California Right to Life Advocates

According to reports published by the San Diego Union-Tribune and savecalifornia.com, SB 1338, Abortion/Midwives is headed for defeat due to failure to pressure two Democrats to switch their vote to “YES.”

However, Sen. Darrell Steinberg, Senate President Pro-Temp and major co-author of the bill with Sen. Christine Kehoe, may pull rank and call the bill up for a floor vote.

Kehoe has also hinted at other plans to bring about a successful vote. See the following report for a possible avenue to fulfillment of Planned Parenthood’s goal.

AB 1896, Wes. Chesbro, (D-Santa Rosa) Tribal Health Programs: Health Care Practitioners. This bill would give recognition to licensed health care workers who are called into California from other states to work in, amongst other places, tribal health clinics to “perform specified services.”

Chesbro is quoted in California Healthline as saying that this bill is necessary to “bring California into line with federal health care regulations.” In other words, in line with Obama’s Health Care Act which recognizes the full “Scope of Practice” of midwives, nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The Lake Co. Democrat Party website proclaims Chesbro to have a 100% favorable Planned Parenthood/Shasta Diablo rating. (Shasta Diablo includes Contra Costa, Solano, Lake and Shasta Counties) www.lakecountydemocrats.org.

This bill, introduced on Feb. 2, 2012, has speedily passed out of the Assembly and over to the Senate where it is awaiting its first hearing. It is supported by three tribal boards with no listed opposition.

The floor vote, originally reported at 51-0, a very strange vote count, was finally passed with a 69-1 vote with 10 not-voting (8 Dems and 2 Reps). The one “NO” vote was Tea Party Candidate, Tim Donnelly, (R-Claremont). His office spokesperson, Richard Thompson, stated that Donnelly’s reason was that the vote was premature. It was felt to be improper to “bring California into line with the Obama Care program while the Supreme Court is still hearing arguments about the health care bill’s legitimacy.”

Now, this was the same reason given by the California Nurse’s Association for originally opposing SB 1338. Regarding that bill, the CNA spokesperson had said, it was premature to approve the licensing before critical analysis of the outcome of training had been published and examined by independent research.

Nobody is watching this bill with all eyes drawn to SB 1338.

Chesbro’s bill draws on the recently announced HHS awarding of $10.4 million to states for rural health clinic care. Recall that SB 1338 also focused on bringing more health care workers to the rural areas.

HHS announces $10.4 million to enhance rural health care

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Rural health providers across the nation will receive more than $10.4 million to provide direct health care services to their communities. The funding announced today by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will be used to meet a broad range of health care needs in rural areas, from health promotion and disease prevention to expanding oral and mental health services.

"Access to quality and affordable health care should not be determined by where you live," said Secretary Sebelius. "These grants are a continuation of our effort to ensure that rural providers are able to meet the needs of their communities."

(Printed in the Wall St. Journal Market watch section from a press release by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).)

The article lists 72 grantees across the country. Three are in California, each receiving approximately $450,000.00 to develop delivery of “high quality health care.” These are in Lakeport, Nevada City and Woodlake. (Chesbro’s area)

The article continues…”Rural areas face unique issues and challenges…making them ideal for developing innovative solutions and creating models that can be replicated elsewhere.”

This is exactly the pitch used by Kehoe/National Abortion Federation for SB 1338.

CRLC believes what is happening here is that waivers have been granted allowing these communities to receive direct federal payments, bypassing the state and placing these experimental programs and communities directly under the supervision of The Health Resources and Services AGency section of the federal Health and Human Services Dept. www.hrsa.gov.

It is not uncommon for the feds, especially using Title X funding, to bypass the state and give grants directly to private/public partnerships providing family planning services and products.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in conjunction with the Institute of Medicine - I.O.M.–published a report entitled The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing health. (just google the title)

Here is a brief look at the recommendations from this report with my comments in parentheses:

• Nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training. (Scope of Practice, ala SB 1338, nurse practitioners as abortion providers)
   
• Nurses should achieve higher levels of education and training through an improved education system that promotes seamless academic progression. (Ca. Court decision allowing nurses to administer anesthetics without a doctor’s order or supervision and to prescribe certain contraceptive abortifacients, hormonal contraceptives. etc.)
   
• Nurses should be full partners, with physicians and other health care professionals, in redesigning health care in the United States. (look up barriers to patient healthcare)
   
• Effective workforce planning and policy making require better data collection and information infrastructure. (Workforce Waivers such as the one issued to allow the training of midwives. etc. to experiment on pregnant women while learning to improve their ability to abort babies.)

The Maternal and Child Health Title V programs come under the HRSA. This is where Healthy Starts grants originate which are heavily endorsed by Planned Parenthood and other abortion provider outfits. www.mchb.hrsa.gov.

HRSA has published a 420 page Budget report for fiscal year 2013 with a subtitle: Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. HRSA is charged with carrying out many of the Affordable Care Act mandates while “helping to train the next generation of primary care professionals..improving the diversity of the workforce..and..working with “its partner agencies,” in improving access in underserved areas. (emphasis added).

In other words, none of the bills on which I have been reporting, spring from the minds or hearts of California’s legislators. They originate with the federal government and nationwide and even global focus foundations and special interests.

This is the start of hectic activity in the legislature as authors seek ways to push their bills through to the Governor. Please be willing to act through phone calls or faxes to your legislators to either support or oppose bills.

Thanks for your efforts in regarding to stopping SB 1338. It is because of you that we - prolifers, have had influence in the outcome of this dreadful bill.
___________________________

Your financial support of $25.00 would be gratefully appreciated to underwrite the costs of this research and reporting. Please send to California Right to Life Committee, (IRS 501 (C) 4) 1920 Monument Blvd, #309, Concord, California, 94520. www.callifeadvocates.org/blog.
925-899-3064.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

OBESITY INEQUITY.

Two articles are of interest here showing the unrelenting move toward control over individuals personal health and nutrition choices.

California HealthLine, 5/1/12, is reporting on the state of the health of retiring public pension employees: “Study Finds Preventable Chronic Ailments Cost CalPers Millions in 2008.

The study reports that CalPers spent $1.6 billion on health care services in 2008. 22% of that on preventable health conditions, such as high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes.

