AB 2099 pushing more baby-killing by imposing even harsher penalties upon peaceful pro-lifers offering factual information and adoption services to pregnant women entering Planned Parenthood abortion centers.

 

AB 2319 replacing "mother" with "all birthing people, including nonbinary persons and persons of transgender experience" and forcing employees and contractors of "all health care providers involved in the perinatal care of patients" into brainwashing training -- teaching them to believe and speak the unscientific fallacies that biological females can be biological males, and biological males can be biological females.

 

AB 2711 prohibiting the suspension of students who possess drugs, alcohol, tobacco products on campus (as long as they "voluntarily disclose," they get "counseling" and "services" instead), thus sending the message to other children that getting stoned or drunk isn't that bad, since the consequences will be mild, not severe.

 

SB 233 expediting approval "upon application for registration with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California" for Arizona abortionists to come to California to kill pre-born babies.

SB 957 forcing health care providers to survey patients about homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality via forms and questionnaires, and report this personal information to county health departments and the State.

SB 1174 banning voter ID by prohibiting cities and counties from "enacting or enforcing 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, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted."

VETOED BILLS (for fiscal reasons):

AB 2442 would have accelerated the harmful "sex change" industry in California by expediting medical license applications for so-called "gender-affirming health care and gender-affirming mental health care."

AB 3031 would have created an official "LGBTQ+ Commission" to hammer its tyrannical agenda upon you all the more, empowering wealthy "LGBTQIA+" organizations to fund their own special-interest state office.

SB 954 would have promoted the lie that condoms are effective pregnancy prevention, ignoring STDs and other harms resulting from teen fornication, by requiring California "public" schools "to make internal and external condoms available to all pupils" from 7th grade on up. 

AB 1825 by 5 Democrats, imposes "woke" requirements upon public (government-controlled) libraries (no longer including school libraries or permitting lawsuits on this matter). 

Though less tyrannical via recent amendments, this pro-"LGBTQIA+" bill is still bad. The Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Office describes AB 1825, amended July 3, as follows:

The bill would require the collection development polity to "guide the selection and deselection of library materials, as defined" in the library's "collection."

The bill would expand prohibition of any decisionmaking body "creating policies or procedures that limit or restrict access to library materials offered by the public library, except as provided."

The bill prohibits library materials in a public library from "being excluded, and access to library materials from being limited, solely on the bases of (1) specified protected characteristics of a subject of the library materials, an author of the materials, the sources of the library materials, or the perceived or intended audience for the library materials, (2) that the materials contain inclusive and diverse perspectives, or (3) that the materials may include sexual content, except 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."

Look at the April 23 commmittee analysis quoting the ACLU explaining it wants AB 1825 to promote homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality to children in a community:

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: ACLU Action of California observes that libraries “play a special role in the public’s civic education and the free exchange of diverse ideas and information. Over the past year, more than 3,000 books have been banned in libraries across America. These books disproportionately feature stories about LGBTQ+ communities, people of color, and historically marginalized communities. Book bans to this effect are not only discriminatory – they are a violation of people’s First Amendment right to access information.” Noting that the Fresno and Huntington Beach resolutions were concerned mostly with “sexual content,” ACLU cites leading case law supporting the proposition that “speech is not unprotected merely because it contains some alleged ‘sexual content.’ [Citations omitted.] Under the First Amendment, speech ‘cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.’ Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213–14 (1975). We must protect the fundamental First Amendment right of access to diverse and inclusive information at our public libraries.”

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 and the supporting anti-family groups, you know the author is mostly pushing "sexual content" upon libraries in pro-family communities, and pressuring libraries to stock certain books and magazines reflecting "protected classes," such as abortion, homosexuality and transsexuality.

