LEGISLATION 2021 ARCHIVE//

2021 CALIFORNIA BILLS

Here are the worst bills of 2021's regular legislative session, which adjourned Sept. 10:

BAD BILLS signed by Gavin Newsom

Signed by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on September 22:

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two anti-parent, pro-abortion bills, AB 1184 and AB 1356, both sponsored by Planned Parenthood, California's top killer of babies.

Gavin Newsom loves these two bills, calling them "Access to Reproductive Care and Protecting Patients"

AB 1184 prohibits medical providers and insurance companies from disclosing to parents if a child is getting an abortion, "changing" his or her sex," has a drug abuse problem, has a mental illness, is a victim of domestic violence, or has contracted a sexually-transmitted disease.

According to the Democrat-run State Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1184:

3) Defines “protected individual” as a covered adult or, a minor who can consent to a health care service without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. Specifies that “protected individual” does not include an individual that lacks the capacity to give informed consent for health care pursuant to existing law.

4) Requires health plans/insurers to recognize the right of a protected individual to exclusively exercise rights granted under this bill regarding medical information related to “sensitive services” that the protected individual has received.

5) Updates the definition of “sensitive services” to further clarify that mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender affirming care, and intimate partner violence are included.

AB 1356 attacks the First Amendment of free speech and the moral people who want to protect women from danger and innocent preborn babies from torturous, bloody deaths.

According to the Democrat-run Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1356:
"This bill increases penalties for current crimes under the California Freedom of Access to Clinic Act (Act), making them wobblers; creates new crimes under the Act directed at videotaping, photographing, or recording patients or providers within 100 feet of the facility (“buffer” zone) or disclosing or distributing those images and makes these new crimes wobblers; increases current misdemeanor hate crime penalties making them wobblers; and, updates and expands online privacy laws and peace officer trainings relative to antireproduction-rights offenses."

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Unscientific tyranny against children and families and private businesses
AB 1084 by Evan Low (Democrat). Requires large stores that sell children's items to eliminate all references to "girls" and "boys,” despite the incontrovertible science showing if you’ve inherited a Y chromosome from your father, you’re male; if you have not, you’re female. This biological difference is unchanging and undeniable, making this bill a tyrannical lie. See the sciences of the sexes.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys. Beginning on January 1, 2024, the bill would make a retail department store that fails to comply with these provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for a first violation or $500 for a subsequent violation, as provided."

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 9. On September 2, this bad bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled State Assembly: 48 Democrats and 1 "independent" (Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley) voted "yes"; 15 Republicans (Bigelow, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Davies, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Patterson, Seyarto, Smith, Valladares, Voepel, Waldron) and 1 Democrat (Adam Gray) voted "no." A day earlier, AB 1084 was approved by the Democrat-controlled State Senate (29 Democrats voted "yes" and all 9 Republicans voted "no"). Voting yes were 29 Democrats (Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Becker, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hueso, Hurtado, Kamlager, Laird, Leyva, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener); voting no were all 9 Republicans (Bates, Borgeas, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Melendez, Nielsen, Ochoa Bogh, Wilk); abstaining were two Democrats (Min, Stern). On June 30, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. The vote was 8 Democrats yes, 3 Republicans no. AB 1084 nows goes to the Senate Judiary Committee. On June 1, passed the Democrat-controlled passed California State Assembly, after passing May 20 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The floor vote was 51 yes (50 Dems + 1 independent Chad Mayes); 18 no (17 Republicans + Democrat Adam Gray); and 10 not voting (8 Dems + 2 Republicans: Phillip Chen and Heath Flora). Is currently in the State Senate. Earlier, on April 27, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee. Voting yes were 7 Democrats (Chiu, Lorena Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Maienschein, Reyes, Stone), voting no were all 3 Republicans (Davies, Gallagher, Kiley). Not voting was 1 Democrat (Chau). Sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 6, AB 1084 passed its first committee, with 11 Democrats voting yes, 4 Republicans voting no, and 4 Democrats not voting.

