Breaking: Resolution Attacking Parental Rights Introduced

Concerns surrounding Senate Bill 18 by Senator Richard Pan only continue to increase. Now amended, SB 18 creates a Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Youth which is to be made up of nine members of the Senate and nine members of the Assembly.

SB 18 then directs this committee to develop “‘California’s Promise to its Children and Youth,’ a framework for the care and welfare of the state’s children and youth…” The bill then adds direction regarding a once unnamed and vague Senate resolution stating, “The committee shall consider Senate Concurrent Resolution No. _____, the Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California,” for the purpose of developing the framework mentioned above.

The breaking news is that Senator Pan has introduced the unnamed resolution, now known as SCR 41, Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California.

SB 18   directs the committee to work with medical organizations involved in child health care, educational organizations and institutions, organizations in child development and welfare, and applicable state agencies and commissions to develop a plan for implementation of the “framework” the committee is tasked with creating. But nowhere is it mentioned that they must also work with parents.

This newly introduced resolution opens a Pandora’s box when it comes to the government exercising their judgement and exerting authority in what is best for your child.

Remember, resolutions are non-binding, they cannot be enforced by law, but the committee formed is directed to use this resolution as a resource when crafting legislation regarding children in California.

Some quick facts about SCR 41

  • SCR 41 categorizes anyone under the age of 21 as Children and/or Youth and entitles them to newly identified rights and specific services.
  • The resolution includes “The Right to develop a healthy attachment to a parent, legal guardian, or caregiver…” Who sets the standard for what is healthy? Does the government get to set their own definition on that? This is dangerously subjective.
  • It also includes access of a child’s parents to “voluntary home visitation.” When will this “voluntary” visitation be offered to parents? Will parents who don’t adhere to mainstream education, health, and nutrition ideologies immediately send a red flag and mark themselves as candidates for these programs? Will CPS or the authorities show up at your door to “offer” you these programs? Will parents be bullied and intimidated into participating in these programs?
  • The resolution discusses the right to payment of a living wage to a child’s parents, access to paid time off of work, a reliable work schedule, and employment that promotes a healthy balance between life and work. Will employers be forced to increase wages? The potential this has to force even more businesses to leave California is great. These jobs leaving the state would only negatively impact those who are currently holding these jobs. Other jobs that will remain in California despite increases In wages will only continue to increase the cost of their product to meet the demand for more cash flow to their business. It’s a lose-lose situation.
  • The resolution also states more than once that the priority would be to keep a child with its parents as long as it is in the child’s best interest to do so. Imagine, the state being given the power to outline what is in the best interest of your child.
  • The resolution includes that children have the right to live in communities that are free of pollutants. Will parents who live in large cities with more pollutants be forced to relocate? Children are also given the right to access safe and affordable modes of transportation. Who is going to provide this transportation? The state, and therefore, the taxpayers?
  • The resolution also gives children and youth the right to “appropriate legal representation and a child advocate in legal proceedings to represent the interest of the child.” Because the state will determine that some parenting philosophies are unfit, they make sure to prepare for the legal battles to come.
  • As the original language in SB 18 did, this resolution lists the “right to appropriate education…” This right includes access to internet while at school and at home. Again, the state will become the authority on what quality education is. They include in the bill that parents have options such as home-based schooling, and independent studies, but really, that only extends until they see it as disagreeable, then, it’s no longer “quality.”
  • The resolution discusses that children have the right to mental and behavioral assessments at intervals the states is to determine.
  • The resolution also mentions funding for schools and programs that schools would have the option to offer, like health screenings. All of these programs will be funded with taxpayer money.

The irony is that the end of the resolution states “…the Legislature intends that nothing in this resolution be interpreted… to limit a parent’s rights under state or federal law…” The insertion of this is only a failed attempt to silence opposition who speak out against this resolution because of its attack on parental rights. With this as the guiding document for the committee tasked with developing the framework mentioned in SB 18, we are in a world of trouble.Contact your Senator today and ask them to OPPOSE SB 18 and SCR 41.

