has been neutralized and is now "without teeth" -- no authorization and no funding. The June 15 amendments transformed the bill into only an annual check of whether the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has activated "an adequate specialized LGBTQ+ suicide prevention hotline." It's still a bad bill, but not as bad as before.

Current California law (AB 727) requires on student ID cards -- in grades 7-12 at government schools, and at UC, CSU, and community colleges -- an "LGBTQ+ suicide and crisis hotline," where any California child can call or text to be positively influenced into transsexuality "counseling," treatments, and sexual contacts. Yet the evidence shows this pro-"trans" agenda will result in more youth suicides.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1540, as amended June 15, 2026:

This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency (agency) to annually determine whether an adequate specialized LGBTQ+ suicide prevention hotline is activated by the federal government under 988 and would make implementation of this bill contingent on the agency’s determination, as specified. The bill would require OES to, no later than 6 months after the agency’s determination, request the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to enable a press 3 function for calls originating in the State of California to allow callers to dial 988 and press “3” to be automatically routed to a specialized call center. The bill would require OES to, no later than 12 months following the approval by SAMHSA, ensure that the specified technologies are available.

This bill would require, no later than 12 months following approval by SAMHSA, the agency to identify and contract with a qualified entity or entities that specialize in LGBTQ+ suicide prevention services. The bill would require the agency to determine the eligibility criteria, establish an application process, and administer funds to the qualified entity, as specified. The bill would require a qualified entity to comply with various requirements, including having a primary objective of reducing suicide rates or addressing mental health crises.

Status | Votes: This bill is dead for the year. On August 30, instead of passing the Assembly floor, AB 1540 was "Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Mark González" (Gonzalez is an "LGBTQIA+" activist, whose legislative district is in downtown Los Angeles) for reasons unknown to us. Previously, this bad bill was approved on August 30 on the State Senate floor (voting yes were all the Democrats + 5 Republicans: Marie Alvarado-Gil, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Suzette Valladares; not voting were the other 5 Republicans: Steven Choi, Megan Dahle, Roger Niello, Mr. Kelly Seyarto, Tony Strickland). Previously, on August 13, this "LGBTQIA+" agenda bill was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Mr. Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Megan Dahle). Previously, on July 1, it passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats and both Republicans). Previously, on June 23 (after it was favorably amended on June 15), AB 1540 passed the Senate Emergency Management Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Kelly Seyarto; not voting was Republican Megan Dahle. Previously, on May 27, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor, with the yes votes of 59 Democrats and 5 Republicans (Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Heath Flora, Jeff Gonzalez, and Greg Wallis); the rest of the Republicans were split between voting no or abstaining.

AB 1876 by pro-"LGBTQIA+" Democrat Party assemblywoman Dawn Addis of the Central Coast would force health insurers to fund "sex change" procedures (puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, double mastectomies, etc.) for children. The bill, of course, calls this irreversible maiming of children, who are not mature enough to give informed consent, "gender affirming care."

"Children cannot consent to puberty blocker trial, Streeting admits" (U.K. 12/17/25)
Billboard Chris: Children Cannot Consent to Puberty Blockers (UCLA, 2025)
Study: No evidence that puberty blockers improve patients’ mental health (10/23/24)

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1876, as revised April 15, 2026:

This bill would prohibit a subscriber, enrollee, policyholder, or insured from being excluded from enrollment or participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination by, any health care service plan or health insurer licensed in this state, on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. The bill would define discrimination on the basis of sex for those purposes to include, among other things, sex characteristics, including intersex traits, pregnancy, and gender identity. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer from taking specified actions relating to providing access to health programs and activities, including, but not limited to, denying or limiting health care services to an individual based upon the individual’s sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer, in specified circumstances, from taking various actions, including, but not limited to, denying, canceling, limiting, or refusing to issue or renew health care service plan enrollment, health insurance coverage, or other health-related coverage, or denying or limiting coverage of a claim, or imposing additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, as specified. Because a violation of the bill’s requirements by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Status | Votes: AB 1876 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 25 passage on the State Senate floor (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were 9 of 10 Republicans; Republican Suzette Valladares abstained). Previously, on August 3, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (homosexual activist Sabrina Cervantes) invoked a rule to send this bad bill directly to the floor without a hearing. Previously, on June 23, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Roger Niello; not voting was Republican Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on June 3, it passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Shannon Grove; abstaining was Republican Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on May 4, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 55 Democrats and Republican Greg Wallis; voting no were most of the Republicans; not voting were Republicans Juan Alanis and Phillip Chen).

