The ProLife Team Podcast | Episode 38 with Susan Arnall | Talking About Current Pro Abortion California Bills

The ProLife Team Podcast
The ProLife Team Podcast | Episode 38 with Susan Arnall | Talking About Current Pro Abortion California Bills
Loading
/

Listen to Susan Arnall and Jacob Barr talk several pro-abortion bills in California. This is helpful for those in California to encourage their community to vote. This is helpful for those beyond California to know how to pray and what to keep a lookout for.

You can see the current California bills here: www.prolifeadvocates.org.

Summary

This is Jacob Barr, and in this summary of the “Pro-Life Team Podcast,” I discussed several California bills concerning abortion with Susan Arnall. Susan, the Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Right to Life League, shared insights about California’s pro-abortion stance and the legislative onslaught of bills promoting abortion. We delved into the specifics of various bills, like SB 1142 promoting abortion tourism, and AB 2223, which Susan argues legalizes infanticide. Our conversation highlighted how these bills, backed by a majority of pro-abortion Democrats and organizations like Planned Parenthood, aim to make California an “abortion sanctuary.” We also discussed the federal implications of these state actions, the concept of federalism, and the anticipated effects of the Dobbs case. The dialogue emphasized the urgent need for pro-life advocacy and engagement in the legislative process to counter these bills.

#Hashtags related to this podcast dialogue:
#ProLifeTeamPodcast, #JacobBarr, #SusanArnall, #CaliforniaAbortionBills, #ProLifeAdvocacy, #AbortionSanctuary, #DobbsCase, #Federalism, #RightToLifeLeague, #PlannedParenthood, #AbortionLegislation, #LegalAnalysis, #ProAbortionDemocrat, #AntiAbortionActivism, #StateVsFederalRights, #AbortionTourism, #InfanticideBill, #LegislativeProcess, #ProLifeAction, #ReproductiveRights, #AbortionDebate

Transcript

The transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Jacob Barr :

Welcome to the pro-life Team Podcast i’m Jacob Barr i’m here with Susan, and we’re going to talk about several bills in California that are pro abortion bills that are coming down the pipe and that you should know about. Welcome, Susan, I am so glad you’re here. Would you introduce yourself as if you were talking to executive directors in California and beyond?

Susan Arnall :

Hi Jacob it’s very good to be with you. My name is Susan Arnall. I am the Director of Legal and Farewell. I’m the Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Right to Lifely. We’re based in Southern California, in Pasadena and we are an exclusively pro-life organization. We were, we actually were founded 54 years ago in 1967 We are America’s first pro-life organization.

Jacob Barr :

Awesome and and and today I think we’ll be talking about several laws or or bills or I guess you can tell it, tell us what’s going on in California that the rest of the country and people in California should be aware of.

Susan Arnall :

Sure well, in California, California is a very pro abortion state. And as a pro-life entity or organization, it’s like drinking from a fire hose trying to keep up with all of it because right now I think there’s something around close to like 20 different bills that are jamming their way through this legislative session. I think it goes through to like June or something. But what happens is each one of these bills is heard at least in 4 committees, at least once in four different committees. Sometimes they’re re referred back to a committee so that it can be heard multiple times. And then at the end, at some point, I’m not sure exactly when, but before the legislature dips out for, you know, election season, then they vote on all of these things. And with the supermajority of basically pro abortion Democrats, they’re all, they’re probably all going to just get passed. So that’s what we’re looking at here in California it is, as Gavin, Gavin Newsom is our governor, and he swore that he was going to make sure that California was an abortion sanctuary. I mean, that doesn’t even make sense a sanctuary is something that you’re trying to be safe for life, right you’re you’re fleeing persecution or death, right at the hands of, you know, state actors and so you flee to the church like, you know, the like the old story of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and you declare sanctuary. Well, they’ve done it the other way they call it an abortion sanctuary out here in California. So that’s what and what they are doing, what the legislature is doing because many of them are bought and paid for by the the Planned Parenthood cabal of about 40 different abortion providers in California. They got together back in 2021 and created what is called the future of Abortion Council recommendations. Sounds very efficient. And it was these 40 different abortion providers, mostly headed by, you know, Planned Parenthood, because they saw a change in their business model coming. They saw that the Dobbs case, which is still to be announced from the Supreme Court, is going to change their business model 26 states are restricting access to abortion. They’re not outlawing it all together, but they’re putting restrictions on it for the safety and health of the mother and for the child, right and plan that cuts into Planned Parenthood’s business model because they get a lot of money from the government and other places. So they came up with the future of abortion council recommendation for 45 specific points. And I believe there’s eight specific bills that they wanted to make sure got through the legislature. And so they drafted it up and I believe they handed them to, you know, these different drafts of bills, handed them off to legislators who are somehow on their donation payroll right. Just make sure that these, these are loyalists and they say here introduce this bill And that’s what we’re seeing we’re seeing just a slew of very radical pro abortion, abortion on demand twenty four, seven no restrictions whatsoever, being pushed through the California legislature because they want it all done in time for for the Dobbs hearing, the goal of all of this is to turn California into an abortion sanctuary but more than that, Planned Parenthood and this is all part of the Future of Abortion Council report you can look it up online, it’s right there. They predict an increase of of people, pregnant people travelling to California to have their abortions because many other states, at least 26 of them, are restricting abortion in some way some of them are restricting it at the 15 week mark like the case of Dobbs. Some of the some of them are restricting it even earlier like the Texas heartbeat law and I think Oklahoma has it even earlier than that so what Planned Parenthood is is hoping for is a way to bring these women pregnant people to California to give them free abortions i know it sounds crazy, but that’s one of the bills that has been going through our legislature SB two forty five makes it. It’s already a law that insurance companies cannot even charge a copay for abortion. Abortion must be completely free. They want to expand upon that they want. Sb twelve forty five is a bill that will create a pilot program here in Los Angeles County because they they see Los Angeles as an international hub it has several different airports los Angeles, you know airport is one of them, Ontario Burbank and so they see it as a hub and they want to expand access to abortion in Los Angeles. There is no lack of access to abortion in Los Angeles they’re they’re all over the place. But this pilot program, SB twelve forty five, will flood Los Angeles County with money to build facilities. And there’s another bill. I believe it’s.

Jacob Barr :

So that’s the build facilities like near the airport so that when someone else all.

