Thursday, April 18, 2024, 11:42 am | Randy Thomasson
A great moral victory! SB 1196 giving killer drugs to MENTALLY or PHYSICALLY DISABLED — or to anybody with one of any of the thousands of INCURABLE diseases who rejects treatment and wants to die — has been shelved by its author, Democrat Party State Senator Catherine Blakespear of San Diego and Orange counties.
“Politico” broke the story April 17: “At this point, there is a reluctance from many around me to take up this discussion, and the future is unclear,” Blakespear said in a statement. “The topic, however, remains of great interest to me and to those who have supported this bill thus far.” Her bill would have expanded the state’s current End Of Life Options Act to allow patients without a specific prognosis to request life-ending drugs if they are suffering from a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” Current law in California and all other states says patients can only request these drugs when they have six months left to live.
Washington Post, 2016: “We generally say: Several thousand diseases affect humans of which only about 500 have any U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment,” said Cindy McConnell, a spokeswoman at NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).
SaveCalifornia.com, 2024: Under SB 1196, if you’re 18, and have an “incurable” illness or disease of any kind (including an incurable sexually-transmitted infection) that limits your “capability” to any extent, and you say you’re “suffering,” and feel that life is “intolerable,” and claim that continued treatment is not “acceptable” to you, and declare you’re not “willing to attempt” other treatments, you get to either swallow a lethal dose of drugs or be injected with the lethal drugs with the “assistance” of “a health care provider placing an intravenous catheter…into the qualified individual’s vein.”
THANK YOU to everyone who did anything to oppose this devilish, inhuman bill!
How was this very dangerous “expansion” of “assisted suicide” defeated? The main reason is the pro-assisted suicide organization, “Compassion & Choices,” opposed getting rid of their (the State of California’s since 2016) “terminal” prognosis of having “less than six months to live” standard — and they let the Democrat committee members know it.
However, unlike this pro-euthanasia group, SaveCalifornia.com rallied phone calls in opposition to SB 1196 because we know:
Euthanasia, “the administration of a lethal agent…to a patient,” is murder
It is inhuman to “permit” elderly or disabled people to dehydrate to death
The Word of God consistently commands the protection of innocent human life
For these reasons and more, SaveCalifornia.com urges all people of moral conscience to steadfastly protect innocent human life from conception to natural death.
Because God created human beings in his image, every human life from conception to death bears the image of God and has inestimable worth (Genesis 1:27). Therefore, Christians must be committed to a consistent ethic of life that safeguards the essential nature of human life at all stages, with a special concern to protect the lives of the most vulnerable. The unborn, the very young, the aged, those living in poverty, the chronically or terminally ill, those with disabilities and those with genetic diseases deserve our particular care and protection. Our public policy agenda should reflect these broad commitments. “Safeguarding the Nature and Sanctity of Human Life,” National Association of Evangelicals
These include diseases, infections, or illnesses that older teenagers and young adults can have, including obesity, asthma, herpes simplex, irritable bowel syndrome, joint pain, and psoriasis, and congenital anomalies, such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, scoliosis, type 1 diabetes, and hearing loss.
What’s more, there are several thousand “incurable” diseases worldwide. As the liberal-establishment Washington Postreported in 2016: “We generally say: Several thousand diseases affect humans of which only about 500 have any U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment,” said Cindy McConnell, a spokeswoman at NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).
But did you know that if the Democrat Party legislators’ new “assisted suicide” bill passes, patients with any of these “incurable” maladies are permitted to obtain a lethal dose of drugs for committing “assisted suicide”?
SB 1196 would spawn a broad, new death culture, where physically or mentally disabled Californians would be offered “assistance” to die. How horrible to offer “assisted suicide” to a depressed person!
And for those who want to focus on dementia patients, can you imagine the shaky “consent” they would be coerced to give? Realize “self-administration” of a lethal dose isn’t necessarily true when, under SB 1196, a witness is not required, nor are authorities permitted to charge any “assistant” — not even legal heirs who “assist” with the ingestion of the lethal dose — with murder. How certain is “choice” when the final choice to ingest lethal drugs is legally hidden?
