Thursday, June 16, 2022, 4:48 pm | Randy Thomasson
Above is a screenshot of the June 16 Assembly floor vote to amend SB 866 by raising minimum age of “consent” from 12 to 15. Thirty-three Democrats initially voted “aye” (yes) to amend SB 866 to make it easier to pass (then five more Democrats added on, bringing the “ayes” to 38). Eighteen out of 19 Republicans voted “no” (but Republican Jordan Cunningham added his “no” vote later) and 3 Democrats voted “no” (Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Carlos Villapudua). Abstaining were independent Chad Mayes and 22 Democrats (of these, five ultimately voted “aye” (yes) to amend SB 866: Wendy Carrillo, Sabrina Cervantes, Eduardo Garcia, Adrin Nazarian, Robert Rivas).
UDPATE JUNE 20, 2022: Despite gaining another Democrat member (there are now 60 Democrats in the 80-member California State Assembly), the amended SB 866 was skipped over in Monday’s floor session. BIG THANKS to all who KEPT CALLING. The amended bill has failed its 1st test, but please keep calling below:
TAKE QUICK ACTION. Seize this momentum to kill the radical anti-parent bill SB 866. Realize that SB 866’s unconstitutional, immoral, anti-family Democrat author, Scott Wiener of San Francisco, only amended his bill because he DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES to pass it. This means your phone calls and more have worked!
Scroll down for your new action steps (effective June 16, 2022)
Understand: The amended bill is still bad, because raising the age of “consent” to any and every vaccine from 12 years old in the original bill to 15 years old in the amended SB 866 still obliterates parental consent and informed consent. A minor is still a minor!
SB 866 is wrong because it pretends minors can give “informed consent” to vaccines without a parent’s consent. But children do not have the wisdom, maturity, and brain development to accurately determine risks, including whether they could suffer an adverse reaction from an injection.
Realize this: SB 866 flies in the face of numerous adults-only laws. For example, in California, you have to be 18 years or older to vote, to buy a shotgun or rifle, to buy “medical marijuana,” to enter into a binding contract, to buy or sell property, to marry without parental consent, to sue or be sued, to make a will, to inherit property outright, to consent to most types of medical treatment, to join the military without parental consent, to get a job without a special work permit, to serve on a jury, to donate blood without parental consent, to become an organ donor without parental consent, to apply for credit in your own name, to get a permanent tattoo on your skin, to get your skin pierced without parental consent, to legally change your name, to play the lottery, or to gamble. To claim a child can make adult decisions endangers children.
What’s next: Officially amended on Thursday, June 16, SB 866 can be heard as soon as the Thursday, June 23 1pm Assembly floor session.
3 NEW EASY STEPS = 3 CATEGORIES OF EFFECTIVENESS
1) Call or email your own state assemblymember 2) Call deciding votes (nearly all Democrats) 3) Call Republicans and demand they speak on the floor
SCROLL DOWN FOR STEPS 1, 2, and 3 + CALL LISTS
STEP #1.Call or email YOUR OWN state assemblymember. Tell him or her “You need to oppose the amended SB 866. Children are still children and this is still a radical anti-parent bill. The law recognizes dozens of important things you can’t decide until you’re 18 or 21. SB 866 eliminates parental consent and informed consent. Stand and speak AGAINST this bad bill on the floor, and vote NO!” Click here to find your California assemblymember’s phone numbers and web form
STEP #2:Call the 31 DECIDING VOTES BELOW that we’ve identified by leaving after-hours anonymous voicemail messages(this means calling (no emailing) 7pm to 8am, and weekends).
Tell them, “Oppose the amended SB 866. Children are still children and this is still a radical anti-parent bill. The law recognizes dozens of important things you can’t decide until you’re 18 or 21. SB 866 eliminates parental consent and informed consent — vote NO.”
If your own state assemblymember is one of the 19 Assembly Republicans, demand they “Stand and speak against SB 866. Don’t ask questions of the floor jockey, but stand and speak to expose the harms of SB 866.”
Tina McKinnor 916-319-2062 and 310-412-6400: The newest assemblywoman and Democrat from the Inglewood/Venice/Hawthorne/LAX area of Los Angeles County was sworn into office on June 20. She needs a flood of phone calls against SB 866 (especially from her constituents, so she fears them more than her Democrat “bosses”).
