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



January 23rd 2008 @ 9:27 am
He lurks in ambush near the villages: in hiding he murders the innocent.

Psalm 9B (10), new Catholic Edition, 1957


Does the Constitution embrace a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?


The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.

Roe v Wade abstract citation;U.S. Supreme Court Cases and Opinions

Vol. 410 US.113 (1973)

The Roe v Wade U.S. Supreme Court Decision of 1973 severely diminished our Constitionally held right to the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of our lives our liberty and property. This Decision opened the flood gates to recognizing in law that though clearly manifesting total human qualities as recognized by the scientific community, some human beings, those in the womb, are less than human and capable of being killed with total impunity.

In 1973 I was a young mother of three children living just outside of Washington, D.C. When news of this decision first came over the radio I was pleased. Within twenty-four hours I realized that I had misunderstood this new law. People would not be told the truth about abortion and its destructive nature to a baby or the after effects to the mother. The truth would be hidden and taking the life of a preborn baby for casual reasons had risen to a legal right in our country.

The words and deeds of U. S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman, who wrote the majority opinion on Roe v Wade, have been thoroughly examined and critiqued. No one, it seems, has ever pondered who influenced his thinking? Who or what set him on a course to consider that protecting one person’s privacy could override another person’s right to life?

Though the American Civil Liberties Union takes great pride in acknowledging, to its supporters and followers, that it played a central role in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade abortion Decision of 1973 several lawyers prominently associated with the ACLU and its overall goals, went to great lengths to disassociate themselves from the Roe Decision because while they agreed with and continued to support the premise of free access to abortion, they knew that Roe was predicated on shaky ground and that the country was not yet prepared to quietly acquiesce to the taking of innocent human life.

Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School professor, ACLU member and strong proponent of privacy rights had this to say: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”1

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, current Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and cofounder, in 1972 of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project2 declared:

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

In the last 35 years, Roe and its companion cases have brought about the deaths of over 40 million preborn human beings and brought countless hours of suffering and illness to the women who succumbed to the lure of abortion. They, the babies, were the children of the wealthy, the poor, the young, the thirty-somethings. The future problem solvers of our world.



It took 3 years for this Dallas, Texas, case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1968 Norma McCorvey was a young pregnant unmarried woman. She was looking for assistance to help provide money to see her through the pregnancy. To gain sympathy and attention she declared that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She was introduced to two young lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee who agreed to help her if she would allow them to take her situation to court. The case was first heard in a Dallas district court which found in favor of maintaining the state’s right to keep abortion illegal. Henry Wade was the Dallas District Attorney who was assigned to defend the state’s authority regarding laws against abortion. The plaintiff lost that case to the state. The case was then taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court. By that time McCorvey’s baby had been born and placed in adoption. Years after the Decision McCorvey repudiated her initial claim that she had become pregnant through rape.

Norma McCorvey never intended to get an abortion nor was she even present in the court when the case was decided. She has since then repudiated any association with Planned Parenthood and, in fact, volunteers for a Christian pregnancy counseling organization.

Norman Dorsen, then General Counsel for the ACLU claims to have assisted Sarah Weddington, lead attorney for the plaintiff, in developing the 1973 case. Further, Dorsen claims to have been the lead counsel in the companion case decided that same

1 Quote attributed to Tribe located on web site of Timothy P. Carney. http//timothypcarney.com/?pages_id=176

2 Tribute: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. American Civil Liberties Union, 3/7/2006

day, of Doe v Bolton.3 Bolton defined the meaning of health to include a broad spectrum
of economic, social, educational and mental health standards.
Further, the Unitarian Universalist church, which claims that the ACLU was founded by
UUA members,4 issued a Memorial Statement on the occasion of the January 22,
2007, Roe v Wade 34th Anniversary, claiming responsibility for encouraging a reluctant
Sarah Weddington to accept the case as the plaintiff’s attorney.5

The old phrase “one is known by the company one keeps” is good to recall when considering the organizations with which the ACLU is associated and/or affiliated. Over the decades since its 1920 founding, by an openly avowed Communist, Roger Baldwin, the ACLU has received high praise for being the champion of the voiceless. Yet, when it comes to defending the right to life of the truly voiceless, the child in the womb, they are nowhere to be found.