Under SB 1196, feelings, not fact, will be the standard. Because being depressed and thinking life is “intolerable” and not “acceptable” would permit Californians with any incurable disability or illness to be offered suicide rather than counseling. And ironically, this is happening when effective pain compliance is readily available.
SB 1196 permits the “assisted suicide” of teenagers, since at age 18, you can qualify. It says so right at the top of the bill:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 443.1 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
443.1. As used in this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Adult” means an individual 18 years of age or older.
Therefore, under SB 1196, if you’re 18, and have an “incurable” illness or disease of any kind (including an incurable* and possibly fatal sexually-transmitted infection**) that limits your “capability” to any extent, and you say you’re “suffering,” and feel that life is “intolerable,” and claim that continued treatment is not “acceptable” to you, and declare you’re not “willing to attempt” other treatments, you get to either swallow a lethal dose of drugs or be injected with the lethal drugs with the “assistance” of “a health care provider placing an intravenous catheter…into the qualified individual’s vein.”
See the loose, subjective, overly-broad words and phrases in SB 1196, as decribed by the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel’s office:
This bill would replace the term “terminal disease” for purposes of the act with “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” defined as a medical condition that (1) is a serious and incurable illness or disease, (2) has placed the individual in a state of irreversible decline in capability and the individual’s suffering is palpable without prospect of improvement, (3) is causing the individual to endure physical suffering due to the illness, disease, or state of decline that is intolerable to the individual and cannot be relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable, and there is no proven treatment for the individual’s situation that the individual has not attempted or is willing to attempt due to the nature or side effects of the treatment, and (4) after taking into account all of the individual’s medical circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable that the condition will become the individual’s natural cause of death, as specified. The bill would, for purposes of the act, include a diagnosis of dementia as a grievous and irremediable medical condition, if the individual meets specified capacity requirements. The bill would specify that a sole diagnosis of a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition. The bill would also expand the definition of “mental health specialist” to include neurologists. The bill would additionally authorize the self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug through intravenous injection.
PLEASE ACT NOW
Don’t let California replace fact with feelings about whether a lethal dose of drugs can be given to depressed teenagers and adults.
There is a chance to defeat SB 1196, since the leading assisted-suicide group, “Compassion & Choices” opposes it, and so do some disabled rights groups. The loose and very broad language and definitions have made SB 1196 a very poorly-written bill.
STEP 1: Please call and email your own state senator to say, “Oppose SB 1196 as amended April 4. This radical bill would permit a depressed 18-year-old with an incurable STD or other incurable disability to obtain a lethal dose of drugs. Protect depressed or disabled Californians from deadly coercion. Oppose SB 1196.”
STEP 2: Please also leave easy voicemail messages for the 11-member State Senate Health Committee before its April 22 hearing on SB 1196. Call Monday through Friday from 7pm to 8am and all weekend. Unless you live in a senator’s district, when you leave your afterhours voicemail message (the same suggested message as above), do not provide your name or location (if you do, they’ll trash your message).
9 DEMOCRATS
Richard Roth (Chair) 916-651-4031 Capitol | 951-680-6750 district
Steve Glazer 916-651-4007 Capitol | 925-258-1176 district
Lena Gonzalez 916-651-4033 Capitol | 562-256-7921 district
Melissa Hurtado 916-651-4016 Capitol | 559-924-1201 district
Monique Limón 916-651-4019 Capitol | 805-965-0862 district
Caroline Menjivar 916-651-4020 Capitol | 818-901-5588 district
Susan Rubio 916-651-4022 Capitol | 626-430-2499 district
Lola Smallwood-Cuevas 916-651-4028 Capitol | 213-745-6656 district
Scott Wiener 916-651-4011 Capitol | 415 557-1300 district
2 REPUBLICANS: URGE THEM TO SPEAK UP IN COMMITTE TO EXPOSE SB 1196
Janet Nguyen (Vice Chair) 916-651-4036 Capitol | 714-374-4000 district
Shannon Grove 916-651-4012 Capitol | 661-323-0443 district
Thursday, March 14, 2024, 8:12 am | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
March 21 update: We’ve added State Senate District 37 in Orange County, where a Republican challenger could oust an incumbent Democrat.