David Alvarez 916-319-2020 and 619-338-8090: The newest assemblyman and a Democrat from San Diego, he was sworn into office on June 15 and voted with his Democrat “leaders” on June 16 to amend SB 866. However, being new, he’s probably never received a flood of opposition calls on a foundational family issue like this, so please call him.
Blanca Rubio 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457: She voted yes on the SB 866 amendments; her sister, Susan Rubio, abstained on SB 866 on the Senate floor
Luz Rivas 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911: She voted yes to amend SB 866; however, she “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Mike Gipson 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408: Voted yes on the SB 866 amendments, but thinks he’s a Christian and might support clear-cut parental rights
Miguel Santiago 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646: Voted yes on the SB 866 amendments, but used to abstain more, and represents mostly pro-parental-rights Hispanic families
Wendy Carrillo 916-319-2051 and 213-483-5151: She initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session
Robert Rivas 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676: He initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session. His district overlaps that of Democrat State Senator Anna Caballero, who abstained on SB 866.
Eduardo Garcia 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360: He initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session. From the sprawling Imperial Valley region with many Hispanic families and running in a new Assembly district.
Sabrina Cervantes 916-319-2060 and 951-371-6860: She initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session. Also initially abstained on AB 2098 punishing good doctors and 2223 permitting infanticide, but then later changed her votes to yes after both bills passed
Adrin Nazarian 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246: He initially abstained on the SB 866 amendments, then changed to voting yes before the end of the June 16 floor session; he also abstained on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098 on May 26
Isaac Bryan 916-319-2054 and 310-641-5410: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments
Joaquin Arambula 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, personally believes in traditional parental rights, and represents mostly Hispanics
Kevin McCarty 916-319-2007 and 916-324-4676: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and also abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide
Freddie Rodriguez 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Used to abstain on controversial bills.
Jacqui Irwin 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments. Represents part of state senator Henry Stern’s district, who twice abstained on the Senate side
Tasha Boerner Horvath 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and represents a formerly Republican district with pro-family constituents
Cottie Petrie-Norris 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments and “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Jim Cooper 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on AB 1797 creating a state “Covid vaccine” database
Tom Daly 916-319-2069 and 714-939-846: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments. He also abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide, and initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes. Has abstained on other bills over the years.
Al Muratsuchi 916-319-2066 and 310-375-0691: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments, and also initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes
Brian Maienschein (running in a more conservative district) 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077: Abstained on the SB 866 amendments and voted no on the original SB 866 in committee
Chad Mayes (former Republican, now “independent”) 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; on May 26, he also voted no on AB 2223 and abstained on AB 2098
Chris Holden 916-319-2041 and 626-351-1917 and 909-624-7876: Earlier he “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866; however, he voted yes on the SB 866 amendments
Adam Gray (running for Congress) 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 and 209-521-2111: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments and earlier “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Timothy Grayson 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also abstained on AB 2098, punishing good doctors against the “Covid vaccines”
Ken Cooley 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910: He abstained on the SB 866 amendments; he also voted no on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098
Jordan Cunningham 916-319-2035 and 805-549-3381: He initially was the only Republican to abstain on the SB 866 amendments, however he changed to voting “no” before the end of the June 16 Assembly floor session. He also voted no on the original SB 866 in committee
Rudy Salas (running for Congress) 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 and 559-585-7170: Abstained on SB 866 amendments, but earlier he “confirmed no on SB 866”
Patrick O’Donnell 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 and 310-548-6420: Abstained on SB 866 amendments, and previous issued public statement promising to vote no on the original SB 866
Sharon Quirk-Silva 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515: Voted no on amending SB 866 and has “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
James Ramos 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023: Voted no on amending SB 866 and has “publicly confirmed no or abstain” on the original SB 866
Carlos Villapudua 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479. Voted no amending SB 866 and earlier “confirmed he will be voting no” on the original SB 866; he also issued public statement promising to vote no on the original SB 866
STEP #3: Please call up to 19 Assembly Republicans. Tell them, “I expect you to stand and speak to expose the amended SB 866. A minor is still a minor, and this bill still eliminates parental consent and informed consent. You need to fight for us by raising your microphone and speaking up for parental rights and protecting children!”
Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 8:05 pm | Randy Thomasson
Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin drills SB 866’s author, Democrat Senator Scott Weiner, with numerous questions at the June 1 committee hearing.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ACTION STEPS
You want the bad news first, or the good news?
I’m going to give you the bad news first, because the good news is better. Today, the horrible anti-family bill, SB 866, which would eliminate parental consent for “vaccines” for children as young as 12 years old, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee and was sent to the Assembly floor. This committee passage was expected — and “fixed” — by the Democrat majority, which fast-tracked this awful bill by referring it to only one committee, their most liberal one.
But the good news is 2 of 3 Republicans spoke against SB 866 in committee, and one Democrat — Brian Maienschein of north San Diego County — voted no. What’s more, Jordan Cunningham, a “moderate” Republican from San Luis Obispo County, voted no, instead of abstaining, which has been his habit on too many controversial bills.
Stop and realize this means we have a greater chance of defeating SB 866 on the Assembly floor. Remember, last Thursday, May 26, we lost by narrow margins on two medical tyranny bills (AB 2098 and AB 1797) and the infanticide bill (AB 2223) — because Republicans did not raise their voices to expose what these bills would really do.
What’s changed since then? First, outraged California conservatives have been “spanking” Republican members for not speaking last week (so has SaveCalifornia.com). Then, our May 30 alert on SB 866 urged you to tell the Judiciary Committee Republicans, “Speak out against SB 866 — expose this bad bill.” Thank you for your calls — because today, we saw two of the three Republicans — Kiley and Davies — do just that!
So yes, we can win this on the Assembly floor. Remember too that SB 866, which tramples your God-given parental rights, initially failed by 1 vote before passing by 1 vote. Being that close was historic — and should make us all pursue defeating this hellish bill!
Parental rights is definitely a crossover issue, which is why 2 Democrat state senators voted no and 8 Democrat state senators abstained. And we’ve got a better chance to win on the Assembly floor — if Republican assemblymembers speak out this time.
You can help Republicans speak up, as they should. Believe SB 866 can be stopped on the Assembly floor and you’ll make them believe it too!
Republican Assemblywoman Laurie Davies of Laguna Niguel told SB 866’s anti-parental-rights author. homosexual activist Scott Wiener, that her parents had medical consent for her, so did his parents, and parental rights exist to protect children.
Today’s June 1 committee hearing was a success in further “wounding” and “dragging down” SB 866. Again, the best success was the two Republicans energetically speaking out and challenging SB 866 author Scott Weiner of San Francisco.
Remember, with SB 866, parents won’t even know if their children are being manipulated, coerced, or bribed into baring their arm for a shot they don’t need and you don’t want. And how are 12-year-olds going to remember their medical history, and whether they’re susceptible to adverse reactions? And what if they have an adverse reaction — and the parent doesn’t know what caused it? SB 866 eliminates parental rights, at a time when parents are needed to provide “guardrails” against profit-motivated Big Pharma.
Why take action now? Simply put, on radical bills like these, Republicans’ voices are their own “secret weapon.” By speaking out strongly on the Assembly floor, they can actually pull away enough nervous Democrats to stop SB 866 in its tracks! If they had done so last week, we could have defeated medical tyranny and infanticide bills.
PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION: Because SB 866 could come up for a vote as soon as the afternoon of Monday, June 6 on the floor of the California Assembly!
1. Call your own state assemblymember, whether they’re Republican or Democrat. Tell your Republican assemblymember you want him or her to “oppose and speak against and fight against SB 866 — don’t be silent on the Assembly floor!” Tell your Democrat assemblymember you want them to “Don’t attack parents — don’t eliminate parental rights on teen and pre-teen vaccinations. Children cannot give informed consent or be responsible for knowing their risks beforehand or dealing with problems after an injection. Oppose SB 866!” Find your own assemblymember’s website and office numbers here.
2. Leave anonymous voicemails (unless the assemblymember is yours) after hours Wednesday and Thursday 7pm to 8am for all 19 Assembly Republicans. Tell them: “Please speak against SB 866 on the Assembly floor. This horrible bill eliminates parental rights for children as young as 12 years old. Raise your microphone and speak up for parental rights and protecting children!”
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
RSS 2.0 Feed