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Teaching dark-skinned children to hate white-skinned children
See Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley's comment about AB 101, the "CRT bill"
AB 101 by Jose Medina (Democrat). Forces all children in California K-12 government schools, before graduation, to take and complete a course indoctrinating them with revamped "ethnic studies"/"critical race theory" ideas -- based on the model curriculum approved by the State Board of Education, which teaches non-whites they are "oppressed" and need to fight against and overthrow their "oppressors." This curriculum teaches children to reject their identity as an American, and to become soldiers of the Political Left.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would add the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies, meeting specified requirements, to the high school graduation requirements commencing with pupils graduating in the 2029–30 school year, including for pupils enrolled in a charter school. The bill would expressly authorize local educational agencies, including charter schools, to require a full-year course in ethnic studies at their discretion."

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 8. On September 8, AB 101 passed both the Democrat-controlled State Senate and State Assembly, with only Democrats voting "yes" and only Republicans voting "no." Earlier, on August 26, AB 101 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). On July 14, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Education Committee (4 of 5 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). On May 27, passed the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly. The vote to approve AB 101 was 58 yes: 57 Dems + 1 Republican (Steven Choi of Orange County); 9 no (all Republicans); and 11 not voting: 9 Republicans + 1 Democrat (Timothy Grayson) + 1 Independent (Chad Mayes). Already passed Democrat-controlled committees on May 20 and April 7.

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Making assisted suicide/euthanasia easier
SB 380 by Susan Eggman (Democrat). No one has to die in pain, as expert pharmicists know. Yet the 2015 California law promoting suicide as an "answer" is being made worse by killing the 15-day waiting period. Instead, it can be a rash decision, even induced by others (including inheriting relatives), with the confused and uninformed patient reportedly making two undefined "oral requests" 48 hours apart. SB 380 is based on the awful pro-suicide law, AB2X-15. Expert attorney Margaret Dore of Choice Is An Illusion says SB 380 further weakens patient protections.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would allow for an individual to qualify for aid-in-dying medication by making 2 oral requests a minimum of 48 hours apart. The bill would eliminate the requirement that an individual who is prescribed and ingests aid-in-dying medication make a final attestation. The bill would require that the date of all oral and written requests be documented in an individual’s medical record and would require that upon a transfer of care, that record be provided to the qualified individual. The bill would extend the operation of the act indefinitely, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by extending the operation of crimes for specified violations of the act ... This bill would require a health care provider who is unable or unwilling to participate in activities authorized by the act to inform the individual seeking an aid-in-dying medication that they do not participate, document the date of the individual’s request and the provider’s notice of their objection, and transfer their relevant medical record upon request ... This bill would instead authorize health care facilities to prohibit employees and contractors, as specified, from prescribing aid-in-dying drugs while on the facility premises or in the course of their employment. The bill would prohibit a health care provider or health care facility from engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive practices relating to their willingness to qualify an individual or provide a prescription for an aid-in-dying medication to a qualified individual. The bill would require a health care facility to post its current policy regarding medical aid in dying on its internet website."

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 5. On September 10, this bad bill passed both the Democrat-controlled Senate and Assembly floors. In the 40-member State Senate, all 26 "yes" votes for SB 380 were from Democrats; all 8 "yes" votes were from Republicans. In the 80-member State Assembly, all 51 "yes" votes for SB 380 were from Democrats; 15 "no" votes were from Republicans, with 1 "no" vote from a Democrat (Patrick O'Donnell). On August 26, SB 380 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (10 of 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). On July 6, SB 380 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (6 Democrats voting "yes,"; 2 Republicans voting "no." On June 22, SB 380 passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were 9 Democrats and 1 Independent -- Chad Mayes; voting no were all 3 Republicans). This bill now goes to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. On May 28, it passed the Democrat-controlled California State Senate. The floor vote to approve SB 380 was 26 yes (all Democrats), 8 no (all Republicans), and 6 not voting (5 Democrats + 1 Republican). This pro-suicide bill already passed three Democrat-controlled committees. 

