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.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to , on November 17th, 2019 | add a comment

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.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on October 25th, 2019 | add a comment

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on October 14th, 2019 | add a comment

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.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on September 26th, 2019 | add a comment

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.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on September 12th, 2019 | add a comment

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

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 16th, 2019 | add a comment

Ca Senate Committee Approves Bill to Provide Abortifacient Drugs on All Public Colleges and Universities

By Dave Andrusko

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.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on April 25th, 2019 | add a comment

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.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on April 18th, 2019 | add a comment

CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC.
2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #243
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
callifeadvocates@gmail.com
925-899-3064

CRLC must adamantly oppose the inclusion of medication abortions or any form of abortion procedures at publicly funded California institutions of higher education.

SB24 is a rerun of SB320 from the previous legislature.  It was rightly vetoed by then Governor Jerry Brown as not necessary.  He stated that accessibility and availability were NOT problems for college students.

SB 24 reiterates the myth that a medication abortion is a safe medical procedure while claiming that it is an accepted health care component for reproductive health.

CRLC vigorously objects to these assertions.  Abortion is not health care for either the pregnant woman or the preborn girl or boy. 

For the continued good health of women students in California we demand a NO vote.

Cc. Honorable Jeff Stone, Vice-Chairman

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on April 18th, 2019 | add a comment

California Right to Life Committee, Inc
2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #243
Walnut Creek, Ca  94598
(925) 899-3064
callifeadvocates.org/blog

STOP AB 624-FREE TAXPAYER ADVERTISING
FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND OTHERS

April 10, 2019. Walnut Creek. This term’s stable of bills on healthcare and education are now quickly moving through the legislature with little to no opposition from the church, the Republican office holders or the state.

Bills dealing with the social, emotional, academic, mental health and workforce training of students has flooded the health and education agendas of the state. The goal is the re-ordering of the idea of family. Our future as citizens of California may become  more of a mandate for being primarily non-voluntary partners of the state rather than parents and primary educators of the children they bore.

AB 624, ID cards and Student Health Resources. This bill will place hotline phone numbers on the backs of student ID cards paid for with taxpayer education dollars.

The bill Passed the Assembly Education Committee on Party line vote and now moves to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Hearing date in late April. There are 3 Republicans and 9 Democrats on this committee, Asm Gabriel himself being one of them.

PLEASE BEGIN  CALLING TODAY - THIS HIGHER ED COMMITTEE AND EXPRESSING YOUR OPPOSITION TO PASSAGE OF THIS BILL. Phone: 916-319 3960.

All you need to do is state your position on AB 624 and the area in which you live. Pass on this information to others, including your Bishop or church leaders. Ask them to speak to the parishioners urging them to step up to protect their children’s physical, emotional, and spiritual health by defeating this bill. They don’t record names, just the numbers who call.

Make no mistake, today’s legislators, including some Republicans, believe that parents are accountable to the state for the end result of raising children.

Today, Governor Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Seibel Newsom, is leading a demonstration around the Capitol in support of AB624 by Assembly member Jesse Gabriel (D-San Fernando) entitled Pupil and Student Health: Identification Cards (D-San Fernando).

Planned Parenthood gave Gabriel $4,400.00 for his 2018 election Campaign. This is chump change, but he, in return, is attempting to give all of California’s children to Planned Parenthood to show his appreciation by using student ID cards are free advertising for all the groups who support him and work with Planned Parenthood.

Following the media and Planned Parenthood driven hysteria regarding the state of children’s mental and physical health, the Democrats are calling for placing hotline phone numbers on the back of student ID cards for mental health counseling groups, domestic violence groups, sexual assault groups, etcThey apparently believe that this will fulfill the mandate in socialized medicine for “healthcare-for-all.”

This will include Charter Schools, private schools and beginning with 7^th grade level students by June 2020.  This is free, to them, advertising paid for with education dollars derived from taxpayers.

This is a misuse of our children, a misuse of taxpayer funds, misuse of educational opportunities for students, and a dangerous re-formation of beliefs and values being modeled for our children.

It’s a deliberate move to drive a wedge between children and parents, turning the children to the state for guidance and support while the parents pay for all of this in the misguided belief that our children are getting an academic education.

Only three pro life organizations are opposing this: The California Catholic Conference, Faith and Public Policy and our organization.  This is a Planned Parenthood bill. Googling Assembly member Jesse Gabriel’s name and that of Planned Parenthood brings up glowing press releases by PP for the great work of Asm Gabriel. He was elected to the Assembly late last year. He received glowing endorsements and generous donations for his Campaign from statewide well-known very progressive elected officials as well as by members of Planned Parenthood’s PPAC – it’s political support arm.

This legislative term, more than the usual number of bills are being put together in packages due to overlapping similarities.  For instance: To be heard in the Assembly Health Committee:

AB258 Pupil Health: School-Based Pupil Support Services Act.

States the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would increase in-school support services to pupils in order to break down barriers to academic success. Enacts the school-Based Pupil Support Services Program Act, under which grants and matching funds are awarded by the State Department of Education to local educational agencies.

One of the supporters is the California School Nurses Organization – CSNO. This is an affiliate of the national school Nurses Org. which has a public policy statement supporting birth control for students.

This sounds like it might be good, but really, it is a tool for merging the departments of health and education. Education is now health care and health care is now part and parcel of education delivered through the easiest access, the school house.

Please add this phone number – Assembly Health Committee -  to your list to call and OPPOSE.  Phone: 916-319-2097. Chad Mayes, Republican from San Bernardino area, is the V. Chairman of this committee. He needs a reminder that he is a Republican not a duplicate of the Democrats.

His phone number is 916-319-2142

TOMORROW, FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 8:30 Mass at Queen of All Saints Church, Concord, followed by a Rosary Procession to Planned Parenthood five county headquarters one block away. Try to come.

Queen of All Saints church, 2390 Grant St. Planned Parenthood, corner of Grant and Pacheco Sts. Free Public Parking garage on Salvio at Grant.

Note:  We were called by an Aide in Asm Gabriel’s office, Abram Diaz,  attempting to urge us to remove our  opposition to Gabriel’s two other school mental health services bill – ab166 MediCal Violence Preventive Services, Also in the Assembly Health Committee ;hearing date 4/23:  and AB 666 Pupil Mental Health: Model Referral Protocols Awaiting hearing in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

California Right to Life Committee, Inc. 2872 Ygnacio Valley Rd 243, Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 925-899-3064.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on April 15th, 2019 | add a comment