Posted by 
State Of Things Nov 19, 2019 - Never Fear H.E.L.P. is Near
California Right to Life Committee, Inc
2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #243, Walnut Creek, Ca 94598
(925) 899-3064, callifeadvocates.org/blog
Never Fear H.E.L.P. is Near
Camille Giglio
11/19/19, Walnut Creek, Ca. Twelve out of 50 of Presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris,(D-San Francisco) bills are sitting in the in the Senate Help, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. This is the Citizens Social/Emotional soft-skills development committee
The next committee to receive her bills (9) is the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of the total number of bills only 7/50 show any movement at all. This is the punish them committee if the citizens and community groups don’t accept the H.E.L.P. bills.
Along with that, a listing of all her votes (over 31 pages of bills) in the committees and floor votes shows that the majority of time she either is listed as a “not-voting” or a “nay.” Vote.
Her bills are, for the most part, merely show pieces to enhance her electability. She should be disciplined for political truancy.
Most of her bills reflect distain for the family, the rule of law and individual freedom, ala the Constitution.
Examples are, the workforce- (Clean School buses (USS1750) family,-Prophylactics for HIV cases (USS 1926) Citizenship,- restrictions on immigration officials authority, (USS 388) Health-Decriminalizing Cannabis, and Do No Harm, Civil Rights Amendment (USS 593.).
In one other bill she is gravely concerned about the psychological condition of endangered species animals that get “seized” by animal control and removed from their owner’s premises.. (USS-513)
The most egregious bill for our concerns regards the family and its education, health and workforce capability USS 2784, a quickly made-up bill submitted on 11/5/19 to the H.E.L.P. Committee. It is entitled: Family Friendly School Policies Grants in the H.E.L.P. Committee.
CONTACT: H.E.L.P. COMMITTEE: 202-224-5376. Also
Office of Lamar Alexander, Chair: 202-224-4944
USS 2784 seeks to amend Title 6 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide federal grants to 500 California elementary schools to align the school day with the parental work day hours. In other words, these schools would experiment with the students to see the effects of keeping young students at school from at least 9 to 5 every weekday, providing, at school, the attention, academic assistance, emotional and social requirements for, as the education elitists would like us to believe, good, positive growth, health and maturity. This would also be in effect during the summer.
To adequately provide all the students with this wrap around care would require numerous partnerships with non-academic non-profits and community organizations. They would actually do the providing of services including health care. Of course, health care being merely a code word for reproductive training and resources, would mean daily association with Planned Parenthood type agencies. This brings in the bills on telehealth capabilities, or, students calling outside agencies from school for guidance (thus the need for Harris’s bill on prophylactics for HIV) regarding medications without parental knowledge or input.
This type of bill might well be the way educators and community partners eventually bring all the community services into the school thereby creating what is called the community centered schools.
These stakeholder partners would most likely end up double-dipping into the taxpayer trough of funds because they would be 501© 3 orgs which pay no taxes as well as receiving tax dollars through state and federal agencies such as health, education and welfare, for the extra services. The bill requires the school system to supplement the federal grants with “non-federal” monies which do not include amounts paid by parents. (Section 4701
It would probably also mean increased costs to the schools for food services because this could well mean 3 meals a day year round.
It seems obvious to CRLC that this is merely preparation and practice for the eventual 24/7 housing of our children (think Walden’s Pond) in dormitory style living arrangements, overseen by government trained humanistic house mothers.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, though a Republican, was very supportive of making major changes to education by touting the Goals 2000 amendments to education. changing schools when, years ago, he, too, was running for President.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND THE JUST CONCLUDED Federal RICO TRIAL OF 5 California PRO LIFE DEFENDANTS.
Please visit our CRLC blog. There you will find in-depth reports and articles concerning the referred-to lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood against the Center for Medical Progress and named co-conspirators.
The impeachment hearings brought by Democrats refuse to allow the Republicans to present evidence in defense of President Trump.The Court of Judge William H Orrick, III, refused to allow the 11 man jury (9 men/2 women) to hear or see the video and written evidence prepared by the defendants lawyers.
Cong. Adam Schiff and Judge William Orrick (an Obama appointee and aggressive advocate for Planned Parenthood use their positions of authority like a big stick without regard for decent language, scandal-mongering, suppression of speech rights by Trump witnesses.
