1. California Legislation.

URGENT STATUS

2. Kaiser/Fox Broadcasting partnership targeting teens

(note) Please check out our website for additional information not contained in alerts.

http://www.callifeadvocates.org/blog

___________________________________

It is becoming more and more apparent that bureaucrats and directors of Non-governmental organizations view themselves as the authority over the best interests of children rather than the parents.

In this listing all bills are either in a concurrence committee, meaning that both houses have passed the bill but with differing amendments and the bill must be reconciled. Or, the bill is waiting for a final floor vote before going to the Governor.

AB 2560, Public School Health Center Support Program, Mark Ridley-Thomas, (D-L.A./Westmont)

STATUS: Concurrence committee, will go back to each house for final vote.

REQUEST: Contact your local Assembly and Senate member urging a

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on August 20th, 2006 | add a comment

by Wayne Walker, homeeducator.com

Wayne Walker is the publisher and editor of the Online Newsletter, HEADSUP (HOMESCHOOL EDUCATORS ON ACTIVE DUTY, SENDING UPWARD PRAISES). He writes the following article as a father and citizen concerned about the push for mandated pre-school programs in his state of Missouri and which seems to be prevalent across the U.S. It was written in response to an article that appeared in his local newspaper on the subject.

When compulsory school attendance laws were originally passed beginning in the mid to late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s, many states did not start compulsory attendance until age seven because it was commonly accepted that a lot of children were not developmentally able to handle the stress of school at ages five and six. However, as more and more socialist-thinking people, who viewed their role as changing society to fit their ideas, came to be in control of the educational establishment, an effort was made to get children away from their parents’ control and into government-approved indoctrination centers at earlier and earlier ages. First, many states lowered the compulsory attendance age to six. Next came the push for mandatory kindergarten. Now, there is a move to demand mandatory pre-kindergarten classes for allchildren.

In the May 17, 2006, issue of the South County Journal, a free, local weekly newspaper in our area, there was a letter by Catherine Martarella headlines "PK-3: Maximizing children’s potential." It appeared to be one of those generically prepared letters on an issue that are mass mailed to all media outlets to see how many will publish them. Catherine Martarella is the program director for Citizens for Missouri’s Children, an organization founded in 1983 as a state-wide advocate for child protection, early care and education, health and mental health care and youth development. It is always good to know a little bit about the background and views of an organization to help one understand why they say and do certain things.

A check of the website of Citizens for Missouri’s Children shows that their mission is "To advocate the rights and well-being of all Missouri’s children, especially those with the greatest need." Their vision states, "We believe that all children in the state should benefit from public policies that guarantee they are protected and secure in nurturing environments, allowing them to thrive and grow to their greatest potential." This is so noble-sounding! Of course, everyone supports the well-being of all children. Yes, we agree that public policies should promote and support caring families in which children are protected and secure in nurturing environments, allowing them to thrive and grow to their greatest potential. However, notice what is missing in the quotes. There is no mention of "family" or "parents" anywhere! I have an idea this organization’s view, when translated into simple language, is that government is better at protecting, securing, and nurturing children than their own families are.

Let us now look at the article itself. It begins, "As Missouri considers increasing its investment in prekindergarten, we must consider this public investment in early learning. Maximizing these public dollars requires aligning standards, curriculum and assessment from pre-kindergarten through kindergarten, and into the early elementary grades. That’s the PK-3 approach. PK-3 begins with voluntary full-school-day pre-kindergarten for all 3- and 4-year-old children. Compulsory schooling begins in kindergarten with a curriculum that builds on pre-kindergarten experiences. Children learn social skills and self-discipline as well as reading and math."

When people who think that the government does a better job at anything that promotes increased government spending on their pet projects, why is it that they always call it a "public investment"? The answer is that they want someone else to pay for their plans. Obviously, someone is going to have to do all this "aligning standards, curriculum and assessment" and then monitor it. And who better to do that than the same leftists and government bureaucrats who are promoting it in the first place? What a wonderful way to guarantee their job security! And to control the minds of impressionable children in the process! See what I mean about getting children away from their parents at increasingly early ages? Voluntary full-school-day prekindergarten for all 3- and 4-year-old children? Why should anyone in his right mind think that three and four year old kids should be cooped up in a school room for six or eight hours every day, five days a week for half a year? Also, what starts out as "voluntary" (though usually under great pressure) eventually becomes "mandatory." Kindergarten used to be thought of as "voluntary" but now it is "mandatory" under this thinking. Finally, why cannot children learn social skills and self-discipline from parents and family? Or are parents nowadays just too stupid to teach their children these things?

However, there are supposed to be all kinds of benefits for this "public investment." According to the article, "Research supports the PK-3 approach. A study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association tracked 1,500 disadvantaged minority children in Chicago for 16 years….Called the Child-Parent Centers, these programs were part of the Chicago Public School system. The study found that CPC participants were almost 30 percent more likely to complete high school than a comparison group of equally disadvantaged children." Someone has said that figures do not lie, but liars sure do figure.

What struck me about this research is that it only deals with disadvantaged children. Most of us would probably agree that in situations where children are growing up in a home where both mom and dad are away working all day or otherwise absent and there is hardly any parental supervision or nurturing it might be better for those children to be in an early learning center. However, to take these exceptional situations, apply the conclusions drawn from them across the board to all families, even those where the parents are present and nurturing, and then seek for laws to require every three and four year old to start PK-3 programs in public (or state-approved private) schools is the height of absurdity! These people really must think that all parents are just too stupid to raise their children, so the government, through PK-3 programs, will have to do it for them.

In another attempt at proving the benefits of PK-3 programs, the article says, "According to the recently released Child Well-Being Index (CWI) report, the rise in 9-year-old’s math and reading performance as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress (’the nation’s report card’) corresponds with the dramatic expansion of pre-kindergarten since the mid ’90s." Notice carefully what is NOT said. It is not said, because there is evidently no evidence whatever to prove it, that the rise in 9-year-old’s math and reading performance WAS CAUSED BY the dramatic expansion of pre-kindergarten. Ms. Martarella would undoubtedly have given her eyeteeth if she could have said that. But she did not because she could not, although she obviously seeks to imply it. All she could say was that the rise "corresponds with" the expansion. The truth is that there could be any number of other factors which may have contributed to the rise.

The stated reason (again, I believe that the real, unstated goal is to get children away from their parents and under state control as early as possible) for this mandatory early learning push is to give children a "Head Start" (the name of another similarly-aimed government anti-poverty program of questionable value) so that "children reach fourth grade equipped with the skills needed to learn at a higher level." Forty years ago, when I was in elementary school, what we accomplished in first, second, and third grades seemed to do quite nicely, thank you! But do such early learning programs really increase readiness? The research examined by Dr. Raymond and the late Dorothy Moore show otherwise. Dr. Moore was an official in the Reagan Education Department and shows in Better Late Than Early and School Can Wait, which led to their other books promoting homeschooling, Home Grown Kids and Home Spun Schools, that children who grew up with stimulating environments in nurturing homes until they were eight or nine did just as well in school when placed with other children their age without the danger of academic burnout.

This past year, there was a movement in California for universal preschool. Diane Flynn Keith in an article "Universal Preschool: What?s Behind the Claims That It Will Stop Crime, Secure Your Child?s Future, Save Social Security and Provide A Free Government Nanny!" (The Link; Volume 8, Issue 2; pp. 13, 22, 37, 49, 51) states, "In fact, there are a number of revered child development experts who strongly oppose the institutionalization of mainstream young children in academic programs and warn of the potential damage intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, socially and physically to them if separated from their parents and homes." She cites Mary Eberstadt?s Home Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs and Other Parent Substitutes and David Elkind’s Miseducation: Preschoolers At Risk. She also quotes renowned educational psychologist and authority on brain development in children, Jane Healy, Ph.D., who in Your Child?s Growing Mind: Brain Development and Learning From Birth to Adolescence, says to parents, "Give your child the gift of patience for the broad-based mental experiences that will underlie joyous learning throughout life?Childhood is a process, not a product, and so is learning. In a society that often respects products more than the processes of creation and thought, it is easy to fall into the trap of anxiety over measuring achievement in isolated skills. Have faith in childhood and yourself. Children?s brains generally seek what they need, and nature has given you the instincts to help them get it."

Keith concludes, "For 80% of the preschool population, learning at home with loving parents — who may also occasionally and thoughtfully use private and co-op preschool programs in their community that emphasize imaginative play and facilitate a child?s natural curiosity — is a better model for the healthy intellectual, physical, social and emotional development of young children than any government preschool program could ever be. More than ever, parents need to be informed in order to maintain their right to determine the educational path of their own children without government mandates or interference….We should all care enough to examine the research and claims made in support of government funded and/or mandated universal preschool before we allow it to take hold."

Sharna Olfman, Ph. D., who is a clinical psychologist, an associate professor of Psychology in the Department of Humanities and Human Sciences at Point Park College in Pittsburgh, PA, and editor of the book All Work and No Play: How Educational Reforms are Harming our Preschoolers, issues similar warning in an article "The Push for Early Childhood Literacy: A Risk Factor in Child Psychopathology" (Home Educator’s Family Times; March/April, 2006; pp. 8, 25). She concludes, "It is a striking paradox that as adults feel increasingly entitled to place their individual needs first, we are creating educational environments that do not respect children’s individuality or their special status as children. We introduce concepts long before children are ready to master them, deny their need for play, subject them to uniform curricula and assessment, and label and drug the children who do not fit in. Our preoccupation with understanding the genetic and neurological bases of illness, while ignoring the power of the environment, also speaks to our increasingly mechanized conceptualization of human nature."

So, beware of attempts to mandate universal preschool. Home educating families will be affected if such programs are adopted. In states like Missouri where records have to be kept by homeschooling parents for students falling under the compulsory attendance ages, record keeping will become even more onerous as records will have to be kept for three, four, five, and six year olds as well as those who are actually of "school age." There is one more item in Catherine Martarella’s article that I would like to point out. "To help qualified teachers make a career of early education, we must pay them what we pay all other elementary school teachers." Translation: Watch your pocketbook and look for a HUGE TAX INCREASE if these programs are adopted.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 27th, 2006 | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

1. Federal and state Legislation.
2. Miscellaneous news
____________________________________________

1. FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
Pro Life groups everywhere are overjoyed that the President vetoed, as he promised, US Congressman Mike Castle

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 25th, 2006 | add a comment

prepared by Camille Giglio

1. Federal Legislation - Urgency status.
2. State Legislation - Urgency status
3. Misc.
______________________________________________

Several national level pro life groups are urging immediate attention to at least three bills coming before the Congress and Senate.  These three bills need your help in getting a hearing otherwise they just sit in a committee and never go anywhere.

S 3504 -  Public Health Service Act, Rick Santorum (R-Pa). SUPPORT.
 LOCATION: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee   

  Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other purposes.

S. 2754 Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines, Rick Santorum OPPOSE

LOCATION: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

Relates to deriving human pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.

Commentary:  (Provided by Republican Nat

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 16th, 2006 | add a comment

1. Federal Legislation
2. Gates/Buffet and Pop Control
3. Plans for new school/community programs

___________________________________

1. FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s June Report: Senator Feinstein Calls on Senator Frist to Bring Bill Expanding Stem Cell Research to the Senate Floor (5/4/06)

(an extract from the report)

Ending the President Roadblock on Stem Cell Research

The potential for stem cell research was in the news again this month, when scientists at Johns Hopkins announced that they used embryonic stem cells to regenerate damaged nerves in paralyzed rats.

