AOC/Democrats: Chinese Collusion?

Who is helped by the AOC/Socialist Democrat Party Green Dream?  The major benefactor is the socialist/totalitarian nation of China.  This is a nation AOC has never opposed or spoken out against.  Now we know why—her political plan is for the Chinese to control the buses and trains sold in this country—even if they are mediocre and do not work.

“We may be myopically focused on Russia right now, but Chinese interference in American national security has been an ongoing problem. The Democrats know it and that’s why they’ve been deliberately shielding Joe Biden from having to answer for his shady Chinese deals and ties. Congress knows it, and that’s why they’ve unceremoniously been working on a bill to ban taxpayer funding for transportation components.

As it turns out (and as sadly, few people seem aware of) the Chinese have been providing electric buses to American urban centers desperate to wean themselves off fossil fuels. The problem? The buses don’t work. All the way back in May of 2018, the L.A.Times reported that Chinese battery maker BYD Ltd. had been providing electric buses that were performing way below expectations at best, but at worst simply not working at all:

But do not bame AOC alone for this.  For years those running the money losing, unreliable government transportation systems, Democrats have been buying Chinese not American.  There is a way to stop it.  Trump needs to issue an Executive Order that NO U.S. tax dollars can go to an agency that uses or is buying Chinese equipment.  The problem ends the and American jobs will be created.  This is a win-win for us.  Think AOC would agree?

US Taxpayers Funding Purchase of “Green Tech” Chinese Buses With Spying Capabilities?

Dems (and some Reps) insist on ‘sneaking certain Chinese tech elements into our national transportation grid

By Kira Davis, California Globe,   8/2/19 

A Chinese bus rolled into a Los Angeles public transportation facility…stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Oh, you haven’t? That is unsurprising. A potentially blockbuster story has been drowned out by the usual media hysteria over tweets and rodents. While the rest of America is obsessively parsing Trump’s daily rants, a huge and scary spy scandal is unfolding in Congress…and it doesn’t involve Russia.

We may be myopically focused on Russia right now, but Chinese interference in American national security has been an ongoing problem. The Democrats know it and that’s why they’ve been deliberately shielding Joe Biden from having to answer for his shady Chinese deals and ties. Congress knows it, and that’s why they’ve unceremoniously been working on a bill to ban taxpayer funding for transportation components.

As it turns out (and as sadly, few people seem aware of) the Chinese have been providing electric buses to American urban centers desperate to wean themselves off fossil fuels. The problem? The buses don’t work. All the way back in May of 2018, the L.A.Times reported that Chinese battery maker BYD Ltd. had been providing electric buses that were performing way below expectations at best, but at worst simply not working at all:

“When Chinese battery maker BYD Ltd. approached Southern California officials in 2008 touting ambitious plans to build electric cars, local politicians jumped at the promise of thousands of jobs and cleaner air.

In the nine years since, agencies have awarded BYD grants, subsidies and public contracts worth more than $330 million for its battery-powered buses, forklifts and trucks. The company is positioned to be a prime supplier of electric buses to the nation’s second-largest system, as Los Angeles’ Metro sets a 12-year deadline to abandon fossil fuels.

But largely unbeknownst to the public, BYD’s electric buses are contending with a record of poor performance and mechanical problems.

A Times investigation found its buses stalled on hills, required service calls much more frequently than older buses and had unpredictable driving ranges below advertised distances, which were impaired by the heat, the cold or the way drivers braked.”

However, that isn’t the worst part. Not only are the buses faulty, there is some speculation that they also might include technology that could spy on American cities and infrastructure. It seems like a smart move on China’s part – provide “green” technology that American progressives crave, equip it with spyware while at the same time building a vehicle for mass transportation that could break down easily and cause massive gridlock and transportation headaches in our major city centers.

Scary stuff. So why is the House deliberately building in a loophole to exempt Chinese buses from legislation to cut taxpayer funding for transportation technology from Chinese firms like BYD?

The House and Senate defense bills are very similar but there is one fundamental difference between what the chambers are offering. The House bill purports to deny taxpayer funding to all Chinese rail components for transportation – like subway cars. The defense bill out of the Republican controlled Senate denies taxpayer funding for all Chinese transportation components. This would effectively kill the BYD Ltd. chokehold on Los Angeles “green” public transportation.

Why do House Democrats insist on leaving this loophole? Why did House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) support the loophole and deliberately force a change in the language as such? Why should America be buying anything infrastructure-related from the Chinese?

While we’re hopelessly absorbed in the Russia kerfuffle, China is sneaking in the back door and infiltrating our most sensitive national security areas. It is one thing for you to log into Amazon to buy that crappy speaker from China for your kitchen…it is quite another for the government of the United States of America to be contracting sensitive and unvetted technology from our number one “frenemy”.

We all love the idea of cleaner energy, but taxpayer funds should absolutely not be used to prop up Chinese interests given our current international climate. Why the Democrats (and some Republicans) are insisting on “sneaking” certain Chinese tech elements into our national transportation grid should be a major concern to every American and should be leading our nightly news.

But sure…let’s keep talking about Trump’s tweeting schedule.

Eber: The different pitches of politicians

Looking at the lexicon of baseball you can tell the lexicon of current politically allowed thought.  Words have meaning, and the meanings continue to change.

The slider- This pitch is especially effective when a legislator has a law that that needs to be passed but it can’t be done because no one wants to take credit for it.  In this case the way to take care of the problem is by sliding the offensive legislation into a non controversial bill such as supporting the Constitution or giving aid to the widows of rattle snake bite victims.

The fork ball-  This is an old tradition when an elected official has to attend 3 crab feed dinners  in one day or must go to a fundraiser at a hotel that has the worst ever “rubber chicken” on the planet.  Throwing the “fork ball” allows the politician to leave quickly because their fork must go elsewhere even if it is to the automobile take-out line at Jack in the Box.

Who says politics is dull?  It can be fun, if you don’t take it too seriously or if you puncture the hyperbole of the pompous practitioners.

The different pitches of politicians by Richard Eber

Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  8/10/19 

Norman Rockwell, apple pie, politics, and baseball are forever intertwined as an intricate part of American culture. This is especially true during the dog days of summer when political debates are starting prior to Presidential elections.