A partnership of state, California Endowment (a liberal left funding source) Kaiser Hospital, the SEIU and Dr. Oz of HealthCorp and TV renown, are going to develop a program to “curb preventable conditions.” Dr. Oz “hopes his program will serve as a model for the rest of the U.S.”

CNN Health www.cnn.com 5/1/12, As Childhood Obesity Improves, Will Kids in Poverty be Left Behind? by Ann Harding of Health.com.

This article declares that 1 in 6 children are obese. One in 3children (including 2-6 yr olds) are overweight. However, California, don’t be alarmed because here the rates of obesity are slowing down at least with the more financially well off children. Of course, those in the “underserved communities, “ or with two working parents, are actually falling behind causing there to be an obesity inequity.

The basic premise of this article is that children can not be just left to their own or their parents decisions to eat their way to good health. According to Dr. Kristine Madsen, M.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics at UCSF “kids who have access to school-based programs and promotions are better off than their counterparts who are left to their own devices.”

Not to worry, the government is here and they want to help. Programs are being planned and legislation is being written.
__________________________
SB1416, Michael Rubio, (D-Bakersfield), Medical Residency Training Program Grants.
Creates a Graduate Medical Education Trust Fund - amended. Though consultants in Sacramento assure me that this strictly focuses on doctors - MD’s, there is some suspicion that this could be a new funding source for SB 1338 should it pass. It refers to a funding source with the state Department of health referred to as the Song-Brown Family Physician Training Act. This Act currently calls increasing the number of students and residents in the specialty of family practice and as primary care physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners. The bill would add that the Statewide Health Planning and Development - OSHPOD, the very group who provided the Healthcare workforce Waiver for SB 1338, develop criteria for distribution of available funds.

In Senate Appropriations Committee, Christine Kehoe, Chairman.

AB 2064, V. Manual Perez, (D-Indio), Immunizations for Children: Reimbursement of Physicians.
Provides for reimbursement of physician or physician group regarding vaccinations of adolescents and children in an amount “not less than the actual cost pf purchase of the vaccines plus the cost of administration of the vaccine.

Adding the cost of administration is where these clinics make their money. Plus clinics, such as Planned Parenthood’s and La Raza usually pay less than the going rate for state provided, bulk purchase vaccines.
In Senate Appropriations Committee.

Here’s an irony.

SB 1318, Lois Wolk, (D-Vacaville), Health Facilities: Influenza Vaccinations.

This would threatens to require that employees of health care facilities who chose not to be vaccinated (apparently there are many) will be required to wear a mask in order to avoid contaminating patients and each other.

The CNA is opposed to this requirement as is the SEIU. The supporters and co-sponsors are the Ca. Assn for Nurse Practitioners and the CMA. The opposition concerns exposing the identity of those who would be willing to contaminate everybody else by refusing to accept vaccination.

Finally:

SB 1338, Abortion, This bill licensing nurse practitioners, midwives and nurse assistants to perform first trimester abortions and provide drugs for chemical abortions for patients 12-on up must receive large outpourings of protests or it will pass.

We have one more opportunity to stop it - MAY 7TH - when it returns to the Senate Business, Professions & Economic Development Committee.

If you haven’t already done so, please call the following three legislators and calmly urge that they maintain their “NO” vote position.

Sen. Lou Correa, (D- Santa Anna) 916-651-4034, or, 714-558-4400.
Sen. Juan Vargas, (D-Chula Vista) 916-651-4040, or, 619-409-7690.
Sen. Tony Strickland, (R-Santa Barbara), 916-651-4019, or, 805-965-0862.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

Camille Giglio

Saturday, April 27, was the last day for bills carrying fiscal burdens to either move ahead or be considered failed. For non-fiscal bills the drop dead date is May 11.

SB 1338, Christine Kehoe, Abortion. This bill authorizes and licenses midwives, nurse practitioners and nurse assistants to perform first trimester abortions and prescribe drugs for medical or chemical abortions without the supervision of a physician/surgeon.

The day before April 27, the bill was totally gutted, removing any reference to fiscal needs giving it two more weeks of life and seeking only to acknowledge that first trimester abortion is within the scope of practice of this group of medical workers and; further, seeking approval only for “Grandfathering in” the 41 “clinicians” already trained .

According to an article printed in the San Diego U-T newspaper, it had been intended that a potential 24,000 CNMWs, NPs and PAs be licensed.

The Ca. Nurses Assn, which had up to then been a major obstacle to the bill’s passage, announced during the hearing in the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee that the CNA is now “neutral.” Stephanie Roberson, CNA lobbyist stated that they will no longer oppose the bill.

The final vote on the bill in the nine member Committee was a 4-4 tie with one legislator absent. It did not get a majority vote (5 of the 9) to pass out of committee, meaning that it can be retained in that committee and called up for reconsideration at the author’s request until the May 11th deadline.

Senators Lou Correa, (D-Santa Ana) 916-651-4034 and Juan Vargas, (D-Chula Vista) 916-651-4040, voted with the Republicans much to the consternation of the bill’s author since they normally can be counted on for supportive votes.

Senator Tony Strickland, (R-Santa Barbara) was absent-916-651-4019. All three legislators need to be called and requested to stick by their “NO” vote on this important bill.

Please also note that Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara is a major supporter of this legislation along with several other branches of Planned Parenthood within the state.

During the hearing one of Sen. Kehoe’s witnesses, Tracy Weitz, Ph.D Sociology, an employee of the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, and one of the authors of a report on the benefits of midwife abortions, announced that about half of the abortions performed across the country are done by non surgeons. She meant for the legislators to understand that these abortions were being done by midwives when, in fact, the reality is that these abortions were done by regular MDs, Family practice physicians, internal medicine Doctors, etc. Anyone with a general MD license.

Note: A recent mailing on this bill included information that the Bixby Center for Global Reproduction headquartered at UCSF had offered $5.00 to women who agreed to an abortion under this midwife training program. That has been found to be incorrect. The $5.00, though listed as an “incentive” was offered to the patients who agreed to return a survey following the abortion by those in training.

