|FALL 2006 NEWSLETTER
SPECIAL: ELECTION EDITION
Overview of 2006 legislative Term
| A legislative session runs for two years. During each year some bills die, some get signed by the Governor and some get held over from the first to the second year. Over the period of this latest two year term we have tried to keep track of at least 70 bills that would have bearing on public policy issues affecting families and innocent human life.
The fate of many bills has been determined, but there are a large number of bills which passed and are still awaiting the Governor’s action. He has until September 30 to either veto, sign or let bills pass without his action.
The bills that he vetoes have a letter of explanation attached to the veto. Bills that he signs usually do not. He penned a lengthy explanation of his veto of Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s,(D) Single Payer Health Insurance bill, SB 840. He vetoed that bill because, so he stated, of the extreme cost of such a program and because it was “too all-encompassing.”
The Sacramento Bee, 9/23/06, article reporting on this veto states: “In his veto message Friday, the Republican Governor said government-run health care was not a solution. About 6 million Californians are uninsured.
“I want to see a new paradigm that addresses affordability, shared responsibility and the promotion of healthy living,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “Single-payer, government-run health care does none of this.”
What he really means is that politicians recognize that citizens will not readily submit themselves to a universal all-encompassing authority placing every single person into a one size fits all state run health care plan. But, apparently he believes that we will submit our children to the state’s authority. He declared his support for universal health coverage for all children which reminds one of the old adage: how do you swallow an elephant? Answer: one bite at a time.
The explanations he offered for his vetoes have been based on issues of financial concern or unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy, (apparently covering all children is a necessary expansion) “especially if there is a mechanism already in place that can be used to cover some expansion of an already existing program or if federal funding comes along to augment state expenses.”
| The Governor has implemented his plan to start the universal enrollment of children by signing, as of 9/24/06, fourteen bills setting in place all the necessary mechanisms to oversee the enrollment of every single child in the state in either a state run or private health insurance program by 2010.
The Governor’s words of “shared responsibility” clash with his words on government run health care not being the answer.
An article in the 9/26/06 online Kaiser Family Foundation Report entitled: HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM GROWTH MODERATES SLIGHTLY IN 2006, BUT STILL INCREASES TWICE AS FAST AS WAGES AND INFLATION, details a fast rise in employer-sponsored health care coverage. Though the report doesn’t say it much of this increase is brought about by government mandated and encouraged legislation. In the case of this latest slew of bills, it is the taxpayer who will foot the increased costs, but it is the health insurance carriers who will profit not the children.
Americans have been admired because of our self reliance and our abilitiy to do for ourselves. The saddest aspect of the Governor’s actions is the affect on the American character. Once again government steps in to facilitate a plantation mentality.
This new approach to health care “paradigm” as he calls it, may also result in a suppression or deletion of any insurance coverage that the state does not condone. So it will become government domination of a private industry by voluntary submission.
The Progressive Democrats’ website, The California Progress Report, reported on his signing of 7 child health care bills recently by referring to them as “streamlining but no expansion.” They also quoted the Governor as saying “These bills insure from the moment they are born that children will receive the best health care possible.” As of 9/25/06 the Governor has appointed one Democrat operative and one Republican operative to create a plan for covering every resident of this state, apparently, regardless of legal or illegal status.
| However, the Legislative Analyst office wrote this regarding the costs of SB 437 which was amended 10 times before being enrolled:
So far, of the 70 plus bills we have followed 4 concerning health care in general, have been vetoed, 1 5 have, sadly, been chaptered and 4 are still awaiting some determination. A further 7 bills died earlier in the session in committee.
Though the media provided broad coverage of the Governor’s appearance in Fresno to sign some bills, they never once mentioned these health care bills that he also signed that day.
There are also a number of anti-family bills (tracked by pro family organizations) regarding homosexual and school issues which he has quietly signed. Plus he has signed SB 162 by Deborah Ortiz, (D. termed out of office) splitting the health department into two separate entities, The bill amended 8 times and containing 33 pages……..
“Enacts the Public Health Act, which establishes the State Department of Public Health, to be headed by the State Public Health Officer to be appointed by the Governor. (He is immune from the voters) Transfers the responsibility for certain programs from the State Department of Health Services to the new department. Renames the Department of Health Services as the Department of Health Care Services. Requires the State Public Health Officer to convene the Public Health Advisory Committee.” (don’t you just know that every organization supportive of universal health care will have a representative on this board).
He signed two bills by Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas (AB 2470 and AB 2560) that will set up 500 or more school based clinics and create a Master Plan for LA County schools. He has also signed a bill giving the Mayor of Los Angeles - Antonio Villaraigosa, authority over the LA USD.
| He vetoed a bill, AB 171 by San Francisco Assemblyman Yee, (D) that would have established student mental health evaluations. But not to worry, the Ridley-Thomas bills were amended to include mental health evaluations.
