,
 

California Legislation Center//


2022 CALIFORNIA BILLS

The California State Legislature has 3/4ths Democrats (a super-supermajority) in both the 80-member State Assembly and the 40-member State Senate. SaveCalifornia.com is researching and tracking the worst and best bills in this 2022 legislative session.

Looking for your CA state reps? 
Find your own legislators here.


List of Bills, Status, What They Do, and more

Q: WHAT BILLS ARE YOU TRACKING? Scroll down for a list of bad bills, understand what they would do, and see their status. The 2022 legislative session ended August 31. On most bills, Gov. Newsom has until September 30 to sign or veto.

Q: WHAT CAN I DO? Please share these horrible Democrat bills with your friends to open their eyes. Urge vetoes by calling Newsom's office at 916-445-2841 (M-F 9a-5p) or using his webform (send one message for each veto request).

Q: WHO ARE MY LEGISLATORS? Click here to find your California state assemblymember and state senator and their contact information


STATE ASSEMBLY BILLS 

Pushing promiscuity, abortion, risky vaccines, mind-altering drugs, and “sex changes” on children behind parents' backs
AB 1940 by Democrat Assemblyman Rudy Salas of Bakersfield takes advantage of existing bad laws and the medical-tyranny bills of this year to group all these “services” to children (as young as kindergarten) and fund them at as many “public schools” as possible. Children will be targeted with this garbage, and parents won’t know about it until it’s too late. With AB 1940, there’s practically no “service” these school-based clinics can’t provide. And yes, Planned Parenthood can be paid to run them, as a “health provider relationship.”

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s office says, “This bill would rename the program as the School-Based Health Center Support Program and would redefine a school-based health center to mean a student-focused health center or clinic that is located at or near a school or schools, is organized through school, community, and health provider relationships, and provides age-appropriate, clinical health care services onsite by qualified health professionals. The bill would authorize a school-based health center to provide primary medical care, behavioral health services, or dental care services onsite or through mobile health or telehealth.”

Again, “clinical health care services,” “primary medical care,” and “behavioral health services” are very broad phrases. Of course, they can include pushing upon and providing children with birth control, abortions, risky vaccinations, mind-altering drugs, and “sex change” treatments, all behind parents’ backs.

Status | Votes: This bill was given final passage on August 25 on the Assembly floor (58 Democrats voted yes, along with Republican Suzette Valladares). While no Republicans spoke against AB 1940, voting no were Republicans Phillip Chen, Megan Dahle, Laurie Davies, Heath Flora, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Kevin Kiley, Jim Patterson, Kelly Seyarto, Thurston Smith, Marie Waldron. Abstaining were Democrats Adam Gray and Jacqui Irwin, along with Republicans Frank Bigelow, Steven Choi, Jordan Cunningham, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Janet Nguyen, Randy Voepel, along with independent Chad Mayes. Earlier, on August 24, AB 1940 passed the State Senate. Voting yes were all 31 Democrats. On the Republican side, Melissa Melendez rose and spoke against AB 1940, and she and the 8 other Republican senators voted no. Previously, on August 11, AB 1940 was amended in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which passed it (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). This means after passing the Democrat-controlled State Senate, AB 1940 will return to the Assembly floor by August 31 for a final concurrence vote.
Urge a veto of AB 1940

Dividing Californians by a statewide database tracking "vaccination status"
AB 1797 by 6 Democrats (3 in the State Assembly, 3 in the State Senate) would create a database tracking the "Covid vaccination" status -- and "race or ethnicity" of most Californians. A statewide "vaccine registry" like this would unfairly discriminate against and segregate conscientious Californians who don't want a particular injection or injections. Those who "got all their shots" would be good citizens, and those who don't would be suspect, even deemed an enemy of "public health" or "public safety."

The Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office says AB 1797 would "require health care providers and other agencies, including schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies to disclose the specified immunization information, and would add the patient’s or client’s race or ethnicity to the list of information that shall or may be disclosed. By imposing new duties on schools and county human services agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program ... This bill would .... additionally authorize schools, childcare facilities, family childcare homes, and county human services agencies to use the specified immunization information for the COVID-19 public health emergency, to perform immunization status assessments of pupils, adults, and clients to ensure health and safety."

Status | Votes: Sent to Governor Newsom after final passage August 30 in the 80-member Assembly, when 56 Democrats and independent Chad Mayes voted yes, all 19 Republicans and Democrat Ken Cooley voted no, and 3 Democrats abstained (Adam Gray, Jacqui Irwin, Adrin Nazarian). Passed the 40-member State Senate on August 29 (29 Democrats voted yes, all 9 Republicans voted no, and Democrats Steven Bradford and Bob Hertzberg abstained. Previously, on August 11, this bill was sent to the Senate floor after passing the Senate Appropriations Committee (all 5 Democrats yes, all 2 Republicans no). On June 30, this bill was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, after passing the Democrat-controlled Senate Education Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Earlier, on June 22, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee (8 Democrats voted yes, 1 Republican voted no (Melendez), 1 Republican abstained (Grove) and 1 Democrat abstained (Hurtado). Previously, on May 26, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly with an initial vote of 42 yes and 16 no (passed by only two votes, since a majority vote is 41). Voting yes on AB 1797 to violate the medical privacy rights of Californians by establishing a government database to segregate them on whether they got the CV or not in their arms (and to also segregate them by "race or ethnicity") were 41 Democrats and 1 "independent," Chad Mayes (14 Democrats initiatially abstained or didn't vote on AB 1797: Bennett, Mia Bonta, Calderon, Cooper, Gipson, Gray, Lee, Low, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Petrie-Norris, Santiago, Ting, Wicks (after the initial vote, all these abstaining Democrats except Gray and Nazarian changed their abstentions to voting "yes") and absent were Democrats Berman and O'Donnell. We needed 2 more Democrats to vote no or abstain. No Republicans spoke, yet voting no were 15 of 19 Republicans, except abstaining were Choi, Cunningham, Kiley, and Mathis (late in the day's session, they changed their votes to "no"). This bill was sent to the State Senate. Previously, AB 1797 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Earlier, on April 27, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Education Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). On April 26, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee and sent to the Assembly Education Committee. Voting yes were 9 Democrats + independent Chad Mayes; voting no were the committee's three Republicans; not voting were Democrats Adrin Nazarian and Luz Rivas.
Urge a veto of AB 1797

Punishing doctors who know and say the facts about Covid -- attacking medical ethics, informed consent, and the doctor-patient relationship
AB 2098 by 6 Democrats (4 in the State Assembly, 2 in the State Senate) would label as "misinformation or disinformation" anything a physician said or did that "was contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence," which, if so, would prohibit the doctor from practicing medicine. For its initial practical purposes, this bill would attack and harm physicians who have studied the reality of many adverse reactions to vaccines and who support medical freedom. 

Not only does AB 2098 infringe on freedom of speech in the U.S. and California constitutions, it blatantly violates the Hippocratic oath of doctors to "do no harm or injustice" to patients. Because if certain facts inform physicians that the State of California is recommending medical treatment that is unnecessary, ineffective, or harmful, doctors will be punished for doing good, patients will be denied informed consent, and the doctor-patient relationship will be shattered.

