Democrats Pushing Culture War Legislation With A Vengeance, Against GOP's Mounting Resistance

By CAMILLE GIGLIO

February 17, 2011 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - In a state now almost completely under the political control of the Democrat party, the legislature rather than realistically dealing with California's huge budget deficit [conservatively estimated as being in excess of $19B] is working overtime to further a hard-left, anti-life, anti-family agenda.

Take for example SB 48, authored by Mark Leno [D-Marin] and co-sponsored by Tom Ammiano, [D-SF] Loni Hancock, [D-Berkeley] and Leland Yee, [D-SF].

This is a briefly worded but dangerous bill. The LGBT [lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered] caucus is demanding access to every school-age child, from pre-kindergarten to high school for the purpose of providing class time instruction within the social sciences curriculum, regarding the alleged historical significance and supposed contributions of the homosexual community to the development of California and the United States.

The parties spotlighted in what is clearly propaganda, will be chosen not because of any real historical significance but simply because of their sexual orientation. The bill is aimed most specifically toward the younger child in what is referred to as the latency period of development, meaning their years of innocence. There is no opt-out allowance for a child to be removed from this indoctrination.

In 2007 a similar bill, SB 777, by then Sen. Sheila Kuehl, was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. However, it was endorsed by the state and local PTA groups because it, like SB 48, according to a PTA spokesperson, was worded to appear to be an anti-discrimination bill when, in fact, these bills appear to be a recruiting device.

Left unsaid in this debate is that in reality, real discrimination exists however it is against the Christian and heterosexual communities. Since this bill brings in religion it can also be used to instruct students in non-traditional religions such as secular humanism.

A search on the PTA website using keyword SB 777, brings up a description of the bill, admitting that it would establish a new definition of gender and sexual orientation, expanding the traditional, biological meaning of gender [male or female] to include supposed gender identification, thus clearing the way for unlimited political mischief, as long as the votes are there.

From the PTA website, "This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws." [source, http://www.capta.org/sections/advocacy/downloads/LegReport-2007-05.pdf]

If this legislation passes it won't matter what happens with Prop 8, as all children attending public, private or charter schools will be forcibly indoctrinated with the LGBT agenda at the same time - unsurprisingly - granting these gender warriors a good deal more political power.

One section of the bill addresses the need to re-write textbooks and other educational material to include the mandates of this bill. The interesting thing here is that so much of instructional material, these days, is coming into the classroom through computers which the parents never see and which can be changed and manipulated rapidly.

As a side note focusing on the computerization of education, there is another bill in the legislature which has authorized certain students to receive computerized instruction coming from India by Indian facilitators.

SB48 is headed for its first hearing in the Senate Education Committee by mid-March, the committee has only 3 Republican legislators out of a total of 10 members, so it will inevitably be reported out to the full Senate.

If you are concerned about this direct attack on children at their most impressionable age and a parent's right to raise them according to traditional values, please take the time to write a letter to the Chairman, Alan Lowenthal, [D-Long Beach, zip 90802] and the V. Chairman, Robert Huff, [R-Walnut-zip code 91789]. Use letterhead stationery of your club, church, fraternal group, business association. etc. Send the letter C/0 State Capitol, Sacramento, Ca 95814.

Please also consider visiting the state PTA website to read their sections on diversity and inclusion - www.capta.org - and then contact your local school-based PTA affiliate. The state PTA has not yet taken a position on SB 48. Each affiliate is permitted to submit a resolution to the state organization to support or oppose legislation. Ask your local PTA to oppose SB 48.

This is not only about stopping this bill, but about the longer view of educating parents who are members of local PTAs. Their dues are used in part, to support legislative activities which work against the family.

Some suggested talking points:


1. This bill discriminates against heterosexual individuals and families.
2. This bill, due to lack of an opt-out option is indoctrination not education.
3. This bill seeks to mandate this teaching even in Charter Schools.
4. This type of instruction will create gender identity crises in young students.
5. It places homosexually biased persons in authority to chose the representatives of their community.
6. This bill, contrary to biased, promotional material, is not about inclusion, assisting the disabled, recognizing diversity or teacher credentialing. It is a recruitment of other people's children into the ranks of the LGBT.
7. This bill denies valuable classroom educational time for academic or career instruction.
8. It is an attempt to bypass the parents and any court decisions favorable to Prop 8.

Congressional bills supporting and defending the value of human life.

