California Right to Life Advocates

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

by Camille Giglio

“Get them out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a marketplace!”
John 2:16

I have been struggling to make sense of all the Health related legislation that has now been either chaptered or held over as two-year bills. Today while reading the Gospel passage from John on the Cleansing of the Temple, it occurred to to me that if, as we were taught in our bible studies, the body is the temple of the Lord then it is possible that Jesus did not mean the word temple to be just a building.

As I stated in a previous legislative report, this year’s education bills, are less about education and more about workforce development. So too, are the health care bills more about turning the human body and mind into a commodity to be delivered to a massive, bureaucratic industry called health care.

Of the total number of health care bills that CRLC tracked, fifteen were chaptered, 18 were turned into two-year bills and two were vetoed. A total of 13 bills were written to include the general intent of protecting, supporting and providing counseling and training for teachers to enable them to administer services to students as recommended by the homosexual community in a variety of clinic or educational or non-clinical settings. Seven were chaptered. One, related to AB 1156, Pupils: Bullying, by Mike Eng, (D-El Monte) was vetoed, AB 86, by Tony Mendoza, (D-Norwalk), The anti-bullying segments contained in AB 1156 would have carried over to vetoed AB 86, Charter Schools: Authorization: Petition.

Assembly Joint Resolution AJR-10 by Julia Brownley memorialized the legislature’s support for school based clinics as authorized by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - PPACA. It also calls upon the legislature to support SBC partnerships to create medical homes for all children and to permanently include funding for these centers in the reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act - ESEA - which is coming up soon.

This resolution passed the assembly 48-23 with 8 others not voting. Nathan Fletcher, Republican voted “yes” and Bill Berryhill, (R) did not vote.

CRLC was the only official opposition to this resolution.

Resolutions do not, presumably, carry the weight of a bill, however, this resolution has
some significance. The author argues that: “School health centers provide access and services for students. Typically these services include; screenings, immunizations, physicals and assessments.”

I believe that this Resolution shows the clear intent of the Democrat controlled legislature to center all health care “services” within the school setting, thereby completely removing any parental involvement with their child’s physical and mental health needs. SBC’s focus first and foremost in low-income, immigrant neighborhoods. If health care services are provided at school during the school day most of these parents, especially, would not be able to get off of work to attend their children.

AB 491, Anthony Portantino, (D-Pasadena) HIV Testing. This is a two-year bill sponsored by the Aids Health Care Foundation. A spokesman for the legislator has stated that there will be amendments offered by January as recommended by the ACLU.

The Aids Health Care Foundation is a nationwide, powerful, tax-funded agency with an aggressive legislative agenda. The bill states that it is the intent of the federal government to test 6 million people for HIV. It further states that it is California’s intent to test 500,000 residents and offer services which the patient can refuse, but which refusal will be carefully recorded.

The bill would amend the definition of medical care provider to include “or HIV counselor” (non-medical, possibly advocate for?) as the authorized person to give the tests and refer for treatment.

Treatment and testing can be provided in a clinical or non-clinical setting and amends current law removing the word “written” informed consent leaving only informed consent for testing and treatment.

Is that a nod of the head, a shrug of the shoulders, an orally stated “Yes” or what?

The bill further states that: “routine HIV testing is essential to any comprehensive HIV prevention program.”

Gardasil is now considered to be a preventive program. AJR 10 calls for full expansion of school based clinics (sounds like the medical homes called for) providing screenings, assessments and immunizations.

I asked Assemblyman Portantino’s Aide the following in the form of questions. He could not answer my questions saying that he hadn’t given much attention to the bill because he had just had it assigned to him.

Now, think about this: Gardasil will not be effective if a person is already HIV infected. Gardasil will be given to 11 year olds and up in the school (non-clinical) setting. They will need to, or as prudence would council, should logically test children to be sure that they do not already have HIV in their system. It would be useless to give that child Gardasil, but it would be essential to test that child and refer that student to treatment.

Tony Adkins, AB 499, Gardasil, was an obvious vehicle to gain services for homosexually active students, getting to them first with the gardasil shot to prevent them from becoming HIV infected, SB 48 by Mark Leno calls for the schools to become major promoters of the homosexual lifestyle and a previous bill of Leno’s authorizes students to consent to their own mental health counseling and care services.

We know that with the advent of classroom sex education, experimentation occurred producing venereal diseases and pregnancies. Can we expect anything different with the inclusion of education in the benefits of a homosexual lifestyle?

AB 1118 by John Perez, Pupil Instruction: Health Education: Organ and Tissue. A two-year bill. Requires the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission and the State Board of Education to include course work on the subject of organ procurement and tissue donation for pupils in grades 9 and 10. This is promoted as developing knowledge of “lifesaving results.”

Another reason why students need to be HIV free.

One bill deserving of our support is AB1348, Pupils: Parental Consent, by Alan Mansoor, (R-Costa Mesa). This would prohibit school officials from from excusing a minor pupil, grades 1-12, from leaving the school campus without written parent or legal guardian consent.

