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
Monday, February 21, 2022, 2:37 pm | Randy Thomasson
Feb. 22, 2022 update: The day after posting my “great hope” blog, I’m now wondering if the U.S. Supreme Court will indeed protect religious freedom, let alone medical freedom for all. My confusion — and angst — is because this morning SCOTUS silently turned down an appeal from medical workers in Maine, who are crying out for their First Amendment religious freedom and their 1964 Civil Rights Act religious rights. Only four votes were needed, and there were supposed to be four justices to take this case (on January 13, when the Supreme Court narrowly upheld Biden & Co.’s health worker “Covid vaccine mandate” nationwide, there were four dissenters — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Barrett). All I can say is that if Barrett’s looking for the “right case” and she turned down the Maine petition because it’s “not the one,” hopefully she’ll overcome perfectionism, embrace the whole constitution, and vote to hear the very next religious exemption case that petitions the nation’s high court. Because millions of health-conscious Americans — especially in “blue states” such as California — are suffering big-time from violations of their God-given liberties, constitutional rights, and 1964 Civil Rights Act guarantees! My friend Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel (it’s their case), is also bewildered by the court.
* * *
The U.S. Supreme Court’s one-paragraph denial of a San Diego student’s religious exemption injunction request on February 18 is pregnant with great hope for conscientious Californians and Americans.
Because the court majority implied it only turned down the injunction because San Diego Unified School District board members voted February 8 to delay any “Covid vaccine” mandate upon students. Notably, the nation’s high court invited a future injunction request on a religious-freedom basis “if circumstances warrant.” Realize this order took at least 5 votes!
The Thomas More Society, which is representing the San Diego minor, wrote: “We are pleased with the current posture of this case for several reasons. First, our client’s goal was to attend school in person, and play sports, without being forced to comply with an illegal vaccine mandate – and she can do that for now. Second, the Supreme Court made clear that it is watching this case and that our client can come back and seek emergency relief in the future should the need arise. Thus, our legal team will be poised and ready to seek further relief at the Supreme Court if and when SDUSD reinstates all or part of their unconstitutional vaccine mandate.”
While a constitutional majority on the 9-member Supreme Court would quickly strike down every infringement of medical freedom and religious freedom, this court led by the unreliable John Roberts wants to do things “its own way” — meaning millions of people will continue suffering from injurious medical tyranny until the “right cases” come before the court, with full briefings.
Yet a case about the religious freedom of Maine healthcare workers to refuse unwanted “Covid vaccines” could soon be accepted by the Supreme Court (it takes 4 justices to accept a case). SaveCalifornia.com currently counts 4 justices in favor of medical freedom (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Barrett). Therefore, it would take just one more justice — probably Brett Kavanaugh — to agree on the religious right to be exempt from vaccines, providing nationwide relief in June or sooner.
The hope of the righteous will be gladness, But the expectation of the wicked will perish. Proverbs 10:28
RSS 2.0 Feed