CFC Email Subscription Page  >  Governor Signs Homosexual Bills over Vocal Objections  >  Volunteer  >  Dateline Sacramento (1/7/2009)  >  Dateline Sacramento (2/04/2010)

Dateline Sacramento (2/04/2010)

Dateline Sacramento
News with a View from the California Capitol
February 4, 2010
Father – and Mother – Know Best
A 2007 Zogby survey found that 90 percent of parents agreed that abstinence is best for their child’s health and future. Most wanted their children taught a message of waiting until marriage to have sex, and over half of them believed that promoting and demonstrating condom usage encourages early sexual activity. Parents know the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) – and the tragic impact that may have on their children now and in the future.
In a climate of heated ideological debates, with rising pregnancy and STD rates among teens, a new, government-financed study determined that a targeted, abstinence-only class had a significant and long-lasting impact on teen sexual activity. 
The study, recently published in the American Medical Association’s Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, followed a group of 662 African American adolescents in an urban area over a period of two years. Each student was randomly assigned to one of four groups – an abstinence-only sex-education class; a session that focused on “safe,” condom-based sex education; a comprehensive sex education class that looked at both abstinence and risk-avoiding “safe sex;” and a control group focused on healthy-living habits unrelated to sex education. Each of the sessions lasted between 8 and 12 hours.
Two years later, students in the abstinence-only group showed a reduction of sexual activity by a third; those in that group who were sexually active were no less likely to use contraception. On the other hand, those in the safe-sex groups showed little reduction in sexual activity and were not more likely to use a condom, a key emphasis in safe-sex programs. These statistics directly contradict the claims opponents have long leveled against abstinence, and instead make clear the ineffectiveness of “safe-sex” education.
The study specifically focused on African American adolescents due to evidence of that demography group being particularly susceptible to the risks of unintended pregnancy and STDs. In 2005, only 17 percent of adolescents in the United States were African Americans, but 69 percent of all adolescents with HIV were African American. STD rates are highest in the African American population, and are predominant among females, and pregnancy rates have been higher among them than with their Hispanic and other white counterparts.
As noted in last week’s Dateline Sacramento, the facts regarding abstinence education’s positive impact in reducing teen pregnancy and disease is mired in politics and money, with its detractors claiming the lion’s share of the money to promote comprehensive sex education.  Arguing from a position of ideology, opponents of abstinence education have raked in four times more money for teen pregnancy-planning services and comprehensive sex education than abstinence programs receive. In FY 2008, the United States Department of Health and Human Services spent $609.3 million on pregnancy- and STD-prevention programs, and family-planning services for teens, compared to the $176.5 million spent on abstinence programs. 
Eliminating federal funding for abstinence, the Obama administration has provided $114 million for a teen-pregnancy prevention initiative to fund programs scientifically proven to be effective. Perhaps the results of this latest study will help more abstinence programs acquire government funding. After all, parents prefer to fund abstinence education over comprehensive sex education by a margin of 3 to 1.
The Federal Trial Against the People of California and Proposition 8 – We’ve Only Just Begun
After months of preparation and two and a half weeks of live testimony in a San Francisco federal courthouse in front of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, lawyers on both sides of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic battle over the definition of marriage, are just warming up.
The lead attorneys defending the will of the people and Article 1, Section 7.5 of California’s Constitution, have stood up to intense pressure and defended the people, the constitution, and Prop 8 under extremely difficult circumstances.“Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us,” stated Ron Prentice, Executive Director of ProtectMarriage.com and CEO of California Family Council.
“For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony were broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast.”
Days later, the US Supreme Court overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case. But it was too late.
The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on the defense team. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, defense attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the plaintiffs’ witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy.
At the conclusion of the live testimony, ProtectMarriage.com’s general counsel Andy Pugno wrote, “Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.
“What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.”
“The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.”
Judge Walker is now reviewing the evidence and testimony and will render his decision after closing arguments, which are yet to be scheduled. Once his decision is handed down, the losing side will most likely appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most experts agree that the case will inevitably end up at the US Supreme Court, a process which may take up to two more years.
California Family Council will keep you informed as this trial weaves its way through the federal courts. We will be there every step of the way. The trial has only just begun.
2010 Legislative Year Comes into Focus
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger returned from Washington, DC with an expectation that the federal government would provide approximately $7 billion to reduce California’s projected $21 billion deficit. However, last week President Barack Obama released his proposed federal budget which allocated approximately $1.5 billion in federal aid to help California. This shortfall makes finding a state budget resolution this year much more difficult.
