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, June 22, 2023, 4:18 pm | Randy Thomasson
SCROLL DOWN FOR ACTION STEPS
AUGUST 21, 2023 UPDATE: Are you encouraged to realize the horrible, anti-parent-bill AB 665 has been stuck on the State Senate floor for nearly two months? The next opportunity for the Senate to vote is this Thursday.
Which is another big reason for you to squeeze off some strategic, anonymous voicemail messages. See our previous alert below and act now!
* * *
You’ve heard that AB 665, permitting the anti-family Left to manipulate pre-teens and teens to leave their parents, has passed its Senate policy committee. Now, target the California State Senate floor with new information and strategic action. Please participate with SaveCalifornia.com in weighing down and weakening, and perhaps defeating, AB 665.
AB 665’s author lied about parental rights
The bill author, Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo of Los Angeles County (her district includes Glendale, Los Feliz, Echo Park, and East Los Angeles), lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 20 when she claimed AB 665 was really about “homeless youth.” Where is AB 665’s requirement that a minor be “homeless”? This “homeless” condition is NOT in the bill.
Another big lie was when Carrillo told committee members, “It is important that we realize that this does not change existing law as to the parental rights of a child.” But that’s not what the Legislative Counsel’s office says.
Instead, the Legislative Counsel’s Digest reports the main point of AB 665 is “removing [from current law] the additional requirement that, in order to consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, [the specific condition that] the minor must present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others, or be the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.”
AB 665 therefore eliminates existing parental consent before children can be taken away to a “residential shelter” and given drugs (“mental health treatment”).
EXISTING LAW IN CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE 6924(b): (b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. (2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.
BUT AB 665 REPLACES THESE WORDS WITH: (b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if the minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services.
By deleting existing law that prohibits taking away children from home unless “The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse,” AB 665 erases parental consent in this section of Family Code.
AB 665 would permit children 12 years and up, who are neither harming themselves nor are victims of abuse, to “consent” to “mental health treatment or counseling services” or to go live at a “residential shelter.” Again, current law requires parental consent, but this bill wipes out parental consent.
AB 665 would replace the existing law’s two exceptions by letting children as young as 12 somehow “consent” to “treatment,” “counseling,” and a secret “residential shelter,” without parental involvement, parental consent, or even requiring proof of efforts to notify parents, if a “professional person” (under AB 665, this could be non-experts, such as “a psychological trainee, an associate clinical social worker, a social work intern, a clinical counselor trainee”) simply opines the minor is “mature enough to participate intelligently.” By deleting the current law’s harm or abuse conditions, AB 665 eliminates parental consent prior to children being taken away to live a “residential shelter” to receive “mental health treatment.”
AB 665’s sponsor lied about parental notification
And Carrillo’s chief witness lied when she told the Senate Judiciary Committee parents will be notified, saying, “This bill does nothing to make the existing parental notification that’s currently written in the law, so any providers of residential shelter services or of outpatient mental health care are required to go to their best efforts to notify parents that the young person is receiving the treatment.”
Yet the text of AB 665 neither requires parental notification nor any consequences for failing to notify parents.Look at all these “holes” in the bill:
(c) A professional person offering residential shelter services, whether as an individual or as a representative of an entity specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), shall make their best efforts to notify the parent or guardian of the provision of services.
Our analysis: “Best efforts” is not defined. There’s no notification form, or even notification deadline, in AB 665. Parental notification isn’t real in this bill, which eliminates its so-called notification requirement if one believes it’s “inappropriate.”
(d) The mental health treatment or counseling of a minor authorized by this section shall include involvement of the minor’s parent or guardian unless the professional person who is treating or counseling the minor, after consulting with the minor, determines that the involvement would be inappropriate. The professional person who is treating or counseling the minor shall state in the client record whether and when the person attempted to contact the minor’s parent or guardian, and whether the attempt to contact was successful or unsuccessful, or the reason why, in the professional person’s opinion, it would be inappropriate to contact the minor’s parent or guardian.
Our analysis: Legally, “involvement” of a parent is not requiring parental consent. To ignore parents, a “professional person” merely needs to opine that parental “involvement would be inappropriate” and simply make a note why they didn’t, or why they thought it was “inappropriate” to even try to “contact the minor’s parent or guardian.” Again, parental notification is not required by AB 665.