Just imagine what this discovery could one day mean for patients with spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis or ALS! Our researchers, however, face a major roadblock imposed by the President in August of 2001, when he limited Federal funding to 22 lines of stem cells. All of these available lines are now contaminated with mouse feeder cells, so virtually there is no Federal ongoing research.

Now, hear from the Republican National Coalition for Life:

We expect the following bills to have recorded votes.

(S. 3504) The Santorum-Brownback Fetus Farming Prohibition Act � RNC/Life SUPPORTS passage of this important measure which would, according to Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), “stop the gruesome practice of initiating human pregnancies in either women or animal uteruses for the purpose of obtaining human tissues for research.”

(S. 2754) The Santorum-Specter Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act � RNC/Life OPPOSES passage of this bill because of the controversial nature of “alternative” means of developing embryo-like pluripotent stem cells, which its supporters claim may possibly be done without engendering an actual human embryo. We believe passage of this bill would add, rather than detract, from efforts to expand scientific experiments on human embryos. We further believe this bill does not enhance the pro-life cause.

(H.R. 810) � The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) � RNC/Life OPPOSES this bill which would expand the funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond the parameters established by President George Bush in 2001. Those parameters require that no federal funding may be used for experiments on embryos killed after August 9, 2001.

Senator Brownback expressed his opposition to this bill in a June 30, 2006 release: “I am opposed to H.R. 810 because it would require taxpayers to fund the destruction of young human lives. It has never been acceptable to use human beings as a means to an end, even if that end is scientific research.”

The New England Journal of Medicine, in an article entitled “Fifty Years Later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code” (11/13/97), had this to say: “The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research. The code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps. It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research.” The Code requires that experiments be conducted for humanitarian reasons, and the experimental subject should be protected “against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.”

, in an article entitled “Fifty Years Later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code” (11/13/97), had this to say: “The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research. The code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps. It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research.” The Code requires that experiments be conducted for humanitarian reasons, and the experimental subject should be protected “against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.” We believe the Bush policy should be revised to prohibit taxpayer funding of any and all research on human embryos, no matter when they were killed. As a practical matter, that is not likely to happen. However, under no circumstances should the policy be expanded so that you and I, the U.S. Taxpayers, are forced into compliance with morally and ethically repugnant scientific research on human embryos and effort to create human clones.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR U.S. SENATORS TODAY. LET THEM KNOW YOUR VIEWS ON THESE BILLS.

WE CAN�T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH HOW CRUCIAL YOUR PARTICIPATION IS!

CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD � 202/224-3121

THANK YOU!

TWO OTHER IMPORTANT FEDERAL BILLS:

Two pro-life bills will be addressed by the U.S. House of Representatives as part of a package of ten bills the Republican Leadership are calling the “American Values Agenda.”

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act requires that mothers be fully informed about the unborn baby�s ability to feel the excruciating pain of the abortion procedure.

Please contact your Member of Congress to urge prompt action on these bills.

__________________________________________

Governor Schwarzenegger not opposed to the homosexual agenda.

Even though the Governor�s office has announced that he will (most likely) veto SB 1437 if it gets to his desk. it should be noted that he is not opposed to “Domestic Partnerships.” The following is an excerpt from a press release put out by the Log Cabin Republican group which is the Gay and Lesbian club within the Republican Party.

“Schwarzenegger is expected to attend the Log Cabin Republicans event to raise money for the organization’s West Coast chapters.

“When he took the oath of office he said he’d be governor for all the people and that’s what he’s doing,” said event organizer Ted Jackson.

“He’s coming to talk to us in an effort to reach out and be inclusive. He’s got a strong record of signing civil rights legislation and an even stronger record of reaching out.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed a same-sex marriage bill last fall but has said he supports domestic partnerships, and, since taking office in 2003, has signed two dozen bills in support of rights for the gay and lesbian communities.

“I think that you know the way I voted, and the bills that I have signed, and the bills that I have vetoed, and this is exactly where my position is,” Schwarzenegger said at a news conference Tuesday in Oakland. “I believe in domestic partnerships and all of that.”

Excerpt from the Randy Thomasson site Campaign for Children and Families. Gov. speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, a Rep. group of Gay and Lesbian voters well respected for ability to raise funds.

___________________________

BILL GATES/WARREN BUFFET MILLIONS TO FUND POPULATION CONTROL.

Add Warren Buffet�s $37 billion with of securities to Bill and Melinda Gates� $29 billion and we have the wealthiest foundation to date, exceeding the Ford Foundation�s $11 billion, according to a report sent out by Population Research Institute�s director Steven Mosher.

Mosher�s article (6/30/06, vol, 8. no. 25) outlines the intended goals of this ungodly union.

1. The motivation behind this announced reproductive health funding program is population control.

2. This goal disregards the known and recorded statistics on the falling birth rates in both the developed world and in some of the Third World Countries.

3. Both Gates and Buffet have long histories of subsidizing abortion and population control while also providing funds for many worthwhile programs.

4. Gates admits in in a PBS “NOW” interview that “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood.”

5. Gates Foundation gave $2.25 million to Johns Hopkins to train Third World experts in population control in 1997.

6. Warren Buffet provided funds for anti-Catholic Catholics for a Free Choice and his daughter acknowledges that “She expects that population control would be the foundation�s top priority.”

_______________________

Healthy Kids Funds Removed From Budget

tJune 27, 2006

Legislators on Monday announced that they have reached a tentative budget agreement after they negotiated the removal of a proposal that would have funded county children’s health insurance programs that cover undocumented immigrant children, the Sacramento Bee reports (Benson, Sacramento Bee, 6/27).

However:

Democrats said they will introduce legislation this summer to expand children’s health insurance coverage (Sacramento Bee, 6/27). Democrats also “received a commitment” from Schwarzenegger to work with them on a health insurance expansion for children, the Times reports (Los Angeles Times, 6/27).

_______________________________

SCHOOL BUILDINGS OF THE FUTURE TO PROVIDE MORE THAN ACADEMIC EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

Pro Life and Pro Family groups have been reporting for years that the Educational Bureaucracy, especially in California have grandiose plans for the future of education and educational buildings.

For years articles have appeared concerning a program entitled “School to Work” and other titles about government and big business merging their goals of developing a utilitarian work force pool of students. Also articles have appeared about schools as centers for the delivery of health care and job training centers.

In June a conference of international Architects and planners was held in Los Angeles. The focus was on designing new buildings for the future of education. An Italian magazine “Europaconcorsi” interviewed Steven Castellanos on his ideas for building new s schools.

Here, in brief, is his interview. For the full, lengthy interview, please click on the link listed beneath this article. If you are unable to obtain the online article let me know and I will copy and paste it to you.

Steven Castellanos formerly served as the California State Architect and currently serves as one of California’ s delegates to the board of directors of the American Institute of Architects. From his extensive experience designing and overseeing public projects and working with the Sacramento bureaucracy, Mr. Castellanos knows first hand the challenge of building neighborhood centered schools.

For full report go to Europaconcorsi. This magazine for Italian Architects interviewed Mr. Castellanos at an Architectural Convention in Los Angeles. The article was printed 6/30/06

http://www.europaconcorsi.com/db/rec/inbox.php?id=12665

____________________________________

By now, some of you have received a notice sent to you by California Right to Life inviting you to sign on to our alerts in a new way. It is called Yahoo Groups. This is mainly an easier and more efficient method of sending out emails. There is no cost involved, but in order to get into this group it is necessary for you to respond to the request to join. Some of you have already done that and I thank you very much.

Due to the fear of spamming most software email programs provide only limited sending of emails with lots of names in the “to” column. Therefore it takes me an hour to send out email alerts in groups of 25 names or so. This newer way will allow all the names to go out in one email. Your privacy will be protected.

I hope that you stay with us. Also know that every email I send out also goes up on our website at http://www.callifeadvocates.org/blog

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 4th, 2006 | add a comment

HOW TO MAKE YOUR POSITION KNOWN TO THE LEGISLATORS. A reminder.
There are several ways to impress the legislators with your position on bills.
To get your position listed in Committee analyses:.
1.� If you have an organization, send your position on Letterhead stationery.
A-If you know about a bill at least a week before it is heard send it to the Committee
hearing the bill
B- If you are an individual, you can be listed in a� group under the heading
�16 individual letters in opposition.�� As an example.
C- Send it by fax = if a bill is being heard in, say, Senate Health Committee on a Tuesday, then send your faxed letter by Thursday afternoon because on Friday they package everything up.
D- If you send your letter by snail mail send it at least 3 or 4 days before that Thursday deadline.
E- Send it by email and indicate your organization also on the same deadline.
2. Send your fax, letter to the specific Committee (committees have no email addresses that they give out.
3. Send your fax, letter or email to the Chair person of the committee, now usually a Democrat, and to the V. Chair person of the committee, usually a Republican.
4. Also send your letter to the author of the bill. Apparently they, too, submit those letters to the committee.
5. Phone calls and emails are important even at the last minute to the individual legislators and to the members of the various committees hearing the bill(s)
________________________________
A BIG VICTORY/
Assembly bill 651, by Assemblymembers Levine and Berg, failed passage in the Senate Judiciary committee, yesterday, 6/27/06, The vote was 2-2 with Bill Morrow not present. Democrat Chairman Joe Dunn crossed over and voted �NO� thereby saving the day. Claimed he did not know until he heard the testimony how he would vote.
Senator Dunn lost his bid for a cabinet seat in the recent election, plus he is termed out of office this year. He is now not beholden to his Party�s support. He is still chairman of the Judiciary and as such remains in a continuing position of importance regarding other bills, (see below).
ACTION: Please call Sen. Dunn�s office and thank him for his vote cast in opposition to AB 651. He acted very fiscally responsible. Don�t mention anything pro life because he is not a pro life supporter.
_______________________________
AB 606, Lloyd Levine,� Safe Schools: Discrimination and Harassment. Sets up procedures for protecting deviant lifestyles on campuses.�
WHERE:� Senate Judiciary Comm.
ACTION: Joe Dunn , Chairman. Phone:� (916) 445-5831/Fax 916/323-2323
V. Chairman, Bill Morrow Phone: (916) 445-3731/Fax 916/446-7382
Lloyd Levine: Fax 916/319-2140
STATUS: Awaiting hearing in Sen. Judiciary. Could be taken up any time. PLEASE, contact Chairman Joe Dunn. Urge his �NO� vote. Also call Bill Morrow and urge his attendance for a �NO� vote.
AB 172. Wilma Chan, Universal Preschool.� Sets up the bureaucracy for Universal Preschool.
WHERE: Senate Education Committee
STATUS: Bill on Suspense file, but Chan office very confident of passage tomorrow, 6/29/06. Then on to Senate floor.
Bill is heavily supported.
COMMENTS: This bill was introduced as a companion to the Preschool For All initiative which was defeated in the June 2006 ballot. The primary goal of the initiative is to implement voluntary preschool programs that prepare children for kindergarten and for �success in life,� available to all four-year-olds whose families choose to enroll them.
ACTION: Contact: Jack Scott, Chmn fax 916/651-324-7543� or, email: senator.scott@sen.ca.gov
Abel Maldonado, V. Chr. fax 916/445-8081.� Maldonado, from the Santa Barbara area is rather flaky in his� voting. He needs to hear from people who urge him to vote �NO.�
Author, Wilma Chan, 916/319-2116 or, www.assemblymember.chan@assembly.ca.gov
AB2560, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Public School Health Centers.� Sets up procedures and bureaucracy for establishing School Based health Centers in all schools. Features the establishment of reproductive services according to its original intent.
Ridley Thomas staff very confident of passage. NEEDS YOUR OPPOSITION CALL NOW.
WHERE: Senate Health Committee _____________
Senate Health Committee meets� at 1:30 pm. On schedule for today-Wednesday.
Sen. Deborah V. Ortiz (D) [Chair] www.senator.ortiz@sen.ca.gov
Sen. George C. Runner (R) [Vice Chair]. www.senator.runner@sen.ca.gov
The legislative analysts report on this bill shows dozens of supportive groups and only three of us groups in opposition plus �6 individual letters.�� If yours was one of those 6, we thank you.
AB 2470, Mark Ridley-Thomas. Health Care Master Plan.
STATUS: On Senate floor awaiting hearing NOW.. There is time to call your Senator and urge a �NO� vote. There are many bills on the floor and seldom are all of them heard on the same day.
AB 2742, Pedro Nava, Family Planning. Merging the state Family PACT into the MediCal Program and authorizing Planned Parenthood to be an automatic referral on a fee for service basis.� Brings big bucks to PP, moving them directly into a position of authority within the state government.
STATUS: In Senate Health Committee TODAY. See AB 2560 for Senate Health info.
SB 1437, Sheila Kuehl, Discriminatory Content.� Requires schools to include sexual preferences and tendencies of historical figures in school texts.� Governor has indicated that while he does not disapprove of including sexual preferences in references to historical figures he most likely will veto this bill because of its �micro managing� of school curriculum by a special interest group.
STATUS: On Assembly floor - third reading. File number� 95. (order of action). There is still time to call your Assembly member, especially the Democrats and urge� a �NO� vote.
___________________________________________
Parental Notification
A measure that would require parental notification before a girl can have an abortion also qualified for the ballot. The measure is nearly identical to Proposition 73, which voters rejected 53% to 47% in the November 2005 special election (Zapler, San Jose Mercury News, 6/21).
Unlike the 2005 ballot measure, the measure� on the 2006 ballot does not define abortion as the termination of “a child conceived, but not yet born.” The current initiative also would require statistics on the number of judicial waivers requested, declined or granted, to be reported based on county, whereas the 2005 initiative would have required such information to be reported for each judge in the state (Wildermuth, San Francisco Chronicle, 6/21).
The measure would require that parents or a legal guardian be notified 48 hours before a girl can have an abortion. Girls who are married, emancipated or are active members of the armed forces would be exempt (San Jose Mercury News, 6/21).
So far, 10 measures have qualified for the November ballot, and several are still awaiting approval before the June 29 deadline (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/21).
________________________________
An Initiative measure to increase the state tobacco tax to fund children’s health insurance and other programs qualified this week for the November ballot, the San Jose Mercury News reports.
Supporters of the measure estimate that the $2.60 tax increase would generate $2.1 billion annually to provide:
��� * $758 million for hospital emergency care;
�� * $371 million for children’s health insurance;
�� * $267 million for cancer, heart, asthma and other disease programs;
�� * $177 million for tobacco prevention and educations; and
�� * $96.5 million for tobacco-related disease research.
____________________________________
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Louisiana Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a ban on most abortions that would be triggered if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 ruling legalizing the procedure, a spokesman said on Saturday.
_________________________________
Please pass this information on to your email listing with a request to help defeat these bills.
Information compiled by Camille Giglio, Exec. Director, California Right to LIfe Committee, Inc.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on June 29th, 2006 | add a comment