March 19 update: All election-tracking links on this post have been updated due to Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office changing her urls right in the midst of processing ballots. Two more Assembly races that could be won by Republicans have been added.
* * *
In California’s March 5 (actually month-long and not over yet) “jungle primary” election, it was a chance for pro-family voters to support constitutional fighters over RINOs. Were conservative voters wise or foolish?
Now that the “dust has settled” the week after voting ended in all the California races for State Assembly, State Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives, here are my observations, which I hope will help you vote, volunteer, and donate this election year.
Needed: Constitutional fighters to expose evil
The overwhelming need of pro-family citizens — who live in California or who have family and friends to live here — is to have at least one Republican in each house of the California State Legislature who will stand and speak to expose the harm of Democrat Party politicians and their evil bills.
In recent decades, reliable speakers in the Assembly for constitutional, moral/social/fiscal conservative values have included Tim Donnelly of the Inland Empire’s high desert, and before him, Steve Baldwin of San Diego County. And in the California State Senate in the 1990s, we had Ray Haynes and Dick Mountjoy.
But now, they’re gone, and more than two decades later, I can’t count on one reliable, consistent California state legislator who knows he or she is accountable before God and who will speak up for family values and expose the harm of “LGBTQIA+” bills, baby-killing bills, and other immoral bills, whether they be moral, social, or fiscal in nature.
Yes, I know there are some legislators who speak up for parental rights, but did you know they also vote for “LGBTQIA+” or increasing union-boss power or are otherwise mute when bad bills come up?
Which means, today, because of silence, acquiescence, and lack of exposure, the devilish Democrat Party supermajority in both houses in Sacramento has had “smooth sailing” — because no current Republican legislator will reliably stir up a storm whenever a bad bill comes up on the Assembly or Senate floor!
Believe that conservative, constitutional, pro-family legislators standing and raising their microphones is the priority. Because when you’re in the numerical minority in Sacramento, your voice matters more than your votes.
RINOs getting worse and more plentiful
Here are some of the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who are likely to be reelected, return to Sacramento, and vote for some evil Democrat bills:
California State Assembly Voting in 2023 in favor of both pro-“LGBTQIA+” bills or pro-abortion bills or both were:
• Greg Wallis of Bermuda Dunes: AB 659, AB 5, AB 223, AB 352, AB 443, AB 492, AB 576, AB 598, AB 957, AB 1078, AB 1194, AB 1432, HR 33, ACA 5, SB 345, SB 385, SB 760
• Juan Alanis of Modesto: AB 5, AB 352, AB 443, AB 492, AB 598, AB 1194, AB 1432, HR 33, ACA 5, SB 541, SB 760
• Marie Waldron of Escondido: AB 5, AB 443. HR 33, ACA 5, SB 58, SB 541, SB 729, SB 760
• Laurie Davies of Laguna Niguel: ACA 5, AB 1194, SB 541
Of the 4 biggest RINOs in the Assembly: Greg Wallis, whose district is in the Greater Palm Springs area, is likely returning because no conservative, pro-family primary opponent who would take him on.
Similarly, Juan Alanis, whose district covers Stanislaus and Merced counties, had no conservative, pro-family Republican primary challenger for Alanis’ reelection campaign.
Marie Waldron, of inland San Diego County, is termed out of office, yet this final year she’s pushing her AB 941 to require the State to embark on a path of legalization of “hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances,” which make our society more dangerous.
The rest of the Assembly Republicans listed above, who’ve supported either pro-“LGBTQIA+” or pro-abortion bills or both, are likely to be reelected due to having no conservative Republican primary challengers.
California State Senate In the California State Senate, 2 “Republicans” voted for Democrat bills promoting baby-killing or “LGBTQIA+” or both were led by:
• Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita: AB 352, AB 659, AB 1194, ACA 5
• Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh of Yucaipa: SR 33, SB 760, AB 1194
In addition:
• Both Wilk and Ochoa Bogh supported AB 1352 (which fortunately did not pass the Legislature) to permit liberal school boards to boot off conservative members.