Even though the two pastimes seem to be unrelated, baseball and politics have more in common than meets the eye. As such I was wondering what the favorite pitch of politicians might be?  Much like a baseball hurler, they attempt to fool their constituents with a combination of speed, deception, guile, and posturing, to obtain victory.

We should remember what Richard Nixon once said, “never leave a game before the last pitch because in baseball, as in life and especially politics, you never know what will happen.” With this in mind below, below can be found the strategies of premier pitchers in baseball matched up against the most cleaver politicians from your home town to Washington D.C.

The change-up or switching positions on issues is an excellent ball to throe. Who says a politician needs to be straight all the time. That’s why this pitch is so effective because it allows elected officials can take different sides and confuse their advisories without missing a beat

The curve ball- AKA putting additional conditions on legislation: Sometimes it’s good to make things slightly more complicated than is necessary.  As an example when granting a building permit to a developer, it is often better to delay issuance not only to show concern, but also to tell the developer that you can make their life difficult.  This is an excellent message to deliver, especially close to election time when campaign contributions are helpful.

 The Fast ball- In that same curve ball situation when it is desirable to gain approval without allowing enemies to question what is transpiring; the fastball strategy works when quickly making a motion to suppress discussion not allowing the ball to be struck in the hitting zone.

The Sinker:  This is a time honored pitch when wants to kill proposed  

Legislation or table the matter while at the same time moving on to a less controversial topic.  A sinker brings on the ground game to wreck most unwanted proposals with little fanfare and can lead to a double play.

The screwball- We have plenty of them in elected office and elsewhere. Just listen to the public comment periods of most city council meetings. There are more screw balls that stand up to speak than there are fruit cakes baked in Claxton Georgia. Most elected officials make it appear that they are interested in what these 800 numbers are talking about while they ponder if a martini or Jack Daniels is to be consumed when the meeting concludes.  .

Circle change- This is keeping the same position on an issue while making it appear that compromise has been reached.  Then everyone is happy because the Circle change has hit its mark.  To borrow a basketball term, “no harm, no foul.” Everything stays the same or so it seems.

The slider- This pitch is especially effective when a legislator has a law that that needs to be passed but it can’t be done because no one wants to take credit for it.  In this case the way to take care of the problem is by sliding the offensive legislation into a non controversial bill such as supporting the Constitution or giving aid to the widows of rattle snake bite victims.

The fork ball-  This is an old tradition when an elected official has to attend 3 crab feed dinners  in one day or must go to a fundraiser at a hotel that has the worst ever “rubber chicken” on the planet.  Throwing the “fork ball” allows the politician to leave quickly because their fork must go elsewhere even if it is to the automobile take-out line at Jack in the Box.

The Palm Ball: In cases when a politician has to shake hands with slime ball advisory that they despise, this pitch is helpful. The sleight of hand Palm Ball is a great asset to have in one’s arsenal.  In such instances when throwing the palm ball produces a lot of grease or makes a big stink, it is best to wash your hands or better yet take a shower ASAP.

The 4-Seam fastball- (When a politician wants to please everyone they make conflicted statements on the same issue without offending anyone.  This is also called talking out of both ends of your mouth.  If what is said appears to be different and alike at the same time, the pitcher has thrown just the right pitch.

Quick Pitch:  This is a time honored move that can be made at any time when speedy action is required without anyone being aware of what is going on.  A quick pitch allows a politician to call for the question from Roberts Rules of Order without anyone voting or in the audience knowing what the question might be.

Hesitation pitch:  Historians claim this famous pitch was thrown by baseball legend Satchel Page.  It consists of a slow curve which takes forever to reach the plate that hypnotizes the batter. In politics this means when the issue is finally put to the question, other legislatures can’t remember what they are voting on.  Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss.

The cutter:  This pitch is something that frequent advisories kamala Harris and Cory Booker have tossed recently.  Both, while being members of the Senate, frequently used the cutter to miss important votes when being on the campaign trail.  Enemies of both men criticized them for being AWOL from the Senate but to no avail.

The Knuckleball: This is one of the weirdest things thrown where one does not know where the ball is going.  This is a specialty pitch of Hillary Clinton whose stands on issues varied according to opinion polls and which way the wind was blowing.  When the Clinton Foundation was involved the pitch went directly to the bank.

The spit ball: This pitch made famous by Hall of famer Gaylord Perry had a foreign substance such as spit or Vaseline illegally applied to the ball prior to it being thrown.  This caused strange movements and made it difficult to hit this pitch.  In politics we call this simply call such a phenomena taking a bribe or payoff

Slip Pitch: In politics the slip pitch has been made famous by legislatures who have had to abruptly leave office in the midst of a scandal. They are known to resign while at the same time slip out the door to “spend more time with their families”, enter a 12 step program, or enroll in an ethics seminar taught in the Siberian tundra. Leland Yee had one of the best slip pitches ever when he transferred his operations from the California State Senate to join Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison.

Nothing Ball:  This is last pitch thrown by burned out political figures that have “nothing” left to offer their constituents. What does one expect after more than 20 years on the job when it’s time to move on?  In this case they table a motion that is to be taken up in the next legislative session.  The issue will then be someone else’s problem to deal with.

The last pitch  In baseball this means the manager walks out to the mound and takes the ball . The pitcher is out of the ballgame. In political circles the last pitch means an elected official has either been termed out of office or has been put on the sidelines by voters who selected another player (candidate) to represent them.

.

Sweden’s Biggest Cities Face Power Shortage After Fuel-Tax Hike

As Sacramento continues to throw us onto the junk science of alternative energy sources, expensive and totally unreliable, we need to look at a country that has done this and see the results.

“Sweden’s introduction on Thursday of a tax aimed at phasing out the nation’s last remaining coal and gas plants to curb global warming comes with an unintended consequence for some of its biggest cities.

Hiking threefold a levy on fossil fuels used at local power plants will make such facilities unprofitable and utilities from Stockholm Exergi AB to EON SE have said they will halt or cut power production.

The move means that grids in the capital and Malmo won’t be able to hook up new facilities including homes, transport links and factories. While Sweden doesn’t have a shortage of power, there’s not enough cables to ship it to the biggest cities.

Sweden is a socialist nation.  California is a socialist State.  The time to leave is now, before the government turns out the lights.