IS THE GOVERNOR SELLING US OUT ON HEALTH CARE?

Several Democrat authored health care bills, such as Sen. Sheila Kuehl�s and Sen. Martha Escutia�s bills, have been held up, hearings postponed, etc. We thought it strange until we began reading reports from California healthline and from newspaper reports, that our Governor supports health care “Bridge” programs and thinks that a government blanket of health care for everyone is a good thing. Suddenly everyone is amending their legislation obviously with the hope that it will be their bill that gets to honored with the Governor�s signature.

You may recall that I have written about “Bridge” programs. This would cover, at this point, foster children who are 18 and required to leave foster care. Even though there is a law allowing foster children to be covered by MediCal until age 21, legislation is now being amended to say that all 18 year olds should be entitled to this safety net of health care.

The Democrats are remolding all their socialized medicine bills to get them passed, thereby, pushing the onus of vetoing these bills into the Governor. Most of these bills carry a hefty tax burden which is the one argument that the Governor has, in the past, listened to. Lately the newspapers have been filled with articles about how the state coffers are overflowing with funds. If that is true, we need to convince the legislators and the Governor that we, those who have paid all these dollars to the state, don�t want that money spent on intrusive, one size fits all physical or mental health programs. See Sac Bee article below.

Here is the new schedule of hearings. PLEASE follow the action item request.
ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. June 20, 2006
SB 1437. School Instruction: Discriminatory Content. Sheila Kuehl, (D).
Relates to existing law which prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities and the adopting of textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon specified persons. Revises the list of characteristics included in these provisions to include race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, and religion.
D)ACTION: Contact Committee members. Seems to have Chairman but no C. Chair. Committee consists of 6 Democrats and only 2 Republicans.
Chairman: Dave Jones,(D) phone: 916/319-2009. Fax: 916/319-2109

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on June 19th, 2006 | add a comment

LEGISLATIVE ALERT - AB 2742 NEEDS YOUR URGENT ATTENTION. LETTERS, EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS TO YOUR STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER BEGINNING TUESDAY, MAY 30.

AB 2742, sponsored by Planned Parenthood and authored by Assembly member Pedro Nava, (D-Sta. Barbara with a district office in Oxnard) which had been on a “watch” status came alive when amended in Committee to expand the state Family Planning program - Family PACT - to automatically include Planned Parenthood as a fee-for-service provider.

Family PACT (Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment)
www.dhs.ca.gov/pcfn/ofp/programs/FamPACT/default.htm.

The bill has sailed through three Democrat dominated Assembly committees and is now scheduled for an Assembly floor vote. According to the Republican legislative analyst�s office, 28 of the 32 Republican Assembly members can be counted on to oppose this bill, but that is not enough to defeat it. Democrats need to be convinced to vote “NO.”

This bill is interesting for the fact that this act by Planned Parenthood to force it�s way into the state family planning stables places it squarely in competition with the various county health department clinics. Planned Parenthood not only wants the whole pie they want to run the kitchen as well.

When speaking with Democrats or Republicans like Keith Richman or Lynn Daucher, use the information regarding fiscal effect and urge them to reject the added burden to the taxpayer of underwriting the costs of competition in the abortion industry.

FISCAL EFFECT (as listed in the bill).

1) Increased costs of approximately $2.6 million, consisting of $2 million for OFP to contract for the required evaluation ($630,000 GF), and a cost of $578,000 ($182,000 GF) to Medi-Cal and FPACT to develop common utilization controls, a provider manual, regulations and to administer the transportation and child care grant program.

2) Additional GF costs for the transportation and child care grants through the Office of Family Planning. Assuming 46 grants at $20,000 a grant, GF costs of $920,000. Actual amounts would be determined through the budget act. If federal funds are available to match GF, these costs cost would be reduced by half.
_______________________________________
THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT

Thou shalt honor thy health care provider above all others.

The health care industry has gone to great lengths to instill in everyone�s mind that health care is a right and a necessity. We are led to believe that we adults have failed our youth if there is no womb to tomb health care cocoon surrounding them.

Our young adults are supposed to be so well educated, but they can�t figure out how to provide their own health?

The front page of the Contra Costa Times (5/28/06) carried an article entitled “Recent Grads Seek Ways To Bridge Health Care Gap.” .It portrays all 18 year olds as facing a terrible plight as they enter the world of adults without a health care net under them. This is just the latest in an all out effort by the Health Care Industry and the Democrat Party to divide and conquer and utlimately end up with their desired universal health care insurance coverage as proposed by Senator Sheila Kuehl. You recall the old saying: “how do you swallow an elephant? The answer being :”One bite at a time?” Well, this is getting the tax payers to swallow universal health care one sub group at a time.

Teens, young adults, unemployed adults, seniors, immigrants,illegal aliens, etc. are all sub groups targeted by elitists and social service groups to receive some form of state services. Of course it is mostly the service providing groups who benefit from this as they expand their offices and oversight into peoples lives with an increasing amount of our tax dollars.

Sadly it is not only the likes of Planned Parenthood shouldering their way into this funding stream. Faith based groups, such as Catholic Charities, which received about 80% of its funding from our tax dollars is begging for more money to be one of the providers of what is called “bridge” funding programs and services. The name of their program is CareCollaborative.

For a better understanding of how enmeshed Catholic Charities has become in the welfare state see: City Journal:”How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul.”
You don�t have to be a believer to understand that religious values can uplift the poor. Too bad Catholic Charities USA has lost confidence in the power of those values and has embraced the welfare-state faith. By Brian C. Anderson Winter 2000
www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=566.

ANOTHER BUDGET BOONDOGGLE

The proposed state budget includes a plan to expand the state budget to include proposed spending of $22.8 million or more to “help” counties cover children.(Ed. note: Forhealth care purposes anyone up to age 21 is considered a child) and place them into the Healthy Families Program. In the past the legislature has tried passing legislation to expand this program to include the adult familiy members of the children that have been placed into the state�s loving medical hands. they have failed, but not given up.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Belsh� is quoted as saying that Schwarzenegger’s plan would be “a transitional or bridge proposal,” pending the results of a tobacco tax measure that Advocacy groups are seeking to qualify for the November ballot. A percentage of the tax increase would be used to expand eligibility under Healthy Families. This could well mean that it doesn�t expand the numbers of children receiving this care, only the age of the same group now under 18 receiving this service.

Please just remember that though all this health care sounds like the modern day Good Samaritan, every agency receiving this money will be required to provide or refer your son or daughter, church member or welfare dependent to family planning or abortion providers as the client�s first option. This further cuts out any chance for groups like BirthRight or Pregnancy counseling centers to have any effect.

Understand that the county health clinics and Planned Parenthood are already a very cooperative and close working partnership along with the schools and so-called faith based entities. All the hype about falliing unwed pregnancy and abortion rates could very well mean increased birth control services to our youth and young adults. Don�t let your church become a part of this chemical serilization/ population control mentality.

__________________________________
A CORRECTION.
Recently I sent out a report entitled “Your tax dollars at work discouraging pregnancy.” In that I reported on a presentation given to Contra Costa County non-profit agencies hosted by the county Department of Child Support Services. The program consisted of the presentation of a video entitled “It Takes Two: The legal and financial responsibilities of parenthood.”

That video claimed to portray an actual situation involving a 16 year old girl and her 18 year old Junior Prom date. I misquoted the name of the health clinic that the girl visits to get a pregnancy test. The actual name of the clinic is the Hazel Hawkins health center located in Hollister, California, not the Hazel Rawlins center. An irony does still attach to the use of this clinic however. According to the Hazel Hawkins clinic web site, Hazel was a 7 year girl with an appendicitis attack who, in 1907 died due to lack of nearby health care. Her father, so distressed at the loss of his child, created a hospital in Hollister which has now expanded to include satellite health care centers. The irony is the fact that a hospital once dedicated to saving lives now is also used to exterminate lives, children�s lives.
__________________________________
Your recent generosity is most gratefully appreciated. Every dollar received covers the cost of maintaining our website, our mailing list, postage and printing and, especially our wonderful legislative tracking service.