Our main focus, however, must remain on the funding–$4 million for this so-called training, who actually did the training and who were the donors? The author refuses to name one donor referring only to an "anonymous" donor.
______________________________
The term or reference to expanding the Scope of Practice of certain groups within the health care industry, is being found in several bills this term, including a couple of education bills, in which case its called education pipeline.

With SB 1338 it requires de-criminalizing first trimester abortion, perhaps, eventually allowing just anyone to kill a first trimester baby. With the other bills it mostly means that there is an attempt to move lower-level health care workers into rolls now assigned to doctors - expanding the work force and requiring little more than a high school education and a year or two of training.

This, in my estimation, after a few years of reading legislation, could well tie into education and charter school bills, setting up special academies within schools to train students rather than educate them academically. All of this to fulfill the presumed Obamacare produced demands for more and more medical workers but not requiring the commitment to expand expensive and long term education for doctors.
________________________
AB 154, Jim Beall, (D-Ssn Jose), Health Care Coverage: Mental Health Services.
This bill calls for an undefined expansion of mental illness not, according to the author, currently identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lV. It would require health insurance plans to cover treatment and this treatment would be for everyone with no apparent age restrictions.

A “mental illness” means whatever disorder will be defined as such in the DSM-lV and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The two things that bother me most are the reference to mental health for everyone - what constitutes mental health and who gets to make that definition?

Also some of the groups supporting this bill are tied to special interest groups and other legislation expanding scope of practice such as a bill to raise licensed Clinical Social Workers to the level of Marriage and Family Therapists, jumping over the extensive requirements imposed on MF Therapists that is not required of LCSWs.

AB 2561, Roger Hernandez, (D-W. Covina), Certified Surgical Technologists.
This bill authorizes an entirely new layer of medical technical certification for minimally trained health care workers. This group would be trained to assist in the surgical theater as a surgical technologist, assuming some of the duties turned over to them by nurses who now are responsible for these procedures such as:

Sterilizing instruments before and after surgeries.
Preparing the operating room
sponging or suctioning an operative site (could this be assisting the midwife in the performance of an abortion?)
Handling specimens.
Holding retractors, ….and, several more items

REQUIREMENTS: Surgical technologists must possess a high school diploma (or equivalent) and complete an accredited surgical technology training program. In California, the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs and the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education School accredits surgical technology programs offered by community colleges, vocational schools, universities, hospitals, and the military. Training programs typically last from 12 to 24 months and lead to a certificate, diploma, or associate degree.

Interestingly one of the opponents of the bill is the American Nurses Association/California - ANA/C (not to be confused with the CNA. They are rival lobbies). They are opposed because it would move a new class of medical worker into the arena now commanded by the nurses, transferring some of the duties and authority in the surgery and with patients care, to this group of workers.

This is also one of the major supporters of SB 1338 which would expand the role of CNMW, etc, into the role now held by doctors.

I find little in any of the bills I analyze that signals concern for the citizens and their care or education, and everything to do with promoting the special interest groups urging passage of legislation.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

Who’s behind the public policies that have led to millions dead from abortion?

This is part of the California Catholic Daily series, Faces of the American Holocaust, in which we put faces to those behind the mass murder of innocents in the U.S. 

Philip Darney 

Philip Darney, M.D. 69, considered to be one of the early pioneers of abortion and population control, is the director of the University of California San Francisco - Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. 
The center is the sponsor for the controversial project, HWPP #171, to train nurses, physician assistants, and midwives to be abortionists in California. 

(This project is now a bill, SB-1338, before the California legislature, sponsored by state senator, Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.) 

Far from being an independent, non-vested interest academic, Darney, has had a “life-long relationship with Planned Parenthood” as a determined activist, wearing medical garb and advancing a political agenda for population control. 

Darney stated in a 2004 that while attending UC Berkeley as a student in the 1960s he read Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb and became so motivated that he went to volunteer at the local Planned Parenthood clinic. 

“I wanted to do something with Planned Parenthood, and that started a life-long relationship with Planned Parenthood. I’ve never, from then on, not been involved in some way with Planned Parenthood, “said Darney. 

After a divorce from his first wife, Darney married Uta Landy, who had been the director of the National Abortion Federation in New York. The federation had been set up by Planned Parenthood. After leaving that position, Landy became president of the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. She now works for UCSF and is involved with the HWPP 171 project. 

In March 2012, Darney and Landy received the Margaret Sanger Award, the highest honor that Planned Parenthood can bestow. Sanger was a prominent American proponent of eugenics. 

Darney’s zeal is demonstrated in his affection for illegal abortionist, Harvey Karman. 

Darney describes Karman as a psychologist, but Karman was not a practicing psychologist, but an early promoter of abortion during the time when abortion was illegal. 

“Karman’s name is not known, yet his ingenuity and to some extent his courage has made safe abortion available to literally millions of women round the world,” said Darney, in his book, Surgical Abortion in the First Trimester. 

Karman’s name was known to Joyce Johnson, Los Angeles prosecutors, and to Jerry Brown. His rap sheet included nine felonies in Los Angeles County, many of these connected to his career as an abortionist. He had managed to kill Joyce Johnson in 1955 by performing an illegal abortion on her with a nutcracker in a hotel room. He was sent to prison for two and a half years, but was pardoned by Jerry Brown when he became governor in 1975. 

Darney accompanied Karman to Bangladesh in 1969 where they aborted thousands. 

Karman orchestrated the Philadelphia Massacre in 1972 with abortionist Kermit Gosling, now in jail for murder. The two of them conspired to hold an abortion promotion news event with a busload of women, predominantly pregnant black women, who would be aborted on Mother’s Day. Nine of the thirteen patients suffered serious complications from Karman’s “supercoil abortions.” 

Karman went on to affiliate with the Feminist Women’s Health Centers, do-it-yourself abortion advocates who later changed their name to Women’s Health Specialists, one of the sites that helped train nurses to become abortionists - to pave the way for the Kehoe bill, SB 1338. 

Karman died in 2008. 

Darney is scheduled to testify on behalf of the Kehoe bill in Sacramento this week.

© California Catholic Daily 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

CA Legislation Empowers Midwives To Perform Backyard Abortions

By CAMILLE GIGLIO

April 12, 2012 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - California Democrats have proposed a bill, SB1338, which is fatally flawed, morally, professionally and politically.

