It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senator Pan Introduces SB-18 Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

An act relating to children and youth.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 18, as introduced, Pan. Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California.
Existing law provides for the care and welfare of children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, child welfare services, foster care, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, and education.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 80 (Res. Ch. 101, Stats. 2009) declares the Legislature’s support of a Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California that resolves to invest in all children and youth in order to achieve specified goals to create an optimal environment for their healthy development.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to expand and codify the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature, by January 1, 2022, to enact legislation for the purpose of ensuring that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.
...

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...

This bill comes from the same senator who tried to make vaccines for children mandatory without the consent of parents. Now, he is going even further trying to "expand" an old bill which has been helping child welfare services, foster care, their health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, and education. But now, by the introduction of this new bill by senator Pan, and if it passes, the state will be in charge of all children and minors in the state of California, even if these children and minors have parents or legal guardians who are taking good care of them.

This bill won't deal just with vaccinations, but anything, and everything else the state deems as being harmful to the child. Under this bill the parents, or legal guardians would have no say, and it would be the state the one to decide what form of education, or healthcare, and what nutrition the children/minors in California can have.

In essence if this bill passes it could be used to dissolve homeschooling, it could void any decisions by the parents even if it is backed by their own doctor.

Did I wake up in Cuba again?... Seriously this is insane. This gives unprecedented power to the state over all children, and the parents can't do anything about it.


edit on 13-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
It's good to see this getting more attention.


I did two threads on the topic. The second link follows the money.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


In the proposed bill, there is a group that is referred to as the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council, hidden under the guise of “Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 80.”


The Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council (PPLC) is composed of the San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools, the County Board of Supervisors and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

THE SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION


It’s a non-profit that has assets of $7.3 BILLION. It runs 1800 philanthropic funds. Here are some of its corporate partners:

Alexza Pharmaceuticals. Microsoft. Pepsico Foundation. Cisco. Hewlett Packard. Dell. Symantec. Unilever. Plus something called the SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, “building and scaling social inventions.”

They [California] are moving away from traditional parenting, replacing the old trial and error, always having your child's best interests at heart, to "research-based policy solutions" that will ensure equitable and appropriate care.

Thanks, but no thanks. I want my tax dollars back.


edit on 13-1-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
From your link:


(1) The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest.
(2) The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being.
(3) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
(4) The right to social and emotional well-being.
(5) The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.
(6) The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood.
(7) The right to appropriate, quality health care.


So you're saying you DON"T think children deserve these rights. Gotcha.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

tried to make vaccines for children mandatory without the consent of parents.
False. And you know that SB-277 passed, right?



But now, by the introduction of this new bill by senator Pan, and if it passes, the state will be in charge of all children and minors in the state of California, even if these children and minors have parents or legal guardians who are taking good care of them.
No it won't.

And, in case anyone is interested, here is the original Resolution.

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate
thereof concurring, That the Legislature supports a Bill of Rights
for the Children and Youth of California that resolves to invest in
all children and youth so that the following goals may be achieved:
(1) They have healthy minds, bodies, and spirits that enable
them to maximize their potential.
(2) They each develop a healthy attachment to a parent,
guardian, or caregiver, and an ongoing relationship with a caring
and supportive adult.
(3) Their essential needs are met, including, but not limited to,
nutritious food, shelter, clothing, health care, and accessible
transportation.
(4) They have safe and healthy environments, including, but
not limited to, homes, schools, neighborhoods, and communities.
(5) They have access to a 21st century education that promotes
success in life, in future careers, and a love of lifelong learning.
(6) They have training in life skills that will prepare them to
live independently, be self-sufficient, and contribute to their
community.
(7) They have employment opportunities with protections from
unfair labor practices.
(8) They have freedom from mistreatment, abuse, and neglect.
(9) They have a voice in matters that affect them.
(10) They have a sense of hope for their future; and be it further
Resolved,
That the Legislature desires that every child and youth
in this state should have the opportunities set forth in the Bill of
Rights for the Children and Youth of California; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

leginfo.public.ca.gov...

edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
From your link:


(1) The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest.
(2) The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being.
(3) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
(4) The right to social and emotional well-being.
(5) The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.
(6) The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood.
(7) The right to appropriate, quality health care.


So you're saying you DON"T think children deserve these rights. Gotcha.


Riiight, so you completely ignore the part that says that what this bill does is to expand an old bill which dealt with children in foster care, children who are homeless etc, and gives that same power over all children in the state of California...

All those "rights" you mention there, would be as defined by the state. Maybe a child, or minor doesn't want to accept his/her parents, there are children that don't like their parents or don't do as they are told and have temper tantrums, and those children may have a bond with a "state worker" or some other adult. So this gives a right for that other adult over the parents...

If one of the parents agrees with the claims made by the state as what the child needs, it would void the opinion of the other parent... Etc, etc...

So, you do want for the state to dictate everything for children and minors even if they do have good parents... Gotcha...


edit on 13-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

So, you do want for the state to dictate everything for children and adults even if they do have good parents... Gotcha...