Orrick’s decision to find the 5 defendants guilty of trespass and co-conspiracy ended by the judge assigning an exorbitant fine of $2.2 million against the defendants. Everyone knows that these people can’t meet that requirement from their personal holdings and so must rely on the pro-life community to get that money together. Meaning that we prolife citizens will be paying $2.2 million to Planned Parenthood which we can’t do either.
The House Impeachment Committee members are the evidence that the Democrats absolutely refuse to accept Donald Trump’s Presidential legitimacy and they will go to any lengths to silence and destroy his Presidency. They hope that this will send a message to the citizens of the world that everybody must bow to the power authority and wisdom of the Democrat Party.
END OF LIFE ISSUES.
Also, be aware that the V, Chair of the HELP committee is Sen. Tammy Baldwin, author of
USS 2080, the Palliate Care and Hospice Education and Training Act. This is a bill to advance the pro euthanasia stealth cohorts goal of forcing euthanasia acceptance upon healthcare employees. This bill mandates the inclusion of Hospice and Palliative services into the medical training university programs. This places the schools systems into positions of advocates for forcing planned End of Life care on patients and the elderly deemed, by EOL trained workers, to be no longer helped or cured by active medical procedures.
TO OUR READERS.:
Ca. Right to Life has been tracking legislation since the late 1980s. By 2003 our research and analyses were required to be expanded due to the vast increase in legislation in the areas of life issues and the effects on the family.
From 2003 until now we have tracked over 1100 bills. It is becoming almost a 24/7 workload. We have been happy that we could do this research and perhaps contributed to citizens ability to access their government officials and exercise their Constitutional Rights to be heard.
PLEASE DO CHECK OUT OUR BLOGSITE. callifeadvocates,org/blog
Justice ABORTED: $2.2 Million Verdict Against Pro-lifers
California has Cong. Adam Schiff attacking President Trump on the federal level plus we have Judge William H. Orrick of the San Francisco federal Civil Court attacking the First Amendment rights of California Pro Life citizens, said Camille Giglio, Director of California Right to Life Committee, Inc.
Justice ABORTED: $2.2 million verdict against pro-lifers
The jury rendered a verdict today in Planned Parenthood v. Center for Medical Progress, awarding plaintiffs Planned Parenthood Federation of America and numerous affiliates $2.2 million in actual and punitive damages.
The jury even found the defendants liable for Planned Parenthood’s outrageous racketeering (RICO) claims. The federal RICO statute was enacted to eradicate organized crime and requires a pattern of certain types of criminal acts. The Gambino and Lucchese crime families were prosecuted under RICO, as was Michael Milken who was convicted of securities fraud. In this case, Planned Parenthood attorneys allege that David Daleiden, Susan Merritt, Albin Rhomberg, Troy Newman, and the other pro-life defendants should be held liable under RICO for making two obviously fake ID’s on a home printer over six years ago.
Rhomberg and Newman had no knowledge of the ID’s, yet the jury found them liable as co-conspirators. This would be laughable, except that the RICO law allows plaintiffs to recover exorbitant treble damages (triple the claimed damages) and attorney fees.
The jury also found that the defendants violated federal recording laws. But, as Life Legal’s Katie Short pointed out in her closing argument, in order for the defendants to be liable for creating and publishing the videos under federal law, Planned Parenthood would have to produce evidence “that the recording was done for the purpose of committing a criminal act in the future….[that] everything done for the whole journalism project, including publishing the video, was somehow criminal, a crime.”
In this case, it’s exactly the opposite: the recordings were made for the purpose of EXPOSING crimes.
To hold people liable for undercover investigative journalism that exposes criminal and unethical behavior is an offense to our constitutional rights and liberties.
Because the judge would not allow the First Amendment as a defense to Planned Parenthood’s claims, the jury held that the defendants were liable for recording or conspiring to record all of the video footage obtained by the Center for Medical Progress.
We are appalled by today’s verdict. It is as though the jury completely disregarded every piece of evidence we produced. Not only does Planned Parenthood engage in illegal and morally repugnant practices, but its agents never bothered to tell the defendants that the conversations about things like "crushing above and crushing below" to get more desirable and salable body parts were confidential.
We will appeal this unjust result and fight to protect the First Amendment rights of investigative journalists to show us what happens behind the veil of powerful corporations like Planned Parenthood, who has relied on a shroud of secrecy to build its multi-billion dollar abortion empire.