Thanks and God bless you all.
Camille Giglio

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on May 28th, 2006 | add a comment

Recently the Contra Costa County, California, Department of Child Support Services in conjunction with the Parenting Task Force unit of the Child and Family Policy Forum hosted a presentation by Jean Flanagan, a Superior Court Child Support Commissioner for the county of San Benito, Ca. The topic was The Legal and Financial Responsibilities of Parenthood.

This presentation was aired over the local cable tv station. I obtained a DVD copy of the presentation.

The presentation focused on a 40 minute movie entitled “It Takes Two: The Legal and Financial Responsibilities of Parenthood,” which Ms Flanagan, a former high school english teacher turned attorney, claimed she wrote and produced based on her experiences and knowledge of child support court hearings. Funding and assistance came from the San Benito Court system and a Title lV-D grant. This grant is apparently authorized under the School-to-Work section of the Social Security Act.

Funding for the local presentation to a room full of community service organization employees, authorized to form partnerships with the county under the School-to-Work rules, including two from Planned Parenthood and county school Department personnel came from the County Board of Supervisors, Planned Parenthood Shasta/Diablo and La Clinica de la Raza Monument, in Concord.

The purpose of the presentation emceed by Linda Dippel, Director of the Contra Costa County Department of Child Support Services, was to urge the groups present to obtain the video and instruction manual which were free to them (varying charges to the general citizenry) and begin showing it to groups of teenagers, age 14-16, either in church settings, youth groups, schools or all three.

Ms Flanagan indicated that the video and instruction manual were created with the intention of allowing for local input and adaptations. Her goal, she claimed, was to educate teenagers to the real life consequences of unwed, unplanned pregnancies and the legal and financial choices (one might say burdens) and actions they would face following birth.

The story line depicted two young girls preparing for their Junior Prom. One caucasian teenager fixes up her naive acting Latina friend, Kathy Cruz, age presumably about 16, with a blind date, a young man from out of town age 18 and emancipated. He is depicted as looking for a good time, interested in being a mechanic with a nonchalant attitude toward life. As they leave Kathy�s home, Kathy tells her mom that she is staying overnight with her girlfriend. We learn later that the girlfriend has also told her mom that she is staying overnight with Kathy. The mother is depicted as totally accepting of the situation.

The two couples are shown leaving the Prom, smoking marijuana and drinking with Kathy ending up in the covered, carpeted flat bed of the date�s pick up (shades of Bill clinton) showing no resistance to her date�s amorous intentions. Remember, her role is the naive, innocent eventually victimized teenager.

The next scene, one month later, shows a worried Kathy receiving advice from her friend.

The friend says: Didn�t he use a condom? Aren�t you on the pill? What about the morning after pill, didn�t you take one? What about Planned Parenthood? “They won�t tell anybody.” So, off they go to the Hazel Hawkins Health Center for a pregnancy test.

Hazel Hawkins was a 7 year old child, in 1907, living in the Hollister, CA area who died from appendicitis due to a lack of a medical facility in the immediate area. Her father was so distressed that he created, according to the Hazel Hawkins web site, a hospital, vowing that no child would have to die again in that area because of the lack of care. Today that small beginning now encompasses a large hospital and a health care clinic funded by the usual array of federall, state and local tax dollars.. The irony of all of this is, apparently, that while it was created to save lives, especially of children, it now also terminates life through abortion.

As the video continues the scene shifts to 9 months later and the birth of a baby girl to Kathy. In the hospital a nurse or counselor of some sort urges Kathy to sign child support claim papers to obtain financial support from the putative father whom she hasn�t seen since the night of the prom.

The rest of the video is focused on the procedures followed in court to obtain child support payments from the father who appears reluctant, despondent but willing to step up to his responsibilities to support this child with whom they both presume he will never have a relationship. Kathy�s parents whom we presume were supportive during the pregnancy are no longer in the story. Kathy is alone and still a minor.

As the video closes the credits roll by listing Planned Parenthood-Shasta/Diablo (Concord) and La Clinica-Monument with contact information.

Much of the information depicting the legal activities involved in establishing parenthood and setting rules for child support payments are harsh, the Child Support Dept. counselors aggressive and the young father totally overwhelmed. Thought probably accurate in it�s depiction of the court proceedings, there is much, about this video that is misleading, downright deceitful and little more than advertising for Planned Parenthood.

This might be a useful video for parents to watch and be encouraged to critique what goes wrong, but for children age 14-16 to view this it just shows the sales pitch approach to being sexually active, use some form of birth control and go to Planned Parenthood for help. Above all don�t get pregnant.

The teaching manual that goes with the movie provides talking points. The scenarios shown for the young mother and her child are depressing. The girl will be saddled with a child, limited in her life choices, forever involved with a man she cares nothing about and all the while just a victimized innocent and sweet girl who should have been protected by her “date” not used for his own fun. The young father is caught in a downward spiral of heavy support payments and dwindling income and life choices.

The entire presentation is pure Planned Parenthood, N.O.W. ideology. The Public Information officer for the Contra Costa Department of Child Support Services tells me that this video is so popular and so well received up and down the state that some state department, probably the Court system, is proposing funding this for every county Child Support Department in the state.

I seriously doubt that this Jean Flanagan of San Benito County wrote this story line and produced this video without help from the national Pregnancy Prevention Forum whose statistics are used in the narrative, and Planned Parenthood. I am still researching all the connections, but it appears to also be connected to the goals and objectives stated in federal legislation, S 20 by Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton and it�s House companion HR 1709 by Louise Slaughter of New York. I have written about this legislation in past months.

This video can be obtained, free of charge, in area libraries, schools and community organizations. Apparently students could watch it on library computers. This video, “It Takes Two” may well be stocked in your county library or school in other California counties or other states. And, it may well be showing up in youth groups in a church near you. One of the members of the audience during the tv presentation was a male representative from Planned Parenthood who oversees the male focused prevention programs. He told of his many trips up and down Northern California talking to male youth and church and school groups and how this would be quite a teaching tool.

The accompanying manual urges young women to visit Planned Parenthood.

Added note: Reading the web sites of La Clinica de la Raza-Monument and Planned Parenthood clearly shows their primary targeted groups of clientele to be young women in their reproductive years. Family Planning is usually quite near the top in the listed services available.

More about the mission and goals of La Raza in a next edition.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on May 24th, 2006 | add a comment

The following are excerpts from the state California Federation of Republican Women.

California Population increases in Republican Districts.

This Office of Strategic Information Services reports detail changes in California’s population covering January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006.

The population growth trends are broken-down by County, City, Region and “Inland California” versus “Coastal California.”

Key Findings: California’s population grew by 443,819 or 1.21% from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 - from 36,728,196 to 37,172,015. Population growth in Republican-held areas (those cities represented by GOP Assembly Members) outpaced population growth in Democrat-held areas (those cities represented by Democrat Assembly Members).

Inland California’s population grew faster than Coastal California’s. Inland California’s population growth rate was twice the rate for Coastal California: 1.70% compared to 0.78%.

Victory for Marriage

This past week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Orange County, California, dismissed a case brought by two men challenging the state�s Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22). This is a huge victory for marriage and a major loss for proponents of same-sex marriage! ”
Ever since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, homosexual activists in California have been shopping for judges who are sympathetic to their cause,” said Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute. “These efforts are designed to undermine Prop 22, passed overwhelmingly by California voters.”

_____________________________________

Some thoughts on the June election.

Click on the following internet address for www.smartvoter.org to obtain information on every candidate. This is put out by the League of Women Voters.

Governor: There are four candidates on the Republican Ballot. Three of them appear to be unknowns.

Lt. Gov. Tony Farmer, a realtor and Tom McClintock, state Senator. The current Lt. Gov. is Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat. This is the person who acts in-lieu of the Governor when the Governor is out of state and the one who would fill the Governor�s seat in the event it should become vacant for whatever reason.

McClintock is also supporting the Eminent Domain issue on the November ballot.

Sec�y of State: Bruce McPherson. Currently McPherson is acting Sec�y. He was formerly in the state legislature. He is from the Santa Cruz area. While in the legislature he was known more as a moderate than a conservative voter on legislation.

Controller: An important position regarding taxation. There are 5 candidates. Two of them, Abel Maldonado and Tony Strickland, are the more well known. Maldonado, from the Santa Maria area just recently won election to the state Senate where one of his first votes aided the Democrat position.

Strickland is known for his adherence to the conservative voting position.

Treasurer: Keith Richman, M.D. currently a state legislator is known for his ability to work with moderate Democrats, especially our own Joe Canciamilla,(D) of Antioch. Richman votes with the Democrats on health care issues.

Claude Parrish has been on the Board of Equalization since 1999 representing the areas around San Diego. He has a good record of service to his constituents.

Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner. His is the only name listed. He has been strongly endorsed by the state�s California Republican Assembly, I believe.

US Senator:

Dick Mountjoy, a loyal and staunch proponent of the Republican Platform, is the lone, brave opponent of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. A strong showing of votes for Mountjoy will create anxiety in the Feinstein camp. Feinstein�s campaign site proudly proclaims her to be an “independent voice for California.”
US House of Representatives - 10th District

For the 10th District: Darcy Lynn, lone opponent to incumbent Ellen Tauscher. Endorsed by the local California Republican Assembly.

State Assembly.Contra Costa County - 11th District

For the Eleventh District. Antioch resident Arne Simonsen, also endorsed by the local CRA. Arne has been a great opponent of the aggressive attempts to take over land and supports efforts to limit eminent domain attempts.

State Superintendent of Schools.

This position is currently held by Jack O�Connell, (D), of Sta Barbara who is running for reelection. There are 5 Candidates. Diane Lenning is also endorsed by the CRA but is, in my estimation, a weak candidate who, when appearing before the local CRA spoke more of her accomplishments in getting more Republicans on committees than she did of her goals for education.

I am leaving out any comments about the Judgeships since there is no information available.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

4th District: Kris Hunt, (R). Kris meets 9 out of 10 of the requirements for a fiscally and morally conservative Candidate. She comes up short in the area of supporting/opposing abortion. Her�s is the usual claim that since it is the aw - Roe v WAde - she must support it since she believes in supporting and honoring the law. She is open to discussion.

Her opponent, Susan Bonilla, Mayor of Concord, is decidedly pro abortion, pro union, pro health care. Kris would better represent the position of a conservative republican in her dealings at the county level.

PROPOSITIONS.

PROP 81. This is a state bond issue for libraries. Most Republicans suggest a “NO” vote on such issues since libraries are mostly local issues and not state concerns. Today�s Contra Costa Times 5/20/06 carries a letter to the editor by Ken Hamrick stating the issue very clearly.

PROP 82. This is a tax increase to cover costs of providing preschool for all children age 4 and over. A “NO” vote is urged on this Proposition.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on May 20th, 2006 | add a comment

Hoping to undo the perception that the Democratic Party stands for unlimited abortion, Party leadership is promoting a �Prevention First� bill as a �pro-life� blueprint to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. The bill�s solution: Easier access to prescription contraceptives, including so-called �emergency contraception.�

(Ed. note) In some California school Districts there apparently exists a high school seminar on, amongst other things, where to go to get the �morning After Pill.�

The strategy has intuitive appeal. If sexually active women use contraception, their risk of unintended pregnancy will be reduced, but definitely not eliminated.

