Save California: 14 evil bills that crashed and burned in 2023

We apologize for our error in our Dec. 9 Insider News, in which we wrote, “Even though the ruling Democrats have ensured zero abortions in California…” Of course, this is false and the opposite is true. Please see the corrected sentence below, which now begins with: “Even though the ruling Democrats have ensured zero abortion restrictions in California…” Again, we apologize for our neglectful error, and will implement new steps to guarantee accurate messages in the future.

Some facts to realize:

• The demise of these 14 evil bills, all authored by Democrats, shows how extreme today’s Democrat politicians have become — more extreme than reality can tolerate.

• Some of these evil bills were stopped because of a budget shortfall; some others because of strong opposition of industry forces; and some others because Newsom wants to be the next U.S. president.

• These evil bills could come back next year; however, if that occurs, another state budget deficit (Newsom’s driving both “high” and “middle” class out of California, and they’re taking their tax money with them) could stop several costly and evil bills.

• The majority of these 14 unsuccessful bills would have expanded the killing of innocent babies via abortion. Even though the ruling Democrats have ensured zero abortion restrictions in California, they keep pushing their murderous agenda, trampling every part of life, even life in other states. Such is the Democrats’ hatred of innocent babies in the womb.

AB 315 permitting civil lawsuits based on “emotional distress” against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for “false or misleading statements.” This anti-child, anti-First-Amendment bill is an attempted “end run” around the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a previous Democrat bill requiring pro-abortion signage at California CPCs. (But see AB 1720, which the ruling Democrats passed and Gov. Newsom signed).

AB 492 funding a pilot project to give state and federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists to treat “mild-to-moderate behavioral health conditions.” This bill attempted to add to Planned Parenthood’s cover story of “comprehensive,” non-abortion “services,” and at its core aims to replace wiser counsel from parents, pastors, and psychologists. Bottom line, AB 492 would spend taxpayer money on lie-based, pro-abortion counseling at Planned Parenthood killing centers. Mothers, babies, and taxpayers all lose.

AB 598 forcing abortion referrals and invasive questionnaires upon public schools by requiring children in government school grades 7 to 12 to all receive “physical or digital” referrals to abortions. The bill would have also mandated the anti-family “California Healthy Kids Survey” upon all school districts to impose in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11. This bill would have also required these invasive questionnaires to include “questions about sexual and reproductive health care as a core survey module for pupils in grades 7, 9, and 11.”

AB 1120 forcing every government-controlled school “that serves pupils in grades 6 to 12” to “adopt a policy on universal mental health screening of pupils for youth behavior disorders.” The big problem here is what is defined as a “youth behavior disorder?” Additionally, this bill did not require written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out for parents.

AB 1352 permitting 3 or 4 anti-family, pro-immorality school board members to remove a moral-values, pro-family board member from office.

AB 1450 requiring California government-run elementary and secondary schools “to conduct universal screenings for adverse childhood experiences.” But what defines whether an experience was “adverse”? Under AB 1450, would good parents’ loving training and discipline be labeled “adverse”? The bill contained no written, advance notification of parents or a clear opt-out.

SB 36 prohibiting California judges, law enforcement, or bail professionals from doing anything to help save pre-born babies or save children from “LGBTQIA+” mutilation. (But see SB 345, which the ruling Democrats passed and Gov. Newsom signed)

SB 729 requiring health insurance plans to pay for artificial insemination of surrogate women so that homosexual men or transsexuals — can “have babies.”

AB 576 fully funding chemical abortions under the state’s Medi-Cal (welfare) program (deceptively doing so by ordering the State Department of Health Care Services to “the department shall update its Medi-Cal coverage policies for medication abortion as needed to align with evidence-based clinical guidelines.”

AB 957 requiring state judges in child custody cases to disfavor parents who don’t “affirm” their own children acting as “trans” (the bill would have ordered judges to see “affirming” transsexuality in a child as essential to the “the health, safety, and welfare of the child”).

AB 1432 requiring group health insurance carriers that sell policies in California to “cover” the killing of preborn babies (the bill calls this “abortion” and “abortion-related services”) and “sex changes” (the bill calls this “gender-affirming care”).

SB 58 legalizing the mind-altering, “hallucinogenic substances” of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline. This bill, by legalizing these harmful, “recreational drugs” for 21-year-olds, would have, for all practical purposes, opened the door to teens and pre-teens getting it. A stoned society is not a safe society.

SB 541 requiring “internal and external condoms” be made available “to all pupils free of charge” in grades 9 through 12 at government-controlled junior high and high schools (includes charter schools); permitting school districts to give condoms to children as young as 7th grade; and prohibiting retail stores from checking ID or denying “nonprescription contraception” purchases to children of any age.

SB 596 empowering chairpersons of liberal school boards to subjectively claim members of the public who speak at meetings have caused “substantial disorder,” so they’ll be promptly arrested and subsequently charged with a misdemeanor offense.

…the 2024 election is likely to be a very different animal than contests in 2023 or 2022. Next fall, more peripheral voters will return to the voting pool. These voters are more likely to be younger, more likely to be non-White, more likely to be working class and, critically, less ideological about issues, including abortion rights.

Ruy Teixeira of the American Enterprise Institute, “Why abortion is not the silver bullet that Democrats need in 2024,” Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2023