By: Alexandra Snyder, Executive Director
If you wish to support the efforts of Life Legal Defense on behalf of the defendants please consider a donation to
Life Legal Defense Foundation;
P/O. Box2105, Napa, Ca 94558.
Planned Parenthood Baby Body Parts Civil Trial
5 things to know about the Planned Parenthood baby body parts civil trial
Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, Feb. 11, 2019
ANALYSIS
SAN FRANCISCO, California, October 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Almost four years in the making, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America vs. Center for Medical Progress lawsuit pits those who practice, advocate for, and profit from unthinkably cruel and barbaric acts on the tiniest of humans against a few individuals who had the tenacity, courage, resourcefulness, and faith to walk into the heart of darkness to expose trafficking in the brains, hearts, livers, lungs, and limbs of pre-born babies.
The significance of the case cannot be overestimated.
It’s a massive legal battle in which abortion giant Planned Parenthood claims those who say they were gathering evidence of violent crimes were actually engaged in a criminal conspiracy against it.
In preparation, at least 10 lawyers for the plaintiffs and 13 for the defense have spent hundreds of hours producing thousands of pages of documents, deposing witnesses, and racking up legal bills in the millions of dollars.
The final result now depends on 12 jurors in the U.S. district courthouse and what they will make of the evidence put before them during the trial, which began October 2 and will continue until at least November 8.
Here are five things to know about the biggest pro-life trial in decades as it gets underway:
1) What it’s really about: This lawsuit is Planned Parenthood’s desperate attempt to permanently discredit the undercover videos the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released in 2015 that exposed its part in trafficking baby body parts. The casual brutality of abortionists discussing crushing unborn babies and haggling over the price of fetal organs shocked the world and Planned Parenthood wants to convey that those who exposed them – not their giant abortion corporation – are in the wrong.
It’s also a retaliatory action: Planned Parenthood wants to to crush the pro-life advocates who went undercover and exposed them. The plaintiffs allege CMP’s project lead David Daleiden, undercover journalists Sandra Merritt and Geraldo Adrian Lopez, and founding board members Troy Newman and Albin Rhomberg, committed 15 crimes while carrying out the undercover video project, ranging from breach of contract to racketeering. They claim CMP is liable for paying for everything Planned Parenthood’s personnel bought, such as security upgrades and staff counselling hotlines, after they realized they’d been recorded.
But one thing Planned Parenthood is not claiming is defamation, because that would require it produce all the evidence it has for that claim during the discovery phase of the case, prior to trial. Since, in fact, the CMP videos are not defamation, evidence of Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue harvesting practices and pricing is not something it wants aired publicly.
2) Who the defendants are: Daleiden, 30, developed and ran the undercover sting operation and is the high-profile, public face of CMP. Newman, a veteran pro-life activist, is well-known as the president of Operation Rescue. Merritt, 66, a grandmother who ran a home business and was a part-time teacher, is familiar as co-defendant with Daleiden in an ongoing California state criminal prosecution. Lopez, 28, is employed by the Navy as a hospital corpsman in an intensive care neonatal unit, and got involved in the undercover operation after Daleiden met him when he worked at Starbucks and hired him to transcribe the videos. Rhomberg is a longtime pro-life advocate and investigator who did graduate studies in high-energy particle physics, taught physics at the University of Wisconsin, and worked in the space program at Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory and at the Johnson Space Flight Center in Texas: in other words, he’s a rocket scientist.
3) It’s a jury trial in San Francisco: Planned Parenthood brought its case in San Francisco, the most liberal district in the country. The nine men and three women selected after a closed door one-on-one with Judge William Orrick will make their conclusions based only on what they hear and see in the courtroom. In a jury trial, plaintiffs and defendants may pursue a line of questioning that lets jurors hear testimony that is ultimately stricken but could still influence their judgement, or bring up points that have little legal merit but might affect the jury emotionally. Significantly, Orrick isn’t letting the jury hear the audio from any of the undercover videos at the center of the case. The judge thinks the conversation in the videos, which record Planned Parenthood staff talking about harvesting baby body parts, would be “prejudicial.” In other words, if the jurors could hear what was being discussed in the videos, they might be so disgusted with Planned Parenthood that they would no longer be able to be impartial.