Although amended to "present diverse points of view" with "a range of social, political, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences," would AB 1825 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: On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom announced he had signed AB 1825. Previously, it passed the State Assembly on August 28 (voting yes were 60 Democrats + 4 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; voting no were 9 Republicans; abstaining were 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats). One day prior, this bad bill passed the State Senate on August 27 (voting yes were all 31 Democrats, voting no were 7 of 8 Republicans, abstaining were Republican Janet Nguyen and Democrat/"Republican" Marie Alvardo-Gil). On August 5, this bill was sent to the Senate floor without a hearing by the Democrat Party chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Previously, on July 2, this bad bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (Democrats voting yes, Republicans voting no). Earlier, on June 26, it passed the Senate Education Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans abstained). Previously, on May 23, this bill passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 57 Democrats + 5 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis); voting no were three Republicans: Vince Fong, Josh Hoover, Joe Patterson; abstaining were the remaining 10 Republicans + 5 Democrats). Earlier, on May 16, this bad bill passed the State Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats plus Republican Jim Patterson; voting no was Republican Diane Dixon; abstaining were Republicans Kate Sanchez and Tri Ta). Previously, AB 1825 on April 23 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee (nearly all Democrats in support plus all 3 Republicans: Diane Dixon, Kate Sanchez, Marie Waldron). Previously, AB 1825 was approved April 10 in the Assembly Education Committee (voting yes were all 5 Democrats; voting no was Republican Josh Hoover; abstaining was Republican Heath Flora).

AB 1955 by homosexual activist Chris Ward of San Diego and 11 other homosexual activists, plus two other Democrat Party legislators, have "gutted and amended" AB 1955 to legally prohibit any government-school employee or contractor from disclosing "any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent." This outrageous bill is against parents, children, science, and health. It is being pushed because anti-parental-rights Democrat Party Attorney General of California Rob Bonta has no legal basis in state law to sue pro-family school boards that have parental rights policies on sexually-confused children.

AB 1955, as amended May 22, according to the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel:

1. Would provide "resources" promoting "LGBTQ" as natural and beneficial to "LGBTQ" children and their parents and guardians:

"This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop resources or, as appropriate, update existing resources, for supports and community resources for the support of parents, guardians, and families of LGBTQ pupils and strategies to increase support for LGBTQ pupils, as specified."

2. Would ban any school within California's K-12 "public" school system from informing parents of "a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression...without the pupil’s consent" and would prohibit K-12 government schools from punishing an employee who "supported a pupil" by grooming children via pro-"LGBQT" "rights," "work activities," or "certain instruction":

"This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and the state special schools, and a member of the governing board or body of those educational entities, from enacting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires an employee or a contractor to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of those educational entities from being required to make such a disclosure unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, or the state special schools, or members of the governing boards or bodies of those educational entities, from retaliating or taking adverse action against an employee on the basis that the employee supported a pupil in the exercise of specified rights, work activities, or providing certain instruction, as provided."

Status | Votes: On July 15, this anti-parent bill was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (see our response). Previously, the final legislative vote -- June 27 in the State Assembly -- was 60 Democrats yes, 15 Republicans no. The day before, on June 26, this anti-parent bill passed the Democrat-Party-controlled Assembly Education Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Previously, on June 17, this gutted-and-amended bill ("substantially amended," according to pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2) was referred the State Assembly Education Committee. On June 13, this bad bill passed the State Senate (29 Democrats voted yes, 8 Republicans voted no, and 3 Democrats abstained: Marie Alvarado-Gil, Monique Limón, Henry Stern). Previously, on June 10, this bad bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against), after being withdrawn from the Senate Health Committe and fast-tracked to the Appropriations Committee. On May 29, this bad bill passed the Senate Education Committee (Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no).

AB 2085 by Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan would push baby-killing by opening 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, eliminate local control, and permit both private lawsuits and the immense powers of California's Attorney General to enforce its pro-abortion dominance.

The Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's office on AB 2085, as amended July 3:

Status | Votes: On Sept. 28, Governor Gavin Newsom announced he had signed AB 2085. Previously, this bad bill passed the State Assembly on August 29 (voting yes were 59 Democrats + Republicans Juan Alanis, Laurie Davies, Greg Wallis; voting no were Republicans Megan Dahle, Bill Essayli, James Gallagher, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Marie Waldron; abstaining were the 8 remaining Republicans). The day prior (August 28), the State Senate floor vote was Democrats yes, Republicans no, and Democrat/"Republican" Marie Alvarado-Gil abstained. This bad bill was sent to the Senate floor on August 15 by the Democrat-Party-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee. Earlier, this bad bill was sent to the Senate Appropriations Commmittee after its July 3 passage in the State Senate Environmental Quality Committee (Democrats voting yes, Republicans voting no). Earlier, on June 5, it passed the Senate Local Government Committee (Democrat voted yes; Republicans voted no). Previously, AB 2085 on May 21 passed the State Assembly (voting yes were 57 Democrats + 3 Republicans: Alanis, Davies, Wallis); voting no were 8 Republicans (Dixon, Essayli, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron); abstaining were 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Previously, AB 2085 on May 16 passed the State Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Diane Dixon, Kate Sanchez, and Tri Ta; abstaining was Republican Jim Patterson). Previously, on April 22, this pro-abortion bill passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee (nearly all Democrats voted yes; Republican Joe Patterson voted no; Republicans Heath Flora and Josh Hoover abstained). Previously, AB 2085 on April 17 passed the Assembly Local Government Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats + Republican Juan Alanis; voting no was Republican Marie Waldron).

AB 2099 by Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan pushes more baby-killing by imposing even harsher 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 crime of "intimidate, interfere with, oppress." In addition to punishing peaceful pro-life Californians, this awful bill would trample their constitutional free speech outside baby-killing centers. On a "first violation," this anti-free-speech bill would punish you with a $10,000 fine, a year in county jail, or both.

Status | Votes: On Sept. 28, Governor Gavin Newsom announced he had signed AB 2099. Perviously, this bad bill passed the State Assembly on August 28 (voting yes were 60 Democrats + 9 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Heath Flora, Josh Hoover, Devon Mathis, Marie Waldron, and Greg Wallis (the rest of the Republicans abstained, as did 3 Democrats). One day prior, on August 27, this bad bill passed the State Senate (voting yes were all 31 Democrats, voting no were all 8 Republicans + Democrat/"Republican" Marie Alvardo-Gil). After being placed August 5 on the "suspense file" of the State Senate Appropriations Committee, this Democrat-Party-controlled committee on August 15 passed this pro-abortion bill (Democrats for, Republicans against), sending it to the Senate floor. Earlier, this bad bill was sent to the State Senate Appropriations Commmittee after its July 2 passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee (every Democrat voted yes, while the sole Republican, Mr. Kelly Seyarto, abstained). Earlier, AB 2099 on May 23 passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 57 Democrats and 6 Republicans: Alanis, Chen, Davies, Hoover, Waldron, Wallis; no one voted no; abstaining were 12 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Previously, AB 2099 on May 16 passed the State Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats plus Republicans Jim Patterson and Kate Sanchez; abstaining were Republicans Diane Dixon and Tri Ta). Previously, AB 2099 on April 2 was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, plus both Republicans, Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey).

AB 2319 authored by 16 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 May 16: "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, by February 1 of each year, commencing in 2026, provide the Attorney General with proof of compliance with these provisions, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to pursue civil penalties for violations of these provisions, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to post on its internet website a list of facilities that did not timely submit proof of compliance or were assessed penalties under these provisions, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to post any other compliance data they deem necessary and would authorize the Attorney General to biennially publish a report outlining compliance data related to these provisions."