The bill, authored by Sen. Christine Kehoe, was amended this week and sent back to the Business and Professions Committee. A hearing date has been set, April 16, before the Senate Business and Professions Committee [chaired by Curren Price [D] and vice chaired by Bill Emmerson [R].

As worded now, the proposed legislation boldly confirms and acknowledges what opponents of laissez-faire abortion have claimed all along as being the bill’s agenda - downgrading the [now] illegal act of first trimester abortions being performed by anyone other than a licensed physician/surgeon, to the status of a simple legal health care procedure performed as a routine health care service by midwives. Additionally, it seems to confirm that midwives, nurse assistants and nurse practitioners have already been performing first trimester abortions in a clandestine manner without a specific license and with a minimal amount of training.

An interested party in this matter is the California Nursing Association. The Association has a history of support for "democratizing" abortion. For example the CNA aligned itself with a 2003 measure entitled the California’s Reproductive Privacy Act [Health and Safety Code 123460] which expanded the "Scope Of Practice" of this sub-group of medical workers. The Board of Registered Nursing also endorsed this legislation.

In general, it’s CNA’s view this bill is unnecessary because the aforementioned California’s Reproductive Privacy Act [Health and Safety Code had already substantially expanded the "Scope Of Practice" - as defined by law - of these practitioners.

In an April 11 telephone conversation, a spokesman for the group told us that it had preliminarily endorsed SB 1338 but had some reservations which were yet to be worked out. In a late arriving April 12 email, the spokesman provided the group’s now official written statement, "We now support the bill."

The Reproductive Privacy Act opened the door for midwives to be trained as abortionists. What SB 1338 does - and it’s a major change - is to decriminalize the act of killing a first trimester baby by "medical or aspiration abortion" by "mid-level providers," which is now clearly stated in the new bill.

One of the methods of abortion is the use of a manual aspirator, basically a syringe sized vacuum cleaner. In the 1980’s feminists began touting the benefits to women of private, in-home do-it-yourself abortions by manual aspiration. Women were encouraged to hold little training sessions in their own neighborhood to train other women or assist other women in aborting themselves. This they opined was the epitome of control. Unbelievably, this is now one of the training methods offered to the midwife classes in this pretend "workforce training" program [pogrom?]. This is, of course, illegal even under the current RPA, absent a license.

Feminists are claiming that this legislation is merely a recognition of what Roe v Wade sanctified - the act of killing babies as a mere natural part of the reproductive process. It is, in their minds, strictly a rite of female sisterhood - control of the process of life and death in the hands of the female.

Other states are considering similar legislation [Alabama for example] so this isn’t just another craven act by wing-nut CA Democrats.

The entire medical profession/industry is apparently supportive of this move. Some through their silence, like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, headquartered in Washington, D.C. A spokesman, Sean Tipton, speaking for this organization of fertility practice physicians, claims that it will remain neutral until and unless it hears from California associates in the CMA or CNA asking it to take a position either way.

The California Medical Association - CMA, has been stalling regarding its position on allowing nurses and midwives to move into an area of medicine currently held within the province of physicians and surgeons. Could this stall be an indication of their own ambivalence regarding doctors killing rather than birthing babies?

Will this heretofore highly regarded profession stand up for women and their well-being or will they capitulate to the harridan cult of the feminists?

We note the absence of the Catholic Physicians Guild in this matter, a major failing for a faith already in serious trouble. What skewed view of morality would cause UCSF to lend its name and prestige as a teaching hospital, to apply for a workforce development waiver, HWP171, so that Planned Parenthood can be given legal protection in training these midwives?

Every year for the last 4 years they have submitted a request for a waiver because the training is illegal without the blessing of the government waiver.

These waivers are surprisingly seen by some physician groups as being necessary simply to determine the risk factors associated with providing what are currently classified as surgical abortions in an environment which lacks the presence of a physician. A knowledgeable source who requested anonymity, indicated as much, stressing the experimental nature of such programs and the need for data.

A January 17, 2012 piece on this issue published by CalCatholic.com stated, "…more than 8,000 such abortions have already been performed by nurse practitioners, physicians-assistants and certified midwives in California as part of a University of California-San Francisco study approved by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development…" [source, Redefining a crime out of existence, http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=3fc7dfc2-73a4-4731-b575-671f8529559f]

Were these women informed that non-doctors were aborting them with as little as 3-6 days of training in suction abortions or prescribing medications?

What’s next, back yard hysterectomies and tubal ligations?

There is a thoroughly racist haze surrounding this entire matter, as the group of women which will serve as [possibly unknowing] guinea pigs will be drawn from what is euphemistically called under-served communities.

This legislation then clearly has its sights set, targeting poor Latina and Afro-American women mostly. Will they be denied the opportunity for informed consent? Will they know that non professionals will be using them as the equivalent of crash test dummies?

If past practices can serve as any kind of guide, these so called feminists who scream the "right to choice" at the drop of a condom aren’t going to let these women decide anything.

Under the flimsy guise of expanding women’s access to reproductive care and the jobs market for health care workers, the promoters of SB 1338 claim that women in rural or "under-served" communities don’t have access to clinics, or enough doctors to supervise their health. So, pretend train more workers and ask for increased funding.

A 31 page 2012 report entitled, California’s Rural Health Clinics: Obstacles and Opportunities, published by the California HealthCare Foundation praises the work of rural health clinics, declaring that the overwhelming majority of services provided are already government funded, "Medi-Cal paid for 42% of visits and Medicare paid for 22% of visits to RHCs in the last fiscal years of the RHCs surveyed." [source, http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA LIBRARY Files/PDF/C/PDF CARuralHealthClinics.pdf, pg. 2]

As an addendum, there are a number of bills keyed at "expanding the health care jobs market," all with special interests in mind:

AB 70, Bill Monning,[D] Department of Public Health: Funding. This has gone through the Assembly and is awaiting assignment in the Senate.

AB 232, V. Manual Perez, [D], Community Development Block Grants. This is a Work force development program, ala the PPACA/Obama jobs program.

AB 714, Toni Atkins, [D], Health Care Coverage.