• The sole Republican voting in favor of the Democrats’ SB 274 (signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom) to largely eliminate government-school suspensions or expulsions of disruptive, defiant “students,” was Brian Dahle of Bieber.
The State Senate’s biggest RINOs: Scott Wilk, whose district covers Southern California’s Antelope and Victor Valleys, is termed out. Despite adding to California’s immorality, Wilk says he’ll move out of state.
Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, whose sprawling Inland Empire district runs from Rancho Cucamonga to Hemet, is running for reelection in the newly-drawn 19th District covering much of eastern San Bernardino County. This primary election, she did not have a true pro-family, conservative Republican challenger.
RINOs in California’s Republican congressional delegation: Among California’s current 11 Republican U.S. Representatives, some have cast controversial votes for or against impeachment; yet there are six (in alphabetical order) who’ve supported the unnatural, unhealthy, unbiblical, tyrannical “LGBTQIA+” agenda:
Ken Calvert (1)
Mike Garcia (1)
Jay Obernolte (1)(3)
Darrell Issa (1)(2)
David Valadao (1)(2)
(1) Voted to “codify” homosexual “marriages” in federal law (July 19, 2022)
(2) Supported or did not oppose taxpayer-fund “sex changes” in U.S. military (July 13, 2017)
(3) In the 2818-2019 California State Assembly, Obernolte twice voted in support of “LGBTQIA+” and abstained on pro-“LGBTQIA+” resolution attacking Christian churches
In the northern reaches of Los Angeles County, Suzette Valladares, who was the most liberal Republican in the State Assembly*, was the top vote-getter in the primary election for the newly-drawn State Senate District 23 stretching from Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County to Hesperia in San Bernardino County.
* On June 27, 2022, then-Assemblywoman Suzette Valladares was the only Republican voting yes on SCA 10 to ask voters to place “the right” to unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions into the California State Constitution. Sadly, the Democrat politicians’ baby-killing SCA 10 (Prop. 1 on the November 2022 ballot) is now state law.
Is it wise to vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’?
You might think, “If I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, I’m contributing to a worse government.” Or you might think, “It’s better to get anyone in office who’s registered as my party of choice — even a liberal — than someone from the opposing party.”
Yet both these ideas contribute to mid-term and long-term evil. Because you and I see what liberal Republicans have wrought: Political prostitution, failure to fight or speak against evil, deeper debt, more baby-killing, more sexual perversity, less religious freedom, less free speech, and less medical freedom. When “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) become numerous in a Republican caucus, the result is all that frustrates and grieves you about the modern Republican Party.
For only a liberal Republican can redefine or replace the Republican Party. And that’s what’s been happening the last few decades, all because of the fallacy of voting for “the lesser of two evils.”
Then how should you, a moral, constitutional conservative, vote? This is how I vote in a general election: I will only support dependable conservatives, but not RINOs, and not Democrats. If the Democrat wins, then the RINO has lost, and I and my friends get to work a) exposing the misdeeds of the elected Democrat, and b) recruiting a true, conservative, constitutional fighter for the next election.
Will these conservatives expose the darkness?
As I’ve already explained, there are too many RINOs and seat-warmers (conservative legislators who mostly vote right but do not speak up for moral, family-values issues). Again, we need pro-family fighters who will speak up and expose the harm and dysfunction of the ruling Democrats. Republicans can’t win with their votes, but they can expose the lies and harm of Democrat Party agendas, if they wish.
These following non-incumbent candidates are moral conservatives, who, if elected, might have the vision to stand and speak for you and your values. Because articulate moral voices to expose evil are desperately needed on the Assembly and Senate floors in Sacramento.
California State Assembly Covering parts of Fresno and Madera counties, much of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, Inyo County and Death Valley, Assembly District 8 looks like it will have a Republican winner in November because, right now, Republican candidates are both of the top two vote-getters. If former congressman George Radanovich wins, he could expose much evil in Sacramento. For, as Radanovich says on his own website, he “believes many societal problems can be traced directly to the breakdown of families.” How refreshing for someone to tell it like it is. In Congress from 1995 to 2011, Radanovich is rated by the voter-tracking-database OnTheIssues as a “Hard-Core Conservative.”