Would also prohibit conducting mental health screenings or testing without written parental consent without a signed parental consent submitted not less than 45 days prior to the testing; and requires parental consent for certain exams, questionnaires, or surveys which may be given or administered by minor pupils.

On a different subject.

I attended a meeting in which the speaker, Dr. Theresa Deisher, Ph.D. a scientist spoke on the subject of embryonic stem cells vs adult stem cells and the health related benefits attributed to the adult stem cell therapies currently being employed.

Dr. Deisher, formerly a scientist with a well-known Washington state based research and development company in the use of embryonic stem cells left that agency and has formed her own research company, www.avmbiotech.com for the research into vaccines that do not contain embryonic stem cell material. She has also formed an organization entitled www.soundchoice.org., which researches and recommends vaccines without aborted fetal stem cells.

During a Q and A period Dr. Deisher was asked if there was a relationship between embryonic stem cells and Autism. She declared that the incidence of autism was consistently low until 1988 when it took a sharp upwards trend and, again in the 1990’s another sharp upwards trend. Scientists looking for any corollary events that might explain this very sudden and sharp rise eliminated all possibilities until they came to the date of 1988 when aborted fetal cells were introduced into vaccines.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

Total Bills submitted to the legislature for 2011 session……………………….2,637
    Assembly bills……………………………1433
        Enacted……………………………448
        Vetoed…………………………….. 65
    Senate bills…………………………………948
        Enacted……………………………297
        Vetoed…………………………….. 60

Bills tracked by CRLC…………………………..391
    Bills we opposed………………109
    Chaptered……………………….72/109

The above numbers do not equal the sum of the total bills. Many bills failed in committee, 6 of the bills we followed were vetoed and approximately 46 bills are carry-overs to be considered as soon as the legislature returns sometime in November.

Of the chaptered bills we tracked 28 were Education bills, at least 19 of which have little to do with educating children, per se, dealing more with creating partnerships with the health department and Workforce Development agencies. Several of these bills are carry-overs.

On October 26, 2011, the online publication called Capitol Alert featured an interview with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (formerly San Francisco’s Mayor) - “Newsom calls for ‘pattern interrupt’ on jobs, higher educaton.” As Lieutenant Governor, Newsom is a member of the UC Regents and the CSU trustees. He is calling for a “unified higher education system.”

In plain language he is suggesting that education in California is in such a crisis that it requires calling for an abrupt change in the goals and purpose of education. He would also like us to believe that he is intimately involved in this change.

Could this be his opening wedge for a Governorship Campaign?

In this article Newsom is quoted as saying that the current (60 year old) master plan for hgher education is outdated. (that’s what some liberals say about our Constitution, too) He is promising a “different narrative” for higher education by the end of the year. “We’re going to come up with some out-of-the box recommendations,” he told the Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Bureau.

In March, 2011, I presented a four page report on the original Education Master Plan, developed in 1959 and titled the Margaret Donahoe Higher Education Act. It contained 6 very basic main themes. Over the years this Act has, through legislation, been amended and expanded numerous times to the point that it hardly resembles the original bill until now it carries 53 Recommendations for improving education and includes unifying California’s educational goals to include newborn, pre-K, Child Care, and on up to community college along with health care clinics, workforce development and any variety of Newsom’s “out-of-the box” innovations.

Chaptered bills that stipulate changes to the Donahoe Higher Education Act:

• AB 130 and AB 131 by Gil Cedillo,(D), opening up California’s education to illegals.
• AB 668 and AB 670 by Marty Block,(D), 668 allows a college student to take tests when its most convenient for that student removing undue hardships upon the student. 670 deals with student ability to successfully appeal denial of admission claims.
• AB 684 also by Block deals with Trustee Elections placing changes in the hands of unelected board members.
• Ab 844 by Ricardo Lara, (D), permits students who are without California lawful status, to run for student government and receive any grant, scholarship, fee waiver, or expense reimbursement relating to community college board membership.
• AB 1237 by Brian Nestande, (R), stipulates what monies may be used in support of remedial instruction in coursework for obtaining college credit.
• SB 611 by Darrell Steinberg,(D), This is the shortest but most dangerous of these bills.
• It brings Career Technical Education programs - CTE, into the college setting.
• Carry Overs: SB 760, Elaine Alquist and SB 181 Carol Liu, make changes to the Cal Grant Program and Public Postsecondary Education student fee policies.

Other education bills either chaptered or carry-overs, though not amending the Donahoe Act, fulfill certain of the goals already amended into the ACT.

• SB 30, Joe Simitian,(D), Kindergarten Admission Age. Will assign some early 5 year olds to pre-K classes following evaluation for readiness. One of the recommendations of the current Donahoe Act is to provide for instructional programs for 3 year olds. This is just taking it one step at a time.
• AB 1330, Warren Furutani,(D), Graduation Requirements: Career Technical Ed. Adds CTE as an alternate graduation credit. This is one of the items that Gavin Newsom refers to as a unifying action.
• AB 746, Nora Campos,(D), Pupils: Cyber Bullying. Chaptered. Reference to the Interagency School Safety Demonstration Act of 1985 creating the School/Law Enforcement Partnership Act to monitor social networking internet web sites. Could be the beginning wedge for invading student and family privacy.
• AB 747, Alyson Huber, Pupil Instruction: Online Programs. Refers to distance learning which means that both student and teacher are engaged in classroom instruction online or offsite. Note: a previous bill approved a designated school site to receive ADA (average daily attendance fee) for this type instruction.

