For the last several months, the California Family Council has been reporting on a series of bills working their way through the California legislature that either violate parental rights, attack the religious freedom of religious institutions, promote and facilitate more abortions, or redefine the meaning of the words, “male” and “female.” I’m happy to report we have had some success at slowing down and stalling some of these bills, but sadly a number of these dangerous bills are still alive and advancing through the legislative process.
I’ll start with the good news:
As first introduced, this bill threatened parental rights by letting the government act as a wedge between parents and their children. Instead of parents deciding what is in the best interest of their children regarding health, safety, education, and social activities, government officials would hold veto power over those decisions. Recent changes removed SB 18’s imminent threat, although the intent of the bill remains.
If you remember, when SB 18 was first proposed, it would have established a list of inalienable rights, staggering in their breadth, to which all of California’s minors were supposedly entitled. Even the LA Times editorial board was shocked, calling the new bill “overly ambitious” and “troubling.” The bill would have established in law that among other things, California’s children and youth had the “right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest,” the “right to live in a safe and healthy environment,” the “right to social and emotional well-being,” and the “right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.”
Instead of establishing these very expensive and intrusive entitlements into law, SB 18 will now create a Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Youth, made up of 18 senate and assembly members, who must come up with a framework by 2020 for the care and welfare of the “state’s children and youth.” The original bill language for the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth has since been reintroduced as a senate resolution, SCR 41, which doesn’t have the force of law, but must be considered by the new legislative committee when creating the new framework. So the immediate threat to parental rights has been removed, but all the same goals and intent will live on if legislators approve the creation of this new committee. No hearing dates are set yet for SB 18 or SCR 41.
Pro-Life advocates can claim victory for stalling SB 320, a bill to mandate that all health centers within California’s public universities provide students with abortion inducing drugs that can be used up to the 10th week of pregnancy. Pro-Life advocates protested the harm that would come to vulnerable children and young women, while university officials objected to the additional cost and liability issues posed by the bill. As a result, the author pulled the bill from consideration this year, but plans to bring the bill up again next year.
This bill specifically targeted four Christian Universities in California (Biola University, Fresno Pacific University, Simpson University, and William Jessup University) who have codes of conduct and policies prohibiting sexual activity outside traditional marriage (one man and one woman), and define gender by biology instead of self identification. The author, Assemblyman Evan Low (D-San Jose), canceled the hearing for the bill last week, but plans to bring it back next year, according to his office. This bill would have required all colleges who receive Cal Grants to report disciplinary action taken against students, the reason for the discipline, and whether that student falls into a protected category under California law.
Now for the bad news:
With a vote of 5 to 1, with one member not voting, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB 179, a bill to let people change the gender listed on their driver’s licenses or birth certificates to one of three options (male, female, or non-binary) by simply filling out a form; no questions asked; no proof required. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee with a hearing set for next Monday, May 8th.
Unfortunately, this bill sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is now headed to the Senate Appropriations committee. SB 219 opens senior housing facilities up for a lawsuit if their staff don’t use the gender pronoun preferred by a resident. (The gender pronoun list could contain as many as 50 options) Gender would also have to be determined by self identification, not biology. As a result, anyone claiming to be a woman or a man would have to be treated like their preferred sex in regards to rooming situations and bathroom usage. Any sex between residents, or between residents or visitors can not be prohibited. There are no exemptions for religious institutions, and according to the author, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), he doesn’t intend to add one. The bill heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee next. A hearing date has yet to be set.
Call and let the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know what you think of their vote on SB 179 and SB 219:
- Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (Chair) (Dem – Santa Barbara) (916) 651-4019 – Voted Yes on SB 179 and SB 219
- Senator John M. W. Moorlach (Rep – Irvine) (Vice Chair) (916) 651-4037 – Didn’t Vote on SB 179: Office said he needs more information and understanding about debate before voting; Voted no on SB 219.
- Senator Joel Anderson (Rep – San Diego) (916) 651-4038 – Voted No on SB 179 and SB 219
- Senator Robert M. Hertzberg (Dem – Los Angeles) (916) 651-4018 – Voted Yes on SB 179 and SB 219
- Senator Bill Monning (Dem – San Luis Obispo) (916) 651-4017 – Voted Yes on SB 179 and SB 219
- Senator Henry I. Stern (Dem – Ventura) (916) 651-4027 – Voted Yes on SB 179 and SB 219
- Senator Bob Wieckowski (Dem – Santa Clara) (916) 651-4010 – Voted Yes on SB 179 and SB 219
With a vote of 9 to 1, members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved a bill that lets the state outlaw faith-based codes of conduct related to abortion and sexual behavior. This bill specifically outlaws christian colleges, churches, and religious non-profits from requiring their employees to live according to faith-based teachings regarding abortion or contraception use. There is a very narrow exemption for ministers. The author also intends to use the law to outlaw codes of conduct prohibiting sex outside of marriage. AB 569 now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for consideration. A hearing date has not been set.
Call and let the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee know what you think of their vote on AB 569:
- Asm. Mark Stone (Dem – Santa Clara) (Chair) (916) 319-2029 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Jordan Cunningham (Rep – San Luis Obispo) (Vice Chair) (916) 319-2035 – Didn’t vote on AB 569
- Asm. Ed Chau (Dem – Los Angeles) (916) 319-2049 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. David Chiu (Dem – San Francisco) (916) 319-2017 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Cristina Garcia (Dem – Los Angeles) (916) 319-2058 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Chris R. Holden (Dem – San Bernardino) (916) 319-2041 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Ash Kalra (Dem – San Jose) (916) 319-2027 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Kevin Kiley (Rep – Roseville) (916) 319-2006 – Voted no on AB 569
- Asm. Brian Maienschein (Rep – San Diego) (916) 319-2077 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Eloise Gómez Reyes (Dem – San Bernardino) (916) 319-2047 – Voted yes on AB 569
- Asm. Philip Y. Ting (Dem – San Francisco) (916) 319-2019 – Voted yes on AB 569
The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee approved SB 309 last week by of vote of 10 to 3, a bill to create a personalized license plate to celebrate and raise funds for abortions. According to the author, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D – Santa Barbara), the fees collected from these license plates will be used to fund abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood. The bill now proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date is set as of yet.
Call and let the members of the Senate Transportation Housing Committee know what you think of their vote on SB 309.
- Senator Jim Beall (Dem – Santa Clara) (Chair) (916) 651-4015 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Anthony Cannella (Rep – Merced) (Vice Chair) (916) 651-4012 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Benjamin Allen (Dem – Los Angeles) (916) 651-4026 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Toni G. Atkins (Dem – San Diego) (916) 651-4039 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Patricia C. Bates (Rep – Laguna Niguel) (916) 651-4036 – Voted No on SB 309
- Senator Ted Gaines (Rep – Rocklin) (916) 651-4001 – Voted No on SB 309
- Senator Mike McGuire (Dem – Marin County) (916) 651-4002 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Tony Mendoza (Dem – Los Angeles) (916) 651-4032 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Mike Morrell (Rep – San Bernardino) (916) 651-4023 – Voted No on SB 309
- Senator Richard D. Roth (Dem – Riverside) (916) 651-4031 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Nancy Skinner (Dem – Alameda) (916) 651-4009 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Bob Wieckowski (Dem – Santa Clara) (916) 651-4010 – Voted Yes on SB 309
- Senator Scott D. Wiener (Dem – San Francisco) (916) 651-401 – Voted Yes on SB 309