California Legislation Center//
Welcome to the SaveCalifornia.com Legislation Center
Updated April 17, 2024
Below are the some of the worst 2024 bills introduced in the California State Legislature by Democrats, including the new phenomenon of "Republicans" authoring harmful anti-family bills themselves.
These bills are listed by State Assembly and State Senate, and are in numerical order.
Please share this page with your friends so they can realize what California Democrat Party legislators and their RINO accomplices are pushing. This page is regularly updated.
Previous legislative years: 2023 | 2022 | 2021
State Assembly
AB 941 by Republican Marie Waldron would require the State to embark on a path of legalization of "hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances," despite the fact that a "stoned" society is NOT a safe society.
Status | Votes: This bad bill is awaiting State Senate committee assignment. On Jan. 30, it passed the Assembly floor with yes votes from 53 Democrats and 5 Republicans (Alanis, Essayli, Flora, Waldron, Wallis).
AB 1810 by 9 Democrats and Republican Marie Waldron would make prisons, jails, juvenile detention centers, etc. stock "menstrual products" for all inmates," including at men's and boys' facilities. The key sentence of the bill -- which can't bring itself to say "woman" -- reads, "A person incarcerated in state prison who menstruates or experiences uterine or vaginal bleeding shall, without needing to request, have ready access to, and be allowed to use, materials necessary for personal hygiene with regard to their menstrual cycle and reproductive system, including, but not limited to, sanitary pads and tampons, at no cost to the person."
Status | Votes: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and has already been assigned to the "suspense" file due to its cost. On Feb. 21, this bill passed Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, including both Republicans, Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey.
AB 1825 by 3 Democrats, as amended April 1, imposes new requirements for public (government-controlled) libraries, including all school libraries, stating:
(A) Establish that the public library serves as a center for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas.
(B) Establish that library materials shall not be excluded from the library collection because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to the creation of the materials, or because of the topic addressed by the materials or the views or opinions expressed in the materials.
(C) Acknowledge that library materials should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people, and should present diverse points of view in the collection as a whole.
(D) Acknowledge the right of the public to receive access to a range of social, political, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences.
As the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's Digest reads: "The bill would require the policy to, among other things, establish that library materials shall not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to the creation of the materials, or because of the topic addressed by the materials or the views or opinions expressed in the materials. The bill would prohibit the governing board or body of a public library from proscribing the circulation or procurement of books or other resources in a public library because of the topic addressed by the materials or because of the views, ideas, or opinions contained in those materials. The bill would also prohibit a public library from exercising the discretion to determine the content of library materials in a manner that discriminates against or excludes materials based on specified protected characteristics, or on the basis that the materials contain inclusive and diverse perspectives, or on the basis that the materials may include sexual content, as provided. The bill would provide that a person’s right to use a public library and its resources shall not be denied or abridged solely because of personal characteristics, age, background, or views. The bill would authorize a user of a public library to commence a civil action to obtain appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of these provisions.
The initial version of the bill (as introduced Jan. 11) prohibited libraries "from banning books for partisan or political reasons or in a manner that is motivated by animus based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability, or socioeconomic status." So from this and the Legislative Counsel's Digest, you know the author is mostly pushing "sexual content" upon libraries in pro-family communities, and permitting lawsuits against libraries to force them to stock certain books and magazines.
Although amended to "present diverse points of view" with "a range of social, political, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences," would this bill make libraries -- especially "public school" libraries -- worse by forcing libraries in conservative communities to stock material promoting pornography, homosexuality/bisexuality/transsexuality, abortion, witchcraft, stealing, communism, and racism? And how can this bill be trusted, for example, to protect positive books and magazines about conservative or Bible-based or even our U.S. founding fathers? See this article exposing AB 1825's unfair, radical, pro-"LGBTQIA+" agenda.
Status | Votes: This bad bill is scheduled for an April 23 hearing in the State Assembly Judiciary Committee after its April 10 passage in the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all 5 Democrats; voting no was Republican Josh Hoover; abstaining was Republican Heath Flora).