The defense is arguing that the audio is critical to their case. First, the content of the conversations corroborates their claim that they believed Planned Parenthood staff were committing violent crimes against people. More importantly, the audio conveys better than the video the un-confidential nature of the conversations. Seeking to uncover evidence of violent crimes against people is an exception to California’s law against recording without consent, and, if conversations are not confidential, there is no consent requirement.
There’s a chance that Orrick’s censorship could sway the jury toward the defense since they can see that the defense wants the videos shown while Planned Parenthood wants to talk about how awful they are but not show them.
4) The judge is biased and should have disqualified himself: It’s only the early days of the trial but Orrick’s conduct already vindicates the defense’s 2018 petition to the Ninth Circuit Court to have him disqualified, after he refused to disqualify himself at their request. His ties to Planned Parenthood are well-known (Orrick was on the board of a charitable institution that houses a Planned Parenthood abortion center) and his deferring to Planned Parenthood has led to daily early-morning battles between him and the defense lawyers before the jurors enter the courtroom.
Orrick has decreed that abortion and fetal tissue procurement are not relevant to the trial, his rulings fluctuate, and he arbitrarily imposed what he admitted were not federal rules but “the Orrick Rules,” which prohibit witnesses from speaking to their lawyers for all the time they are under oath. The defense team claims this impinges on their clients’ Sixth Amendment right to effective representation of counsel and lawyer/client privilege.
He’s also granted Planned Parenthood incredible leeway in conducting their case. One of the more outrageous things about this case is that Planned Parenthood includes or discards claims for damages as it benefits them, in order to keep evidence incriminating it out of the courtroom.
5) The defense lawyers are the unsung heroes: There are 13 lawyers from four law firms and four pro-life legal associations representing among them the five individual defendants, as well as CMP and its alter-ego BioMax. Almost all are away from their homes and their families to work exhausting hours over six weeks to put on a case within the frustrating constraints Orrick has imposed. They also must negotiate the conflicting priorities within their own team as required by their specific clients. Yet they all demonstrate a high degree of competence, graciousness, and a determination to win despite the odds.
Original Article by Lianne Laurence, LifeSiteNews.
Update December 2nd, 2019
Planned Parenthood Video Trial: Unjust Verdict
Click to watch a short video of Katie Short and Albin Rhomberg commenting outside the court house about the unjust jury verdict in the Planned Parenthood Video Trial, just after it happened on Friday, November 15, 2019, in the Courtroom of Federal District Judge William H. Orrick, III, in the San Francisco Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Court House in San Francisco.
Stay tuned to this space for more information to come.
Chemical Abortion Experience
This is a true rendition, as shown in the movie Unplanned, of what takes place when a pregnant woman swallows the abortion pill referred to as RU486. It is this pill and the results depicted in the movie that will begin to take place on California University and college campuses (32 in all) next year due to Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature attached to Senate bill 24, signed into law on October 12, 2019.
The bill was authored by state Senator Connie Leyva, (D) and approved by every Democrat Assembly and Senate member in California’s Legislature.
The woman requesting the RU486 pill must be about 8 weeks pregnant for the pill’s results to take effect. This is different than the “Morning-after pill” which can be taken the morning after sexual activity as a preventive move.
Protecting Unborn Children Is No ‘Cosmic Question’
Despite Roe v. Wade, the courts have upheld many laws that mark conception as life’s clear beginning.
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg campaigns in Newton, Iowa, Sept. 21.
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg appeals to Scripture to defend his opposition to restrictions on abortion. “There’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath,” he told a radio audience Sept. 5, adding that no matter what anyone thinks about “the kind of cosmic question of where life begins,” it ought to be up to “the woman making the decision.”
Mr. Buttigieg’s words evoke rulings by the Supreme Court, which has upheld a sweeping right to abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973, based on the supposed inexactness of when life begins. Yet with regard to issues other than abortion, many states have passed laws that define life as beginning at conception and treat unborn children as human persons. The Supreme Court has allowed such laws to coexist with Roe, creating a legal landscape in which arguments against restricting abortion look increasingly tenuous.
A gap opened between how the courts treat abortion and other life issues because Roe didn’t address the other contexts in which unborn children can be killed. What about medical negligence? What about the bank robber who fires a gun, strikes a pregnant woman, and kills her child? What about the estranged boyfriend who batters his pregnant girlfriend and kills her child?
