Record social engineering bills by state

July 10, 2012

By Katy Grimes

California’s historic decline is not just limited to bad economic policy; California politicians have been meddling in people’s bedrooms, churches, women’s wombs, classrooms, kitchens, autos, bank accounts, and in the courtroom.

Social engineering

Is access to contraceptives really a problem, or one ginned up by “abortion-rights” activists?

AB 2348, would expand the scope of non-doctors to be able to prescribe or administer contraceptives. Currently limited to medical doctors, nurse practioners and specially ccertified midwives, Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, wants to add physicians assistants, and nurses to the list of those who can prescribe contraception.

Opponents are very concerned that important decisions about contraception would no longer be required to have physician supervision. Even the Association of Nurse Pracionerss and California Nurses Association were opposed to the bill.

“More than 15 years ago, when the state contraceptive mandate was being debated in the California Legislature, written materials distributed by the sponsors of the legislation likened contraceptives to vaccines, claiming that their ready availability was as important to society as vaccines that prevented disease,” the Californa  Catholic Conference wrote in its opposition to the bill.

Maybe your dental hygenist can perform your next root canal too.

It takes a village

A bill authored by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would allow a child to have multiple parents, The Sacramento Bee reports.

Currently California law permits no more than two parents per child. Leno’s bill, SB 1476:

1. Authorizes a court to find that a child has two presumed parents if the court finds that it is in the best interests of the child based on the nature, duration, and quality of the presumed or claimed parents’ relationships with the child and the benefit or detrimentto the child in continuing those relationships;

2. Provides that a child may have a parent-child relationship, as defined by the Uniform Parentage Act, with more than two parents;

3. Requires, in the case of a child with more than two legal parents, the court to allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, including stability for the child; and

4. Requires, in the case of a child with more than two legal parents, the court to divide child support obligations among the parents based on the statewide uniform to permit recognition of more than two parents.

Under the cconcept of “new families,” Leno’s bill goes hand-in-hand with other same-sex legislation, only this one redefines the family legally. Critics say that since voters would not pass same-sex marriage, now Leno and other gay rights activists are trying another route  to their goals, but this one is through children and the courts.


AB 2109 by Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, would require all public school-age children to receive vaccinations, despite parental opposition.

The bill has received a great deal of attention since vaccinations are a medical controversy for many parents.

The bill iis currently in the Senate committee process. I wrote about it here.


SB 1338, by Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, would have allowed nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants to provide first-trimester abortions. She scaled back her bill to include only 41 providers statewide that are involved in a UC San Francisco pilot program. But a Senate committee deadlocked on the bill, and it failed.

The bill was sponsored by Planned Parenthoood, NARAL, the California Nurses Association, and the SEIU. Most of the bill’s analysis was provided by these prro-abortion organizations. When legislative committee staff are in favor of a bill, it’s really obvious.

However, Kehoe took the language from the failed bill, and placed it in budget bill SB 623. Kehoe received much criticism for trying to cram a failed bill into a budget trailer bill without the usual  committee hearings, public notification or debate. SB 623 was just passed the Assembly Health Committee, 13-6.

Sexual Orientation

SB 1172, titled, “Sexual orientation change efforts,” by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance,  would prevent parents from seeking therapy for children who show confusion about their sexual orientation.  Prior to five ammendments, the original bill would have stopped any attempt at reparative therapy, for both adults and minors.

But because of the  universal opposition by all mental health professional organizations, the bill has been significantly amended.  It has passed both houses of the Legislature, and awaits the signature of Gov. Jerry Brown.

AB 2356, by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, same-sex female couples using a known sperm donor would have the same access to fertility services as heterosexual women seeking to conceive using a male partner.

Traditional infertility issues arise when a couple attempting to get pregnant has not succeeded within six months. However, this legal definition of “infertile couple” does not apply to same-sex female couples who want to be able to access fertility clinics as well.

According to testimony in the Assembly Health Committee July 3, “Under current law, a woman could try to conceive a child via artificial insemination using “fresh” sperm — sperm that has not been frozen, tested for disease and quarantined — from a male donor with whom she has been “sexually intimate.” The current language is interpreted by fertility doctors fearing liability to mean that heterosexual women having sexual intercourse with their male partner are candidates for fresh sperm insemination, but same-sex female couples, and single women, with a fresh sperm donor they haven’t had intercourse with, are not, meaning the have to seek out more expensive artificial conception procedures.”

The bill also would allow women to the artificial insemination process without the rigorous disease screenings currently required.

Supporrt for AB 2356 primarily came from groups touting LGBT couples’ fertility rights.


SB 1140,  by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, appears to be redefining marriage, and even creating new types of legal marriages.

The bill would stipulate “that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not religious, contract” and affirms that no clergyman would be required to perform a marriage that conflicts with his beliefs.  Opponents of SB 1140  pointed out that the bill appears to introduce an inappropriate and perhaps even unconstitutional definition of marriage, and that clergy already have religious liberty guarantees in both the state and the federal constitutions.

Leno has introduced this same bill four previous times.

Foster parenting

AB 1856, by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, would require potential foster parents to be trained for cultural sensitivity toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. The bill is  sponsored by Equity California, a political gay-rights advocacy and lobbying organization.

Opponents to the bill argued that all children should be treated with dignity and respect, and that foster parents who take children from various cultures and races are not required to show specific cultural competency training for their particular background.  AB 1856 passed the Assembly in May, and currently is being heard in Senate committees.

There is a special interest theme taking place by Democrats, and in California’s LGBT legislative caucus. The theme is one in which an inordinate amount of legislative time is being spent. In addition, the many bills seeking to replace parental rights continue to advance in California. Put them together and it is obvious there is a huge shift toward legislating social outcomes, despite the will of the people.

And even without the will of the people behind these social causes, whose rights are really being trampled? California’s children and young people have become political pawns, however, Democrats first need to get parents out of the way.

Related Articles

Immigration amnesty not nearly as popular in CA as gay rights

There really has been a genuine change in American views of gay rights. The longer the Republican Party sees its

Bee stokes phony crime wave

JULY 26, 2010 By STEVEN GREENHUT In what can only be viewed as an attempt to build public support for

Will CA GOP emerge as defenders of embattled techies, tech firms?

Is the present anti-Google, anti-techie agitation in the Bay Area a reflection of anger over how affluent tech workers have