AB 916, V. Manuel Perez, Health: Under-served Communities. This promotes hiring Community Health Care Workers, i.e. Promotores, to be assigned to communities to seek out patients in "under-served" health care communities.

It’s these minority communities where the new midwife abortionists will be unleashed.

There is a pro life pregnancy assistance clinic in a very poor segment of Los Angeles surrounded by 9 abortion clinics. The abortion clinics have been known to send volunteers out into the streets with flyers announcing abortions for sale. They follow cars, stop people on the streets, selling abortions at half price or free. Will this become common? Will every pregnant women be stalked by a midwife hungry for employment?

There is an online article carrying the emblem of the University of California entitled, Increasing Access to Health Care in California with Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse-Midwives, and Physician Assistants: A Demonstration Project in Early Abortion Care, August, 2011, authored by Tracy A. Weitz, PhD, MPA. In the document, Ms. Weitz states, "Expanding access to health care is an important public health goal. One way to achieve this goal is to increase the number of health care providers offering services by advancing their "scope of practice." [definition: activities that an individual health care practitioner is permitted to perform within a specific profession]

Wetiz continues, suggesting an argument for broadening the scope of services which non-physicians can perform, "In California, the State Legislature enacts scope of practice laws and major changes to those laws…From this scope of practice perspective, a compelling argument can be made that early aspiration abortion care is within the scope of Nurse Practitioners [NPs], Certified Nurse Midwives [CNMs] and Physician Assistants, [PAs] Abortion is a common healthcare need for women which lacks a sufficient provider workforce." [source, Increasing Access to Health Care in California with Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse-Midwives, and Physician Assistants: Demonstration Project in Early Abortion Care.]

Placing midwives in clinics, licensed to abort, removes the need for any doctor to be present either in person or on the phone. Midwives make far less in income than doctors so, for the clinics, abortions will become less expensive. For the taxpayer, undoubtedly, there will be no decrease in cost since clinics are pretty much allowed to charge whatever the traffic will bear.

Below, the members of the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee and contact information:

Curren Price, [D-LA], Chair. 916-651-4026
Bill Emmerson, [R-Riverside]. 916-651-4037
Ellen Corbet, [D-San Leandro] 916-651-4010
Lou Correa [D-Santa Ana], 916-651-4034
Ed Hernandez, [D-W. Covina] 916-651-4024
Gloria Negrete McLeod, [D-Montclair] 916-651-4032
Juan Vargas, [D-Chula vista], 916-651-4040
Mimi Walters, [R-Laguna Hills], 916-651-4033
Mark Wyland, [R-Carlsbad] 916-651-4038

© 2012 Camille Giglio. All rights reserved.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News, General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

San Diego Senator Christine Kehoe, (D), has submitted a bill to the California legislature, SB 1501, Abortion, which is making waves throughout the national media.

This bill would recognize an expanded list of non-physicians–mainly nurses, nurse practitioners and midwives–who are licensed and authorized to commit abortions, especially first trimester suction abortions and chemical abortions.

On Tuesday, February 27th, Kehoe has stated that:
"We believe it will give many California women access to earlier, safer procedures in the first trimester of their pregnancy," She said, further, that she was introducing the bill because “half of California’s counties do not have an abortion provider.”

She is also motivated by a long lingering fear within the radical feminist/abortion camp that men will somehow regain control over women’s bodies and prohibit abortions forcing women into a pregnancy bondage. They display photos of Congressional hearings depicting men only giving testimony regarding abortion as their proof.

This bill represents the oldest most radical element within the pro abortion/Feminist stable of followers. This is a first step towards a long sought do-it-yourself abortion sorority or sisterhood. The internet is filled with groups advocating and doing the training of and execution of do-it-yourself suction abortion kits for women in the privacy of their own homes. Several of these groups are within the San Diego/Los Angeles area as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area. Women are, apparently according to these groups, committing their own abortions and assisting (illegally) other women to abort themselves. All in the name of privacy.

Almost practically guaranteeing successful passage is the support by the two most powerful leaders in the legislature, principle co-authors, Assembly leader, John Perez, (D-L.A.) and Senate Leader, Darrell Steinberg,(D-Sacramento.)

Contra Costa Senator Mark DeSaulnier(D), is listed as a Senate co-author along with several other Bay Area legislators– Sen. Loni Hancock, (D-Oakland) Nancy Skinner, (DOakland). Sen. Mark Leno, (D-SF) Asm Tom Ammiano, (D-SF)– as well as certain other members of the LGBT legislative caucus.

California was one of the five original states to pass legalized abortion in 1967. We were assured then, that abortion would be performed in a clean, safe, sanitary hospital by compassionate doctors of unquestioned medical principle, for the few women whose lives were threatened by a pregnancy.

Though that original, limited-access-to-abortion, legislation was signed by Governor Reagan. It was Jerry Brown who, during his first term as Governor, following Reagan, following Roe v Wade, expanded the reach of the abortionists to California’s minor children through the Minor Consent Act. He also refused to cooperate with then federal reporting requirements for reimbursement for reproductive costs and declared that the state of California would bear the full cost of state sanctioned abortions, thereby not having to be accountable to anyone.

This bill requires changes to state Business and Professions Code, Section 2253, relating to licensing and training of nurses, nurse practitioners and those working in the medical field who would be eligible for licensing to perform abortions. It changes the definition of what is an illegal abortion.

The bill is endorsed by the ACLU, Health Access, Nat’l Abortion Rights Action League - NARAL. Several amendments are expected to be added as the bill moves through the legislature. Please stay tuned for further developments. The bill is expected to move quickly.

Gov. Brown, according to Governor watchdog groups, estimate that he will once again be instrumental in expanding access and lowering standards in regard to abortion practices.

The bill was submitted to the legislature on February 24, 2012. All bills have a 30 day waiting period before being assigned to a committee. This is the time to contact your local senator and assembly member to register firm but polite opposition to this further degradation of women, babies and humanity in general. You will find your local legislator’s information in the front section of your phone book, or go to www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

Camille Giglio

1. Federal regulations.
2. Catholic Church in California
______________________________________________

RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE ACT(S) IN CONGRESS.

