California Legislation Center//


2021 CALIFORNIA BILLS

The California State Legislature has 3/4ths Democrats (a super-supermajority) in both the 80-member State Assembly and the 40-member State Senate.

Here are good bills by Republican legislators and bad bills by Democrat legislators (this page will be updated every Saturday)

GOOD BILLS

Ending the unnecessary, unmerited, unproven, unconstitutional, destructive, year-long "state of emergency"
SCR 5 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). This concurrent resolution which requires a majority vote to pass the State Senate (which would then be transmitted to the State Assembly), is based on California Government Code, Section 8629, which reads: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end, thereby terminating the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation."

Status | Votes No votes yet, because the super-supermajority Democrats have not yet scheduled a hearing

Also ending the unnecessary, unmerited, unproven, unconstitutional, destructive, year-long "state of emergency"
ACR 46 by Kevin Kiley (Republican). This concurrent resolution which requires a majority vote to pass the State Assembly (which would then be transmitted to the State Senate), is based on California Government Code, Section 8629, which reads: "The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This measure, in accordance with specified law, would declare that the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, is at an end and terminate the emergency powers granted to the Governor as a result of that proclamation."

Status | Votes 

Recognizing and protecting constitutional free exercise of religion
SB 397 by Brian Jones (Republican). Requires religious services to be deemed "essential" like big box stores, especially since free exercise of religion is in both the state and federal constitutions. It is unconstitutional to “shut down” churches, because the Constitution is above any state official. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill, the Religion is Essential Act, would, during a state of emergency or local emergency, require the Governor or the local government to deem religious services to be an essential service and to be necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from taking a discriminatory action against a religious organization, as those terms are defined, and would require the state and local government to permit a religious organization to continue operating and engaging in religious services during a state of emergency to the same or greater extent that other organizations or businesses that provide essential services that are necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are permitted to operate. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from enforcing any health, safety, or occupancy requirement that imposes a substantial burden on a religious service unless the state or local government demonstrates that applying the burden to the religious service is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This bill would authorize a religious organization to assert a violation of these provisions as a claim against the state or a local government in a judicial or administrative proceeding or as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, as specified. The bill would entitle a religious organization that successfully asserts a claim or defense to certain relief, as specified.”

Status
 | Votes Defeated April 13 in the State Senate Judiciary Committee. Voting yes were both Republicans (Borgeas, Jones); voting no were 7 of 9 Democrats (Durazo, Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Laird, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener); not voting were Democrats Caballero and Stern.

Respecting basic parental rights (your God-given right to oversee your children’s upbringing and education)
SB 217 by Brian Dahle (Republican). Requires government school districts to post sex education lessons online for easy parent access, so that the deceptive hiding of these sexual agenda plans will no longer be functionally prohibited to parents in violation of state law. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “The California Healthy Youth Act requires school districts, defined to include county boards of education, county superintendents of schools, the California School for the Deaf, the California School for the Blind, and, commencing with the 2019–20 school year, charter schools, to ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention education, as specified. The act authorizes a school district to provide that education earlier than grade 7 with age-appropriate and medically accurate information. The act requires each school district to notify parents and guardians of pupils about its plan to provide sexual health education and HIV prevention instruction for the upcoming school year and to inform them, among other things, that the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education are available for inspection. This bill would require the above-described notice to parents and guardians of pupils and the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education to be translated if certain conditions are met, as specified. The bill would require the governing board of a school district to adopt a policy at a publicly noticed meeting specifying how parents and guardians of pupils may inspect the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education, including that the materials, including applicable translations and updates or changes to the materials, are made available, within prescribed timeframes, at each schoolsite and, except as provided, publicly posted on the school district’s internet website or, if applicable, on a school district’s parent or guardian portal, as specified.”

Status
 | Votes  Failed March 10 in the Senate Education Committee by 1 vote (both Republicans voted yes, 1 Democrat voted yes, 3 Democrats voted no). Was granted reconsideration, was amended by the author to exempt this notification from non-English materials, and is scheduled for an April 28 hearing.

