Monday, August 21, 2023, 10:21 am | Randy Thomasson
Remember, on all important issues, you must make an independent decision based on the evidence, and not take for granted what an authority figure says.
AB 659 still pushes the painful, ineffective, harmful Gardasil shots as “the public policy of the state.” The bill, as amended July 3, is still coercive, reading:
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 eighth grade levelof 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.
And then the amended AB 659 pushes the same coercion on college students:
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.
Because of this language, no honest person can say the amended AB 659 is uncoercive. And because of the evidence of harm, no informed person can call Gardasil safe. And because of the facts about cervical cancer, no one can prove Gardasil is effective.
Since the two bad “deals” to amend the bill made it easier for AB 659 to pass, our opposition efforts were stymied. Expect this awful bill to pass the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature by September 14 and be signed by uberliberal Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom by October 14. You can track AB 659’s status here.
But don’t think like a victim. Act now to share with your family members and friends and acquaintances the evidence that Gardasil is ineffective and harmful and not required, no matter what doctors or educrats or politicians or media tell you.
4th International Symposium on Vaccines in Germany (April 2016), Session 7: “Is There Objective Evidence that the Current HPV Vaccination Programs are not Justified?” (see video) From the session’s conclusion: Q: Is it ethical to put young women at risk of death or a disabling autoimmune disease at a pre-adolescent age for a vaccine that has not yet prevented a single case of cervical cancer, a disease that may develop 20-30 years after exposure to HPV, when the same can be prevented with regular Pap screening which carries no risks? A: We don’t know if it can offer any long-term clinical benefit for a disease that is safely preventable through other methods.
Saturday, August 5, 2023, 10:03 am | Randy Thomasson
If you’ve ever wondered what’s ruining California, stop feeding the beast.
Do you know why people are moving out of California? Do you know what’s causing all the big problems? Democrat Party politicians have been in control of the California Legislature for more than sixty years, and in control of the governor’s office for more than 12 years now.
Don’t believe it? Democrat Party legislators have controlled the 40-member State Senate since 1957 (except for 1969-1970) and the 80-member State Assembly since 1959 (except for 1969-1970 and, for all practical purposes, in 1996).
What’s keeping these unloving, problem-causing, pain-increasing Democrats in power? Multi-millions in campaign spending by unions – both government and private unions – that’s what’s fueling Democrat victories year after year.
As reported in 2021 after Gavin Newsom “won” his recall election, “Organized labor donated at least $25.7 million — or more than one-third of the total the governor raised to keep his job. Unions, of course, have deep ties to the Democratic Party and a stake in nearly every aspect of state government.”
But fortunately, the First Amendment still stands, and there are U.S. Supreme Court rulings in favor of every union members who wants to stop paying for bad candidates and bad bills.
In the 1988 Beck decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled all union members can opt out of paying for a union’s partisan political activities.
And in the 2018 Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, government employees are entitled to work without paying union dues or agency fees.
You have strong, fundamental free-speech rights to not be coerced into supporting union politics. And your rights prevail despite the deceitful, domestic terrorism of union bosses trying to circumvent Janus.
Now that you’ve unpeeled the onion and found the rotten core, will you stop “feeding” and funding the beast?
See how to keep your job and resign from the union:
In 2011, Andy Stern, former president of the Services Employees International Union (SEIU), admitted that unions have Marxist roots. “In the ’30s,” he said, “people didn’t want us to exist. We had to do sit-down strikes . . . we had socialist and communist tendencies. We grew up, to speak in Marxist terms, in a world with a lot more class struggle.” Modern Marxists, for their part, feel a similar warmth towards unions—they say that unions are useful to their goals, but not radical enough. The Real History of Unions: Violent Communist Agitation, March 28, 2022
JULY 14, 2023 UPDATE: More time, so act today! The unconstitutional, anti-parent, anti-free-speech, anti-religious-freedom bill AB 957 didn’t come up for a vote in the State Senate prior to the Legislature adjourning July 13 (legislators return August 14). So, keep exposing and opposing AB 957 — see your action steps below.