Status | Votes: Sent to Governor Newsom after final passage August 30 in the 80-member Assembly, when 56 Democrats voted yes, all 19 Republicans and Democrat Ken Cooley voted no, with 4 abstentions (Republican Jim Patterson, independent Chad Mayes, and Democrats Tim Grayson and Jacqui Irwin). Passed the 40-member State Senate on August 29 (voting yes were all 31 Democrats + Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, voting no were the remaining 8 Republicans). Earlier, on August 11, this bill was sent to the Senate floor after passing the Senate Appropriations Committee (all 5 Democrats yes, all 2 Republicans no). Previously, on June 27, this bill passed the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee (9 Democrats yes, all 4 Republicans no, 1 Democrat (Becker) abstained. Importantly, on June 21, AB 2098 was amended (it's still just as bad), so even if it passes the Senate floor, it will return to the Assembly floor for a concurrence vote. Previously, on May 26, the Democrat-controlled Assembly floor passed AB 2098, punishing good doctors who support evidence-based research that disagrees with the medical establishment on certain vaccines, with an initial vote of 45 yes to 16 no. Voting yes on AB 2098 to punish and even yank licenses of evidence-based doctors for medical freedom and against unnecessary jabs were 45 Democrats (takes a minimum 41 votes to pass bills in the 80-member Assembly); all Democrats voted yes except for 13 Democrats and 1 independent Chad Mayes (to have stopped this bill, our side needed 5 more Democrats to vote no or abstain). The 13 non-voting Democrats were Cervantes, Cooley, Daly, Cristina Garcia, Grayson, Quirk, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Reyes, Salas, Ting (yet by the end of that day's session, all of these but Grayson and Nazarian had changed their votes to "yes") and Democrats Berman and O'Donnell were absent. No Republicans spoke against AB 2098, yet 16 of 19 Republican members voted no, except abstaining were Cunningham, Mathis, and Waldron (who later in the day changed their votes to "no"). Previously, this bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee -- Democrats for, Republicans against; likewise, on April 19 this bad bill passed the Democrat-run Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.
Urge a veto of AB 2098

Permitting the killing of newborn babies days, weeks, or months after birth
AB 2223 would shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any "acts or omissions" related to her pregnancy, last month reading, "including ... perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause," with a May 19 amendment changing that to "including ... perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero." Yet the amendment doesn't change the functional result. By discouraging law enforcement for investigating "perinatal deaths," AB 2223 would permit killings of newborns up to year after birth. The MedicineNet website definition of perinatal period is "starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth." However, others say the perinatal period is "up to a year after giving birth and still other say up "to 18 and 24 months after the birth of the child."

"Perinatal" is not defined by the bill or in existing California law; neither is "causes that occurred in utero." This broad phase could mean several things, including "causes" such as postpartum depression (estimated to be 1 in 5 mothers), "that occurred" while her baby was still "in utero." Or the "perinatal death" of her months-old or even year-old baby could not be investigated or prosecuted because of a "cause...that occurred" during her late-term pregnancy -- if she decided she didn't want to keep the child, and ended up killing her already-born baby. Yet under the overly-broad and undefined AB 2223, the "cause" of the "perinatal death" began or "occurred" while her child was still "in utero." And consider that a mother who purposely suffocated her several-months-old baby, under AB 2223, could claim the baby had an illness while in her womb, and was born, but died months later from it -- even a fake story could not be investigated, since AB 2223 tells law enforcement to stay away, under threat of punishment. 

In light of this subjective and overly-broad phrase, and the fines and costs and potential losses to keep law enforcement away from investigating deaths of young infants, AB 2223 would functionally permit this killing of newborns (infanticide) by penalizing any law enforcement personnel that investigate. As AB 2223 states, "For purpose of establishing liability pursuant to this subdivision, the criminal investigation, arrest, or prosecution, or threat of investigation, arrest, or prosecution, of a person with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, constitutes “threat, intimidation, or coercion." This means coroners and police will avoid investigating, and district attorneys will avoid prosecuting, infant deaths. No matter how you look at it, AB 2223 would give a green light to baby-killers.

From the bill's May 19, 2022 amended version: 

SEC. 9. Section 123469 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
123469. (a) A party aggrieved by conduct or regulation in violation of this article may bring a civil action against an offending state actor in a state superior court.
(b) Whoever denies a right protected by this article, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, all of the following:
(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.
(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), to be awarded to the person denied the right protected by this article.
(3) Preventive relief, including permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct, as the complainant deems necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights described in this article" and "Upon a motion, a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses, to a plaintiff who is a prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this section. In awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, the court shall consider the degree to which the relief obtained relates to the relief sought.
(4) Upon a motion, a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses, to a plaintiff who is a prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this section. In awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, the court shall consider the degree to which the relief obtained relates to the relief sought.
(c) An action under subdivision (b) shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice violation of this article.
(d) (1) A party aggrieved by conduct or regulation in violation of this article may also bring a civil action pursuant to Section 52.1 of the Civil Code. Notwithstanding Section 821.6 of the Government Code, a civil action pursuant to Section 52.1 of the Civil Code may be based upon instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding in violation of this article.
(2) For purpose of establishing liability pursuant to this subdivision, the criminal investigation, arrest, or prosecution, or threat of investigation, arrest, or prosecution, of a person with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, constitutes “threat, intimidation, or coercion” pursuant to Section 52.1 of the Civil Code.
(e) Sections 825, 825.2, 825.4, and 825.6 of the Government Code, providing for indemnification of an employee or former employee of a public entity, apply to any cause of action brought under this section against an employee or former employee of a public entity.

Attorney Susan Arnall of the California-based Right to Life League writes, "In California under AB 2223, former Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who murdered three infants born alive after botched abortions, could not be prosecuted. And incredibly, someone like Gosnell who helped a California mother kill her newborn after birth will actually have a cause of action to sue police for investigating the matter if AB 2223 becomes law."

Status | Votes: Sent to Governor Newsom after final passage August 30 in the 80-member Assembly, when 54 Democrats voted yes, all 19 Republicans voted no, and 6 abstained (Democrats Ken Cooley, Tim Grayson, Jacqui Irwin, James Ramos, Rudy Salas, Carlos Villapudua, and independent Chad Mayes). Passed the 40-member State Senate on August 29 (voting yes were 30 Democrats, voting no were all 9 Republicans, abstaining was Democrat Melissa Hurtado). Earlier, on August 11, this bill was sent to the Senate floor after passing the Senate Appropriations Committee (all 5 Democrats yes, all 2 Republicans no). Importantly, because it was amended in the Senate, AB 2223 will return to the Assembly floor by August 31 for a final concurrence vote. On June 30, this bill was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, after passing the Senate Health Committee (6 Democrats voted yes, both Republicans voted no, and 2 Democrats abstained). Earlier, on June 14, AB 2223 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee (every Democrat voting yes; both Republicans voting no). Previously, on May 26, this radical bill to functionally permit infanticide passed the Democrat-controlled State Assembly on an initial vote of 44 yes to 20 no, which was 4 votes away from defeating AB 2223 (Assembly bills require 41 votes to pass). Only Democrats voted yes, while all Republicans voted no (members can change their votes after a bill passes, as long as the bill's outcome is not changed). After the initial vote, abstaining Democrats that changed their vote to "yes" were Cervantes, Low, Nazarian, and Ting; abstaining Republican Cunningham changed his vote to "no." This murderous bill now goes to the State Senate. Prior to this, on May 19, this bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). On April 19, this infanticide bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee, with 11 Democrats voting "yes," all 3 Republicans voting "no," and the Legislature's sole "independent," Chad Mayes, not voting. See our report on the Assembly Judiciary Committee vote on AB 2223, where six Democrats vote "yes," two Republicans voted "no," and one Republican abstained. 
Urge a veto of AB 2223

Prohibiting sincerely religious law enforcement officers
AB 2229
by Democrat Luz Rivas would, for all practical purposes, prohibit law enforcement officer candidates (police officers, sheriff's deputies, California Highway Patrol officers) who are practicing Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and conservative Jews. This is one of the most anti-religious-freedom bills we've ever seen. 

As the Legislative Counsel describes AB 2229: "Existing law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum standards, including, among other requirements, that peace officers be evaluated by a physician and surgeon or psychologist and found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer. This bill would require that evaluation to include bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation." 

According to current California law: “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

Status | Votes: This bill received final approval on August 23 in the Democrat-controlled 80-member State Assembly. Voting yes were 58 of 60 Democrats, independent Chad Mayes, and 10 of 19 Republicans (Phillip Chen, Steven Choi, Jordan Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Heath Flora, Tom Lackey, Devon Mathis, Suzette Valladares, Randy Voepel, Marie Waldron); abstaining were 2 Democrats (Eduardo Garcia and Adam Gray) and 9 Republicans (Frank Bigelow, Laurie Davies, James Gallagher, Kevin Kiley, Janet Nguyen, Jim Patterson, Kelly Seyarto, Thurston Smith). None of the Assembly Republicans spoke or voted against this anti-religious-freedom bill. On August 22 in the State Senate, voting yes on AB 2229 along with all the Democrats were 5 Republicans: Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk; the other 4 Republicans abstained.
Urge a veto of AB 2229

STATE SENATE BILLS

Mandatory kindergarten, taking children away from their parents all the earlier
SB 70 by Democrat State Senator Susan Rubio would pressure and even force hundreds of thousands of California parents to do what they don't want to do -- send their children away to a school earlier that a parent decides is right for their own child. SB 70 is the State thinking your child is theirs.

