,
 

California Legislation Center//

  • Print

Welcome to the SaveCalifornia.com Legislation Center

Updated April 9, 2026

This is where SaveCalifornia.com tracks the worst bills authored by Democrat Party state legislators, who are 3/4th of both the California Assembly and State Senate, also controlling the committees and floors. More bills will be added as they are amended or become known to us.

AB 1540 by 18 Democrats (half of them homosexual activists + one Republican, Greg Wallis of the Greater Palm Springs area) would require the State of California to provide the technology and funding for an "LGBTQ+ suicide and crisis hotline," where any California child can call or text to be positively influenced into transsexuality "counseling," treatments, and sexual contacts. Yet the evidence shows this pro-"trans" agenda will result in more youth suicides.

Here's the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1540, as amended March 19:

This bill would require OES to, no later than June 1, 2027, request the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to enable a press 3 function for calls originating in the State of California to allow callers to dial 988 and press “3” to be automatically routed to a specialized call center. The bill would require OES to, no later than 12 months following the approval by SAMHSA, ensure that the specified technologies are available.

This bill would require, no later than 12 months following approval by SAMHSA, the California Health and Human Services Agency to identify and contract with a qualified entity or entities that specialize in LGBTQ+ suicide prevention services. The bill would require the agency to determine the eligibility criteria, establish an application process, and administer funds to the qualified entity, as specified. The bill would require a qualified entity to comply with various requirements, including having a primary objective of reducing suicide rates or addressing mental health crises.

Status | Votes: On March 23, AB 1540 was referred to the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee. Previously, on March 17, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (Democrats yes; Republicans no, except Republican Phillip Chen was recorded as non-voting). 

- - - - -

AB 1578 by "LGBTQIA+" activist Corey Jackson of Moreno Valley/Perris/San Jacinto would force all state and local officials into "antihate speech training and education"; however, the bill never defines "hate speech" and neither does California law.

Here's the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1578, as amended April 6:

Existing law requires a specified employer with 5 or more employees to, by January 1, 2021, provide at least 2 hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all nonsupervisory employees in California and, after that date, once every 2 years. Existing law requires an employer to include prevention of abusive conduct as a component of that training and education.

This bill would additionally require, beginning on January 1, 2028, for an employer that is a state agency or local agency that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education for elected officials, anti-hate speech training.

Existing law requires an employee who has received the above-described training and education within the prior 2 years as specified, to be given, and be required to read and to acknowledge receipt of, the employer’s anti-harassment policy within 6 months of assuming the employee’s new position. Existing law requires the employee then be put on a 2-year tracking schedule based on the employee’s last training. Under existing law, the current employer has the burden of establishing that the prior training was legally compliant with the act.

This bill would specify that a state official or local official who serves more than one state agency or local agency only be required to receive the above-described training once every 2 years without regard to the number of state agencies or local agencies the official serves.

This bill would additionally require, beginning on January 1, 2028, the above-described training and education include for any elected state or local official, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training.

Status | Votes: AB 1578 is scheduled for an April 15 hearing in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

- - - - -

AB 1803 by Democrat Party assemblyman Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach would force "anti-hate training" upon most California employees. Without defining "hate," this bill would require employers with five or more employees to add “anti-hate speech” training to existing sexual harassment courses. But like AB 1578, you can expect them to use Penal Code, Section 422.56, which promotes "hate crimes" based on “gender identity and gender expression."

Status | Votes: AB 1803 has been sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee after its April 7 passage in the Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans yes, except abstaining was Republican Diane Dixon). Previously, on March 18, this bad bill was approved by the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, plus Republican Phillip Chen; abstaining was Republican Juan Alanis).

- - - - -

AB 1876 by pro-"LGBTQIA+" Democrat Party assemblywoman Dawn Addis of the Central Coast would force health insurers to fund "sex change" procedures (puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, double mastectomies, etc.) for children. The bill, of course, calls this irreversible maiming of children, who are not mature enough to give informed consent, "gender affirming care."

