California Legislation Center//

2023 California Bills

Who are my California state legislators?
Click here to find your assemblymember and state senator

Top Bills We're Tracking and Exposing

Updated 9/24/23

Here are the worst bills affecting children and families that SaveCalifornia.com is tracking for you. The California State Legislature ended its annual session on Sept. 14, and Governor Gavin Newsom has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto bills.

AB 659 by Democrat Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry would promote unneeded, ineffective, injurious Gardasil shots for all children in government-run or private (including church) schools before they enter 8th grade, and for college students 26 and younger at government-run UC, CSU, and community colleges. The bill requires government schools and private schools to notify parents that Gardasil is "recommended. In addition, these written notifications have to be "advising that the pupil be fully immunized against HPV before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level level."

Gardasil has injured and killed many. Yet Big Pharma Democrats are maniacally still pushing it. As amended July 3, AB 659 still threatens pre-teens, teens, and college students by purporting “it is the public policy of the state” that children and young adults "are recommended" to be jabbed with Gardasil "before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school" and "before first-time enrollment at an institution of the California State University, the University of California, or the California Community Colleges." Previous versions of the bill (as amended April 12 and May 22), falsely claimed the shots "are expected," while earlier versions blatantly mandated Gardasil shots.

DETAILS OF THE JULY 3 AMENDED VERSION OF AB 659:

SEC. 2. Section 48980.4 is added to the Education Code, to read:
48980.4. (a) The notification required pursuant to Section 48980 for pupils admitted to, or advancing to, the sixth grade shall include a notification to the pupil’s parent or guardian containing a statement about the state’s public policy described in subdivision (a) of Section 120336 of the Health and Safety Code, advising that the pupil be fully immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level.
(b) The notification sent pursuant to subdivision (a) shall conform to the notification requirements outlined in this article.

SEC. 4. Section 120336 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
120336. (a) It is the public policy of the state that pupils are recommended to be fully immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) before admission or advancement to the 8th eighth grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school.
(b) Upon a pupil’s admission or advancement to the sixth grade level, the governing authority of any private or public elementary or secondary school shall submit to the pupil and their parent or guardian a notification containing a statement about the state’s public policy described in subdivision (a) and advising that the pupil be fully immunized against HPV before admission or advancement to the eighth grade level, in compliance with the notification requirements of Article 4 (commencing with Section 48980) of Chapter 6 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code.
(c) This section does not apply to a pupil in a home-based private school.

SEC. 5. Section 120390 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
120390. The department, in consultation with the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as applicable, shall adopt and enforce all regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.

SEC. 6. Section 120390.6 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
120390.6. It is the public policy of the state that students who are 26 years of age or younger are recommended to be fully immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) before first-time enrollment at an institution of the California State University, the University of California, or the California Community Colleges.

Bottom line, as amended July 3, AB 659 continues to pressure California families, telling them "it is the public policy of the state" that pre-teens, teens, and college students "are expected" to receive at least two Gardasil jabs before advancing in their education. This bad bill pushes a dishonest product by pressuring and coercing millions of California families with children and college students!

Status | Votes: AB 659 has been sent to Governor Newsom after its Sept. 13 passage in the Assembly (voting yes were 59 Democrats and 1 Republican, Greg Wallis; voting no or abstaining were the rest of the Republicans). On Sept. 12, this bad bill passed the State Senate (voting yes were 31 Democrats and 1 Republican, Scott Wilk; voting no were the rest of the Republicans, except for Shannon Grove, who abstained, as did Democrat Anna Caballero). Earlier, on Sept. 1, this harmful bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). After passing the Senate floor, it must pass the Assembly floor on a concurrence vote (agreeing with Senate amendments). This bad bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee after its July 12 passage in the Senate Education Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). Previously, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee on June 28 (voting yes were all the the committee's Democrats; Republican Janet Nguyen voted no, while Republican Shannon Grove abstained). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. When the bill passed the 80-member Assembly, it had 52 yes votes (11 more than the 41 majority-vote threshold). Voting yes were 51 Democrats and 1 Republican (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area); voting no were 12 Republicans (later Phillip Chen and James Gallagher added their "no" votes); Republicans who abstained were Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, and Tom Lackey; abstaining Democrats were Jasmeet Bains, Blanca Pacheco, Sharon Quirk-Silva, and Akilah Weber. See our May 31 report and new action step. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 17 (11 Democrats voted yes, 4 Republicans voted no, and Democrat Akilah Weber abstained. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on April 18 on a party-line vote (all the Democrats voted yes, except Democrat Akilah Weber abstained; all Republicans voted no).

More bad bills by Assembly Democrats

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
AB 5 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Rick Zbur would require all teachers and employees of California government schools in grades 7 through 12 to be brainwashed with "LGBTQ cultural competency training."

As amended May 2, this anti-family bill has been changed as following:

1. Instead of being a continous annual requirement, the pro-"LGBTQIA+" teacher training would "sunset" in 2030. This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, with the author coming back in a couple years with a new bill to make it permanent, now that everyone's "gotten used to it."

2. Instead of 4 hours of in-service training every 3 years, the amended AB 5 mandates "one hour of required training annually."

3. Instead of requiring a each school district to achieve a 95% completion rate of this pro-"LGBTQIA+" teacher training, the amended AB 5 now requires tracking the number of employees who are thusly indoctrinated, and posting that number on the school district's website and reporting it to the California Department of Education.

Before the Democrat author amended his own bill, the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's Office analyzed AB 5, as amended April 17: "This bill would require the State Department of Education, on or before July 1, 2025, to finalize the development of an online training delivery platform and an online training curriculum to support LGBTQ cultural competency training for teachers and other certificated employees, as specified. The bill...would require, commencing with the 2025–26 school year, each local educational agency, as defined, serving pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to use the online training delivery platform and curriculum, or an in-service alternative, to provide at least 4 hours of training at least once every 3 years to teachers and other certificated employees at those schools, as provided. The bill would require each local educational agency to ensure a 95% completion rate of the training required pursuant to these provisions within each 3-year training period, and would require the department to report specified completion data to the Legislature, as provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require these provisions to be known as the Safe and Supportive Schools Act."

Status | Votes: AB 5 has been sent to Governor Gavin Newsom after passing the Assembly on Sept. 11 (voting yes were 61 Democrats and 4 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Josh Hoover, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; abstaining were 14 Republicans and Democrat Carlos Villapudua). On Sept. 7, this bad bill passed the floor of the Democrat-controlled State Senate (all Democrats voted yes, 3 Republicans voted no (Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto), and 5 Republicans abstained (Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk).This bad bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee after its July 12 passage in the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats voted yes; abstaining were the two Republicans: Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk). Previously, on May 22, this bad bill passed the State Assembly with 64 yes votes (nearly all Democrats) and 4 no votes. Republicans voting yes were Juan Alanis, Josh Hoover, Marie Waldron, and Greg Wallis; Republicans voting no were Megan Dahle, Gallagher, Jim Patterson, and Joe Patterson; Republicans not voting were Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Kate Sannchez, and Tri Ta; Democrats not voting were Sharon Quirk-Silva and Carlos Villapudua. Previously, this bad bill was sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee's "suspense file." Earlier, on April 26, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee, where all the Democrats and Republican Josh Hoover voted yes for this bad bill, while Republican Megan Dahle abstained.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
AB 223 by "LGBTQIA+" Democrat activists (4 Democrat assemblymembers + 5 Democrat state senators) on June 5 was amended to give parents access to court information regarding a minor's legal change of name or "gender identity," but will essentially hide this information from legal authorities (particularly from other states trying to protect their resident children from irreversible harm).