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
More promotion of destructive drugs to depressed and vulnerable Californians (and by extension, to teenagers)
SB 73 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Lowers the criminal penalties on users and dealers of heroin, opiates or opium derivatives, salts, cannabis, phencyclidine (PCP), and other dangerous drugs. Any vice legalized for adults eventually gets into the hands of children. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing or agreeing to sell or transport opiates or opium derivatives, possessing or transporting cannabis, planting or cultivating peyote, and various crimes relating to forging or altering prescriptions, among other crimes, if the person has previously been convicted of any one of specified felony offenses relating to controlled substances. Existing law also prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing for sale or selling 14.25 grams or more of a substance containing heroin and possessing for sale 14.25 grams or more of any salt or solution of phencyclidine or its analogs, among other crimes. This bill would delete various crimes relating to controlled substances, including, but not limited to, the crimes described above, from those prohibitions against granting probation or a suspended sentence. The bill would authorize the remaining prohibitions on probation to be waived by a court in the interests of justice.”

Status | Votes Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom on October 5. On September 10, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate floor, with 23 Democrats voting "yes" and all 9 Republicans voting "no." A day earlier, SB 73 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly floor, with 42 Democrats voting "yes" and all Republicans voting "no." On August 26, SB 73 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). On June 15, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Assembly Public Safety Committee. Voting yes on SB 73 were 6 Democrats; voting no was 1 Republican; not voting was 1 Republican. On April 12, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled California State Senate. Voting yes were 25 Democrats; voting no were 8 Republicans and 2 Democrats; not voting were 4 Democrats and 1 Republican.
James Lambert column: "Dems are now pushing to legalize LSD in California"

Signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom
Destroying people’s freedom of conscience to support scientific truth
AB 465 by Adrin Nazarian (Democrat). Forces "LGBTQIA+" brainwashing upon professional fiduciaries (trusted persons who handle affairs on someone else’s behalf while they are still alive or after they have died; AgingCare.com explains: "Individuals who serve as professional fiduciaries tend to be trust company officers, certified public accountants, or attorneys." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill, beginning January 1, 2023, would require the prelicensing education courses to include at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency.” From the bill text: “cultural competency” means understanding and applying cultural and ethnic data to the process of care that includes, but is not limited to, information on the appropriate treatment of, and provision of care to, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities, ethnic communities, and religious communities.” Also from the bill: “a licensee shall complete at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency every three years.”

Status | Votes On September 16, Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 465 without comment. On September 1, AB 465 passed Democrat-controlled Assembly and was sent to the Governor. Voting yes were 61 Democrats + 11 Republicans (Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Davies, Flora, Fong, Lackey, Mathis, Valladares, Voepel, Waldron). On August 30, AB 465 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate (voting yes were 29 Democrats and 2 Republicans -- Ochoa Bogh and Wilk); voting no was 1 Republican (Jones). On June 7 this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Voting yes were 9 Democrats and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; voting no was 1 Republican (Brian Jones); not voting were 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. On May 3, AB 465 passed the floor of the California State Assembly with the yes votes of 58 Democrats + 10 Republicans + 1 Independent (Republicans voting yes on AB 465 were these 10 Republicans: Bigelow, Chen, Choi, Flora, Fong, Mathis, Nguyen, Smith, Voepel, Waldron (not voting were 8 Republicans and 1 Democrat). On April 21, AB 465 passed its second committee, with all 3 Republicans (Bigelow, Dahle, Fong) joining the majority Democrats in voting yes. On April 6, passed first committee, with 13 Democrats and all 5 Republicans (Chen, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Valladares) voting yes.

