CA Senate Passes ‘Healthcare’ Clinics for K-12 Students, Along Party Lines

The state and school boards can actually facilitate abortions, vaccinations, and drug abuse treatment for children without parental consent

Sen. Ochoa Bough debating AB 1940. (Photo: screen capture sen.ga.gov)

California Democrats just passed a bill to fund healthcare clinics in the state’s K-12 public schools, against Republicans’ and the California Department of Finance’s objections. Included in the primary health care services are mental health services, “reproductive health services” (abortions, birth control), vaccinations, and drug abuse treatment. The clincher is that parental consent is not needed for any of these health services. In fact, according to bill analysis, “The Right to Life League said that this bill will ensure that state-funded chemical or surgical abortions can secretly and conveniently take place on school campuses, public or private, without parental involvement and without a doctor.”

The Department of Finance warned of the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the School-Based Health Center Support Program (SBHCS Program).

The Senate had an intense debate Friday over AB 1940 by Assemblyman Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) to fund healthcare clinics within California public schools.

Senate Republicans were particularly concerned about these onsite health centers that don’t require parental involvement. Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Redlands) asked Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D-Sanger) about the ages of children served, and if the health clinics would be in elementary, middle and/or high schools. 

“The decisions are being made by schools and school districts,” Sen. Hurtado said. “It will be decided at the local level what services they provide to students.”

“Last year we passed a bill prohibiting health plans from informing parents medications children as young as 12 could receive,” Sen. Ochoa Bogh said. “We are now providing these services on campuses without parents, through their health plans, knowing what is being provided to their children.”

“We are opening a can of worms. Think very deeply about what that could mean,” Sen. Ochoa Bogh said. “That means that state, our school boards, can actually facilitate medical treatment for children with absolutely no knowledge or engagement from the parents. We are basically emancipating our children with their healthcare in the state of California. As a parent and future grandparent, I am extremely concerned about where we are going.”

 According to the California Family Council, the bill passed last year that Sen. Ochoa Bogh referred to is AB 1184 by Sen. Dave Cortese (D-Silicon Valley), which requires insurance companies to hide from parents “sensitive” services including abortions, sexual assault, and mental health treatment that their children are receiving. Planned Parenthood sponsored that bill and would be one of the beneficiaries of this new bill, because they are advocating to set up health clinics within public schools.

“These on-site health care centers are to provide ‘comprehensive health care’ that is ‘age appropriate,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield). “We all know that this legislative body has passed legislation that says appropriate age healthcare is 12-year-olds, for them to be taken off campus for an abortion without their parent’s knowledge.”

“This is why thousands of parents are taking their kids out of public schools, because it is turning into a health facility without our knowledge, and it is wrong,” Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Redding) said. “[Parents] do understand one thing, that this legislature is moving in a direction to take away the control of your child and letting somebody else administer their healthcare at school.”

“I have heard a lot of comments today about what people want and honestly what I want is for politicians to keep their nose out of our business and the business of our kids,” said Sen. Melissa Melendez (R-Murrieta). “It is not the government’s role to raise our children. It is not the government’s role to decide what healthcare is best for them. Parents need to be involved. Parents need to be the ultimate decision maker regarding these health decisions for their children.”

“What if your child is thinking about ‘self-harm or suicide,’” Melendez asked her Senate colleagues. “Wouldn’t you want to know that that is going on in your child’s life so that you could partner with the healthcare professionals to help your child? Would you appreciate it if you were cut out of the loop and didn’t even know was thinking that?”

“Government employees and politicians think they know what is best for kids,” Senator Jim Nielsen (R-Chico) said. “The blood bond of having a child, of raising a child is so superior than the abstract concept ‘we know what is best.’”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Universal Health Care Bill Fails To Pass In California

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A bill that would have created the nation’s only government-funded universal health care system died in the California Assembly on Monday as Democrats could not gather enough support to bring it for a vote ahead of a legislative deadline.

The bill had to pass by midnight on Monday to have a chance at becoming law this year. Democrats needed 41 votes for that to happen, a threshold that did not seem impossible given that they control 56 of the 80 seats in the state Assembly and universal health care has long been a priority for the party.

But intense lobbying from business groups put pressure on more moderate Democrats, who face tough reelection campaigns this year in newly-redrawn districts. Plus, Democrats were missing four lawmakers from their caucus — including three of their more liberal members — who had resigned recently to take other jobs.

“Especially with four democratic vacancies in the Assembly, the votes were not there today, but we will not give up,” Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a Democrat from San Jose and the bill’s author, said in a news release.