AB 1967 by "LGBTQIA+" activist and Democrat Party assemblyman Rick Zbur would permit minors "residing at a residential facility for children and youth" to eliminate all parental rights of their parents or guardian, WITHOUT the established standard that, in the parents' or guardian's home, the child "suffered" or "there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm." AB 1967 shatters this standard, allowing children (with the "help" of social workers) to sever parental rights unilaterally.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1967, as amended August 21, 2026:

This bill would expand the eligibility criteria for filing that petition by eliminating the requirement that the nonminor’s former guardians or adoptive parents, as applicable, no longer receive benefits on their behalf, and instead specify that the nonminor is eligible pursuant to that provision if the nonminor is no longer receiving support from their former guardian or guardians or their adoptive parent or parents, as applicable.

From the bill text, which does not define "support," which Merriam-Webster's Dictionary has several definitions for, including, "to promote the interests or cause of especially by action or aid" and "to uphold or defend as valid or right" and "to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage" -- meaning a judge could subjectively define "support" by recognizing the minor's parents do not support their child's homosexual or transsexual behavior, so, using AB 1967, the judge could sever their parental rights:

(B) The nonminor’s guardian or guardians, or adoptive parent or parents, as applicable, have died, or the nonminor is no longer receiving any support from their former guardian or guardians or any support from their adoptive parent or parents, as applicable, and it is in the nonminor’s best interests for the court to assume dependency jurisdiction.

Read the June 18, 2026 California Globe analysis, "California Bill Would Allow Trans Children to ‘Divorce’ Their Parents"

Status | Votes: AB 1967 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 27 passage (voting yes were 58 of 60 Democrats + 14 of 19 Republicans). Earlier that same day, this bad bill passed the State Senate (voting yes were all 30 Democrats; all the Republicans either voted no or abstained). Previously, on August 13, it was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; abstaining were Republicans Mr. Kelly Seyarto and Megan Dahle). Earlier, on June 29, this bad bill passed the Senate Human Services Committee (voting yes were all four Democrats; abstaining was the sole Republican, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh. And earlier, on June 16, it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (most Democrats voting yes, and both Republicans abstaining). AB 1967 has already passed the State Assembly with zero votes in opposition.

SB 934 by 23 pro-"LGBTQIA+" Democrat Party legislators (most of them homosexual activists) would permit pro-family counselors helping children and adults overcome homosexual or transsexual delusions to be sued for "damages." This unjust, unfair bill would financially destroy pro-family counselors and even their employers, while casting a blind eye to the real harm of bad counselors telling boys they could be girls and girls they could be boys.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 934, as amended June 3, 2026:

This bill would define “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts” as any practices of a licensed mental health provider that seek to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity, as specified, and would apply the prohibitions described above to such efforts.

This bill would require specified actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, as defined, be commenced (1) within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority if the plaintiff was under the age of 18 when at the time of conduct, (2) within 10 years if the plaintiff was 18 years of age or older at the time of conduct, (3) or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers that psychological injury or illness occurring after the conduct was caused by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, as specified. The bill would apply to actions for damages commencing after January 1, 2027, against licensed mental health providers, as defined, and against persons and entities that employed or negligently hired, supervised, or retained a licensed mental health provider who engaged in sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts. The bill would make specified types of evidence, including certain expert testimony, admissible to establish causation and harm for these actions. The bill would revive certain actions arising from conduct that occurred on or after January 1, 2009 that have not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2027, because the applicable statute of limitations or any other time limit had expired. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Status | Votes: SB 934 has been sent to the governor after passing the Assembly on August 20 (voting yes were 57 Democrats + Republican Greg Wallis; voting no were 18 Republicans; abstaining were Democrats Blanca Rubio and Avelino Valencia, and Republican Leticia Castillo) and the State Senate the day before (voting yes were 27 of 30 Democrats; voting no were 9 of 10 Republicans). Previously, on August 13, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were all the Republicans). Previously, on June 9, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). Earlier, on May 19, it passed the State Senate floor (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were all the Republicans, except Republican Roger Niello, who abstained).