Susan Arnall :

Over LA County, we don’t know that but the idea is to funnel money to basically Planned Parenthood to run abortion facilities in Los Angeles. I’ll give you another one that is this is called the, I call it the abortion vacay bill. It’s also called the abortion tourism bill it’s SB eleven forty two SB eleven forty two Basically funds abortion tourism says we need to we need the money from California taxpayers, right? To fly women from any state that they wish. And first of all, to create a website, a kind of a statewide one stop shop where women can go in from Oklahoma and say, you know, free abortion, California, boom, they’re in a website probably designed and managed by Planned Parenthood, although that’s not called out in the bill it’s a state website so that you can schedule your travel, like your airplane or your train or your bus, and you can be met at the airport by Uber and you will be taken directly to the abortion facility or even a hotel where lodging is paid for your lodging while you’re getting, while you’re waiting for your free abortion. It will also compensate for lost wages, time off work, so that if you’re leaving Oklahoma and you need to have a week to go or two weeks to go out to California, you can fly out to California you’ll be compensated lost wages. They’ll make arrangements with your healthcare insurance right there online, schedule everything so it is a one stop shop and then you just hop on the plane. They will have specialized drivers probably we were but some maybe maybe through a private service we don’t exactly know. To make sure that these women are not, you know, waylaid at the at the airport by, you know, pro-life people who might say, oh, please change your mind, right, We want to just scoop them up, take them to the the the abortion hotel, pay them their lost wages, get their insurance and guess what they also provide in this bill, SB 1142 people provide child care. Yes, you can bring your children to your free abortion vacay. So it’s kind of like going to Disneyland you come, you schedule it, you can fly your kids with you so that you can kill their sibling on the California taxpayer dime. That’s what it is. That’s SB 1142 Now where is California going to get that money well, it’s actually getting the money not just from California taxpayers it’s also getting the money from the blue state bailout that Biden authorized fairly recently. He sent money to all of the loyal states who made sure he got elected right. And they’ve, they’ve been in a great influx of, you know, billions of dollars, billion like Biden with AB into California right now. The latest figure that I have is that the state surplus for California surplus budget is around forty five billion dollars and i believe Governor Newsom has kind of earmarked her said he wants to spend about 20 billion of that to create the abortion sanctuary. So the taxpayer dollars are not just California taxpayers. They’re also anybody else who’s paid into the federal tax pool. And it’s being shipped from the feds, from Biden. It’s a little bit like money laundering, right? So even if you’re in California or Oklahoma and you oppose abortion, you’re going to be paying for it in some way out here in California. That’s SB 1142 It’s going through the legislature let me give you some other examples oh, by the way, all of these bills that that we’re fighting at, the the right to life, we have a tiny little website called pro-life advocates.org Pro-life advocates.org And we simply list the good bills and the bad bills so that you can see that they it has hyperlinks to every one of the bills. You can watch our video testimony and expert witnesses. You can read our different opposition letters so that you can understand why we think it’s a bad bill or a good bill. And you can you know read more about any one of these, any one of these bills. Another bill that’s coming up in the, I think it’s Assembly Health and also Assembly high rate before we.

Jacob Barr :

Before we go to the next one, I’ve got a question and you may may or may not have the answer, but so if some if abortion is illegal in one state but yet it’s legal in California, it it just seems bizarre that someone can travel across the state line, let’s say through an air, you know, going through an airplane and now they’re in a new state that allows that activity. And then they can return to their home state where that was illegal, but they didn’t commit that illegal activity on their home soil. It still seems so apparently the crime is all based on the soil it’s committed on and not based on who did it is that really what that means?

Susan Arnall :

We have it it’s the concept is federalism. When the founders of the Constitution created the framework for our nation, we wanted a limited federal government we did not want an all powerful, you know, democracy we are not a democracy we are a representative of a Republic and they wanted to ensure that regular people held more power by keeping power much more local. So you would elect people, you know, your mayor, and you could get right in their face and say I don’t like the job you’re doing and that these, that these local officials like mayors, right? And then also state assembly and state senators would be much more responsive to citizens of the state. And one of the things that they built into the Constitution is that the concept of federalism, which is the federal government, is limited by, you know, the 1st Amendment the Second Amendment has got all the different amendments that limit the power of the federal government. Any, any powers that are not already specifically designated to be federal powers are reserved to the states. So the state actually has more power than the federal government now throughout kind of the history of jurisprudence there, there have been a lot of kind of inroads from the federal government lots of different decisions by the Supreme Court that has eroded that they’ve used the Commerce Clause that’s that thing is big enough to drive a Mack truck through so they can now control commerce in if it if it involves commerce across state line, well the federal government says yeah we control that so because of the evolution and because of different laws that we’ve that the the Senate and you know the the basically the federal government’s past and several different Supreme Court decisions the concept of federalism has been eroded. So, so it it it doesn’t sound exactly like what I’m saying but the fact of the matter is the the the states actually control what happens much more than the federal. So that’s how we have the case in Dobbs, right? Mississippi, you said, you know what we’re going to, we’re going to stop abortion at 15 weeks based on the ability of the fetus to feel pain. And so we don’t want to allow people to have abortions unless. But it is, it does endanger the life of the mother and we want to make sure that a doctor’s on board takes a look at her. But it’s not just a convenience argument or it’s not just mental health right. But it actually is something reasonable and that if we are going to conduct an abortion after 15 weeks when this baby can feel pain, we want to get a doctor on board we want to have it a very narrow, you know, you know, safe. But if it’s necessarily necessary, then we will consider going ahead and having the abortion that’s in a nutshell what Dobbs is saying that challenges Roe versus Wade, which the the structure of Roe versus Wade and then the the the case that came after called Casey that set up kind of the viability test and the notion that it balances the the equities of the the the necessity of the mother versus the the interest of the state to protect the life and kind of weigh the balance and viability kind of came out of that around you know 22 weeks, 23 weeks. But viability is flexible, isn’t it and as science improves we are seeing that viability is you know scooching back. What Dobbs challenges is hey we’re talking about pre viability restrictions. We want to put a restriction on ability on abortion that comes before viability at about 22 weeks. We want to say 15 weeks. Therefore, we are challenging the constitutionality of the application of of Roe versus Wade based on this narrow reason, which is fetal pain, 15 weeks and we as a state want to do this. That’s what the Supreme Court is is hearing, well has heard and we’ll announce at some point in May or June, you know, sometime this summer.

Jacob Barr :

So one more question about the yeah, you know where abortion is legal versus where abortion is illegal. It seems to me like there might be. I’m not. What are what are your thoughts on if, if California, where abortion is legal, it was to advertise in a state where abortion is illegal, what does that look? Because that seems to be going into a dark grey zone.

Susan Arnall :

It’s kind of like, hey, it’s like Las Vegas, right it’s legal to gamble in Nevada, but not so much in other places, right unless you’re not doing reservation. Same thing, right we can, as a state, we can decide that gambling is legal here right? And other states can say, well, that’s immoral, We shouldn’t allow our children to be around well, yeah, well, so don’t come to Las Vegas. So yeah, they’re going to, they’re going to advertise i mean, one possible consideration that just kind of comes to the top of my head is, if you’re talking about someone under the age of 18, is that contributing to the delinquency of a minor or is that some sort of child trafficking across state lines? I don’t know, but it just seems like out there.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, it seems like advertising an illegal activity that’s legal, let’s say in California.

Susan Arnall :

California.

Jacob Barr :

Right it’s not legal in this other place if California is allowed to advertise that in that like that seems to go against the sovereignty of the state when it comes to promoting come here to do your your illegal activity.