As the Democrat's Legislative Counsel's Digest reads: This bill, beginning with the 2024–25 school year, would require a child to have completed one year of kindergarten before that child may be admitted to the first grade at a public elementary school, except for a child who has been lawfully admitted to a public school kindergarten or a private school kindergarten in California, but has not yet completed one school year, and is judged to be ready for first-grade work, as specified, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.

As the California Globe reported August 30:

However, the bill has also been vigorously opposed by many, who not only note the heavy costs of the bill, but that mandatory kindergarten would actually hinder many students due to students maturing at different rates.

“It’s scary to think that a former educator would think that this is ok,” explained Martha Collins, an education policy expert in California, to the Globe on Tuesday. “Mandatory kindergarten would not be a ‘leg up’, but rather a holding pattern for students. We want to educate students and help them develop, not shunt them to a mandatory class that would do little to help them.”

While the bill was passed in both the Assembly and Senate by large majorities, 59-12 earlier this month and 33-5 on Monday respectively, SB 70 still faces it’s largest hurdle – the Governor. Previous bills attempting to make Kindergarten mandatory, most notably AB 1444 in 2014, were vetoed over monetary costs or because they felt that parents should decide what is best for their children.

“I would prefer to let parents determine what is best for their children rather than mandate an entirely new grade level,” said former Governor Jerry Brown in 2014.

For Governor Newsom, the decision will likely come down to cost. Newsom’s own Department of Finance opposes the bill due to it costing the state an estimated “low hundreds of millions annually”, something which may influence what he decides in the next few days.

“That’s a lot of money going to fund all these extra classes,” added Collins. “Even worse, we have a massive teacher shortage. Every state does. Adding a new mandatory class is only going to make that problem worse. So not only is the bill hurting students and taxpayers, but teachers are being screwed too. It’s not a great plan all around. Hopefully Newsom sees that.”

Status | Votes: This bill passed the State Senate on August 29 (voting yes were all 31 Democrats + 2 Republicans: Andreas Borgeas and Scott Wilk; voting no were 5 Republicans: Brian Dahle, Brian Jones, Melissa Melendez, Jim Nielsen, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh; abstaining were Republicans Patricia Bates and Shannon Grove). On August 18, the State Assembly passed SB 70 (voting yes were 57 of 60 Democrats, Republican Jordan Cunningham, and independent Chad Mayes; voting no were the 18 other Republicans; abstaining were 3 Democrats: Joaquin Arambula, Sabrina Cervantes, Jim Wood + and 6 Republicans: Phillip Chen, Steven Choi, Tom Lackey, Janet Nguyen, Jim Patterson, Marie Waldron).
Urge a veto of SB 70

Enabling out-of-state children to get California 'sex changes'
SB 107
authored by homosexual activist and Democrat State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco, along with 3 other Democrat homosexual-activist state senators and 9 pro-"LGBTQIA+" Democrat assemblymembers, would prohibit California entities (law enforcement, courts, attorneys, healthcare providers) from assisting in any legal effort to stop transsexual procedures and surgeries done on children in California against the laws of their home state or in violation of the consent of their parent or parents, even if someone outside the family kidnaps and brings a child to California for the purpose of a "sex change."

Just part of SB 107 is described in the June 28, 2022 analysis of the Assembly Public Safety Committee:

1) States that it is the public policy of this state that an out-of-state arrest warrant for an individual based on violating another state’s law against providing, receiving, or allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care is the lowest law enforcement priority.

2) Prohibits California law enforcement agencies from making or intentionally participating in the arrest of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant for violation of another state’s law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care.
 
3) Prohibits California law enforcement agencies from cooperating with, or providing information to, any individual or out-of-state agency or department regarding lawful genderaffirming health care performed in this state.

4) States that these provisions do not prohibit the investigation of any criminal activity in this 
state which may involve the performance of gender-affirming health care, provided that information relating to any medical procedure on a specific individual many not be shared with an out-of-state agency or any other individual.

5) Prohibits, to the fullest extent permitted by federal law, California law enforcement agencies 
from recognizing any demand for extradition of an individual pursuant to the criminal action under the law of another state that criminalizes allowing a person to receive or provide gender-affirming health care, if that conduct would not be unlawful under California law.
 
And from the latest Legislative Counsel's digest of SB 107:

This bill would prohibit a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from releasing medical information related to a person or entity allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in response to a criminal or civil action, including a foreign subpoena, based on another state’s law that authorizes a person to bring a civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allows a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill additionally would prohibit law enforcement agencies from making, or intentionally participating in, the arrest or a demand for extradition of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as specified.

The bill would prohibit the enforcement of an order based on another state’s law authorizing a child to be removed from their parent or guardian based on that parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill would prohibit a court from finding that it is an inconvenient forum where the law or policy of another state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined, and the provision of such care is at issue in the case before the court. The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care. The bill would additionally prohibit a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child, if the taking or retention was for obtaining gender-affirming health care or mental health care. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 2029.300 and 2029.350 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 2091 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2091 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Status | Votes: This radical, anti-family, transsexual agenda bill passed State Senate August 31 (30 Democrats yes, all 9 Republicans no, abstaining was Democrat Bob Hertzberg). It passed the 80-member Assembly on August 29 (voting yes were 59 Democrats and independent Chad Mayes, voting no were all 19 Republicans, abstaining was Democrat Jacqui Irwin). Was twice amended on the Assembly floor (Aug. 8 and 22). Previously, on August 3, SB 107 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11 Democrats voted "yes," all 4 Republicans voted "no," and 1 Democrat (Eduardo Garcia) abstained. Earlier this year, on January 6, 2022, this bill passed the California State Senate with the "yes" votes of 24 Democrats (21 votes needed for passage) and 8 Republicans (Bates, Borgeas, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Melendez, Nielsen, Ochoa Bogh), not a single "no" vote, and abstentions of 7 Democrats (Allen, Becker, Caballero, Glazer, Kamlager, Laird, Umberg) and 1 Republican (Wilk). In the Assembly, only Democrats voted yes when SB 107 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 8 and the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 28.
Urge a veto of SB 107

DEAD FOR THE YEAR -- see 8/31/22 update
Threatening children with coerced vaccines behind parents' backs
SB 866 authored by 9 Democrats (3 in the State Senate, 6 in the State Assembly) would permit California children 15 and older to be injected with any number of vaccines without parental notification or consent. The amended bill is still bad, because raising the age of “consent” to any and every vaccine from 12 years old in the original bill to 15 years old in the amended SB 866 still obliterates parental consent and informed consent. A minor is still a minor!

SB 866 is wrong because it pretends minors can give “informed consent” to vaccines without a parent’s consent. But children do not have the wisdom, maturity, and brain development to accurately determine risks, including whether they could suffer an adverse reaction from an injection.

Realize this: SB 866 flies in the face of numerous adults-only laws. For example, in California, you have to be 18 years or older to vote, to buy a shotgun or rifle, to buy “medical marijuana,” to enter into a binding contract, to buy or sell property, to marry without parental consent, to sue or be sued, to make a will, to inherit property outright, to consent to most types of medical treatment, to join the military without parental consent, to get a job without a special work permit, to serve on a jury, to donate blood without parental consent, to become an organ donor without parental consent, to apply for credit in your own name, to get a permanent tattoo on your skin, to get your skin pierced without parental consent, to legally change your name, to play the lottery, or to gamble. To claim a child can make adult decisions endangers children.

Since minors are still minors, how can they make life-altering decisions without parental input? And can a minor give informed consent if they don't know their own medical history? What's more, can anyone safely treat a minor without knowing his or her medical history? And will minors be able to decline vaccines without coercion or threats? And if fathers and mothers are cut out, how will they knowledgeably intervene if their child suffers an adverse reaction?

SB 866 attacks the family unit by letting bad teachers pull away children from their fathers and mothers and manipulate them into injections of risky substances that their parents oppose. Anti-parent tactics are becoming more blatant in hospitals, anti-family crimes are already happening. SB 866 would throw gasoline on the fire of the evil philosophy that believes children don't belong to parents.

