UPDATE, JULY 12: 2022: The alert on this page is replaced by our July 12 alert opposing all 4 anti-parent bills, SB 866, SB 1184, SB 1419, and SB 1479.
UPDATE — Thursday, June 16: This morning, radical anti-parent bill SB 866 was amended (replacing age 12 with 15) on the Assembly floor. Eighteen of 19 Republicans voted no, as did 3 Democrats., and there 19 Democrats that we believer purposefully abstained because they’re uncomfortable with the bill. The amended SB 866 — still eliminating parental consent and inform consent on teenage injections — still might not pass the next Assembly session on June 20 @ 1pm. So tell assemblymembers the amended bill is still anti-parent!
UPDATE — Wednesday, June 15: SB 866 doesn’t have the votes to pass, so the author, “LGBTQIA+” Democrat State Senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco is reportedly amending his bill to say children aged 15 and up (not 12 and up, as the bill currently reads). This would mean amending the bill on the Assembly on Thursday, June 16, but not voting on the amended bill itself until the next scheduled floor session. And SB 866 can only be amended if a “majority…of Members present and voting” vote yes to do so.
From the Assembly Rules: 69. (a) Any Member may move to amend a bill during its second or third reading, and that motion to amend may be adopted by a majority vote of the Members present and voting.
69. (d) Any bill amended on the second or third reading fi le shall be ordered reprinted and returned to the third reading fi le, and may not be acted on by the Assembly until the bill, as amended, has been on the Daily File for one calendar day.
UPDATE — Monday, June 13: Good news, 3 Democrats were absent today, and radical anti-parent bill SB 866 was skipped over a 3rd straight Assembly session. It can be heard on the next floor session, which is Thursday, June 16 at 9 a.m. Keep your strategic calls coming!
For Republican assemblymembers say: “Stand and speak against SB 866 on the floor. Raise your voice to expose the harm of this anti-parent, anti-child bill!”
For Democrat assemblymembers, deliver the message: “Don’t attack parents — don’t eliminate parental rights for teen and pre-teens. Children cannot give informed consent or be responsible for knowing their risks beforehand or dealing with problems after a shot — that’s what parents are for. Oppose SB 866!”
2. Call the deciding-vote state assemblymembers. (Scroll down for names and phone numbers.)
– – –
Thank you for being pro-family — for caring for what’s best for children and for supporting God-given parental rights for yourself and others, which SB 866 would utterly trample. Here’s the latest good news and new action steps. Please participate — let’s kill SB 866!
Today (Thursday, June 9, 2022), in another abbreviated floor session that lasted just a half hour, the Democrat-controlled California Assembly again skipped over SB 866, which would eliminate parental consent and informed consent for controversial, even risky injections, into children’s bodies as young as age 12.
This second delay of a floor vote on SB 866 is thanks to you and thousands of other concerned Californians who have been calling the deciding votes we’ve identified. And, because SB 866 so blatantly pushes parents out of the picture, enough Democrat state assemblymembers seem to “get it” that voting for it would hurt them politically.
Is SB 866 all but dead? Let’s count the votes. In the California State Assembly, to pass bills requires 41 yes votes, a majority in the 80-seat lower house. There are currently two Democrat vacancies, leaving 78 members, of whom there are 19 Republicans and 1 independent. If these 20 don’t support SB 866, we’re left with 58 Democrats who could.