Status | Votes: AB 223 has been sent to Governor Newsom, after passing the Senate floor on Sept. 6 (Democrats for, Republicans against) and the Assembly floor on Sept. 6, on a concurrence vote (voting yes were all 62 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Diane Dixon and Greg Wallis; voting no were 8 Republicans: Phillip Chen, Megan Dahle, Vince Fong, Devon Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta; abstaining were 8 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, James Gallagher, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Marie Waldron). Earlier, this bad bill passed June 13 in the Democrat-controlled State Senate Judiciary Committee (8 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no, and Democrat Henry Stern did not vote). Previously, on March 23, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor. Joining the supermajority Assembly Democrats in voting yes on AB 223 were 3 Republicans: Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, and Greg Wallis. The rest of the Republicans abstained, as did Democrats Sabrina Cervantes and Brian Maienschein. Previously, on March 14, the bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee. Joining all the committee's Democrats in voting yes were Republicans Dixon and Essayli, while Republican Kate Sanchez voted no.

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 315 by Democrat Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would allow civil lawsuits based on "emotional distress" against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for "false or misleading statements." This anti-child, anti-First-Amendment bill is an attempted "end run" around the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a previous Democrat bill requiring pro-abortion signage at California CPCs.

Status | Votes: This bad bill is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it did not escape the Assembly Appropriations by the May 19 deadline to pass fiscal bills to the floor (last action on May 18: "held under submission"). Previously, on May 3, AB 315 was put on the "suspense file" of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Earlier, on March 21, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (all 8 Democrats voted yes; all 3 Republicans voted no).

AB 352 by Democrat Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would hide from dads and moms their pre-teens' and teens' records on those children receiving mind-altering drugs, drug addiction treatment, fornicating advice, sexually transmitted disease treatments, "intimate partner violence," abortions, and sex-change procedures/operations. The bill would hide this "health information" by requiring:
a) any entity that electronically stores or maintain medical information to take specific steps to hide these "sensitive services"
b) the health care profession to refuse to cooperating with any inquiry or investigation in these "sensitive services" from within California or other states
c) a state advisory group to exclude these "sensitive services" in their statewide health information sharing policy.

The Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office explains AB 352, as amended Sept. 8:

This bill would require specified businesses that electronically store or maintain medical information on the provision of sensitive services on behalf of a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, contractor, or employer to develop capabilities, policies, and procedures, on or before July 1, 2024, to enable certain security features, including limiting user access privileges and segregating medical information related to gender affirming care, abortion and abortion-related services, and contraception, as specified. The bill would additionally prohibit a provider of health care, health care service plan, contractor, or employer from cooperating with any inquiry or investigation by, or from providing medical information to, an individual, agency, or department from another state or, to the extent permitted by federal law, to a federal law enforcement agency that would identify an individual or that is related to an individual seeking or obtaining an abortion or abortion-related services that are lawful under the laws of this state, unless the request for medical information is authorized in accordance with specified existing provisions of law. The bill would exempt a provider of health care from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions relating to cooperating with, or providing medical information to, another state or a federal law enforcement agency before January 31, 2026, if the provider of health care is working diligently and in good faith to comply with the prohibition. Because the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would exclude the exchange of health information related to abortion and abortion-related services from automatically being shared on the California Health and Human Services Data Exchange Framework.

Status | Votes: AB 352 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled State Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 14 (voting yes were aal 62 Dems + Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; voting no were the rest of the Republicans, except Diane Dixon and Josh Hoover abstained). The day prior, Sept. 13, this bad bill passed the State Senate floor (voting yes were 31 Democrats + Republican Scott Wilk; voting no were the rest of the Republicans; abstaining was Democrat Anna Caballero), following its Aug. 14 passage in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on July 12, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (Democrats voted yes, while Republicans Shannon Grove and Janet Nguyen did not vote). Previously, on June 27, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all the committee's Democrats voted yes, along with Republican Scott Wilk voting yes, while Republican Roger Niello voted no). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were all the Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); voting no were 12 Republicans: Megan Dahle, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, and Marie Waldron; abstaining were 4 Republicans: Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Heath Flora, and Josh Hoover. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committtee on May 18 (Democrats for except Robert Rivas not voting, all 4 Republicans voted no). Previously, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (all Democrats voted yes, voting no were Republicans Vince Fong and Joe Patterson, and Republican Bill Essayli abstained. On April 11, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; voting no were Republicans Vince Fong, Joe Patterson, and Marie Waldron; abstaining was Republican Heath Flora.

AB 443 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson builds upon last year's AB 2229, which aimed to prohibiting sincerely religious law enforcement officers. This new bill, AB 443, would require the state's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to unconstitutionally define “biased conduct” in order to punish current police officers and police force applicants based on what a state commission finds on social media. AB 443 reads: "The commission shall develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective Internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. The guidance shall include, at minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for, and identifying, content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups." With family values organizations labeled as "hate groups" by the discredited SPLC, you know where this is going. Free-speech attorneys, prepare your federal lawsuits now!

Status | Votes: AB 443 has been sent to Governor Newsom, following its Sept. 13 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 59 Democrats + 4 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; voting no was Republican Jim Patterson; abstaining were the rest of the Republicans, including Democrats Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, James Ramos, Blanca Rubio). Earlier that same day, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate (voting yes were 28 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans + Democrat Melissa Hurtado; abstaining were Democrats Marie Alvarado-Gil, Anna Caballero, Dave Min). Previously, on Sept. 1, this intolerant bill passed in the Senate Appropriations Commmittee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Earlier, on July 11, this bad bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee (voting yes were 3 Democrats; abstaining were Democrat Aisha Wahab and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh). Previously, on May 13, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were 58 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); zero legislators voted no; abstaining were the rest of the Republicans and 4 Democrats (Blanca Pacheco, James Ramos, Freddie Rodriguez, and Blanca Rubio). Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; Republican Megan Dahle voted no; Republicans who abstained were Diane Dixon, Devon Mathis, Kate Sanchez). Earlier, on March 14, this unconstitutional bill unanimously passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee (the 6 Democrats and 2 Republicans -- Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey -- all voted yes).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 492 by Democrat Assemblymember Gail Pellerin this bill would seek to spend state and federal funds to create a pilot project adding the treatment of "mild-to-moderate behaviorial health conditions" to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists, which are defined in the bill "as a Medi-Cal provider that is enrolled in the Family PACT Program and that provides abortion- and contraception-related services." This bill attempts to add to Planned Parenthood's cover story of "comprehensive," non-abortion "services," and at its core aims to replace wiser counsel from parents, pastors, and psychologists. Bottom line, AB 492 would spend taxpayer money on lie-based, pro-abortion counseling at Planned Parenthood killing centers. Mothers, babies, and taxpayers all lose.

Status | Votes: This bad bill is DEAD FOR THE YEAR, since it has had no action since June 14, when it was referred to the State Senate Health Committee. Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were all 62 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); voting no were the remaining 16 Republicans. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Earlier, on April 18, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on a party-line vote (all 11 Democrats voted yes; all 4 Republicans voted no).