Legislative Update 4/13/17

SB 18,  Senator Pan’s latest assault on parental rights has been amended and now creates a Joint Legislative Committee, made up of members of the Senate and the Assembly. The issues that were not so long ago in the limelight will now be sent to the back room to be discussed by this committee which will be tasked with developing  “‘California’s Promise to its Children and Youth,’ a framework for the care and welfare of  the state’s children and youth  in various contexts, including, but not limited to, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, education, and foster care…”

SB 18 directs the committee to work with medical organizations involved in child health care, educational organizations and institutions, organizations in child development and welfare, and applicable state agencies and commissions to develop a plan for implementation of the “framework” the committee is tasked with creating. But it mentions nothing about parents.

LOCATION: Senate Rules Committee
(waiting for committee assignment)

SB 179 weakens, essentially deletes, any requirements for an individual to change their sex on their birth certificate. A person must submit an application to change the gender on their birth certificate and an affidavit stating that they are submitting the change to conform their legal gender with their gender identity and is not for a fraudulent purpose . If no objection is made, the court SHALL grant the petition of change within 28 days of the filing.

In addition, the application for an identification card from the DMV would include the gender choices of male, female, and nonbinary. An applicant is not required to provide any information in addition to the application.

Imagine the many problems that will result for law enforcement officials from this free-for-all, self-identifying gender selection. Trying to identify an individual would become increasingly difficult if an individual’s sex does not match what’s listed on their identification.

LOCATION: Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing Date: 4/25/17

SB 219  would force biological female residents in long-term care facilities to share sleeping quarters with biological males, and vice versa. This bill grants preferential rights to LGBT residents and leaves others with little to no right to privacy. This bill is ripe for abuse as the requirement is simply to self-proclaim one’s gender identity. This bill could easily be used as a tool by perpetrators to prey upon unsuspecting, vulnerable victims.

The bill also demands that facilities, such as restrooms, open to persons of one gender must be available to those of the same gender identity. This becomes especially problematic when facilities, such as bathrooms, are multiple use.

This bill demands that facility staff use a person’s “preferred pronoun,” but how does staff know what the preferred pronoun is? Can this change during the resident’s time in the facility? The crux of the problem is that SB 219 does not protect the dignity and safety of all long-term care facility patients.

LOCATION: Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing Date: 4/18/17

SB 320  mandates that all UCs offer abortion by medication at their on-campus health centers. The bill also requires the schools to cover abortion in their student health plans in order to receive state funding for the purpose of providing health insurance to students. This is a prime example of the government trying to strong-arm UCs into doing what the government thinks is best for students.

Despite what those promoting this legislation might want to lead you to think, abortion by medication does not come without consequences, or risks. Are the student health centers equipped to handle these risks and consequences? Are they prepared to be available to a woman the days and nights following her abortion? Are they prepared to offer her the full range of care necessary should something go awry?

Aren’t universities supposed to be a place of empowerment anyway? Abortion does not empower women. Instead of promoting abortion, the UCs should focus on the services they provide to pregnant women and mothers on campus. UCs are in a unique position in women’s lives to empower them to continue on in their education even with an unplanned pregnancy.

LOCATION: Senate Health Committee
Hearing Date: 4/19/17

AB 569  prohibits employers from including in an employee handbook, or code of conduct, anything related to reproductive health care decisions. For example, a Christian school could not make it against their code of conduct for women to obtain abortions during their employment, even though it is contrary to that school’s moral and deeply held religious beliefs. This bill is a violent assault on religious liberty, as well as massive government overreach into the affairs of private businesses.

LOCATION: Assembly Judiciary Committee
Hearing Date: 4/25/17

AB 1577 – Change of Gender at Death (Atkins)

Position: Oppose


Currently a person can obtain a court order legally changing his or her gender and to obtain a new birth certificate. Existing law also sets forth the requirements for properly completing a certificate of death. The law allows an “informant” to provide the decedent’s personal information including the decedent’s name, sex and birthplace to the person completing a death certificate.

This bill would require the person completing the death certificate to record the decedent’s sex to reflect the decedent’s gender identity as reported by the informant even if they are not presented with a court order or other legal documentation acknowledging a legal change of gender. Gender identity is a person’s private sense of, and subjective experience of, their own gender regardless of their biological gender at birth.

This bill would give a person, or a majority of persons who have equal rights to control the disposition of the remains, the legal authority to change the gender of a decedent if a decedent chose to not take the legal steps to change his or her gender during his or her lifetime.