(Ed. note:� This is a bill in Congress, supported by Planned Parenthood and co-sponsored by HIllary Clinton - In the House the bill is: HR 1709 by Louise Slaughter, (D-NY). In the Senate it is US20 by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid.�

�What�s wrong with this strategy? Setting aside for a moment the moral issues of sex outside marriage and contraceptive use, Prevention First presents two problems: 1) it has already been tried and failed; and 2) it results in significantly higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases

(STDs).

(Ed. Note:� In California there are some 140 school-site clinics esp. around Southern California, and a number of health vans situated at grade and middle schools.� The number of STDs is rising.� There is a state bill AB 2560 by LA Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas entitled the Health Care Centers Act of 2006 that will create a state level program to establish school based clinics throughout the state.� He also has a bill, AB 2470 establishing a Health Care Master Plan for L.A. County endorsed by the Latina Health Care Coalition)�

�Seriously, does anyone really think there�s a need for more contraception out there? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), contraceptive use is �virtually universal among women of reproductive age.� A recent Guttmacher Institute study, �Abortion in Women�s Lives,� reports that 89% of �at risk women� (sexually active women of reproductive age �at risk� of becoming pregnant) use contraception, and 98% have used it in their lifetime�

If, as claimed, contraception were so �easy to use and effective� in reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, could somebody please explain why 48% of women with unintended pregnancies and 54% of women seeking abortions were using contraception the month they became pregnant? Oral contraceptives require �perfect use� to be �highly effective.� Condoms must be used correctly and consistently, and they still break! Condoms carry a 15% risk of pregnancy with typical use over 12 months, compared to oral contraceptives, which have a 9% risk with typical use over 12 months.�

Even Guttmacher�s recent �Contraception Counts� report, cited by Prevention Firsters, shows no correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates. California and New York rank among the top 5 states for contraceptive access, and among the top five in having the highest abortion rates. States ranked among the five �worst� for contraceptive access � Kansas, Utah, and North and South Dakota � have the four lowest abortion rates in the country. States in between are all over the board.�

Professor David Paton of Nottingham University has conducted four major studies since 2002 on this issue. He consistently found that increased availability of contraception, including emergency contraception, cannot be shown to reduce pregnancy and abortion rates. Although easier access may reduce the risk of pregnancy among some teens who are already sexually active, easier access encourages other teens to become sexually active, or become more so and with multiple partners. Between 1999 and 2001, with improved access to family planning clinics in the United Kingdom, teen visits rose over 23% — and the number of sexually active teens rose almost 20%, while STD rates rose 15.8%.�

I have a plan that will reduce unintended pregnancy, abortion and new STD rates to zero: abstinence before marriage, fidelity within marriage, and respect for the gift of your fertility. Oh, wait. The Catholic Church already thought of that plan. Try it anyway. It works every time.�

Susan Wills is associate director for education, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops� Secretariat for Pro-Life ActivitiesUSCCB Pro-Life Secretariat

(paragraphs in black were originally sent out by American Life League)
________________________

Doctors and Nurses from Across California OPPOSE Assisted Suicide AB 651

Individual Healthcare Professionals AND their professional organizations are actively fighting against this proposed legislation�

�Sacramento � In an already deeply controversial political year, opposition continues to grow against California legislation AB 651 (Berg/Levine) and Assisted Suicide.�

In addition to opposition from the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association, individual doctors and nurses are lining up to lend their voices against doctor assisted suicide.�

These individuals represent the growing coalition against Assisted Suicide.�Additionally, more than two dozen California and national disability rights organizations have taken official stands against assisted suicide.�

(Partial List)

Jennie McCullough Stiles RN������������Edward J. Santoro MD�
Timothy Tice MD������������������������Henry C. Walther MD
Rosalind Garcia RN���������������������Philip Calanchini MD
Karen Lethbridge-Cadinha RN������������Jessica Khouri MD
Mary Hentges RN������������������������Cynthia D. Boynton RN
Herman Gray MD�������������������������Ofelia Datuin RN
Paul Macdonald MD����������������������H. Rex Greene MD
Jefferson Harman MD��������������������Mary Galten RN
John Gisla MD��������������������������Anita Landry RN
Anne Kinderman MD����������������������Ronald E. Foltz MD
Darilyn Falck MD�����������������������Anne Marie McBride RN�

�Californians Against Assisted Suicide is a coalition of health care, disability rights, and grassroots advocacy organizations united under the strong opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide.

�Californians Against Assisted Suicide was established to defeat legislation that would legalize assisted suicide in California.

(Ed. Note:� While the pro life community welcomes the help of these above indicated people and groups because we couldn�t defeat this alone, many of these same groups lobby for universal health care and abortion. The California Catholic Conference also supports universal health care. The CCC seems to understand that the passage of universal health care could be the door that opens to euthanasia, but they have claimed that they will worry about that when and if it comes.

_________________________

From the Spirit and Life report of Human Life International comes this commentary on Cardinal Martini�s espousal of condoms. Click on the internet address to read the entire report - www.hli.org - vol. 1,#14 Friday, May 5,2006

The Condom Anti-Pope

The 79-year old liberal Jesuit Italian Cardinal Carlo Martini, former Archbishop of Milan, last week in an interview with L’Espresso magazine pronounced his infallible statement on condom use for married couples: “Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil. There is the particular situation of spouses, one of whom is affected by AIDS. It is the obligation of this spouse to protect the other partner and they must be able to protect themselves.” Some have called this type of logic the ravings of an anti-pope who is a darling of the liberal media and who epitomizes all the forces of destruction from within the church hierarchy that have been seething under the surface for the whole papacy of John Paul II. The anti-pope has spoken, but will the Catholic Church capitulate to his doctrine?

In the face of a media blitz supporting Martini’s “lesser evil” casuistry and favorable remarks from certain Vatican officials, let me offer a historical perspective. There was a total Christian consensus against the use of all birth control up until 1930 when the Anglican Church, in its August 1930 Lambeth Conference, unilaterally decided that married couples could use birth control for reasons of the “lesser evil.” The argument, using modern language, went something like this: childbearing is burdensome and kids are expensive; married couples get too stressed out if they have too many kids; this stress puts undue pressure on marriages which causes couples to divorce; divorce is an injustice to the kids that they have; therefore birth control for married couples is the “lesser evil” and even constitutes a responsible, moral act. Change the words a bit to add the modern scourge of AIDS to the formula and Cardinal Martini’s position on so-called condom protection in marriage is indistinguishable from the first breakers of the teaching of Christ on birth control.

The condom savior is a false messiah. We have to “face facts fearlessly,” as our founder Fr. Paul Marx used to say, and ask the hard questions that the condom-promoting abortion industry is unwilling to address.

Catechism�the lesser evil in this case is still condemned by our Church.

�the lesser evil in this case is still condemned by our Church.__________________________

How come Planned Parenthood doesn’t get it? You can’t have Mother’s Day without � babies!

Washington, D.C. � “How is it possible for Planned Parenthood, operator of the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics, to conduct a fundraising campaign with a Mother’s Day theme?” asked American Life League president Judie Brown. “It’s simply horrifying to think that anyone involved in abortion � even Planned Parenthood � could have the audacity to claim any association at all with a day designed to salute a mother’s selfless love for her children.”

Over the years, Planned Parenthood has committed more than three million abortions. “That’s three million instances in which mothers permitted their children to be killed at this organization’s hands,” said Mrs. Brown. “For many of these women, Mother’s Day is an annual reminder of the unspeakable evil they permitted to be perpetrated on their own flesh and blood.”

A recent e-mail communication from Jatrice Martel Gaiter, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., urged supporters to “honor your mother in a very special way” with a financial contribution to Planned Parenthood. Gaiter said that at Planned Parenthood’s Washington affiliate, “Mother’s Day also reminds us of our mission � to ensure that every child is wanted, nurtured, and enormously loved.”

������ _______________________________________________

Pro-Life Wisconsin

The following article was part of PLW�s Monday Update on May 1. Please take a moment to read the article and pass along the information � especially to any professional photographers you may know!

Grieving parents capture most of their child�s life with photography program

Abortion advocates are fond of bringing up extreme cases to argue the necessity of abortion. One of their favorite scenarios to highlight is the tragic case where a child will be born with a life threatening condition. They argue that it is better to allow a woman to have an abortion than for her to have to see her child, bond with her child only to have the baby die a short time later.

A new photography program, called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep, illustrates that even a few hours with a dying child are a precious re-affirmation of life. The program that started less than a year ago in Denver connects professional photographers who volunteer their time and talent with families who have infants with terminal illnesses. The service provides professional quality photos of the child that a family will treasure for years to come.

Abortion is never the right choice, even in times of horrible tragedy. Having a few short hours to celebrate a life, and capture the all-too short moments of life on film helps families to grieve, to heal and to remember.

Read more about this amazing program at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060419/wl_nm/life_babies_dc

______________________________

�The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services on Monday voted 3-1 to approve a plan by Assembly member Wilma Chan (D-Oakland) to expand children’s health insurance coverage, the Sacramento Bee reports. The plan would add $50 million for children’s health insurance to the fiscal year 2006-2007 state budget.

Chan’s proposal is modeled after legislation (AB 772) she supported last year, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed (Benson, Sacramento Bee, 5/9). The bill would have raised income eligibility for state health insurance programs to allow more children to enroll. The legislation would have allowed the use of a single form to determine eligibility for subsidized school lunches and state health insurance programs and made state health coverage available to undocumented immigrant children (California Healthline, 10/11/2005).

Chan’s revised proposal over three years would expand health insurance coverage for children.

According to the Bee, the subcommittee’s approval of the measure will push legislators and Schwarzenegger “to accept or reject the proposal as they debate spending” for FY 2006-2007 (Sacramento Bee, 5/9).

(Ed. note:� The Catholic Voice, newspaper for the Catholic Diocese of Oakland, Ca,. carried an interview with a case manager for East Bay Catholic Charities - Emancipated foster youth are at great risk� - She was complaining that they didn�t have enough money to �cover� foster children age 18 and over who must leave the foster care system and start on their own.� This is a sort of bridge program which while appearing to be helping youth is actually a means of maintaining young adults on the government dole until they can get on their own welfare or Healthy Families program.� In other words - womb to tomb - government control)

_________________________

UPDATE ON US SENATE BILL BY MIKE ENZI
Senate To Debate Association Health Plan Bill
May 9, 2006

Debate in the Senate is set to begin Tuesday on the association health plan bill (S 1955) being proposed by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (Freking, AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/9).

The bill would allow small businesses and trade associations to form association health plans across state lines. Under the bill, insurers would be permitted to sell plans to businesses and individuals that do not meet current state benefits requirements. However, they then also would have to offer a plan with benefits provided under a state employees’ plan in one of the five most heavily populated states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas.

In addition, the bill would preempt state laws that limit how much insurers can vary premiums from one small business to another (California Healthline, 5/3). According to the AP/Journal-Constitution, the vote is expected to be close and fall primarily along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.

Democrats are expected to offer a competing bill Tuesday that would also allow small businesses to join together to purchase health insurance. Sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the program would be set up like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/9).

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she is crafting a possible amendment to small business health care legislation that would require insurers to provide coverage for medical treatments mandated by two-thirds of states.

In addition, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would offer an amendment to the Enzi bill that would require health plans not to discriminate against a provider on the basis of license or certification. She said the Enzi bill’s current form could restrict patients’ access to qualified professionals who are licensed or certified by state law, such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants (Carey, CQ HealthBeat, 5/8).

The House has passed legislation that is similar to Enzi’s bill (Olson, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/9).