Status | Votes: This bad bill was pulled by its author, "LGBTQIA+" activist and San Francisco Democrat State Senator Scott Wiener on August 31 -- see his statement. Previously, SB 866 was on the Assembly floor and was unable to pass since the second week of June. On June 1, this bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee, 6 Democrats yes, 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat no (the committee chair, Democrat Mark Stone, was absent). Previously, on May 12, SB 866 passed the Senate floor by 1 vote (21 yes votes is a majority vote in the 40-member State Senate). Voting yes were 21 Democrats (Atkins, Becker, Bradford, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Kamlager, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Pan, Portantino, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener); voting no were 6 Republicans (Borgeas, Jones, Melendez, Nielsen, Ochoa Bogh, Wilk) and 2 Democrats (Hueso and Hurtado); abstaining or absent were 8 Democrats (Allen, Archuleta, Caballero, Leyva, Min, Roth, Rubio, Stern) and 3 Republicans (Bates, Dahle, Grove, who all had excused absences from the State Capitol that day). Initially abstaining was Democrat Monique Limón of Santa Barbara, only to then vote yes to be the 21st vote to pass SB 866; Republican Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita came in before the session ended and voted no. On May 5, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Voting yes on this bill eliminating parental consent for vaccines for children as young as 12 years old were 7 Democrats: Tom Umberg of Orange County, Maria Durazo of Los Angeles, Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach, John Laird of the Central Coast, Mike McGuire of the North Coast (added to the May 5 committee when regular committee members Anna Cabalerro and Bob Hertzberg avoided the committee entirely), Bob Wieckowski of Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and SB 866 author Scott Wiener of San Francisco.

Forcing health insurers to brainwash their employees and lead patients astray
SB 923 by San Francisco "LGBTQIA+" activist Democrat Scott Wiener (see real photos) would force health insurers to force their employees and contractors into "cultural competency training" to brainwash them into unscientifically thinking there are more than two sexes, that biology does not define one's sex, and that cutting off healthy body parts isn't insane.

In addition, SB 923 would trample the free speech of health insurers by forcing them -- under threat of sanctions -- to promote the notion of "sex change" and the cutting off of healthy body parts in their diagnosis and prognosis, in their counseling, and by publishing on their websites "a list of in-network providers who offer and have provided gender-affirming services, including, but not limited to, feminizing mammoplasty, male chest reconstruction, mastectomy, facial feminization surgery, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, penectomy, orchiectomy, feminizing genitoplasty, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, scrotoplasty, voice masculinization or feminization, hormone therapy related to gender dysphoria or intersex conditions, gender-affirming gynecological care, or voice therapy related to gender dysphoria or intersex conditions."

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would require a Medi-Cal managed care plan, a PACE organization, a health care service plan, or a health insurer, and delegated entities, as specified, to require its staff to complete evidence-based cultural competency training for the purpose of providing trans-inclusive health care, as defined, for individuals who identify as transgender, gender diverse, or intersex (TGI). The bill would specify the required components of the training and would make use of any training curricula subject to approval by the respective departments. The bill would require an individual to complete a refresher course if a complaint has been filed, and a decision has been made in favor of the complainant, against that individual for not providing trans-inclusive health care, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary.
The bill would require the respective departments to develop and implement procedures, and would authorize them to impose sanctions, to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions. The bill would also require the departments to track and monitor complaints received by the departments related to trans-inclusive health care and to publicly report this data, as specified. Because a violation of these new requirements by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the respective departments to implement these provisions without taking any regulatory action, and would require them to adopt regulations by July 1, 2027 providing semiannual status reports to the Legislature until regulations are adopted. This bill would expand cultural competency training to include, as appropriate, information and evidence-based cultural competency training pertinent to the treatment of, and provision of care to, individuals who identify as queer, questioning, asexual, or gender diverse, and the processes specific to those seeking gender-affirming care services. The bill would provide specific components, including health inequities within the TGI community, that would be suitable for evidence-based cultural competency training pursuant to these provisions. This bill would require a full service health care service plan, an insurer, and a Medi-Cal managed care plan, no later than March 1, 2025, to include information, within or accessible from the plan’s or insurer’s provider directory, that identifies which of a plan’s or insurer’s in-network providers have affirmed that they offer and have provided gender-affirming services, as specified. Because a violation of these new requirements would be a crime under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require, no later than March 1, 2023, the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a working group that includes representatives from various departments, TGI-serving organizations, residents who identify as TGI, and health care providers to develop a quality standard for patient experience in order to measure cultural competency related to the TGI community and recommend training curriculum to provide trans-inclusive health care, as specified. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason."

Status | Votes: SB 923 has been sent to Governor Newsom, after final passage on the Senate floor on August 25. All 31 Democrat senators voted yes; all 9 Republican senators voted no. Earlier, on August 22, SB 923 passed the Assembly floor with the yes votes of 58 Democrats, indepdendent Chad Mayes, and Republican Devon Mathis. Voting no were 11 Republicans (Phillip Chen, Megan Dahle, Heath Flora, James Gallagher, Kevin Kiley, Tom Lackey, Janet Nguyen, Jim Patterson, Kelly Seyarto, Thurston Smith. Abstaining on SB 923 were Democrats Ken Cooley and Marc Levine, along with Republicans Frank Bigelow, Steven Choi, Jordan Cunningham, Laurie Davies, Suzette Valladares, Randy Voepel, and Marie Waldron.SB 923 has returned to the Senate Senate for a concurrence vote after passing the Assembly floor on August 22. Voting yes were 58 Democrats, Republican Devon Mathis, and independent Chad Mayes; voting no were 11 Republicans; abstaining were 2 Democrats (Cooley and Levine) and 7 Republicans (Bigelow, Choi, Cunningham, Davies, Valladares, Voepel, Waldron). Previously, on August 11, SB 923 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). On June 22, this bill was amended and re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. On June 21, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee (all Democrats yes; Republican Bigelow no; abstaining were Republicans Flora and Waldron and independent Mayes). Previously, on May 23, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate 28 yes to 6 no (21 votes are needed to pass bills in the 40-member Sentate) -- only Democrats voted yes; only Republicans voted no. On May 19, this bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (voting yes were Democrat state senators Kamlager, Laird, Portantino, Wieckowski; voting no were Republicans Bates and Jones; abstaining was Democrat Bradford). On April 6, it passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against).
Urge a veto of SB 923

Invading privacy and censoring constitutional, conservative voices of truth
SB 1018 by Democrat State Senator Richard Pan, per its May 2 amendments, would require public disclose of how social media platform operators dealt with "content violating platform policies" and where that content was shared. As such, this tyrannical bill would try pressure big, medium, and small tech to ban conservative voices and allow California's Democrat-controlled government and its tyrannical allies to track who is sharing this "violating content" with whom. It's both an invasion of privacy and promoting censorship, which is a true violation of the First Amendment.

As the Legislative Counsel describes: "This bill would require a social media platform to disclose to the public, on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, statistics regarding the extent to which, in the preceding 12-month period, items of content that the platform determined violated its policies were recommended or otherwise amplified by platform algorithms, disaggregated by category of policy violated. The bill would define “social media platform” for its purposes to mean a public or semipublic internet-based service or application, a substantial function of which is to connect users, as defined, in order to allow users to interact socially with each other within the service or application, and that meets certain other criteria, including having users in California. The bill would only apply to platforms having at least 1,000,000 discrete monthly users. The bill would also define “content” for its purposes to mean statements or comments made by users and media that are created, posted, shared, or otherwise interacted with by users on an internet-based service or application."

SB 1018 would therefore require social media platform operators to publicly disclose whether certain content has been determined to violate the platform's policies. This includes having moral values against abortion, the "LGBTQIA+" agenda, election fraud, vaccine tyranny, etc. As such, SB 1018 would further attack your First Amendment right of free speech.