BAD BILLS that are dead for the year

Dead for the year (see why)
Permitting companies to fire health-conscious employees unless they get the "jab"
AB 1102 (as proposed to be "gutted and amended") by Bay Area Democrat and homosexual activist Evan Low would specify that state law does not prevent employers from requiring a "Covid vaccine" injection, as well as "booster shots," as a condition of employment. As such, AB 1102 would eliminate any wrongful termination claim for an employee fired for not wanting a risky injection that has killed and injured people.

Dead for the year (see why)
Requiring "Covid vaccine passports" statewide to discriminate against, segregate, and punish health-conscious Californians opposed to injections that have killed tens of thousands and injured millions
AB 455 (as proposed to be "gutted and amended") by six Democrats, including Richard Pan of Sacramento and Scott Wiener of San Francisco. This draft bill would require most Californians to show proof they've been injected with a "Covid vaccine" by displaying a card or paper or a document on their phone -- or else they cannot enter most "places of public accommodation," which is very broadly defined in California law to apply to nearly every type of commerce in California, exceeding even this exhaustive list in the federal ADA law: 

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; 
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; 
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
Status (note that AB 455 is still a transportation bill and has not yet been "gutted and amended")

Dead for the year
Kicking out duly-elected state assemblymembers unless they get the "jab"
HR 71 by four Assembly Democrats would force the "Covid vaccine" upon members of the California State Assembly, "or else the Member shall be suspended from exercising the powers of the office, and shall forfeit all salary and benefits derived from the office."

Dead for the year
Targeting California police officers who are conservative or religious
AB 655 by Ash Kalra (Democrat). Forces state CHP, county sheriff's departments, city police departments, prison guards, and any other entity employing or contracting with peace officers in California to discriminate against a candidate for employment (a new or transferring officer), as well as current officers, who have expressed conservative or religious views. How the bill defines the disqualifying act of "public expression of hate” is broad, vague, and open to subjective interpretation.

Although the March 25 amendments to AB 655 made the bill less bad (the phrase "the denial of constitutional rights of" was deleted), the words "threatens" and "threatening" have been added, supplying the Radical Left with subjective power to falsely accuse conservatives of "threatening violence" because their words make some liberals irrationally fearful. Using AB 655 to prohibit conservative or religious peace officers from having informed opinions regarding the American judicial principle of equal justice under law, regarding Black Lives Matter's "defund the police" agenda, regarding the unconstitutionality of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, and regarding the science of the sexes proving only two sexes -- male and female -- would trample constitutional free speech with blatant, chilling effect. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would require that background investigation to include an inquiry into whether a candidate for specified peace officer positions has engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate, as those terms are defined. The bill would provide that certain findings would disqualify a person from employment ... This bill would require an agency to investigate, as specified, any internal complaint or complaint made by the public that alleges, as specified, that a peace officer engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate. The bill would provide that certain findings would be grounds for termination. This bill would also require the Department of Justice to adopt and promulgate guidelines for the investigation and adjudication of these complaints by local agencies." From the bill text: "Public expression of hate” means any explicit expression, either on duty or off duty and while identifying oneself as, or reasonably identifiable by others as, a peace officer, in a public forum, on social media including in a private discussion forum, in writing, or in speech, advocating for, supporting, or threating the genocide of, or violence towards, any individual or group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability ... “Public expression of hate” also includes the public display of any tattoo, uniform, insignia, flag, or logo that indicates support for the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."