Sweden’s Biggest Cities Face Power Shortage After Fuel-Tax Hike

Jesper Starn, Bloomberg, 7/30/19  

(Bloomberg) — Sweden’s introduction on Thursday of a tax aimed at phasing out the nation’s last remaining coal and gas plants to curb global warming comes with an unintended consequence for some of its biggest cities.

Hiking threefold a levy on fossil fuels used at local power plants will make such facilities unprofitable and utilities from Stockholm Exergi AB to EON SE have said they will halt or cut power production.

The move means that grids in the capital and Malmo won’t be able to hook up new facilities including homes, transport links and factories. While Sweden doesn’t have a shortage of power, there’s not enough cables to ship it to the biggest cities.

“We don’t have a problem with generating enough power in Sweden, we have a problem with getting it to where its needed,” Magnus Hall, chief executive officer of state-owned utility Vattenfall AB, said in an interview. “This law was added with short notice and I am not sure a proper analysis of it was made.”

The tax was introduced in January in a budget deal between the Center Party, Liberals, Social Democrats and the Greens after record long 18 weeks of negotiations. As only one of 73 points hashed out between the political fractions to reach a compromise, time for thorough analysis was probably slim.

The tax, aimed at spurring the shift to renewable energy, comes on top of carbon-emission pollution rights that tripled last year and have gained another 18% this year to their highest level since 2006.

Power output from Stockholm Exergi’s Vartaverket, EON’s Heleneholmverket and Goteborg Energi AB’s Ryaverket will stop or be heavily cut as soon as the law is introduced, although operators said they will still be used for district heating.

Sweden gets most of its electricity from hydro, nuclear and wind power and exported 11% of the output last year. About 10% is still generated in combined heat and power plants that mostly uses biofuels, but some older facilities still burns coal or gas.

Because of the urbanization, demand for electricity in many Swedish cities is starting to outgrow capacity and some have already been forced to refuse new connections to avoid black outs.

“Combined heat and power plants must carry their own cost to the environment, even if they have an important role to play for the supply of energy,” Anders Ygeman, minister for energy and digitalization, said in an emailed statement. “The tax will contribute to the ongoing away shift from fossil fuels.”

Ygeman said it is still too early to say what impact the new tax will have, but there are already examples of its impact. Some new daycare centers have to wait for months to be connected to the grid in Stockholm. A bread factory in Malmo was denied a license to expand because it would consume too much power.

Ulf Kristersson, the moderate party opposition leader, said the capacity crisis fazing Swedish cities is enough reason to renegotiate a current five-party energy agreement to slow down the phaseout of nuclear and local plants burning fossil fuels. Without a solution, both Moderate and Christian Democrats are threatening to abandon the pact agreed in 2016.

“We need a new agreement that solves the situation we have now,” Ulf kristersson said in an interview at the end of June. “I think when we approach autumn that issue needs to come to some kind of conclusion.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Jesper Starn in Stockholm at jstarn@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net, Lars Paulsson

Scott Wiener’s Techniques of Unethical Persuasion

Scott Wiener is the worst sort of political hack.  He can’t even mislead people without being caught.

“Wiener described the current system of land use planning as “pure local control.” That’s false.

  • His own S.B. 35 enables developers to bypass the local planning process and environmental reviews if they commit build specified percentages of affordable housing units and pay “prevailing wages” on the project.
  • Cities and counties are required by state law to meet housing goals under a formula established by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Cities that have failed to meet these goals such as Menlo Park and Pleasanton have been successfully sued by groups such as Urban Habitat at a cost of millions.

Of course, Newsom is suing Huntington Beach for their “failure” to live up to his goals of affordable housing.  Why is it the Democrats are bad liars and the legacy media never mentions it?

Scott Wiener’s Techniques of Unethical Persuasion

By Eric Krock, Livable California,  8/3/19   

Friday evening’s forum in Palo Alto on S.B. 50 was a sham and a bust as a voter education event, but it was an outstanding opportunity to see Scott Wiener demonstrate his unethical persuasion techniques in person. Here were some of the lowlights of his comments.

Mischaracterize the status quo

Wiener described the current system of land use planning as “pure local control.” That’s false.

  • His own S.B. 35 enables developers to bypass the local planning process and environmental reviews if they commit build specified percentages of affordable housing units and pay “prevailing wages” on the project.
  • Cities and counties are required by state law to meet housing goals under a formula established by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Cities that have failed to meet these goals such as Menlo Park and Pleasanton have been successfully sued by groups such as Urban Habitat at a cost of millions.
  • The state also mandates density bonuses that override height and density limits established by localities. Senator Wiener mysteriously forgets to account for the effect of state density bonuses when he talks about the height and density limits created by his bills. Why? The effect of those bonuses is to allow even higher and denser buildings than he wants to acknowledge.

Cherry pick your data points

Scott Wiener LOVES to talk about Beverly Hills. In fact, if you see Scott Wiener talk about housing, you’re almost guaranteed to hear about Beverly Hills. Is that because Beverly Hills is typical of the rest of California? Absolutely not. Beverly Hills is only 5.7 square miles in a state of 163,696 square miles. It has a population of 35,000 in a state of over 39 million people. And we all know that 90210 is in no way representative of the rest of the state.

So why does Scott Wiener invariably bring up Beverly Hills? Beverly Hills has managed to get itself an extremely low Regional Housing Needs Assessment of three units over an eight year period. Wiener raises a valid question. Although 63% of its housing is already multi-family, it’s possible that Beverly Hills may have gamed the RHNA system. If so, the way to fix that is to improve the RHNA target allocation process and the allocation for Beverly Hills, not to blow up the local land use planning process statewide. The RHNA target of Beverly Hills is an edge case that is in no way representative of the RHNA targeting practices of major California cities, and the fact that this 5.7 square miles surrounded by reality may have gamed the system is no argument for rewriting land use policy statewide and micromanaging land use plot-by-plot from Sacramento, as Senator Wiener has proposed to do in S.B. 827 and S.B 50.

Cite push polls

Scott Wiener claimed that three statewide polls show that majorities support S.B. 50. What he didn’t tell you is that at least one of those polls he cited was a push poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, the kind of firm you pay to get you the poll results you want, for California YIMBY, which is a poorly-disguised lobbying organization for for-profit luxury real-estate developers.