End of term report to be continued.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

AB 499, authorizing minors to be independent contractors for vaccinations to “prevent communicable diseases” will become law on January 1, 2012.

So, what does this really mean for the child and for the child’s parents? The bill’s wording is extremely vague. We have two months to figure this out. During these two months there will be committees of stakeholders meeting to determine just how to carry out the mandates of this bill; community clinics, school officials, medical personnel, the state health department, etc.

Here are some questions to think about and recommendations to consider:

1. Parents of children ages 9 or above should speak with their child’s doctor or the personnel of the community clinic, or Kaiser hospital that they frequent.
2. Ask, just in general terms, to see a list of vaccines considered appropriate for children.
3. Inquire whether or not you pre-approved a list of vaccines to be administered to your child when the appropriate age or stage of development deemed it appropriate to receive a particular vaccine. Ask to see the original copy that you signed.
4. If your child is already 11 or 12 or older your child may already have received the HPV/Gardasil shot without your knowing it. Kaiser and some community clinics have possibly been administering the vaccine routinely beginning with 11 year olds to children whose parents signed a pre-approved form that unknowingly contained approval for gardasil.
5. If you can determine that your child has not received the shot or has received only one dose, give your doctor a personal written statement that you do not authorize that the HPV shot be administered to your child. Be insistent that it gets officially entered into the child’s record. Keep a copy for yourself.
6. Begin now to instruct your child that he/she is to say “NO” to any suggestion or request by any third party, teacher, doctor, school nurse, etc to receive the vaccine for HPV - Human Papilloma Virus. Instruct the child to inform you if he or she is approached.

You are well aware, I’m sure, that parents have no right to see the medical record or receive information or notification regarding any pregnancy or venereal disease treatment that your minor child received. The HPV vaccine has now been added to that list of prohibited information to take effect January 1, 2012.

It is not known, at this point, how any of that will be enforced under the law? The bill only says that parents will not be required to pay for the injections. Will you also be prohibited from knowing if your child has received the vaccine?

The law permitting opt-out forms to be signed for medical treatments is still in effect. It hasn’t been deleted from the codes. As evidenced by the current push for students to be vaccinated for whooping cough for entry into school, many parents refused to allow it. The penalty for that supposedly was refusal of entry into school this year, but, so far, we have not heard of anyone receiving any fines or legal charges for refusing to vaccinate.

Do not assume that removing your child to a private school or charter school will protect them.

Searching the online State Department of Health and Safety Code regulations one learns that opt out forms are available for parents to obtain from their child’s doctor to be given to the school based on religious or medical life threatening reasons. Philosophical reasons are also accepted by a written letter from the parents.

We sincerely doubt this will be sufficient to protect your child against being approached by some one promoting the vaccination. This bill, in effect, has authorized any designated third party to approach your child with encouragement to take the shot.

California’s role (the taxpayer’s role) in funding this vaccine is that the state will pay a $10.00 administrative fee to every authorized employee who administers this shot. We don’t know if it means $10.00 for each of the required three shots, i.e., $30.00 total or only $10.00 for the three shots, but, in any case, it could add up to some substantial pocket change in these cash strapped times.

The costs of purchasing the vaccine in huge quantity by the state, or, as it is done now by groups like Planned Parenthood, who buy their own supplies of condoms, etc and VD treatments, and charge the state whatever the traffic will bear, will come out of a federal (but still taxpayer) fund called the Childhood Vaccine Fund.

Parents need to consider that they should never let their teen child enter the doctor’s office without one parent being present during any examination no matter what the doctor or nurse demands. Parents must become very alert to any changes in their child’s health status. If a child accepts the vaccine without telling the parents, the parent will be in the dark about what is happening should their child become ill. So will the medical personnel who will be treating the child for individual symptoms without having the full background.

Become familiar with the signs of adverse effects of vaccinations - with Chicken Pox being one of the worst known to produce life threatening adverse effects, such as a sudden sense of weakness, numbness in the extremities, head aches, nausea, blurred vision, anaphylactic shock. Some times shot clinics will include a chicken pox shot with a second gardasil shot. Ask exactly what your child is getting in a vaccination.

An alert parent results in a healthy child.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

How the Freedom of Speech is being curtailed.

AB 9, Bullying by Assembly member Tom Ammiano, (D-SF). To the Governor.
Sponsors: Equality California, ACLU, Gay-Straight Alliance network, National Center
for Lesbian Rights, the Trevor Project - suicide prevention services to the LGBT Community.

This bill requires schools to spend, according to the state Department of Finance “in the low hundreds of thousands of Prop 98 funds,” to further expand the mandated Comprehensive School Safety Plan off 1985, which in 2009-10, amounted to approximately $3.3 M according to the DOF in the analysis of this bill.