Stopping Gavin Newsom's rogue departments from falsely charging innocent small business owners
SB 102 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Prohibits two state departments from fining or revoking a license or forcibly closing or otherwise punishing California businesses for staying open, to work and earn.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would prohibit the Department of Consumer Affairs, a board within the Department of Consumer Affairs that does not regulate healing arts licensees, and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control from revoking a license or imposing a fine or penalty for failure to comply with any COVID-19 state of emergency orders or COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, unless the board or department can prove that lack of compliance resulted in transmission of COVID-19. The bill would specify that the provisions do not preclude issuance of fines, penalties, or revoking a license for any action that is not related to the issuance of any COVID-19 state of emergency orders or COVID-19 stay-at-home order. The provisions of the bill would remain in effect until either the COVID-19 state of emergency is terminated or all COVID-19 stay-at-home orders are no longer in effect, whichever occurs later, but in no case would the provisions remain in effect after January 1, 2024. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute."

Status | Votes Failed by 2 votes on March 5 (even though Democrats Hurtado and Roth joined Republicans in supporting the bill)

Protecting adults' constitutional freedom of association
SB 238 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Requires legal protection for political affiliation (part of your constitutional free speech), thus protecting against unfair discrimination against your political values and opinions when seeking employment or housing. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “(1) Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would extend the protections of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to persons regardless of political belief or affiliation. The bill would specify that these provisions are declarative of existing law. (2) Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), protects the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of specified characteristics and prescribes various employment, labor, and apprenticeship practices, among other things, in this regard. Among the protected characteristics are race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and military or veteran status. FEHA also makes unlawful various practices connected to obtaining and financing housing accommodations, among other things, if those practices discriminate based on specified characteristics. Existing law creates the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to administer and enforce these provisions. This bill would add political affiliation as a protected characteristic in connection with the above-described employment and housing provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing its employees to adopt or refrain from adopting any particular course or line of political action or activity. This bill would prohibit an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant for employment based on their political affiliation or lack of political affiliation or their membership or association with a political organization, as specified."

Status | Votes Scheduled for April 20 hearing in the Senate Judicary Committee
More from SB 238’s author

Providing an equal playing field for constitutional political expression at government schools
SB 249 by Melissa Melendez (Republican). Protects political affiliation in K-12 public schools, because it’s unfair and unconstitutional for government schools to allow – on personal clothing, for example -- “liberal” messages, but not “conservative” speech. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law states the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. Existing law requires the State Department of Education to assess whether local educational agencies have taken certain actions related to educational equity, including adopting a policy that prohibits, and adopting a process for receiving and investigating complaints of, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on those actual or perceived specified characteristics. This bill would include political affiliation for purposes of those provisions.”

Status
Votes Scheduled for an April 20 hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee
More from SB 238’s author 


BAD BILLS

Targeting California police officers who are conservative or religious
AB 655 by Ash Kalra (Democrat). Forces state CHP, county sheriff's departments, city police departments, prison guards, and any other entity employing or contracting with peace officers in California to discriminate against a candidate for employment (a new or transferring officer), as well as current officers, who have expressed conservative or religious views. How the bill defines the disqualifying act of "public expression of hate” is broad, vague, and open to subjective interpretation.

Although the March 25 amendments to AB 655 made the bill less bad (the phrase "the denial of constitutional rights of" was deleted), the words "threatens" and "threatening" have been added, supplying the Radical Left with subjective power to falsely accuse conservatives of "threatening violence" because their words make some liberals irrationally fearful. Using AB 655 to prohibit conservative or religious peace officers from having informed opinions regarding the American judicial principle of equal justice under law, regarding Black Lives Matter's "defund the police" agenda, regarding the unconstitutionality of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, and regarding the science of the sexes proving only two sexes -- male and female -- would trample constitutional free speech with blatant, chilling effect. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would require that background investigation to include an inquiry into whether a candidate for specified peace officer positions has engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate, as those terms are defined. The bill would provide that certain findings would disqualify a person from employment ... This bill would require an agency to investigate, as specified, any internal complaint or complaint made by the public that alleges, as specified, that a peace officer engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate. The bill would provide that certain findings would be grounds for termination. This bill would also require the Department of Justice to adopt and promulgate guidelines for the investigation and adjudication of these complaints by local agencies." From the bill text: "Public expression of hate” means any explicit expression, either on duty or off duty and while identifying oneself as, or reasonably identifiable by others as, a peace officer, in a public forum, on social media including in a private discussion forum, in writing, or in speech, advocating for, supporting, or threating the genocide of, or violence towards, any individual or group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability ... “Public expression of hate” also includes the public display of any tattoo, uniform, insignia, flag, or logo that indicates support for the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."