While some groups have been reporting that there are 3 bills in Congress that can be considered as supportive of the Right to Life, by our count, there are actually 7 - all GOP sponsored - bills, each focused on some aspect of funding or removing support for or placing limitations on abortion services and funding the abortionists or via amendments to the Obama Patient Protection Act or by amending Title 18 of the Public Health Service Act.

Other bills call for an expanded definition of who can be defined as a person in the 14th amendment as well as prohibitions on taking minors across state lines for abortions. Another, interesting bill, calls for specific reporting on abortions performed with Medicaid funds. California has always refused to comply with that request.

Some of these bills are, basically, still in draft form and will need to be watched over the next few months. Each of the below named legislators needs your support and encouragement. The address is: The Hon.________, C/o US House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515, or, US Senate, zip code 20510.

Here is a brief rundown. Legend: H.R.=House bill, S.= U.S. Senate, AB=CA Assembly bill, SB=CA Senate bill.

H.R 3, John Boehner, [R-Ohio]To Prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes. It would appear that every House Republican has co-signed this bill.

The formal title is: "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."

1.Providing for conscience protections.
2. No federal funds shall be used, in any way for health benefits coverage that includes abortion.
3. No health care service provided by the Federal Government or any individual employed by the Federal Government "may include abortion."
4. Language appears to make the usual exception for forcible rape, incest or life of the mother.
5. Does not prohibit states or other insurance plans from using other than federal funds to provide abortion services.

H.R. 358, Joseph Pitts, [R-PA], Special Considerations for Abortion in Heath Care Act.

1. Referred to as the Protect Life Act.
2. A majority of House Republicans have co-signed this bill.
3. Modifies the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act relating to abortion coverage services.
4. No federal funds may be used to pay for abortion, except for rape, incest or life of the mother.
5. No prohibitions on purchase of abortion coverage in other than Federal Health Insurance funds.
6. Protects against requiring physician training in performance of induced abortions.
7. Allows complaints to be filed with the Director of Civil Rights Office if this act is improperly carried out.

H.R. 361, John Fleming, [R-LA] Prohibit Certain Abortion-Related Discrimination.

1. Referred to as the Abortion Non-discrimination Act of 2011.
2. Focus is on protecting physicians or health care facilities from being required to be trained for or to perform induced abortions.

H.R. 374, Duncan D. Hunter, [R-Ca] Extends 14th Amendment to Unborn Humans in the Fetus. [This title is poorly worded]. This is a very brief bill often referred to as a spot bill. Expect to see changes in wording.

1. Referred to as "Life At Conception Act."
2. Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child. H.R. 593, Peter Graham, [R-TX], Medicaid Payment Information to Abortion Providers.

Referred to as "Taxpayer Conscience Protection Act of 2011.
Requires strict reporting of any monies from Medicaid paid to abortion providers be reported within 60 days following the year's end complete with who, what, why and when and the outcome.

A. 91, Roger Wicker, [R-MI], Expansion of Interpretation of 14th Amendment. See Hunter companion bill, H.R. 374.

A. 96, David Vitter, [R-LA] Planning Grants for Entities that Perform Abortions.

Referred to as the "Title X Family Planning Act."
1. Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare clause of the Public Health Service Act
2.PHSA would be amended to prohibit any Federally authorized Family Planning Program from receiving funding for abortion services, thereby removing abortion from Title X.

A. 121 - David Vitter, [R-LA] Physicians Who Perform Abortions.

Referred to as the "Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act."
1. This is a Spot Bill, meaning that its wording is still vague. Seems to be authorizing abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, for patients suffering from adverse abortion conditions. However, it is fairly well known that most abortionists can't comply with hospital admitting privilege requirements. This would affect abortion clinics as well.

A. 165, David Vitter, [R-LA], Prohibit Abortion-Related Discrimination. Companion bill to H.R. 361.

A. 167, John Ensign,[R-NV] Minor Transportation and Abortion Decisions.

Amends title 18 United States Code. Companion to HR 3.

Referred to as "Child Custody Protection Act."

1. Transportation of Minors across state lines or a pseudo Parental Consent Law.
2. If enacted this law might well prevent third parties from taking minors across state lines for abortions as well as facilitate prosecutions of abortion personnel who coach minors to lie about their age and/or get older adults, acting as parents, to sign for the abortion.

We will further update this information as these bills work their way through their respective legislative bodies.

2011 Camille Giglio, PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.