Why didn’t the Supreme Court address those scenarios in 1973? In writing “Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade” (2013), I interviewed a former Supreme Court clerk who is well versed in the legal history. At the time of the case he discussed existing legal protections for unborn children with Justice William Brennan. Asked about the other controversial scenarios, Brennan replied, “We’ll deal with those in the next case.”
The next case never came. In fact, the justices have refused all such cases since 1973. Consequently, for nearly half a century the court has allowed states and lower courts to build on centuries of Anglo-American legal protection for unborn children.
Mr. Buttigieg’s religious musings obscure that America’s legal tradition—going back to the English common law—has long protected unborn children to the greatest extent possible given existing medical understanding. As Justice James Wilson noted in the 1790s, “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”
Rulings from as long ago as the 17th century show that English common law prohibited abortion at the earliest point that medicine could detect that a developing human was alive (the stethoscope wasn’t invented until 1816). English and American law subsequently prohibited abortion at earlier points during pregnancy, as medical understanding and technology allowed.
Even at the time of Roe in 1973, multiple states protected unborn children under laws governing injury and wrongful death, as well as fetal-homicide laws. In deciding Roe, the court either overlooked or ignored the depth of these precedents. Thus the justices left them standing with regard to most issues other than abortion.
Legal scholar Paul Benjamin Linton summarized the state of the law in 2011: “The most common approach, the one that has been adopted in more than one-half of the States, has been to make the killing of an unborn child a crime without regard to any arbitrary gestational age.” In other words, since Roe many states have incrementally deleted gestational markers, and have moved to protect the developing child from conception.
Today, several states protect unborn children in laws regarding legal guardianship and inheritance of property. Thirty-seven of them have criminal statutes that treat the killing of an unborn child as a homicide when done by means other than abortion. California’s statute protects unborn children after as few as eight weeks of gestation. Thirty states do so from conception.
Why speculate about “when life begins” when state law is so much more revealing about where the American people and their elected representatives stand in 2019?
Mr. Forsythe is senior counsel of Americans United for Life.
Original Article by Clarke D. Forsythe, lead counsel for Americans United for Life - AUL.
Planned Parenthood requesting $10 million for security costs at college Health centers
California Right to Life Committee, Inc
2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #243
Walnut Creek, Ca 94598
(925) 899-3064
callifeadvocates.org/blog
Planned Parenthood requesting $10 million for security costs at college Health centers
Urgent urgent urgent section 9 of the two Assembly and Senate budget bills, both numbered 109 must be defeated STAT. as soon as you receive this please call your local Assembly district legislator and insist that he/she vote no on Sec.9 of Assembly bill 109. Then call your local state Senator’s office and urge his NO vote on the next vote. See section (green color) shown below.
As you may know Planned Parenthood is demanding that the legislature, through SB24, which passed the legislature last week, will authorize Planned Parenthood to set up medication abortion services in all 32 California University sites - 10; and in the California state College sites - 23; beginning in 2020..
Today we learn that PP, in cahoots with Assembly Member Ting of San Francisco, has inserted a request into the state budget Act for the sum of $10 million to use for developing protect or security to protect the college abortion dispensing sites and employees from violence at each of the 32 college sites. They are dragging up this old charge that pro life people become violence prone in protecting babies and their naive mothers lives.
The entire Budget Act for 2020 is contained in Assembly bill 109 as well as in Senate bill 109. Assembly bill 109 has already been heard today, Wednesday, Sept 11, in the Senate Budget Committee. SB109, the same bill but from the Senate side, will be voted on tomorrow, Sept 12, in the Assembly. Whichever bill succeeds will then be voted on in a joint senate/assembly conference meeting and sent to the Governor for is signature.
SEC. 9. Item 0690-105-0001 is added to Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2019, to read:
0690-105-0001–For local assistance, Office of Emergency Services …………………… 10,000,000
Schedule:
(1) 0385-Special Programs and Grant Management …………………… 10,000,000
Provisions:
1. The funding appropriated in this item is for the California Health Center Security Grant Program to help health centers that provide abortion services and may be the targets of violence and vandalism. Up to 5 percent of the amount appropriated in this item may be used for administrative support costs.
Notice that this request includes taking out 5% of this 10,000,000.00 for admin costs means that this bill is asking for $500,000.00 to go into the pockets of the Status of Women Commission.
It will be the Status of Women commission authorized to be in control of all 32 health clinic abortion centers on the 32 California University and state college campuses.