Susan Arnall :

If you’re advertising, say it’s again, it’s the Commerce Clause and things you’re just advertising. Come here. We’re not saying we’re going to do it in Texas, but if you come to California, you get a free one and you get a vacation we we might may even throw in Disneyland tickets you know since Disneyland’s grooming people now anyway. I mean just it it’s crazy. It’s it is crazy it it. But what we are witnessing is we are now the battle is joined, right? Are we going to protect our children from being aborted or not? And guess what this is what did you think was going to happen if Roe versus Wade falls? Did you think that the Supreme Court was just going to say, Oh yeah, abortion’s illegal now they they could they could find a personhood not amendment because we haven’t passed one that’s the way to fix this is you go into the, you know, the the the House and the Senate and you say let’s pass a personhood amendment that says, you know, the amendment to the Constitution that says we find that the that we are created by, you know, by our Creator, with certain inalienable rights among those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that’s in the Declaration of Independence based on that, we declare as a legislative body, we want to amend the Constitution and inform our judiciary, the third branch of the government, that this right to life begins upon conception or upon six weeks gestation. You know, pick one. And therefore, at that point we, the the Congress, decide that that that that entity, that life entity within a woman’s womb is its own separate person and has rights that attach at that point. That’s the personhood amendment we do that. That amends the Constitution that’s a game changer. But for some reason we don’t have the political willpower to get that done. Now the Supreme Court could, they could take the opportunity and Dobbs to look at the Declaration of Independence and a lot of other things and say, well, Roe was wrongly decided, just like Plessy versus Ferguson, just like all the history of God bless, just like the history of of, you know, slavery right. The 3/5 of a person who’s the 3/5 of a person right. That’s wrong. We’re going to go back there we’re going to fix it. And yes, all men are created equal. Doesn’t matter what color you are. You’re you’re an equal human being that has all of the rights as anybody else. Well, why don’t we apply that to babies, too. They could they could go that far, but they might not they it it’s up to them and it it it’s up to how many justices would be that would be probably a step of that would be towards judicial activism. There’s kind of the two schools of thought judicial activism is well, we’re going to take this long we’re going to, we’re going to interpret it, we’re going to make it the way that we think it should have been and kind of change the law. There’s a lot of that on on the on the left, not so much on conservatives or or traditional kind of right side but it’s not so much really right side it’s conservatives and people like Justice Alito and Justice Thomas are. Conservative justice in that that they look at the Constitution and they say, well, I don’t find it right in here and in fact during the conversation that the questioning that Justice Thomas engaged in with the I forget the woman’s name but she was the attorney that was opposed she was there for Jackson’s Women’s Health she was arguing against the the doctor Dobbs and saying no, that there is a right to abortion. And and Justice Thomas says, well, just tell me where because I know if you were talking about the second, you know about the right to bear arms, I know where you’re talking about i know it’s in the Second Amendment. Where do you find this right to privacy, right to abortion? And she said, well it’s, you know, it’s this, you know, kind of this nebulous it’s the right to privacy it’s in the penumbra, which is like a big umbrella it’s and and that’s referring to how we got to Roe versus Wade and Casey in the first place is interpreting activist judges, interpreting law to say, well, yeah, there there’s a right to privacy there. There sure is. Well, Justice Thomas is saying, where does that reside? He’s being a strict constructionist. He’s looking at the four corners of the document of, you know, the the Constitution he’s saying, I don’t know where that is. So that signals that he’s at least willing to to say, yeah, Roe, Roe was wrongly decided there There’s no right to privacy expressed in the Constitution. And therefore, here’s the conservative part of it. We don’t have jurisdiction to decide this matter in other words, it was wrongly decided. We we’re not going to, that’s the wrongly said. We are going to undo Roe versus Wade and Casey and we’re going to say there, there isn’t, there really isn’t a right to abortion in the Constitution. And therefore, this matter, which is not called out specifically in the Constitution and not delineated as one of those limitations or empowerments of the federal government, that means it remains with the states. So now it goes back to the States and they have more power under the Constitution. And that’s how we find ourselves in, OK, we got 26 states saying, great, let’s limit abortion we’re going to even limit chemical abortions we’re going to limit all the abortions, right. Very, very narrow like Oklahoma, I think Mississippi, Texas. I think there’s the one in Ohio, There’s lots and we’re going to have the other states like California and other very left-leaning states saying no abortion all the time. In fact we’re going to pay for it, that that’s where it’s going to come from. If the Supreme Court says, well hands off, we made a mistake and it’s not, it’s not within our power. If they become activists, if they go beyond there being a conservative, strict constructionist, if they say, well, you know, that Declaration of Independence, it does say right to life, liberty pursued and happiest, I think that that means that the right to life does attach in the world. That would be a more activist decision and they could do it. But I don’t know if they would. I mean, that’s that we would all love that, right but then again, that’s having judges, that’s having, you know, men in black robes or women in black robes, you know, a handful of people telling us what our laws are and that that actually erodes our rights as Americans. We have the right to set our laws and these legislators do what we say. And the judicial branch is supposed to enforce the laws as they are written, when they go outside of as they are written that’s activist, that that’s frustrating the purpose of people to write their own laws. That’s a real problem so again, we’re back to power in the states. Who’s voting for these people right? And they’re they’re being funded by very powerful lobbyists pro it’s big abortion, that’s what who’s funding it? And they’re making sure that they get these bills passed because they want to start spending money like drunken sailors no offense to drunken sailors, but they want to make sure that that abortion is twenty four seven and that I have to pay for it and that you have to pay for it regardless of what we think. So that’s the battle but yeah, now the battle is finally joined after 5450 years, right? We are now at the point where all of that persuasion, all of that lobbying, all of the different things, it’s about to happen, hopefully Roe versus Wade will fall, Roe and Casey and hopefully it will go back to the states because that’s a huge, major win because now we go back to the states now we say, OK, let’s get into the state legislature let’s start running for office down at the office of dog capture. Let’s start putting pro-life people in positions of power at like the Secretary of State level, at a clerk level, at election level, anywhere we can finally up into the assembly positions and state Senate. And that way we change how our laws are written. That means a lot of work. But you know, what did you think it was going to be easy?

Jacob Barr :

Yeah well let let’s go, let’s go back to some of these bills and it seems like there’s. So it sounds like you’re saying that they’re pushing through. They’re throwing all of these bill they’re essentially working on so many bills because they want to have them in place before Dobbs, exactly because of it because after Dobbs the the environment will be different to to push a bill through is that the idea?