AB 576 by Democrat Assemblymember Akilah Weber would fully fund chemical abortions under the state's Medi-Cal (welfare) program. The previous version of the bill ordered the State of California to "fully reimburse providers for the provision of medication to terminate a pregnancy." However, the May 18 amendments to the bill, while striking this sentence, added new langugage to deceitfully permit the same thing:

SECTION 1. Section 14131.07 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
14131.07. (a) (1) By March 1, 2024, the department shall review and update Medi-Cal coverage policies for medication abortion to align with current evidence-based clinical guidelines.
(2) After the initial review, the department shall update its Medi-Cal coverage policies for medication abortion as needed to align with evidence-based clinical guidelines.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (a), the department shall allow flexibility for providers to exercise their clinical judgment when services are performed in a manner that aligns with one or more evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Status | Votes: AB 576 is on Gavin Newsom's desk, after passing the State Senate floor on Sept. 11 (voting yes were 30 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans; abstaining were Democrats Marie Alvarado-Gil and Anna Caballero). Earlier, on Sept. 1, this baby-killing bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Previously, on June 28, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; abstaining were both Republicans, Shannon Grove and Janet Nguyen). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were 61 Democrats + 1 Republican (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area); voting no were the rest of the Republicans, except Diane Dixon abstained; also abstaining was Democrat Timothy Grayson. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Previously, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on April 11 (voting yes were all the Democrats, except Carlos Villapudua abstained; voting no were all the Republicans).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 598 by Democrat Assemblymember Buffy Wicks would require that children at junior high and high schools all receive "physical or digital" referrals to abortions. The bill would also mandate the anti-family "California Healthy Kids Survey" upon all school districts to impose in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11. This bill would also require these invasive questionaires include "questions about sexual and reproductive health care as a core survey module for pupils in grades 7, 9, and 11."

Status | Votes: AB 598 has had no action since July 5, has been languishing in the State Senate Education Committee, and is DEAD FOR THE YEAR. Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. Voting yes were all 62 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Greg Wallis of the Palm Springs area and Juan Alanis of Modesto/Turlock/Patterson area); voting no were the remaining 16 Republicans. Earlier, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Earlier, on April 12, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; all the Republicans voted no).

AB 665 by Democrat Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo would permit minors 12 and above to consent to "mental health counseling" and "mental health treatment" at a government-funded "residential shelter." Parents would be cut out -- no parental notification or consent. Because children's brains are not fully developed until age 25, children cannot give informed consent, which is why parents are essential to making decisions on any medical or psychological treatment of their children. By removing any conditions for a child's "consent," AB 665 permits adults to both manipulate and legally "kidnap" impressionable children.

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.

This change would give children who are 12 years old and up 100% unconditional consent to receive “mental health treatment or counseling” or to go live at a “residential shelter," without parental consent and without a "harm" or "abuse" reason.

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’s change 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, 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.”

Status | Votes: AB 665 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on Sept. 7 (60 Democrats voted yes, all 18 Republicans voted no, and 2 Democrats, Al Muratsuchi and Sharon Quirk-Silva, abstained), after passing the State Senate on Sept. 6 (31 Democrats voted yes, all 8 Republicans voted no, and 1 Democrat, Marie Alvarado-Gil, abstained). Earlier, on June 20, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Previously, this bad bill passed the Assembly floor on April 10 with 55 yes votes (all Democrats), 10 no votes (all Republicans: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Lackey, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Ta), and the rest of the Republicans and several Democrats abstained. Previously, AB 665 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 28, during which all but one of the majority Democrats voted yes; voting no were Republicans Bill Essayli and Kate Sanchez; not voting were Republican Diane Dixon and Democrat Ash Kalra.

VETOED BY GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 22 veto message)
AB 957 by Democrat Assemblymember Lori Wilson, as amended July 3, still declares "the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes...a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression." Does this mean if a parent does not support the transsexuality of his or her own child, they have committed "neglect" or "abuse"? Under this bill, in a legal depute over determination of child custody and visitation, the parent supporting God's design of the two sexes would likely lose. This unscientific, pro-child-mutiliation bill would instruct the courts to oppose what's truly best for children and families.

And the August 17 amendments to AB 957 amount to "technical clean-up," and do nothing to accomodate religious parents, who do not and cannot support transsexuality.

DETAILS OF THE JULY 3 AMENDED VERSION OF AB 957:

As amended July 3, 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.”

Status | Votes: AB 957 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 8 (61 Democrats voted yes, 16 Republicans voted no, and 2 Republicans, Devon Mathis and Jim Patterson, abstained, as did Democrat Timothy Grayson), after passing the State Senate on Sept. 6 (30 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no, as did 1 Democrat, Marie Alvarado-Gil; abstaining was Democrat Melissa Hurtado). Realize the bill's several amendments this summer do not provide the religious accommodation for parents that 4 Democrat committee members called for. Previously, on June 13, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate Judiciary Committee (8 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no, and Democrat Henry Stern did not vote). Previously, on March 30, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly floor. Assemblymembers voting yes were 50 Democrats and 1 Republican, Greg Wallis; voting no were 13 Republicans; abstaining were 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans (Juan Alanis, Philip Chen, Heath Flora, Devon Mathis). Previously, on March 21, it passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no).

AB 1078 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson, as amended July 13, attempts to push its intolerant "LGBTQIA+" agenda by mixing it in "Latino Americans" and "other ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic status groups," demanding and shaming pro-family school board members and newly empowering the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to punish school boards (such as Temecula's pro-family school board] that don't fully embrace homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality.

Here are the main parts of AB 1078, as amended Sept. 1, by the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Digest, with our notes in bolded brackets:

This bill would require that policy [the "policy" is a 2011 law dubbed the "Safe Place to Learn Act," which forced "acceptance" of everything "LGBTQIA+" and stifled constitutional dissent, including scientific facts of male-female differences] to include a statement that the policy applies to all acts of the governing board or body of the local educational agency, the superintendent of the school district, and the county superintendent of schools [this is to try to scare local school districts into supporting everything "LGBTQIA+" -- or else] in enacting policies and procedures that govern the local educational agency. Because this provision would impose an additional requirement on local educational agency officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the department, [this is the California Department of Education] no later than July 1, 2025, to develop guidance and public educational materials [this is threatening, overly-broad, lie-based "LGBTQIA+" propaganda] to ensure that all Californians can access information about educational laws and policies that safeguard the right to an accurate and inclusive curriculum [so no school district deviates from the State's "LGBTQIA+" propaganda lies, which mislead, confuse, and harm children].

This bill would revise the list of the above-described culturally and racially diverse groups to instead include materials that accurately portray the contributions of people of all genders and the role and contributions of Latino Americans, LGBTQ+ Americans [promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality as "admirable"] and other ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic status groups. By imposing new obligations on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department, no later than July 1, 2025, to issue guidance related to how to help school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and school personnel manage conversations about race and gender, and how to review instructional materials to ensure that they represent diverse perspectives and are culturally relevant.

The bill would prohibit the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school [this is the State eliminating local control of schools] from refusing to approve or prohibiting the use of any textbook, instructional material, or other curriculum or any book or other resource in a school library on the basis that it includes [descriptions of "LGBTQIA+" relationships, behaviors, and agendas must be included] a study of the role and contributions of any individual or group consistent with the above-described requirements relating to instruction in social sciences and the adoption of instructional materials that accurately [omitting uncomfortable, even shocking, "LGBTQIA+ details is not permitted] portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society. The bill would also prohibit the governing board of a school district or a county board of education from prohibiting the continued use of an appropriately adopted textbook, instructional material, or curriculum on the basis that it contains inclusive and diverse perspectives [local control of schools on sexual content would be abolished]. By imposing new obligations on local educational agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Status | Votes: AB 1078 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 7 (61 Democrats voted yes; 17 Republicans voted no; and Republican Bill Essayli and Democrat Jacqui Irwin abstained), after passing the State Senate, also on Sept. 7 (31 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no, as did 1 Democrat, Marie Alvarado-Gil). Earlier, on July 5, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (all Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Earlier, on May 30, this bad bill passed the State Assembly (voting yes were Republican Greg Wallis and all the Democrats, except Timothy Grayson, who abstained; the rest of the Republicans voted no, except Juan Alanis, who abstained). Earlier, on May 18, this bad bill passed the Appropriations Committee on May 18 (Democrats voted yes, except Robert Rivas was not voting; all 4 Republicans vote no). Previously, on April 26, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (all Democrats voted yes; both Republican voted no).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 1120 by Democrat Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel would require every government-controlled school "that serves pupils in grades 6 to 12" to "adopt a policy on universal mental health screening of pupils for youth behavior disorders." The big problem here is what is defined as a "youth behavior disorder?" Since more and more Democrat-driven agendas are to extinguish biblical or moral or traditional values, this bill could easily call right wrong and good bad. Another problem is AB 1120 does not require written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out, saying only that the local educational agency will determine "The manner in which parents or guardians of pupils will be notified and given the option to object to the mental health screenings."

Status: This bad bill is DEAD FOR THE YEAR. Its last action on March 29 in the Assembly Education Committee, but then, "Hearing canceled at the request of author."

AB 1194 by Democrat Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo would hide the fact that a minor girl is "accessing, procuring, or searching for abortion services." For all practical purposes, this means prohibiting saving these young mothers' lives if "something goes wrong." As the California-based Right to Life League explains: "The bill does not protect consumers; rather it is designed to protect abortion providers at the cost of women’s health. AB 1194 creates an exception to the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) which will block the ability to disclose personal information of a consumer where the consumer is at risk of danger of death or serious physical injury. The bill does so by proclaiming that a consumer who seeks abortion care services does not constitute a natural person being at risk or danger of death or serious physical injury. This carve out makes no sense and is very dangerous for women. AB 1194 ignores the very real physical risk to women of surgical and chemical abortions. Surgical abortions can result in the death of women. According to the FDA, 28 women have died in association with taking the abortion pill."

Status | Votes: AB 1194 has been sent to Governor Newsom after its Sept. 13 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were 62 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Greg Wallis; most of the other Republicans voted no, except abstaining were Republicans Diane Dixon, Josh Hoover, Marie Waldron). The day prior, Sept. 12, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate floor (voting yes were 29 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk; voting no were Republicans Brian Dahle, Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Roger Niello, Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Shannon Grove and Democrats Anna Caballero, Lena Gonzalez, Monique Limón). Earlier, on Aug. 14, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, this bad bill passed on June 20 in the State Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all the commmittee's Democrats plus Republican Scott Wilk; abstaining was Republican Roger Niello). Earlier, on May 22, this bad bill passed the State Assembly. Voting yes were 61 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Alanis, Mathis, Wallis); voting no were 8 Republicans (Megan Dahle, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, and Tri Ta); abstaining were 6 Republicans (Phillip Chen, Diane Dixon, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Jim Patterson, Marie Waldron) and 2 Democrats (Sharon Quirk-Silva and Ash Kalra). On May 10, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle and Kate Sanchez, and not voting were Republicans Diane Dixon and Devon Mathis). Earlier, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Committee (Democrats voted yes; Republican Vince Fong voted no; Republicans Bill Essayli and Joe Patterson did not vote).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 1352 by Democrat Assemblywoman Mia Bonta would permit 3 or 4 anti-family, pro-immorality school board members to remove a moral-values, pro-family board member from office. Support family values? Oppose the "LGBTQIA+" agenda? Support the Constitution? Believe the Bible? Under AB 1352, you're gone, because California law no longer tolerates any school board member who "adopts a policy that contradicts any existing law requiring a school district to have inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum."

While not defined in the bill, "inclusive" nowadays means supporting the entire "LGBTQIA+" agenda. But what is "adopts a policy"? So if you think about moral standards or have voted for parental rights or haven't hired a trassexual lately -- have you now "adopted" a "policy" against "inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum"? This non-inclusive bill would kick true Christians and other moral-values school board members out of office!

As described by the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Office: "This bill would expressly prohibit the governing board of a school district from taking an action that contradicts any existing law requiring a school district to have inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum. The bill would authorize the governing board of a school district to censure a member or, by a 2/3 vote of the governing board, remove a member from office if the member prevents the governing board from conducting its business or adopts a policy that contradicts any existing law requiring a school district to have inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum."

Status | Votes: AB 1352 has had no action since June 28 and is DEAD FOR THE YEAR. Earlier, this intolerant bill was re-referred to the State Senate Education Committee after being withdrawn June 21 from the Senate Human Services Committee, following its initial June 14 passage in the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats + both Republicans, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk). Is this bad bill in trouble or a legislative priority of the ruling Democrats? Earlier, on May 25, this anti-family-values bill passed the Assembly floor with the support of 75 out of 80 assemblymembers (the only abstentions came from Democrats Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Lisa Calderon, Ash Kalra, and Diane Papan, and Republican Devon Mathis).

AB 1432 by Democrat Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo would require group health insurance carriers that sell policies in California to "cover" the killing of preborn babies via abortion and "sex changes" (the bill calls this "gender-affirming care"). Beyond the lie and harm of these "operations," AB 1432 would raise the cost of insurance for the rest of us.

According to the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office, AB 1432 -- as amended August 23 -- "would subject a policy or certificate of group health insurance that is marketed, issued, or delivered to a California resident to all provisions of the Insurance Code requiring coverage of abortion, abortion-related services, and gender-affirming care, regardless of the situs of the contract or master group policyholder."

Status | Votes: AB 1432 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 7 (62 Democrats voted yes, along with Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis; 15 Republicans voted no; Republican Bill Essayli abstained), a day after passing the State Senate on Sept. 6 (all 32 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no). Earlier this summer, on June 21, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Previously, on May 18, this bad bill passed the State Assembly. Voting yes were 59 Democrats + 2 Republicans (Alanis, Wallis); voting no were 13 Republicans (Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta); abstaining were 3 Republicans (Dixon, Vince Fong, Waldron) and 3 Democrats (Cervantes, Friedman, Wilson). Earlier, this bad bill on May 10 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle, Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez; not voting was Republican Devon Mathis). Previously, AB 1432 passed the Assembly Health Committee on April 18 (all Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
AB 1450 by Democrat Assemblymember and "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson would require every California government-run elementary and secondary school "to conduct universal screenings for adverse childhood experiences." But what defines whether an experience was "adverse"? Under AB 1450, will good parents' loving training and discipline be labeled "adverse," so get these children into "re-education" counseling right away? The bill contains no written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out.