He also somehow failed to mention that this push poll prefaced their question about S.B. 50 with a completely biased, one-sided description of the bill, which read: “Senate Bill 50 would change state law to allow more homes like apartments, townhouses, and triplexes, including affordable housing for lower- and middle-income families, near public transit lines like buses or trains, and in areas with a lot of jobs.”

In their description of S.B. 50 during the poll, Lake Research Partners somehow forgot to mention that S.B. 50 would override the local planning process, eliminate environmental reviews for S.B. 50 projects, limit projects to handful of public review sessions no matter how large they are, and mandate local approval of S.B. 50 projects in their entirety in residential neighborhoods even if the projects included non-housing elements like rooftop restaurants, residential crematoria, or goodness knows what other kind of “mixed use” elements that would previously have never been allowed in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

In contrast, a poll of LA residents performed by UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs used neutral wording and gave respondents separate choices for or against allowing multi-family housing in areas zoned for single-family only, promoting each possible answer in positive terms. That poll found that residents “prefer keeping apartment buildings in neighborhoods already zoned for multi-family housing” by a ratio of more than 2:1, and that “majorities of both owners and renters prefer to have new apartment buildings built in multi-family zones only.”

Getting the results you want from a poll is easy. Just frame a single response the way you want to in biased terms and make selective use of evidence. California YIMBY and Lake Research Partners are good at that, and Scott Wiener shamelessly uses and promotes the baised and misleading results they gave him.

Only discuss one side of a project, and only cite numbers for the parts you WANT to talk about

In discussing mixed-use developments, Scott Wiener consistently talks about the number of housing units created but makes no mention of the number of office workers the offices will hold (which invariably far exceeds the people in the housing units in these large mixed-use developments) or the number of retail workers who will be employed in retail components, both of which will generate traffic in and out of the projects every day, further burdening our road system.

For example, he mentioned that Facebook has proposed a development with 1500 units of housing. He didn’t mention that only 15% of those units will be affordable housing. He also didn’t mention that that same development will include 1.75 million square feet of office space, sufficient to hold over 11,000 office workers, so the project will be making the jobs-to-housing ratio worse, not better.

Likewise, here’s how State Senator Wiener described the upcoming Vallco Shopping Mall redevelopment: Vallco “will be turned into 2,400 units of housing, half of which will be affordable. Some people have criticized that project saying, oh, because there are also going to be jobs there, and it will somehow exacerbate the jobs/housing balance. There’s been some criticism that there will be some jobs there and that this will somehow make the jobs to housing ratio worse. Of course, traditionally in the Bay Area this site would have been an office park with no housing.”

Once again, Wiener cited specific numbers on what he wanted to talk about (the number of housing units created) but spoke in vague generalities about the topics he wanted to avoid (office space, number of office workers, retail space, and number of retail workers). What Wiener inexplicably forgot to mention is that the Vallco Mall redevelopment project as rammed through by Sand Hill Properties under S.B. 35 will have 2 million square feet of office space. Office space produces 1 worker for every 150 square feet on average, and the average household in the U.S. has 2.58 people.

Using those benchmarks, the Vallco redevelopment under SB 35 will generate over 13,300 workers but only housing for 6200 people (2400 households) at most, again making the jobs-to-housing ratio even worse (as even Wiener himself admits). Even if you make an absurdly unrealistic assumption that every household will have 2 workers at that office complex, that will mean 7300 more workers going in and out of those offices per day in an area with no mass transit, making the Highway 280 traffic even worse and increasing emissions.

And that’s without accounting for the employment and traffic impact of the 400,000 square feet of retail. Thanks to S.B. 35, Sand Hill was also not required to submit a traffic mitigation plan. Thanks for nothing, Senator Wiener. We know it won’t be you who’s stuck sitting in traffic on Highway 280. You live in San Francisco, work in Sacramento, and cash campaign donations from for-profit luxury real-estate developers all over the state!

Wiener’s statement that “traditionally this would have been an office park with no housing” is also nonsense. He’s referring to some traditional past of his imagining that certainly doesn’t exist today. There was no consideration being given to having the Vallco site used solely for office space. The Cupertino City Council’s community plan was a mixed-use plan that would have provided more units of housing than Sand Hill’s S.B. 35 plan does.

In sum, attending a Scott Wiener event is a waste of time if you want to get a balanced, accurate overview of jobs, housing, transit, traffic, schools, and quality-of-life issues, but it’s ideal if you want to see a career politician using techniques of unethical persuasion to create misleading impressions in the mind of his audience.

Eric Krock is a member of Livable California and resident of the South Bay who is active in seeking to ensure we preserve quality of life as the Bay Area grows. He believes in rational, evidence-based land use planning that balances jobs, housing, mass transit, traffic, schools, and green space. He can be contacted through the California Local Control web site.

Why Handing Out Abortion Pills On California State Campuses Is A Horrific Idea

Did you know there is toxic waste from the abortion pill?  Did you know that the abortion pill could have long term physical and emotion effects on young girls?  Did you know the State of California is going to sell these pills, to kill babies, as if it was a snack machine?

“My colleague, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out concerns regarding the safety of the abortion pill and the fact that there are no conscience protections for student health center professionals nor for the students funding the program with their mandatory fees.

The morality of abortion was not mentioned in the hearing. This bill is so poorly designed that it continues to be opposed even by pro-choice people, including California’s former governor, Jerry Brown, who vetoed last year’s version of the bill, SB-320.

When a pro-life legislator questioned how the universities are expected to handle the biomedical waste that would be left in campus bathrooms and sewage system after the abortions, the author and her expert witness struggled to respond, ultimately pushing aside the question.

So after a night of drinking, drugs and sex, the young girls to the Student Union vending machines to get a soda, chips and a pill.  That is what college has become.  Sad.

Why Handing Out Abortion Pills On California State Campuses Is A Horrific Idea

When a pro-life legislator questioned how public universities are expected to handle the biomedical waste from chemical abortions, the author and her expert witness struggled to respond.

By Bernadette Tasy, The Federalist,  8/2/19 

I recently addressed a California state assembly committee to talk about Senate Bill 24, one of many abortion experiments legislators are considering in my home state. It would mandate that all California public universities distribute RU-486 abortion pills in their student health centers.

These pills cause abortions for women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant, well after which the baby has developed a heartbeat. Tensions were high as my colleague and I began our very short allowance of two minutes each to explain our opposition. Given the risks to my peers and fellow Californians, I had to try.

