By CAMILLE GIGLIO, Legislative Analyst
May 19, 2010 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - We begin to get phone calls and questions about this time in an election cycle concerning who is a pro-life candidate. Unfortunately, the last few elections have left one scratching their head wondering who or if any of the candidates is really pro life.
This upcoming primary is no different. Not only do we wonder if any of them are really pro life, but we wonder if any of the information they put forth is even accurate, let alone germane to the office for which they are running.
I will be out of the state during the election time - yes, I'm voting absentee - so here are some random thoughts on candidate positions.
Met Whitman, during one of her last televised debates, labeled Steve Poizner as a darling of the pro aborts and herself as pro life. Further, she has distributed a 46 page publication entitled "Building a New California."
In this, she positions herself as "opposing federal funding of abortion, opposing partial birth abortion and supporting parental notification."
First of all, no federal taxpayer money comes into the California state coffers to pay for abortion, so the governor has never had to be concerned about that.
It doesn't matter how she personally, or any candidate running for governor, feels about federal funding of abortion.
Federal tax money does come into the state but it goes directly to the abortion industry, therefore bypassing the state's ability to control it. If she really was interested, she should as governor demand that the federal funds be paid to the state. In that way there would be reporting requirements to meet and accountability as to where and for what the federal tax money is being spent.
Federal tax money does come into the state to reimburse, in part, for family planning.
Perhaps she should mention that.
As to Steve Poizner's 100% Planned Parenthood rating, that occurred some years ago when he was running for another office. Though he does not appear to have refuted that they never endorsed him, they probably won't because they already have the Democrats all sewed up.
Another Meg mailer features the smiling face of former Governor Pete Wilson - who put state Supreme Court Justice Ming Chinn on the state supreme court. Chinn couldn't get up from the floor fast enough after kissing Wilson's feet for the appointment, to cast a vote against hearings on parental notification, thus assuring Planned Parenthood more state funding and privileges than even Jerry Brown did as governor.
As for Steve Poizner I am concerned about his stand favoring charter schools. Charter schools are government, tax funded entities which are presumed to allow a little flexibility and local control in their overseeing. In reality they function as new pathways, seducing religious schools into becoming charter schools, thus creating more specialized academies within the charter school program, a merger between education and labor.
Regardless of who gets to be Governor, should a Democrat win the position of Superintendent of Public Instruction, this arrangement will go ahead full speed, whether there is federal funding or not.
Regarding Jerry Brown as Democrat candidate for Governor, let's remember that it was he who in 1976 or thereabouts, told the feds that California would pay for all the abortions with California tax money because the state preferred not to take up its time in compiling reports to the feds on how they were spending the abortion dollars.
It was also he who appointed Rose Byrd to the state Supreme Court whereupon she took up the case of authorizing the minor consent law. This had the effect that minors, without parental involvement, could decide the outcome of a pregnancy by themselves.
US Senate Races
Carly Fiorina claims to be "proudly proudly pro life" What does that mean? No one, apparently, has asked her to qualify that claim.
Current state Assemblyman and U.S. Senate candidate, Chuck Devore has a known pro life voting record. Regardless, the state and National Pro Life Councils have endorsed pro life unknown, former HP exec Carly Fiorina, as have Sarah Palin and other supposedly noteworthy pro life Republicans.
The Susan B. Anthony list has endorsed Carly because they apparently only endorse pro life women regardless of their ability to run a government. Running a business no matter how large, is very different from running a state government.
One also wonders if the state Republican party would even support Devore if he wins the primary.
The pro life pac groups may believe that Carly makes a better showing against Barbara Boxer, and she certainly has more funding than Devore, but it may cause the pro life voter to stay home thereby throwing the Republican nomination to Tom Campbell.
Many say they don't care who gets in to the U.S. Senate seat, just so long as it's not Boxer, but in Campbell we have a candidate just like Boxer on this issue.
The other position I worry about is that of Superintendent of Public Instruction. There are something like 15 candidates for this top education job. Tom Torlakson is the Democrat favored candidate. He has hungered after this position for some time, authoring at the state level several bills that coincide with Obama's Race To The Top Education funding agenda.
There are so far, two candidate brochures put out by various pro life groups. Aside from the California Pro Life Council's survey which endorses Fiorina, there are the Orange County Pac's recommendations which are confusing arranged, listing Poizner as pro life.
And, finally, be aware of any parcel tax bonds or measures that claim that education is being shortchanged on funding - that just isn't so.
©2010 Camille Giglio. All rights reserved.