The Governor’s mind seems to be narrowly focused on using school health centers to develop the new breed of athletic, so-called emotionally adjusted children (it’s the idea once again, of comprehensive services which focuses on the whole child.) In this regard he is merely following a plan proposed during the latest National Governors’ Meeting. This means that the government bureaucrats believe that the whole child is theirs to bend to their ideal of the “well-adjusted adult” which he seems to think parents and private activities can not accomplish. He fails to see or won’t see that he is playing into the hands of the population controllers who desire to use the schools as family planning distribution and indoctrination centers. (PP and it’s cohorts were very prominent in their support of this package of bills.) These school clinics will be overseen by the health department not the education department.
One bill awaiting the governor’s signature is AB 2742 by Pedro Nava which will allow Planned Parenthood to, basically, merge with the state office of Family Planning which is under the auspices of the state Health Dept. and be an equal opportunity distributor of their services to minors.
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—(BUSINESS WIRE)—Sept. 13, 2006—Responding to the ever-present need to provide kids with access to health care, St. HOPE, Health Net of California and Walton Pediatrics and Medical Associates today officially opened the St. HOPE Student Health Center. The center is located on the campus of Sacramento High School, with a satellite office at elementary/junior high school, Public School No. 7. The health center will reach more than 1,600 local students.
During the governor’s summit on health care held in July, school-based health centers (SBHCs) were promoted as a key solution to health care accessibility. SBHCs are health centers that provide services to students directly on school campuses.
The St. HOPE Student Health Center will provide services such as school entry exams, well-child exams, sports physicals, immunizations and anticipatory guidance including nutrition, fitness and health education.
“Through various programs and services, Health Net is working to eliminate barriers to health care - especially in the Oak Park area of Sacramento where there are a limited number of health care providers,” said David Friedman, COO, Government Programs, Health Net of California. “Along with our partners, Health Net is proud to sponsor the opening of the St. HOPE Student Health Center.”
| “In addition to eliminating barriers to health care, adolescent children need medical care that is culturally and age sensitive, suited to their unique developmental needs,” said Stephanie Walton, M.D. of Walton Pediatrics. “The student health center will offer a medical home for students and families. It will create that important ongoing doctor-patient relationship fostering a positive school learning environment and healthier lifestyles.”
The words in the above article highlighted by this editor are significant for their similarity to Planned Parenthood’s euphemisms for introductions to and facilitation of, sexual activity and STD treatments at an age, place and time convenient for them not, necessarily, for the child or for the parents right to be the primary instructor of their children especially in matters of morals and ethics.
The school clinics will also serve to oversee the nutritional health of students. I have pulled a large number of reports off the internet from either newspapers or online health foundations, that are promoting government intervention in the eating habits of children which they say are creating unhealthy obese children. They tend to blame the parents for this and assume that, once again, only a government bureaucrat (perhaps one who drinks and smokes an occasional, recreational marijuana cigarette or engages in sex without benefit of marriage, to be arbiter of a child’s best health needs). This is a scare tactic if ever there was one, making obesity a possible occasion of child abuse.
The Governor signed Senate Bill 1128, the Sex Offender Control and Containment Act.
“My single greatest priority as governor” he said while signing this bill, “is to protect the safety and well being of all Californians.” What a joke. In signing the package of health care bills described above, he has turned our children over to the greatest sexual predators of our times, Planned Parenthood and their cohorts in the churches (the state Catholic Conference and Catholic Health Care West supported the package of health care bills) and non profit groups who protect sexual predators and promote sexual activity for minors. Planned Parenthood (better known as Predator Protectors Assn. of California - PPAC) has declared itself protected against compliance with any laws requiring notification to authorities of sexual predators of our minor children. PP routinely aborts minors without alerting authorities to the possibility of a criminal act of statutory rape.
| (Note: now that the FDA has approved distribution of the morning after pill - MAP- for those 18 and older, it is very likely that sexual predators 18 or older will purchase the pills and distribute them to your under age student. The male who impregnates a minor is, on average, about 22 years of age or older. http://www.childpredators.com for the complete report.)
Progressive Democrat online blogs are already challenging the age limit.
According to Campus Progress.org “Plan B’s new over-the-counter status will substantially increase the availability of emergency contraception for most women, and is a positive step toward increasing women’s access to birth control methods. And even with the age restriction, minors now have increased access to Plan B, because it will be legal for them to take the drug if it is purchased by anyone of legal age. Nonetheless, the 18 or older restriction is scientifically unsubstantiated, and the FDA’s decision negatively impacts the thousands of young women who unintentionally become pregnant every year, as well as low-income women of all ages.