So, where are these defenders of abortion? Let’s take a look.


‘Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920. The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees”

online ACLU Mission statement, 2007

The ACLU, referring to itself as the guardians of freedom claims its mission is achieved
by protecting the following:6

First Amendment rights: freedom of speech, association and assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion
Your right to equal protection under the law: equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

3 Norman Dorsen is the Frederick and Grace A. Stokes Professor of Law and Faculty Chair of the Global law School
Program at NYU School of Law. He was President of the ACLU from 1976-1991. He is the editor of an ACLU 1984
report entitled: “Our Endangered Rights: The ACLU Report on Civil Liberties Today,” Michigan Law Review, vol. 83,
no. 4. Added note: The book Fabian Freeway provides a listing of the original board members of the ACLU of 1921.
Helen Phelps Stokes is listed as treasurer. There is sufficient research to assume that Frederick Stokes is related to
Anson and Helen Louisa Phelps Stokes.

4 KDFC, 102.1 fm currently airing UUBA ad states that the ACLU was founded by UUA members, 1-10-08.

5 The Women’s Alliance at First Unitarian Church in Dallas was a major supporter of Roe v. Wade when it began its
journey through the Texas court system. The congregation’s leaders encouraged the lead attorney, Sarah Weddington,
to pursue the case even though she was beginning her career and was not sure she wanted to be involved in
such a controversial case. Weddington and members of the Alliance received the Unitarian Universalist Women’s
Federation Ministry to Women Award in 2005 for their work. http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/14042.shtml

6 www.aclu.org/about/index.html

  • Your right to due process: fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
  • Your right to privacy: freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Rather than being the benevolent defender of our Constitution, the ACLU has become the grand manipulator of the meaning of words and actions. Read those words again. Notice how selective they are in enumerating our Bill of Rights guarantees?

It alludes to the Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process but drops that Amendment’s guarantee of life, liberty and property.

If, as the Constitution states, the state must protect the right to life of all persons, then the proponents of abortion had to find some way to circumvent that guarantee for that segment of humanity existing in the womb in order to bring about the willful destruction that abortion visits on human life.

The Roe v Wade case took these constitutionally guaranteed rights and turned them upside down signaling to both the medical profession and society in general that it had the right to judge preborn persons (the living body of a human being - man, woman and child, American College Dictionary, 1959) as unworthy of the right to life.

In Roe v Wade, the preborn child is denied not only his or her life, but her liberty. She is a captive in the womb. The preborn child is mute, unable to signal to the public that she needs help. This child’s access to due process is non-existent. He or she is declared because of Roe to be non-human and is given no day in court to prove her innocence or provided legal assistance to state her case. The preborn child becomes mere property. Slavery and ownership of another human being was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment, but the ACLU chooses to ignore that Amendment.

Roe v Wade redefined the traditionally understood meaning of personhood as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to all human beings by declaring that only human beings who are born are provided with the title of personhood.

The Fourteenth amendment begins with the words “All persons born or naturalized in the United States….” The emphasis is on the word “born.” According to Roe a baby residing in the womb is not born as we understand the verb to be born. That life exists, but since it is not born it is, therefore, not a person. If this baby is not a person, according to Roe, then succeeding cases and public debate on abortion overlook this life and focus only on the privacy and health rights of the woman.


“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise. We want also to look patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”

Advisory letter by Roger Baldwin. first director, 1920, of the ACLU.

On January 22, 2007, the 34th anniversary of the Infamous US Supreme Court Roe v Wade Decision the ACLU’s web site contained the following statement:

“The world we want includes access to safe and legal abortion care, secures our right to have children when we are ready, and supports programs that foster healthy families and healthy lives for all…………To participate fully in society, we must be free to answer for ourselves whether we are ready and capable of being parents. To achieve this world, we must continue to strive for reproductive freedom for everyone.”