Status | Votes This bill is "dead for the year." On May 20 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 655's hearing was postponed and the bill was put on the suspense file, from which it did not escape before the May 21 deadline to pass the committee. On April 6, passed first committee, with all 5 Democrats voting yes and all 3 Republicans voting no.
See this analysis of AB 655

Dead for the year
Threatening the safety of law-abiding individuals and families
AB 1223 by Marc Levine (Democrat): Imposes a $25 tax on guns and a tax on ammunition, providing a financial disincentive to attaining or improving one’s personal defense. Even for those who want to eliminate firearms, this won’t work, because “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would, until January 1, 2028, impose an excise tax on a retailer in the amount of $25 per firearm on the sale in this state of a handgun or semiautomatic rifle or shotgun sold as new, as provided, and an excise tax on a retailer in the amount of ___% of the gross receipts from any sale of ammunition. The tax would be collected by the state pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require that the revenues collected be deposited in the CalVIP Firearm and Ammunition Tax Fund, which the bill would create. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys in that fund to the Board of State and Community Corrections to provide CalVIP grants, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would also extend the operation of the CalVIP program until January 1, 2028. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII   A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

Status | Votes Never brought up for a vote before the Assembly adjourned on September 10, therefore it's "dead for the year." Back on the floor of the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly after failing in early June, AB 1223 needs 2/3rds approval since it would raise taxes (2/3rds is 54 of 80 members). There was earlier confusion over whether this bill had actually passed the Assembly --  it has not. The June 11 vote (which was 4 votes short) was 50 yes (all Democrats); 17 no (all Republicans); 12 not voting (10 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Phillip Chen and Steven Choi). Earlier, AB 1223 had passed two Democrat-controlled committees.

Dead for the year
Forcing insurance policies to fully subsidize the killing of pre-born babies
SB 245 by Lena Gonzalez (Democrat). This bill forces insurers to violate their moral consciences and pay for unlimited abortions of pre-born babies absolutely free of charge, making killing these babies a favored policy. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a health care service plan or an individual or group policy of disability insurance that is issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2022, from imposing a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on coverage for all abortion services, as specified, and additionally would prohibit cost sharing from being imposed on a Medi-Cal beneficiary for those services. The bill would apply the same benefits with respect to an enrollee’s or insured’s covered spouse and covered nonspouse dependents. The bill would not require an individual or group health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy to cover an experimental or investigational treatment. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program." 

Status | Votes Did not come up for an Assembly floor vote before the September 10 adjournment. On August 26, SB 245's hearing was "postponed by commmittee" (the Assembly Appropriations Committee). Earlier, on June 25, the June 30 hearing on SB 245 was postponed; on July 7, the bill was placed on the "suspense file" (meaning it might be too expensive or otherwise problematic). On June 22, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; all the Republicans voted no). It goes next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. On June 1, passed the Democrat-controlled California State Senate. The floor vote to approve SB 245 was 31 yes (all Democrats), 8 no (all Republicans), and 1 not voting. Earlier, this bill passed Democrat-controlled committees, on May 20 and April 7.

Dead for the year
Harming people’s health and lives by promoting destructive drug use and abuse
SB 57 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Creates so-called "safe injection sites" in Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would, until January 1, 2027, authorize the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland to approve entities to operate overdose prevention programs for persons that satisfy specified requirements, including, among other things, providing a hygienic space supervised by trained staff where people who use drugs can consume preobtained drugs, providing sterile consumption supplies, and providing access or referrals to substance use disorder treatment. The bill would require the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland, prior to authorizing an overdose prevention program in its jurisdiction, to provide local law enforcement officials, local public health officials, and the public with an opportunity to comment in a public meeting. The bill would require an entity operating a program to provide an annual report to the city or the city and county, as specified. The bill would exempt a person from, among other things, civil liability, professional discipline, or existing criminal sanctions, solely for actions, conduct, or omissions in compliance with an overdose prevention program authorized by the city or the city and county. The bill would clarify that the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California is authorized to take disciplinary action against a licensee related to the operation of an overdose prevention program that violates the Medical Practice Act. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland.”