Several people have now received responses from their members of Congress, following the urgings of various national pro life groups to send emails to their U.S. representatives in the house and Senate, urging support for H.R. 1179, by Cong. Jeff Fortenberry, (R-Ne) and S.1467 by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO). These bills would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The responses from Cong. George Miller, (D-Martinez, Ca) and from Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-Ca) as to their reasons for opposing these bills protecting conscience rights of health care workers. has enraged the recipients.

As you are aware the Obama administration presented a mandate to Catholic Bishops, and basically, through that body to all Catholics, that birth control would be required to be included in health insurance policies provided by Catholic facility employers to all employees with no opt-out arrangement protecting the previously sacred right of conscientious refusal protecting a health care worker or others from violating their consciences.

This was looked upon by the Obama Administration as part and parcel of the required services provided through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – PPACA.

There has been such a storm of protest from Catholic, Protestant and non-religious Charitable Organizations that the Administration has since appeared to back down but, in reality is only rewording their mandate and attempting to place the burden on all health insurers which would include the Catholic Church and others who are self insurers. We the taxpayers and health insurance buyers would still be paying the bill and violating our consciences.

Here in a letter dated 2/9/2012, is what Feinstein bases her opposition on: “This bill would

1. Allow a health insurer or healthcare provider to decline coverage or deny services contrary to the insurer or provider’s religious believes or moral convictions.
2. Prevent Prescriptions of contraceptives or allowing minors to donate organs [which] may be against a provider’s moral convictions. (Emphasis added)
3. Prohibit the state health insurance exchanges, from discriminating against any entity that chooses to decline coverage and services based on religious beliefs or moral convictions.

In other words, the health care exchanges could not sue the people or agencies refusing to provide a certain morally repugnant, conscience violating service.

She also claims that the PPACA already includes a Provider Conscience protection clause. This is the bone of contention between the PPACA supporters and opposers. The opposers of the conscientious freedom right as written into the PPACA state that this so-called conscience protection clause actually violates the religious freedom clauses of the Constitution.

The PPACA supporters claim that since the Catholic Church, through its hospitals and Catholic Charity work and educational facilities, esp. serve not only Catholics but people of other faiths that they should not be held to this right of refusal to provide based on a conscience conviction to not participate in mandates such as universal provision of birth control and refusal to refer for reproductive services that violate their individual consciences. (See American Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2011, entitled Religious exemptions to the PPACA’s Health Insurance Mandate, by Samuel T. Grover, Boston University - School of Law.)
______________________________

The original Conscience Clause bill, was written following the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court Decision.

“The earliest national conscience clause law in the United States, which was enacted
immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, applied only to abortion
and sterilization. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The Church Amendment,
passed by the Senate on a vote of 92-1, exempted private hospitals receiving federal funds under
the Hill-Burton Act, Medicare and Medicaid from any requirement to provide abortions or
sterilizations when they objected on “the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Nearly
every state enacted similar legislation by the end of the decade—often with the support of
legislators who otherwise supported abortion rights. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, the
author of Roe vs. Wade, endorsed such clauses “appropriate protection” for individual physicians
and denominational hospital.” Wikipedia, Conscience Clause (medical), History.
______________________________

I would also call attention to Feinstein’s statement that this Right of Conscience would prevent minors from donating organs. I couldn’t believe that she would be supportive of allowing minors, without parental knowledge or consent, to register as an organ donor. Think of depressed students who might contemplate suicide because of their belief that their lives are so wretched why not die and let someone else more worthy have my organs?

I phoned her Washington, D.C. office and spoke with an Aide.

The Aide rather coldly stated that she did support minor organ donations and that, in California, it was already a law that minors could donate their organs without parental consent or knowledge.

Well, he was not completely correct. In fact he was downright misleading. The law stipulates that this right to donate organs is “provisional until age 18.” There are, currently active, 6 federal bills and two state bills dealing with organ donations. Where there is any mention in the bill about organ donation and minors there is the stipulation that it is only provisional until the person reaches the age of 18. This includes two bills written by Jackie Speier when she was in the state legislature, 2001, SB 108 and 2003, SB 112.

Last year there was a bill, AB 1118, Health Education; Organ and Tissue Transplant, by Assembly member John Perez, (failed passage) which would have required that health Education classes for 9th and 10th graders include a section on the benefits of organ and tissue donation. This would encompass students ages 13-15 leading up to their registering for a driver’s license preparing them to think about organ donations, maybe even especially unpaired organ donations, or, where there are not two of each, but only one, like a heart.

There is a very worthwhile book by John Andrew Amour on the subject of organ donation entitled Finis Vitae–Is “Brain Death” True Death? It is reviewed by long time pro life activist Randy Engel, written for RenewAmerica. http://renewamerica.com/columnists/engel/120127.

There is also another bill in Congress on the subject of Conscience Rights. S. 2043 submitted by Florida Republican Marco Rubio on 1/30/2012, which would amend the Public Health Service Act to include a Right of Conscience Clause.

All of these bills are sitting idle in their respective houses. Only your energetic phone calls, urgings and support to the authors will put these bills into action.

Now, while this is outrage enough. Here is the letter from George Miller declaring his opposition to amending the PPACA for a right of conscience.

1. It would undermine a fundamental principle of medical care.
2. It would make unenforceable requirements that ensure coverage of abortion to save a woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest.
3. A hospital would be able to use this clause to refuse treatment of a patient whose life depends on having an abortion.

What, is Planned Parenthood not doing abortions anymore?

4. A hospital could bypass the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ––EMTALA–– that requires hospitals to treat all patients…..in need of emergency medical services, especially women who come in for abortions.

EMTALA was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. It was designed to “prevent patient dumping” (Sec. (e)(1). It declared that any patient presenting themselves to a hospital with an emergency life-threatening condition had a right to receive appropriate services on the spot, so to speak without being transferred to some other facility prior to stabilizing that patient.

One of the examples given was the treatment of any woman presenting herself as in active labor. Many anchor babies (children of illegal immigrants) have arrived in the world this way. The mother, afraid to go to a doctor for pregnancy care because of her illegal status places herself and her unborn child in medical danger while awaiting the due date. She then gets herself down to a hospital emergency room and must be cared for by law.