Comments

Enzi estimates that about one million currently uninsured workers would obtain coverage through the measure. Business groups, such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses, support the legislation, while groups such as AARP and the American Cancer Society oppose it (AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/9).

NFIB argues that the bill would give small businesses the same buying power as big corporations and unions. However, opponents say the measure would override state laws and remove consumer protections for people buying insurance individually or through their employers (Isaac, Orlando Sentinel, 5/8).

Leaders of AARP and ACS said the measure might expand coverage but it would give people diluted benefits (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/9). (Yes, it could cut out abortion and contraceptive coverage)

Ron Pollack, Families USA director, said the bill is “one of the most harmful anti-consumer health bills in recent memory” because “it leaves millions of people at the mercy of health insurance companies by eliminating a range of state laws that protect the consumer and regulate insurance company behavior.”

Families USA released a report Monday stating that more than 85 million U.S. residents would lose consumer protections as a result of the legislation (CQ HealthBeat, 5/8).

Editorials, Opinion Piece

Two editorials and an opinion piece were published Tuesday addressing the Enzi bill. Summaries appear below.

��� * Wall Street Journal: “When Ron Pollack of Families USA starts screaming, Republicans must be doing something right about health care. And so they finally are,” a Journal editorial states. It adds that the measure “would increase the number of people who have” health insurance, “and that’s exactly what such government-run health care advocates as Mr. Pollack … don’t like.” The editorial says the “claims that the Enzi bill would allow for worthless policies and fly-by-night insurers are unfounded.” It says, “Let’s hope Republicans recognize the stakes in today’s vote. They badly need something to show voters this fall, … and making health care more affordable will resonate with Americans everywhere.” The editorial adds, “[W]e hope [the White House is] as prepared to twist arms for this reform as it was a few years back for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement.” It concludes, “A vibrant national health insurance market would be partial absolution for that expensive new burden on taxpayers” (Wall Street Journal, 5/9).

��� * Washington Post: “[T]he proposed bill is risky,” and its “preemption of state authority might stifle creative experiments in health policy that could help solve the long-term crisis of health costs,” a Post editorial states. It says, “The backers of the Senate bill … ought to concede that viable purchasing pools can already be created within large and medium-size states; the need to recruit people from other states is powerful only in states with small populations.” The editorial continues, “They should also concede that, with health policy at the federal level paralyzed, the most promising experiments in containing costs and expanding coverage are taking place at the state level; there’s a risk in narrowing states’ room to maneuver.” The Post concludes, “If the bill’s backers concede these two points, their legislation should not pass” (Washington Post, 5/9).

��� * Tom Daschle, The Hill: “Small businesses need help to afford health insurance. But [Enzi’s bill] goes in the wrong direction,” former Senate Majority Leader Daschle (D-S.D.) writes in a Hill opinion piece. He says, “It would raise premiums for those who most rely on the health care system today and make coverage more affordable only for those who need it least.” Daschle adds, “It would take away important benefits people depend on today and leave them uninsured for basic care.” He concludes, “And, it would prevent states like Massachusetts from making progress on what should be a national priority: providing affordable health coverage for all” (Daschle, The Hill, 5/9).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Candidates Endorse Single-Payer Health System
April 28, 2006All six candidates for the Democratic nomination for the 6th District Assembly seat support a single-payer health care system, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports. The 6th District represents Marin and southern Sonoma counties.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on May 16th, 2006 | add a comment

by Camille Giglio

It is time to remind our readers of the reason pro life groups oppose health care legislation.
Pro life people are just as concerned as any progressive politician in seeing that all people, especially helpless and innocent children and adult dependents, are well cared for, and protected from the selfish interests of others. If that can not be done by immediate family first and foremost, then as a last resort, by the state…

When, according to Genesis Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden the perfectly ordered world left with them. This sense of naturally occurring human perfection has been replaced by the base human interests of individuals or groups who believe that they know best how to bring about order and justice and human perfection with or without God.

Though people have come and gone over the years the underlying elitist principle that says I know better than you what is good for you survives.

I recommend a book entitled Better For All the World : the secret history of forced sterilization and America�s quest for racial purity by Harry Bruinius. The title was taken from the US Supreme Court decision, Buck v Bell, written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. This book traces the beliefs, and writings of the people who promoted eugenics beginning in the late 1880�s such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., Charles Darwin, Charles Davenport, Margaret Sanger, John H. Bell, Dale Carnegie and the Rockefeller Foundation to name a few. John H. Bell was the doctor at the Virginia Institution who featured prominently in the Bell v Buck Supreme Court Case granting permission to sterilize Miss Carrie Buck (and others) because she was diagnosed as feebleminded. Eliminating those who were diagnosed as feeble minded, so it was presumed by that period�selitist intellectuals, would go a long way to ensuring society�s protection from severe social problems such as dependency, crime, poverty, etc.. More women than men tended to be the targets since they bore the next generation�s problem children.

California passed its Eugenics law in 1909 and �established by far the world�s most aggressive program at the time, sterilizing more than 2,500 people in the first ten years—twenty times more than any other state,� according to the Bruinius book. It was not until the late forties in California, that these sterilizations stopped.

Outside of the United States Germany became the most well known promoter of eugenics. The aftermath of the Second World War created a backlash to the idea of forced sterilization as a means to establishing a �better world for all.� But, the idea of eliminating the people who exhibited the then currently politically correct definition of producing the world�s problems did not die. Some might say it was resurrected in 1973 with the Roe v Wade (abortion) Decision and presented as a woman�s right (to be sterile), not something forced on a woman. The very same language and basic principle used in promoting acceptance of sterilization for the state determined burdensome people is now the rallying cry for abortion, contraception, school sex ed programs and universal pre school - protect society from the so-called burdensome and nonproductive people.

Now, the promoters of a perfect world need no longer force their so-called perfection on America�s citizens. They could promote programs and legislation presenting their elitist ideas in a most appealing manner through Think Tanks and tax protected non-profits disguised as education and health care concerns.

Still people have been resistant to accepting the services promoted, protected and funded by the state and provided mostly by Planned Parenthood. People were not coming in droves to the family planning clinics nor were poor people signing up for state provided health care which includes tax payer funded coverage for abortion and contraceptives which produce the same effect as eugenics.

Now enter the promoters employing the most advanced and seductive advertising to sweep away the sense of unease. Self interest, sexual license and believing that it is one�s right to have the state provide the means of relieving oneself of the responsibilities of one�s decisions and actions. Freely engage in sexual activity but don�t produce any children.

The state bureaucrats have bought the idea of the elitists that unwed motherhood or unplanned (married) motherhood will produce welfare children, unemployment, criminals, etc.. However if the children actually do get born one can escape this scourge of depravity by turning their children over to the state village nannies by age 1 as promoted by the likes of Rob Reiner and his �We are your children� program which will be featured on ballots this year.

The state of California is on the verge of creating the socialized medicine state. The citizens are still resistant to the idea of a single payer (the state) health care system because we recognize the dangers implicit in authorizing the state to be the arbiter of our health. We also recognize the enormous price tag attached to paying for the health care insurance of every person living in the state. Once again the elitists know best what is good for you.

However, we don�t seem to recognize the very same principle when legislators break up the idea of socialized medicine and insert pieces of it into various bills each stipulating smaller, but still vast sums of our tax dollars to pay for it. Our concerns are subpressed by our religious leaders twisting the story of the Good Samaritan or by lobbyists promising that only the capitalist employers or multi-millionaires will be paying for this.

In the bills listed below is one most alarming bill, SB 1414, the Fair Share Health Care Act by Carol Migden, (D-S.F.) This bill and others like it around the country are referred to as the �WalMart� Bills. An explanation will follow at the end of this report. Maryland has just passed a similar very oppressive health insurance provision bill.

This bill will create a mandate upon the marketplace (private enterprise) under a heavy financial penalty that employers of a minimum of 10,000 employees provide the health care insurance coverage for every employee or pay a significant fine per employee. This is a direct attack on WalMart but WalMart will never be subjected to its dictates.

At present there is no law forcing state mandates upon the private business sector regarding what a private sector health insurance coverage must contain and no way to stop, through law, the creation of these mandates.

Maybe many people don�t like WalMart and don�t care if WalMart will have to dip into it�s net profit to pay for health care that includes among the general health needs, abortion and contraceptives. However, if this passes be assured that there will be another bill requiring employers of lesser numbers to do the same. Private sector employers are being forced to underwrite their employees reproductive and sexual activities. Right now it�s WalMart, tomorrow it�s the major grocery chains, the department stores, etc. This bill is endorsed by the Unions and seen by its opponents as a punishment for WalMart�s use of nonunion labor.

Right now the Catholic Church is under a separate mandate to provide health insurance coverage for all its employees that includes abortion and contraceptives or risk the threat of losing its non-profit status. Nuns and priests are covered for abortion and birth control. Utter, illogical nonsense.

Though the insurance carriers are ostensibly private businesses, the state has mandated that all insurance coverage in the state include contraceptives and an abortion component. Presently there is no way to stop a state from authorizing these mandates upon the private sector. An individual insurance customer may opt out of the abortion component coverage but you the tax payer are still paying for it anyway.

There is a brand new bill before the US Senate by Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi which would put a stop to this mandating of the private sector. It is entitled the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005, S. 1955. It needs large amounts of pro life support and additional Senate and House co-sponsors. if it is to get off the ground.

According to a US Senate Health Committee spokesman, Andrew Patzman, the Enzi bill, S. 1955, authorizes small businesses to form health insurance groups to negotiate for coverage for their employees at a better advantage than just being one individual company. The best part of this bill, for our agenda, is that it allows these groups to bypass the state mandate. In this case abortion and or contraception coverage. The companion bill has passed the House, but has been sitting in the Senate Health Committee for years. Enough federal legislators dislike giving any advantage to the Marketplace (read private businesses) to block this bill from a hearing. Senators Boxer and Feinstein would never support it.

When you take your minor child, boy or girl, into the doctor for a physical and the doctor says, Mrs. Smith, I would like to talk with your child alone for a little while DON�T LET HIM. He is most likely being required by the state, to ask intimate sex related questions of your child and offer private reproductive type services to that child that you will never know about.

YOUR CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU IN OPPOSITION TO THE FOLLOWING BILLS.

OPPOSE

SB 437 - Martha Escutia (D) - Healthy Kids Insurance Program
Creates the Healthy Kids Insurance Program which would consist of the portion of the Medi-Cal program that provides health care coverage to children and the Healthy Families Program. Provides for a process for making the eligibility determinations for the Healthy Kids Insurance Program by authorizing the administering agencies to rely on income eligibility determinations made by other public assistance programs. Authorizes applicants to self-certify eligibility factors. Provides for confidentiality.

In the 2005 legislative session, the companion bill, AB 772 was vetoed by the governor mainly due to the costs involved. We have received calls from a student in a Public Health Masters Program in San Diego and one from a young woman working for a public policy committee in Sacramento wondering why we oppose this and how we worked to get AB 772 defeated. This bill, SB 437 looks like it has won the mind and hearts of the elitists in the
legislature. This bill creates a new layer of health care supervision and attempts to merge all these bills into one funding stream with one group authorized to sign up, approve and fund the whole program including MediCal.

SB 558 - Carol Migden (D-SF) - Healthy Families Program and Medi Cal.
Requires development of an informational document containing information about the Healthy Families Program and the Medi-Cal Program. Requires notification by employers to their employees.
LOCATION: Assembly Committee on Health.
Requires employers to become partners with the government in promoting, signing up client/employees for Healthy Families program and collector of monthly dues which are deducted from employee pay check.