Providing abortion on school campuses is already a ridiculous concept, but the bill, which is expected to go before the full California Assembly by summer’s end, contains numerous flaws. My testimony consisted of three main points.

First, the bill author, state Sen. Connie Leyva, continuously argues that the bill is about “access” to abortion and that public university campuses are not in close proximity to abortion pill providers. Most campuses, however, are within just a few miles of these facilities. The bill places the mandate on all 34 campuses, costing millions of dollars for a completely unnecessary program.

Second, although the bill is supposed to save students money for car service transportation to off-campus abortion appointments, the public university systems have stated repeatedly that they will need to raise mandatory student fees to fund this on-campus program. And in California, Medi-Cal patients receive free transportation services to these appointments.

Third, one of the author’s key witnesses testifying at several hearings in support of the bill co-authored an article demonstrating the failure rate of RU-486: If the student is six-weeks pregnant when she takes the pills, the failure rate is about 3 percent, but if the woman is nine- to 10-weeks pregnant, the failure rate is more than 15 percent. The author estimates 500 students will take these drugs statewide on campus each month, so at least 15-75 students will have a failed abortion each month and need a second, surgical abortion.

My colleague, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out concerns regarding the safety of the abortion pill and the fact that there are no conscience protections for student health center professionals nor for the students funding the program with their mandatory fees.

The morality of abortion was not mentioned in the hearing. This bill is so poorly designed that it continues to be opposed even by pro-choice people, including California’s former governor, Jerry Brown, who vetoed last year’s version of the bill, SB-320.

When a pro-life legislator questioned how the universities are expected to handle the biomedical waste that would be left in campus bathrooms and sewage system after the abortions, the author and her expert witness struggled to respond, ultimately pushing aside the question.

Although the University of California and California State University school systems have not supported the bill, and their testimony has changed very little from the first hearing in 2017 to the most recent hearing this past June, their reluctance is clear. They stress concerns regarding financial liability and appropriateness of maintaining an abortion program on campus.

In most of the SB-24 hearings I have attended, the bill’s author has had a student testify about being unable to get abortion pills in time, leading to the student obtaining a surgical abortion instead. The UC representative’s testimony points out that this issue was a result of the universities’ referral process but that it does not warrant the dramatic response of mandating that every public university become an abortion provider. Of course, with the high failure rate of the drugs, the students’ experience may include a second, surgical abortion anyway.

The legislators ignored our comments. The author did not respond to any of the arguments my colleague, the pro-life legislator, the University of California, or I made. Each legislator who continues to vote in favor of this bill simply turns a blind eye to any serious concerns or even contradictions within the bill itself. This isn’t about pro-life versus pro-choice. It’s about common sense versus a radically ideological agenda.

California legislators this term are considering several bills or resolutions that either directly or indirectly propel a pro-abortion agenda, including one that even offers a tax credit for motion pictures made in California rather than states that restrict abortion. In 2016, the state approved a sexual education curriculum written by organizations including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union; this is now undergoing revisions that include proposed sexual education content as early as kindergarten, at one point even encouraging sexual behavior as young as the fifth grade. Most if not all of these bills, resolutions, and revisions will likely pass.

California is one of the most aggressively pro-abortion states in America. It already has 150 abortion facilities and more than 500 abortion providers statewide, no restriction on race- or sex-selective abortion, and no requirement for verbal counseling including optional ultrasound information for women to make an informed decision about pregnancy.

In fact, California is the one and only state listed as “very supportive” of abortion rights in the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute’s latest analysis of state abortion laws. Being active in this fight for the last three years as I attended a California public university, I know I have a lot to learn, yet I have already seen so much of the politics surrounding the legislature’s abortion agenda. I am grieved by the carelessness of our representatives who would push forward this reckless bill despite its many problems.

But if you think this extremism will stay right here in California, think again. It’s looking more and more like we’re just the guinea pig state.

SANDAG’s North County Foes Could Get a Hand from the Legislature

SANDAG lied to the people of San Diego about how they spent billions in 2004 approved bonds.  They lied about the projects they were spending money on.  They lied to the people of the North County, telling them part of the money was to be spent on roads and freeways in that area—they KNEW they were lying, just like Schwarzenegger and other lied about the High Speed Rail project.  Now the people of San Diego need to go to Sacramento to get honesty in government.  Good luck on that.

“Two years ago, a state law written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez put North County Republicans on the defensive at SANDAG by shifting power at the regional planning agency to larger, urban cities more likely to be represented by Democrats.

They now find themselves fighting against Hasan Ikhrata, the agency’s director, as he tries to deprioritize promised freeway expansions in the county’s car-dependent rural areas, amid a crippling funding crisis facing TransNet, the county’s sales tax that funds transportation projects.”

Gee a Democrat lied to them.  BTW, Gonzalez is running for Secretary of State in 2022—unopposed on the Democrat ticket by any serious candidate!  Imagine how her duplicity can help continue corruption in the California elections.  This is just another example that government lies and can not be trusted or respected.

SANDAG’s North County Foes Could Get a Hand from the Legislature By Voice of San Diego, 8/2/19 
Two years ago, a state law written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez put North County Republicans on the defensive at SANDAG by shifting power at the regional planning agency to larger, urban cities more likely to be represented by Democrats. They now find themselves fighting against Hasan Ikhrata, the agency’s director, as he tries to deprioritize promised freeway expansions in the county’s car-dependent rural areas, amid a crippling funding crisis facing TransNet, the county’s sales tax that funds transportation projects. But Republicans and North County leaders could soon get their own hand from Sacramento. Assemblywoman Marie Waldron’s office is actively “looking at ways to ensure SANDAG keeps the promises it made,” said Jim Stanley, a Waldron spokesman. “The discussions on this issue are in the very early stages, but we’re exploring legislation requiring a number of public hearings or a vote of the people if SANDAG attempts to substantially change the allocation of TransNet funds,” Stanley wrote in a subsequent email. TransNet now expects to be at least $10 billion short of the funding needed to build every project included in the 2004 ballot measure that extended the tax, and Ikhrata thinks it’s time for the board to prioritize which of the remaining projects are first in line for the finite money remaining. But officials in the North County, led by County Supervisors Kristin Gaspar and Jim Desmond, are demanding that SANDAG find a way to make good on everything voters were expecting, potentially by putting some or all of the projects at the front of the line for any new revenue measure, or at least ensuring they’re included in the agency’s next long-term plan for transportation projects.