Status | Votes On July 6, SB 57's author announced his bill is dead for the year, but could return in January. On July 5, SB 57 was sent to the Assembly Health Committee. On May 28, this bill was double-referred to the Assembly Health and Public Safety committees. On April 22, passed the Democrat-controlled Senate floor after passing two Democrat-controlled committees. The Senate floor vote was 21 yes, 11 no, 8 not voting (21 yes votes are needed for a bill to pass); all 9 Republicans voted no, including Democrats Glazer and Hurtado, and 8 Democrats abstained.
James Lambert column: "Dems are now pushing to legalize LSD in California"

Dead for the year despite passing the Legislature
Promoting, not prohibiting, disease-spreading and dehumanizing prostitution
SB 357 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Eliminates law against loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law prohibits soliciting or engaging in an act of prostitution, as specified. Existing law also prohibits loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, as defined, or directing, supervising, recruiting, or aiding a person who is loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, or collecting or receiving all or part of the proceeds of an act of prostitution. Under existing law, a violation of any of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would repeal those provisions related to loitering with the intent to commit prostitution and would make other conforming changes. This bill would also authorize a person convicted of a violation of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution to petition the court for the dismissal and sealing of their case, and resentencing, if applicable.”

Status | Votes After passing the Legislature and "ordered to engrossing and enrolling," SB 357 was "withdrawn from engrossing and enrolling" and "ordered held at the desk." This means the Senate Democrat leader did a favor to Governor Gavin Newsom by preventing him from receiving this radical bill that essentially legalized publicly promoting prostitution on California streets and streetcorners. On August 26, passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all 12 Democrats, voting no were all 4 Republicans). On June 1 passed Democrat-controlled California State Senate. Voting yes on SB 357 were 29 Democrats; voting no were all 9 Republicans; not voting were 2 Democrats. Earlier, this bill passed two Democrat-controlled Senate committees.

Dead for the year
Prohibiting doctors from performing corrective surgery for children with abnormal or ambiguous genitals
Withdrawn from committee April 5
SB 225 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Very similar to the author’s previous bill, which died in committee (SB 201 in 2019-2020). Prohibits parents from deciding, or a physician from recommending, corrective surgery for babies born biologically male or female, according to their XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes, respectively, but who have deformed, abnormal or opposite-sex genital deformity that can be surgically corrected in infancy so that the child grows up without being confused by it or ridiculed for it. Severely trampling parental rights and the well-being of children, this bill attacks fathers and mothers, while destroying what is often a simple solution that greatly helps biological boys' or biological girls' bodies, minds, and emotions. See the science of the sexes. From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a physician and surgeon from performing certain sex organ modification procedures on an individual born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 12 years of age unless the procedure is a surgery required to address an immediate risk of physical harm, as specified. The bill would make any violation of these provisions subject to disciplinary action by the board, but not criminal prosecution.” 

Status | Votes Withdrawn from committee on April 5 and is likely dead for the year

Dead for the year
Attacking the conscience rights and religious freedom of health care facilities and workers
SB 379 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Prohibit the University of California from contracting with any hospital, health facility, or individual that refuses to participate in abortions or "sex change" procedures.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit the University of California, on and after January 1, 2022, from entering into, amending, or renewing any contract with any health facility contractor or subcontractor in which a health care practitioner employed by the University of California or a trainee of the University of California providing care in the health facility under that contract would be limited in the practitioner’s or trainee’s ability to provide patients with medical information or medical services due to policy-based restrictions on care in the health facility. The bill would require any contract between the University of California and a health facility pursuant to which a University of California-employed health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California provides care in the health facility to include a provision restating the substance of that prohibition. The bill would require any contract between the University of California and a health facility pursuant to which a University of California-employed health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California provides care in the health facility to provide that, in the event the health facility contractor or subcontractor violates the prohibition, the contract shall be terminated for noncompliance, and the contractor or subcontractor shall forfeit penalties to the University of California, as appropriate, in an amount equal to the amount paid by the university for the percentage of work that was performed. The bill would exempt from its provisions contracts between the University of California and prescribed health facility contractors or subcontractors. The bill would require the University of California to ensure that a health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California is able to complete their training. The bill would prohibit the University of California from extending or delaying a health practitioner’s training due to the loss of a clinical training rotation. The bill would require the University of California, before January 1, 2025, to find alternative facilities for trainees to complete their training. The bill would define terms for these purposes."