TAKE ACTION: Target the State Senate floor
It’s up to concerned Californians to tell the truth about AB 665, which is on the Senate floor and could come up for a vote as soon as Monday, June 26.
ACT NOW! Please call 1) your own state senator, and 2) up to 21 “swing-vote” Democrats.
HOW TO CALL Call your own state senator (either during business hours or by leaving an after-hours voicemail) and here, identify yourself and where you live. Yet for the 21 “swing-vote” Democrats we’ve identified, leave only brief, anonymous voicemail messages Thursday evening and Friday morning (7pm to 8am) and all this weekend (Saturday and Sunday).
WHAT TO SAY Leave your message, saying, “I’m calling to urge you to oppose AB 665. The bill author lied in committee. AB 665 does not require the prior condition of homelessness, yet blatantly eliminates parental consent, doesn’t even require parental notification, and threatens families statewide. Vote NO on AB 665!”
LEAVE ANONYMOUS VOICEMAILS (DON’T SAY YOUR NAME OR COMMUNITY) The California State Senate is composed of 40 senators, of which 32 are Democrats. Bills such as AB 665 require 21 votes to pass. Here are the names and numbers of half of the Democrat caucus members to call, listed from in priority from 32 down to below 21:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The following list of “swing-vote” Democrats includes 6 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who’ve already voted yes on AB 665. However, they could easily change their votes on the Senate floor, due to new information about how the bill author and bill sponsor deceived them and how AB 665 clearly erases parental rights.
32. Melissa Hurtado (family area, barely “won” reelection, voted NO on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4016 and 661-395-2620
31. Dave Min (in somewhat conservative area, his worsening reputation, abstained on SB 866 and SB 33, is running for more conservative U.S. House seat) 916-651-4037 and 949-223-5472
30. Richard Roth (abstained on SB 866, has abstained on other bills, from somewhat conservative area, termed out in 2024) 916-651-4031 and 951-680-6750
29. Bob Archuleta (family man, abstained on SB 866, has abstained on other bills) 916-651-4030 and 562-406-1001
28. Benjamin Allen (abstained on SB 866 last year, questioned AB 665) 916-651-4024 and 310-318-6994
27. Anna Caballero (family area, has abstained on SB 866 and other bills) 916-651-4014 and 559-264-3070
26. Henry Stern (abstained on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4027 and 818-876-3352
25. Angelique Ashby (new, untested, calls herself a Christian) 916-651-4008 and 916-651-1529
24. Tom Umberg (abstained on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4034 and 714-558-3785
23. Susan Rubio (abstained on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4022 and 909-469-1110
22. Marie Alvarado-Gil (new, from somewhat conservative area) 916-651-4004 and 916-933-8680
21. Catherine Blakespear (new, from somewhat conservative area) 916-651-4038 and 760-642-0809
– – – If AB 665 does not receive 21 yes votes, it will be defeated – – –
19. Anthony Portantino (abstained on SR 33 pushing “LGBTQ+ Pride Month”) 916-651-4025 | 818-409-0400
18. Aisha Wahab (new, Muslim, misses parents who died when she was a child) 916-651-4410 and 510-794-3900
17. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (new) 916-651-4028 and 213-745-6656
16. María Elena Durazo (wild card) 916-651-4026 and 213-483-9300
15. Lena Gonzalez (wild card) 916-651-4033 and 323-277-4560
14. Steve Glazer (wild card) 916-651-4007 and 925-754-1461
13. Bill Dodd (wild card) 916-651-4003 and 707-224-1990
12. Steve Padilla (an open homosexual, yet represents strongly “pro-family,” largely Hispanic Imperial County) 916-651-4018 and 760-335-3442
PA’RENT, noun [Latin parens, from pario, to produce or bring forth. The regular participle of pario is pariens, and parens is the regular participle of pareo, to appear.] 1. A father or mother; he or she that produces young. The duties of parents to their children are to maintain, protect and educate them. When parents are wanting in authority, children are wanting in duty. Noah Webster, 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
RSS 2.0 Feed