New State Law Limits Full-Contact Practices for Young Football Players

Thanks to Sacramento and its hack politicians wanting to by the Mommy to every child in the State, fewer California kids will get football scholarships or go into college or professional football.  The winner?  Texas, which loves football and allows parents and professionals, not politicians set the rules for kids playing.

“The state of California will curb full-contact practices for young football players in an attempt to prevent brain trauma, according to the Associated Press.

A bill to limit such practices to 30 minutes per day, two times a week was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week. The law bans the practices completely in the offseason.

Assembly Bill 1, sponsored by Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, also calls for youth coaches to seek annual certification. The training, according to KCRA.com, must be by a national program that places priority on shoulder tackling, safe contact and blocking in order to reduce head injuries.

The less playing time, the less practice, the less ability of California kids to compete with players from other States.  And, that is the goal—end football in California.  This is just another step to complete control of the population—who needs parents, you have Gavin Newsom and the Democrats.

New State Law Limits Full-Contact Practices for Young Football Players

Posted by Editor, Times of San Diego,   8/3/19  

Gov. Newsom signed a bill this week to limit full-contact practices for youth football players. Photo: Ryan Dickey/Wikimedia Commons

The state of California will curb full-contact practices for young football players in an attempt to prevent brain trauma, according to the Associated Press.

A bill to limit such practices to 30 minutes per day, two times a week was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week. The law bans the practices completely in the offseason.

Assembly Bill 1, sponsored by Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, also calls for youth coaches to seek annual certification. The training, according to KCRA.com, must be by a national program that places priority on shoulder tackling, safe contact and blocking in order to reduce head injuries.

The bill passed the state Assembly in May and the Senate last month.

In California, previous law had limited full-contact practices for those of middle and high school-aged teams to 90 minutes per day, twice a week.

The new law also calls for medical professionals to be present for games. The individuals will be allowed to judge if players should be removed once they show signs of impairment.

“To keep this sport alive, we’ve got to do what’s best for everybody, you know, to keep kids healthy and safe,” Serra High School football coach Dru Smith told NBC7 San Diego in response to the new law.

AB: 857: Myths About LA’s Public Banks

The City of Los Angeles wants to put private banks out of business and create a government bank—with the objective of losing money.  You read that right—they PLAN to lose money.  That means higher taxes to pay for its social justice goals of getting rid of productive people and loaning money—taxpayer money because the bank will need to be subsidized—to people based on race, gender and ethnicity, not based on business plans or experience.

“But in April, the City Council, with the concurrence of Mayor Eric Garcetti, passed a Wesson sponsored resolution supporting the State’s Public Banking Act, AB 857, that would permit a local government to apply for a banking charter to establish a public bank. 

The proponents of public banks tout numerous advantages.  Local control.  Reinvestment in the community.  Divestment from mega-banks.  Loans for affordable housing, small businesses, infrastructure, solar energy, parks, schools, and roads.    

But will these loans be repaid, with interest, in a timely manner?  

According to state law, the “first and most important consideration when managing public funds is preservation of principal, the second is liquidity, and the third is to achieve a return.” 

Another reason to leave California—AB 857 will be statewide—and expect San Fran, San Jose and Sacramento to also end private banking. 

Myths About LA’s Public Banks

Jack Humphreville, City Watch LA,  8/5/19 

LA WATCHDOGA public bank is a vehicle for politicians to divert legislatively designated funds into a blind pool to fund noneconomic pet projects and loans to politically connected, uncreditworthy borrowers.  This will result in losses that will have an adverse impact on the bank’s ability to continue as a going concern and on the government’s credit rating.  

On November 6, 2018, 56% of the City’s voters rejected Charter Amendment B that would have permitted the City to establish a municipally owned commercial bank.  The Los Angeles Times said that this Herb Wesson sponsored measure was “one of the most ill-conceived, half-baked measures to come out of City Hall in years, and that’s saying something.” 

But in April, the City Council, with the concurrence of Mayor Eric Garcetti, passed a Wesson sponsored resolution supporting the State’s Public Banking Act, AB 857, that would permit a local government to apply for a banking charter to establish a public bank. 

The proponents of public banks tout numerous advantages.  Local control.  Reinvestment in the community.  Divestment from mega-banks.  Loans for affordable housing, small businesses, infrastructure, solar energy, parks, schools, and roads.    

But will these loans be repaid, with interest, in a timely manner?  

According to state law, the “first and most important consideration when managing public funds is preservation of principal, the second is liquidity, and the third is to achieve a return.” 

Based on the history of the Los Angeles Community Development Bank, these socially responsible loans will result in losses, eroding the local government’s invested capital and threatening the safety of the bank’s deposits. 

At the same time, the bank may not have the liquidity to fund withdrawals because the deposits have financed long term, illiquid loans.  Rather, the government may be forced to resort to a very expensive, credit damaging emergency loan.  

There are also myths about public banks. 

Divestment.  Proponents overstate the level of deposits placed in large banks.  For example, the City of Los Angeles has an investment pool of over $12 billion, of which only 0.4% is on deposit with banks.  The balance is invested in high grade, marketable securities with a yield of 2.24%. 

Low cost loans: Not as low as expected.  The bank will need to pay the local government’s opportunity costs, say 2.24%, plus a spread to cover operating expenses and to fund loan loss reserves.  There is no free lunch. 

Safety of deposits.  While the public banks will be regulated by the FDIC, deposits of over $250,000 are not insured.  And public banks, unlike the large banks, will not have adequate marketable collateral to cover the deposits.  

Fees:  Proponents say that the private banks charge excessive fees for cash management and other services.  Wrong.  Large banks can provide these services at a significantly lower price than a public bank because they have the sophisticated technology and economies of scale.  

Dividends: Public banks will provide cash for the general fund.  Wrong.  The public bank will be a cash drain.  The local government will need to fund the bank’s equity account, its loan loss reserves, and its many years of start-up losses. 