SB 1114 by "LGBTQIA+" activist state senator Christopher Cabaldon of Yolo/Solano/Napa/Sonoma counties tries to hide documentation of "a person’s transgender or intersex status” in public records and medical records, and redefines "SOGISC":

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 1114, as amended August 21, 2026:

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state or local government, or an authorized agency thereof, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

The bill would require state entities under these provisions, after notifying the Legislature that the entity has the necessary automation capabilities, to share information pertaining to SOGISC in accordance with specified requirements when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and that information is required for federal program participation. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to comply with these provisions as early as possible following the notification set forth above, but no later than January 1, 2028.

The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a that violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state and local agency, as defined, to make its records open to public inspection at all times during office hours, except as specifically exempted from disclosure by law.

This bill would provide, subject to specified exceptions, that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure by specified state entities under the California Public Records Act, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified, or disclosed in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The text of SB 1114 redefines SOGISC (currently standing for "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and variations in Sex Characteristics/Intersex Status") as follows:

8310.8. (a) For the purposes of this section, “information pertaining to SOGISC” means information pertaining to any of the following:

(1) A person’s sexual orientation identity.

(2) A person’s gender identity.

(3) A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.

(4) For purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d), information pertaining to SOGISC also includes information that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, including any of the following:

(A) A person’s self-identification as transgender, nonbinary, or a gender other than man/male or woman/female.

(B) Information about a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth that is stored or disclosed in a manner that may result in a person being classified as transgender or intersex.

(C) Administrative records of gender marker change or documentation submitted in conjunction with a request for gender marker change.

(D) Medical information related to transgender or intersex status not otherwise protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Public Law 104-191) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code).

Status | Votes: On August 27, SB 1114 was quickly signed without comment by Gov. Newsom. Just the day before, August 26, this bad bill had passed the State Senate (voting yes were all 30 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Marie Alvarado-Gil, Tony Strickland, and Suzette Valladares; not voting were the rest of the Republicans) after passing the Assembly floor on August 25 (voting yes were 59 Democrats + 1 Republican: Greg Wallis; voting no were 14 of 19 Republicans; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Heath Flora, and Josh Hoover). Previously, on August 13, this bad bill was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Diane Dixon, Tri Ta, and David Tangipa; abstaining was Republican Josh Hoover). Earlier, on June 30, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were the three Republicans). Previously, on June 23, it passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, while Republicans split between voting no and not voting). Earlier, on May 26, this bad bill passed the State Senate (voting yes were all the Democrats; abstaining were all the Republicans).

AB 2164 by 28 pro-abortion Democrat Party legislators would shield from any legal liability those who kidnap minors in other states to bring them to California for an abortion or "sex changes." This bad bill also empowers California's governor to "extradite" back to California anyone charged in another state for illegally pushing a California abortion or California "sex change" upon a minor.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 2164, as amended April 23, 2026:

This bill would specify that the protections applicable to persons who engage in legally protected health care activity, as defined, apply to a person who previously has undertaken one or more acts or omissions while in another United States jurisdiction to aid or encourage, or attempt to aid or encourage, any person in the exercise and enjoyment, or attempted exercise and enjoyment, of rights to reproductive health care services or gender affirming health care services if the acts or omissions were permissible under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the person was located at the time of the acts or omissions.

This bill would prohibit the Governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person subject to criminal liability based on the alleged provision or receipt of, assistance in the provision or receipt of, material support for, or in any theory of vicarious, joint, several, or conspiracy liability for any legally protected health care activity, except as specified.