Susan Arnall :

Well, maybe i mean we have, we do have the elections coming up i mean they’re going to, they’re going to have primary season. So you know if I can get all of this done now before primary season yay and of course a lot of people on the in the pro abort side think that by passing these laws they will get more votes. They they might be right, especially in places like California. So they may be right, but yeah, they’re trying to deliver on their promises to their but it’s, you know, it’s driven by their constituents, which are big abortion, Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood is fighting these battles in all different states because they have a ton of money from you and me, taxpayers because they get the money. They they get money from taxes, that’s how. So they’re using our money against us it’s kind of a big money laundering scheme to fund abortion. But in any event, yes, that’s exactly right what you’re saying is that what they’re doing is they’re trying to flood the zone with all kinds of bills. There’s another one we haven’t talked about, but it’s very much in the news it’s called AB 2223 This is the one that will legalize, legalize infanticide. Not just. Yeah, the legalize infanticide. We just wrote another another article on it we’ve written three or four of them at our website, which is right to lifeleague.org And just this morning we posted another one that really walks through how the fact checkers and like, you know, gosh, Sacramento Bee, Reuters, AP, there’s all these different media outlets which are saying that AB 2223 doesn’t legalize infanticide. That’s just misinformation, right. That’s what they’re saying. They don’t look at the bill and they don’t listen to what pro-life lawyers like myself and Theresa Brennan and a host of other lawyers, we’ve taken a look at this bill. We’re reading the language and we’re saying, well, yeah, it does, but then they call us fake news they call us misinformation. I’ll break it down why we think that AB 2223 legalizes infanticide. First of all, what is infanticide? Infanticide is the killing of a baby born alive, separate from the mother alive, breathing out of the womb, not an abortion it’s out right? And it’s a separate breathing entity it’s a person, right oK Well, AB 2223 the intent that the the the bill’s author, Buffy Wicks, has expressed in tweets and in her statements struck by her spokespeople. She said look, no woman should be prosecuted by the law for an abortion or a stillbirth or a miscarriage or a perinatal death. What’s that? All right, well, we know what a stillbirth is that’s when the baby dies and is born sometime after 20 weeks, right? Miscarriage is a little earlier, right but the baby dies. We know what an abortion is that’s when they kill the baby and then take it out in pieces, right? So those are the 1st 3. Miscarriage, still birth, abortion. We don’t want to prosecute any woman who has any of those three because that’s just not fair. Wicks is pointing to a two different cases one is called Perez and I forgot the name of the other one in which there was a rogue process prosecutor, excuse me, who prosecuted a woman there was one woman who she was a meth addict. She took a lot of methamphetamine and she delivered a baby and it died. And so the prosecutor went out to make it. Probably political points, I don’t know. But he prosecuted her and threw her in jail because of basically child abuse in the womb type of thing prosecuted her and that’s gotten a lot of press and then there was a similar woman, another case, I believe she was in a car wreck because maybe she was drunk or on some sort of chemicals and crashed in the tree or something like that and then delivered the baby died, OK. And so they prosecuted her for. Of that, I believe I I may have the facts a little bit big but basically there’s two cases like that where, you know, a, a rogue prosecutor wanted to make a point to go after a woman for some bad behavior that resulted in the death of her then, you know, being pregnant baby, OK, so we don’t want to do that, says Buffy Wicks. Because we don’t want to prosecute any woman who elects to choose to abort a baby, right. And it’s called a pregnancy outcome, right? So I can choose a pregnancy outcome at any point in my pregnancy up to nine months, right? I can have an abortion up to nine months. Ok, but what about what is perinatal death? Ok, perinatal death is not prenatal death it’s not before birth. Perinatal is after birth. And Buffy Wicksville includes, in her four categories of still birth, miscarriage, abortion. She also includes perinatal death due to a pregnancy related cause, whatever that means. Do we know what that means? I don’t know what that means. The bill doesn’t define it it’s not defined anywhere, but perinatal sure is i know what a perinatal death is you can look it up in any kind of medical dictionary. You can actually look it up in California State law. It’s defined in the welfare code. Perinatal death is the period from birth so after birth to about 28 days or about one month old, separate born alive baby that is the perinatal period according to Welfare Code of California. Now Buffywick spokesperson has been very disingenuous about it she says that that term is not defined, Well, it’s not defined in the bill, but it is defined as a medical term it’s also defined in California law. So she’s trying to say, well, perinatal death due to a pregnancy related ’cause, that’s what she just amended it. We don’t mean the death of a just a baby born alive we just mean of the death of a baby due to pregnancy related cause. What does that mean? That’s not defined. That’s super vague too. It doesn’t make any sense to me because pregnancy related cause of birth is a pregnancy related cause. Anything could be pregnancy related. What about the baby daddy saying I didn’t want you to be pregnant and I didn’t want you to come home with this baby and you didn’t want the baby how about I just strangle a baby that’s a pregnancy related ’cause I didn’t agree to this pregnancy. I don’t know is that a pregnancy related ’cause maybe I’m stretching it but the term is not defined.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, the worse so when a term is vague or not used often and not defined, it seems like.

Susan Arnall :

Leaves it up to a judge, right?

Jacob Barr :

Well, it just seems like that would be something that would be worthwhile to define.

Susan Arnall :

You think, Yeah, you. You’d think if they really wanted to, but I guess they don’t, because that’s one of the, that’s one of the big points that we’ve been arguing for weeks and weeks and weeks we keep saying that and that is the flux of why we say this legalizes infanticide here’s why there’s a little bit more oK.

Jacob Barr :

It reminds me of SO when I was about 8 years old, I would, you know, give my parents a paper and have them try and get them to sign the bottom and then that way I could fill out the top afterwards. It sort of feels like that’s what they’re doing. It sort of feels like they’re using a term that hasn’t been defined, so they can say let’s pass it, you know, please sign the the dotted line.

Susan Arnall :

We’ll define it later, right? It’s just.

Jacob Barr :

That’s an 8 year old trick, like this is not an adult move this is this is a child.

Susan Arnall :