In Orange County’s Assembly District 73, Scotty Peotter is a long-time moral, Christian conservative activist. If he beats incumbent Democrat Cottie Petrie-Norris, Peotter could be a noticeable moral-values voice on the Assembly floor.
In west Riverside County, will Republican Leticia Castillo (already earning 48.5% of the primary vote) take back this formerly Republican seat? On her website, Leticia seems strongly pro-family, with faith in God.
In Stockton and San Joaquin County, could parental-rights and medical-freedom activist Denise Aguilar Mendez win an open Assembly seat? In Assembly District 13, she’s received 36.2% so far. But as the second-highest vote-getter, if she works hard, Denise’s ability to attract followers could surprise many.
California State Senate Covering San Joaquin County and the 680 corridor in Alameda County, the newly-drawn State Senate District 5 is an open seat, where super-patriot and strong moral Californian Jim Shoemaker, as the Republican candidate, received 44.1% on just a “shoestring” campaign against two well-funded Democrats. Going into the general election, if Shoemaker receives adequate funding to reach non-union, “common man” voters and diligently exposes the wrongs of his favored Democrat Party opponent, former U.S. Representative Jerry McNerney, Shoemaker could win an upset victory.
Another State Senate seat that Republicans might pick up is a newly-drawn open seat in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. District 31‘s primary election shows that a Republican can win it, because Republican Cynthia Navarro has, so far, received 45.8% of the counted votes despite spending hardly any money. If State Senate Republicans fund her general election campaign, Navarro could reach independents and Hispanics throughout the district with her popular message — as she outlined in this newspaper interview — of fighting crime, championing parental rights, and supporting small businessowners who provide jobs. Navarro’s Democrat opponent, “LGBTQIA+” activist Assemblyperson Sabrina Cervantes, has voted the polar opposite in Sacramento.
Still another State Senate seat in Orange County could flip Republican. This is the newly-drawn District 37 stretching from Fullerton to Laguna Niguel. In the primary election, Republican candidates (combined) received 52.9% of the vote, putting reliably-conservative-voting Steven Choi (a former state assemblyman) in the functional lead to defeat current Democrat State Senator Josh Newman in November.
U.S. House of Representatives There are more than a dozen California congressional races where the Republican U.S. House candidate or all of the Republican candidates together received at least 40% of the vote in the March 5 primary election. Can they pull off victories in November?
Let’s look at the U.S. House primary contests with non-incumbent Republicans advancing to the general election (Caution: For most of these races, I do not yet know whether the Republican is a RiNO, a seat-warmer, or a conservative, constitutional, pro-family fighter):
In Sacramento County, will the Republican Party target Democrat incumbent Ami Bera and help conservative Republican Christine Bish pull off an upset?
In Stockton/Lodi, will Republican Kevin Lincoln oust Democrat incumbent Josh Harder?
From Fresno to Bakersfield in District 20, will the more conservative Republican Mike Boudreaux beat the less conservative Republican Vince Fong in November?
In the heart of the southern San Joaquin Valley, will Republican Michael Maher oust Democrat Jim Costa in November?
In Greater Palm Springs, will Republican Ian Weeks oust Democrat incumbent Raul Ruiz in November?
In Ventura County, will Republican Michael Koslow oust Democrat incumbent Julia Brownley in November?
In San Bernardino, will Republican Tom Herman beat Democrat incumbent Pete Aguilar in November?
In District 35, will Republican Mike Cargile oust incumbent Democrat Norma Torres in November?
In District 38, will Republican Eric Ching oust incumbent Democrat Linda Sanchez in November?
In District 39, will Republican David Serpa oust incumbent Democrat Mark Takano in November?
In Orange County, will Republican patriot Scott Baugh take back this Democrat seat in November?
In San Diego County, will Republican Matt Gunderson oust incumbent Democrat Mike Levin in November?
I hope this special election update has informed you — please share with others! But most of all, please grasp the opportunities presenting themselves this election year. If moral conservatives rise up in California, Right can overcome Wrong for the benefit of all.
To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom. Proverbs 10:2
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Romans 12:9
RSS 2.0 Feed