AB 2007, authored by Democrat Assemblymember Tasha Boerner of coastal San Diego County and co-authored by 3 homosexual activist Democrat assemblymembers, would create and fund with taxpayer dollars a three-year pilot program of "Unicorn Homes," where sexually-confused 18- to 24-year-olds can sleep, eat, and frolic. AB 2007 will fund immoral, anti-family "LGBTQIA+" groups that promote their unnatural and harmful agenda upon vulnerable children. AB 2007 would fund "local community-based organizations that provide a majority of its services to the LGBTQ+ community...in up to 5 selected counties that provide transitional housing for LGBTQ+ youth, 18 to 24 years of age." And who will be the "host families" of the "transitional housing for LGBTQ+ youth"? Homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals and more. Will sexual activities that these older, depraved people do with the young, sexually-confused adults be called "molestation" or "consensual"? This bad bill is silent on this perverse powder keg.
Status | Votes: AB 2007 is scheduled for an April 23 hearing in the Assembly Human Services Committee. Earlier, on March 30, this bad bill passed the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans abstained).
AB 2030 by Republican Laurie Davies would permit state agencies to award contracts up to $250,000 to an "LGBT business enterprise," defined as "a business enterprise that is at least 51-percent owned by a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person or persons, or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender persons, and whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of those individuals."
Status | Votes: This bad bill was sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee after passing April 16 in the Assembly Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy Committee (voting yes was all the Democrats plus both Republicans: Josh Hoover of Sacramento County and Greg Wallis of the Greater Palm Springs area.)
AB 2085 by Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would push baby-killing by open up more abortion clinics. The author claims her bill will "expand access to health care," yet has made clear she sees pro-life Californians as the enemy: "Some communities in California are complete reproductive health care deserts, yet local anti-abortion groups are still creating roadblocks for clinic development." Deceptive and slick, AB 2085 would radically lower approval standards, and eliminate local control by permitting California's Attorney General to enforce its pro-abortion dominance.
As the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office explains:
This bill would make a development that meets specified objective planning standards, including that, among other things, it is on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, health care, or parking are a principally permitted use, a permitted use and would require a local agency to review an application for that development on an administrative, nondiscretionary basis. The bill would require a local agency, within 60 calendar days of receiving an application pursuant to these provisions, to approve or deny the application subject to specified requirements, including that, among other things, if the local agency determines that the development is in conflict with any of the above-described standards, the local agency is required to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, as specified.
The bill would provide that a development eligible for approval pursuant to this process is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, thereby expanding the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. By increasing duties on local governments in reviewing and approving these developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would authorize a development proponent to bring an action to enforce the bill’s provisions, as specified, and would make its provisions enforceable by the Attorney General and would provide the Attorney General an unconditional right to intervene to enforce the bill’s provisions. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.
Status | Votes: This bad bill is being moved to a more favorable Democrat-controlled committee -- on April 15 it was re-referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
AB 2099 by Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan pushes more baby-killing by imposing harsh penalties upon peaceful pro-lifers who are offering factual information and adoption services to pregnant women who are being roped in by Planned Parenthood abortionists. This anti-free-speech bill would subjectively and tyrannically define peaceful pro-life "sidewalk counselors" that approach or call out to pregnant women -- as being guilty of a new felony of "intimidate, interfere with, oppress." In addition to punishing peaceful pro-life Californians, this awful bill would trample their constitutional free speech outside abortuaries.
Status | Votes: This bad bill is scheduled for an April 17 hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee after its April 2 passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, plus both Republicans, Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey).
AB 2319 by a dozen Democrats would replace "mother" with "all birthing people, including nonbinary persons and persons of transgender experience," and would force "all health care providers involved in the perinatal care of patients" at hospitals, primary care clinics, alternative birthing centers, outpatient clinics, and emergency departments, under threat of penalty, into brainwashing training -- teaching employees and contractors to believe and speak the unscientific fallacies that biological females can be biological males, and vice versa.
As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Office describes AB 2319, as amended March 21: "This bill would make a legislative finding that the Legislature recognizes all birthing people, including nonbinary persons and persons of transgender experience. The bill would extend the evidence-based implicit bias training requirements to also include hospitals that provide perinatal care, as defined. The bill would require an implicit bias program to include recognition of intersecting identities and the potential associated biases. The bill would require initial basic training for the implicit bias program to be completed by June 1, 2025, for current health care providers, and within 6 months of their start date for new health care providers, unless exempted. The bill would require specified facilities to document each employee’s implicit bias training in accordance with regulations adopted by the department for documenting staff development programs. The bill would require the department to assess each hospital’s compliance with this requirement during periodic inspections. The bill would authorize the department to issue an administrative penalty if it determines that a facility has violated these provisions, and would require the department to annually post on its internet website a list of facilities that have been issued administrative penalties. The bill would vest the State Department of Public Health with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the California Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act. The bill would require the department to solicit participation and adopt regulations to further the purposes of the act, as specified. The bill would make the provisions of the act severable."