Status | Votes Passed committee on April 6: All 5 Democrats voted yes, all 3 Republicans voted no
See this analysis of AB 655

Unscientific tyranny against children and families and private businesses
AB 1084 by Evan Low (Democrat). Requires large stores that sell children's items to eliminate all references to "girls" and "boys,” despite the incontrovertible science showing if you’ve inherited a Y chromosome from your father, you’re male; if you have not, you’re female. This biological difference is unchanging and undeniable, making this bill a tyrannical lie. See the sciences of the sexes.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would require a retail department store with 500 or more employees that sells childcare items, children’s clothing, or toys, to maintain undivided areas of its sales floor where the majority of those items being offered are displayed, regardless of whether an item has traditionally been marketed for either girls or for boys. The bill would prohibit the use of signage within each undivided area indicating that particular items are for either girls or for boys. If a retail department store places a childcare item, an article of children’s clothing, a toy, or anything that could be considered a combination thereof, in an area of its sales floor outside of the undivided areas where the majority of like items are sold, the bill would prohibit the use of any signage with respect to the item that indicates that it is either for girls or for boys. This bill would also require a retail department store located in California that maintains an internet website through which it sells childcare items, children’s clothing, or toys, to dedicate a section of the internet website to the sale of those items and articles that is titled, at the discretion of the retailer, “kids”, “unisex”, or “gender neutral”, as specified. Beginning on January 1, 2024, the bill would make a retail department store that fails to correct a violation of these provisions within 30 days of receiving written notice of the violation from the Attorney General liable for a civil penalty of $1,000, as provided.”

Status | Votes Passed committee on April 6: 11 Democrats voted yes, 4 Republicans voted no, 4 Democrats were not voting

Teaching dark-skinned children to hate white-skinned children
AB 101 by Jose Medina (Democrat). Forces all children in California K-12 government schools, before graduation, to take and complete a course indoctrinating them with revamped "ethnic studies"/"critical race theory" ideas -- based on the model curriculum approved by the State Board of Education, which teaches non-whites they are "oppressed" and need to fight against and overthrow their "oppressors." This curriculum teaches children to reject their identity as an American, and to become soldiers of the Political Left.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: "This bill would add the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies, meeting specified requirements, to the high school graduation requirements commencing with pupils graduating in the 2029–30 school year, including for pupils enrolled in a charter school. The bill would expressly authorize local educational agencies, including charter schools, to require a full-year course in ethnic studies at their discretion."

Status | Votes Passed committee on April 7: All 5 Democrats voted yes, all 2 Republicans voted no

Threatening the safety of law-abiding individuals and families
AB 1223 by Marc Levine (Democrat): Imposes a $25 tax on guns and a tax on ammunition, providing a financial disincentive to attaining or improving one’s personal defense. Even for those who want to eliminate firearms, this won’t work, because “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would, until January 1, 2028, impose an excise tax on a retailer in the amount of $25 per firearm on the sale in this state of a handgun or semiautomatic rifle or shotgun sold as new, as provided, and an excise tax on a retailer in the amount of ___% of the gross receipts from any sale of ammunition. The tax would be collected by the state pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require that the revenues collected be deposited in the CalVIP Firearm and Ammunition Tax Fund, which the bill would create. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys in that fund to the Board of State and Community Corrections to provide CalVIP grants, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would also extend the operation of the CalVIP program until January 1, 2028. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII   A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

Status | Votes Passed committee on April 6: All 6 Democrats voted yes, all 2 Republicans voted no