This is only one of the misuses of an otherwise worthwhile piece of legislation. Miller abuses the intent in this instant by claiming that pregnancy is a life threatening condition and includes abortion as a medical care service.

His claim that the Right of Conscience as being presented in HR 1179 would undercut EMTALA is patently false.

And lastly:

We have just learned a very sad thing. Some Catholic parishioners have been wondering why a letter from their Bishop on this subject of conscience rights was not delivered from the pulpits of every Catholic Church the last couple of weekends as it was rumored that it would be.

The answer, apparently, lies in the statement, recently released from one Chancery office, that distribution of contraceptives services by Catholic Organizations has been ongoing for the last 10 years in California especially through such facilities as Catholic Charities.

This fact requires careful scrutiny, apparently, of whether or not Catholic Bishops in California can oppose the Obama mandate or be considered as hypocrites.

In the year 2000, Catholic Charities of Sacramento filed suit against the state of California claiming that the state’s contraceptive coverage law [is] unconstitutional because it forces the agency to violate its religious beliefs – Catholic Charities v Superior Court.

Catholic Charities lost that battle. They were declared to be not an integral part of the Catholic Church because of its services to a broad spectrum of peoples of various faiths or no faiths. By the way, the pro aborts refer to it as “refusal clauses.”

Many Catholic Church Watchers believed that the case was, possibly, mishandled by Catholic Charities. The onus of the court decision mandating compliance fell on Catholic Hospitals to comply with court findings. No legal body took the Catholic Church’s defense any farther.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

Included here are some excerpts from Abby Johnson’s take on the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco to which I am adding some thoughts that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere yet.

By Abby Johnson Former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director        5:28 PM 02/03/2012

People who run private charities that award grants to Planned Parenthood have got to be wondering if their organizations will receive the “Komen Treatment,” a mafia-style shakedown, if they ever decide not to fund the group.

The people who run Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, want money and don’t care who they have to beat down in order to get it.

As a former manager and employee….. of a Planned Parenthood in Texas, I know what Planned Parenthood does for women’s health, and it sickens me. At my clinic, we didn’t have cancer screening quotas to fill — we had abortion quotas to fill, because that’s what made us money…. We would send low-income women to a mammography and diagnostic center that would provide the services for free.

But here’s the kicker: If a low-income woman comes in to Planned Parenthood for a breast exam, the federal government will pay for it. The Komen money isn’t really necessary. Taxpayers give $1 million a day to Planned Parenthood, more than enough to cover free cancer screenings. And if the government wised up and stopped funding the abortion giant, the underprivileged and uninsured would be fine because there are over 7,000 federally qualified health centers around the country that serve the underprivileged and uninsured — many of which provide free cancer screenings.

Komen did not need to apologize for cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood. The abortion giant thinks it is above the law even though it is under criminal investigation for many, many good reasons — it has defrauded Medicaid to the tune of millions of dollars and has been caught on tape telling 13- and 14-year-olds how to get abortions after being impregnated by men in their 30s and telling pimps how to get secret abortions for young girls who are being used for sex trafficking.

Abby Johnson is the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas and the author of Unplanned, which chronicles both her experiences within Planned Parenthood and her dramatic exit.

I think its interesting that, apparently, today is National Cancer Awareness month. Komen itself does no research for cures nor medical care for women. It is a fundraising organization distributing private funds to organizations of their choice which, has since its founding included Planned Parenthood which also, according to Amy Johnson’s report, does no research or care for breast cancer patients.

There are sixteen cancer research organizations living off of private donations but none of them receive the media and political support that Komen and Planned Parenthood receives. No legislator or Newspaper editor is writing columns demanding that money be given to them. why not?

What’s so special about Komen? Since when have members of Congress gotten involved with putting pressure on groups to give funding to organizations of their, the legislators, choice?

Have you noticed that in all the newspaper coverage denouncing Pro Lifers not one paper or TV newscast has interviewed a pro life representative? They have also allowed themselves to be used by political figures like New York’s Mayor Michael Blumberg who donated $200,000 to Planned Parenthood because he was so outraged at what we Pro Lifers supposedly did. I guess I should say “Thanks for the compliment.”

I wonder if it was really Blumberg’s own money he gave? And you notice that they take Planned Parenthood’s word on the donations receives through other sources because of this “horrendous” incident, but Planned Parenthood won’t say how much has been donated? This has been a ploy of theirs over the years. When their funding or client levels drop they gin up some excuse to protest “pro life/right wing” influence and then proudly announce how much new money they received in donations. Years ago it used to be late night fires at clinics or break-ins at clinics for which they would run to the media crying foul and demanding that pro lifers own up to this loss. Now, its public intimidation against agencies that don’t even have anything to do with pro lifers.

The media has truly become the official designated government arm to stand up in the public arena and publicly denounce citizens and groups with which the government is displeased even though they have nothing to do with an agency’s final decision.

Pro Lifers have been trying for years to convince Komen to stop funding Planned Parenthood. We all have received their canned disavowal of our pleas. Suddenly, they hire a new director who makes a startling new discovery about what Planned Parenthood is really doing?

The official denouncers make much of our ability to intimidate groups and pressure private agency decisions, but I note that they have heaped praise on those who have intimidated Komen to continue their payments to the Planned Parenthood mafia in order to secure insurance against public condemnation.

I smell the winds of collusion, here. This is election time, folks, anything goes. This little one-act play will become a litmus test for politicians. They may well be asked to take a side. Are they with Komen and Planned Parenthood or with the right of freedom of speech to expose misleading information and activities in either the public or private sector?

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

Walk for Life West Coast was attended by an estimated 50,000 pro life men, women and teens. They assembled this year at the UN Plaza facing San Francisco City Hall rather than at Justin Hermann Plaza near the waterfront.

This bright, sunny day was sandwiched in between two very rainy and cold days. The Plaza was filled with young people like Robert from San Jose Students for Life, carrying signs, one of which I especially liked; it said: "We vote Pro Life First."
 
This was not an isolated reference to the politics involved in the promotion of abortion. The Rev. Childress, the closing speaker for the morning’s program, providing the audience with his usual rousing presentation, pointed to City Hall looming behind him, calling attention to the grey presence of politicians in supporting abortion.