This bill is a part of a continuing expansion of the original Act with created a partnership between school and law enforcement to put a stop to acts of intimidation and violence on the campus during school time. This bill seeks to re-write the laws to further expand the rules and regulations around the subject of bullying especially as they affect LGBT students during school class time and after school.

There was a major expansion of the act in October, 2003, authored by Sen. Ted Lieu, which began the expansion to include a whole new cadre of partners - up to 100 professionals in law enforcement, community groups, county offices of education, youth serving agencies. www.gamutonline.net.

Now also awaiting action are seven (7) other companion bills in the legislature on this subject:
AB 227 (Hall), would add requirement that schools implement a cyber bullying plan as a precondition to receiving technology grants.
AB 630 (Hueso), “encourages” schools to adopt best practices methodologies and activities to stop bullying.
Ab 746 (Campos) Chaptered. Creates school/law enforcement partnership to monitor internet sites for bullying.
AB 1156, (Eng), Pupils: Bullying. To the Governor. According to the Dept. of Finance analysis, requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Attorney General to conduct training programs on how to deal with bullying, increasing the costs of the mandate. Requires a new definition of bullying.

“Defines bullying to mean any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act, and including one or more acts committed by a pupil or group of pupils directed toward one or more pupils that can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of the following:

1. A person perceived a fear of harm to their person or property.
2. Targeted person experiences a substantial detrimental effect on his or her physical health.
3. Substantial interference with academic performance.
4. Causes substantial interference with ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by a school.

This bill, AB1156, would also include electronic transmissions including but not limited to, a message, text, sound, or image by means of an electronic device, etc.

• SB453, (Correa) Pupil Rights: Bullying: Suspension and Expulsion, along with, SB 919, Lieu on School Safety: Sexting. AB 453 would define bullying as including acts motivated by specified or perceived characteristics of the victim.

Today’s Contra Costa Times, a member of the Bay Area News Group - BANG, 9/14/2011, has an editorial by columnist David Brook, as well as a letter to the editor which I think applies here. The Letter to editor writer, a woman, identifies herself as an educator and is fully in support of the anti-bullying legislation. She concludes her letter with “We, as educators, have no choice but to take this seriously [bullying] to ensure our schools are safe and conducive to learning. So ;et’s teach what’s right early on and stress it at every grade level in every school”

I guess she didn’t get the memo that schools have been teaching Character Education for a decade or more. Apparently it hasn’t worked since all this legislation claims that violence n the schools is getting worse.

Brooks’ article is entitled “Generation that makes choices based on what feels right.”
During 2008 a research team from Notre Dame University, led by sociologist Christian Smith, as a part of a broader survey, interviewed 230 young adults from across America on the subject of moral and ethics. The results were written up in a book entitled “Lost in Transition.”
The research concluded that these students, representative of a broader class of young people, had no ability to make moral decisions based on a definite standard of moral and ethical decision making.

Professor Smith emphasizes that they [the students interviewed] “have not been given the resources - by schools, institutions and families - to cultivate their oral intuitions.”

Another author quoted, Charles Taylor, argues that morals have become separated from moral sources. The group was the source of moral decision making. The “free-floating” individual is the essential moral unite.

Another way to express this has been offered by interested groups who have also been watching our youth’s moral moorings fall away. They call it “unfreezing” and “re-freezing” the moral values.

Since at least the 1960’s, some might say even earlier, definite steps have been taken by social planners and foundations to unfreeze the traditional moral groundings of Christianity so highly regarded in our country. leaving a big hole in the moral development of our youth.

Now, we are beginning to see the other side of this, the re-freezing of values, but not the values America once held. Science is replacing God, best practices are replacing the Ten Commandments, duty to society is the new love of neighbor as thyself for the good of society.

Equality of behavior, individual freedom (which is actually, the group’s idea of freedom), more and more legislation, schooling from pre-kindergarten on through continual learning is becoming the norm.

All these bills on bullying, executive orders on vaccines, nutritional guidance from fat cat bureaucrats, and on and on, these are all a part of the re-freezing of values.

As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.

Governor Brown has just issued an alert to his Democrat legislators warning them that he will be vetoing a large portion of the 600 bills placed on his desk. He has already vetoed a few with the admonition that he doesn’t believe it is right for the government to step into the family picture too far. Let’s see if he really means it.

Do your best to see that some of the bills written about here are vetoed because they interfere too much with the rights of the family and the individual to live by Christian standards.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

9/12.2011. By Camille Giglio

BENEFIT CORPORATIONS. Or, How the Golden State Turned Green.

In my last report, 9/11/2011, I briefly mentioned 7 bills on the subject of Benefit Corporations, or, as proponents call them, Corporations of Conscience.

Those opposed to this concept refer to Benefit Corporations as “Buddies and Beneficiaries.” The reason for this is that it appears that these corporations have been developed to create partnerships between government and businesses with non-profit entities who sign contracts to implement the United Nations Agenda 21 program locally.

This partnership arrangement would give priority to start-up or re-organized businesses for licensing. etc, to businesses that promise to adhere to the Agenda 21 - environmental requirements or “green” practices.

