Our Lady of Soccorso


Body part peddlers complain that prolifers make them “look bad”

End-Of-Life Decisions and Facts

Click to view video.
Assembly Select Committee On Women's Reproductive Health,
March 11th, 2020

Click to explore.
Landmark Cases explores the human stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant and frequently cited decisions in the Supreme Court's history

Click to listen to interview.
TS Radio interview
about Palliative Care
and the Legislative Process

Click to view video.
Meeting the needs of Patients - Post
Roe v. Wade

Click to view video.
CA Senate Health Committee SB 24 hearing on April 3, 2019.

Click to view full-size.
The Star of Bethlehem shines brightly on the newborn child, Jesus.

Click to view full-size.
This child doesn’t need Government mandated Pre-K schooling. Young John is the grandchild of a very fine Pro Life Family.

Click to view full-size.
Four month and six month old human fetal skeletons, displayed At the Federal Civil War Medical and Military history Museum, in Silver Spring, MD. Display can be found in new more current segment of the museum’s historical displays.

Click to view full-size.
Mary Catherine was an abandoned new-born, found in Antioch and buried by Ca. Right to Life and Birthright of concord, at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Lafayette, Ca. along with 24 other pre-born babies.

Click to view full-size.
Come Holy Spirit, enlighten the minds and hearts of your people!
July 4th, 2018



Physical Health or Spiritual Health?
February 28th 2006 @ 6:56 pm

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”)

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:

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;
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.
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:
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.
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.

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.

comment on this article

Notice: All comments are moderated. Your comment will appear once approved.

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

Take away God, all respect for civil laws, all regard for even the most necessary institutions disappears; justice is scouted; the very liberty that belongs to the law of nature is trodden underfoot; and men go so far as to destroy the very structure of the family, which is the first and firmest foundation of the social structure.
- St. Pius X, Jucunda Sane, March 12, 1904