"Children cannot consent to puberty blocker trial, Streeting admits" (U.K. 12/17/25)
Billboard Chris: Children Cannot Consent to Puberty Blockers (UCLA, 2025)
Study: No evidence that puberty blockers improve patients’ mental health (10/23/24)

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 1876, as introduced on February 12, 2026: "The bill would define discrimination on the basis of sex for those purposes to include, among other things, sex characteristics, including intersex traits, pregnancy, and gender identity. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer from taking specified actions relating to providing access to health programs and activities, including, but not limited to, denying or limiting health care services to an individual based upon the individual’s sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded."

Status | Votes: AB 1876 is scheduled for an April 14 hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Previously, on March 17, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (Democrats for; Republicans against). 

- - - - -

AB 1900 by 20 Democrat Party legislators would eliminate private health insurance and put all health care under the direct control of the state government. This foolish bill would result in higher taxes, long waits, rationing, fewer doctors, and less treatment. See our alert + documentation

Status | Votes: AB 1900 has not yet been assigned to a committee.

- - - - -

AB 1930 by leading "LGBTQIA+" activist and Democrat Party assemblyman Rick Zbur of West Hollywood would shield from legal responsibility anyone who performs a "sex change" on a child, including injecting "puberty blockers" into a child. This bad bill would actually prohibit compliance with "a civil, criminal, or regulatory inquiry, investigation, subpoena, or summons for information" from another state that has a law against the mutilation of children, and would authorize the California Attorney General to defend in civil court these butchers of children.

Status | Votes: AB 1930 is scheduled for an April 21 hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, after its April 7 passage in the Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against).

- - - - -

AB 2164 by 23 pro-abortion Democrat Party legislators would shield from any legal liability those who kidnap minors in other states to bring them to California for an abortion or "sex changes." This bad bill also empowers California's governor to "extradite" back to California anyone charged in another state for illegally pushing a California abortion or California "sex change" upon a minor.

Status | Votes: AB 2164 is scheduled for an April 14 hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

- - - - -

AB 2563 by Democrat Party assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco of Downey/Norwalk/La Mirada in southeast Los Angeles County would redefine "sex discrimination" to advance baby-killing (abortion) and transsexuality (for both children and adults).

From AB 2563 as introduced on February 20, 2026:

(1) “Discrimination” includes, but is not limited to, harassment.
(2) “Pregnancy or related medical conditions” includes, but is not limited to, childbirth, abortion, lactation, miscarriage, fertility, and contraception.
(3) “Sex discrimination” includes, but is not limited to, discrimination based on any of the following actual or perceived characteristics or actions:
(A) Assigned sex or gender category, including female, male, or nonbinary.
(B) Degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes.
(C) Gender, including gender identity, gender expression, and access to, and use of, gender affirming care and other related health care.
(D) Pregnancy or related medical conditions.
(E) Decisionmaking, access to care, or potential or actual use of a drug, device, product, or service relating to pregnancy or related medical conditions.
(F) Sexual orientation.
(G) Variations in sex characteristics, including intersex traits or differences in sex development.

Status | Votes: AB 2563 has been sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee after its April 7 passage in the Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans yes).
 
- - - - -

AB 2651 by 11 pro-Big-Pharma State Assembly Democrat Party politicians would promote questionable, unproven, and harmful injections to schoolchildren, advertising it falsely to parents in other languages. And while the main author of this bad bill claims it will empower parents "to make informed decisions," AB 2651 never acknowledges, nor will it tell parents, the documented harms of common vaccines given to children.

If you haven't studied vaccine efficacy or safety. Here are facts and evidence so you can learn about the many negatives of vaccines (no matter what the government, or the educational or medical establishments, tell you):

Science says unvaccinated children are HEALTHIER 

Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administered 

The Plausible Connection between Vaccines and SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) 

Pediatricians Turn Well Baby Checkups into Vaccine Battlegrounds 

Vaccines: Know the Risks and Failures 

Most vaccines are loaded with carcinogens, neurotoxins, pathogens, prions, unrelated viruses and heavy metals 

The Vaccine Deep State’s Control Over Public Policy by Ignoring Real Science 

Status | Votes: AB 2651 is scheduled for an April 15 hearing in the Assembly Education Committee, after its April 8 passage by the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were nearly all the Republicans -- Phillip Chen was recorded as not voting).