The lead bill is AB 361, by Assembly member Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), It is now sitting on the Governor’s desk. It “authorizes and regulates the formation and governance of a new form of corporate entity known as the benefit corporation.”

The department of finance summarizes benefit corporations as “requir[ing] a benefit corporation to be formed in accordance with the (established) General Corporation Law [and] shall have the purpose of creating a “material positive impact on society and the environment.”

It “Permit[s] the articles of the benefit corporation to identify one or more specific public benefits, which along with the general public benefit, shall be deemed to be in the best interests of the benefit corporation. Including:

• Providing low-income or underserved individuals or communities with beneficial products or services.
• Promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs.
• Preserving the environment.
• Improving human health.
• Promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge.
• Increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose.
• The accomplishment of any other particular benefit for society or the environment

The DOF concludes: “to the extent a benefit corporation pursues socially or environmentally conscious goals rather than maximizing profit and shareholder value, some presently unquantifiable reduction in General Fund personal income and corporation tax revenue would occur.

Therefore the DOF opposes the bill. It is apparently too vague, flexible and uncertain for them.

Organizations such as Freedom Advocates.org, opponents of Agenda 21, posit that this might well be the new Redevelopment agencies that will re-appear as non-profits who live off of federal and state grants and foundation donations.

AB 361 appears to be very similar to (boilerplate) SB 26 in North Carolina. This whole approach to treating businesses as extensions of environmental development agencies is considered to be the latest blueprint to advancing former President Bill Clinton’s Sustainable Development Executive Order.

Here is an excerpt from a September 4, 2011, report by Freedom Advocates:

“Benefit Corporations, known as B Corps, are a new type of corporation and business sector that purports to ‘use the power of business to solve social and environmental problems.’ In reality these corporations support the implementation of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development which is based on 3 objectives known as the 3Es - Economy (public/private partnerships) Environment (earth before man) and Equity (social engineering). Other terms for the same objectives are “people, profit, Planet” or “Triple Bottom Line.”

AB 1211, Jim Silva, (R-Huntington Beach), Not-for-Profit Corporations. To Governor.
Makes considerable changes to the make up and focus of not for profit entities and in how these entities conduct their board meetings with or without a Director of the Board.

AB 1023, Donald Wagner, (R-Irvine), Maintenance of the Codes. To the Governor.
The final bill’s wording is extremely brief, authorizing “non-substantial” changes to be made in the government codes. However, the bill, as submitted on 7/12/11, is extremely involved, listing an entire page of Code changes including incorporating and adding protections to Benefit corporations into the code reflecting back on AB 1211.

SB 201, Mark DeSaulnier, Flexible Purpose Corporations. To the Governor.
Creates the Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011. A companion bill with AB 361. Flexible Purpose Corporations would affect a “merger or partnership with non-profits whose intended purpose would be to benefit various entities including their employees, the community society and the environment.”

The state Department of Finance has opposed this bill because they believe it would result in tax revenue losses which are unquantifiable.

Our office will be temporarily closed beginning Sept 19, 2011 and returning Oct. 10, 2011. Prior to the 19th, if I hear anything about AB 499 (the internet is full of reports about the side effects of Gardasil), I will let you know. Otherwise please check in with www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

When I think of the California legislature I am reminded of an old tv ad for cereal referred to as “Hey, Mikey likes it.” In the ad two young brothers are trying to encourage each other to try a new cereal by saying “here, you try it.” and the other brother says, “No, you try it.” Finally little brother comes along and they both say, “Hey, Mikey, you try it!” Mikey tries it and he likes it, and everybody’s happy.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans looked at every bill that came along this session, including the goofy, the dangerous and the very expensive. didn’t know if they or the public were going to like them or not, but said, hey, let’s take some of these and give them to Jerry to see if he likes them.

We’ll know soon if Jerry likes them or not. But, so far, here’s what the Democrat legislators liked:

Authored by San Francisco Assembly-member Tom Ammiano who authored 25 bills:

AB 207 School Attendance: Residency Requirements. To the Governor.
Authorizes schools to accept a broad and vague variety of documents as proof of residency for entering students, but exempts these provisions for school districts “adjacent to an international border.”

Endorsed by: ACLU, various levels of state unions including the CTA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of LA., MALDEF and Immigrant Rights & Education Network.

AB 223, Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Died in Committee.
Concerned acceptance and implementation, with certain restrictions, of the medical marijuana law.

AB 472, Controlled Substances: Overdose: Punishment. active.
Provides a legal escape hatch for persons caught in a drug overdose related activity to avoid the full extent of the law if they sign up for a medical assistance program.
AB 520 Reckless Driving also related.

AB683 Homelessness. Held in Committee.
Would have created a huge data collection electronic program on homeless people for use by any qualified organization. The Dept of Finance said it cost too much money.

AB889, Domestic Work Employees. Held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
Regulates wages, hours and working conditions of domestic work employees and babysitters providing them with minimum wage requirements, unemployment and overtime compensation, and specified rest periods during which substitute persons fill in.

