Saturday, August 12, 2023, 5:20 pm | Randy Thomasson
SCROLL DOWN FOR ACTION STEPS
AUGUST 21, 2023 UPDATE: This is a war of attrition. Because some of the Democrat state senators know AB 957 is still a bad bill, your anonymous, afterhours voicemail messages are strategic and can wear this bill down and prevent a floor vote. The California State Senate’s next opportunity is Thursday, August 24 at 9am.
If you support parental rights and religious freedom and know the unnatural “trans” agenda is hurting children, please take renewed action by following the directions below in our previous alert. Thank you for caring!
The very immoral, anti-parent bill, AB 957, on the floor of the California State Senate, CAN be defeated with your help this weekend. Because when the Senate returns the afternoon of Monday, August 14, you don’t want them voting on it!
As written, AB 957 is a very bad bill instructing family court judges to disfavor parents who have moral objections to their child “transitioning,” and don’t “affirm.” Bottom line, support the biological facts and get your children taken from you!
Grasp that even the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Office has described AB 957 as: “This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.”
So, as amended July 3, this radically-bad bill continues to require “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.” Don’t “affirm” your own child’s transsexual delusion — don’t get custody! This is about as anti-parent as it gets.
The Democrat author of AB 957, Lori Wilson (shown above; see her Solano County district) claims her anti-parent, anti-free-speech, anti-religious-freedom, bill is “essential” because all “trans” children need to be “affirmed.” And despite Wilson publicly claiming to be a “Christian,” she ignores what the Bible says about transsexuality being a sin.
What’s the best strategy to stop AB 957 on the floor of the California Senate?
STEP 1: Call your own state senator — at both the district and Capitol offices — and identify yourself, on Monday, August 14, from 9am to 2pm (the Senate floor session begins at 2pm). Leave your message with a staffer or via voicemail. Say something like, “I’m calling to urge Senator ________ to oppose AB 957. The amended bill fails to protect religious parents and violates Senate Judiciary Committee members’ demand for religious accommodation. Don’t punish otherwise good parents by taking away their kids. Oppose the amended AB 957!”
STEP 2: Call the 4 Democrat state senators who demanded religious accommodation in AB 957 in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 13. When you call anonymously and after-hours (7pm-8am and all weekend), quote their own words back to them and call them a liar if they don’t stand up and oppose this anti-parent bill.
Tell them, “In committee, you passed AB 957 on the condition that it be amended to accommodate religious parents. Well, the latest amendments don’t protect them at all. You need to stand up to oppose this bad bill. If you don’t, you lied about it in committee!”
The below quotes are from the June 13 California Senate Judiciary Committee hearing video (start with Senator Allen’s comments at 1:18:48) | transcript (see end of page)
Senator Ben Allen 916-651-4024 | 310-318-6994: “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.”
Senator Anna Caballero916-651-4014 | 559-264-3070: “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 916-651-4008 | 916-651-1529: “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 (Judiciary Committee Chair) 916-651-4034 | 714-558-3785: “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?”
STEP 3: Call anonymously 7pm to 8am and all weekend to the deciding-vote Democrats. In your afterhours voicemails, tell them, “I’m calling to urge you to oppose AB 957. The amended bill fails to protect religious parents and violates Senate Judiciary Committee members’ demand for religious accommodation. Don’t punish otherwise good parents by taking away their kids. Oppose the amended AB 957!”