Status | Votes: AB 2164 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 25 passage in the State Senate (every Democrat voted yes and every Republican voted no). Earlier, on August 3, homosexual activist Sabrina Cervantes invoked a rule to send this bad bill directly to the floor without a hearing. Previously, on June 30, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were both Republicans). Earlier, on June 16, it passed the Senate Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was the committee's sole Republican). Earlier, on May 21, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 56 Democrats and Republican Greg Wallis; voting no were 14 Republicans; not voting were Republicans Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Josh Hoover, and Tom Lackey).

AB 2540 by 11 Democrat Party legislators would require CSU and UC on-campus "student health centers" to promote their chemical-abortion baby-killing "services" to students, and require community colleges' on-campus "student health centers" to likewise offer and promote these murderous "services."

Learn how chemical abortions harm babies, women, water, and more

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 2540, as amended July 2:

Existing law requires, on and after January 1, 2023, a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus to offer abortion by medication techniques, as specified. Existing law establishes the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund to be administered by the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and continuously appropriates the moneys in that fund to the commission for specified activities related to providing abortion by medication techniques at student health centers.

This bill would require a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus, on or before January 1, 2028, to promote awareness of the services for abortion by medication techniques that the student health center offers, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website.

This bill would require a community college that has a student health center, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to, on and after January 1, 2029, offer access to abortion by medication techniques, promote awareness of those services, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website. The bill would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2030, that includes, but is not limited to, specified information relating to abortion by medication techniques at or through community college student health centers. The bill would require the commission, in consultation with the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to develop a standardized reporting framework that minimizes administrative burden and protects student privacy. The bill would authorize funds appropriated for these provisions to be used for implementation readiness activities and ongoing operational costs, as specified.

Status | Votes: AB 2540 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 30 final passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were all the Democrats + 1 Republican: Greg Wallis; voting no were 17 of 19 Republicans; abstaining was Republican Juan Alanis). A couple days earlier, on August 27, this bad bill passed the State Senate (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were 9 of 10 Republicans; abstaining was Republican Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on August 13, it was approved in the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Mr. Kelly Seyarto and Megan Dahle). Previously, on July 1, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were both Republicans). Earlier, on June 24, it was approved by the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Shannon Grove; abstaining was Republican Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on May 26, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 58 Democrats + Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; voting no were the rest of the Republicans).

AB 2563 by Democrat Party assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco of Downey/Norwalk/La Mirada in southeast Los Angeles County would redefine "sex discrimination" to advance baby-killing (abortion) and transsexuality (for both children and adults).

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 2563, as amended May 18, 2026:

This bill would require, under all state laws, that any provision that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, discrimination on the basis of gender, or similar discrimination be interpreted to prohibit sex discrimination. The bill would define “sex discrimination” to include, among other things, discrimination based on any of specified actual or perceived characteristics or actions, including based on degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes.

This bill would provide that this interpretation reflects the existing protections of specified state constitutional laws, as described above. The bill would require these provisions to be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes of these constitutional protections. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

This bill would further define, for purposes of the act, “sex” to include any characteristics set forth under the above-described definition of “sex discrimination.”

From the text of AB 2563, as amended May 18, 2026:

(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Discrimination” includes, but is not limited to, harassment.

(2) “Pregnancy or related medical conditions” includes, but is not limited to, childbirth, abortion, lactation, miscarriage, fertility, and contraception.

(3) “Sex discrimination” includes, but is not limited to, discrimination based on any of the following actual or perceived characteristics or actions:

(A) Assigned sex or gender category, including female, male, or nonbinary.

(B) Degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes.

(C) Gender, including gender identity, gender expression, and access to, and use of, gender affirming care and other related health care.

(D) Pregnancy or related medical conditions.

(E) Decisionmaking, access to care, or potential or actual use of a drug, device, product, or service relating to pregnancy or related medical conditions.

(F) Sexual orientation.

(G) Variations in sex characteristics, including intersex traits or differences in sex development.