Unlike the Washington, D.C. march for Life, held on Monday, January 23rd, which invites pro life politicians to address the audience, and focuses on the evil of abortion to the babies; the San Francisco Walk for Life focuses on the destructive physical and emotional nature of abortion for women. Eva Montean opened the day’s events with the acknowledgement that today’s event is not about abortion it’s about women’s suffering.

Lori Hoye, wife of Walter Hoye of Issues4life, the first speaker, flanked by 8 religious Nuns for Life of New York, gave her compelling story of learning, following her older sister’s abortion, that she herself had been an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy which her mother had, apparently, regretted not aborting. She was followed by Jackie Stallnaker of Episcopalians for Life accompanied on stage by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and a group of Silent No More men and women, who described being forced at gunpoint by her boyfriend to undergo an abortion.

A Doctor Wong, dressed in green operating room scrubs, told of regretting his long association with abortion as a financial matter to pay off his Medical school expenses until he met up with the pro lifers at a Sacramento based Pregnancy Center where he now devotes a major portion of his time and talent.

At the close of the presentations, the crowd processed over to Market Street and began the mile or so walk to Justin Hermann Plaza and the Walk’s conclusion.

It was eerie walking down the middle of Market St. with few pedestrian onlookers, homeless, cars, trucks, etc. The S.F. police had done such a good job of diverting traffic that there was little or no opposition from or exposure to the general populace out on a normal, busy Saturday afternoon. Only a meager handful of pro abort protesters were in evidence.

The most prominent feature of the walk was to see the shuttered and boarded up businesses along Market St. No more customers. San Francisco’s much beloved Occupiers and liberals loudly blame the Republicans and wealthy for the loss of jobs and cuts in tax funded enterprises, but seldom take notice of the fact that there are upwards of 50 million fewer people in America and especially in California, the capitol of the abortion business. There are many fewer people aged 39 and under and including their offspring, to become customers or taxpayers. That’s where many of the businesses have gone…down the drain with the aborted babies.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio. 11/13/2011

Here is a listing of the actual carry-over health related bills that I wrote about in my last legislative alert analysis. Between now and January some of these bills will be amended, some will retain their current language. They all need to receive letters from you expressing your position if the children and dependent adults are to receive any type of protection.

AB 491 Anthony Portantino. HIV Testing. Currently in the Senate Health Committee.

Asserts that no written informed consent is required to consent to an HIV test. Also declared that it is Califoronia’s intent to test 550,000 California residents for HIV as required to meet the requirements of the federal health care mandates.
Adds the term “HIV Counselor” to the list of persons approved to administer the tests.
The question must be asked and answered as to whether those to be targeted for testing will be grade and high school students? Whether they will be tested during school time and without parental consent.

AB 792, Susan Bonilla, Health Care Coverage: Health Benefit Exchange.

Health Benefit Exchanges are a requirement of the federal Affordable Care Act. It contains certain mandates to which states must conform in order to receive the federal tax dollars. This mandates access and disclosure of information on health care coverage through the Exchange by a wide variety of government agencies, insurers, employers, with a filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage, adoption, etc.
Should someone withdraw from or fail to renew their health coverage with a certain agency they will be automatically assigned to a government stipulated insurer.

AB 714 is a companion bill by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (author of AB 499) with the same title but specifically covers cancer treatments and screenings and brings in the Family PACT program. Family PACT stands for Family Planning Access and Care. This group, government created, is filled with abortion contraception providers and this bill allows them to be opted-out of providing information to other inquiring agencies.

AB 479 by Asm Brian Nestande, In-Home Supportive Services Program.

This remains a very sketchy, spot-type bill leading one to worry as to what it will turn into. It merely suggests that it should implement reforms to the IHSS - In-home Supportive Services for the elderly and shut-in.

Nestande was formerly an aide to Congressman Sonny Bono and his wife, Mary. They were not known for their conservative or family oriented values. Their daughter, Chastity is now Mr. Chas Bono.

AB916, V.Manuel Perez, Health: Underserved Communities.

This bill is similar to to another bill that would have established Promoters, basically health care salesmen and organizers within immigrant communities. This bill would establish Task Force on the Health care Needs of Farm workers to develop a comprehensive agenda of programs and public policy initiatives designed to address the health care needs of farm workers. In other words, an advocacy committee to sign up unsuspecting families as consumers of government health care with all its anti-family programs of abortion and, especially family planning.

AB 1118, John Perez, Pupil Instruction: Health Education Organ and Tissue. Assembly Appropriatios Committee.
Mandates that the Education department establish a health framework education component instructing 9th and 10th graders in the benefits of organ and tissue donation. This is sort of an encouragement to accept the principle that the parts are greater (worth more) than the whole. An organization entitled Donate Life is the sponsor. Twenty-one other organ donation organizations are in support. There is no listed opposition.

Related legislation is AB 739 by Bonnie Lowenthal and Julia Brownley to include Suicide Prevention in the instructional school programs grades 7-12. Can you imagine 5 years of instruction in not killing yourself? How depressing can that be?

AB 1217, Felipe Fuentes, Assisted Reproduction. Senate Judiciary Committee.

This bill is very murky. Its sponsor is one Andrew Vorzimer, attorney for Reproductive assisted births. He writes a blog entitled The Spin Doctor and is an activist advocate for homosexual adoptions. He is also, through this bill, endorsing assisted reproduction whereby the male who donates the sperm is legally declared the father while his “spouse” could be declared the mother.

SB 135. Ed Hernandez, Hospice Facilities. Senate Appropriations Committee.

Though lengthy, this congregate living care facility type bill is vague. It appears to be coordinating and consolidating licensing and regulations for hospice type facilities.
Ron Panzer of Hospice Patients Alliance expressed concern over the lack of definition of what patients can be housed in the same facility. Will the terminally ill (near death) patients be housed with the merely disabled?

This type bill is enthusiastically promoted by Compassion in Choices type organizations - formerly known as death and dying programs.

Please write letters of opposition to either the committee in which the bill is being held or to the author of the legislation. Every letter can be sent to the same address: C/o State Capitol, Sacramento, Ca 95814.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment