Our Lady of Soccorso
LEGISLATIVE REPORT FOR JUNE, 2007
June 24th 2007 @ 9:44 am

Bills that survived a floor vote in their house of origin have now crossed over to begin their odyssey through the Senate. Most have been amended, some totally gutted and new authors attached.

The budget is also being fought over. Here is something from American Life League to ponder regarding Planned Parenthood and your tax dollars. The following report was released on June 14, 2007:


PLANNED PARENTHOOD ANNUAL REPORT
SHOWS THAT IT RECEIVED $305,300,000
IN TAX MONEY LAST YEAR – A 12% INCREASE!

America’s deadliest baby-killer gets 34% of its budget from you! Please help us get this urgent news to as many pro-lifers as possible by forwarding it to your email list.


Last week, Planned Parenthood quietly issued its latest annual report http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdf. As always, the report was packed with lies about its "mission" to provide "quality health care" to women.

The one big truth in the 20-page report is that it got a total of $305,300,000 in free tax funding last year. That’s a whopping 11.95% increase over the $272,700,000 it got thee year before.

Let’s put that $305,300,000 in two equally important perspectives:


Perspective #1: Last year, Planned Parenthood surgically aborted over 264,943 pre-born babies. As a ratio to the funds it gets on the government dole, that’s $1,152.32 for each baby torn apart in the womb!


Perspective #2: During the same year, the top five national pro-life organizations continued to receive exactly ZERO dollars in government funding. In the first six months of 2007, our own contributions are $160,000 behind the same point last year. And we’re the number one enemy of Planned Parenthood!


AN OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT’S MOST OUTRAGEOUS HEADLINES


I urge you and every pro-lifer to visit www.all.org and read our summary of Planned Parenthood’s annual report.

Until then, here are the key points every pro-lifer should know:

  • Planned Parenthood had a total income of $902.8 million dollars. That’s a record and a 2.4% increase over last year.
     

  • For the 34th year in a row, Planned Parenthood reported "excess of revenue over expenses", otherwise known as "profit." Last year’s profit was a whopping $55,800,000 dollars.
     

  • Since 1973, Planned Parenthood’s total profits exceed $700,000,000 dollars.
     

  • It has amassed a treasure chest of assets worth $839,000,000 dollars.
     

  • It reported total "clinic" income of $354,000,000 dollars. We estimate that $112,600,000 of that came from abortions and $200,000,000 from the sale of contraception.
     

  • Every penny of the $32,000,000 increase it got in tax dollars effectively went into its $55,000,000 profit.
     

But Planned Parenthood wants even more of your taxes. Planned Parenthood has been staging rallies, writing articles in newspapers, lobbying state legislators for more money. Even though some of their bills might fail passage, there is always the budget into which single issue legislators can cram more money for HMO services, family planning or reproductive health care and Planned parenthood ends up getting its sought after raise.

This reality of our pro life tax dollars funding Planned Parenthood may become even more of an issue in the upcoming elections. Certain members of the state Republican party are seriously supporting non-partisan primary election privileges in Republican primaries. According to a Cal-Span program I recently watched the Chairman, Duff Sundheim, of the state Republican Party, debated the benefits versus the negatives of opening the Primary to more voters. That means that someone registered as a DTS - Declined to State (no Party affiliation) will be allowed to assist in choosing Republican Candidates. The state’s number of DTS registered voters is outgrowing the numbers of registered voters. Voters who may be fiscally conservative but socially liberal will be choosing Republican Candidates and, thereby, choosing who goes to the conventions to establish the Party Platform. Republican Candidates, in order to appeal to these middle-of-the-roaders will become even more center left leaning than they are now.
____________________________________

Legislation to be heard this coming week - June 25-29.

Tuesday, June 26 - Senate Judiciary Committee.


AB 81, Alberto Torrico, (D-Fremont) Child Protection: Safe Surrender. OPPOSE.