From this, we know that AB 2319, if passed and signed and implemented, would:
1. Stress the establishment's preference of "birthing people" over "mother," due to the bill inserting this phrase into the law: "The Legislature recognizes all birthing people, including nonbinary persons and persons of transgender experience." So because of the new phrase "birthing people," and the brainwashing and penalties in the bill, we believe hospitals will be pressured to replace "mother" with "birthing person" in both speech and documentation.
2. Require lie-based brainwashing (the bill calls this "implicit bias training") to oppose the scientific reality that only biological women can get pregnant, replacing it with the new policy of recognizing and respecting "all birthing people, including nonbinary persons and persons of transgender experience."
3. Punish hospitals for non-compliance with the brainwashing or the documentation or inspection of it.
4. The only thing in the bill (as opposed to the existing statutes) to help pregnant mothers is to insert the phrase: “'Perinatal care' includes, but is not limited to, prenatal care."
Why this bad bill? Because Democrat Party state legislators are afraid of "LGBT" groups, so they work for them, denying who mothers really are: An adult female (XX chromosomes) human being.
Status | Votes: This bad bill has been sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee after its April 2 passage in the Assembly Health Committee. Voting yes were 11 Democrats and "Republican" Marie Waldron; voting no were Republicans Joe Patterson and Kate Sanchez; abstaining was Republican Heath Flora and Democrat Kevin McCarty.
AB 2711 by Democrat James Ramos, as amended April 15, would eliminate smoking, alcohol drinking, and using drugs as grounds for expulsion at all California government-controlled schools. In addition, AB 2711 as amended April 15 would prohibit expelling children from California public school for "unlawfully possessing, using, or being under the influence of" any drugs, alcohol, or tobacco products, and would only permit suspension if a student in violation is "provided with two opportunities for supportive interventions." By removing current penalties for bad behavior, AB 2711 would instead promote as acceptable children who are "stoned" or drunk.
AB 2226 by 7 Democrats would eliminate the long-standing kindergarten option in California, replacing it with a kindergarten mandate, trampling parents' right to wait until they know their own child is more developed, at 6 years of age, to begin formal education.
Status | Votes: This bad bill destroying another parental right has been sent to the State Assembly Appropriations Committee after its April 10 passage in the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all 5 Democrats; voting no was Republican Josh Hoover; abstaining was Republican Heath Flora).
(d) Commencing July 1, 2025, the commission shall convene quarterly meetings to identify the statewide needs of the LGBTQ+ community and to assist in implementing supportive policies and initiatives to address the needs of the LGBTQ+ community, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Identifying systemic inequalities and barriers that affect the LGBTQ+ community.
(2) Identifying methods to improve and protect the health, safety, and well-being of the state’s LGBTQ+ community and its members across all levels of state and local government.
(3) Monitoring state legislation affecting the LGBTQ+ community.
(4) Working with state agencies to assess programs and policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community.
(5) Coordinating with other related commissions to address issues of mutual concern.
(6) Working as a liaison between the public and private sector to eliminate barriers to economic and health equity for the LGBTQ+ community.
As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's office describes SB 59: "This bill would enact the Menstrual Product Accessibility Act, which would require all women’s restrooms, all all-gender restrooms, and at least one men’s restroom in a building owned and used by the state to be stocked with menstrual products, as defined, available and accessible to employees and the public, free of cost, at all times."
Status | Votes: SB 59 is a two-year bill being held at the Assembly desk (unassigned to committee) after its Jan. 29 passage on the floor of the State Senate (voting yes were 31 of 32 Democrats plus "Republican" Scott Wilk).
SB 954 by 3 Democrat Party state senators would promote the lie that condoms are effective pregnancy prevention and ignore STDs and other harms resulting from teen fornication. This bad bill further sexualizing children would require California public schools "to make internal and external condoms available to all pupils" from 7th grade onward. It would additionally require at schools from 9th grade onward to "make condoms available by placing condoms in a minimum of two locations on school grounds where the condoms are easily accessible to pupils during school hours without requiring assistance or permission from school staff." There is no provision for parental notification or consent.