Their statement that they want to secure the right to have children when they want is ironic since they have spent much of their time defending the right of, one might even say the obligation of, everyone not to have children. Or, to have children only when some authority deems a new life to be beneficial to the state.

The ACLU’s current web site has a section entitled “The ACLU’s 100 greatest hits.” This is a brief overview of all the cases they argued that they considered to be of importance and affecting the entire citizenry of our country changing our morally and traditionally understood constitutional rights. All of their cases beginning in 1925 were used to lay the groundwork for later decisions bearing on freedom of speech, equality, due process and privacy. At least 10 of these cases, provided the basis either directly or indirectly on the practice of abortion and the protection of those who perform abortions.

From 1961 to 1972 the ACLU represented the plaintiff in overturning state Court decisions on a variety of issues by framing these issues as a right to privacy or freedom from unwarranted Government intervention in what they claimed was one’s private life and doings.

1961 - Poe V Ullman. Though the ACLU lost this Connecticut case regarding a right to distribute contraceptives it set down a basis for their next case which they did win.

1965 - Griswold v Connecticut. This case granted permission for the distribution of contraceptives based on a married couple’s right to decide in private whether or not they would conceive a child. This was the first time the Supreme Court used the penumbra argument. They said, basically, that though using contraceptives was not stated anywhere in the Constitution, a right to purchase and distribute contraceptives as a privacy right was sort of understood to exist in the constitution. It was argued that a penumbra or shadow of the constitution covered this activity. (refer back to Laurence Tribe’s statement).

1971 - U.S. v Vuitch. A doctor’s conviction for performing an illegal abortion was upheld, but this case expanded the “life and health of the woman” concept to include “psychological well-being.” This meant that if a woman could find a doctor willing to declare that a particular woman was in danger of mental health disorders brought on by the pregnancy she was allowed to obtain a legal “therapeutic” abortion.

This case was also the basis for the 1968 California Therapeutic abortion Act and set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court Roe companion case of Doe v Bolton.

1972 - Eisenstadt v Baird. Bill Baird was a flamboyant abortion supporter and distributor of contraceptives. He was arrested for distributing contraceptives in Massachusetts to unmarried women. The ACLU’s web site states it this way; “In an extension of the Court’s evolving privacy doctrine” Baird’s conviction was overturned and distributing or selling contraceptives to unmarried adults and minors became accepted. Many informed people believe that this was clearly a rigged case.

Supreme Court Justice Blackmun who wrote the majority Roe Court Decision premised it on the prior, Griswold case.7  Every abortion case they and succeeding lower courts subsequently defended were hinged on privacy and health rights.

One of their first successes, in 1925, was on behalf of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Certain members of the ACLU original Board of Directors were also associates of Margaret Sanger such as Jane Addams, benevolent supporter of social causes such as Hull House of New York in the early 1900’s; and Helen Phelps Stokes, New York socialite and wife of millionaire, Anson Stokes8

Attorney Harriet Pilpel (1911-1991) was a partner in a New York law firm handling social justice type cases. She also acted as legal counsel for Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

The ACLU has had at least 78 years to hone its skills in manipulating the meaning of words especially as those words apply to the Constitution. They understand that Americans value the constitutionally protected rights of privacy, due process and equal protection under the law, but they have put their own twist on those understandings. Even their name is a manipulation of meanings. To them Civil liberties means civil libertarianism, or, freedom from any outside social restraints including that of the government under which we live. To an ACLU devotee the individual is his or her own moral law. This is to be clearly seen in the mission and purpose of the Unitarian Universalist church which, as I wrote earlier, claims to have been instrumental in founding and in continuing to support the ACLU. Yet, even this freedom has its limitations. The ACLU does not believe in complete liberty for everyone, only for those individuals and groups which they determine to be integral to their mission of substituting Christianity for the practice of Humanism. Their Annual Report for 2003 contains an article entitled “The Courage to be a Civil Libertarian - when it counts.”