I want kids who are being fed nothing but cheetos by their bad parents to have some kind of recourse.

I want kids who are in neighborhoods where the public schools are atrocious to have some kind of recourse.

I want kids who have drug addicts for parents to have some kind of recourse.

Are you telling me there is no such thing as bad parents? Where else can kids go who have bad parents, if not the state?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
False. And you know that SB-277 passed, right?


lol, false?...

That bill "sb-277" made it so the parents couldn't object to vaccinations except for medical reasons. But you are claiming Chen didn't introduce that other bill which abolished religious, or personal exemptions made by parents?... That's fresh.


originally posted by: Phage
No it won't.

And, in case anyone is interested, here is the original Resolution.


Yes it will, and again "as defined by the state of California" and as pointed out by eisegesis by corporate and big pharma companies...



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

There are already laws that cover everything you mention. But hey, I guess you believe that "Alexza Pharmaceuticals. Microsoft. Pepsico Foundation. Cisco. Hewlett Packard. Dell. Symantec. Unilever. Plus something called the SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, “building and scaling social inventions” and "the state" of course know better what's for "the good of children."



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: kaylaluv

There are already laws that cover everything you mention. But hey, I guess you believe that "Alexza Pharmaceuticals. Microsoft. Pepsico Foundation. Cisco. Hewlett Packard. Dell. Symantec. Unilever. Plus something called the SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, “building and scaling social inventions” and "the state" of course know better what's for "the good of children."



Fear mongering. No one is going to take the kids away from parents who are giving their kids access to healthy food, proper education, proper medical care and a safe, nurturing environment.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

Fear mongering. No one is going to take the kids away from parents who are giving their kids access to healthy food, proper education, proper medical care and a safe, nurturing environment.


Really?... So presenting facts is fear mongering?

The bill expands the power the state (and now corporations and big pharma) have over foster children, and homeless children, and gives the same power over to the state, or to any adult that would agree with the state's decisions over the parent or parents or any other adult that agrees with the decision of the state.
edit on 13-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




That bill "sb-277" made it so the parents couldn't object to vaccinations except for medical reasons
Nothing in the law says children can be vaccinated without parental consent.

edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Facts would be showing me examples of parents who are giving their kids access to healthy food, proper education, proper medical care and a safe nurturing environment, and having their kids taken away anyway.

If you get any of those examples, show them to me. Otherwise, you are fear mongering.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

How do we get those statistics before the bill gets passed?

As a Californian with a newborn, I (along with a lot of my friends of all political leaning) worry about this law for the reasons ElectricUniverse points out.

As the son of a school nurse, I have heard stories growing up of the draconian California government, and how quickly the state will remove children from loving homes. Only to return them once the unfounded accusations were played out in a court of law. With sever psychological damage (in the best case, short term) for the kids over the ordeal.

This is a bad law presented "for the sake of the children."
Anything that is presented "for the sake of the children," is about morality, not legality. It should not be up to the state to legislate individual/ family morality.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



How does California propose to pay for all this?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Nothing in the law says children can be vaccinated without parental consent.


No?... and to you what do you think it means when the parents would object for a religious, or personal reason but the state of California now overules parents decisions?... For example the use of multi-dose flu vaccines, which still contain thimerosal, and the state denying to the parents objections to the use of these vaccines because multi-dose flu vaccines are cheaper than one dose flu vaccines which don't contain thimerosal, yet "the children must be vaccinated"? Or what about those parents that are wiser and decide that instead of giving their children several vaccines at once, that instead they want to do it slowly, but since this would be regarded as a "personal objection" the state can dictate that the children can be injected with multiple vaccines at once?

Again, this new bill not only would cover vaccines, but it would cover all healthcare, education, nutrition, etc, etc. These would be rules that the state can define, and can be used to promote only "state sponsored healthcare, education, nutrition, etc."


edit on 13-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: KTemplar

How does California propose to pay for all this?



That's the least of your worries, if you are a parent, but the taxpayer of course will front the bill.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I was talking about this:

This bill comes from the same senator who tried to make vaccines for children mandatory without the consent of parents.



but the state of California now overules parents decisions?.
False.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Pretty sure the vaccination law applies only to children in public school (and some private schools).

If your child is in public school, they must be vaccinated.

There is no religious exemption (anymore) for public school.

www.ocregister.com...

edit on 13-1-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




That bill "sb-277" made it so the parents couldn't object to vaccinations except for medical reasons
Nothing in the law says children can be vaccinated without parental consent.


No, but what it DOES however is deny children an education (aside from home schooling), if parents choose not to vaccinate their children. I think that's teetering on extortion.

Many of my friends have gathered their children and left "Nannyfornia" for good and couldn't be happier.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow




No, but what it DOES however is deny children an education (aside from home schooling), if parents choose not to vaccinate their children.
Do all private schools in California require vaccination? But you're right, it is the parent's choice. Parents have to make lots of choices.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join