CA HR 15 (house resolution) LGBT Pride Month Adopted.
Was submitted in May, 2011 and proclaims June, 2011, as Gay Pride Month calling upon all citizens to acquaint themselves with the accomplishments the LGBT community members.

CA SR 18, Mark Leno, LGBT Pride Month. Adopted by the Senate.
Exactly like Ammiano’s Resolution.
_____________________________
Senator Mark Leno: (submitted a total of 24 bills)

SB 48, Instruction: Prohibition of Discriminatory Content. Signed by Governor.
Treats members of the LGBT as noteworthy to be included in educational Social Studies Courses, for their contributions to the development of the state and the United States.

SB68, held in committee, SB 69, Vetoed and SB87, signed by Governor, all pertaining to the 2011 Budget Act. SB 87, though signed was given a line-item veto, meaning that the Governor reduced a portion of the costs required to implement this reporting procedure.

SB 651, Family Law: Domestic Partnerships. Awaiting final hearing in the Assembly.
It amends the current Domestic Partnership law by removing the requirement that the domestic partners have a common residence and provides for legal domestic partnerships by persons under the age of 18.

SB 850, Medical Records: Confidential Information. Final vote Assembly floor.
Claims to be about assuring privacy and confidentiality in medical records, but, in actuality it is about implementing one aspect of the federal Rehabilitation and Recovery Act advancing internet technology. It is sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California - $$$$$.
Changes “medical records” to read “medical information” allowing this information to be contained in a variety of forms, including electronic.
_________________________________
OTHER BILLS THAT HAVE GONE TO ENROLLMENT.

AB 6, Felipe Fuentes, CalWorks and CalFresh.
CalWorks - California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids.
CalFresh - New name for Food Stamps.
Eliminates statewide fingerprint imagine requirements for applicants and would permit a reduction in utilities costs for persons qualifying through signing-up and using the CalWorks and CalFresh programs.
The Dept of Finance claims that there would be one-time costs of approximately $900.000 in 2011-12 and $13.2 million in 2012-13 for automation and training. And approximately $54.3 million annually thereafter for recipient benefits and $700.000 thereafter to othe California Food Assistance program due to recipients receiving slightly higher benefits.

AB 131, Gil Cedillo, Student Financial Aid and Nonresident Tuition.
Companion bill to Cedillo’s AB 130 providing the funding for eligible students with illegal immigrant backgrounds.

SB940, Education, authored by the Senate Education Committee. This is more a workforce development bill than an education bill.

Parallels Cedillo’s AB 131 in that it deals with facilitating the smooth transition of high school upper classmen to community colleges and to 4 year colleges with full benefits of residents.

Several bills claiming to be related to education, but are, in reality workforce development bills have gone over to the Governor. AB 835 by Holly Mitchell, (D) Community Colleges: Economic and Workforce program. High School drop-outs can enter community colleges if they are signed up in the workforce development agenda.
AB 1304, Linked Learning by Marty Block, (D) establishes a definition of “linked-Learning” which means that schools and labor form a partnership to prepare students entry into the work force and may include online computer classes as well.

SB 177, Tony Strickland, (R), Congregate Living Health Facilities.

This bill concerns only facilities in Santa Barbara County, but could have implications for all CLHFs in California if this bill is used as a trial balloon. The Dept of Finances declares itself neutral since they claim it would not further burden the financial status of health care.
This bill would allow the number of beds (patients) to increase from 12 to 25.

CRLC has had concerns about this bill due to its lack of a definition of who (what types of patients) may qualify for entry into a single CLHF. According to experts in this area of patient care, there is a danger in mixing patients with a variety of needs in the same facility, from the imminently terminally ill to the merely continually disabled and frail elderly.

AND, FINALLY, KIDS COUNT.

Ever wonder where all this data gathering on your children ends up? Here’s a good example. The Anna E Casey Foundation, created in 1948 to honor the mother of Jim Casey, a developer of UPS services, has become a grant making foundation giving funds to groups demonstrating innovative policy, service delivery and community supports for disadvantaged children and families. This organization figures prominently in funding a number of questionable activities. It gathers data, puts them into public policy making form and lets the receiving agency use the data as it sees fit to promote its own agenda.

The Kids Count book contains a form press release for the receiving agency to use to promote its issues. Its a fill-in-the-blanks form and contains the following introductory statement:

According to data released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in its 2011 KIDS COUNT® Data Book, over the last decade there has been a significant decline in economic well-being for low income children and families. Data also reveals the impact of the job and foreclosure crisis on children. In 2010, 11 percent of children had at least one unemployed parent and 4 percent have been affected by foreclosure since 2007. Access the 2011 Data Book and create your own maps, graphs, and charts

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

During the wee small hours of Wednesday evening the California state senators, on a partisan vote, passed AB 499, 22 ayes to 17 nos. Two Democrats, Senators Correa and Rubio, along with all the Republicans voted no. The bill now goes to the Governor who will have until the last day of September to either sign, veto or send back without his signature - which is the same as approving, basically.

I have decided to let you read the final, official analysis of this bill, including the list of supporters, since it gives the most succinct understanding of what is going on here.