According to the author, “I introduced Senate Bill 1018 to address the amplification of misinformation and disinformation on online platforms by requiring platforms to publicly disclose how their algorithms work and to share data for research purposes. Ultimately, we shouldn't have to wait for whistleblowers, like the Facebook whistleblower, to understand how platforms have been negatively influencing our lives, including our ability to stop this pandemic that has not only killed nearly 1 million Americans, but has disabled so many people as well. Transparency will allow the public to make informed decisions, and lawmakers and researchers need this necessary information so we can hold online platforms accountable and also set standards.”

Status | Votes: Sent to Governor Newsom after final passage August 30 in the State Senate and State Assembly (they voted on the same day). In the 80-member State Assembly, 50 Democrats and Republican Jordan Cunningham voted yes, 18 Republicans and 3 Democrats (Ken Cooley, Tom Daly, Cottie Petrie-Norris) voted no, abstaining were 7 Democrats (Jim Cooper, Tim Grayson, Jacqui Irwin, Adrin Nazarian, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Freddie Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio) and independent Chad Mayes. SB 1018 passed the 40-member State Senate (28 Democrats voted yes, all 9 Republicans voted no, and 3 Democrats abstained -- Lena Gonzalez, Bob Hertzberg, Monique Limón). Previously, on August 11, SB 1018 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). Earlier, on June 28, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (all 9 Democrats yes, both Republicans no). This bill was amended June 22. Previously, on June 21, SB 1018 passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (all the Democrats and Republican Jordan Cunningham voting yes; Republican Kiley and Valladares voting no). Previously, on May 25, this bill passed the State Senate floor 30 yes to 9 no (only Democrats voting yes; only Republicans voting no. Earlier, on May 19, this bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Previously, on April 26, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, with all 9 Democrats voting yes, and both Republicans voting no. Previously, on April 18, this bill was withdrawn from the the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Urge a veto of SB 1018

Letting health insurers disclose children’s info to schools, without parental consent
SB 1184 by Democrat State Senator Dave Cortese is an anti-parent bill that would permit health insurers to disclose children's health information (including pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, secret "LGBTQIA+" molestations, mental confusion, sexual confusion, suicide attempts, drug use, etc.) to a "school-linked services coordinator," while never notifying or contacting the children's parents or guardians. According to the April 18 amendments of SB 1184, these “school-linked services coordinators” are “located on a school campus or under contract by a county behavioral health provider agency for the treatment and health care operations and referrals of students and their families...” In other words, let the anti-parent liberals on a school campus or at a county office be your child's “parent” instead of you. This Is among the most blatant anti-family bills we’ve ever seen.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest: "This bill would additionally authorize a provider of health care or a health care service plan to disclose medical information to a school-linked services coordinator, as prescribed. The bill would define the term “school-linked services coordinator” as an individual located on a school campus or under contract by a county behavioral health provider agency for the treatment and health care operations and referrals of students and their families that holds any of certain credentials, including a services credential with a specialization in pupil personnel services, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 56.10 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 2526 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2526 are enacted and this bill is enacted last."

Status | Votes: SB 1184 has been sent to Governor Newsom, after passing the Senate floor on August 24. All 31 Democrat senators voted yes; all 9 Republican senators voted no. Earlier, on August 22, SB 1184 passed the Assembly floor. Voting yes were 58 Democrats, Republicans Jordan Cunningham and Devon Mathis, and independent Chad Mayes. No Republicans stood and spoke against SB 1184. Voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Kevin Kiley, Janet Nguyen, Jim Patterson, Kelly Seyarto, Thurston Smith, Randy Voepel, Marie Waldron. Abstaining were Democrats Adam Gray and Marc Levine, and Republicans Frank Bigelow, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Heath Flora, Tom Lackey, Suzette Valladares. This bill is back on the Senate floor for a concurrence vote after passing the Assembly on August 22. Voting yes were 59 Democrats, Republican Devon Mathis, and independent Chad Mayes; voting no were 10 Republicans; abstaining were 2 Democrats (Gray and Levine) and 7 Republican (Bigelow, Chen, Choi, Davies, Flora, Lackey, Valladares). Previously, on June 28, SB 1184 passed the Assembly Health Committee (11 Democrats and 1 independent (Chad Mayes) voted yes, 2 Republicans (Bigelow, Waldron) voted no, and 1 Republican (Flora) abstained). Previously, on June 21, SB 1184 passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (all the Democrats and Republican Jordan Cunningham voting yes, Republican Kiley voting no, Republican Valladares abstaining). Previously, on May 23, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate 27 yes to 9 no -- only Democrats voted yes; only Republicans voted no. Earlier, on April 5, SB 1184 passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate Judiciary Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against).
Urge a veto of SB 1184

Permitting uncertified nurses to dismember and kill pre-born babies
SB 1375 by Democrat State Senate Leader Toni Atkins (a former abortion clinic director and open homosexual-activist) would permits nurses to perform aspiration (suction) abortions to horribly kill pre-born babies. As Life Dynamics explains, an aspiration abortion "is performed with a machine that uses a vacuum to suck the baby out of the uterus ... As a vacuum is created, the abortionist runs the tip of the cannula along the surface of the uterus, causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube-either whole or in pieces."

Not only would SB 1375 expand Atkin's murder agenda by multiplying the number of abortionists in California, but it would result in more "botched abortions," which not only kill the baby, but injure or kill the mother. Because SB 1375 dramatically and dangerously lowers standards -- actually eliminating both "minimum standards" and completion of "board-recognized training." Bottom-line, this bill creates a whole new team of California abortionists who have lower training and much lower accountability. See this news story

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would revise the above-described requirement, with respect to a nurse practitioner, to apply to practice as a nurse practitioner practicing pursuant to standardized procedures and would specify that it does not apply to a qualified nurse practitioner functioning pursuant to certain advanced practice registered nurse practitioner provisions. The bill would also delete a provision authorizing a nurse practitioner or certified nurse-midwife who has completed training and achieved clinical competency to perform abortions by aspiration techniques. Existing law requires a person with a license or certificate to practice as a nurse practitioner or a certified nurse midwife, in order to perform an abortion by aspiration techniques, to adhere to standardized procedures that specify, among other conditions, the extent of supervision by a physician and surgeon with relevant training and expertise. This bill would revise the above-described requirement, with respect to a nurse practitioner, to apply to practice as a nurse practitioner practicing pursuant to standardized procedures and would specify that it does not apply to a qualified nurse practitioner functioning pursuant to certain advanced practice registered nurse practitioner provisions. The bill would also delete a provision authorizing a nurse practitioner or certified nurse-midwife who has completed training and achieved clinical competency to perform abortions by aspiration techniques."

Status | Votes: Sent to Governor Newsom after final passage August 30 in the 40-member State Senate (all 31 Democrats voted yes, all 9 Republicans voted no). SB 1375 passed the 80-member State Assembly on August 29 (58 Democrats voted yes, 16 Republicans voted no, and abstaining were Republicans Phillip Chen, Steven Choi, Janet Nguyen; Democrats Joaquin Arambula, Jacqui Irwin; independent Chad Mayes). Was amended August 23 on the Assembly floor to make it worse (it now states, "A nurse practitioner shall practice abortion by aspiration [suction] techniques"). Previously, on August 3, SB 1375 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11 Democrats voted "yes," all 4 Republicans voted "no," and Democrat Eduardo Garcia abstained. Earlier, on June 21, SB 1375 passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee (all the Democrats voting yes, Republicans Megan Dahle, Flora, Fong voting no, Republicans Chen and Cunningham abstaining). On May 25, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate 30 yes to 9 no -- only Democrats voted yes; only Republicans voted no. Earlier, on May 19, this bill passed Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no), was sent to Senate floor, and can be voted on Tuesday, May 24. Previously, SB 1375 passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, all Democrats for, one Republican against, and one Republican did not vote (see this committee report, page 6). Previously, on April 4, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee (9 Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no).
Urge a veto of SB 1375

Eliminating parental rights to see all of their children's medical records
SB 1419 by Democrat State Senator Josh Becker of San Mateo County would prohibit parents (the bill calls them "the representative of a minor") from seeing their own children's medical records regarding birth control, abortion, or related tests or treatment.

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest: "This bill would define “test” for these purposes to apply to both clinical laboratory tests and imaging scans, such as x-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, or other similar technologies. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would additionally prohibit the representative of a minor from inspecting the minor’s patient records when the records relate to certain services, including medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy, as specified."