SB 840 - Sheila Kuehl (D) - Single-Payer Health Care Coverage
LOCATION:: Assembly Rules Committee
Establishes the Health Insurance System to be administered by the newly created Health Insurance Agency under the control of an elected Health Insurance Commissioner. Makes all residents eligible for specified health care benefits under the Health Insurance System, which would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care services provided through the system and pay claims for those services. Requires the health care system to be operational within 2 years of enactment.

AB 2450 - Keith Richman (R-Granada Hills) - Health Care Coverage: Cal-Health Program
Enacts the Cal-Health Act. Requires the Department of Health Services to establish an enrollment program for all health care programs offered by the state. Requires each resident of the state to obtain minimum health care coverage. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a purchasing exchange. Authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to withhold any overpayment of income tax by a resident who failed to obtain such. Imposes a tax on the gross premiums of care service plans.

LOCATION: Assembly Committee on Health.
Requires every resident of the state to purchase health care coverage or be penalized. This would have the effect of placing everyone in the hands of Planned Parenthood.
________________________________

MESSAGE FROM THE CRLC DIRECTOR.

We thank you very much for your recent and continuing financial support.
We have maintained a blog site for about two years with the most up to date information on bills. With our current level of support It is only possible to mail out newsletters periodically. This means timely information and valuable support on legislative issues may be lost.

The opportunity has arisen to upgrade our blogsite turning it into a web site. This website is available now. The address is http://blog.callifeadvocates.org/

Please use this important tool to stay informed about legislation. Continue your advocacy of public policy that will protect babies and the fragile elderly from being preyed upon by those who view human beings as problems rather than problem solvers.

We pray that you will be able and willing to continue your support because our costs will not lessen but be turned into a more efficient method of conveying information in a timely manner. $25.00 a year would be a wonderful gift made out to California Right to Life Committee.

If you do not have a computer we will still continue to send you reports. Please let us know which method you will be using. We send out almost weekly email reports which will also be placed on our website and include additional information. callifeadvocates@sbcglobal.net.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on April 12th, 2006 | add a comment

Here is a list of currently active state and federal legislation. Please read, pass on to other interested people and take action in contacting your legislators

Share on Facebook

Physical Health Over Spiritual Health; The greening of the initiative season.
by Camille Giglio.

Requests to sign petitions for either the June or November ballot have begun to spring up all over the state like the first weeds after a rainfall. Just as new weeds create an illusion of good things for spring, so, too, do many of these initiatives promise good things for the residents of California. However, as all weeds eventually turn brown and ugly so, too, upon close scrutiny, do many initiatives.

One of these much touted initiatives, headed for the November, 2006, ballot (provided enough signatures are gathered) is currently referred to as ?The California for Health Kids? initiative. This is promoted most prominently by PICO - Pacific Institute for Community Organizing - the California branch of the Chicago based Industrial Areas Foundation. They are enlisting the help of churches for signature gathering. It is being advertised as the way to provide health care for the children of the ?working poor? which includes an income base 300% above poverty level. It can be viewed on the state Attorney General?s website under initiatives California Attorney General. While in the signature gathering phase it does not have a ballot number. It is listed as sa2005rf0139_1-ns and is referred to as a tobacco tax for 2006 initiative.

REVENUE STREAM Without the 2/3 majority.
This initiative proposes to increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by a tax of $2.60/per pack as well as charge the distributor of cigarettes the equivalent of $0.13 cents per cigarette. They expect to realize $2.29 Billion to be placed into a new tobacco tax trust fund from which to distribute portions of the new taxes to a variety of health care activities and providers. Approximately $405 million of that will underwrite the cost of expanding the enrollment of children into the Healthy Families health insurance coverage programs. That?s about 18% of the total amount yet it is being sold to the public soley as a vehicle to promote better health care for children. In fact it will do little to advance the health of children. It?s main function will be to provide yet another revenue stream for bureaucracies that can?t get the support from taxpayers that they would like by any other means.
One little interesting item buried in this initiative is the promise that if this tax results in a decline in the amount of Tobacco Tax funding going to Rob Reiner?s Families First program, a portion of this new tobacco tax trust fund will be funneled to his program. As you may know Reiner already has his own initiative being distributed for universal preschool for 4 year olds and he has been required to take a leave of absence from his Directorship of the First Five state run program because of his misdirection of that funding into his initiative campaign.

Along with reading the initiative itself at the Attorney General?s website I would urge you to visit the PICO web site to read their campaign promises. http://www.picocalifornia.org. and to see whom they list as supporting their initiative.
Everyone of these are special interest groups that will profit one way or the other through financial or leadership enrichment.

These groups are: Cancer Society. American. Heart Society,. Lung Assn, Cal Hospital Assn,, Primary care assn,. American College of ER Docs, Emergency RN Assn, and several groups with close ties to Planned Parenthood and to Hillary Clinton?s ?It takes a village? mentality; The 100% Campaign (includes Catholic Charities), Children Now (includes PP), Children?s Defense Fund (founded by a woman named Edelman with Hillary Clinton as a Director, the Children?s Defense Partnership and the Assn of California Nurse Leaders California Nurse Leaders.

The wording of the initiative runs to 35 web site pages. Several pages list the distribution of the funds to the various groups. I include here the one section relating to the children?s health insurance part of the initiative.
SECTION 6. Children’s Health
Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 12693.99) is added to Part 6.2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, to read:
5 12693.99(a) To ensure that every child in California is eligible for comprehensive, affordable health insurance and has access to needed health care, all children described in subdivision (b) shall be eligible for the California Healthy Families Program (Part 6.2
(commencing with Section 12693) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code (hereinafter “Healthy Families”)

(b)
All children under 19 years of age shall be eligible for the services and benefits provided under this Chapter, notwithstanding paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 12693.70 and Section 12693.73, if they meet all of the following:

(1)
Are in families with countable household income up to and including 300 percent of the federal poverty level. In a family with annual or monthly household income greater than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, any income deduction that is applicable under Medi-Cal shall be applied in determining annual or monthly household income under this Section;
(2)
Meet the state residency requirements of Healthy Families in place as of September 30, 2005, as set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 12693.70;
(3) Are in compliance with Sections 12693.71 and 12693.72; and
4) Are not eligible for Healthy Families, or for full-scope Medi-Cal (Chapter 7 (commencing at Section 14000) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) without a share of cost, under the eligibility rules in place as of September 30,2005.
(c) The confidentiality and privacy protections set forth in Sections 10500 and 14100.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall apply to all children seeking, applying for or enrolled in Healthy Families.
(d)
Families of children enrolled in Healthy Families through this Chapter shall be required to contribute premiums equal to those required of families of children enrolled in Healthy Families not through this Chapter, subject to the following exceptions:
(1)
Families of children up to and including 18 years of age who apply for or are enrolled in Healthy Families and whose countable household incomes are up to and including 100 percent of the federal poverty level shall not be required to contribute any premiums; families of children up to one year of age who apply for or are enrolled in Healthy Families and whose countable household incomes are up to and including 200 percent of the federal poverty level shall not be required to contribute any premiums; and families of children up to and including six years of age who apply for or are enrolled in Healthy Families and whose countable household incomes are up to and including 133 percent of the federal poverty level shall not be required to
contribute any premiums.
___________________________________________________
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AS STATED IN THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE.
705. (a) Through its courts and statutes, and under its Constitution, California protects a woman’s right to reproductive privacy. (Ed. note: that includes any child mature enough to have begun mentrual cycles) California reaffirms these protections and specifically its Supreme Court decision in People v. Belous (1969) 71 Cal.2d 954, 966-
(3) The verification process shall protect the privacy of all participants.
________________________________________________________

One provision of this initiative automatically assumes that children who are signed up for the Free school lunch program, are also in need of government health care protection and the school may, according to federal laws, be signed up for Healthy Families without parental consent or knowledge. That?s the meaning of the privacy clause in the welfare code.
HEALTHY FAMILIES COVERAGE AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

When children are signed up (or families) for Healthy Families coverage or for the Medi-Cal insurance program for welfare recipients, they are given a choice of health care coverage insurance from which to chose. The health care to be provided is usually delivered through local non-profit community based clinics. The vast majority of these clinics are either Planned Parenthood clinics or La Clinica de la Raza centers in low income neighborhoods, both of which promote abortion, family planning (distribution of birth conntrol products and devices) and Venereal Disease treatment as their main listings - all in accordance with state and federal privacy requirements.

Now, think about this. Your priest or minister gets up in the pulpit on a Sunday and delivers a sterling homily on the Ten Commandments, or his admonishes the congregation to be mindful of the courtesies in respecting the House of Worship - don?t come late, dress appropriately, make the Sign of the Cross, use the Holy Water to bless yourself. In the next breath he urges you to go sign the California Healthy Kids initiative because he is concerned that all children aren?t getting good health care.

Is this member of the clergy consistent? Is health care the new god to the detriment of the soul? A training of the mind in math, science and language arts is also important but would your clergy member promote obtaining that education in a brothel? Yet, it?s all right to sign up a young child for health care in a clinic that kills babies? Do you want your son or dauhter touched by such as they?
For a further understanding of the true goals of PICO and its nationwide affiliates please visit Catholic Media Coalition.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on February 28th, 2006 | add a comment

by Camille Giglio, Director, California Right to Life.
Today I celebrated Presidents? Day by watching my local cable tv station (which airs the state capitol legislative events) replay a panel discussion on students rights taped Feb 9, 2006.
The panelists consisted of Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, (D-East Los Angeles) openly practicing lesbian and activist Planned Parenthood supporter and supporter of the Healthy Family health care program. Assemblyman Roger NIello,(R), elected to Assembly straight from the Sacramento Board of Supervisors, He seemed to favor the right of students to be excused from school for health reasons without parental permission. Ca. School Nurses President Elect, Ann Nickelbein. Any CNA organization automatically supports Planned Parenthood?s position. Brad Dacus, Esq. President of Pacific Justice Institute appeared to be the only supporter of parental authority over their minor daughter?s health care, including reproductive care.
The discussion was held in a state Assembly Committee hearing room. The audience consisted of high school students selected from Bay Area and Sacramento high schools.
The questions from the students following the formal presentations by the panelists clearly showed an already implanted mind set on the part of the students that they had a right to privacy which would be denied to them if a Parental notification bill or initiative became law.
When Goldberg asked for a show of hands as to how many students were aware that schools were required to excuse students from school for a ?private health matter? without a permission slip (or acknowledgment of any kind) from a parent, a majority of the students raised their hand. One student declared that this ?this is the first we?ve heard of this.? They seemed on the whole, however, to somehow have absorbed very thoroughly that they had rights and privileges that their parents could not deny them.
The students seemed to collectively scoff when Mr. Dacus or Mr. Niello countered with the understanding that accountability and responsibility for their minor children rested with parents. Only one female student seemed to acknowledge that a 12 or 14 year old did not always have the best access to information and one male student called it (a minor?s right to reproductive care) exactly what it is ?keeping secrets from parents.?
These poor, brainwashed students have no idea how they are being manipulated by the likes of a Goldberg or a California Nurses representative.
When parents are legally denied the right and authority to make important life altering decisions for their children, the state is free to step in and make those decisions for the students whether the students realize that or not.
How does the state do it? They present one sided and distorted facts to the students. They tell the students that they are free to make their own decisions and then refer them to Planned Parenthood for reproductive information. They implant in their minds that the parents are the enemies of freedom and access to mature, adult activities and only the school counselors, teachers, PP representatives, doctors or nurses will protect a student?s choice.
This is why we need to pass a parental notification law in California. We must rescue our sons and daughters from the manipulative embrace of Planned Parenthood and its minions.
Another way in which parents and students are being manipulated is through the support coming from the mainline religious denominations calling for universal health care. Catholic priests who otherwise are supportive of the right to life position on abortion are, nevertheless, calling for universal health care insurance ?for the poor.? or they are calling for student enrollment in the Healthy Families Program because ?poor children are so in need of health care that they are not getting and deserve.?
The religious community appears to be in total denial that these so-called private health insurance plans that cover the Healthy Families enrollee are linked to Planned Parenthood.
Every single private health insurance carrier covers abortion and family planning. The 5 year old or the 10 year old covered by Healthy Families may not, yet,? need? reproductive ?services and devices? but now their older brother or sister is eligible for it and we, the citizens and pro life advocates are paying our taxes right into Planned Parenthood?s coffers through HMO payments and plans by the state. They must really laugh at the naivet?f pro lifers who call for universal health insurance yet protest and picket Planned Parenthood.
Go to the web site California School Nurses Association