Note that this bill reduces the age of minor consent on all matters sexual from 15 to 12 years of age. Also note that all the defined rights of a minor to consent to sexual activity, treatment and prevention, exclude the parents, yet require the parents and all California citizens to pick up the tab for the services provided. By the way, the idea conveyed by “prevention” here is that children are being prepared by special interest parties, to become sexual objects without the worry of venereal disease or pregnancy. Planned Parenthood and all its minions, as you will notice, are supporters of AB 499.

This bill also removes any thought of an opt-out action for parents to reject the services for their child. Those opt-out papers that you signed two years ago will now be null and void. Kaiser hospitals have been giving these shots to minors without parental knowledge for at least two years. If you signed a form allowing Kaiser to give your minor daughter all the listed shots, you approved Gardasil as far as they are concerned. But, the state hasn’t passed a bill, yet, prohibiting parental rights to demand that their children not receive the shot. They just go around it and ignore it.

The only thing this bill “allows” parents to do is pay for the medical care and mental rehabilitation services when your son or daughter becomes debilitated by the drug Gardasil. The United States Supreme Court, this last March, Bruesewitz v Wyeth, handed down a decision that exempts Pharmaceutical companies from being held responsible for claims of damage as a result of vaccinations. This covers gardasil as well. So, for the Merck and co. or the legislators to claim, glibbly that there are no injuries from gardasil is to beg the question, when it is obvious that there are. The pharmaceuticals - often referred to as Big Pharma - a term which I am now quite willing to use - are protected from having to admit or pay for fraudulent marketing of their products.

Also, be aware, that sons will now also be targeted for receiving the Glaxosmithkline injections called Cervarix which is the same thing as gardasil only a different company.

Here is a quote from a publication called Heartland.time:

“Rather, the Court said, vaccine makers cannot be held liable for negative side effects that parents believe are the result of their products. To be compensated, parents must go before special no-fault tribunals established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Congress created these "Vaccine Courts" with the participation of pharmaceutical companies as a sort of "societal bargain" — as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in the majority decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth — to ensure the future of vaccine availability in the U.S. At the time of the Act, hundreds of injury lawsuits were piling up against vaccine manufacturers, causing them to abandon manufacture of major vaccines and threatening immunizations for the entire country.” (More on Time.com: Q&A: The Dangers of the Anti-Vaccine Movement)

The terms? Injured parties may file for compensation without having to prove cause — they simply have to demonstrate that the injury occurred immediately after vaccination. Further, the claimed injury does not have to be among the listed contraindications on the vaccine package, but must be included in a list of side effects called a Vaccine Table, kept by the Vaccine Court. In exchange, pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable in civil court for adverse effects, and there is a cap on how much claimants may be awarded. (The fees come from taxes on immunizations.) Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/24/bruesewitz-v-wyeth-what-the-supreme-court-decision-means-for-vaccines/#ixzz1WjlKGrln
____________________________________

Here is the excerpt from final Senate analysis of this bill, written by a member of the Democrat caucus legislative analysis committee:

DIGEST: This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years of age or older who might have come into contact with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of that disease if the disease or condition is one that is required by law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a sexually transmitted disease as determined by the Director of the Department of Health Services. (Family Code Section 6926 (a))

Existing law provides that the parents of a minor who has consented to medical treatment for a communicable or sexually transmitted disease are not liable for payment for that care. (Family Code Section 6926 (b))

Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy. (Family Code Section 6925 (a))

Existing law provides that a minor’s consent under minor consent statutes cannot be subject to disaffirmance because of minority. (Family Code Section 6921)

Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years old or older who is alleged to have been raped may consent to diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6927)

Existing law allows a minor alleged to have been sexually assaulted to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6928 (b))

Existing law allows a minor to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of a drug or alcohol-related problem. (Family Code Section 6929 (b))

Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical or dental care if that minor is over the age of 15, living separate and apart from his or her parents whether with or without his/her parents’ consent, and managing his or her own financial affairs. (Family Code Section 6922 (c))

This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

* Costs shared 50 percent General Fund, 50 percent federal funds

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/11)

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX (co-source) California STD Controllers Association (co-source) Health Officers Association of California (co-source) ACCESS Women’s Health Justice ACT for Women and Girls American Civil Liberties Union American Association of University Women Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice California Adolescent Health Committee California Coalition for Youth California Commission on the Status of Women California Communities United Institute California Family Health Council California Medical Association California National Organization of Women California Nurses Association California Primary Care Association California School Health Centers Association Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Having Our Say Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center Maternal and Child Health Access Mental Health Association in California National Center for Youth Law National Association of Social Workers-California Chapter NARAL-Pro-Choice California National Council of Jewish Women Nevada County Citizens for Choice Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Reproductive Justice Coalition of Los Angeles Women’s Health Specialists
________________________________________

This fight isn’t over. Stay tuned for news following a Monday meeting of interested organizations.

Probably after this three day weekend, the Governor’s office will be receiving phone calls to accept the voter’s position on certain hot button bills. Keep this phone number handy - 916-445-2841. I’m sure the Governor doesn’t consider this a hot button item, but we have to convince him that it is to parents.