From SB 1419 itself:

SEC. 2. Section 123115 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

123115. (a) The representative of a minor shall not be entitled to inspect or obtain copies of the minor’s patient records, including clinical notes, in any of the following circumstances:
(1) With respect to which the minor has a right of inspection under Section 123110.
(2) When the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the representative would have a detrimental effect on the provider’s professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor’s physical safety or psychological well-being. The decision of the health care provider as to whether or not a minor’s records are available for inspection or copying under this section shall not attach any liability to the provider, unless the decision is found to be in bad faith.
(3) When records relate to services described in Section 6924, 6925, 6926, 6927, 6928, 6929, or 6930 of the Family Code, or Section 121020 or 124260 of this code, when obtained by a patient at or above the minimum age for consenting to the service specified in the respective section.
(b) When a health care provider determines there is a substantial risk of significant adverse or detrimental consequences to a patient in seeing or receiving a copy of mental health records requested by the patient, the provider may decline to permit inspection or provide copies of the records to the patient, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The health care provider shall make a written record, to be included with the mental health records requested, noting the date of the request and explaining the health care provider’s reason for refusing to permit inspection or provide copies of the records, including a description of the specific adverse or detrimental consequences to the patient that the provider anticipates would occur if inspection or copying were permitted.
(2) (A) The health care provider shall permit inspection by, or provide copies of the mental health records to, a licensed physician and surgeon, licensed psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, or licensed professional clinical counselor, designated by request of the patient.
(B) Any person registered as a marriage and family therapist intern, as defined in Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 4980) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, may not inspect the patient’s mental health records or obtain copies thereof, except pursuant to the direction or supervision of a licensed professional specified in subdivision (g) of Section 4980.03 of the Business and Professions Code. Prior to providing copies of mental health records to a registered marriage and family therapist intern, a receipt for those records shall be signed by the supervising licensed professional.
(C) Any person registered as a clinical counselor intern, as defined in Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 4999.10) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, may not inspect the patient’s mental health records or obtain copies thereof, except pursuant to the direction or supervision of a licensed professional specified in subdivision (h) of Section 4999.12 of the Business and Professions Code. Prior to providing copies of mental health records to a person registered as a clinical counselor intern, a receipt for those records shall be signed by the supervising licensed professional.
(D) A licensed physician and surgeon, licensed psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, licensed professional clinical counselor, registered marriage and family therapist intern, or person registered as a clinical counselor intern to whom the records are provided for inspection or copying shall not permit inspection or copying by the patient.
(3) The health care provider shall inform the patient of the provider’s refusal to permit them to inspect or obtain copies of the requested records, and inform the patient of the right to require the provider to permit inspection by, or provide copies to, a licensed physician and surgeon, licensed psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, or licensed professional clinical counselor designated by written authorization of the patient.
(4) The health care provider shall indicate in the mental health records of the patient whether the request was made under paragraph (2).

Status | Votes: Sent to Governor Newsom after final passage August 30 in the 40-member State Senate (all 31 Democrats voted yes, all 9 Republicans voted no). Passed the 80-member State Assembly on August 29 when 53 Democrats voted yes; voting no were all 19 Republicans + 2 Democrats (Ken Cooley and Rudy Salas) + independent Chad Mayes; abstaining were were 5 Democrats: Adam Gray, Jacqui Irwin, Patrick O'Donnell, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Luz Rivas. Earlier, passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 11 (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). Previously, on June 27, this bill was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee in order to bypass the Assembly Judiciary Committee. This bill was amended on June 14 as it passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Health Committee (10 Democrats voted yes, all 3 Republicans voted no, while not voting were independent Chad Mayes and Democrat Luz Rivas). Previously, on May 24, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate floor 28 yes to 8 no -- only Democrats voted yes; only Republicans voted now. Earlier, on May 19, this bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Previously, on April 19, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, with all Democrats voting yes and both Republicans voting no.
Urge a veto of SB 1419

Massive government control of California children, shoving aside parents' wishes
SB 1479 by Big Pharma prostitute Democrat State Senator Richard Pan and six other Democrat legislators would require every K-12 government school, childcare center, preschool, and after school program to develop a "Covid test" plan, targeting every boy and girl for invasive testing, tracking, and quarantining. On the basis of "public health," the State will replace parents.

Status | Votes: SB 1479 is on Governor's desk after passing the Senate floor on August 22 (all 31 Democrats voted yes, all 9 Republicans voted no). A few days earlier on August 18, SB 1479 passed the Assembly floor (55 Democrats voted yes, 16 Republicans voted no, abstaining were 5 Democrats (Arambula, Cervantes, Cooley, Villapudua, Wood) and Republican Waldron and independent Mayes. Previously, on August 11, this bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (all 12 Democrats voted yes, all 4 Republicans voted no). Earlier, on June 29, this bill was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, after passing the Assembly Education Committee (4 Democrats yes, 2 Republicans no, while abastained were Republican Phillip Chen and Democrat Steve Bennett). Earlier, on June 21, SB 1479 passed the Assembly Health Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against, independent Chad Mayes abstaining). Previously, on May 24, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate floor 27 yes to 9 no -- only Democrats voted yes; only Republicans voted no. Earlier, on May 19, this bill passed Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no), was quickly sent to the floor, deemed read for second reading, and can be voted upon on Monday, May 23. Previously, on April 27, this bill was approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate Education Committee. Voting yes were all 5 Democrats; voting no were both Republicans (Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Brian Dahle), who also both spoke against SB 1479 in committee. Previously, on March 30, this bill passed the Senate Health Committee (all 9 Democrats voted yes; both Republicans voted no)
Urge Governor Newsom to veto SB 1479

BILLS DROPPED, DEFEATED, OR OTHERWISE DEAD

SB 1390 IS DEAD FOR THE YEAR (MISSED ITS MAY 13 COMMITTEE DEADLINE)
Persecuting people who care about truth, honest elections, and preventing injuries
SB 1390 by Democrat State Senator Richard Pan's new bill will prohibit and punish "harmful content" on the web, defined in SB 1390 as "Disinformation or misinformation, including, but not limited to, false or misleading information regarding medicine or vaccinations, false or misleading information regarding elections, and conspiracy theories." This is a severe infringement of freedom of speech, in violation of the California and U.S. constitutions, which deserves to be challenged by both state and federal lawsuits. With SB 1390, online speech the ruling Democrats don't like would result in prosecutions by the State of California, with judges being able to levy a penalty of up to $100,000 "for each item of harmful content amplified in this chapter."

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel: "This bill would prohibit a social media platform, as defined, from amplifying harmful content in a manner that results in a user viewing harmful content from another user with whom the user did not choose to share a connection. The bill would define “amplify” to mean to take action, either through manual or automatic means, that has the effect of increasing the viewership of certain material. The bill would provide that harmful content includes libel or slander, as specified, threats of imminent violence against governmental entities, and disinformation or misinformation, including, but not limited to, false or misleading information regarding medicine or vaccinations, false or misleading information regarding elections, and conspiracy theories. This bill would require a social media platform to establish a complaint process for users to access within the platform to report harmful content they believe has been amplified, and track each complaint in a database that is shared with the Attorney General, as specified. The bill provides that a platform violates these provisions if the platform continues to amplify reported harmful content after 24 hours of receiving notice from the Attorney General that the platform was amplifying that harmful content. This bill would authorize the enforcement of these provisions by civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General and specify civil penalties to which violators would be subject. The bill would prohibit its provisions from being deemed to create a private right of action or limit any existing private right of action. The bill would exempt any information shared with the Attorney General pursuant to this chapter from disclosure under the California Public Records Act."

Status: On April 21, it was announced that "April 26 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author." May 13 is the last day for bills to pass their policy committees.
Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Commitee (scroll to end of page)

SB 1464 IS DEAD FOR THE YEAR (MISSED ITS MAY 13 COMMITTEE DEADLINE)
Defunding law enforcement unless they agree to be the "vaccine police"
SB 1464 
by Democrat state senator Richard Pan would require law enforcement to enforce the orders of county "public health officers." This bill therefore installs the "county public health officer" as the de facto sheriff or police chief, or else "no state funds shall be provided to any law enforcement agency that publicly announces that they will oppose, or adopts a policy to oppose, a public health order."