But if at least 19 Democrats don’t support SB 866, it will fail for lack of a majority, receiving 40, not 41, votes. Here’s our “SB 866 vote countdown” — counting from 58 Democrats minus at least 19 Democrats who won’t support this radical, anti-parent bill:
They won’t vote for SB 866 — but call them anyway to “shore them up” 58. Brian Maienschein: Voted no in committee 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077 57.Patrick O’Donnell: Issued public statement promising to vote no 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 and 310-548-6420 56.Rudy Salas (running for Congress): “Confirmed no on SB 866” 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 and 559-585-7170 55.Carlos Villapudua: “Confirmed he will be voting no” 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479 54.Adam Gray (running for Congress): “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 and 209-521-2111 53.Luz Rivas: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911 52. James Ramos: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023 51. Cottie Petrie-Norris: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074 50.Sharon Quirk-Silva: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515 49.Chris Holden: “Publicly confirmed no or abstain” 916-319-2041 and 626-351-1917 and 909-624-7876 48.Ken Cooley voted no on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910 47.Adrin Nazarian abstained on medical tyranny bills AB 1797 and AB 2098 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246
CALL THEM — Might not vote for it; Republican voices on floor could motivate SB 866 abstentions 46. Timothy Grayson 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511: He abstained on AB 2098, punishing good doctors against the “Covid vaccines” 45. Jim Cooper 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888: He abstained on AB 1797 creating a state “Covid vaccine” database 44. Tom Daly 916-319-2069 and 714-939-846: 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. 43. Sabrina Cervantes 916-319-2060 and 951-371-6860: Initially abstained on AB 2098 punishing good doctors and 2223 permitting infanticide, but then later changed her votes to yes after both bills passed 42. Blanca Rubio 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457: Her sister, Susan Rubio, abstained on SB 866 on the Senate floor 41. (#41 is the deciding vote) Kevin McCarty 916-319-2007 and 916-324-4676: Abstained on AB 2223 permitting infanticide 40. Al Muratsuchi 916-319-2066 and 310-375-0691: He initially abstained on AB 2098 before later changing his vote to yes
CALL THEM — Wild-cards who need the most pressure 39. Tasha Boerner Horvath 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605: Represents a formerly Republican district with pro-family constituents 38. Mike Gipson 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408: Thinks he’s a Christian and might support clear-cut parental rights 37. Mike Fong 916-319-2049 and 323-264-4949: Represents mostly Asian families, as well as Hispanic families 36. Miguel Santiago 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646: Represents mostly pro-parental-rights Hispanic families 35. Eduardo Garcia 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360: From the sprawling Imperial Valley region with many Hispanic families 34. Jacqui Irwin 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904: Represents part of state senator Henry Stern’s district, who abstained 33. Joaquin Arambula 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532: Personally believes in traditional parental rights and represents mostly Hispanics 32. Freddie Rodriguez 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606: Used to abstain more — might abstain here 31. Eloise Reyes 916-319-2047 and 909-381-3238: Said in committee she supports parental rights but wants to “go with the science” so she voted yes on SB 866. Might be brought out of confusion with phone calls. Her district also overlaps the state senate districts of Democrats Connie Leyva and Richard Roth, both who abstained on SB 866. 30. Robert Rivas 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676: His district overlaps that of Democrat State Senator Anna Caballero, who abstained on SB 866. 29. Lori Wilson 916-319-2011 and 707-399-3011: Is new, might be influenced by Republican voices on floor, might mimic abstention of adjacent district assemblyman Timothy Grayson. 28. Cecelia Aguiar-Curry 916-319-2004 and 530-757-1034 and 707-224-0440: Although she’s an SB 866 co-author, she has an independent streak and might abstain if she realizes it might hurt both her and the Democrat brand
Q: So, if they’ve skipped over SB 866 multiple times on the assembly floor, is SB 866 is dead? A: We say “No, not yet.” Because our side needs more commitments from deciding-vote Democrats that they’ll oppose SB 866. And we need that pressure and assurance before the Assembly meets again (Monday, June 13 at 1 p.m.).
TAKE RENEWED ACTION Please go for the win by calling anew to the phone numbers above Thursday and Friday 7pm to 8am and anytime this weekend. Also please call “independent” Chad Mayes at 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342. Leave anonymous voicemails (because Democrat offices will “trash” your messages if they confirm you live out of their districts, so don’t reveal your identity or location, and just “mix in” with the flood of voicemails the member is receiving).
Tell them something like: “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 — that’s what parents are for. Oppose SB 866!”
Also, please call your own state assemblymember Monday through Friday during business hours (9am to 5pm) and identify yourself. Find your own assemblymember
Wednesday, June 8, 2022, 2:18 pm | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
It’s the day after, and the dust is settling in California’s just-concluded “jungle primary” election.
And while the numbers will change each day until the primary election results are “certified” on July 15, I’m seeing evidence that Californians against government tyranny are more motivated than liberal voters. And I believe there’s the potential for some statewide offices to be captured by constitutional Republicans (or in the state schools chief contest, an in-reality reformer).