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on February 21st, 2006 | add a comment

STATE OF THINGS - LEGISLATION REPORT
January 27, 2006
Camille Giglio

1. Parental Notification back in the news.
2. Legislation we will we tracking in the months ahead.
3. General news.
_________________________________________________

1. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION INITIATIVE.
We told you the people directing the Parents Right to Know initiative were not deterred by the loss on the November ballot.
The Initiative has been refiled and signature gathering will soon begin.
DEADLINE: May 15 is a deadline for signatures to be turned in to the PRK headquarters. 500,000 plus valid signatures are required to get the initiative approved.
BALLOT DATE: November 7, 2006, is the target ballot.
INFORMATION: The same two web sites are once again in operation. For information, church bulletin notices, initiative petitions (when prepared) and to sign up to help promote the petition: www.yeson73.net and www.parentsright2know.org.
Right now your help is urgently sought to make contact with Catholic Church Deanery Presidents, Protestant church Pastors and social groups to request their assistance in distributing petitions.
The more volunteers coming forward to collect signatures means the fewer paid signature gatherers and the more money available to go into the advertising campaign.
If you wish to read the initiative now it can be viewed on the Legislative Analysts online - www.lao.ca.gov.
PLEASE: CONTACT US AT CALLIFEADVOCATES@SBCGLOBAL.NET OR THE PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW INITIATIVE HEADQUARTERS, BUT PLEASE DO NOT DELAY.
________________________________
2. LEGISLATION
There are a number of bills dealing with the homosexual agenda that require your attention because they affect your children in the school setting.
You may recall that last November the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared that, basically, parental authority over the guidance of children’s

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on January 28th, 2006 | add a comment

San Francisco Walk for Life, January 21, 2006.
by Camille Giglio

Father Joseph Fessio, Ave Maria University, Fl. presents the Gianna Mola Award to Mr. Jim Holman, at the Second Annual SF Walk For Life, January 21, 2006, at Justin Herman Plaza, foot of Market St., San Francisco.

The 10,000 plus attendees at the Second Annual S.F. Wallk for Life, remembrance of 33 years of Roe v Wade were treated to a spectacular, bright sunny day and rousing pep talks.

Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, formerly of USF’s Ignatius Institute and now with Ave Maria University came from Florida to present the Gianna Mola Award to Mr. Jim Holman, Jim, owner and publisher of a string of newspapers lead by the San Diego Reader and S,F, Faith, has donated much of his financial resources to supporting the Pro Life Movement and pregnancy counseling centers. Most recently he provided the major funding for the 2005 Parental Notification Initiative known as Parents Right to Know,

Though his name may not be well recognized amongst pro life people, especially in Northern California, he is feared by the pro aborts who have labeled him a very dangerous man. They understand how close the PRK initiative came to winning and that when it appears on the ballot again this Fall it may very well win. Their fear is that a win for parents right to be informed of their minor daughter’s abortion will go far to returning authority and the right of guidance over children back to the parents and away from Planned Parenthood’s clutches.

Serrin Foster, head of Feminists for Life, and Karen Wheeler, California Director of Democrats for Life. This group stirred up some controversy earlier last year when in declaring their pro life opposition to their Party’s Pro Abort platform, came out in favor of contraceptives for young people. They have since changed their mission statement and eliminated that goal. Their mission does still reflect much of the Democrat Party belief in big government including free pregnancy services, maternity training, etc, but they appear to be determined to make inroads regarding the strong pro abortion stand of the Democrat Party.

Star Parker, Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith-based and free market alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

As a social policy consultant, Star Parker gives regular testimony before the United States Congress, and is a national expert on major television and radio shows across the country. Currently, Star is a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News. She has debated Jesse Jackson on BET; fought for school choice on Larry King Live; and defended welfare reform on the Oprah Winfrey Show. (taken from her online bio statement).

And last, but not least, a very dynamic Pastor Clenard Childress, New Jersey, Director of LEARN - Life Education and Resources Network. He used the words of Martin Luther King’s last Sunday address before he was killed, as the basis for his spirited pro life talk, delivered to a very enthusiastic assembly.

Knowledgeable sources have said that there may have been about 50 pro abort protestors on hand. Though noisy they were rather pathetic in dress, appearance and the robotic shouting of pro abort phrases

At one point early in our Walk from Justin Herman Plaza to the marina Green, about a 2.5 mile walk, we were temporarily halted while the police cleared our path. It seems that San Francisco’s own state Assemblyman Mark Leno and a city Councilwoman from the East Bay, had attempted to block our route with a counter demonstration.

Congratulations are in order to the organizers of the Walk, the San Francisco Police Department for their assistance in keeping the peace, representation by the religious community and to the thousands of mothers and dads armed with babies and strollers who stood for life in the arena of what the pro aborts had always thought was their home base, San Francisco.
________________________________
THE PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW INITIATIVE is starting to collect signatures once again for placement on this Fall’s ballot. Your assistance is once again requested to collect signatures.

This year, also, we are asking for volunteers to be liaisons with their churches and, especially for people to be liaisons with Catholic Diocese Deaneries.

Please contact me at Callifeadvocates@sbcglobal.net, or at 925/899-3064 for further information and registration as a volunteer or contact the PRK headquarters itself: www.parentsright2know.org

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on January 26th, 2006 | add a comment

1. Ca. Legislation wrap up.
2. State and National issues as they pertain to the right to life or parental rights.
3. January Roe v Wade memorial activities.
__________________________________________________

1. LEGISLATION.
In the last couple of years legislation that CRLC feels affects the Right to Life or Parental Rights is to be found mostly in health or education legislation. The educational arena has taken on a higher level of interest with the recent Ninth US Circuit

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on December 30th, 2005 | add a comment

STATE OF THINGS - ALERT

HILLARY CLINTON, THE THIRD WAY AND POPULATION CONTROL.
by, Camille Giglio, Director, California Right to …

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on December 19th, 2005 | add a comment

STATE OF THINGS - NOV 12, 2005
Camille Giglio

1. Some thoughts on the election.
2. Abortion Industry unstable.
____________________________________________________

1. Election Results.
Most state pro life leaders and groups are reflecting on this strange election as a loss for Conservatives and Christians. While it is true that the Governor suffered a defeat I suggest that we pro lifers and Conservatives spoke very decisively. But whether our position gets noted by the legislators and the media is up to us. We have to speak loud and clear.

Yes, we lost Prop 73 and Planned Parenthood will feel secure about that for a long time. However, I don

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on November 12th, 2005 | add a comment

STATE OF THINGS FOR OCTOBER 29, 2005

1. Final results on bills in California Legislature
2. Abortion and child abuse …

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on October 28th, 2005 | add a comment

STATE OF THINGS FOR SEPTEMBER 4, 2005

1. Status of State Legislation
2. Federal Reauthorization of OAA.
Older Americans Act of 1965
3. General news update.
_______________________________________

The state legislature has been very busy dealing with 800 plus bills during this remainder of the 2005 legislative session. Few pro life/pro abortion bills are receiving any action. So we are devoting this edition to general news and to a life and health issue on the opposite end of the life spectrum - Legislation affecting the care of the senior citizen.

1. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION
AB 772 Wilma Chan, (D). California healthy Kids Insurance Program.
Amended 4/7/05. Takes on new meaning when compared with federal Prevention First Act, a PP bill to wrap up all health care funding into one ball for the benefit of PP.
A) Creates yet another funding channel to enroll and maintain kids under government controlled and directed health care., whose family income is 300 percent of federal poverty level on state health care maintenance.
B) It also creates a panel of “Experts” to advise the government on maintaining these children on state rolls through age 18.
C) This is an example of the real intended focus of a pseudo church based organization called PICO - Pacific Institute for Community Organizing and its many branches supports.
Signing children up for government directed health care removes children from their parents authority and supervision in regard to health care. In Contra Costa County the PICO branch - Contra Costa Interfaith Sponsoring Organization - was rejected for a grant to enroll all grade school children in Pittsburg into the Healthy Kids Program. PICO does not oppose abortion and family planning.

CRLC continues to oppose passage.
This bill has gone to the governor. Please write the Governor and urge that he veto this bill

SB 437 Martha Escutia (D), Healthy Kids Insurance Program.
This is the Senate version of AB 772. It sits in the Assembly awaiting it

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on September 3rd, 2005 | add a comment

STATE OF THINGS FOR FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2005

California BALLOT INITIATIVE - PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW. - Prop 73 on the November, 2005 Ballot.
This Initiative is a state constitutional amendment. It will require abortionists to provide a written notice at least 72 hours prior to performing an abortion on a minor, to at least one parent of that minor, unemancipated daughter. Parents believe that regardless of their support or opposition for the act of abortion itself, that they have a right to be informed when their minor daughter is undergoing any health care including the invasive and premature removal of a baby through the act of abortion.

What can you do to help get this passed?

1. Begin now. Do not wait for some group to organize a flashy advertising campaign. Our opposition - Planned Parenthood and all the others will be busy spending their money on tv and radio ads, but, with prayer and genuine, loving effort we can reach as many people and people who vote.

2. Being an active volunteer for spreading the news of the initiative is still the best way to advertise. It

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on August 5th, 2005 | add a comment

2005 Newsletters

• Summer
• Spring

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on August 3rd, 2005 | add a comment

CALLIFE ADVOCATES NEWSLETTER
MID-SUMMER, 2005

STATE OF THINGS FOR JULY 29, 2005.
prepared by: Camille Giglio
1. Legislation
2. Planned Parenthood Chaplains.
3. Neutralizing Pro Life Democrats.
4. Cloning Human Beings-Legal!
_____________________________________________________

1. LEGISLATION
The state legislature, in summer recess, will resume voting on bills August 15. On that date there are about 250 bills backed up in the Appropriations Committee waiting to be heard. These are the bills that had been put on suspense files during the term when it was determined that they couldn

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 29th, 2005 | add a comment

SUBJECT: Official pandering - Geo. Miller, Joe Canciamilla

George Miller to declare his outrage at military recruiters on campus. Parents …

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on July 3rd, 2005 | add a comment

status of bills
AB 794, It takes a lot of deceit to win.
___________________________
ACTION REQUESTED: After reading this report we urge you to contact the Governor

Share on Facebook

Posted by Camille to on June 27th, 2005 | add a comment