Status: AB 1450 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it never had a hearing in the Assembly Education Committee and never passed that committee or any other committees.

Pro-'LGBTQIA+' Resolutions

HR 33 and SR 33 are resolutions (public statements of the Legislature) with the same text, except for the Assembly and Senate labels in the final paragraphs.

HR 33 includes the following proclamations:

"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are...serving as role models for all"
"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people...enrich our national life"
"An unprecedented number of adults in the United States identify as LGBTQ+, with a jump from 5.6 percent to 7.1 percent of Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer in 2022. Young people, especially Generation Z, are driving the increase"
"The transgender community in particular, has gained newfound prominence in the media, entertainment, sports, and business, raising awareness about gender identity and the obstacles this community continues to face"
"In January 2023, California became the first state legislature in the nation to reach 10 percent representation for LGBTQ+ individuals"
"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer rights are targeted by state legislators all across the nation with over 450 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in 2023 alone, according to American Civil Liberties Union. Making it increasingly pertinent for advocates and lawmakers to continue fighting for and protecting LGBTQ+ rights in the state of California."
"the Assembly proclaims June 2023 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) Pride Month, urges all Californians to join in celebrating the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people, and encourages the people of California to work to help advance the cause of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people, and their families"

HOW THEY VOTED: On June 5, HR 33 was adopted by a voice vote on the Assembly floor, after individual votes to add coauthors. Joining most of the Democrats as coauthors were Republicans Juan Alanis, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis. Also on June 5, SR 33 was approved by individual votes of state senators -- 30 Democrats + Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh voted yes, while 7 Republicans abstained, as did Democrats Dave Min and Anthony Portantino.

ACA 5 'Marriage Equality'

PASSED THE LEGISLATURE, ON THE MARCH 2024 BALLOT
ACA 5 is coauthored by 77 Democrat senators and assemblymembers, plus 1 Republican assemblymember, Greg Wallis. If passed by two-thirds of both houses of the California State Legislature, this proposed state constitutional amendment would place so-called "marriage equality" on the March 5, 2024 California ballot.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Digest describes: "The California Constitution provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, and federal law permanently enjoins the state from enforcing this constitutional provision. This measure would repeal this unenforceable constitutional provision and would instead provide that the right to marry is a fundamental right, as specified."

The overly-broad words of ACA 5, which would go into the California Constitution, are: "The right to marry is a fundamental right." This has no definition at all. It would permit unlimited spouses and extreme polygamy; it would destroy the current minimum age for marriage, thus ushering in "child marriages"; and it fails to even mention or define "spouse," thus someone could argue "a fundamental right" to "marry" an animal, an object, or even "themself." Again, marriage is completely undefined, rendering ACA 5 "marriage anarchy."

This is all about symbolism and lies versus truth. In 2008, California voters placed into the California State Constitution, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal striking down Prop. 8, and homosexual marriages started happening in California.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that homosexuals can obtain marriage licenses in all 50 states. And even though Prop. 8 is legally dead, "LGBTQIA+" activists hate seeing the 14 words of truth about marriage in the California Constitution. So they're trying to remove it the only way possible, by passing a state constitutional amendment and getting a majority of California voters to support it.

Status | Votes: ACA 5 passed the State Senate floor on July 13 with the "yes" votes of 30 Democrats and 1 Republican, Scott Wilk (the rest of the Republicans and 2 Democrats abstained). ACA 5 will now go on the November 2024 ballot (proposed state constitutional amendments by the Legislature go to the People, not the governor, for ratification). Previously, on July 10, this very bad measure passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (all the committee's Democrats voted yes, and the committee's two Republicans -- Brian Jones and Kelly Seyarto -- both abstained). Earlier, on July 5, ACA 5 passed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee (all Democrats voted yes, while Republican Janet Nguyen abastained). Previously, on June 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved this radical immoral state constitutional amendment (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats, including Republicans Roger Niello and Scott Wilk). The day before, on June 26, this anti-natural-family measure passed the Assembly floor on June 26 (voting yes were 58 Democrats and 9 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Josh Hoover, Devon Mathis, Marie Waldron, and Greg Wallis). Earlier, on June 21, ACA 5 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were 9 Democrats + Republicans Diane Dixon and Devon Mathis; no one opposed it; abstaining were Republicans Megan Dahle and Kate Sanchez and Democrats Isaac Bryan, Josh Lowenthal and Diane Papan). Previously, on June 13, this proposed constitutional amendment passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all 8 Democrats + Republican Diane Dixon; voting no was Republican Kate Sanchez; abstaining was Republican Bill Essayli). Earlier, on February 14, ACA 5 was introduced on the Assembly floor, at that time gaining most of its coauthors.

Bad bills by Senate Democrats

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SB 36 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would prevent California judges, law enforcement, or bail professionals from helping save pre-born human life or save kids from "LGBTQIA+" mutilation. As the Democrat-run Public Safety Committee said, SB 36 does four things to prohibit any California "authority" from helping with the arrest and detention of out-of-state residents seeking California abortions and "sex changes":

(1) Prohibit a magistrate from issuing a warrant for the arrest of a bail fugitive whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of another state’s laws that criminalize abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or gender-affirming care that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state, regardless of the individual’s location;
2) State that it is a misdemeanor for a bail fugitive recovery agent or bail bondsman to take into custody a bail fugitive whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of another state’s laws that criminalize abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or genderaffirming care that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state and makes them ineligible for a license to operate in California;
3) Prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency from providing information or assistance to specified entities regarding legally protected health care activity, which includes abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or gender-affirming care that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state; and,
4) State that a person who is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody and confinement after conviction, for the above-described acts, is not ineligible for the California Work Opportunity

Status | Votes: SB 36 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it never escaped the State Senate Appropriations Committee by its May 19 deadline. Last action on May 18: "Held in committee and under submission." Earlier, on April 18, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, except Angelique Ashby abstained; all the Republicans voted no). Earlier, on March 14, this bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee (all 4 Democrats voted yes, and the sole Republican abstained).

SB 58 by Democrat State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Scott Wiener would legalize the mind-altering, "hallucinogenic substances" of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline. This bill, by legalizing these harmful, "recreational drugs" for 21-year-olds, would, for all practical purposes, open the door to teens and pre-teens getting it. A stoned society is not a safe society.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office describes SB 58, as amended Sept. 1:

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the possession, preparation, obtaining, or transportation of, specified quantities of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline, for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older. The bill would provide penalties for possession of these substances on school grounds, or possession by, or transferring to, persons under 21 years of age.

The bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a workgroup to study and make recommendations on the establishment of a framework governing the therapeutic use, including facilitated or supported use, of those substances. The bill would require that workgroup to send a report to the Legislature containing those recommendations on or before January 1, 2025.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the cultivation or transportation of specified quantities of spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other materials that contain psilocybin or psilocyn for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older.

This bill would exempt from this prohibition, paraphernalia related, as specified, to these specific substances. The bill would also exempt from the prohibition items used for the testing and analysis of controlled substances.

Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the messages and information provided by various state drug and alcohol programs promote no unlawful use of any drugs or alcohol. This bill would repeal those provisions.