California’s Politicians And their Heaven-on-Earth Plan
California Right to Life Committee, Inc
2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #243
Walnut Creek, Ca 94598
(925) 899-3064
callifeadvocates.org/blog
California’s Politicians And their Heaven-on-Earth Plan.
Camille Giglio
July 12, 2019 - San Francisco - California Right to Life News - The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help, the sage coinage of which is attributed to Ronald Reagan and first used during a campaign speech.
At the time everybody laughed, but in the years since it’s become obvious that the government wants American citizens to cede our rightful, God given freedoms, responsibilities and even our children over to them.
During the first part of the 21st century they have, most notably under successive Obama Administrations, doubled down on their headlong push towards supervising and planning-for-all by creating public private partnerships, joining government and non-profit i.e. non-elected private community groups into ventures with profit making results. These groups include Planned Parenthood , school-based health clinics, PTA’s, LGBTQ advocates and dozens of non-profit Social/emotional learning groups who now, thanks to legislation, have access to the schools and to the training of teachers.
Legislators, media, are constantly employing fear tactics about the physical and mental health and well-being of our children, that is if we fail to let the elected officials and their cohorts run our lives for us. This is all caused, so they claim, by parents and citizens who fail to realize the benefits to be derived from a gracious government wanting to “help.”
The educratic-political elite have created a legislative mandate that will require that every child receive a mental health or trauma-post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]-experience evaluation.
For example AB1005, by Democrat Joaquin Arambula seeks to create an extensive bureaucracy to help foster children and youth through what he calls a “Family Urgent Response System.” This would follow the guidelines set for the Continuum of Care legislation created previously to help children, “heal from trauma and thrive”
Yeah that last part is a direct cop from the famous Kaiser-Permanente Medical advertising “tag line.:
.Governor Newsom used the Mental Health hook during his campaign for office. An Executive Order followed requiring the departments of Health and Education to formulate “Master Plans” covering the Mental Health issues for “Cradle to Grave.”
Thus invested and if put into effect California’s Democrats will wield the type of power that would be the envy of a Lenin or Stalin.
This is NOT a misprint, fully 480 bills on the Mental Health subject were submitted just this ter. So far 37 have passed their house of origin. Our organization California Right to Life Council has been closely following 8 of them. The 5 listed below are the most insidious. The vast majority of the remaining Mental health and Master Plan Bills carry the funding and the subject matter and citizens in need [the state’s call of course] in need of ”counseling.”
As least one bill regarding trauma would have a cadre of “peer counselors” receiving trauma training, including the training of Janitors to recognize abuse in their peers. When they talk about counselors they don’t mean psychologists or medical doctors.
Due to the already huge financial demands on California’s budget placed by just this kind of utopian social engineering by the Democrat Party, this meddling will be enacted using a bare bones regime with the “caregivers” - hold on to your hats - chosen from non-professional, self-declared former druggies and sexual abuse “victims” who might receive a couple weeks of [state approved] training before counseling your grade level or high school students to deal with their traumas.
A few more of these gems:
AB 547, Lorena Gonzalez, (D)/SB10, Jim Beall, (D), Mental Health Peer Support certification, in Assembly Health Committee as of 7/2/19. Passing unanimously through 4 other committees.
SB 228, Hannah Beth Jackson, (D), Master Plan on Aging, This is the Authorizing bill.
AB1287, Adrin Nazarian, (D), Universal Assessments: “No Wrong Door System. “Navigators” will assist the seniors or young adult crowd to find the right services for their special needs.
AB1382, Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry, (D) Master Plan for Aging. This would appear to be requiring the unionization of all childcare workers including private and in-home care.
AB228 requires the Governor to appoint a Master Plan Director and establishes an Aging Task Force for the purpose of developing a Master Plan on Aging, “as specified.” This bill also requires the Office of the Chancellor of the Community Colleges and California State University to develop, and authorizes an Aging Task Force of 13 members or agencies. (representing non-profit community agencies and stakeholders)
The Cult of Death:
Ron Panzer of the Hospice Patients Alliance, author of the highly regarded book: Hospice and Palliative Care: Stealth Euthanasia. Has this to say about assisted suicide or “palliative” care services: Any time the government controls health care, and not the patient and physician, it becomes a matter of economics, budgeting, and cost control…Therefore, the costly elderly and disabled are to be euthanized/”assisted” to commit suicide. He, further, urges all of us to educate the public about the reality that left unchecked it will be the government and un-elected advocates - will “ease” people into death one way or another.