- - - - -

ACA 7 by Democrat Party Assemblyman Corey Jackson would change the California Constitution to permit blatant discrimination, based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin, in all aspects of K-12 "public" schools and in all employment and positions (including tenure and promotions) in community colleges and UC and CSU university systems.

Status | Votes: This Assembly Constitutional Amendment is in the State Senate awaiting committee assignment, after the ruling Democrats powered this two-thirds measure through the Assembly (passing with the bare minimum of 54 yes votes) in February of this year (nearly all Dems voted yes; most Republicans voted no, but six Republicans abstained). ACA 7 was dead all last year, not even receiving a committee vote.

- - - - -

SB 934 by 22 pro-"LGBTQIA+" Democrat Party legislators basically says pro-family counselors helping children and adults overcome homosexual or transsexual delusions should be sued for "damages." Attacking both the free speech and professional expertise of licensed counselors, and the parental rights of concerned fathers and mothers of sexually-confused teenagers, SB 934 would permit civil court lawsuits "for recovery of damages" without limit in an effort to financially destroy any counselor who helped teens and young adults, who often were childhood sexual abuse victims, to overcome their homosexual desires.

Here's the Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 934, as amended March 19:

This bill would require specified actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, as defined, be commenced (1) within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority if the plaintiff was under the age of 18 when at the time of conduct, (2) within 10 years if the plaintiff was 18 years of age or older at the time of conduct, (3) or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers that psychological injury or illness occurring after the conduct was caused by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, as specified. The bill would define “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts” to include efforts to direct a patient toward a particular sexual orientation or a particular gender identity, as specified. The bill would apply to actions for damages commencing after January 1, 2027, against licensed mental health providers, as defined, and against persons and entities that employed, supervised, or otherwise exercised authority over a licensed mental health provider. The bill would make specified types of evidence, including certain expert testimony, admissible to establish causation and harm for these actions. The bill would revive certain actions that have not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2027, because the applicable statute of limitations or any other time limit had expired.

Status | Votes: SB 934 has been sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee after its April 7 passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were nearly all the Democrats, voting no were both Republicans).
 
- - - - -

SB 1114 by "LGBTQIA+" activist state senator Christopher Cabaldon of Yolo/Solano/Napa/Sonoma counties redefines "SOGISC" and tries to hide documentation of "a person’s transgender or intersex status."

SB 1114 reads, in part, as introduced February 17, 2026:

8310.8. (a) For the purposes of this section, “information pertaining to SOGISC” means information pertaining to any of the following:

1) A person’s sexual orientation identity.
(2) A person’s gender identity or gender expression.
(3) A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.
(4) For purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d), information pertaining to SOGISC also includes information that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, including any of the following:
(A) A person’s self-identification as transgender, nonbinary, or a gender other than man/male or woman/female.
(B) Information about a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth that is stored or disclosed in a manner that may result in a person being classified as transgender or intersex.
(C) Administrative records of gender marker change or documentation submitted in conjunction with a request for gender marker change.
(D) Medical information related to transgender or intersex status not otherwise protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Public Law 104-191) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code).

Status | Votes: SB 1114 has been sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee after its April 6 passage in the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, while not voting were Republicans Brian Jones and Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh). Previously, on March 24, this bad bill passed the Government Organization Committee (voting yes were 10 Democrats + Republican Suzette Valladares; not voting were all the Republicans + Democrat Angelique Ashby).

See our 6/5/25 special report: Who are the RINOs?

Legislative Archive

2025's worst bills and their outcomes

2024's worst bills and their outcomes

2023's worst bills and their outcomes

2022's worst bills and their outcomes

2021's worst bills and their outcomes

Please share this Legislative Center with your friends so they realize the anti-family agenda of California's Democrat Party legislators and their RINO accomplices.