The article concludes by saying that “ [i]t will be the small number of visionary and dedicated ACLU members, those with the courage to be a civil libertarian when it counts, who will be seen as the true patriots.”

The Welfare Laws of our country, especially as they pertain to women and children, and, therefore, families, are closely bound up with reproductive issues thanks in great part to the influence of the ACLU. According to an 8 page, April, 1995, Briefing Report on Welfare Reform: The Civil Liberties Issues of Welfare Reform”., the ACLU made the following statement:

“Although the Constitution does not guarantee the right to receive welfare, the ACLU believes that reform of the public assistance system will likely implicate a variety of constitutional rights. In particular, once the government decides to give welfare benefits - as the United States did during the New Deal - there are constitutional limits to the conditions that it can attach to those benefits and to the treatment afforded beneficiaries.”

7 Griswold v Connecticut. Invalidated a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives on the ground that a right of “marital privacy” though not specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is protected by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. www.aclu.org - ACLU 100 greatest hits.

8 Fabian Freeway, Rose L. Martin, 1968, Fidelis Press

In other words the government, must provide for the lifestyles chosen by the welfare recipients to the detriment of those who pay taxes. No official, no tax paying citizen may require limits be set on those who for whatever reason become dependent upon the generosity of the government. Further, no limits may be set upon those individuals or groups who would desire to encourage and cater to the lifestyle needs of welfare recipients.

This briefing paper goes on to state that “the ACLU will oppose any welfare reform proposal that:

  • Conditions the receipt of welfare upon the recipients’ willingness to waive constitutional rights to privacy and free association.
  • Removes or reduces benefits arbitrarily or without due process.
  • Targets groups of individuals for unfair treatment in a manner that offends the equal protection principles of the Constitution.

In other words, the government is freed of the need to be accountable to the taxpayer when determining authenticity of need. The welfare mother is freed from the man-in-the-house rule. Welfare was traditionally denied to a mother if there was a spouse or man in the house who was capable of providing income to the family.

All of the federally decided ACLU cases regarding reproductive activities have had their effect in the various states as well. Laws making abortion illegal began in 1850 with the invention of the microscope. When the American Medical Association realized that this invention could clearly show the presence of human cells in the womb, cells that were not the mother’s, they went to court to obtain protection for bad recognition of the presence of a human life in the womb. Prior to 1973 each state had either a total ban on the practice of abortion or very limited access. Roe took away the state’s right to control the practice of abortion making it access to abortion a sweeping federal law.


Based on this interpretation of privacy and health welfare has become a right. Equal opportunity requires the state (the taxpayers) to pay for welfare abortions since the state also pays for pregnancy services. If a wealthy woman can pay for her own abortion, so the argument goes, or if the state provides maternal services to the pregnant poor woman, then that poor women and the teenager must be given the means to obtain an abortion as an ordinary part of the services that the state provides.

But, it has gone way beyond that to a point where the state, especially through schools, is a partner with the abortion and population control industry to the exclusion of any teaching on abstinence. California yearly rejects millions of federal tax dollars that would underwrite the cost of teaching abstinence.

In 1970 the Congress created Title X, Office of Family Planning funding which gave grants to create State Offices of Family Planning. A specific amendment was added denying any funds to be used for abortion. Then Congressman George H. W. Bush, supported this amendment as well as voted for the family planning funding.

There was only one hitch. When applying for funding under this grant the states had to provide information about the services provided. Reimbursement for family planning services was paid at approximately two-thirds of the cost from the federal purse and one third from the state. If it was a reimbursement for abortions it was only one-half federal and one half state payment.