Are Californians voting more Republican?
Is California experiencing a conservative resurgence? With all the pain of the last two years, there’s evidence of Californians’ growing support for Republican candidates (especially Republicans who will fight for them) over Democrat candidates:
First, as I watched vote changes late into the night, in most statewide contests, the leading Republican’s lead kept increasing, while the leading Democrat’s numbers (usually the incumbent) kept decreasing.
Second, the initial election-night report of voter turnout showed reliably Republican counties with the highest voter turnout. If we consider recall-energized San Francisco the Democrats’ “high watermark” at 25% turnout, and exclude very-low-population Alpine County, the highest voter turnout was in the Republican strongholds of Mariposa County (42%), Amador County (41%), Sierra County (40%), Plumas County (37%), Modoc County (32%), Calaveras County (30%), El Dorado County (26%), and Del Norte County (26%).
Third, a Northern California congressional shows voters preferring a Republican fighter over his more-establishment Republican opponent. As I write this, Assemblyman Kevin Kiley has more than twice the votes of Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones.
Because of the harmful manifestations of anti-people policies by the New Communist Democrats in California and Washington, D.C., I’m not surprised if votes for Republican candidates are indeed higher. And, ideally, imagine the surge in the upcoming general election if biblical pastors promoted voting as a clear, practical application of Jesus Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” How transformative that would be!
5 statewide seats that could flip
California has eight state constitutional offices that are held by one person. Seven are partisan (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Insurance Commissioner) and one is non-partisan (Superintendent of Public Instruction).
And while there’s just over a month to count the remaining votes, I see five statewide seats that could be taken from the ruling Democrats:
1. Controller: This is an open seat (incumbent Democrat Betty Yee is termed-out), and the first-place lead of 37% for taxpayer advocate Lanhee Chen. Veteran fiscal watchdog and current U.S. Representative Tom McClintock observed, “The controller’s office is the ideal office from which to wage a crusade in which to eliminate government waste.”
2. Insurance Commissioner: The incumbent Democrat, radical homosexual activist Ricardo Lara, only garnered 37%, which makes him politically vulnerable. I mean, has anyone’s insurance premiums gone down lately? “Reagan Republican” Robert Howell has a chance take this seat if California has a “conservative wave” in the November election.
3. State Superintendent of Public Instruction: The incumbent Democrat, Tony Thurmond of Oakland, received only 45.7% of the vote. With government unions running government schools, which made even liberal parents angry when schools were closed last year, this might be a perfect storm for pro-parent reformer George Yang.
4. Attorney General: The appointed incumbent Democrat, Rob Bonta, along with Governor Gavin Newsom, is incurring statewide blame for the current crime wave. Receiving 54.5% of the vote, Bonta might be deposed by hard-hitting, tough-on-crime messaging by Republican challenger Nathan Hochman.
5. U.S. Senator: Appointed incumbent Democrat Alex Padilla received only 53-54% of the vote for “partial term” and “full term.” Will he be negatively associated with Biden & Co. in November? In contrast, Republican Mark Meuser is a constitutional fighter.
You will have mostly real choices in the November election
Thank you if you voted! I appreciate you visiting our Pro-Family Election Center to equip you. And thank you big-time if you helped others to vote!
As I write this, if the “top two” vote-getters don’t change, nearly all California statewide offices will be a contest in November between a liberal Democrat and Republican, ranging from mostly conservative to constitutionalist.
Below is a snapshot of this morning’s statewide primary election results and the websites of the current “top two” in each contest. Please note that Republicans with percentages in the “teens” expect their Republican rivals’ supporters to vote for them in November. So assume them as practically having, post-primary-election, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the voters’ support.
For example, in the just-concluded primary election for governor, voting for 13 Republican candidates were 35.5% of the voters. These candidates attracted 1,208,643 voters, which is .6315861256658043% of Newsom’s 1,193,663 votes (Newsom “won” 56.3% of the electorate). Do the math: Newsom’s 56.3% x 0.6315861256658043 = 35.55829887498478% or 35.5% of the electorate for Republican candidates in the governor’s race. You can therefore expect Brian Dahle to attract at least this percentage in the general election.
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