Death FROM a Salesman:
Be advised of the support by the Democrat controlled House for a new approach to encouraging patients to accept a planned death (link) - Palliative Care Hospice Education Training Act. This program [if enacted] will be used to “train” the heretofore mentioned rag-tag- gaggle of assisted suicide supporting counselors, teachers, medical personnel, former drug users and petty criminals on how to “encourage” patient acceptance of assisted suicide and or palliative care - the latter being the ground floor level entry into assisted suicide.
If you frequent the obituary columns in your newspaper you may have noticed that some obits carry profuse thanks given to patient care groups such as Vitas Care, a major provider of hospice [non] care. Not all hospice or elder care programs, either at separate facilities or in-home care, are the same. They all need to be thoroughly checked out to insure that one’s family member does not become a victim of a planned, scheduled death, as a result of removal of nutrition/hydration from the patient.
The number of bills and their increasingly intrusive nature have expanded, making it almost impossible to keep up with them. It takes huge blocks of time to read the bills, research the subject matter, look up the supporters and opposers, write the position papers for the legislative committees and track the constantly amended bills.
An army of researchers is needed.
The fact that, apparently, the California Catholic Dioceses, by educating their parishioners to the dangers of some legislation, have succeeded in getting SB 360 [mandating that priests break the seal of Confession] was pulled from hearings, shows it can be done on other issues. Be aware, though, that this bill is not dead. It has become a two-year bill meaning it can be brought up again in January of 2020.
We at California Right to Life Committee, hope that the information we have been providing is of help to understanding the public policy arena trust that it has given you a sense of confidence to take your own stand in the public realm and defend your rights… God given and Constitutionally-protected.
All bills may be read in their entirety by going to http://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Ca Senate Committee Approves Bill to Provide Abortifacient Drugs on All Public Colleges and Universities
Ca Senate Committee Approves Bill to Provide Abortifacient Drugs on All Public Colleges and Universities
SB 24, a bill that would force student health centers at all University of California and California State University campuses to offer abortifacient drugs beginning in January 1, 2023 passed the Senate Health Committee Wednesday on a vote of 7-3.
According to Jenni Fink, “There are 10 campuses within the University of California system and an additional 23 comprise the California State University system.”
Introduced last December by pro-abortion state Senator Connie Leyva, Senate Bill 24 is her latest attempt to ensure that so-called medication abortions are available through the first ten weeks of pregnancy.
“SB 24 is an important step toward ensuring the right to abortion is available to all Californians and that our college students don’t face unnecessary barriers,” Sen. Leyva said in a statement that appeared on her website
Her previous bill (SB 320) was vetoed by pro-abortion former Governor Jerry Brown in late 2018. His reasons had nothing to do with the ethics of abortion but rather that there was no need.
“According to a study sponsored by supporters of this legislation, the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance,” Brown wrote in the veto letter. “Because the services required by this bill are widely available off-campus, this bill is not necessary.”
Brown’s successor, Gavin Newsom, has previously said he would sign such a bill.
Funding, particularly start-up costs, was always an issue but proponents have worked around it.
“The College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund would provide $200,000 grants to each public university student health center, as established in the bill,” Fink wrote. “The grant’s intention is to cover the costs of medication abortion readiness and permits for several expenses, including the purchase of equipment, facility and security upgrades and training staff members.”
Opponents have seen the proposal in a far different light. Their instinct is not to take the child’s life but to help the mother navigate an unplanned pregnancy at the same time she is attending school. According to the Daily Titan, the student newspaper at California State University, Fullerton, Cameron Brewer, who was then the new president of Students for Life,
opposes the bill. Brewer said that any campus health resources should be used to help women who are pregnant, need help with child care and give information about adoption.
“It’s (the pill) more traumatic for women. It’s way easier to access without thinking about it, and the side effects can be more severe. There should be more instruction on the adoption process,” said Brewer.
Naturally, in all the promotion for chemical abortifacients at student health centers not a syllable about the thousands of complications and even deaths.
The latest FDA latest update tells us that as of December 31, 2017, the deaths of at least 22 women have been associated with the use of the two-drug abortion technique.