Status | Votes: AB 2563 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 30 final passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were 15 of 19 Republicans; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis, Heath Flora, Tom Lackey, and Greg Wallis), which followed this bad bill's August 27 passage in the State Senate (every Democrat voted yes and every Republican voted no). Previously, on June 29, it was sent to the Senate floor by the Appropriations Committee chairwoman "pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8" (without a hearing). Earlier, on June 16, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were 9 of 11 Democrats; voting no were both Republicans; abstaining were two Democrats). Previously, on May 26, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 58 Democrats; voting no were most of the Republicans).

AB 1578 by "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson of Moreno Valley/Perris/San Jacinto would force all state and local elected officials into "anti-hate speech training and education"; however, the bill never defines "hate speech" and neither does California law. However, the Penal Code, Section 422.56 promotes "hate crimes" based on “gender identity and gender expression," which is very similar to Government Code, Section 12940, which is mentioned in this forced-speech bill.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digests of AB 1578, as amended August 26, 2026:

This bill would require, beginning on January 1, 2028, if a state agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a state agency official of that agency, that all state agency officials of that agency receive training on responding to hate, as prescribed. The bill would define “state agency official” to mean a state elected official for that purpose. The bill would require at least one hour of training and education for a state agency official within the first 6 months of taking office or commencing employment, and every 2 years thereafter. The bill would authorize a state agency or an association of state agencies to offer one or more training courses, or sets of self-study materials with tests, to meet these requirements. The bill would authorize a state agency to develop its own training that meets the requirements or direct elected officials to complete a training developed by the department. The bill would require the department to develop or obtain an online training course on responding to hate and make the course available on its internet website.

Existing law requires local agency officials, as defined, to receive sexual harassment prevention training and education if the local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to those officials. Existing law requires the training and education to include practical examples aimed at instructing the local agency official in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

This bill would additionally require, beginning on January 1, 2028, the above-described training and education to include for any elected local agency official, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training, as described. The bill would authorize an elected local agency official to take a training developed for state agency officials pursuant to the bill to satisfy the anti-hate speech training requirement.

From the text of AB 1578, as amended August 26, 2026:

Beginning on January 1, 2028, the training and education required by this section for any elected local agency official shall also include anti-hate speech training as a component of the training and education. Anti-hate speech training shall provide practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, engaging or participating in, and confronting speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on the protected characteristics listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940.

And what are the "protected characteristics" listed in Section 12940 of the California Government Code? "...race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person..." And AB 1578 will decidedly push all the sexual "characteristics" such as "gender, gender identity, gender expression" and "sexual orientation" upon those being "trained."

Status | Votes: AB 1578 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 30 final passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 of 60 Democrats; voting no were 17 of 19 Republicans; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis), which was approved earlier that same day in the State Senate (every Democrat voted yes and every Republican voted no). Earlier, on August 13, this bad bill was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Mr. Kelly Seyarto and Megan Dahle). Previously, on June 23, it passed the Senate Governmental Organization Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, and Suzette Valladares; abstaining was "Republican" Marie Alvarado-Gil.) Earlier, on June 17, this bad bill passed the Senate Local Government Committee (voting yes were 4 of 5 Democrats; voting no were both Republicans; abstaining was 1 Democrat). Earlier, on May 26, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats; voting no were nearly all the Republicans; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis).

AB 1803 would require employers with 5 or more employees to add “anti-hate speech training” to existing sexual harassment courses. This would mean forcing "anti-hate training" of nearly all California employees, starting Jan. 1, 2028.

From the text of AB 1803, as amended June 17, 2026:

Anti-hate speech training shall provide supervisors and employees with practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on the protected characteristics listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940.

Again, what are the "protected characteristics" listed in Section 12940 of the California Government Code? "...race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person..." AB 1803 will violate the religious faith and free speech of every employee who does not support the “LGBTQIA+” agenda, pushing Section 12940’s sexual "characteristics" such as "gender, gender identity, gender expression" and "sexual orientation" upon employees being "trained."