Then Governor Jerry Brown declared in about 1976 that California would not provide information on abortion services as that opposed privacy rights. It also hid from the taxpaying public the facts on the numbers of abortions performed in this state and the amount of tax dollars used. Based on the previous decisions regarding privacy the California taxpayer carries the full burden of funding about an estimated one hundred thousand abortions a year, especially, but not only, for Medi-Cal patients since that time. Anyone claiming to need anonymity or privacy regarding the obtaining of an abortion can obtain a tax funded abortion in California. There is no specific information available to the California taxpayer as to how much of the Health Care budget goes to funding abortion. Now that hospitals and Planned Parenthood clinics are considered HMO’s they receive lump sum payments for their services with little or no accountability as to how those funds are used. The state budget gives only a lump sum listing. It is possible but tedious to search the state website for this information - www.dhs.ca.gov and then click on CDHS.

In 1953 an initiative was passed in California allowing for minor girls to consent to medical services (no provision of abortion) without parental consent. Following 1972 this led to the expansion of services to include abortion without parental involvement as a matter of privacy. You see, the stage was already set.

In 1981 there followed another California ACLU case decision based on privacy.

This was the California Rose Byrd Supreme Court Case entitled: Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v Myers. The Committee was actually a sub unit of the ACLU. (see Ginsburg as previously noted). This decision declared that based on previous decisions regarding privacy and the fact that pregnancy services were covered to adults a minor’s abortion was to be included in those services as simply another aspect of pregnancy services.

The Myers in this case was Beverly Myers, Director of California Health Services appointed by Governor Jerry Brown. She was an ACLU member and left the position soon after this case was won. Many believe that Governor Brown hired her for this position in order to facilitate bringing the law suit against the state.

There followed several attempts in California to pass legislation regarding requiring either parental consent or notification for a minor to obtain an abortion. After all there are several laws protecting the vulnerability and naivete of youth to contract for services. The ACLU intervened to stipulate that there had to be a “judicial bypass” allowing a minor to circumvent parental involvement if a judge deemed the minor to be capable of adult decisions and if that minor might be subject to abuse or oppressive parental intervention. The result is that parents are denied any knowledge or opportunities to counsel their daughters regarding sexual activities. A young girl’s reproductive future is placed in the hands of third parties who profit from the consequences of immature decision making.

In 1987 a hard fought Minor Consent for abortion bill was passed and signed by Governor Deukmejian requiring parental notification prior to a minor obtaining an abortion. The ACLU and other special interest groups immediately went to a California Superior court to obtain an injunction preventing implementation of the law.

1989. the California based First state Court of Appeals upheld the temporary injunction.

1992. Maxine Chesney was appointed by President Bill Clinton as a Judge of the California Superior Court. She was well known and appreciated by the ACLU as she had found in their favor or other AFL-CIO court matters. The ACLU filed their opposition to parental consent in her court. Chesney declared the Parental Consent law to be unconstitutional. This is referred to as judge shopping.

April 4, 1996 The State Supreme Court overturns Chesney’s ruling by a 4-3 decision, declaring the law to be constitutional. However it extends a period of time for a re-hearing. The injunction remains in effect.

May 5, 1997. American Association of Pediatrics v Lungren is heard. With ACLU-Northern Division lawyer, Margaret Crosby, acting for the plaintiff, the State Supreme Court declares the law to be unconstitutional. The A.A.P. has little or nothing to do with any official association of Pediatricians. It, like so many other non-profit groups is another sub group of the ACLU.

What all the above means is that the ACLU has learned to gain a political advantage by dividing Americans. Rather than using their talents and expertise to bring people together for common goals, they specialize in pitting one segment of the population against another: one gender against another, one class against another, one concept of religion against another. Of great significance, they have learned how to pit child against parent with their minor Reproductive rights laws.

In an article entitled ACLU v Unborn Children author Mary Meehan quotes two prominent former ACLU members, law professor Alan Dershowitz and columnist Nat Hentoff. They charge that “the ACLU’s involvement in abortion compromises its role as guardian of First Amendment Rights.”

Meehan also posits the question: Can The ACLU Be Turned Around?” She states:

“Organizations especially ones as well established as the ACLU, are notoriously difficult to turn around on major policy questions. Yet it is possible to imagine appeals to reason and conscience that would reinforce dissenters within the ranks and encourage others to review their policy. Such appeals might also alert liberals in general including liberal judges to the profound inconsistencies in ACLU policy.”