Status | Votes: SB 58 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled State Senate on Sept. 7 with no votes to spare (21 Democrats voted yes, while all 8 Republicans and 11 Democrats either voted no or abstained), after passing the Assembly on Sept. 6 with only two votes to spare (41 Democrats voted yes, along with 3 Republicans: Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Marie Waldron). Previously, this bad bill passed on July 11 in the Assembly Health Committee (voting "yes" were 7 Democrats + Republicans Heath Flora and Marie Waldron; voting "no" were Republicans Vince Fong and Joe Patterson; abstaining were Democrats Wendy Carrillo, Brian Maienschein, Freddie Rodriguez, and Akilah Weber). Previously, on June 27, this bad bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were most of the committee's Democrats; voting no were Republicans Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey). Earlier, on May 24, this bad bill passed the State Senate with a bare minimum of 21 yes votes from Democrats. Voting no were all 8 Republicans + 6 Democrats (Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Glazer, Hurtado, Umberg, Wahab). Abstaining were 3 Democrats (Blakespear, Limón, Min). Earlier, this bad bill on May 1 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on March 21, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate Public Safety Committee by the narrowest of margins (3 Democrats voted yes, Democrat Aisha Wahab voted no, while Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh did not vote).

DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SB 59 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would dramatically expand "free menstual products" in California. If this bill were only about using taxpayer money to "stock menstrual products" in women's restrooms in state-and-local-government buildings and state-funded hospitals, it would simply be another big-government "nanny government" program. Yet by mimicking existing bad law requiring "free menstual products" at certain public schools' "all-gender restrooms, and in at least one men’s restroom," SB 59 descends into lunacy by claiming men have a uterus that can discharge blood, and requiring menstual pads "in at least one men’s restroom" in government buildings and most hospitals. If this passes, expect a future bill that would require "free menstual products" be stocked by private-sector businesses.

Status | Votes: SB 59 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR because it did not escape the State Senate Appropriations Committee's "suspense file" by the May 19 deadline. Earlier, on March 29, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all 10 Democrats, voting no was Republican Shannon Grove, abstaining was Republican Janet Nguyen). Earlier, on March 14, this bad bill passed the Senate Governmental Organization (all Democrats voted yes; all Republicans voted no).

SB 274 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would eliminate government-school suspensions or expulsions based on "disrupting school activities" or "willful defiance" of teachers, staff, or school administrators. Yet the SB 274 amendments still permit teachers to suspend disruptive or defiant students for less than two days -- "for the day of the suspension and the day following." What's more, SB 274 would prohibit suspensions or expulsions based on a student's unexcused absences.

The August 14 amendments don't make the bill better. The author of SB 274 is actually playing a trick by calling her bill "temporary" by inserting a 2029 "sunset" provision.

As the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office describes the amended bill: "This bill would extend the prohibition against the suspension of pupils enrolled in any of grades 6 to 8, inclusive, including those pupils enrolled in a charter school, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties to all grades, by 4 years to instead be until July 1, 2029, and, commencing July 1, 2024, would prohibit the suspension of pupils enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, including those pupils enrolled in a charter school, for those acts until July 1, 2029, but would retain a teacher’s existing authorization to suspend any pupil in any grade from class for any of the listed acts, including willful defiance, for the day of the suspension and the day following, as provided."

Status | Votes: SB 274 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the State Senate Sept. 6 on a concurrence vote (31 Democrats voted yes, along with Republican Brian Dahle; 6 Republicans voted no; abstaining were Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Democrat Melissa Hurtado), after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on a concurrence vote on Sept. 7 (61 Democrats voted yes; 13 Republicans voted no; 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat abstained). Earlier, this bad bill on July 12 passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; abstaining were both Republicans: Megan Dahle and Josh Hoover). Previously, on May 11, this bad bill passed the State Senate (all Democrats voted yes and so did Republicans Brian Dahle, Janet Nguyen, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, and Scott Wilk; voting no were Republicans Brian Jones, Roger Niello, and Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Shannon Grove). On April 12, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (joining all the Democrats in voting yes were both Republicans, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Scott Wilk).

SB 345 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner would make California even more pro-abortion and pro-"sex changes" than ever. The bill would stop any preborn baby from being referred to as "child" and "person" in California's statutes. SB 345 also aims to remove all legal hurdles to children from other states being brought to California for abortions and "sex change" procedures and operations. What's more, the bill would eliminate certain peaceful, free speech activities of California pro-lifers, stating very broadly, "A person or business shall not collect, use, disclose, or retain the personal information of a person who is physically located at, or in close proximity to, a family planning center." And SB 345 would exempt from murder "a mother who committed the act that resulted in the death of the fetus."

The Democrat-run Legislative Counsel office's described SB 345, as amended Sept. 1:

This bill would prohibit a healing arts board, as defined, from denying an application for a license or imposing discipline upon a licensee or health care practitioner on the basis of a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or disciplinary action in another state if that judgment, conviction, or disciplinary action is based solely on the application of another state’s law that interferes with a person’s right to receive sensitive services, as defined, that would be lawful if provided in this state, regardless of the patient’s location. The bill would further provide that the performance, recommendation, or provision of a legally protected health care activity by a licensee or health care practitioner acting within their scope of practice for a patient who resides in a state in which the performance, recommendation, or provision of that legally protected health care activity is illegal, does not, by itself, constitute professional misconduct, upon which discipline or other penalty may be taken.

In this connection, the bill would define a “legally protected health care activity” to mean specified acts, including, among others, the exercise and enjoyment, or attempted exercise and enjoyment, by a person of rights related to reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services secured by the Constitution or laws of this state or the provision of by a health care service plan contract or a policy, or a certificate of health insurance, that provides for those services.

Our previous analysis:

Specifically, this bill does its utmost to hide abortions done on minors and "sex changes" done on minors as "legally protected health care activities." SB 345 would prohibit the state's medical, dental, and other medical boards from suspending or revoking a license from providing a service or treatment of a "legally protected health care activity," which the bill defines as "reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care service." Expanding existing pro-abortion law, SB 345 would declare criminal or civil action by other states over those bringing pregnant teenagers across state lines to California to be "contrary to the public policy of this state" and states that "California law governs in any action against a person who provides or receives by any means, including telehealth, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."

In addition, SB 345 declares that "interference" and any "public act or record of a foreign jurisdiction" suing any California entity in order to rescue children from "reproductive or gender-affirming health care services" is "a violation of public policy." What's more, the bill permits any Californian who's sued for violating another jurisdiction's policies against aborting babies and mutilating children via "sex change" procedures/operations to countersue the initiator of the lawsuit as a perpetrator of "abusive litigation." And SB 345 would require California courts to "stay" ("pause") another state's money judgment for the liability of spriting away minors for dangerous abortions and injurious "sex changes." Finally, this bill prohibits the governor of California from extraditing to another state anyone in California who's been charged by another state for pushing an abortion or "sex change" on a minor, and prohibits state and local law enforcement from doing anything to apprehend the suspect.

SB 345 would also legalize DIY abortions and perhaps even infanticide by exempting from a charge of murder "a mother who committed the act that resulted in the death of the fetus." What's more, throughout California statutes, SB 345 would replace “unborn child” with “fetus," and “unborn person” with “unborn beneficiary.”