It’s very poorly. It’s either very poorly drafted, I mean like crazy bad, or it’s intentional one or the other but anyway, what the worst thing that it does worse worse than that, it doesn’t just add in well, due to a pregnancy related ’cause it also goes further and it says, well, wait a minute, we don’t want any woman investigated for a perinatal death. In fact, we don’t want anyone who assists a woman in her choice of pregnancy outcomes like a perinatal death. We don’t want anyone to investigate and so we’re going to create protection first of all, we’re going to tell the coroner that he’s not allowed to investigate, you know, certain types of fetal death like we would like from abortions. You can’t investigate it you can’t figure out what was the cause of death. And in certain cases where you can investigate it, well, we’re not going to allow you to use the coroner’s finding in any action against the mother or anyone else who assisted the mother in getting her pregnancy outcome. Ok, Now, since the term is for perinatal death, we’re not again, we’re not talking about is still birth miscarriage and abortion. Those are all inside, right we’re talking about outside. Since we’re talking about a perinatal death, what’s to stop a mother who decides? I don’t. I don’t want this baby. Or, oh, and it’s also another part of the term is an act or omission, right? No one is going to be prosecuted mother, birthing person, or anyone who assists her shall be prosecuted for an act or an omission what’s an act? Strangling a baby is an act smothering a baby is an act. What’s an omission? Failing to feed it, just not doing anything, not keeping it warm, just letting it just die and not feeding it, That’s an omission. Well, we’re not going to prosecute anyone if I were saying no, no, no one has a we’re not going to prosecute them. And any state actor, government official, I guess this is also a lot of this is not defined very well. But a state actor who does investigate or even threatens to investigate is then subject to a private cause of action by the mother or anyone who has sister so baby daddy, grandma, the doctor, the abortionist, anybody. We can then sue that person. It gives us the right to sue the person as a private cause of action in Superior Court damages start at twenty five thousand dollars and can include attorneys fees. So that’ll incentivize all the lawyers, right? Because they see money and they can go after anyone who said, says maybe, maybe like the, I don’t know, a medical worker who’s with the state, you know, I don’t know a welfare worker who says, honey, if you don’t feed that baby, that baby doesn’t, you know, gain some weight by the time I see you in three weeks, I’m gonna have to report you. Oh, well, now I’m getting reported, and this is my pregnancy outcome, and nobody gets to choose what I want to do. I don’t have to feed that baby it’s an omission. You cannot prosecute me. And now I can go after you because you’ve threatened me against my right of privacy and my right to choose my abortion outcome. I know it sounds crazy. I know it does but this is the this is how we’ve been analyzing the bill that’s why we’re pointing to it, saying this thing is so badly written. We’re not talking about, you know perinatal death in the 1st 12 hours that is somehow, you know due to the birthing processors. It’s not defined. It’s a whole it. It is already defined as a month. So you could you’ve got a three-week old baby and it dies but we’re not going to we we can’t investigate it right. Because it and, oh, and the other part of it is so long as the woman consents, if she consents to this pregnancy outcome, like the abortionist, so she’s delivered. She, let’s say she went in for an abortion at nine months and the abortionist botches the job and actually delivers a live baby alive. Separate right, like a Kermit Gosnell. There’s nothing to stop that doctor from just snipping the spinal cord, throwing it in a bucket so long as the woman consents because that is her right to determine her pregnancy outcome and he is immune from prosecution or investigation. And so is she. Nothing to stop that. That’s how bad this bill is. And that’s what we keep pointing out, that this is infanticide. This is infanticide. And the the people who are reporting on it, the fact checkers so-called they’re not, they’re not walking through this bill they’re not reading it. What they’re doing is they’re going to Buffy Wicks and saying these people are saying that you want to, you want to kill babies. And she says, well, no, that’s just not true i want to protect mothers from prosecution, like this poor woman, Perez and this other one i don’t want women prosecuted for exercising their choice, you know, their right to privacy and their right to choose i want to protect them. And that’s all this bill does it doesn’t do what you say it does. And so the fact checking media says, OK, good. And then they just keep reporting that what we’re saying is misinformation. They don’t walk through this bill. I do at length. It’s it’s it’s a long article and it puts all of this into perspective. Cites the language of the bill, and it’s up there right now at the right to lifelead.org and under our like news and, you know, blogs like Right There you can find.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, it looks like it, yeah the the pro-life advocates.org website you mentioned looks like it has the text of the bill.

Susan Arnall :

Right, that has the text info there. We’d like to get all of our website we’re going to try to get our website all together so that all of these things are in one place but for now, at the right to lifeleague.org you can find the news and blog articles you can find that right there. And then if you go to prolifeadvocates.org you can find the list of the good bills, the bad bills, and all of the different you watch testimony against actually AB 2223 we organized 14 different witnesses last week, April nineteenth up at the state capitol we got Doctor Wong, we got Doctor Klooster we had a lot of different witnesses from a variety of backgrounds who all testified as experts before the assembly health committee and the and other committees just saying especially on on eighty twenty two twenty three Doctor Wong and testified said yes this bill will will legalize infanticide that’s just it’s just out there i’m just, I’m just telling you, but the media doesn’t want to hear it because they’re, you know, they’re kind of in the pocket of of big abortion or maybe they just don’t want to dig that much maybe they don’t want to bother to to actually walk through and listen to the other side and say what do you mean? So we we’re trying to tell them, we’re trying to present it and explain what the statute says and and why and how this will legalize an infanticide up to about a month old.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, and according to, you know some. Some dictionaries, you know, perinatal just means a period of time, it’s not defined and then some websites were saying up to a year, some say a few weeks, some say before or after it’s i don’t even see any consistency across all these definitions like. I feel like this is a vague term by definition, like it’s.

Susan Arnall :

Not well defined it is defined in California law under the Welfare code, and we cite that in our articles we show you right where it is.

Jacob Barr :

And then California law says about a month it.

Susan Arnall :

Says 28 days.

Jacob Barr :

28 days.

Susan Arnall :

Period of birth to 28 days well.

Jacob Barr :

That’s pretty specific.

Susan Arnall :

It’s pretty, pretty specific and so if the judge is looking at this and wants to know, well, what is that term, right, that’s a place that a judge can go. He can say, well, the bill doesn’t define it, so I have to, as a judge, I have to interpret it. That’s not how our laws should be written. We should have very, very clear laws that explain exactly what things mean, but that this doesn’t do that. Neither does it due to a pregnancy related cause, perinatal death.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, pregnancy related What is pregnancy related Yeah, like does that mean an idea tied to tied to the pregnancy or does that mean it happened here in the pregnancy but it’s not defined?

Susan Arnall :

Right and again, the woman can give her consent to the pregnancy outcome within that month, right? And here’s another idea that I was thinking of. I believe that part of the reason that they want this is what about chemical abortions? It makes up roughly, I mean what in 2020 I think Guttmacher came out and said that chemical abortions make up 54 % of all abortions. That’s probably a lot higher now so let’s, let’s ballpark it, maybe around 60 percent, 60 % of all abortions are chemical abortions the chemical abortions, we take Nifeprex and Nyssoprostol and you take them in combinations of pill protocol, you take one Nyssoprex basically starve the baby, it it, it interferes with its glucose and its uptake of nutrition. So the baby dies, and then the second drug you take a couple days later and it gives you powerful uterine cramps and you expel the dead baby. However, if you don’t know what how far along you are in a term, it only works well safely i did not even i’m going to say it that way because every somebody dies in every one of these but up to 12 weeks women if they. And now because Biden has lifted the restriction that you have to at least go in person to have at least an exam to kind of date your pregnancy using ultrasound say yeah yeah you’re 12 weeks you’re you’re OK we can give you the these drugs right. What if you’re 15 weeks and a lot of women don’t know, especially if they’re younger?

Jacob Barr :

Babies revive babies.

Susan Arnall :

Revive right and then is born alive at maybe well there was a case I think it was the Daily Mail UK I I it was a British newspaper and I don’t have it off the top of my head but just within a week or so. Maybe he’s born at 30 weeks as a basically a failed abortion from this, you know, from the the abortion drug, from the chemical abortion. So is this going to be used is AB 2223 going to cover up abortion is that because i’ll tell you what chemical abortion that would be due to a pregnancy related ’cause, right. So now you deliver the baby at the.

Jacob Barr :

End I don’t know 22.

Susan Arnall :

Weeks. But that I was really wanting to take have an abortion and I can do a self induced abortion that’s what AB 2223 make sure I can do a self induced abortion. That doesn’t mean coat hangers anymore y’all. What it means is these chemical pills. So I can take an abortion pill at eighteen twenty two twenty five weeks, and if the baby is born alive, well, I can leave it, die I I can neglect it, whatever and it’s a perinatal death due to pregnancy related ’cause that’s what I think that that that bill is that that.