* * *
This is your opportunity! A “deal” to protect religious parents in AB 957 has been violated, and this bad bill is in trouble!
SaveCalifornia.com’s July 7 “Capitol drop” of hard-hitting facts provides the “road” for you to “drive on.” When you call to say AB 957 is still bad and why, they’ll know what you’re telling the truth.
Our AB 957 State Senate floor alert on July 7 (Written in liberal-sounding language that Democrats understand)
SENATE FLOOR ALERT, MONDAY, JULY 10
AB 957 (Wilson) – OPPOSE A broken deal = a broken bill
AB 957 dishonors Judiciary Committee members and violates their public promises to require the bill be amended to ensure religious parents aren’t “dinged” in family court.
The July 3 amendments fail to protect religious parents, fail to honor the express will of committee members, and sully the reputation of the California State Senate.
Analysis of the July 3 amendment to AB 957
As amended, 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.”
Senate Judiciary members on June 13 demanded AB 957 be amended to ensure religious accommodation – but the July 3 amendments do nothing of the sort
Senator Benjamin Allen: “This is an incredibly sensitive topic because the relationship between a parent and child is so sacrosanct…I certainly want to make sure that just because someone is religious, for example, and there’s nothing that they do as a parent that would impact the health and welfare and mental well-being of the child — they accept the child’s decisions but they struggle with it themselves – I would certainly want to make sure that person wasn’t dinged under a custody dispute in the context of this bill…I would like the author and the chair to spend some time working together on tightening up some of the language so that we can make sure that a parent — for whom we have no concern about impacting the mental health of the child, but who may have a personal, perhaps a religious, conflict with gender fluidity — wouldn’t be dinged if we don’t have a concern about their ability to be a good parent to that child. That’s my concern, I think, looking at this bill. And I know that there’s conversations happening between the author and the chair that I hope will be fruitful over the course of the next few weeks so that we can tighten up the language and get to a place that I think meets the goal of the author, while also addressing what I hear as the legitimate concerns of some folks on the opposition.”
Senator Anna Caballero: “I want to encourage you to continue the discussion, and I reserve the right not to support it on the floor if it doesn’t change — ’cause I think there’s challenges with exactly what does it mean. And I don’t think we want to send something to the court that causes confusion or wrong decisions.”
Senator Angelique Ashby: “I’m going to support you today, Assemblywoman Wilson, but I’m going to join my colleagues in asking you to work with Senator Umberg as Judiciary Chair on adding some clarifying language.”
Senator Tom Umberg (Chair): “We will continue to work to make sure that the bill, as interpreted by the court, will be done in a way that is consistent with your view and our view of public policy…We will continue to work to make sure that — Senator Allen’s point — that if you have a parent who — perhaps he has a religious belief that is not consistent with someone wishing to transition but is unconditionally loving and tolerant, that that doesn’t preclude that parent having custodial rights. Is that your understanding also?”
Assemblymember Lori Wilson (AB 957 Author): “Absolutely. And I think, with the language that we have, it would say that. But I get that there might be some lack of clarity that some of our senators, who I adore, have concern with. And I think there is opportunity for us to continue that discussion as a part of the legislative process…I will work with Senator Umberg, I will work with Assemblymember Maienschein, both heads of our judiciary system within our legislative bodies, to make sure that by the time this passes in the Senate and the Assembly and gets to the governor’s desk, that it provides the most clarity possible, allowable, without creating a checklist…but I am definitely open…for discussion and amendments.”
The amended AB 957 still “dings” religious parents in a custody dispute by failing to protect moms and dads who disagree with a child’s gender transition. In a free society, we must not punish these otherwise good parents by taking away their kids. Oppose the discriminatory AB 957.
RSS 2.0 Feed