Student health centers at public universities in California “do not offer abortions of any kind, instead referring women to off-campus clinics,” according to Melody Gutierrez of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Original article
SB24’S REAL PURPOSE
California Right to Life Committee, Inc
2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #243
Walnut Creek, Ca 94598
(925) 899-3064
callifeadvocates.org/blog
SB24’S REAL PURPOSE
Camille Giglio
4/16/2019. Walnut Creek. Ca. Do you know anyone who still believes that Planned Parenthood and friends care one little bit about women with unplanned Pregnancies or violent sexual mates or sexual inequality? You can quickly dispatch those beliefs by telling these people about Senator Connie Leyva’s California bill, SB24 Student Health Centers; Medication Abortion.
AB 24 which passed its first hearing on April 4 in the Senate Health Committee, would, among other things, provide $200,000.00 per school to prepare exam room space in their school clinics and employ nurse practitioners whose sole duty would be to dispense RU486 to female students.
It would also create a new advisory board staffed by the members of the California Status of Women…and girls… Commission to manage the Fund of both private and public dollar donations and grants solely for this.
SB 24 is not about health care or education or equal justice for women. It’s about getting inside education department and setting up abortion as something no different than dispensing an aspirin. It’s a profitable business. What business doesn’t want to expand?
California’s quiet reproductive rights revolution, published in 2014 by MSNBC’s Equality and Health segment of its on-line news feed carries a 2014,old but still worthwhile report.
The 2014 goal of a group called ACCESS, was full of expanding access to abortion. It has been their battle cry since Roe v Wade and is still ongoing. In their minds there are never enough young women having abortions or enough nurses and doctors trained to provide this service according to their mission and goal. Does any business set a limit on who can buy their product? Bills hoping to further market abortions pops up consistently in legislation often without success. This year is different. The Democrats, esp., pro abort Dems control the votes.
Today’s legislative term, 2019, is carrying yet another such bill, SB24, Student Health Centers: Abortion by Medication, by Sen. Connie Leyva. She is the current PP abortion enabler in the legislature who is proposing yet another method to open up more avenues to access to abortion.
SB 24 was heard on April 4 in the Senate Health Committee and recorded for public listening. You can watch the hearing by going to our blogsite for California Right to Life.
AB 24 includesrequiring California universities and colleges (roughly about 35 campuses) to accept $200,000.00 each to set up facilities within the student health centers for nurse practitioners to dispense RU486, the notorious morning-after pill. The bill invites private donations but it is obvious who or what source would eventually be providing the funding.
Sen. Shannon Grove, one of the two Republican members of this committee, Sen. Stone being the other one asked some specific questions on the credentials of those who would be dispensing the pills and on procedures that would be followed should a student experience health or emotional problems surrounding the potential expelling of a dead baby at inconvenient times and places. None of these questions were answered because they have no answer no plan.
Sen. Holly Mitchell brushed away those concerns by saying that those were discussions more appropriate for other committees such as finance. She wished to discuss policy issues.
As she talked it became clear that the policy she wished to discuss was one of equal justice or making medication abortion, of any type and for all, available on every university and college campuses as well as private colleges as a future goal.
Interestingly she never said the stronger more binding words “must be” introduced on campuses. She said, instead “ought to be.” This casual phrase indicates no forceful need, just a whim. It is a further indication that she and her abortion cohorts in the legislature care little to nothing for the health and emotional safety of our students. They care only about their exalted philosophy which goes something like; since abortion is legal and physical or mental harm is very minimal – according to their figures – then why isn’t medication abortion one of the offerings?
It doesn’t matter how much it costs, how much it harms the woman’s reproductive system or their emotional stability. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t cost effective or efficient. It is a type of abortion procedure and we, the pro abort women and men of this august legislative body now have the control of the legislature and the minds of the legislators to be able to do anything we want.
They are approaching it like the business that it really is, not a service or a compassionate choice. That’s all advertising! They particularly cited figures that said that the procedure most often used to obtain an abortion was a suction machine anyway. What she didn’t say was that a suction abortion following a medication abortion is often required because of uterine infection from incomplete abortion by medication.
The bill will next be heard in the Senate Education Committee on April 24. Note the relevance of the date – 24 as in SB 24. Also the name RU486 is a reference to the date this pill was put on market, April 1986.
WHERE DO YOU CALL:
Senate Education Committee, 916-651-4105. Leyva herself is Chairman. Please encourage everyone you know to call and call your own state senator who will vote on SB24 when it comes to the Senate floor.