Jacob Barr :

I think, I think, yeah, that makes a lot of sense as a very evil bill and one of the the newer, well, the one of the trends outside of the US and possibly in the US is people taking the second pill to expel the baby while not taking the first pill to starve the baby. And and so that means that people are having premature births in bathrooms alone regularly. And this bill essentially is aimed at making it so it’s not illegal to end the baby’s life after it’s been born prematurely in a bathroom.

Susan Arnall :

Correct. And The thing is this. This bill, AB 2223 directly conflicts with existing California State law. It’s been on the book since 1995 it’s called the Born Alive Protection Act. And that says that any baby born in the course of an abortion, A botched abortion, who survives, right? Who survives the abortion has all of the rights as a baby that was born in the natural course that was a wanted child so that immediately if if this baby is born prematurely but has survived, it should be given all of the care necessary any any, you know, food and warmth and, you know, help breathing everything that needs to to save its life. That’s the California Born Alive Protection Act well, AB 2223 blows that out of the water. How does that reconcile? How do you reconcile one law from 1995 and a new one that says, Oh no, I can take an abortion pill or just one of them and I can deliver this baby at 30 weeks into a toilet and I can let it die. And that’s my choice, my privacy choice as my pregnancy outcome. The birth is a perinatal death due to pregnancy related cause like premature birth. I guess that would be it, right? Due to premature birth due to taking an abortion pill that would be pregnancy related ’cause. So that’s good enough and that means no one can can investigate me, no one can prosecute me, and I have up to a month to kill that baby. That’s how sick this is. That’s how sick this is. But again, the media just want to hear the talking points from the pro abortion side from the The bill’s author, Buffy Wicks, and doesn’t really want to hear this kind of analysis. So now you know more than 99 % of the other people who haven’t.

Jacob Barr :

Read this yeah well, I’m looking forward to sharing this with people that can hear this and, you know, consider what’s going on in order to, yeah, pray and ask people to vote there in California and to be prepared for what might be coming to other states down the road they’re all.

Susan Arnall :

Going to pass. They’re all going to pass. And the the here’s the other thing about eighty twenty two twenty three. It’s going to pass perinatal death due to pregnancy related ’cause it’ll either be stripped out beforehand or a judge will or people are going to, you know, bring lawsuits and say this this conflicts with federal laws you know, civil rights laws strip it out it’ll eventually be pulled out. But in the meantime while we’re all talking about, you know, Buffy Wicks infanticide Bill, what else is coming through the the, the fire hose of all these other bills that are being ignored? Like 1245 the pilot program, maybe 1245 sending money down tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to build an abortion hub in Los Angeles. 1142 to fund a website that creates an abortion tourism website and and flies women in and will pay for them to have their abortion vacay and even bring their kids along. All these bills are going through and there’s a host more there’s jeez, all the list is at prolifeadvocates.org but it just they.

Jacob Barr :

It’s it’s almost like they’re putting that one out that’s really.

Susan Arnall :

Yes, this is, well, politics.

Jacob Barr :

So that you don’t, you don’t any.

Susan Arnall :

Object look at this. It’s it’s infanticide woo. Pay attention to this meanwhile, I’m getting all 15 other bills right on through without any no the.

Jacob Barr :

Other ones are based on funding, so they’re getting money while they’re distracting us with infanticide.

Susan Arnall :

That’s exactly what’s happened. And no one else is opposing these Bills i mean, the Right to Life league has been opposing all of these we’re the only pro-life exclusively pro-life group that’s actually speaking up against these bills. So we’d love it if people would actually start yeah, pick pick a bill on the bad bill side at prolifeadvocates.org pick one. Start start writing to your, you know, representative start calling we’ve got on that that little bitty website we also have a page that explains well how to get involved right so it walks you through. But what do you need to do in California to send a letter to your, you know, your assemblyman or your your assembly person sorry anyway, but to to to advocate against these things. What can you do? You can actually call up the the assembly members offices in the senators offices and say I oppose this. Have you written a letter i mean there’s lots to do and of course we’ve got an election coming up and that’s where we all have to vote our conscience which is pro-life i mean that i mean that you you can still, we can turn all of this around in November and we can turn the whole thing around and say, well, I’m only going to be supporting pro-life candidates the end. So go find out which ones aren’t and just, you know, vote them out of office that that is ultimately the solution because again, our power resides with we the people and these, these legislators are our employees. We have to tell them what we want. And right now, Planned Parenthood is doing a very fine job and funding them. We have to turn that around that’s on us and if we’re not, if you’re not in the game, if you’re not fighting, if you’re not saying something, well then you’re just sitting and you’re allowing it to happen. That’s sad, but that’s the truth.

Jacob Barr :

What if we spend about a minute for each one of these bills in our final like 15 minutes of the podcast and we can just sort of get people like an A one minute overview which one would you like to go over next?

Susan Arnall :

Well, I’ll just start from the top. Ab 1666 I like to call it 1-6-6-6 because of the number, right?

Jacob Barr :

That’s a really weird number is that normally used is that?

Susan Arnall :

Like, I don’t know it’s just the number that they designated it. It’s called Count It i’ve i’ve described it as countering the Texas heartbeat law. And if it’s passed, California is going to not recognize and it’s going to refuse to enforce other state civil judgments like Texas against those who are convicted of participating in an abortion right. So you were just saying, what if you’re doing an illegal abortion in Texas, Right. Ok, so Texas says you can’t do this abortion well, this these abortionists or anybody helping them, they can flee to California maybe they’ve got, you know they’ve got a vacation spot or something. The Texas heartbeat bill gives a private cause of action to someone to to report and sue the the abortionist or the assistance, right. And maybe can can then satisfy the judgment with that property well what if the what if the guy in Texas has got a property in California. Normally the way that it works is if you’ve got a valid judgment in one of the states because we do recognize it’s the full faith and credit if that’s part of the Constitution. Article 4. Full faith and credit is OK if you’ve got a judgment, a court judgment in one state, it’s good anywhere. It’s kind of like, you know, marriage, right if I’m married in one state, whether I’m married to a boy or a girl, right it’s a marriage certificate and you can’t tell me, Oh no, we only recognize boy, girl marriages, right i got AI got a document that says I’m married, right. Same thing applies. So that bill is going to say no, no, we are not going to recognize the judgment for money damages in Texas, out here in California. So we’re not going to enforce it. You can’t go get his yacht, the Abortionist’s Yacht in Long Beach Harbor. See what I mean? It actually violates the the Constitution.

Jacob Barr :

They’ll allow someone to harbor or protect their assets in California from the shield of Texas.

