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.


Write a comment
  1. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 July, 2012, 22:56

    San Bernardino votes to files for bankruptcy protection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Reply this comment
  2. Donkey
    Donkey 10 July, 2012, 23:16

    Not on topic Rex, but yes, the end is begining. The RAGWUS feeders are now going to see what greed and lack of logic and reason gets you when the bill comes due. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  3. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 July, 2012, 23:23

    Teddy died today, when the SKY FELL ON HIM ;0

    Reply this comment
  4. Cyndi
    Cyndi 11 July, 2012, 02:35

    These people need to be FIRED!! Who in the hell keeps reelecting these fools? I am so grateful that I don’t have school age children to raise–At this point, I’m not sure I’d let them see the outside world in order to protect them from the idiots that are free to roam the streets and spout their evils. I decided a few years ago that if I had any, they would be home schooled in order to keep them from being brainwashed and indoctrinated –thinking that the government is supposed to take care of everyone and that the handouts are free and that everything is handed to you on a silver platter without working for them. There are some things the schools are to teach and other things parents are to teach and morality is one of them. Self-respect and dignity are others that these liberal idiots no nothing about and have no right trying to teach my child any such thing. What happened to reading, writing and arithmetic? The End is near -it is written. So be it!!

    Reply this comment
  5. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 11 July, 2012, 07:21

    Gloom buddies all gushee today. Without government chaos rules….you will beg on your knees for help!

    Reply this comment
  6. Donkey
    Donkey 11 July, 2012, 08:39

    UH, if every RAGWUS entity disappeared the citizens would be just fine on their own.

    It is your words that licit “gloom” my RAGWUS friend, not the private sector taxpayers words of truth. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  7. Cyndi
    Cyndi 11 July, 2012, 10:48

    Donkey, What is RAGWUS? I see you and Rex type this and don’t know what you guys are talking about. No, Ulysses, I would do just fine without the government intruding into my life. I don’t mind laws but not the ones that take over the liberty of others to be rights to be left alone. And these laws are just nonsense and are just side stepping the will of peoples votes. Ant too much government and chaos rules too.

    Reply this comment
  8. Hondo
    Hondo 11 July, 2012, 11:19

    I can see this happening in some emergency room near you.
    A patient has come in with his leg bit off by a shark and is gushing blood everywhere. But by state law the doctors have to council him on his gay rights before they can put a tourniquet on the leg. The patient dies before they can get a yes or know outa him.
    By the way, did you see that huge shark chasing that dude in the kayak back east?
    I’m out here.

    Reply this comment
  9. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 11 July, 2012, 13:56

    By the way, did you see that huge shark chasing that dude in the kayak back east?

    LOL…yes, crazy!!!!

    Reply this comment
  10. Tom
    Tom 13 July, 2012, 17:44

    A Nation of sheep breeds a government of Wolves…

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Gov. Jerry Brown signs host of significant legislation

SACRAMENTO – The 2016 legislative season is officially over, with Gov. Jerry Brown having signed 900 bills while vetoing 159 by

7 ways James Fallows is wrong about the CA bullet train

Writing on The Atlantic’s website, the much-respected journalist/intellectual James Fallows — a Redlands native who knows California better than nearly

Feds try to ban 3D gun

May 10, 2013 By John Seiler The old Soviet Union tyranny tightly controlled Xerox copiers. Every machine had to be