Status | Votes On May 20, the Democrat-dominated Senate Appropriations Committee "Held in committee and under submission," effectively shelving for the year this bill depleting UC of a significant number of paying customers. Earlier, SB 379 had passed two Democrat-controlled committees.

GOOD BILLS -- all killed in Democrat-controlled State Legislature

Ending the unnecessary, unmerited, unproven, unconstitutional, destructive, year-long "state of emergency"
SCR 5 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). This concurrent resolution which requires a majority vote to pass the State Senate (which would then be transmitted to the State Assembly), is based on California Government Code, Section 8629, which reads: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end, thereby terminating the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation."

Status | Votes No votes yet, because the super-supermajority Democrats have not yet scheduled a hearing

Also ending the unnecessary, unmerited, unproven, unconstitutional, destructive, year-long "state of emergency"
ACR 46 by Kevin Kiley (Republican). This concurrent resolution which requires a majority vote to pass the State Assembly (which would then be transmitted to the State Senate), is based on California Government Code, Section 8629, which reads: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end and terminate the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation."

Status | Votes No votes yet, because the super-supermajority Democrats have not yet scheduled a hearing

Recognizing and protecting constitutional free exercise of religion
SB 397 by Brian Jones (Republican). Requires religious services to be deemed "essential" like big box stores, especially since free exercise of religion is in both the state and federal constitutions. It is unconstitutional to “shut down” churches, because the Constitution is above any state official. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill, the Religion is Essential Act, would, during a state of emergency or local emergency, require the Governor or the local government to deem religious services to be an essential service and to be necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from taking a discriminatory action against a religious organization, as those terms are defined, and would require the state and local government to permit a religious organization to continue operating and engaging in religious services during a state of emergency to the same or greater extent that other organizations or businesses that provide essential services that are necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are permitted to operate. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from enforcing any health, safety, or occupancy requirement that imposes a substantial burden on a religious service unless the state or local government demonstrates that applying the burden to the religious service is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This bill would authorize a religious organization to assert a violation of these provisions as a claim against the state or a local government in a judicial or administrative proceeding or as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, as specified. The bill would entitle a religious organization that successfully asserts a claim or defense to certain relief, as specified.”

Status | Votes Defeated April 13 in the State Senate Judiciary Committee. Voting yes were both Republicans (Borgeas, Jones); voting no were 7 of 9 Democrats (Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Laird, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener); not voting were Democrats Caballero and Stern.

Respecting basic parental rights (your God-given right to oversee your children’s upbringing and education)
SB 217 by Brian Dahle (Republican). Requires government school districts to post sex education lessons online for easy parent access, so that the deceptive hiding of these sexual agenda plans will no longer be functionally prohibited to parents in violation of state law. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “The California Healthy Youth Act requires school districts, defined to include county boards of education, county superintendents of schools, the California School for the Deaf, the California School for the Blind, and, commencing with the 2019–20 school year, charter schools, to ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education, as specified. The act authorizes a school district to provide that education earlier than grade 7 with age-appropriate and medically accurate information. The act requires each school district to notify parents and guardians of pupils about its plan to provide sexual health education and HIV prevention instruction for the upcoming school year and to inform them, among other things, that the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education are available for inspection. This bill would require the above-described notice to parents and guardians of pupils and the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education to be translated if certain conditions are met, as specified. The bill would require the governing board of a school district to adopt a policy at a publicly noticed meeting specifying how parents and guardians of pupils may inspect the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education, including that the materials, including applicable translations and updates or changes to the materials, are made available, within prescribed timeframes, at each schoolsite and, except as provided, publicly posted on the school district’s internet website or, if applicable, on a school district’s parent or guardian portal, as specified.”

