2012 Voter Information
Elections and Religion:
Political Guidelines for Churches and Pastors
Do’s and Don’ts for Political Activities of Pastors
Is Abortion Just an “Election Issue” for Christians?
Why Christians Should Vote their Values
A Statement by the National Pro-Life Religious Council
2012 Candidate Questionnaire
Act Locally!
It is easy to find out where a U.S. Senate candidate stands on abortion.
But what about your local school board or city council candidate? The next city councilman or school board member has a chance to impact public policy with abortion. They also may be candidates for higher office in the future.
California ProLife has two prolife questionnaires that you can use to find out.
Local: Questionnaire – Local.pdf
School Board: Questionnaire – School Board.pdf
Simply print them out and ask the candidates to complete and return the form to the California ProLife when completed so we can share their information with others.
2009 Legislative Information
WHERE DOES YOUR STATE SENATOR STAND ON LIFE?
This vote took place in the State Senate. Senator Cogdill made the motion to prohibit monies from going to agencies that perform abortions. The vote was on the motion to lay on the table.
An Aye vote was pro-abortion
A Nay vote was prolife.
WHERE DOES YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR STAND ON LIFE?
There were four amendments to SB 303. The votes were all on tabling the motions and would have limited taxpayer funding of abortion to one a year.
An aye vote was pro-abortion
A nay vote was pro-life.
Set #2
SB 303 Alquist Senate Third Reading By HALL Amend By GAINES
SB 303 Alquist Senate Third Reading By HALL Amend By LOGUE
SB 303 Alquist Senate Third Reading By HALL Amend By ANDERSON
Set #5
SB 303 Alquist Senate Third Reading By HALL Amend By KNIGHT
To find out about Members of Congress click HERE
To find your California Legislator click HERE
URGENT CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE
ON “HEALTH CARE REFORM” LEGISLATION
FROM NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE
WASHINGTON — To read about the latest urgent developments on the pro-abortion “health care reform” legislation being pushed in Congress by the Obama White House, click here.
This legislation, if enacted in its current form, would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders are pushing for fast-track action on these bills.
To view or download a new NRLC factsheet on the version of the bill (H.R. 3200) that is set for a vote in the House of Representatives on or about July 29, click here.
Abortion Related Proposals
AB 120 Hayashi –as originally introduced this bill would have made failing to fully disclose all reproductive choice options, including abortion, a reason to revoke the State medical license of Physicians, Surgeons, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants. AB 120 contains a clause allowing Physicians, Surgeons, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants an exemption for ethical, moral, or religious grounds if they have previously notified their employer and their employer ensures that the patient has timely access to the disclosure of the objectionable medical choice. Unfortunately, AB 120 would open the door to nuisance lawsuits and mandate that abortionists, like Planned Parenthood, lobby patients. AB 120 would have ultimately increased the cost of healthcare to all Californians. AB 120 has now been gutted and amended into a medical peer review regulation proposal. Position – changed from OPPOSE to NEUTRAL.
SB 374 Calderon –as originally introduced, this bill was similar to AB 120 in that it would have made failing to fully disclose all reproductive choice options, including abortion, a reason to revoke the State medical license of Physicians, Surgeons, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants. SB 374 contains a clause allowing Physicians, Surgeons, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants an exemption for ethical, moral, or religious grounds if they immediately inform their patient of their objection and find another Physician, Surgeon, Nurse Practitioner, or Physician Assistant to fully inform their patient about that objectionable medical choice. SB 374 also requires medical offices and health care facilities providing obstetric or gynecological care to display prominently a notice about the patients right to be fully informed about reproductive choices and the health care providers duty to provide such information. Unfortunately, SB 374 would open the door to nuisance lawsuits and mandate that abortionists like Planned Parenthood lobby patients. SB 374 would have ultimately increased the cost of healthcare to all Californians. SB 374 has now been gutted and amended into a personal trainer qualifications proposal. Position – changed from OPPOSE to NEUTRAL.
Stem Cell Research
AJR 7 Bass – calls upon the President and Congress of the United States to enact, as expeditiously as possible, legislation advancing the policies contained in the Federal Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 which was vetoed by than President Bush. Among other items, AJR 7 specifically calls for Federal funding of “human embryonic stem cell research”. Position – OPPOSE.
SB 471 Romero and Steinberg –would integrate the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CRIM) into California’s Government run educational agencies and schools. CRIM was created as a result of the passage of Proposition 71 in 2004. SB 471 does not contain any safeguards against human embryonic stem cell research being conducted in California Collages or Universities, nor the advocation of human embryonic stem cell research in the curricula. Position – OPPOSE unless amended to include adequate safeguards against conducting or promoting human embryonic stem cell research.
AB 52 Portantino – would add human transplantation and human research to the purpose of the State Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program. The collection of stem cells from umbilical cords and placentas does notrequire the death of a fetus as occurs during human embryonic stem cell research. The California ProLife Council supports moral and ethical methods of medical research. Position – Support.
Your Letters Make A Difference!