I admit to having a difficult time thinking about all the California children who will in near future begin to suffer from the badly mistaken “good” intentions of the legislators who think they know better than parents, what is good for a child. I know that I, for one, will never be able to accept any Merck drug product or over-the-counter product which can be determined by going to their website.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment

Camille Giglio

Sacramento: On Monday, August 15, 2011 the Senate Appropriations Committee moved AB 499, Minors, Medical Care, Consent over to the Suspense File. The official reason was that it was financially too costly for the state to administer.

Bills in the Suspense file will be heard on August 25th, again, in the Senate Appropriations committee. Bills then passing out of that committee will go to the floor of the Senate. It is believed that this will happen rather quickly.

This meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee will not take witnesses or testimony.

We ask that you call the local district office of your state Senator and register your opposition to passage of this bill when it comes to the floor of the Senate. Since this may happen quickly we ask that you please start your calling now.

The meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee was heavily attended due to the large number of bills to be heard on that Monday. CRLC had prepared 20 packets of information on Gardasil and its negative effects to be distributed to the committee members (9), and to other Democrats and Republicans. That folder contained a prepared statement by an 18 year old young woman who also accompanied us to Sacramento. At age 15 she and her mother went to Kaiser for check-ups. The girl’s doctor asked to speak to the daughter alone which the mother allowed.

The doctor then tried to talk the girl into accepting the Gardasil injections. She asked the girl if she was just saying no, she didn’t want the shots because her mother didn’t want her to have them? The girl said “no.” then the doctor told her that she, the doctor, wouldn’t tell the mother if the girl did decide to have the shot.

When the doctor returned the girl to her mother, the doctor told them that if the girl didn’t have the shot and she was raped, she could get cancer and die.

This is a very good example of what will happen to all minor children if this bill should pass. The medical profession will become salesmen for the drug industry or whatever fad medicine is currently popular.

Along with the health dangers to young girls from this vaccine is the danger to parental authority and supremacy in rearing and making decisions for one’s own children.

The bill, though very brief and with all the appearances of being very simply written places the state in the position of authority over the health care of children. Some spokespersons for the pharmaceutical and medical industries suggests that this shot should be given to 9 year olds.

The author of the bill, Toni Atkins of San Diego, frames this drug as a preventive medicine procedure, protecting girls from the future (and unknown) possibility of contracting genital warts and ultimately cervical cancer. This action places this vaccine into a category of children’s protected rights. The parents are removed from any position of authority. The understanding is that whatever the FDA says is necessary and a certain group of medical representatives, such as the ACIP - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - says is necessary.

Guess where the money comes from to pay for all of this? Of course, the Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act of 1993.

The funding for AB 499, if I understand the report correctly, states that the funding would come from a state tax source called the Minor Consent Program which comes under the Medi-Cal program. This is the program that already pays for the abortions and part of the contraceptives given out to children in California. The state pays the total cost of an abortion for a minor and it receives a 90% reimbursement from the feds for contraceptive and STD services.

The official Senate Appropriations analysis also contains this information: ‘Based on Medi-Cal counts as of January 2010, it is assumed there are over 466,000 females and 457,000 males aged 12 through 17 who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries. A five to ten percent immunization rate for HPV [Gardasil] which is a three-dose series, would result in administrative costs ranging from $1.2 million to $2.5 million in total funds."

Nationwide it is estimated that the costs of Gardasil and all the other charges for services, etc, have a low of $350.00 to $500.00 for the series of 3 shots. That’s not to mention the planned for booster shots needed a couple of years down the road.

The Senate Committee analysis of the bill states that:

“Time-critical preventive services [this is the same basic strategy for getting girls lined up for abortions] for sexually transmitted diseases include the hepatitis B vaccine, post-exposure HIV medications and the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine which, if given prior to exposure, can significantly reduce the risk of certain cancers. The cost of administration of these vaccines comes out of other Med-Cal program which pays a $9.00 administrative fee to physicians who administer the vaccines to Medi-Ca; beneficiaries. Other costs related to vaccines for Medi-Cal beneficiaries comes from the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program. This is, apparently, administered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/default/htm.

Gardasil or the right of the government to mandate vaccinations for every child, may well become a part of the latest political debates. Presidential Candidate, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, did, a couple of years ago, write an Executive Order mandating that all school-aged children be required to have the gardasil shot. This was not the legislature, the peoples’ voice, this was the executive branch of state government. When parents found out about this such a loud protest occurred that the Texas state legislature then stepped in to override Perry.

During the recent Republican candidate debate Candidate Mitt Romney was asked about his position on federal officials mandating that states comply with certain things, in contradiction to the Constitutional division between federal and state rights. He declared that the federal government did not have the right to mandate that states do certain things, but he felt that the state had the right to mandate that its citizens complied with certain mandates. Gardasil is apparently one of them, if, one accepts the idea that the state has the right to direct the health care of everyones children in that state.

This isn’t just a simple little debate about vaccinations. It is a big debate about parental rights and whether the government can invade that heretofore private sanctuary.

Please continue to be interested in this debate and be prepared to contact your legislator.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to General News | add a comment