And as further punishment, SB 1464 would instead give law enforcement money to the county "health officer": "If state funds are withheld from a law enforcement agency pursuant to this section, those funds shall instead be reallocated to the county public health department of the county in which the law enforcement agency operates for public health purposes."

SB 1464 would both weaken law enforcement and terrorize the public by elevating what a county health officer says to the level of the California Penal Code, which identifies and punishes real crimes. Don't weaken law enforcement by "siccing them" upon peaceful consciencious objectors to certain vaccines.

Status: On April 19, bill author and committee chair Richard Pan postponed the April 26 hearing for SB 1464. Pan has not issued a news release like he did earlier this month to say SB 871 was shelved. In absence of evidence to the contrary, Pan could still hold a hearing on SB 1464 on May 3 or 10 to meet the May 13 deadline for bills to pass their policy committees.
Contact the members of the Senate Health Committee (scroll to end of page)

AB 1993 DROPPED BY BILL AUTHOR FOR THE YEAR
Requiring California workers be injected with the unneeded, risky "Covid vaccine"

AB 1993 by 10 Democrat legislators demands "the jab or your job" and is wrong for several reasons:

  1. There’s no problem to fix -- the virus is burning itself out (see the State's cascading "case" rate and remember, no one in the world has verifiably died FROM the dominant Omicron variant)
  1. The proposed solution of an FDA-approved "Covid-19 vaccine" doesn't work:
    a. Not designed for Omicron, the last major variant of SARS-CoV-2
    b. Doesn't prevent infection and doesn't prevent transmission
    c. Has unacceptably high negative side effects, including serious injury and death
  1. AB 1993's forced vaccines is an invasion of personal rights and bodily autonomy
    a. It forces employers to spend resources on a problem that doesn't exist, causing employee division and causing other workers to quit or be fired
    b. It violates the human rights of employees and independent contractors by forcing upon them involuntary medical treatment; it’s tantamount to “the jab or your job”
    c. The exemptions in the bill -- medical condition, disability, sincerely held religious belief -- are either insecure or fake, since approval can only come from a state bureaucracy (the Democrat-run Department of Fair Employment and Housing)

Status: Great news -- the Democrat author has received so much opposition, she's pulled her bill: March 29 2:51pm announcement


SB 871 DROPPED BY BILL AUTHOR FOR THE YEAR
Eliminating personal and religious exemptions for a new, risky vaccine

SB 871 authored by anti-family Democrat State Senator Richard Pan of Sacramento (along with 5 other Democrat legislators) would preemptively wipe out medical, or personal, or religious exemptions of children so that all California schoolchildren can be forcibly injected with a dangerous, so-called "vaccine" that has injured and killed children. The bill would repeal current law, which states new schoolchildren vaccinations must include exemption "for both medical reasons and personal beliefs."

Status: On April 14, SB 871 author, Democrat Richard Pan of Sacramento, announced he had shelved his bill, saying, "until children’s access to COVID vaccination is greatly improved, I believe that a state-wide policy to require COVID vaccination in schools is not the immediate priority." Earlier, SB 871 had been referred to both the Senate Health Committee and Senate Education Committee.
Contact the members of the Senate Health Committee (scroll to end of page)

SB 920 DROPPED BY BILL AUTHOR FOR THE YEAR
Punishing good doctors, violating patient privacy

SB 920 by Democrat State Senator Melissa Hurtado of Fresno County authorizes medical board investigators to harass and punish good doctors who disagree with the unscientific narratives, including exposing patient medical records. The bill ostensibly targets physicians considered about autism causes, autoimmunity disorders, and unscientific vaccination narratives. 

The bill text is chilling:
(1) At the discretion of the board, as part of an investigation, a board investigator and a medical consultant may inspect the business location and records of a physician or surgeon, including patient and client records.
(2) If the board does not have the consent of a patient to inspect that patient’s records, a board investigator and a medical consultant may inspect records in the office of a licensee for the limited purpose of determining whether good cause exists to seek an investigative subpoena for those records.

Status: On March 31, the author issued this news release stating she's "pulling SB 920"


AB 1400 DEAD FOR THE YEAR

No Assembly floor vote by Jan. 31 deadline 
News coverage 1 2 3 4 5
Giving government control over your medical treatment
AB 1400 authored by 21 Democrat legislators (13 in the State Assembly, 8 in the State Senate) would create what is called a "single-payer health system," which is a deceptive way of saying the government will force you to pay more to them so they can "take care of you" by paying your medical bills -- if they decide to approve treatment for you. More

AB 1400 would mean rationed care (with the decisionmakers finding some people more worthy than others), long waiting lists (sometimes lasting years) for "medically necessary treatment," and thousands of dollars more in taxes per family. 
Read about Canada's unhappy experience

Under AB 1400, private health insurance would be eliminated. Page 1 of the January 20, 2022 legislative summary states AB 1400: 

1) Specifies the intent of the Legislature to establish a comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage program and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state.

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM COMMENT: Point 1 states that AB 1400 requires one insurance ("comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage") for all California residents without exception ("all residents of the state").

2) Establishes CalCare, governed by the CalCare Board (board), to administer the single-payer health care coverage program.

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM COMMENT: Point 2 declares a massive new government bureaucracy to be created, called "CalCare," which will administer -- and enforce -- this government-controlled healthcare program.

3) States that this bill does not preempt a city, county, or city and county from adopting additional health care coverage for residents in that city, county, or city and county that provides more protections and benefits to California residents than this bill.

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM COMMENT: Point 3 explains that, under AB 1400, the only other kind of "health care coverage" permitted for California residents is a local government plan, approved of by the State, which does not replace, but adds to the statewide "CalCare" plan.

4) States that bill prevails over any inconsistent law unless explicitly indicated.

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM COMMENT: Point 4 makes clear that AB 1400 "prevails," i.e. dominates and supercedes any other law that is different or "inconsistent." Nothing will stand in its way.

And, as the January 20, 2022 legislative analysis states, on Page 43, explains how big-government "socialized medicine" has already failed in Vermont:

7) OTHER STATES. In 2011, under Governor Shumlin, Vermont enacted Green Mountain
Care, the first state level single-payer health care system in the country. On December 17,
2014, Vermont abandoned Green Mountain Care, citing the measure’s cost. At that time
according to the governor's financial models, financing the system would have required an
11.5% payroll tax on all businesses in Vermont and a sliding-scale, income-based premium assessment of up to 9.5%. Then Governor Shumlin indicated: “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”

Status | Votes: AB 1400 has already passed two Democrat-controlled committees and is headed to the Assembly floor for a full vote. So far, only Democrats are voting for it. 


DEAD FOR THE YEAR

ACA 11 big tax hikes have no object, no purpose, without AB 1400
Imposing upon Californians $163 BILLION in new taxes every year
ACA 11 authored by 13 Democrat legislators (7 in the State Assembly, 5 in the State Senate) would significantly raise taxes on California families and small business owners. ACA 11 is the funding mechanism for AB 1400. ACA 11, a proposed state constitutional amendment, requires a two-thirds vote in order to pass both the State Assembly and State Senate; if it passes there, it will go on the California ballot for a majority vote of the People.

As reported by the California Globe on January 12, 2022:

The Tax Foundation reports “this will increase taxes by $12,250 per household, roughly doubling the state’s already high tax collections, to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system.”

Previous statewide single payer healthcare proposals elicited estimates of more than $400 billion to implement. The entire 2022-23 state budget proposal is $286 billion.

“The top marginal rate on wage income would soar to 18.05 percent—nationally, the median top marginal rate is 5.3 percent—and the state would adopt a new 2.3 percent gross receipts tax (GRT), at a rate more than three times that of the country’s highest current pure GRT,” the Tax Foundation reported.

“All told, the new tax package is intended to raise an additional $163 billion per year, which is more than California raised in total tax revenue any year prior to the pandemic.”

They explain the new taxes would take three forms:

1. Surtaxes atop the current individual income tax structure beginning at $149,509 in income;
2. A graduated-rate payroll tax system with the top rate kicking in for employees with more than $49,990 in annual income; and
3. A gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent, excluding the first $2 million of business income.

Status: There have been no votes yet. ACA 11 "may be heard in committee February 5." Will the ruling Democrats dare to hold a vote on this dangerous, thieving bill that would take $163 BILLION annually from already suffering Californians? 

 

SIGNED BILLS OR LEGISLATIVE BALLOT MEASURES

SB 1100 SIGNED INTO LAW
Kicking out peaceful citizens who are angry with what local politicians are doing

SB 1100 by Democrat State Senator Dave Cortese of Santa Clara County authorizes members of a legislative body to remove an individual for subjective, anti-free-speech reasons.

According to the Legislative Counsel, under the April 7 amendments:
This bill would authorize the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting. The bill would define “disrupting” for this purpose.

And the new, operative language of the bill is as follows:

SEC. 2. Section 54957.95 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54957.95. (a) In addition to authority exercised pursuant to Sections 54954.3 and 54957.9, the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting may remove an individual for disrupting the meeting.
(b) As used in this section, “disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, both of the following:
(1) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to Section 54954.3 or 54957.9 or any other law.
(2) Engaging in behavior that includes use of force or true threats of force.

Yet how is ""willfully interrupting" to make a public meeting "unfeasible" different from "willfully interrupting," which is already cause for ejection from a public meeting under current law:

Government Code, Section 43957.9 already permits police and sheriff's deputies, by the order of the legislative body, to eject from a meeting "individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting ... so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible."

What's more, Penal Code, Section 415 already subjects with arrest and a fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

Therefore, SB 1100's concern about "disturbing, disrupting, impeding, or rendering infeasible" is already either covered by the Government Code or Penal Code, or louder voices are permitted under the First Amendment. 

Chairs of city councils and county boards of supervisors can already warn a disruptive person. This fact, along with the existing statutes, renders SB 1100 unnecessary and only against free speech that establishment local politicians don't like. See what one California citizen has to say about it. For the sake of peaceful free speech, which is both permitted and protected by our state and federal constitutions, SB 1100 must be stopped.

Status | Votes: On August 22, this bill permitting local and state government meetings to arbitrarily kick out angry citizens was signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom -- see biased news story. On August 10, this bill was sent to Governor Newsom after passing the Democrat-controlled State Senate (28 Democrats yes, all 9 Republicans no, and 3 Democrats did not vote) on an August 4 concurrence vote. Previously, on August 1, SB 1100 passed the Assembly floor without any opposition voices. 57 Democrats voted yes, 18 Republicans voted no, 3 Democrats and 1 independent and 1 Republican abstained (Arambula, Calderon, Friedman, Mayes, and Waldron). Earlier, on June 21, this bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). On June 15, SB 1100 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Local Government Committee (Democrats yes, Republicans no). Previously, on May 2, this anti-free-speech bill passed the Democrat-controlled State Senate (29 Democrats voted "yes" and 2 abstained (Kamlager and Pan); 8 Republicans voted "no" and 2 were not voting (Dahle and Wilk). On April 19, SB 1100 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, all Democrats for it and both Republicans against it. Previously, on March 17, this bill passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee 4 to 1 (Democrats for, Republicans against)
Urge Governor Newsom to veto SB 1100


ON THE NOVEMBER 2022 BALLOT
Legalizing the murder of innocent, vulnerable Californians

SCA 10 coauthored by all 31 Democrat state senators (more than two-thirds of the Senate) and 53 Democrat state assemblymember (one vote shy of a two-thirds vote or 54 votes) would "codify" the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion-on-demand opinion, so that children in the womb can be killed even if Roe is struck down. By proclaiming "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion," SCA 10 would continue the California carnage of taxpayer-funded abortion procedures or pills for any girl or woman, regardless of a girl's age, the number of abortions she's already had, or her ability to pay. A proposed state constitutional amendment, to be placed on the November ballot, SCA 10 requires a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate, followed by an affirmative majority vote of the People.

Status | Votes: SCA 10 will go on the November 2022 ballot. On June 27, this proposed state constitutional amendment to place unlimited abortions of pre-born babies in the California State Constitution passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly floor on a two-thirds vote. Monday afternoon on the Assembly floor, SCA 10 passed 58 to 16. This murderous measure passed by 5 votes and every Democrat present voted for it, along with Republican Suzette Valladares of Santa Clarita. 

The floor pressure for all Democrats to vote yes was intense, as though being a good Democrat means you’re absolutely pro-abortion, believing a “birthing person” (using the Democrats' phrase) has the “fundamental right” to slaughter an innocent, pre-born baby.

Unusually intense pressure came from Democrat Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon standing and presenting SCA 10, from amendment author and former abortion clinic director and Democrat Senate leader Toni Atkins on the floor making herself seen, from eloquent speeches whipping up the emotions of Democrat members, from acting speaker Kevin Mullin encouraging more Democrats to stand and speak, and from more than 5 times more Democrat speakers than Republican speakers (17 Democrats stood and spoke in favor of SCA 10, while 3 Republicans – Kevin Kiley, Randy Voepel, and James Gallagher -- spoke against it).

A proposed state constitutional amendment, SCA 10 has met the June 30 deadline to go on the November ballot, and will require a majority yes vote of the People to become part of the California Constitution. Please tell all your friends a pro-abortion state constitutional amendment is unnecessary (abortion "choice" would continue to be available if it fails), and we must not tell the world that Californians support killing innocent, pre-born babies.

Previously, on June 23, this proposed constitutional amendment passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee (all 7 Democrats voted yes, two Republicans voted no (Cunningham, Kiley) and 1 Republican abstained (Davies). SCA 10 can be voted on as soon as June 27 on the Assembly floor (requires a 2/3rd vote, which is 54). On June 20, SCA 10 passed the Senate floor (29 Democrats voted yes, 8 Republicans voted no, abstaining were Republican Borgeas and Democrats Archuleta and Wieckowski. Previously, on June 14, SCA 10 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, with all 9 Democrats voting "yes," 1 Republican voting no (Jones), and 1 Republican (Borgeas) was not voting. The same day (June 14) SCA10 passed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee (all Democrats voted yes, the sole Republican voted no).

SB 357 SIGNED INTO LAW
Legalizing 'loitering in public for the purpose of engaging in prostitution'

SB 357 by Democrat State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco would repeal state laws against "loitering with the intent to commit prostitution," and permit anyone convicted of this to petition for dismissal of charges. Of course, prostitution (and human trafficking) hurts everyone. This dehumanizing behavior produces broken hearts and broken lives, transmits sexually-transmitted diseases, destroys marriages, ultimately harms children, and further abolishes the difference between right and wrong.

Status | Votes: On July 1, Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 357 to decriminalize public loitering for the purpose of prostitution, yet said it "does not legalize prostitution." This bill passed by the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature back in 2021, but it was held by the author until June 2022's "LGBTQIA+ Pride Month" to send to Gov. Gavin Newsom in hopes of biasing him to sign this radical, unpopular bill.


SB 245 SIGNED INTO LAW
Forcing insurance policies to fully subsidize the killing of pre-born babies

SB 245 by 24 Democrats (8 in the State Senate and 16 in the State Assembly) would force insurers to violate their moral consciences and pay for unlimited abortions of pre-born babies absolutely free of charge, making killing these babies a favored policy. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a health care service plan or an individual or group policy or certificate of health insurance or student blanket disability insurance that is issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2023, from imposing a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on coverage for all abortion and abortion-related services, as specified. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan and an insurer subject to these requirements from imposing utilization management or utilization review on the coverage for outpatient abortion services. The bill would require that for contract, certificate, or policy that is a high deductible health plan, the cost-sharing prohibition would apply once the enrollee’s or insured’s deductible has been satisfied for the benefit year. The bill would not require an individual or group contract or policy to cover an experimental or investigational treatment. The bill’s requirements would also apply to Medi-Cal managed care plans and their providers, independent practice associations, preferred provider groups, and all delegated entities that provide physician services, utilization management, or utilization review. The bill would require the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of Insurance to adopt related regulations on or before January 1, 2026."

Status | Votes: On March 22, Governor Newsom signed SB 245 to force insurance policies (and ratepayers) to fully subsidize the killing of pre-born babies. See his news release claiming it was a great day for "reproductive freedom"


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.

See the 2021 legislative year's bills and their outcomes