Status | Votes Killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (was scheduled for a May 17 hearing, was put on the "suspense" file and did not come up for a vote before the May 21 deadline to pass bills from fiscal committee). On April 28, passed by 1 vote in the Senate Education Committee, with the yes votes of both Republicans (Dahle and Ochoa Bogh) and two Democrats (Leyva and Glazer). Voting no was one Democrat (McGuire) and not voting were two Democrats (Cortese and Pan).

Stopping Gavin Newsom's rogue departments from falsely charging innocent small business owners
SB 102 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Prohibits two state departments from fining or revoking a license or forcibly closing or otherwise punishing California businesses for staying open, to work and earn.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would prohibit the Department of Consumer Affairs, a board within the Department of Consumer Affairs that does not regulate healing arts licensees, and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control from revoking a license or imposing a fine or penalty for failure to comply with any COVID-19 state of emergency orders or COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, unless the board or department can prove that lack of compliance resulted in transmission of COVID-19. The bill would specify that the provisions do not preclude issuance of fines, penalties, or revoking a license for any action that is not related to the issuance of any COVID-19 state of emergency orders or COVID-19 stay-at-home order. The provisions of the bill would remain in effect until either the COVID-19 state of emergency is terminated or all COVID-19 stay-at-home orders are no longer in effect, whichever occurs later, but in no case would the provisions remain in effect after January 1, 2024. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute."

Status | Votes Failed by 2 votes on March 5 (even though Democrats Hurtado and Roth joined Republicans in supporting the bill)

Protecting adults' constitutional freedom of association
SB 238 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Requires legal protection for political affiliation (part of your constitutional free speech), thus protecting against unfair discrimination against your political values and opinions when seeking employment or housing. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “(1) Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would extend the protections of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to persons regardless of political belief or affiliation. The bill would specify that these provisions are declarative of existing law. (2) Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), protects the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of specified characteristics and prescribes various employment, labor, and apprenticeship practices, among other things, in this regard. Among the protected characteristics are race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and military or veteran status. FEHA also makes unlawful various practices connected to obtaining and financing housing accommodations, among other things, if those practices discriminate based on specified characteristics. Existing law creates the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to administer and enforce these provisions. This bill would add political affiliation as a protected characteristic in connection with the above-described employment and housing provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing its employees to adopt or refrain from adopting any particular course or line of political action or activity. This bill would prohibit an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant for employment based on their political affiliation or lack of political affiliation or their membership or association with a political organization, as specified."

Status | Votes Defeated in committee April 20 (both Republicans yes, all 9 Democrats no)
More from SB 238’s author

Providing an equal playing field for constitutional political expression at government schools
SB 249 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Protects political affiliation in K-12 public schools, because it’s unfair and unconstitutional for government schools to allow – on personal clothing, for example -- “liberal” messages, but not “conservative” speech. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law states the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. Existing law requires the State Department of Education to assess whether local educational agencies have taken certain actions related to educational equity, including adopting a policy that prohibits, and adopting a process for receiving and investigating complaints of, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on those actual or perceived specified characteristics. This bill would include political affiliation for purposes of those provisions.”

Status | Votes Defeated in committee April 20 (both Republicans yes, all 9 Democrats no)
More from SB 238’s author 

INSIGHT: Why do so many bad bills pass and good bills fail? 

Who's behind the aborting of pre-born babies with your tax dollars, the brainwashing of children, tyranny against free speech, religious freedom, and private property, a lot of sexually-transmitted diseases, depression and suicide stemming from sexual addictions?

In California, the abortion industry and homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activists and their Democrat politicians, who dominate the California State Legislature, are pushing a raft of awful bills. And by extension, anyone who supports abortion or "gay rights" and votes for Democrats is, intentionally or unintentionally, behind these bills too.

For example, "Equality California," composed of homosexual and transsexual activists, pushes an endless number of "genders," opposes parental rights, religious freedom, private property rights, and fairness for dissenting views; and defies science proving the harm of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. Yet no one can change their sex.