We, the citizens of California and residents of these United States, are sitting by idly allowing our rights and freedoms to be stripped away while we pretend that someone else is doing our job for us of protecting our hard won rights.

The time is growing short. Will we be a country united under God or a country that like the people of the Old Testament - Samuel verse 8, demanded that we have kings (mere mortals) placed over us to judge us?



Bills active in the 2007 session of the

California Legislature’s 2007-2008 term.

The American Civil Liberties Union either supported or opposed the following bills in the 2007 session of the California Legislature. Though some of these bills failed passage, never-the-less they clearly depict the interests of the ACLU. All are bills that the ACLU supported unless otherwise stated.

SB 999, CRIME. Leland Yee, (D-S.F.). Amends the law to provide that the maximum sentence for a defendant, who committed a crime when under the age of 18, be 25 years to life rather than life without the possibility of parole. Remains active for 2008.

SB 840, Single Payer Health Care, Sheila Kuehl, (D-Los Angeles). Would have established the state as the single payer of health care negotiating for and paying all bills. Died in Committee. Most likely will return in the 2008 session.

SB 621, Pupil: Confidential Medical Services: parental notification. Tom Harman, (R-Costa Mesa). The ACLU opposed this bill which would have required school districts to inform parents by a separate letter that their children can obtain confidential medical services without their parents’ permission. Died for lack of a hearing.

SB 304, Prisons; Media access. Gloria Romero, (D-L.A). Would have required the Department of Corrections to permit representatives of the news media to interview prisoners in prison and forbid retaliation against an inmate for participating in an interview. Vetoed.

SB 268, Public postsecondary education: nonresident admission criteria: immigrants. Tom McClintock, (R-Thousand Oaks). The ACLU opposed this bill. Would have disallowed persons without lawful immigration status from eligibility for paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the CSU. Failed in committee.

AB 1009, Fetal pain prevention. John Benoit, (R-Riverside). ACLU opposed. Would have enacted the Child Fetal Pain Awareness Act of 2008 to require-except in an emergency-that the physician performing the abortion offer the pregnant woman information and counseling on fetal pain. Pulled from hearings. This bill will be alive in the 2008 session.

AB 708, Reproductive health: abstinence education. Robert Huff, (R-Diamond Bar). The ACLU opposed. Would have required the Department of Public Health to develop and implement a program of sexual abstinence education so as to maximize federal fi-nancial participation. Becomes a two-year bill.

(Note: The state rejects several million dollars a year in funds which would pay for abstinence education.)

AB 374, California Compassionate Choices Act. Patty Berg, (D-Eureka). Would have authorized the state to provide assistance to those patients seeking assisted suicide. A two-year bill.

AB 43, Gender-neutral marriage. Carole Migden, (D-S.F.) Would have redefined marriage as a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons. Vetoed.

AB 22, CalWorks: maximum aid determination. Would repeal the restriction of an aid increase to families who were receiving help continuously for the 10 months prior to the birth of a child, thereby qualifying the family for an increase in support. Died in committee.

AB 14, Discrimination: Civil Rights Act of 2007. John Laird, (D-Santa Cruz). Extends various anti-discrimination statutes to include sexual orientation-with disciplinary actions authorized for offenders and immunities for offenders removed. Signed by the Governor.

The ACLU is a non-profit organization. It forms connections with a multitude of likeminded, socially liberal non-profits. Often times it is these connected groups who appear on the list of supporters of legislation but one may assume that it is done with the wholehearted approval and support of the ACLU.

Some of these groups are: Equality USA, Lambda Letters, Pacific Institute for Community Organizing (and it’s myriad county affiliates), Republicans for Compassionate Choice, Latinos Organizing for Reproductive Equality, the Grey Panthers, ACORN-Alliance of Communities organizing for Reform Now.

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