WHY ARE PRO LIFERS SUPPORTING PRO ABORT CANDIDATES?
In California the work of recruiting volunteers to work for candidates for the Primary starts this weekend. All up and down the state Republican county committees, Young Republicans, Republican women’s Club and Pro life groups are being beseeched by candidates to get out the vote.
But, just how worthy of your support are these candidates? In the 40 years I’ve worked to support the Republican Party and the Pro Life cause it has been only the rare candidate who has honored his or her campaign promises to respect life or reduce taxes, honor any of the Constitutional amendments or the Party Platform much less even listened to the pro life or conservative taxpayer.
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory is currently under fire from the feds for refusing to comply with the elimination of privacy in bathrooms. Good for him but he’s all alone.
In California, Sacramento area Assembly member, James Gallagher took the floor of the Assembly to eloquently declare his opposition to the all-gender bathroom bill, AB1732. He was the only one. Listen to his statement as compared to that of Asm Eggman, (D-Fresno) speaking in favor.
Three Republicans broke ranks with their Party to provide the winning votes to pass that bill, Catharine Baker, (District 16-Danville), Brian Maienschein (Dist 77-San Diego) and Ling Ling Chang, (Dist 55-Brea). Also each of these Assembly members have coauthored and/or voted for an inordinate number of Democrat authored bills. (See Note #4)
The urgent email I received encouraging me to get out and work for Catharine Baker bragged about the amount of taxes she has saved the taxpayer so she deserves re-electing. Well, as a matter of fact she hasn’t saved the taxpayer one little dime. She has voted for bills that fund $millions of taxpayer dollars to Obama health care provider programs, Planned Parenthood and the State Public Health Dept’s Maternal and Child Health sex instruction and education programs – I & E. (see note #1) plus she has stated to the media that she opposed the Second Amendment gun ownership. She also coauthored the Governor approved Right to Die legislation which starts on June 9.
Does this look or act like a Republican? Why are we supporting her? She votes like a Democrat but gets free campaign assistance from the Republicans. When are we going to wake up and realize that we have allowed ourselves to be been taken advantage of?
This time Baker has gone even further and has, herself authored a bill so egregious to the Pro Life position and people she originally claimed to represent.
Her 2016 bill, AB 2263, Protect Victims and Reproductive Health Care Providers, sponsored by Planned Parenthood has slip-slided it’s way through Assembly committee hearings and is now in the Senate awaiting a hearing date. Our letter of opposition was not given official committee recognition, nor was there any other opposition listed.
Through AB2263 Assemblywoman Baker has covered Planned Parenthood with the status of victims of intimidation and acts of violence by pro lifers as their latest sociopathic attempt to gain respectability and compassion for their own acts of violence against the innocent unborn.
Assemblywoman Catharine Baker is empowering them to charge acts of pro life violence and intimidation while they employ the power of the state to inflict intimidation on law-abiding, life respecting citizens hoping to silence all protesting of abortion and to shut down the Center for Medical Progress.
AB 2263 seeks to amend the Safe at Home program which began in 1994 as a protection for victims of Domestic violence. In 1999 It was expanded in light of the O.J. Simpson court case to include victims of sexual abuse. It was again expanded, 2004, to include Reproductive health care workers, volunteers and patients.
While the current law protects these groups from exposure to the public it left out one important step according to an Aide in Baker’s office. It did not provide for Reproductive Health Care workers, nurses, volunteers and patients to remove their home address from property records. They charge that this still leaves this group exposed to victimization by those who would disagree on abortion rights.
CRLC is of the opinion that this amendment is a sham. It is intended directly to be used as a tool against the Center for Medical progress and David Daleiden, specifically, in an effort to discredit these good people in a court of law. (See Note #5)
It is also intended to be a tool of intimidation against those wonderful people who stand outside abortion clinics even in the rain risking their lives and health to pray the Rosary and offer assistance to women. Perhaps we should have stood outside the Legislators offices?