Susan Arnall :

Absolutely it will shield abortionists who you know or have you know assets in Texas you’re not going to be able to bring judgment from any of these other States and enforce it in California they won’t recognize it. All right, maybe 1918 is an abortion scholarship program, and it’s going to be a massive taxpayer funded scholarship program to make sure we train students who will perform abortions and we’re going to pay for all related education costs, loan forgiveness, the works. But if you want to be pro-life and not perform abortions, you’re not eligible. The end We’re only going to fund education for people who will agree to perform abortions AB nineteen See again it’s it’s a money grab. We’re gonna we. Because what they These are all big.

Jacob Barr :

Money grabs so far.

Susan Arnall :

Yes, and they, but they desperately they’re trying desperately to expand the number of abortionists, if you will another bill that’s a little farther down actually strips the duties of it it enhances the ability of like physician assistants things to perform abortions when we didn’t do that before so they’re trying to build an army of of people who can perform abortions even without doctor supervision they want to get rid of that anyway and this is one of the ways just well, we’ll pay for you to go to school and learn how to cut up babies. Ab 1940 is school based health centers. This this does something interesting now we’re calling it a bad bill because existing California law already says you have to teach about reproductive healthcare, meaning abortions. If they just stripped that part of the bill out, maybe it would be good because what it does is it expands a school based Health Center so that it improves student access to health in grades K through 12. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because some of the kids in in poorer rural areas don’t get a lot of good healthcare maybe they need that maybe they need a nurse. But because the law includes Reproductive Healthcare Services, which is code for chemical and surgical abortions, we oppose that. We’d like them to script that language out. Ok, AB 2091 Now this is a kind of a sister bill to sixteen sixty six one six six six just like we’re going to ignore the Texas judgments. Well, with AB twenty ninety ninety one, we are going to ignore other state subpoenas which are valid, valid court, you know, documents that say produce the documents or bring that person, right. Well, they’re going to say, no, we’re not going to do that we don’t have to obey a subpoena because what and this one effectively will produce protect sexual abusers or abortionists who are fleeing prosecution in other states because normally the subpoena, you say, oh, Nope, you got to come back here we’ve got a lawsuit here in Texas. We’re going to bring you back. Well, California is saying we are not going to recognize the validity of a subpoena from another state. The end, it’s like well, and again it’s against the, it’s against the Constitution, but that’s this is the Civil War.

Jacob Barr :

So that’s making California the a safe, you know, a safe place for abortionists to.

Susan Arnall :

Flee sexual traffickers. I mean sexual traffickers, right who? Who force a girl to get an abortion or something, right and then then if she’s got a cause of action against them in another state, well, she can’t go get them. So it really does foster kind of abuse of of children, young women it really does. Ab 2134 is a no cost abortion services it provides grants to abortion providers and it forces private insurers health insurance to advocate for pro abortion coverage. It’s a it’s an end run around what was SB seven forty? Two OK, you’re a religious employer you’re like a church, right and you say, look, we, we pay for healthcare coverage for our members, but we don’t pay for abortion in our healthcare, right? Ok, So what this bill says, OK, that’s fine. Hey, insurance company, you have to inform the employees of this private religious organization about their options to get abortion coverage. It’s forced speech. It’s forced professional speech. The case NIFLA versus Becerra actually struck this down. So this is another unconstitutional thing, but they’re going to do it anyway that’s.

Jacob Barr :

What it sounded like. Yeah, it sounded just like that case.

Susan Arnall :

Yes, it’s very similar.

Jacob Barr :

Similar when it comes to compelled speech.

Susan Arnall :

Right it compels professional speech by these third party insurers, doesn’t compel the employer the church itself, just the insurance company that targets them. That’s but I that’s again, it’s unconstitutional. We’ve already talked about AB 2223 which is the legalizing of infanticide. Ab twenty three twenty subsidizes abortion clinics it, it creates A taxpayer subsidy for abortion clinics and selected rural and urban counties to improve access to abortion. Because we don’t have enough abortion access in California, right? So now these special subsidies and tax dollars are not available to pro-life clinics because if they’re choosing not to provide abortions, they’re not eligible only clinics who will provide abortions get the money. This is a way of attacking pro-life clinics. It’s a way of making sure we’re going to fund Planned Parenthood clinics over pro-life clinics, right? That’s what this is.

Jacob Barr :

You know, what’s interesting is that pro-life Pregnancy clinics will offer will offer abortion healing they’ll offer advice for, you know, for someone seeking an abortion, they’ll offer.

Susan Arnall :

And and ultrasounds, you bring the ultrasounds to date the pregnancy so, you know all of these things.

Jacob Barr :

You offer a lot of things, you know, beyond the surgical or chemical abortion that that help women recover, you know, recover their life and recover health and recover their mental state or spiritual state and. Yeah but essentially, yeah, yeah sometimes I just feel like whenever I see that phrase, you know, provides abortions, it’s it’s so misleading because principle clinics provide a lot regarding abortions while not actually providing surgical or chemical abortions they provide so much help and healing and advice and warnings surrounding that topic. Anyway, let Yeah, let’s keep going.

Susan Arnall :

We’ll love the next ones. Well, that one twenty three thirty basically subsidizes the abortion clinics and and cuts out the pro-life clinics, right? Ab twenty five eighty, six this one, you’re going to love this one. I’m being sarcastic. This is the abortion disparity of bill It, it calls these pro-life clinics and centers fake clinics it literally says that in the bill, it, it funds the abortion clinics and targets pro-life clinics as fake. It targets them for elimination and labels them as fake clinics and sets up a committee. So like this, you know, a star chamber, right and we’re going to examine their, their design to eliminate these fake clinics. That’s how biased this thing is. That’s that and that’s 2586 they’re going, here’s the the fact of the matter is there are more pro-life centers and clinics in California then there are abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood knows that, right they need, they need to boost their numbers they need more abortion clinics. So what they’re going to do is they’re now going to weaponize the legislature to go AT and attack the quote, unquote fake clinics because they choose not to, to provide abortion. Now, let’s make no mistake, they are fully licensed medical clinics they comply with all of the laws in California that are necessary to provide ultrasound, STD, whatever it is that they provide, they are in full compliance. They’re not fake clinics at all they are licensed medical clinics. It is the legislature now who are calling them fake clinics because they choose their choice not to provide abortion. Something about freedom of choice, I don’t know. Anyway, that’s what that bill is 2586 is fake clinics bill. Ab 2626 is physician discipline. This prohibits the California Medical Board from revoking the certificate of a physician and the surgeon solely for performing an abortion, so long as they perform the abortion in accordance with provisions of this chapter, meaning, OK, it wasn’t malpractice. But what this does is it goes after abortionists in Texas and stuff so what if if an abortionist in Texas, you know, is is basically get gets revoked by Texas, by the medical board of Texas you can’t perform abortions here, right so your license has been stripped. They can come to California, and California says that’s OK if you’ve just been stripped because you. Performed abortion not because it was malpractice, but just because you were performing abortions. That’s OK. Come here. We will prohibit the Medical Board from revoking your your physicians.

Jacob Barr :

So currently if someone in Texas provides an abortion, it’s and it’s illegal they and they lose their medical license they they currently can’t go to California or somewhere else to I’m not.