Status | Votes: AB 1803 is on Gov. Newsom's desk after its August 26 final passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 of 60 Democrats; voting no were 17 of 19 Republicans; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis), which followed this bad bill's August 25 passage in the State Senate (every Democrat voted yes; 8 of 10 Republicans voted no; abstaining were Republicans Tony Strickland and Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on August 13, it was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Mr. Kelly Seyarto and Megan Dahle). Previously, on June 30, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Roger Niello; abstaining was Republican Suzette Valladares). Earlier, on June 10, this bad bill was approved by the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Democrats voted yes, while the committee's lone Republican, Tony Strickland, did not vote). Earlier, on May 4, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats; voting no were half of the Republicans, while the other half abstained).

AB 2624, aka "The Nick Shirley Act," by Democrat Party assemblywoman Mia Bonta (wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta), despite amendments, STILL punishes independent journalists for uncovering fraudulent use of federal tax dollars spent on “services to” illegal aliens in California. Urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto this pro-fraud bill.

This BAD bill punishes independent journalists in several ways:

1. By prohibiting conservative investigative journalists from doing what they do — collecting video of wrongdoing and wrongdoers, and posting it on the web and social media to blow the whistle on corrupt Democrat-Party-controlled government.

From the text of AB 2624, as amended July 2, 2026:

A person, business, or association shall not knowingly publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the internet the personal information or image of any designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the specific intent to do either of the following:

[Below are penalties for making anyone experience “reasonable fear for their personal safety”]:

2. By suing and hauling into court Nick Shirley or other independent journalists, AB 2624 would be used to accuse them of making people feel “threatened” and “fearing” for their safety. See these subjective definitions in the latest version of the bill:

Threaten the designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.

Threaten the program participant or their coresident in a manner that places the program participant or their coresident in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.

Under AB 2624, it would be up to a liberal judge or jurors, who side with liberal attorneys and pro-illegal-alien organizations, and they’d likely deliver judgments against Nick Shirley and other conservative investigative journalists, finding them “liable” under AB 2624.

A judge or jury could “grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the successful plaintiff court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees…and “shall award damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).”

The Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 2624, as amended July 2:

This bill would, commencing October 1, 2027, similarly establish an address confidentiality program for a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, as defined, who faces threats of violence or harassment from the public because of their affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility. This bill would additionally prohibit a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer with the intent described above. The bill would also, among other things, prohibit a person from posting on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the specific intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence that is likely to occur against such an individual. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. By imposing new duties on local agencies and creating new crimes, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Status | Votes: AB 2624 was quickly signed by Gov. Newsom without comment on Aug. 22. On August 19, the Assembly floor vote was 59 of 60 Democrats voted yes, and all 19 Republicans voted no. On August 18, the Senate floor vote was all 30 Democrats voted yes, and all 10 Republicans voted no. Previously, on August 13, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Mr. Kelly Seyarto and Megan Dahle). Previously, on June 30, this bad bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was the committee's sole Republican, Mr. Kelly Seyarto). Earlier, on June 23, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were both Republicans). Earlier, on June 16, this bad bill passed the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Earlier, on May 26, this pro-illegal-alien bill was approved by the full Assembly (voting yes were 57 out of 60 Democrats; voting no were 19 out of 20 Republicans).

AB 1900 by 20 Democrat Party legislators would eliminate private health insurance and place all health care under the direct control of the state government. This foolish bill would result in higher taxes, long waits, rationing, fewer doctors, and less treatment. See documentation

Status | Votes: This foolish and harmful bill is dead for the year. Fortunately, this incredibly expensive "government-controlled health care" notion by Democrat Party Assemblyman Ash Kalra was never assigned to a committee.

AB 2017 by Democrat Party assemblyman Matt Haney of San Francisco (and coauthored by 11 other Democrats) would add the Muslim holidays of "Eid al-Fitr" and "Eid al-Adha" to California’s list of official state holidays, authorizing government-controlled K-12 schools to close along with 11 other state-recognized holidays.

TAKE QUICK ACTION:

Contact Gov. Newsom and demand he veto AB 2017:
Phone: 916-445-2841 (M-F 8a-5p)
Newsom web form: https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact

Say something like: “Please veto AB 2017. Promoting one religion over another has no place in public schools. Instead, focus on improving reading, writing, and arithmetic — veto AB 2017!”