Bank of North Dakota is the poster child for a profitable public bank. But BND has been in business for 100 years, is very profitable and has a very strong equity base and adequate reserves.  Any comparison to the undisciplined California spendthrifts is not warranted.  BND may be the country’s only public bank for good reason. A better analogy may be the German public banks that lost billions. 

Serve the under and un-banked.  Misleading.  This will require the bank to establish a very expensive branch system that result in even greater losses. 

The public banking proponents talk a great game, but it does not square with reality, especially in California where our elected officials are known for their broken promises, not their financial discipline.  Instead of proceeding with AB 857, why not let some other state (or San Francisco) be the lab rat for this very risky venture.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.  He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate.  He can be reached at:  lajack@gmail.com.)

Caltrain electrification project faces two-year delay

Anyone surprised a government project is behind schedule?  Not mentioned is the cost increase or the taxes that have to be raised for a failing system.  Failing?  Less than 20% of the cost of the government transportation system is covered by those USING it, and 80% by those NOT using it.

“The Caltrain Electrification Project, part of Caltrain’s overall modernization effort, is facing potential construction delays of two years, according to a contractor’s assessment.

That assessment was documented by an independent federal oversight monitor in a June report.

“The overall progress of work is far behind the original schedule,” that oversight monitor warned. Foundation placement and the installation of the overhead electrical contact system are “far behind” initial projections, they wrote.

San Francisco’s now train-less $2.2 billion Salesforce Transit Center is counting on that electrification project, too. One day, the transit center’s empty basement tunnels will be brimming with modern electric Caltrain cars.

How about riders?  Not mentioned.  This is what happens when government runs a project—it has no incentive to be on time, on cost or even useful.

Caltrain electrification project faces two-year delay

Independent June report calls progress far behind original schedule.

Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, SF Examiner,  8/3/19 

Caltrain’s soon-to-come electrified trains may one day whisk commuters from the South Bay to San Francisco with BART-like frequency, easing congestion on freeways and bolstering the local economy.

But, a federal monitor has warned, that day may be slipping further and further away.

The Caltrain Electrification Project, part of Caltrain’s overall modernization effort, is facing potential construction delays of two years, according to a contractor’s assessment.

That assessment was documented by an independent federal oversight monitor in a June report.

“The overall progress of work is far behind the original schedule,” that oversight monitor warned. Foundation placement and the installation of the overhead electrical contact system are “far behind” initial projections, they wrote.

San Francisco’s now train-less $2.2 billion Salesforce Transit Center is counting on that electrification project, too. One day, the transit center’s empty basement tunnels will be brimming with modern electric Caltrain cars.

“The more things get pushed back, the more delays we see, the further away we are from a rail system that meets the demands of the region,” said Supervisor Matt Haney, who represents San Francisco neighborhoods where Caltrain service lands.

He added, “We’ve got the most expensive bus station in the world that needs trains urgently.”

That two-year delay is not set in stone, but the report warns that an evaluation is needed to solidify an estimate of just how far off schedule the Caltrain electrification project has slipped.

But the federal oversight monitor wrote in a June report, “The Electrification contractor’s most recent Schedule Update Narrative for May 2019 shows a Substantial Completion date of March 3, 2022, compared to the contractual date of August 10, 2020, which represents a further slippage.”

That continued date slippage is due to a “day-for-day delay” by the contractor, the federal oversight monitor warned. Construction was originally scheduled for completion by 2020, and trains were aimed at being in service by 2022.

Caltrain, for its part, said it is firm that construction is on schedule for 2021, with trains expected to be running by 2022.That date is also a change — Caltrain’s program plan initially showed the electrification project’s “substantial completion” marked for August 2020, but Caltrain acknowledged in its own project report that this date has slipped to September 2021.

“In recent months we have been able to make up some of that lost ground,” Caltrain spokesperson Dan Lieberman said, in a statement. “At this time, we do not expect this to affect the overall timeline of the project, and we’re still looking forward to the launch of revenue service in 2022.”

Caltrain’s $1.9 billion modernization program includes its electrification project, which will electrify the train corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. That modernization program’s chief officer is John Funghi, who was hired in 2017. Previously, he headed San Francisco’s Central Subway Project, a Muni train extension which also has seen its share of delays hit headlines.

Electrification will see Caltrain’s diesel-hauled trains go the way of the dodo, and form the foundation of a track extension into the Transbay Transit Center, now called the Salesforce Transit Center. And the upgrades may also form the backbone of a potential second transbay crossing decades in the future, which may include both Caltrain and BART.

But the recent federal oversight monitor’s report casts doubt that the project will arrive on time.

Caltrain pushed back on a reading of the oversight monitor’s report, which is known in the construction world as a Project Oversight Management Committee report.

That report did not warn of a date slippage, they contend. Lieberman wrote in a statement, “the document states that both we and the PMOC are in agreement on September of 2021.”

While it is accurate that the oversight monitor stated a projected completion date of 2021, they also state that the contractor has warned of a completion date of 2022, and an intensive schedule review is, “expected to be a significant effort, but necessary to gain a clear understanding of the current status of the project’s schedule.”

Traditionally, federal oversight monitors do not revise projected completion forecasts until such investigations are complete.

That PMOC report is also not publicly available on Caltrain’s website, a break in common practice with other transit agencies, leading to concern from Caltrain officials. It is a public document.

Instead, the report was provided to the San Francisco Examiner by a source under the condition of anonymity and became the heated subject of discussion at the Caltrain board’s meeting Thursday.

Cheryl Brinkman, a member of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which provides oversight over Caltrain, warned agency staff that they should be more transparent with the project’s issues.

“I don’t want us to suddenly down the line have a delay announced every year,” Brinkman said. “I think it just shakes the public’s confidence in what we’re doing.”

At the same meeting, Gillian Gillett, chair of Caltrain’s board, said she spent a “sleepless night” looking over the project’s oversight report, and other such reports.

“Actually looking at the report, it gave me concern,” Gillett told the board. “Notably, that we have an ongoing set of issues with our contractor and that we don’t really have a project schedule.”

Adina Levin, a Caltrain citizen watchdog and co-founder of Friends of Caltrain, said delays are understandable, but transparency is necessary.

“Caltrain electrification can be the foundation of much greater transit ridership on Caltrain and the trains network, with many fewer cars on the road,” Levin said. “There are going to be many bumps and challenges along the way, and sharing updates is better for public confidence than late disclosure of bad news.”