Status | Votes: SB 954 is scheduled for an April 24 hearing in the State Senate Health Committee after its March 30 passage in the Senate Education Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against).
As the Democrat-run Senate Judiary Committee analysis described SB 957: "This bill requires the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to collect demographic data regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersexuality from third parties, as provided. The bill also adds sexual orientation and gender identity information to the demographic data that health care providers and specified agencies must disclose to local health departments and CDPH, as specified. The bill requires CDPH to prepare and post an annual report to the Legislature regarding this data."
SB 959 by Democrat Party State Senator and "LGBTQIA+" activist Caroline Menjivar of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley would require the State of California "to create an internet website where the public can access information and resources to support TGI individuals and their families in accessing trans-inclusive health care and other support services in the state, including, but not limited to, a general description of trans-inclusive health care, information on how to access directories of providers providing gender-affirming services, and resources for victims of hate incidents and hate crimes."
This bad bill pushing unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior defines “TGI” as "transgender, gender diverse, or intersex." In particular, SB 959 stresses how the State's website must refer visitors to pro-"sex change" doctors, stating the website must include information about "trans-inclusive health care, including gender-affirming health care and gender-affirming mental health care," without a minimum age to access this "information."
Status | Votes: On April 15, this anti-family bill, because of its cost, was placed on the "suspense file" of the State Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on April 3, this bad bill passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes was every Democrat but one; voting no was Orange County Republican Janet Nguyen; abstaining was Democrat Steve Glazer and Republican Shannon Grove).
SB 1012 by San Francisco Democrat Party State Senator Scott Wiener (he's an "LGBTQIA+" activist, and his bill is coauthored by a dozen more Democrats plus "Republican" assemblywoman Marie Waldron) would legalize mind-altering psychedelic drugs, such as DMT, mescaline, MDMA, psilocybin, and psilocyn. This dangerous bill is similar to the author's bill, SB 58 from 2023, which was vetoed. Legalizing these harmful, "recreational drugs" for 21-year-olds would, for all practical purposes, open the door to teens and pre-teens getting it. A stoned society is not a safe society.
From the April 15 analysis of the Democrat-controlled State Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee:
Opponents write that “There is no conclusive evidence from scientific medical research substantiating the efficacy and innocuousness of the psychedelics. All drugs should go through proper FDA approval process for the protection of citizens.” Opponents write that “According to Dr. Roneet Lev, former Chief Medical Officer of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, psychedelics can cause serious negative consequences such as cardiac issues, seizures, depression, amnesia, acute anxiety, and hallucination, and are dangerous to users and bystanders alike. People can react to the drugs differently regardless. Recently, an off-duty pilot almost killed 83 passengers due to his using magic mushrooms. Even though he was handcuffed, the drug still empowered him to try turn off the engine. There are many medications for pain and depression without the serious negative consequences. Our veterans deserve better than being guinea pigs."
The California State Sherriffs’ Association writes “…we are concerned about government condoning and facilitating the use of mind-altering drugs, especially those included as Schedule I controlled substances. We believe SB 1012 sends the wrong message about using drugs especially since the bill requires government licensure and a regulatory scheme to facilitate such use. Additionally, there are provisions of the bill’s regulatory plan to which we object. Specifically, the bill provides that a local government shall not ban or completely prohibit regulated psychedelic facilitators operating in accordance with the bill and rules created pursuant to the bill within its boundaries. At the very least, local governments should have some say as to whether they will be complicit in this risky venture.”
Status | Votes: SB 1012 has an April 23 hearing scheduled in the State Senate Public Safety Committee. Previously, on April 15, this bad bill narrowly passed (by just 1 vote) the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee (voting yes were 7 Democrats; voting no were Republicans Janet Nguyen and Scott Wilk, along with Democrats Marie Alvarado-Gil and Angelique Ashby; abstaining were Republican Roger Niello and Democrat Richard Roth).
SB 1174 by Democrat Party State Senator Dave Min of Orange County would prohibit cities from requiring registered voters to present identification before voting. Of course, prohibiting proof that you are who you say you are promotes both voter fraud by individuals and election fraud by corrupt "vote counters."