This bill will change the 72 hour time limit for a newborn to be surrendered to authorities to a 30 day limit without penalties. This is a bill that makes a politician feel good and look sympathetic on paper but in reality this time expansion subverts the original intention and may actually place more babies in danger of abuse or death because it requires the receiving agency to try and obtain information from the one surrendering the baby.

It also may have the effect of allowing infant abusing parents and care providers from prosecution for abuse to the infant occurring within the 30 day safety net period.

The fact that it contains a $5,000,000 grant for safe surrender publicity aids only those agencies receiving the funds and does nothing to help the baby or scared new parent.

Last term the governor vetoed a similar bill, ab1873, also by Torrico. We may have to hope he does so again.


AB 14, John Laird, (D-Santa Cruz) Unruh Civil Rights Act of 2007 Oppose.


This bill affects 14 different government and business codes with a total of 51 amendments and expands the scope and breadth of those groups and lifestyles designated as targets of discrimination.

The legislative analyst’s office defines the core of this bill as:

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD VARIOUS CODE PROVISIONS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS SERVICES BE UPDATED TO ADD PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISABILITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION ALREADY COVERED BY GENERAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS?

In 1996 California voters passed Prop 209 known as the California Civil Rights Initiative - CCRI. This placed limitations on the groupings who could be protected against discrimination. Several organizations protested and vowed to defeat this law.

2001 California Appeals Court Case Angelucci v Century Super Club found that a person could not sue a business for discrimination unless that person had actually been discriminated against. This case was brought by the LAMBDA Legal Defense fund, a Lesbian and Gay organization.

In 2001 the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary, Darrell Steinberg, chair, authored a bill, AB 1701, to rename a section of the state code as the Unruh Civil Rights Act extending legal protection to a broad definition of lifestyles and ethnic groupings.

Again, in 2006 Assemblyman John Laird authored a bill, AB 1400, to expand the definition of who can be protected against discriminations. Lambda was a chief supporter.

Now John laird is trying it again with this bill. Each time the intent of the legislation has been very intrusive of personal rights placing the government in ever greater control of thought and actions of the American citizen residing in California. This bill forces Christians, mainly, to be silent and inactive or subject to punitive damages while other groups of people with what is now termed deviant lifestyles, for the most part, are allowed free reign to act as they please.

The California Catholic Conference has presented the best case for opposition to this bill:

The California Catholic Conference states, "Given the current lack of moral consensus on some of these [protected] characteristics, at the very least there ought to be an accommodation made for individual consciences lest California appear to be strong-arming its citizens into state-regulated beliefs and politically correct behavior."

This bill will be heard, as stated, in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Darrell Steinberg, the chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee in 2001 that authored AB 1701, is now a member of the Senate Judiciary committee along with other Gay and lesbian supporting legislators - Sheila Kuehl and Ellen Corbett. The committee consists of 5 members - 3 Dems and 2 Republicans.

This WILL pass out of committee. It is obvious that the Governor will have to be contacted to request a veto.

ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Dave Jones (D) Chairman - JUNE 26.


SB 777, Sheila Kuehl, D-Oxnard) Discrimination. OPPOSE


This bill concentrates on expanding the numbers of lifestyles and groups designated as having "protective status" on school campuses especially affecting educational material.

Has the effect of silencing opposition from Christians or anyone opposing the forced acceptance of lifestyles they consider to be deviant and/or immoral.

SB 11, Carole Migden, (D-San Francisco) Domestic Partnerships. OPPOSE.

This bill would allow any coupling of two people to register as domestic partners taking advantage of all the benefits accrued to heterosexual married couples.

Aside from the morally offensive aspects of this bill there are the increased financial costs of this bill to religious groups who will have to begin including the "partner" in insurance benefits.

The bill is opposed by the California Catholic Conference in recognition of their increased expenses. It is supported by Planned parenthood, children NOW and LAMBDA as well as the California Nurses Assn.

-Camille
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