Bill Status –

6/24/2014 – Passed Senate Judiciary Committee 6-1
click here for committee votes

Read AB 1577 Here

AB 215 – Communist School Teachers (Buchanan)


Position: Oppose

Existing law prohibits a permanent school employee from being suspended or dismissed with few exceptions, which include immoral or unprofessional conduct and being a known member of the Communist Party. The processes school districts must follow in order to suspend or dismiss a permanent employee are lengthy and costly.

This bill establishes a dismissal processes for employees charged with egregious misconduct and specifically defines egregious misconduct as sexual misconduct, controlled substances offenses, and child abuse.

However, the bill also deletes language in the law that calls for the dismissal of a school employee who has a “Knowing membership by the employee in the Communist Party.” Should this measure become law, there would no longer be restrictions preventing teachers who adhere to the political theory of Communism from becoming educators in the k-12 public school system.

Bill Status –

6/25/14 – Signed into law by Governor
Click here for floor votes

Read AB 215 Here

AB 1442 – Personal Student Information Gathering (Gatto)


Position: Oppose unless amended

Currently, school districts are not prohibited from gathering personal information obtained from social media and maintaining that information in students’ records.

This bill would require schools to notify students and their parents if the district chooses to implement such data gathering programs. While AB 1442 seeks to inform parents and students when school districts monitor the social media accounts of minor students, the bill could provide further safeguards. We oppose this bill unless it is amended to include the following protections:

• This bill should explicitly prohibit any action from being taken against a student who has posted something on social media that is constitutionally protected free speech.
• The bill should be amended to explicitly preclude “emails,” “texts,” and “instant messages” from the definition of social media.

Bill Status –
6/24/2014 – Passed Senate Judiciary 7-0
Click here for committee votes

Read AB 1442 Here

AB 1444 – Mandatory Kindergarten (Buchanan)

Position: Oppose
Currently, it is not a requirement for a child to attend kindergarten prior to entering first grade. Parents can elect to enroll their children in public school kindergarten based on the parent’s intimate knowledge of the child’s developmental capacity. This bill would mandate a parent to enroll their child in kindergarten and would require a child to have completed one year of kindergarten before entering first grade.

Bill Status
6/30/2014 – Passed Senate Appropriations 6-0
click here for committee votes


Read AB 1444 Here


SB 323 – Attack on Religious Liberties and Non-Profits (Lara)

Position: Oppose

CRI’s Analysis
This bill would revoke the tax-exempt status of all non-profit youth organizations deemed to be discriminating based on sexual orientation, gender identity and other categories. SB 323 targets public youth charities whose tenets do not permit homosexual or transgendered persons to serve in their leadership or membership, including those programs affiliated with K-12 public and private schools.

This bill specifically names the following entities as youth organizations:
Little League, Bobby Sox, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Inc., Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs, Distributive Education Clubs of America, Future Business Leaders of America, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, Collegiate Young Farmers, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Special Olympics, Inc., American Youth Soccer Organization, California Youth Soccer Association, North, California Youth Soccer Association, South, and Pop Warner football.

If this bill becomes law, these and any organization whose primary purpose is to provide a supervised program of competitive sports for youth, or to promote good citizenship in youth including any youth group sponsored by or affiliated with nonprofit private educational institutions, would be forced to change their policies to include acceptance of homosexual and transgendered leaders and members or lose their tax exempt status in the State of California. This is a direct attack on religious liberties and the children will be the ones that will be hurt by this law if these organizations are not permitted to maintain their tax-exempt status. This law would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of people in this state and should be opposed.

Legislative Update

Status –  Assembly floor (Order to the inactive file 9/12/2013)

8/21/2013 – Passed 12-5 Assembly Appropriations
Click here for the committee votes

8/13/13 – Passed 6-3 in Assembly Judiciary Committee
Click here for the committee votes

8/12/13 – Passed 6-3 in Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
Click here for the committee votes

5/29/13 – Passed 27-9 on Senate Floor
Click here for the floor votes

4/29/13 – Chair of Appropriations Committee sent to the Senate without a hearing or vote in committee

4/10/13 – Passed 5-2 in Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Click here for the committee votes

Read SB 323 Here