The July 6 amendments, making the bill even worse, do the following:

Replaces "abortion, contraception, reproductive care, or gender-affirming care" with "sexual or reproductive health care"
Replaces "mother of the fetus" with "person pregant with the fetus"
Repeals existing law prohibiting "an abortion from being performed upon an unemancipated minor unless she first has given her written consent to the abortion and also has obtained the written consent of one of her parents or legal guardian."
Exempts "a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or contractor" from SB 345's prohibition of collecting, using, disclosing, or retaining the personal information of a person who is physically located 1,850 square feet within an abortion "clinic."

Status | Votes: SB 345 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the State Senate Sept. 7 on a concurrence vote (all 32 Democrats voted yes; all 8 Republicans voted no), after passing the Democrat-controlled Assembly on Sept. 6 (61 Democrats voted yes, as did Republican Greg Wallis); 15 Republicans voted no; abstaining were Republicans Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, and Democrat Timothy Grayson). Earlier, this bad bill passed July 11 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no was Republican Tom Lackey; abstaining was Republican Juan Alanis). Previously, on July 5, this bad bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, Republicans Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez voted no, Republican Bill Essayli abstained). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Voting yes were all 32 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans. Earlier, this bad bill on May 18 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrat yes, Republicans no). Previously, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats voted yes except for Democrat Henry Stern, who did not vote; both Republicans voted no). Earlier, this bad bill was approved April 18 by the Senate Public Safety Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no).

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM on Sept. 8
SB 385 by Democrat State Senator and former abortion clinic director Toni Atkins would expand on last year's bill allowing nurses -- and now letting physician assistants -- to engage in "performing an abortion by aspiration techniques" (a suction abortion that vacuums a preborn baby -- dismembering, torturing, and killing a little boy or girl). SB 385 would also lower training standards for physician assistants performing abortions (this means greater risk to mothers). What's more, SB 385 would remove virtually all legal and regulatory accountability, declaring, "A person authorized to perform abortion by aspiration techniques...shall not be punished, held liable for damages in a civil action, or denied any right or privilege for any action relating to the evaluation of clinical competency of a physician assistant." This bill is an abortionist's dream (and the worst nightmare for preborn babies).

Status | Votes: SB 385 was signed by Governor Newsom on Sept. 8, following this baby-killing bill's Aug. 24 passage in the State Senate, passing earlier that same day in the Assembly (57 Democrats and Republican Greg Wallis voted yes; 15 Republicans vote no; abstaining were 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats). Previously, on August 16, this bad bill passed the Democrat Assembly Appropriations Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no). Earlier, this bad bill on June 27 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (voting yes were the committee's Democrats; voting no were Republicans Diane Dixon and Kate Sanchez; not voting was Republican Bill Essayli). Previously, this bad bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee (most Democrats voted yes, most Republicans voted no; abstaining was Republican Juan Alanis and Democrat Mike Gipson). Earlier, on May 8, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate floor (voting yes were 28 Democrats, voting no were all 8 Republicans, and abstaining were 4 Democrats: Marie Alvarado-Gil, Melissa Hurtado, Dave Min, and Richard Roth). Previously, on May 1, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. Earlier, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all the Democrats voted yes; all the Republicans voted no). Previously, this bad bill passed April 10 in the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Voting yes were all the Democrats; all the Republicans voted no.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
SB 407 by Democrat State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Scott Wiener would make California foster parents -- even those with biblical, moral values -- support the "LGBTQIA+" agenda to the extreme. According to the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Office, as amended Sept. 7, with our analysis in brackets and bolded:

This bill would require a resource family to demonstrate an ability and willingness to meet the needs of a child [agree with and support everything "LGBTQIA+" for a child], regardless of the child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as specified [no "LGBTQIA+" behavior is ever wrong or detrimental]. To the extent this bill would create new duties for counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require counties to ensure [instructing them not to permit moral/religious foster parents] that the caregiver training described above supports children of all races, ethnic group identifications, ancestries, national origins, colors, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, [this is the unnatural behavior this bill is pushing], mental or physical disabilities, or HIV statuses in foster care. To the extent this bill would create new duties for counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Status | Votes: SB 407 has been sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Senate floor on a concurrence vote on Sept. 14 (all Democrats voted yes and all Republicans voted no). The day prior, Sept. 13, this bad bill passed the Assembly (voting yes were 61 Democrats; voting no were 14 Republicans: Megan Dahle, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta; abstaining was Democrat Avelino Valencia and Republicans Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis). Earlier, on Sept. 1, this bad bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11 Democrats voted yes; all Republicans voted no; Democrat Esmeralda Soria abstained). Earlier, this bad bill on June 20 passed the Assembly Human Services Committee (all Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no). Previously, on May 24, this bad bill passed the State Senate (31 Democrats yes, 5 Republicans no -- Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Seyarto, Wilk -- and abstaining were 3 Republicans (Dahle, Grove, Ochoa Bogh) + 1 Democrat (Limón). Earlier, on May 18, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Previously, on April 25, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (all Democrats voted yes except for Democrat Henry Stern, who did not vote; both Republicans voted no). Earlier, on April 17, this bad bill passed the Senate Human Services Committee by just one vote (3 Democrats voted yes, Democrat Melissa Hurtado abstained and so did Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh).

SB 541 by Democrat State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Caroline Menjivar requires "internal and external condoms" to be made available "to all pupils free of charge" in grades 9 through 12 at government-controlled junior high and high schools (includes charter schools). SB 541 would also permit school districts to give condoms to children as young as 7th grade. This bill would also "prohibit a retail establishment, as defined, from refusing to furnish nonprescription contraception to a person solely on the basis of age by means of any conduct, including, but not limited to, requiring the customer to present identification for purposes of demonstrating their age." What's more, the bill would subsidize with taxpayer money Gardasil injections (the so-called "HPV vaccine) by the abortion giant Planned Parenthood and others that provide "comprehensive clinical family planning services."

What's more, SB 541 prohibits schools from stopping "school-based health centers" from "making internal and external condoms available and easily accessible to pupils." And if there's no budget money for SB 541's condom distribution, "The bill would authorize a state agency, the State Department of Education, or a public school to accept gifts, grants, and donations from any source for the support of a public school carrying out these provisions, including, but not limited to, the acceptance of condoms from a manufacturer or wholesaler."

Status | Votes: SB 541 has been sent to Governor Newsom after its Sept. 11 passage in the Democrat-controlled State Senate (voting yes were 30 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans and Democrat Marie Alvarado-Gil; abstaining was Democrat Anna Caballero). This followed this bill's Sept. 7 passage in the Assembly (all 62 Democrats voted yes, as did Republicans Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Marie Waldron; 11 Republicans voted no; 4 Republicans abstained -- Phillip Chen, Bill Essayli, Josh Hoover, Greg Wallis). Earlier this summer, this bad bill on July 11 passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats + Republican Marie Waldron; voting no were Republicans Heath Flora, Vince Fong, and Joe Patterson). Previously, on June 28, this bad bill passed the Assembly Education Commmittee (voting yes were all the committee's Democrats; voting no was Republican Megan Dahle; not voting was Republican Josh Hoover). Earlier, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Voting yes were 31 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans + Democrat Marie Alvarado-Gil. Previously, this bad bill on May 18 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a party-line vote -- Democrats for; Republicans against. Earlier, on April 12, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (all Democrats voted yes; voting no was Republican Janet Nguyen; abstaining was Republican Shannon Grove. Earlier, on March 29 SB 41 passed the Senate Education Committee (all Democrats voted yes; both Republicans voted no).