You may address letters to the Governor or any Legislator using the address – State Capitol, Sacramento, CA, 95814.
CPLC Endorses Carly Fiorina
You have seen discussion of the California Governor’s race on other places on this web site. Today we want to discuss the candidates and campaign for the U.S. Senate nomination to replace Barbara Boxer.
Months ago we were in an enviable position, both candidates were pro-life. Pro-life Assemblyman Chuck DeVore was running and Carly Fiorina, who had made public statements of being pro-life. What remained was ascertaining just how real those commitments were.
Fiorina is the former Chairman of Hewlett-Packard and her pro-life comments were in contrast to the typical Silicon Valley ‘culture’ of monied Republicans. Her pro-life commitment meant she would be risking the alienation of some of her ‘pro-choice’ Rockerfeller Republican friends. It turned out that Fiorina was indeed genuine and has been endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List which only endorses 100% pro-life candidates.
Fiorina has since met with National Right to Life Committee leadership and committed to very specific issues of pro-life public policy. Board members of California ProLife also met with her and all have been impressed by her genuine and heartfelt commitment to the cause of Life.
All of the election’s dynamic changed when pro-abortion candidate Tom Campbell moved from the Governor’s race to the U.S. Senate Race. Would this create a scenario we’ve seen too many times before? The pro-life candidates split the vote between them allowing the pro-abortion candidate to become the nominee. We hope not.
The Board of California ProLife has been watching this race carefully and hoping that Campbell would not pose a threat, but now the scenario is requiring incisive action. DeVore has been attacking Fiorina for not being conservative ‘enough’ because she is seen as competing for his conservative base. And Campbell has continued to gain in the polls posing as a conservative.
Perhaps most importantly, though all of CPLC’s Board knows Chuck, all were equally concerned about his actual ability to break out beyond ‘our base’ to reach the wider electorate (which is how elections work.) Chuck has had a very hard time demonstrating the ability to raise the funds necessary to compete in a state the size of California, and this has been frustrating to many involved.
At the last reporting DeVore had $300,000 on hand; Fiorina $2,800,000; and Campbell $800,000. Perhpas more importantly, like other statewide candidates of note, Fiorina also has substantial, personal financial resources she has still not drawn on.
Who will have the resources to close the gap on Campbell and then turn around and do the same to Boxer?
While DeVore is indeed pro-life and familiar to us all, Fiorina is clearly better situated to fight an incredibly expensive campaign in the most costly state of the union.
Carly Fiorina has shown a genuine personal commitment to life, as well as clearly articulated policy commitments. Her husband’s mother was told to abort him, but as Carly has said, it is his presence that is ‘the rock of my life.’ And as a recent cancer survivor she knows the threats posed by euthanasia and rationing. She is assertively opposed to both, in addition to opposing the Obama plan for Healthcare. She is outspoken against the ‘climate mongering’ which appears to have as a goal the reduction of human population.
She has been endorsed by the national pro-life women’s group, Susan B. Anthony List and pro-life Senators Kyl, Graham, Coburn, McCain, and Inhofe.
California ProLife Council PAC has added its endorsement as well. CPLC’s endorsement of Carly is not a repudiation of Chuck DeVore as much as it is an earnest desire to defeat both Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer. In our considered opinion, Carly Fiorina is the pro-life candidate that can do that.
You can read more about Carly HERE.
Find out more about candidates in YOUR district! Click HERE for the June Primaries VOTER GUIDES.
What do you know about Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell?
They are LYING about being Reaganesque
They are LYING about their conservatisim
They are LYING about being comitted to “the free market system”
What then are they HONEST about?
They are both unabashed elitists! Read more here:
The California Governor’s Race
As you know there are three major candidates for Governor: Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman & Steve Poizner. Here is a quick look at their positions on abortion:
Jerry Brown
During his previous term in office, Jerry Brown embraced the abortion industry’s positions on key issues. He appointed pro-abortion judges that twisted the state constitution to mandate taxpayer funding of abortion in California. Brown embraced the decision and never wavered from a pro-abortion policy. Pro-abortion groups support him now.
Meg Whitman
Meg Whitman calls herself pro-choice. In newspaper accounts she supports protections for unborn children from partial-birth abortion and supports parental involvement laws. But Whitman supports the current unlimited funding of abortion, even those that are later term or done on minors.
Steve Poizner
Steve Poizner calls himself pro-choice. He opposes partial-birth abortion and supports parental consent laws. Poizner opposes taxpayer funding of abortion in California. He has pledged to appoint judges that will interpret the state constitution, not make laws they like from the bench.
Personhood Admendment
Individuals are always free to pursue any efforts they wish. However, we at California ProLife (CPLC) encouarge prolife individuals to act with both knowledge and wisdom and avoid becoming involved in projects that lead to confusion and potential disaster for the cause of Life.
California ProLife is not supporting the currently circulating, ‘personhood’ amendment, known under its official title of “Extending Personhood to Fertilized Human Eggs.” We are not alone in our perspective. If you would like further information or analysis you may find it below.