Susan Arnall :

Sure but we’ve got this bill here that’s saying hey, don’t worry, come here and if you just, you know we will we will not revoke your certificate. You know you know your license if you perform abortions, we won’t california, if you just if you’re a doctor that performs abortions, we won’t revoke your your license so long as it’s not for malpractice, right. You know, botched abortions that’s OK.

Jacob Barr :

But the the consequence is definitely changes from you have to you have to move across the state line in order to have your life back based on illegal activity in the previous state. And so it’s sort of removed that criminality of breaking the law in the other state.

Susan Arnall :

It just wants to make sure that physicians won’t lose their license in California for performing abortions. Just saying now AB 2698 this defines unauthorized abortions it makes a very technical non substantive change to the wording of existing law and it defines what constitutes an unauthorized abortion. It just it it’s this little minute, it’s a small thing it just adds the word be the existing law. So this is not worth our time to to you know go and call on because it’s just it already is existing law it’s just going to clean it up a little bit it’s kind of like, you know, we’re adding a couple of words, but but it’s a bad bill it’s just like, OK, what Why do we have this but that’s.

Jacob Barr :

But it’s cleaning up a bad It sounds like it’s cleaning up a law we disagree with, yeah?

Susan Arnall :

Exactly. The law is already existing now SP 1131 This is the one that it gives confidentiality for abortionists. It’s going to shield election workers and abortionists and anybody who gets an abortion and anybody who works for people who get abortions, right, anything like that. We want to shield their contact information, including their home address and any of their contact information because we want to protect them from harassment. So it creates this special class of people that get to go into the safe home program and all you have to do is allege that at some point within the last year the facility was, I think it was being harassed so you just have to allege it’s it’s a nominal showing And then anybody who works there, anybody who is a customer there, can then say I am now confidential and masks your ability to find their information. It they started with election workers and then they threw in all the abortion workers i guess they’re afraid that people might, you know, go outside of the clinic and say, hey, you shouldn’t be working there, right? It’s it’s like the I had a bill last session, which is still being litigated about you’re not allowed to take pictures outside of an abortion facility because you can’t dox people, which is is rude. But this is going after that, it’s providing additional confidentiality for abortionists.

Jacob Barr :

It’s interesting that it says shield contact information, including home address, of both election workers and reproductive healthcare workers they’re grouping people who work at an abortion clinic with those who work at an election polling place.

Susan Arnall :

I think they’re seeing how upset people were with the 2020 election and they don’t want people getting, you know, nobody getting in their face by saying, hey, what are you doing with the election what where are you turning in these ballots? I don’t know, but they’re they are. They believe that this is they have to protect these critical workers from harassment.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, OK.

Susan Arnall :

That’s what they have to do anyway.

Jacob Barr :

Yeah, let’s keep going.

Susan Arnall :

Sp eleven forty two, that’s the abortion vacay, the abortion tourism where they’re going to make this big huge state website and they’re going to fly like 1 4 million women into California using your taxpayer dollars to give them an abortion, vacay, wages, insurance, child care, the whole works that that is that’s the huge one that’s the big gorilla in the room if you ask me because if they get that done then it’s just a one stop shop. Sb twelve forty five i mentioned at the top of the show which is this is the safe haven this, this funds the pilot program in Los Angeles to to expand abortion services in Los Angeles County because we don’t have enough abortion services here in Los Angeles County. It will create Los Angeles as a hub for the for abortion tourism because we’ve got three different airports. It’s kind of a it it facilitates SB eleven forty, two right? And it directs money right to Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County, where we are the right to life is Ground Zero. That’s where they’re going to dump all the money. All right. Sb thirteen seventy five eliminates abortion safety standards this really, this eliminates the standardized procedures for nurses to follow, and it also eliminates physician oversight of nurse practitioners who are performing abortions it permits the assignment of fetal viability by nurse practitioners. It used to be by doctors right and certified nurse midwives and physician assistants instead of doctors it kind of strips out the the doctor’s supervision and it also gets rid of standardized procedures. This really will revolutionize how nurse practitioners and physician assistants are able to perform to date pregnancies by doing an ultrasound and and they they determine if it’s viable or not and what and that they they can perform abortions without direct doctor oversight. Because again we have to expand the the army of abortionists so that we can continue to compete with the pro-life clinics and that we can expand you know the abortion sanctuary state and give anybody an abortion who wants it, right. That’s what that does. And then finally, SB fourteen hundred, because creates a private cause of action for doxing abortion workers. It’s a special cause of action for anyone who publicly against anyone who would post identifying information or photos of abortion service patients provider’s resistance it kind of builds upon seven forty two which is in currently in litigation because they they’re trying to protect abortion workers from being harassed online right. Because we don’t, we we they get a special they get a special car back look, doxing online is never appropriate it’s just it’s kind of mean. But we’re going to instead of protecting all healthcare workers, right like pro-life and and the whole gamut, right, saying look it’s not fair to you know take pictures of your doctor and put it online and say he’s a bad doctor or you can’t, can’t do that no, no we’re just going to protect the abortion workers, right, Because we want to protect them anyway. So there’s a.

Jacob Barr :

Lot of bills.

Susan Arnall :

That’s a lot of bills. We have good bills as well and they’re you can watch, you can see them at prolifeadvocates.org A lot of them probably won’t make it through because, I mean there’s one that’s birthing justice that would pay for, you know, the cost to for low income families to provide healthcare and that’s necessary to choose childbirth well, that’s a lot more expensive than abortion because you can get an abortion pill or a surgical abortion for super cheap. But there is a bill, it’s called AB twenty one ninety nine AB twenty one ninety nine that would actually create a pilot program for low income families to help them choose birth say, look, we’ll we’ll pay for these costs of childbirth. You don’t have to choose abortion. And that’s one of the main reasons I think 73 or 74 % of women surveyed by Guttmacher that gave as their one of their reasons why they were choosing abortion is because they didn’t feel like they had another choice and they couldn’t afford it. So I mean this, this would AB 2199 would help them afford to choose life. So that’s a good bill anyway.

Jacob Barr :

Well, well Susan, I really appreciate your time and I appreciate you sharing your your intellect and and insight on all these bills and and I’m looking forward to being able to share this with executive Director so they can be aware of this huge just, you know quantity of pro abortion bills that well as you said are probably going to be passed fire hose, a fire hose a fire.

Susan Arnall :

Hose they’re just and they’re getting them. They’re ramming them through every week, every week tomorrow there’s going to be at least seven bills I’ll be testifying against every week they’re doing many, many, many bills up in Sacramento every week just round through the committee and it’s a party line vote so that nine pass or eleven eleven to three, nine to two and they just, they’re all walking right through there and they’re not being amended to anything and those are your elected officials that’s been doing this.

Jacob Barr :

Well, I appreciate your time thank you so much for sharing these things. And yeah, I’m just thankful for you to be there in Southern California working to be a voice for life and and to be the well, in some cases the only voice going against.

Susan Arnall :

Some of these things right here, Los Angeles County that’s it. Pro-life tip of the spear. We got plenty to do.