Planned Parenthood employees, we suggest, suffer greatly from guilty consciences. They view anything, praying, distributing pro life material, showing pictures of aborted babies, as terroristic and intimidating measures by pro life people. Baker and Planned Parenthood want us silenced. (See Note #6)
Asm Baker has admitted to the media that she is pro choice, anti second Amendment, anti parental notification for vaccinations, pro increased taxation as determined by her support for taxing all MCOs, i.e. health care insurance providers at one, increased rate, all-gender bathrooms (Ting bill 1732, Single-user Restrooms, AB1808 Mental Health Services for Minors without parental consent; and, now silencing pro life people.
And, yet, Conservative and pro life groups and individuals continue to support her while she gets the funding and endorsement of the abortion business community. She has the best of both worlds and she uses it to her advantage, not to that of the district residents.
The main reason Baker (no relation to former legislator Bill Baker) and others in the past years, has been supported by Republican party officials is always to protect the Republicans against loss of the required 2/3rds vote on bonds and funding bills. But what good does that do when she and other legislators, spend most of their time voting with the Democrats? (See Note #4)
Pro Life pregnancy counseling groups and education groups have labored long and diligently to create a caring and compassionate citizenry, but we have to face the hard fact that we have lost the fight in the legal and political arena. Legislators are not sensitive to our demands to stop the killing by defunding Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars.
Perhaps Donald Trump has it right. The Republican Party has become quite sensitive to his ability to gain attention. He knows that he’s in charge. What are Pro Lifers in charge of? Pro Lifers now have to spend our time raising thousands of dollars for court cases instead of being able to spend it on assisting pregnant women and sexualized and trafficked children.
Are we going to continue to allow Democrats and Republicans to give our hard earned dollars to the Planned Parenthood type killing fields? You now have your absentee ballots in hand. The phone is ringing waiting for your dollars and support. What are you going to do?
Note #1. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ie/Pages/default.aspx
California Department of Public Health/Maternal child Adolescent Health. $1,120,000 of General funds (our tax dollars) allotted to I & E programs-Information and Education - just one of their programs and for only 3 years. It is used to develop and teach sex ed curriculums.
Note #2: AB 2263 went through 3 Title changes before this one: Protect Victims and Reproductive health Care Providers is the official title of the bill. However, in lobbying material being distributed by Baker’s office, the Title appears to be Safe At Home Program: record of Title Security. The title, like the bill itself, is meant to disguise the purpose and intended target.
Note #3: Safe at Home began in 1994 as a protection for victims of Domestic violence. In 1999 It was expanded in light of the O.J. Simpson court case to include victims of sexual abuse. It was again expanded, 2004, to include Reproductive health care workers, volunteers and patients.
During that same time, 2001, CRLC published a 50 page report on the pro abortion clinic Directors, clinic owners, clinic doctors found guilty in a court of law for crimes of stalking, killings, arson, and much more, and delivered it to every member of the state legislature. It has now been updated to this year.
Note #4, Assemblymember Brian Maienschein, has coauthored has coauthored 16 of 29 Democrat bills and Ling Ling Chang has coauthored 17of 73 such bills. Baker has coauthored 43 out of 99 bills.
Note #5: Section 6209.5 of the Government Code wording was last amended in 2007 with Senate bill 1356 by then Sen. Leland Yee, (D-S.F) to add Reproductive health Care Workers to the list of victims of domestic or sex abuse violence. This section of the Government Code is now referred to as the Safe at Home.
Note #6: Safe At Home was designed originally to provide special protection to victims of domestic violence or stalking. It required the California Secretary of State’s Office to administer a program of allowing participants to use a free P.O. Box instead of their home address for receiving first class mail, opening a bank account, completing a confidential name change, filling out government documents, registering to vote, getting a driver’s license, enrolling a child in school.
Note #7: A request for information from the state on the number of persons who have sought this protection, in the most current accounting indicates that 3001 persons in general have signed up. Under the Code section 6254, protecting health care workers no one has signed up for any part of it.
Camille Giglio, Director
California Right to Life Committee, Inc1980
Share on Facebook