* * *

AB 2017 would be implemented in all parts of state government, including in California's dumb downed state schools, where the Pledge of Allegiance is not consistently offered and where Christmas and Easter Breaks are now commonly called "Winter Break" and "Spring Break."

As the California Globe noted on August 30, 2026:

"This bill amounts to the state authorizing and promoting the celebration of specific religious holidays inside public school classrooms. Teaching students to celebrate a religious holiday is not neutral. The state is directing public school teachers to lead exercises that acknowledge and celebrate the religious meaning of these observances, while having already removed all Christian teachings. That is the government taking sides on religion, and a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or specially favoring one religion over others."

Status | Votes: AB 2017 is on the Governor's desk, and he has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it. On August 30, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Josh Hoover, Joe Patterson, and Greg Wallis). Earlier that same day, AB 2017 passed the State Senate (voting yes were all 30 Democrats, while the 10 Republicans split between voting no and not voting).

AB 2651 by 11 pro-Big-Pharma State Assembly Democrat Party politicians would promote questionable, unproven, and harmful injections to schoolchildren, advertising it falsely to parents in other languages.

And while the main author of this bad bill claims it will empower parents "to make informed decisions," AB 2651 never acknowledges, nor will it tell parents, the documented harms of common vaccines given to children.

The Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 2651, as amended June 25, shows the bill now includes unscientific vaccine indoctrination in daycare centers:

This bill, the Informed Parents, Healthy Schools Act, would require the department to establish, and update as needed, levels of immunization rates needed to prevent the spread of specified communicable diseases. The bill would require the department to establish notification procedures designed to annually inform designated parties, including schools, daycare centers, and county departments of public health, when an immunization rate is determined to fall below the rate established by the department, among other things. The bill would require that the notification be translated into any language, in addition to English, that is spoken by 15% or more of enrolled children. The bill would require the department to apply existing data de-identification standards and methodologies to protect individual privacy, consistent with applicable state and federal law, in implementing these provisions.

The bill would require a school or institution, as defined, to distribute the above-described notification to parents or guardians of enrolled children within 10 business days of receiving the notification from the department. The bill would authorize the school or institution to determine the manner of distribution for the notification, consistent with specified requirements. The bill would require the governing authority of the school or institution to cooperate with the department in carrying out these provisions.

If you haven't studied vaccine efficacy or safety. Here are facts and evidence so you can learn about the many negatives of vaccines (no matter what the government, or the educational or medical establishments, tell you):

Science says unvaccinated children are HEALTHIER

Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administered

The Plausible Connection between Vaccines and SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)

Pediatricians Turn Well Baby Checkups into Vaccine Battlegrounds

Vaccines: Know the Risks and Failures

Most vaccines are loaded with carcinogens, neurotoxins, pathogens, prions, unrelated viruses and heavy metals

The Vaccine Deep State’s Control Over Public Policy by Ignoring Real Science

Status | Votes: AB 2651 is dead for the year. In mid-August, this bad bill was "held under submission" in the State Senate Appropriations Committee -- meaning it did not escape the committee by the committee's Aug. 14 deadline. Previously, on July 1, itl passed the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all Democrats except Christopher Cabaldon abstained; voting no were both of the committee's Republicans). Earlier, on June 24, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all the Republicans; voting no were both Republicans). Earlier, on May 26, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 58 of 60 Democrats + Republican Greg Wallis; voting no were 13 Republicans; abstaining were 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Earlier, on May 14, it was approved in the Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Tri Ta and David Tangipa; abstaining were Republicans Diane Dixon and Josh Hoover). Previously, on April 15, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Leticia Castillo; abstaining was Republican Josh Hoover). Earlier, on April 7, it passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were all the Republicans except Phillip Chen, who was recorded as not voting).