The bill would add to the California Elections Code: "A local government shall not enact or enforce any charter provision, ordinance, or regulation requiring a person to present identification for the purpose of voting or submitting a ballot at any polling place, voting center, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted, unless required by state or federal law. For the purpose of this section, “local government” means any charter or general law city, charter or general law county, or any city and county."
Yet without voter identification -- especially photo ID -- we shatter the "one person, one vote" American standard. Since our Democrat-controlled state government has statewide laws that do not require voter ID, it's up to local governments that care about accuracy and honesty to require voter ID locally. But they can't under SB 1174, legislation that is both anti-democracy and anti-America.
Status | Votes: SB 1174 has a May 1 hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee. On April 2, this bad bill passed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee (Democrats voting yes, the sole Republican voting no).
DEAD FOR THE YEAR
SB 1196 by Democrat Party State Senator Catherine Blakespear of Southern Orange County and Northern San Diego County would expand California's dangerous "assisted suicide" law (which is written so poorly, it by default permits biased heirs to administer the lethal dose of drugs, since no legal witness is required, and the death is prohibited from being reported as a murder) to now include "assisted suicide" -- with a new intravenous option -- for physically and mentally disabled people.
As JustTheNews.com reported April 2: The California legislature is considering a law that would greatly expand the state's assisted suicide policies to allow people to end their lives without being diagnosed with a terminal disease, including dementia patients. Under California's current law, adult residents can end their lives if they have been diagnosed with a terminal disease and are not expected to live more than six months. The new bill replaces the term "terminal disease" with "grievous and irremediable medical condition"...
SB 1196 is so dangerous, even the pro-assisted-suicide "Compassion & Choices" organization opposes it, stating: "Expanding the eligibility criteria to include individuals with "a grievous and irremediable medical condition" raises concerns." In other words, perhaps "C&C" has older leaders who are saying "no way" to the proposed non-terminal standard and the shaky "consent" that dementia patients would be coerced to give?
What's more, SB 1196 permits the "assisted suicide" of teenagers, since at age 18, if you have an "illness or disease" of any kind (including an incurable* and possibly fatal sexually-transmitted infection**) that limits your "capability" to any extent, and you say you're "suffering" and life is "intolerable" and continued treatment is not "acceptable" and you're not "willing to attempt" other treatments, you get to either swallow a lethal dose of drugs or be injected with the lethal drugs with the "assistance" of "a health care provider placing an intravenous catheter...into the qualified individual’s vein."
*Incurable, viral sexually transmitted infections (STIs) include Hepatitis B, herpes, HIV, HPV
**Research has found several STIs that can cause death in women ages 15-44: syphilis, HPV, HIV, hepatitis, genital herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia
While SB 1196 was amended April 4 to delete out-of-state eligibility, the bill still permits "assisted suicide" for physically or mentally disabled Californians as young as 18. See the loose, subjective killing allowed under SB 1196, as decribed by the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office:
This bill would replace the term “terminal disease” for purposes of the act with “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” defined as a medical condition that (1) is a serious and incurable illness or disease, (2) has placed the individual in a state of irreversible decline in capability and the individual’s suffering is palpable without prospect of improvement, (3) is causing the individual to endure physical suffering due to the illness, disease, or state of decline that is intolerable to the individual and cannot be relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable, and there is no proven treatment for the individual’s situation that the individual has not attempted or is willing to attempt due to the nature or side effects of the treatment, and (4) after taking into account all of the individual’s medical circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable that the condition will become the individual’s natural cause of death, as specified. The bill would, for purposes of the act, include a diagnosis of dementia as a grievous and irremediable medical condition, if the individual meets specified capacity requirements. The bill would specify that a sole diagnosis of a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition. The bill would also expand the definition of “mental health specialist” to include neurologists. The bill would additionally authorize the self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug through intravenous injection.
Status | Votes: On April 17, the bill author shelved her dangerous bill, so it's dead for the year! Previously, on April 3, the State Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to the Senate Health Committee for an April 22 hearing. On April 9, SB 1196 was fast-tracked by being scheduled for the State Senate Judiciary Committee on April 23, the very next day after the Senate Health Committee hearing.
* * * * * *
Bad Bill Archive
2023's worst bills and their outcomes
2022's worst bills and their outcomes
2021's worst bills and their outcomes