Forcing insurance policies to fully subsidize the killing of pre-born babies
SB 245 by Lena Gonzalez (Democrat). This bill forces insurers to violate their moral consciences and pay for unlimited abortions of pre-born babies absolutely free of charge, making killing these babies a favored policy. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a health care service plan or an individual or group policy of disability insurance that is issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2022, from imposing a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on coverage for all abortion services, as specified, and additionally would prohibit cost sharing from being imposed on a Medi-Cal beneficiary for those services. The bill would apply the same benefits with respect to an enrollee’s or insured’s covered spouse and covered nonspouse dependents. The bill would not require an individual or group health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy to cover an experimental or investigational treatment. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program." 

Status | Votes Passed committee on April 7: Voting yes were 8 Democrats, voting no were 2 Republicans, 1 Democrat was not voting

Destroying people’s freedom of conscience to support scientific truth
AB 465 by Adrin Nazarian (Democrat). Forces "LGBTQIA+" brainwashing upon professional fiduciaries (trusted persons who handle affairs on someone else’s behalf while they are still alive or after they have died; AgingCare.com explains: "Individuals who serve as professional fiduciaries tend to be trust company officers, certified public accountants, or attorneys." 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill, beginning January 1, 2023, would require the prelicensing education courses to include at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency.” From the bill text: “cultural competency” means understanding and applying cultural and ethnic data to the process of care that includes, but is not limited to, information on the appropriate treatment of, and provision of care to, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities, ethnic communities, and religious communities.” Also from the bill: “a licensee shall complete at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency every three years.”

Status | Votes Passed committee on April 6: 13 Democrats and all 5 Republicans voted yes

Harming people’s health and lives by promoting destructive drug use and abuse
SB 57 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Creates so-called "safe injection sites" in Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would, until January 1, 2027, authorize the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland to approve entities to operate overdose prevention programs for persons that satisfy specified requirements, including, among other things, providing a hygienic space supervised by trained staff where people who use drugs can consume preobtained drugs, providing sterile consumption supplies, and providing access or referrals to substance use disorder treatment. The bill would require the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland, prior to authorizing an overdose prevention program in its jurisdiction, to provide local law enforcement officials, local public health officials, and the public with an opportunity to comment in a public meeting. The bill would require an entity operating a program to provide an annual report to the city or the city and county, as specified. The bill would exempt a person from, among other things, civil liability, professional discipline, or existing criminal sanctions, solely for actions, conduct, or omissions in compliance with an overdose prevention program authorized by the city or the city and county. The bill would clarify that the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California is authorized to take disciplinary action against a licensee related to the operation of an overdose prevention program that violates the Medical Practice Act. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland.”

Status | Votes On the Senate floor after passing two Democrat-controlled committees

More promotion of destructive drugs to depressed and vulnerable Californians (and by extension, to teenagers)
SB 73 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Lowers the criminal penalties on users and dealers of heroin, opiates or opium derivatives, salts, cannabis, phencyclidine (PCP), and other dangerous drugs. Any vice legalized for adults eventually gets into the hands of children. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing or agreeing to sell or transport opiates or opium derivatives, possessing or transporting cannabis, planting or cultivating peyote, and various crimes relating to forging or altering prescriptions, among other crimes, if the person has previously been convicted of any one of specified felony offenses relating to controlled substances. Existing law also prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing for sale or selling 14.25 grams or more of a substance containing heroin and possessing for sale 14.25 grams or more of any salt or solution of phencyclidine or its analogs, among other crimes. This bill would delete various crimes relating to controlled substances, including, but not limited to, the crimes described above, from those prohibitions against granting probation or a suspended sentence. The bill would authorize the remaining prohibitions on probation to be waived by a court in the interests of justice.”

Status | Votes Passed the floor of the State Senate on April 12, and has been transmitted to the Assembly. Voting yes were 25 Democrats; voting no were 8 Republicans and 2 Democrats; not voting were 4 Democrats and 1 Republican.

Promoting, not prohibiting, disease-spreading and dehumanizing prostitution
SB 357 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Eliminates law against loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution. 