And, last but certainly not least, the Governor, following a weeks long barrage of articles purporting to be news, regarding the so-called epidemic of obesity amongst our children has signed at least two bills with a debt of taxpayer dollars for at least $500 million for gym equipment and diabetes testing among other things. Lest the media not appreciate his efforts enough, he sang his own praises by saying “”I am so proud to honor the people who answered the call to action and are inspiring our kids to pump up their physical activity and be as healthy and active as possible,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “ None of this was his own idea, of course. He is just following the mantra laid out at the National Governors Association yearly conferences.
Here are two other quotes on the subject, one from a Washington Post article and one from the Institute of Medicine.
“WASHINGTON - One in five children is predicted to be obese by the end of the decade. But efforts to turn that tide are scattershot and underfunded, and the government killed one of the few programs proven to work, specialists said Wednesday.”
| “Programs that target youngsters’ growing waistlines are sprouting around the country, an encouraging sign that the threat to children’s health is being taken seriously, said the report by the Institute of Medicine.”
CHAPTERED: Signed into law.
|AB 1948, Cindy montanez, Healthy Families Pre enrollment over the internet. Authorizes enrolling a student into Healthy Families without any investigation of needs, by a third party.
AWAITING THE GOVERNOR’S ACTION.
OBSERVATIONS: The voting history of the Assembly and Senate on the following bills allows one to draw the conclusion that, in general, Republican legislators supported the pro life/pro family concerns with one exception noted below:
For his efforts in advancing school based clinics Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas has received the California Schools Health Centers Association award as legislator of the year. Watch for his political star to be rising in the near future. http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=166424
For continual updating on legislation go to:
Since we are a 501(C)4 IRS authorized organization we are not allowed to endorse candidates for office. However, to help you become better informed on the candidates and their Party platforms we provide you with the following information.
The total listing of candidates can be obtained by clicking on http://www.politics1.com/ca.htm
American Independent Party -AIP- Candidates… www.aipca.org
This Platform states that it supports:
|California Democrat Party… www.cadem.org
This Party Platform, under the heading of WOMEN states:
CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY
To read the platform in its entirety click on www.cagop.org.
Party Platforms are not always a guarantee that the candidate once elected will adhere to the various planks in a platform. The Democrat Party seems to obtain and insist upon greater adherence than do the Republicans.
Many Republicans claiming fiscally conservative credentials will vote with the Democrats on social issues even if it means raising taxes. Such was the case with Assemblyman Keith Richman now termed out who favored government health care bills.
Former Democrat Party leader David Roberti supported pro life legislation and was continually criticized by his Party for his stand.
Some legislators, like former V. President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton and California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, were once pro life and became pro abortion.
Most Republicans claiming to be pro life can be counted on to oppose pro abortion legislation but will vote for the budget knowing full well that it contains millions of dollars for abortions. The exceptions have been Tom McClintock and Tony Strickland listed on the current ballot.
Any candidate who declares verbally that he/she is pro life, but won’t put it in their platforms or campaign material are not to be relied upon when it comes to voting.
CRLC believes that there is merit in supporting the following measures as family and tax-payer friendly.
Prop 83 - Jessica’s Law. Initiative Statute. Convicted felons who are registered sex offenders can not reside within 2000 feet of a school or park. It creates a new category of crime and a possible third strike for criminals possessing child pornography.
Prop 85. Parental notification for a minor’s abortion. Constitutional Amendment. The issue here is one of requiring the state to protect and support parental primacy in regard to health matters surrounding the abortion procedure for minors.
Prop 90. Eminent Domain Reform. Constitutional Amendment. Restores home owner’s and property owners’ rights gutted by the US Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs New London in 2005. Property owners include churches who stand in dangerof losing their property to commercial enterprises.
CRLC views the following as creating a negative tax burden to the family income and as harmful to the parent/child relationship.
Prop 1D: Education Bond. Legislative initiative. Creates a new $10,416 Billion tax indebtedness for construction of new K-12 classrooms.
Prop 86: Cigarette Tax: Initiatve Statute. Imposes a new 13 cent tax per cigarette ($2.60 per pack) to fund hospital emergency services, nursing education, and health insurance for children. Our opposition: Provides a major new source of funding for the state Healthy Families Program (which we have continuosly opposed) and the Rob Reiner Children and Families Program.
Prop 88: Property Parcel Tax, School Funding: Provides funding by imposition of a state parcel tax of $50.00 per property parcel. Our opposition: Possibility for funds to go to other than stated purpose. All monies pass through the legislature, no local control, no sunset clause. Large portion of funds going to collect data from a new “integrated longitudinal teacher and student data system” which would be very family invasive.
Only Props 85 and 90 carry any guarantee of certainty that they will not be tied up in court or quickly thrown out through legislative amendments.
Every other proposition labeled as “legislative” or “statutory” dealing in adding new codes or amending old codes can be changed by legislation or state court decision.