ACA 7 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Corey Jackson would change the California Constitution to permit blatant discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in all aspects of K-12 schools, colleges, and universities (except in "higher education admissions and enrollment"). ACA 7 is the opposite of a color-blind society. It promotes official (institutionalized and systemic) reverse racism and anti-male sexism by denying teaching jobs if you're the "wrong" color or sex.

As the August 28, 2026 Assembly floor analysis reports, supporters of ACA 7 admit it "would amend the California constitution to permit use of race in public education policy, excluding higher education enrollment," while opponents expose that ACA 7 would "permit the government to discriminate in all aspects of K-12 education and all other aspects pertaining to colleges and universities."

As the June 9, 2026 State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee's analysis of ACA 7 further explained:

Existing law, contained in Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution prohibits the State of California from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, “any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

This measure asks the people of the State of California at the November 7, 2028, statewide general election ballot to amend Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution to replace “public education” with “higher education admissions and enrollment.” The measure would also make other conforming and technical changes.

Status | Votes: ACA 7 will go on the 2028 November ballot after its August 30 passage on the Assembly floor (59 of 60 Democrats voted yes and all 19 Republicans voted no). A couple of days before, on August 27, this racist, sexist proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the State Senate (every Democrat voted yes and every Republican voted no). Earlier, on August 13, this bad proposal was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were 4 of 5 Democrats; voting no were Republicans Mr. Kelly Seyarto and Megan Dahle; abstaining was Democrat Aisha Wahab). If ACA 7 passes two-thirds of the Senate and then returns to the Assembly for a final two-thirds vote, it will go on California's 2028 ballot (no governor's action is required for proposed state constitutional amendments). Previously, on June 9, this racist proposed state constitutional amendment passed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was the committee's sole Republican). Earlier, on June 3, ACA 7 was approved by the Senate Education Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). On February 19, this racist measure passed on the Assembly floor with the bare minimum two-thirds vote (54 yes votes). Voting yes were 54 Democrats; voting no were 14 Republicans; abstaining were 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

SB 762 permits a dozen cities and one county to vote locally to raise their "transactions and use tax" higher than currently allowed by the State.

Use tax definition from a tax attorney: "California use tax is a tax on the storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property in California for which California sales tax was not paid. Same rate as sales tax — 7.25% base plus district add-ons. The short version is that use tax applies to out-of-state purchases, online purchases from non-registered sellers, and certain business-use acquisitions. Businesses report use tax on CDTFA returns; individuals report on California income tax return."

The local governments that SB 762 permits to raise taxes higher than the current State of California limit:

City of Hercules (already imposes a 9.25% combined sales and use tax rate)
County of Santa Barbara (already imposes a 7.75% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Carpinteria (already imposes a 9% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Santa Maria (already imposes an 8.75% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Palo Alto (already imposes a 9.75% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Los Altos (already imposes a 9.75% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Santa Rosa (already imposes a 10% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Rohnert Park (already imposes a 9.75% combined sales and use tax rate)
Town of Los Gatos (already imposes a 9.875% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Pacifica (already imposes a 9.875% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of San Gabriel (already imposes a 10.5% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of San Pablo (already imposes a 9.5% combined sales and use tax rate)
City of Santa Cruz (already imposes a 9.75% combined sales and use tax rate)

See the complete list of California city and county sales and use tax rates

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 762 (latest version):

Existing law authorizes cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the jurisdiction not exceed 2%.

This bill would authorize, until December 31, 2030, or December 31, 2031, as specified, various jurisdictions to levy taxes pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at specified rates, as prescribed. The bill would authorize those taxes to exceed the 2% limit described above.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the jurisdictions authorized to impose a tax pursuant to the bill.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Status | Votes: On August 17, Governor Newsom's office announced he had signed SB 762 without comment. This bad bill received final approval August 3 on the floor of the State Senate, where it passed with the bare minimum two-thirds vote (voting yes were most Democrats; voting no were 8 Republicans; abstaining were two Republicans and three Democrats). Previously, on July 2, it passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 52 Democrats + Republicans Juan Alanis and Heath Flora), with no votes to spare (SB 762 has an "urgency" provision, which requires a two-thirds vote of each house).