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: On Sept. 26, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2319. AB Previous, this bad bill was approved on August 29 in the State Assembly (voting yes were 59 Democrats + Republicans Juan Alanis, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis; voting no were 9 Republicans; abstaining were 5 Republicans). One day prior, the August 28 State Senate floor vote was: Voting yes were all the Democrats + Republican Scott Wilk; voting no were 6 of 8 Republicans; abstaining were Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Democrat/"Republican" Marie Alvarado-Gil. Previously, on August 15, this bad bill was sent to the Senate floor after passing the Democrat-Party-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (most Democrats voted yes; Democrat Steven Bradford did not vote; both Republicans voted no). Earlier, on August 5 in the Appropriations Committee, AB 2319 was placed on the "suspense file" (a figurative file for costly and too-expensive bills). Earlier, on July 2 it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (voting yes were all Democrats + Republican Scott Wilk; voting no was Republican Roger Niello). Previously, AB 2319 on June 26 passed the Senate Health Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats, voting no were both Republicans). Earlier, AB 2319 on May 24 passed the Assembly floor (voting yes were 52 Democrats + 4 Republicans: Juan Alanis, Jim Patterson, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis); voting no were 5 Republicans: Diane Dixon, Vince Fong, James Gallagher, Josh Hoover, Joe Patterson; abstaining were the remaining 9 Republicans + 10 Democrats). Earlier, this bad bill on May 16 passed the State Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were all the Republicans). Previously, AB 2319 on April 2 passed 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, would eliminate smoking, alcohol drinking, and using drugs as automatic grounds for suspension at all California government-controlled schools. AB 2711 as amended July 3 would prohibit suspending children from California public school for "their use of a controlled substance, alcohol, intoxicants of any kind, or a tobacco product." Instead of suspension, this bill would require K-12 government-controlled schools to offer a counseling program to students who "voluntarily" disclose their drug/alcohol use or who possessing drug/alcohol. This is a significant weakening of current penalties for bad behavior. AB 2711 sends the message to other students that getting stoned or drunk isn't that bad, since the consequences will be mild, not severe.

From the Democrat-controlled Legislative Counsel's Digest of AB 2711 as amended July 3: 

"This bill would prohibit the suspension of a pupil who voluntarily discloses, in order to seek help through services or supports, their use of a controlled substance, alcohol, intoxicants of any kind, or a tobacco product, solely for that disclosure."

"This bill would prohibit the suspension of a pupil enrolled in a charter school in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, who voluntarily discloses, in order to seek help through services or supports, the pupil’s use of a tobacco product, controlled substance, alcohol, or an intoxicant of any kind, solely for that disclosure."

Status | Votes: On Sept. 28, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2711. Previously, this foolish bill was approved August 29 by the State Assembly (voting yes were 59 Democrats + Republican Marie Waldron; voting no were 9 Republicans; abstaining were 7 Republicans). The day prior (August 28) on the Senate floor, voting yes were all the Democrats + Republicans Roger Niello and Scott Wilk; voting no were the rest of the Republicans; abstaining was Democrat/"Republican" Marie Alvarado-Gil. Previously, on August 15, it passed the Democrat-Party-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee (Democrats for, Republicans against). Earlier, on July 2, it passed the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all Democrats + Republican Scott Wilk; voting no was Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh). Earlier, AB 2711 on May 22 passed the State Assembly on May 22 (voting yes were 56 Democrats and 3 Republicans: Heath Flora, Jim Patterson, Marie Waldron; voting no were 8 Republicans; abstaining were 7 Republicans and 6 Democrats). Earlier, AB 2711 on May 16 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no were Republicans Diane Dixon, Kate Sanchez, and Tri Ta; abstaining was Republican Jim Patterson). Previously, AB 2711 on April 24 passed the Assembly Education Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, along with Republican Heath Flora; Republican Josh Hoover abstained).

SB 233 by Democrat Party State Senator Nancy Skinner would give expedited approval for Arizona abortionists to come to California to kill pre-born babies.

As the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s office described it, SB 233 “would authorize a physician licensed to practice medicine in Arizona who meets certain requirements to practice medicine in California for the purpose of providing abortions and abortion-related care to patients who are Arizona residents traveling from Arizona, upon application for registration with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as applicable.”

Status | Votes: On May 23, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 233 with flourish (see SaveCalifornia.com's statement). On May 21, this bad bill passed the State Senate floor with the yes votes of 31 of 32 Democrats (Democrat Ben Allen abstained), while all 8 Republicans voted no. Previous, on May 13 on the State Assembly floor, joining 59 Democrats in voting yes were Republicans Juan Alanis and Greg Wallis.