Leave strategic, anonymous, afterhours voicemails for up to 21 of them:
Ben Allen 916-651-4024 | 310-318-6994
Marie Alvarado-Gil 916-651-4004 | 916-933-8680
Bob Archuleta 916-651-4030 | 562-406-1001
Angelique Ashby 916-651-4008 | 916-651-1529
Catherine Blakespear 916-651-4038 | 760-642-0809
Anna Caballero 916-651-4014 | 559-264-3070
Bill Dodd 916-651-4003 | 707-224-1990
María Elena Durazo 916-651-4026 | 213-483-9300
Steve Glazer 916-651-4007 | 925-754-1461
Lena Gonzalez 916-651-4033 | 323-277-4560
Melissa Hurtado 916-651-4016 | 661-395-2620
Monique Limón 916-651-4019 | 805-988-1940
Dave Min 916-651-4037 | 949-223-5472
Steve Padilla 916-651-4018 | 760-335-3442
Anthony Portantino 916-651-4025 | 818-409-0400
Richard Roth 916-651-4031 | 951-680-6750
Susan Rubio 916-651-4022 | 909-469-1110
Lola Smallwood-Cuevas 916-651-4028 | 213-745-6656
Henry Stern 916-651-4027 | 818-876-3352
Tom Umberg 916-651-4034 | 714-558-3785
Aisha Wahab 916-651-4410 | 510-794-3900
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” The Bible, Ephesians 6:1-3
Saturday, July 29, 2023, 10:19 am | Randy Thomasson
You already know about evil Democrat Party legislators. But do you realize Republicans in the California State Legislature lied to you when they said they would fight for you? You deserve to know who they are (see these bad bill analyses and legislators’ votes at our Pro-Family Legislation Center).
Here during the Legislature’s month-long, paid vacation (ending August 14), SaveCalifornia.com has tabulated which registered Republicans in Sacramento are voting for evil Democrat bills. Here’s a partial report:
–> 9 “Republicans” in the California State Assembly have voted for Democrat bills promoting abortion (baby-killing) or the “LGBTQIA+” agenda or both:
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
Juan Alanis of Modesto: AB 5, AB 352, AB 443, AB 492, AB 598, AB 1194, AB 1432, HR 33, ACA 5
Marie Waldron of Escondido: AB 5, HR 33, ACA 5, SB 58, SB 541, SB 729
Diane Dixon of Newport Beach: AB 223, ACA 5
Bill Essayli of Riverside: AB 223, ACA 5
Josh Hoover of Folsom: AB 5, ACA 5
Devon Mathis of Porterville: AB 1194, ACA 5
Phillip Chen of Yorba Linda: ACA 5
Laurie Davies of Laguna Niguel: ACA 5
In addition to Democrat bills promoting baby-killing and the “LGBTQIA+” agenda:
Voting in favor of the Democrats’ radical “recreational drug” bill, SB 58, was Heath Flora of Ripon
Voting in favor of SB 596 giving chairpersons of liberal school boards the power to subjectively claim pro-family citizens speaking at public meetings have caused “substantial disorder,” so that you’ll be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor crime, were Juan Alanis and Josh Hoover
Voting in favor of AB 1352 to permit liberal school board majorities to remove a pro-family school board member from office were Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Megan Dahle, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, James Gallagher,Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis
–> 2 “Republicans” in the California State Senate have voted for Democrat bills promoting baby-killing or “LGBTQIA+” or both:
Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita: AB 352, AB 1194, AB 1352, ACA 5
Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh of Yucaipa: SR 33, SB 760, AB 1352
In addition to Democrat bills promoting baby-killing and the “LGBTQIA+” agenda:
Voting in favor of SB 274, largely eliminating government-school suspensions or expulsions of disruptive, defiant “students,” were Scott Wilk, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Janet Nguyen of Huntington Beach, and Brian Dahle of Bieber
Conclusion: Of the 8 Republicans in the 40-member California State Senate and the 18 Republicans in the 80-member California State Assembly, unlike constitutional and often Christian Republican fighters of past decades, none today can be counted on to use their most valuable asset — their voice — to consistently stand and speak to expose the harm of immoral. ungodly Democrat-authored bills. It’s a shame, because when you’re in the minority party in the Legislature, your voice matters much more than your votes.
Obviously, with so many Republican legislators supporting anti-family or otherwise harmful bills, and with none of the current crop of California Republican state legislators caring enough to regularly stand and expose immoral Democrat bills, there’s a crying need for concerned citizens and biblical pastors to recruit constitutional fighters, who know their main job in Sacramento isn’t money, popularity, or comfort, but steadfastly, lovingly, and truthfully speaking in committee and on the floor to expose the harm of Democrat Party bills. Stop accepting deceptive crumbs from mute Republicans or from Republicans who vote for harmful Democrat bills!
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