In response to the President’s budget, Governor Schwarzenegger immediately sent a letter to California’s congressional delegation requesting their assistance in securing more federal funds. The letter outlines the areas where the governor believes the congressional delegation should direct their efforts, addressing the federal underpayment for federally required programs. 
Last year, California was forced to close a $60 billion deficit by raising taxes, borrowing, spending reductions and implementing other budgetary tricks. However, finding the Legislature’s support with the necessary votes for any of those options will be challenging. 
The potential political fallout from Senator Abel Maldonado’s Lt. Governor confirmation hearing may leave the Democrat-controlled Legislature without their most reliable Republican vote for any Democrat budget. If Senator Maldonado is confirmed, he leaves the Senate and takes his potential vote with him. If the Legislature fails to confirm him, they potentially lose his support for the budget and other Democrat-sponsored items that require Republican votes.
Regardless of Maldonado’s confirmation fate or Governor Schwarzenegger’s pleas for federal funds, California’s 2010-11 budget will once again be held up in a budget stalemate. Governor Schwarzenegger and Republicans have expressed their commitment to reduce state spending, while Democrats have stated their resistance to significant program deductions. Finding a resolution to these competing goals will lead to a prolonged budget debate.
In spite of the current $21 billion deficit, the Legislature has spent the beginning of 2010 on approving and introducing legislation. One measure approved last week was Senate Bill 810 (Leno), which would create a $200 million government-run health care program for California. The measure was approved on a party-line vote with Republicans opposing. 
The passage of SB 810 further illustrates the disconnection between many of California’s elected representatives and the citizens of the state. As California’s unemployment rate has surpassed 12% and revenues have decreased annually, legislators continue to push special interest agendas over the needs of all Californians.
Senate Bill 906, authored by Senator Mark Leno, further illustrates the widening disparity between the elected’s special interests, and the voters. SB 906 begins the incremental process of dismantling the definition of marriage in California law. Under the guise of religious freedom, SB 906 changes current “marriage” references to “civil marriage.” The change intentionally creates a new class of marriage into California law, opening the door to other marriage alternatives by future Legislatures and the courts.
Legislators and citizens will have an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding these measures as they move through the legislative process. While SB 906 will not be heard in committee before March, SB 810 could be heard in committee at any time. CFC staff will be monitoring these measures throughout the year. You can keep track of these and other related measures by visiting our Web site.
Finally, this week the Secretary of State has assigned numbers to five propositions that will be placed onto the 2010 June Primary Ballot. Currently, the Secretary of State is obtaining ballot arguments in support and in opposition to the propositions for the voter guide. Once they receive all the necessary information, the Secretary of State’s office will produce the voter guide and send it to voter households. The June Primary is scheduled for June 8, 2010. The five ballot measures include:
  1. Proposition 13 – Property taxes for new construction and seismic retrofitting
  2. Proposition 14 – The Open Primary
  3. Proposition 15 – Public funds for candidates for Secretary of State
  4. Proposition 16 – Two-third vote requirement for local public electricity providers
  5. Proposition 17 – Auto insurance based on driver’s history of auto insurance
Local Links
LANCASTER – Controversy arose when the mayor of Lancaster stated in his State of the City address that he is “growing a Christian community.” Immediately, non-Christian religious groups complained and filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Justice. Read more in the Sacramento Bee.
LOS ANGELES – Los Angeles Unified School District’s parents, teachers and community members will vote on their favorite proposals this week as the district inches closer to launching a landmark reform plan which would hand over control of some schools to organizations submitting the best proposals. But what was supposed to be a healthy competition has turned into a heated battle between district employee unions, charter school operators and other nonprofits that are vying for control of 36 district schools. Read more in the Los Angeles Daily News.
LOS ANGELES – A new “harassment free” charter school has been created for homosexual students who believe they have been harassed in the traditional public school setting. The first-in-the-nation school opened in January with 3 students, and is being expanded to allow up to 40 students. Read more in the Los Angeles Times.
SAN FRANCISCO – The federal challenge to California's traditional marriage constitutional amendment is attracting nationwide attention in the form of "friend of the court" briefs. Groups and individuals supporting and opposed to same-sex marriage submitted a flurry of opinions on the subject Wednesday, the deadline Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn R. Walker had set for the filing of amicus briefs. Read more at NewsChief.com.
Truth Project Opportunities
RIVERSIDE – California Family Council continues to expand its offerings of the acclaimed Truth Project group leader training seminars. Training in biblical worldview is a prerequisite to living out authentic Christianity in today’s postmodern culture, with its subjective claims of truth. 
Proyecto La Verdad Group Leader Training Seminar:
Spanish Language
Saturday, February 6, 2010 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Host Church: Santa Maria Foursquare Church
709 N. Curryer Street
Santa Maria, CA 93458 (Santa Barbara County)
For more information on attending or hosting a seminar, call the California Family Council at 951.354.8362 and ask for Trudy. Register online for seminars at: www.californiafamily.org.
 
  • Printer-friendly version