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “Existing law prohibits soliciting or engaging in an act of prostitution, as specified. Existing law also prohibits loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, as defined, or directing, supervising, recruiting, or aiding a person who is loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, or collecting or receiving all or part of the proceeds of an act of prostitution. Under existing law, a violation of any of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would repeal those provisions related to loitering with the intent to commit prostitution and would make other conforming changes. This bill would also authorize a person convicted of a violation of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution to petition the court for the dismissal and sealing of their case, and resentencing, if applicable.”

Status | Votes Passed Democrat-controlled committee on April 13 (all 4 Democrats voted yes; the 1 Republican voted no)

Prohibiting doctors from performing corrective surgery for children with abnormal or ambiguous genitals
Withdrawn from committee April 5

SB 225 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Very similar to the author’s previous bill, which died in committee (SB 201 in 2019-2020). Prohibits parents from deciding, or a physician from recommending, corrective surgery for babies born biologically male or female, according to their XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes, respectively, but who have deformed, abnormal or opposite-sex genital deformity that can be surgically corrected in infancy so that the child grows up without being confused by it or ridiculed for it. Severely trampling parental rights and the well-being of children, this bill attacks fathers and mothers, while destroying what is often a simple solution that greatly helps biological boys' or biological girls' bodies, minds, and emotions. See the science of the sexes. From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit a physician and surgeon from performing certain sex organ modification procedures on an individual born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 12 years of age unless the procedure is a surgery required to address an immediate risk of physical harm, as specified. The bill would make any violation of these provisions subject to disciplinary action by the board, but not criminal prosecution.” 
Status | Votes Withdrawn from committee on April 5 and is likely dead for the year

Attacking the conscience rights and religious freedom of health care facilities and workers
SB 379 by Scott Wiener (Democrat). Prohibit the University of California from contracting with any hospital, health facility, or individual that refuses to participate in abortions or "sex change" procedures.

From the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill would prohibit the University of California, on and after January 1, 2022, from entering into, amending, or renewing any contract with any health facility contractor or subcontractor in which a health care practitioner employed by the University of California or a trainee of the University of California providing care in the health facility under that contract would be limited in the practitioner’s or trainee’s ability to provide patients with medical information or medical services due to policy-based restrictions on care in the health facility. The bill would require any contract between the University of California and a health facility pursuant to which a University of California-employed health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California provides care in the health facility to include a provision restating the substance of that prohibition. The bill would require any contract between the University of California and a health facility pursuant to which a University of California-employed health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California provides care in the health facility to provide that, in the event the health facility contractor or subcontractor violates the prohibition, the contract shall be terminated for noncompliance, and the contractor or subcontractor shall forfeit penalties to the University of California, as appropriate, in an amount equal to the amount paid by the university for the percentage of work that was performed. The bill would exempt from its provisions contracts between the University of California and prescribed health facility contractors or subcontractors. The bill would require the University of California to ensure that a health care practitioner or trainee of the University of California is able to complete their training. The bill would prohibit the University of California from extending or delaying a health practitioner’s training due to the loss of a clinical training rotation. The bill would require the University of California, before January 1, 2025, to find alternative facilities for trainees to complete their training. The bill would define terms for these purposes."

Status | Votes Scheduled for an April 21 committee hearing (already passed one Democrat-controlled committee)
 

INSIGHT: Why all these bad bills? 

Who's behind the aborting of pre-born babies with your tax dollars, the brainwashing of children, tyranny against free speech, religious freedom, and private property, a lot of sexually-transmitted diseases, depression and suicide stemming from sexual addictions?

In California, the abortion industry and homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activists and their Democrat politicians, who dominate the California State Legislature, are pushing a raft of awful bills. And by extension, anyone who supports abortion or "gay rights" and votes for Democrats is, intentionally or unintentionally, behind these bills too.

For example, "Equality California," composed of homosexual and transsexual activists, pushes an endless number of "genders," opposes parental rights, religious freedom, private property rights, and fairness for dissenting views; and defies science proving the harm of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality. Yet no one can change their sex.