SB 596 by Democrat State Senator Anthony Portantino would give chairpersons of liberal school boards the power to subjectively claim members of the public who speak at meetings have caused "substantial disorder," so they'll be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor crime.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office describes this intolerant bill, "substantial disorder” includes substantial disorder at any meeting of the governing board of a school district, the governing body of a charter school, a county board of education, or the State Board of Education.

So, if the liberal chair dislikes you because you're pro-family or raised your voice or are "disrespectful," you can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor crime? There's nothing in the bill to protect free speech or clearly define "substantial disorder." Yet the bill specifically says you can be fined $1,000 and jailed for a whole year.

As amended Sept. 7, this bad bill still subjects any adult to being arrested and charged with a misdemeanor who a school board member subjectively claims "harassment." Because the bill's subjective definition means any moral citizen that a liberal school board member feels uncomfortable with can be put in handcuffs:

“Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.

Status | Votes: SB 596 has been sent to Governor Newsom after its Sept. 12 passage on the State Senate floor (voting yes were 30 Democrats; voting no were all 8 Republicans; abstaining were Democrats Anna Caballero and Susan Eggman). This followed the bill's Sept. 11 passage on the Assembly floor (voting yes were all 62 Democrats + Republicans Diane Dixon, Josh Hoover, Greg Wallis; the rest of the Republicans either voted no or abstained). Previously, on July 11, this bad bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were 4 Democrats + Republican Juan Alanis, abstaining were Democrat Reggie Jones-Sawyer and Republican Tom Lackey). Earlier, on June 28, this anti-free-speech bill passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrat members, including Republican Josh Hoover; abstaining was Republican Megan Dahle). Earlier, on May 24, this unconstitutional bill passed the State Senate floor with 30 Democrats voting yes, while all 8 Republicans voted no.

SB 729 by homosexual activist and Democrat State Senator Caroline Menjivar would require health insurance plans to pay for artificial insemination of surrogate women so that homosexual men or transsexuals -- can have babies. This redefines morality, turns the definition of family upside down, and will further increase the cost of health insurance for everyone else.

As the Washington Free Beacon explains:

California already requires health care insurance providers to cover fertility treatments other than in vitro fertilization for policyholders who are medically infertile. The law defines infertility based on a physician's diagnosis or according to the widely accepted definition of not being able to have a child after a year or more of trying.

Emma Waters, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation, pointed to concerns about nontraditional families and forms of reproduction, including surrogacy and IVF.

"Under this bill, most insurance plans would be required to provide in vitro fertilization services based on someone’s relationship status or sexual orientation," Waters said. "For single men or male same-sex couples, this means they would need to access a surrogate to carry their child. So the bill is outlining what adults have the right to, but nowhere does it address the needs of the child or safety concerns regarding the child either in IVF or in gestational surrogacy."

The fertility insurance bill would expand the coverage mandate for employers to include IVF and expand the legal definition of infertility to include, "A person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention." Infertility would no longer be defined only as a disease or medical condition but also as a "status," such as being in a gay or lesbian relationship or being single.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office described the August 14 amended bill: "This bill would require large and small group health care service plan contracts and disability insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2024, to provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility and fertility services. With respect to large group health care service plan contracts and disability insurance policies, the bill would require coverage for a maximum of 3 completed oocyte retrievals, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of infertility, and would remove the exclusion of in vitro fertilization from coverage. The bill would also delete a requirement that a health care service plan contract and disability insurance policy provide infertility treatment under agreed-upon terms that are communicated to all group contractholders and policyholders. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or disability insurer from placing different conditions or coverage limitations on fertility medications or services, or the diagnosis and treatment of infertility and fertility services, than would apply to other conditions, as specified. The bill would make these requirements inapplicable to a religious employer, as defined, and specified contracts and policies."

Status | Votes: SB 729 is DEAD FOR THE YEAR and is now a "two-year bill." Before being stopped in the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee on July 11 (voting yes were 9 Democrat members + Republican Marie Waldron; voting no was Republican Vince Fong; abstaining were Democrats Carlos Villapudua and Akilah Weber and Republicans Heath Flora and Joe Patterson). Earlier, this unnatural, immoral, costly bill passed the State Senate floor on May 24 (voting yes were 31 of 32 Democrats, voting no were Republicans Brian Jones, Roger Niello, and Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Democrat Marie Alvarado-Gil and Republicans Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Janet Nguyen, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, and Scott Wilk.

SIGNED BY DEMOCRAT GAVIN NEWSOM (his Sept. 23 news release)
SB 760, authored by Democrat State Senator Josh Newman and co-authored by four openly homosexual Democrat legislators, would require all K-12 government schools, including charter schools, to have "at least one all-gender restroom...stocked with menstrual products."

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office described SB 760, as amended August 14: "The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2026, each school district, county office of education, and charter school, including charter schools operating in a school district facility, maintaining any combination of classes from grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide and maintain at least one all-gender restroom for voluntary pupil use at each of its schoolsites that meet specified criteria. The bill would require the all-gender restroom to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that it has signage identifying the bathroom facility as being open to all genders and is unlocked, unobstructed, and easily accessible by any pupil. The bill would require the local educational agency to designate a staff member to serve as a point of contact for these purposes and to post a notice regarding these requirements in a prominent and conspicuous location outside at least one all-gender restroom. The bill would require these requirements to be subject to compliance review, as specified. By imposing additional requirements on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a local educational agency to use an existing restroom to satisfy these requirements, as provided. The bill would require the State Department of Education to post on its internet website guidance for implementation of these provisions."

Status | Votes: SB 760 has been sent to Governor Newsom after its Sept. 11 passage on the Senate floor (voting yes were 31 Democrats and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; voting no were the rest of the Republicans; abstaining was Democrat Anna Caballero). This followed this bill's Sept. 7 passage in the State Assembly (all 62 Democrats voted yes, as did Republicans Juan Alanis, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; 6 Republicans voted no: Megan Dahle, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Devon Mathis, Joe Patterson, Tri Ta; 9 Republicans abstained: Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Heath Flora, Josh Hoover, Tom Lackey, Jim Patterson, Kate Sanchez). Previously, this bad bill on July 12 passed the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were 4 Democrats; abstaining were Democrat Kevin McCarty and Republicans Megan Dahle and Josh Hoover). Previously, on May 31, this bad bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Voting yes were all 32 Democrats + Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh: voting no were 6 Republicans: Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Janet Nguyen, Roger Niello, and Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Scott Wilk. Earlier, on May 18, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committtee (Democrats yes, 1 Republicans no). Before that, on April 12, this bad bill passed the State Senate Education Committee. Voting yes were all 4 Democrats and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; abstaining was Republican Scott Wilk.

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.

2022 Bills we tracked + their outcomes

See the 2022 legislative year's bills and their outcomes

Speak up!

Contact Gov. Gavin Newsom
Contact your CA state legislators
Contact your U.S. Representative
Contact your Calif. U.S. Senator
Contact President Biden

Who are your California
State and Federal reps?
Find out here

All California Legislators
State Assembly List
State Senate List

California State Commitees
State Assembly Committees
State Senate Committees