In perhaps some good news for any potential Caltrain mishap, Salesforce Transit Center officials don’t think a two-year delay would impact the downtown extension project, which would see Caltrain extended from Fourth and King Station to the new transbay terminal, which is known as “phase 2” of the transit center project.

“The TJPA is not shovel-ready for phase 2 and a two-year delay is within the design process schedule based on the current timeline and progress,” Christine Falvey, a spokesperson for the project, wrote in a statement. “A two year delay (should there be one, would not impact the project.”

That project is so far in the future, any delay seemingly wouldn’t harm its construction at all.

Why Handing Out Abortion Pills On California State Campuses Is A Horrific Idea

Did you know there is toxic waste from the abortion pill?  Did you know that the abortion pill could have long term physical and emotion effects on young girls?  Did you know the State of California is going to sell these pills, to kill babies, as if it was a snack machine?

“My colleague, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out concerns regarding the safety of the abortion pill and the fact that there are no conscience protections for student health center professionals nor for the students funding the program with their mandatory fees.

The morality of abortion was not mentioned in the hearing. This bill is so poorly designed that it continues to be opposed even by pro-choice people, including California’s former governor, Jerry Brown, who vetoed last year’s version of the bill, SB-320.

When a pro-life legislator questioned how the universities are expected to handle the biomedical waste that would be left in campus bathrooms and sewage system after the abortions, the author and her expert witness struggled to respond, ultimately pushing aside the question.

So after a night of drinking, drugs and sex, the young girls to the Student Union vending machines to get a soda, chips and a pill.  That is what college has become.  Sad.

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 24: Tens of thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators march along Constitution Avenue toward the Supreme Court during the March for Life January 24, 2011 in Washington, DC. The annual march marks the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the court that made abortion legal in the United States. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Why Handing Out Abortion Pills On California State Campuses Is A Horrific Idea

When a pro-life legislator questioned how public universities are expected to handle the biomedical waste from chemical abortions, the author and her expert witness struggled to respond.

By Bernadette Tasy, The Federalist,  8/2/19 

I recently addressed a California state assembly committee to talk about Senate Bill 24, one of many abortion experiments legislators are considering in my home state. It would mandate that all California public universities distribute RU-486 abortion pills in their student health centers.

These pills cause abortions for women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant, well after which the baby has developed a heartbeat. Tensions were high as my colleague and I began our very short allowance of two minutes each to explain our opposition. Given the risks to my peers and fellow Californians, I had to try.

Providing abortion on school campuses is already a ridiculous concept, but the bill, which is expected to go before the full California Assembly by summer’s end, contains numerous flaws. My testimony consisted of three main points.

First, the bill author, state Sen. Connie Leyva, continuously argues that the bill is about “access” to abortion and that public university campuses are not in close proximity to abortion pill providers. Most campuses, however, are within just a few miles of these facilities. The bill places the mandate on all 34 campuses, costing millions of dollars for a completely unnecessary program.

Second, although the bill is supposed to save students money for car service transportation to off-campus abortion appointments, the public university systems have stated repeatedly that they will need to raise mandatory student fees to fund this on-campus program. And in California, Medi-Cal patients receive free transportation services to these appointments.

Third, one of the author’s key witnesses testifying at several hearings in support of the bill co-authored an article demonstrating the failure rate of RU-486: If the student is six-weeks pregnant when she takes the pills, the failure rate is about 3 percent, but if the woman is nine- to 10-weeks pregnant, the failure rate is more than 15 percent. The author estimates 500 students will take these drugs statewide on campus each month, so at least 15-75 students will have a failed abortion each month and need a second, surgical abortion.

My colleague, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out concerns regarding the safety of the abortion pill and the fact that there are no conscience protections for student health center professionals nor for the students funding the program with their mandatory fees.

The morality of abortion was not mentioned in the hearing. This bill is so poorly designed that it continues to be opposed even by pro-choice people, including California’s former governor, Jerry Brown, who vetoed last year’s version of the bill, SB-320.

When a pro-life legislator questioned how the universities are expected to handle the biomedical waste that would be left in campus bathrooms and sewage system after the abortions, the author and her expert witness struggled to respond, ultimately pushing aside the question.

Although the University of California and California State University school systems have not supported the bill, and their testimony has changed very little from the first hearing in 2017 to the most recent hearing this past June, their reluctance is clear. They stress concerns regarding financial liability and appropriateness of maintaining an abortion program on campus.

In most of the SB-24 hearings I have attended, the bill’s author has had a student testify about being unable to get abortion pills in time, leading to the student obtaining a surgical abortion instead. The UC representative’s testimony points out that this issue was a result of the universities’ referral process but that it does not warrant the dramatic response of mandating that every public university become an abortion provider. Of course, with the high failure rate of the drugs, the students’ experience may include a second, surgical abortion anyway.

The legislators ignored our comments. The author did not respond to any of the arguments my colleague, the pro-life legislator, the University of California, or I made. Each legislator who continues to vote in favor of this bill simply turns a blind eye to any serious concerns or even contradictions within the bill itself. This isn’t about pro-life versus pro-choice. It’s about common sense versus a radically ideological agenda.

California legislators this term are considering several bills or resolutions that either directly or indirectly propel a pro-abortion agenda, including one that even offers a tax credit for motion pictures made in California rather than states that restrict abortion. In 2016, the state approved a sexual education curriculum written by organizations including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union; this is now undergoing revisions that include proposed sexual education content as early as kindergarten, at one point even encouraging sexual behavior as young as the fifth grade. Most if not all of these bills, resolutions, and revisions will likely pass.

California is one of the most aggressively pro-abortion states in America. It already has 150 abortion facilities and more than 500 abortion providers statewide, no restriction on race- or sex-selective abortion, and no requirement for verbal counseling including optional ultrasound information for women to make an informed decision about pregnancy.

In fact, California is the one and only state listed as “very supportive” of abortion rights in the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute’s latest analysis of state abortion laws. Being active in this fight for the last three years as I attended a California public university, I know I have a lot to learn, yet I have already seen so much of the politics surrounding the legislature’s abortion agenda. I am grieved by the carelessness of our representatives who would push forward this reckless bill despite its many problems.

But if you think this extremism will stay right here in California, think again. It’s looking more and more like we’re just the guinea pig state.