VETOED:

ALSO DEAD FOR THE YEAR

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 never had a policy hearing in the State Senate. On July 1, its hearing in the Senate Health Committee was "canceled at the request of author." Earlier, on January 30, it passed the Assembly floor with yes votes from 53 Democrats and 5 Republicans (Alanis, Essayli, Flora, Waldron, Wallis).

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: On May 16, this costly bad bill died on the "suspense file" when it failed to escape the State Assembly Appropriations Committee before its legal deadline to pass. Previously, on April 23, this bad bill passed the Assembly Human Services Committee (all the Democrats voted yes, while both Republicans -- Bill Essayli and Devon Mathis -- abstained). 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: On May 16, this costly bad bill died on the "suspense file" when it failed to escape the State Assembly Appropriations Committee before its legal deadline to pass. Previously, on April 16, AB 2030 was approved by 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 2200 by Democrat Ash Kalra and 21 other Democrats ushering in government-controlled "health care," leading to rationing of care, long waiting times, even denial of needful care. 

Status | Votes: This foolish, irresponsible, and inhuman bill died on the "suspense file" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 16 due to its massive cost. Earlier, on March 23, this bad bill passed the Assembly Health Committee (voting yes were 9 Democrats, voting no were all 4 Republicans, abstaining were 3 Democrats).

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 on June 10 was "gutted and amended," and is now a bill about electric car batteries. The original SB 59 is therefore dead for the year. Previously, before it was completely amended, SB 59 had been referred to the State Assembly Health Committee. Earlier, on January 29, this bad bill passed floor of the State Senate (voting yes were 31 of 32 Democrats plus "Republican" Scott Wilk).

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."

SB 1007 by Democrat Steven Bradford to give “descendants of slaves” big money to buy a house. The Democrat-run Legislative Counsel's Digest: "This bill would establish the Homeowner’s Assistance for Descendants of Enslaved Persons Program for purposes of making, upon appropriation by the Legislature, financial aid and assistance for the purpose of purchasing, owning, or maintaining a home available to descendants, defined to include African American descendants of chattel enslaved persons." The bill text includes: "Financial aid or assistance provided pursuant to this program shall be used to assist descendants with purchasing, owning, or maintaining real property to be used as a principal residence, including to subsidize mortgage payments, for homeowner’s insurance, and any other means that will assist descendants with owning and maintaining a home." This bad bill promotes three big lies: 1) The lie that racial identity is above American identity; 2) The lie that you cannot be responsible financially because of your heritage; 3) The lie that "racism" causes poverty, when Democrat Party politicians have caused massive inflation with their foolish policies.

Status | Votes: On May 16, this racist and expensive bill died on the "suspense file" of the State Senate Appropriations Committee. Earlier, on April 2, it passed the Senate Housing Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; voting no was Republican Kelly Seyarto; abstaining was Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh.

SB 1013, another "black reparations" bill by Democrat Steven Bradford that would have paid up to $4,000 annually in property taxes for black "descendants of slaves." This is not only categorically racist, therefore unfair, but outright theft of the public treasury, the equivalent of vote buying using your taxpayer dollars.

Status | Votes: On May 16, this racist and expensive bill died on the "suspense file" of the State Senate Appropriations Committee. Earlier, on April 24, it passed the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats; abstaining was the sole Republican, Brian Dahle).

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 Sheriffs’ 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: On May 16, this costly bad bill died on the "suspense file" when it failed to escape the State Senate Appropriations Committee before its legal deadline to pass. Previously on April 23, this bad bill passed by just 1 vote in the State Senate Public Safety Committee (3 Democrats -- Wiener, Skinner, Bradford -- voted yes; Democrat Wahab and Republican Seyarto voted no). Previously, on April 15, this bad bill narrowly passed (also by 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 1056 by Democrat Party State Senator Susan Rubio, along with seven other Democrats, like the still-alive AB 2226, 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. This bill would destroy another parental right.

Status | Votes: This anti-parental-rights bill died May 16 on the "suspense file" of the State Senate Appropriations Committee (read more). Earlier, on April 10, this costly bill passed the Senate Education Committee (voting yes were all the Democrats plus Republican Scott Wilk; voting no was Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh).

*  *  *  *  *