Kalra’s decision not to bring the bill up for a vote incensed his allies in the California Nurses Association, who have been pushing for this bill for years — including campaigning heavily for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2018 election. While Kalra had authored the bill and gotten it out of two legislative committees to reach the Assembly floor, the Nurses Association said in a statement they were “outraged that Kalra chose to just give up on patients across the state.”

Progressives have dreamed about a universal health care system in the U.S. for decades. Health care is so expensive, they say, in part because the nation’s health care system is paid for by multiple parties, including patients, insurance companies, employers and the government. Instead, they say the U.S. health care system should have a single payer — the government — that would keep prices under control and make health care available to all.

But while other nations have adopted such systems, it’s been impossible to establish in the United States. Vermont enacted the nation’s first such system in 2011, but later abandoned it because it would have cost too much.

In California, voters overwhelmingly rejected a universal health care system in a 1994 ballot initiative. Former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed similar legislation in the 2000s. And a 2017 proposal stalled in the state Assembly.

The biggest hurdle is cost. A study of a 2017 proposal for universal health care in California estimated it would cost $331 billion, which is about $356 billion today when adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, California is expected to account for about $517 billion in health care spending this year, with the largest chunk coming from employers and households, according to an analysis by a commission established by Gov. Gavin Newsom to study universal health care.

For comparison, California’s entire state operating budget — which pays for things like schools, courts, roads and bridges and other important services — is about $262 billion this year.

To pay for the plan, Democrats had introduced a separate bill that would impose hefty new income taxes on businesses and individuals, which fueled much of the opposition to the plan.

“Today’s vote in the Assembly was a vote to protect their constituents from higher taxes and chaos in our health care system,” said Ned Wigglesworth, spokesperson for Protect California Health Care, a coalition of health care providers opposed to the bill.

Supporters say consumers are already paying exorbitant amounts for health care, saying a single-payer system would save money by eliminating deductibles, copays and expensive monthly insurance premiums.

Click here to read the full article at AP News

State Democrats Again Try for Universal Healthcare

Calling the Democrats’ new universal healthcare legislation “bold” is an understatement. It would be a life-changer for practically every Californian.

It also would require by far the largest state tax increase in history.

Some powerful opponents will call it “socialist.” But aren’t Social Security and Medicare socialist? And they’re among the most popular government programs in America.

Some supporters are hailing it as a California version of federal “Medicare for all.” But reallyit’s Medicare for nobody. Californians on Medicare would be shifted into the new state-run “CalCare.”

No more Medicare in the nation’s most populous state. Nor Medi-Cal, the California version of Medicaid insurance for poor people. And private healthcare insurance would essentially be out of business. Everyone would be transferred into CalCare.

As advertised by CalCare proponents, most Californians would be better off under the new state plan: “No premiums, copays or deductibles … or other out-of-pocket costs.”

But more benefits: “Including all primary and preventative care, hospital and outpatient services, prescription drugs, dental, vision, audiology [hearing aids], reproductive health services, maternity and newborn care, long-term services and … mental health and substance abuse treatment, laboratory and diagnostic services, ambulatory services and more.

“Patients will have freedom to choose doctors, hospitals and other providers … without worrying about whether a provider is ‘in-network.’ ”

Sounds like a late-night TV commercial for wonder pills.

The assumption is that Sacramento can manage such a massive endeavor. There’s plenty of reason to be skeptical.

“I look forward to hearing Democrats explain how they plan to successfully take over more than 10% of the state’s economy when in the last decade they’ve proven themselves incapable of simple things like building a railroad, providing clean drinking water, keeping the lights on and filling potholes,” says Assembly Republican Leader Marie Waldron of Valley Center in San Diego County.

Even a major Democratic supporter, Assembly Health Committee Chairman Jim Wood of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County, has similar concerns.

“When you look at California, especially with COVID, clearly you see things that are not working very well,” Wood told me.

“I’ve always been supportive of healthcare for everyone,” the dentist added. “But I have serious and legitimate concerns about how an entity like this would be governed. I just worry whether we have the capacity to manage this.”

Wood cited as a glaring example of mismanagement the state Employment Development Department, which dished out several billion dollars in fraudulent unemployment benefits early during the pandemic, including to people in prison.

But state government is a mixed bag, Wood continued. He praised Covered California, which operates an expanded version of the federal Affordable Care Act, as “a model for the country.”

He also called federal Medicare “a well-run system.”

“Doctors and hospitals don’t like Medicare because the rates are lower,” Wood said. “But recipients on Medicare like it.”

And California would be leaving it.

Wood is ready to chuck current private insurance.

Click here to read the full article at the LA Times