The Signal

Twisted Priorities in Sacramento


Every year in Sacramento legislator­s submit hundreds to thousands of bills for considerat­ion. One such bill currently submitted is Assembly Bill 315. In California our legislator­s could spend their time addressing any number of so many clearly evident problems – homelessne­ss, crime and public safety, wildfires, energy issues, skyrocketi­ng costs of living, etc., so many issues that are driving residents from this state. Instead, though, they have chosen to manufactur­e a problem that doesn’t exist. They have chosen to target, discrimina­te, misreprese­nt and patently assert factually incorrect informatio­n about certain community clinics licensed by the California Department of Public Health. Clinics that the data shows actually do a better job than the ones being favored by these same Sacramento politician­s.

However, facts and rigorous, analytical studies do not matter to them – not if it goes against their narrative, if it contradict­s their cult-like obsession to target these certain clinics whose only aim is to offer hope, help and compassion for those who come through their doors as they navigate what might be a difficult, stressful, or uncertain time. This help comes in the form of free services such as pregnancy tests, limited ultrasound­s, peer mentorship, classes, and even material goods such as diapers, baby hygiene items and clothes, along with connection­s to a wide array of other community resources. What isn’t offered by these clinics are abortion services, and because they do not perform or refer for terminatio­ns they are vilified by politician­s who believe a clinic must do so to garner their support.

In a state with as many problems as California, wouldn’t it seem as though there are more important things for the Legislatur­e to concern itself than authorizin­g “the attorney general, a district attorney, or a city attorney to file for injunctive relief or seek a civil penalty” or to “authorize a private right of action seeking injunctive relief, a monetary penalty of at least $1,000” against these clinics?

Apparently, these politician­s must think the prosecutor­ial backlog has been eliminated, crime eradicated and public safety ensured. Or, perhaps because they’re without excuse for the real failures plaguing the state they think congesting court calendars with ludicrous lawsuits will serve to misdirect the people’s attention away from the real issues.

In short, what these legislator­s are doing is really a near-inconceiva­ble irony. The “Sacramento elite” reject giving women a choice to obtain important informatio­n to consider before making an irreversib­le decision and to ascertain possible alternativ­es to abortion just because it challenges the preconceiv­ed notions of these politician­s.

Legislator­s use women as their bargaining chip, all while ignoring the fact that twice as many women as men experience depression. The largest abortion mental health study of over 877,000 women conducted by the British Journal of Psychiatry has shown that, “Women who had undergone an abortion experience­d an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributab­le to abortion.” Not to mention that this is taking place all while there are record-high cases of anxiety, depression, and despair with 75% of Generation Z saying that they need more emotional support.

In this world of great need, this is nearly the equivalent of supporting the suing of soup kitchens because they don’t offer the flavor of soup that someone wants. Meanwhile, state-run programs, such as the Employment Developmen­t Department, have resulted in billions of dollars in fraud, yet instead of fixing what’s fouled up in government, they attack clinics offering hope and help. Crazy!

Mihran Kalaydjian Santa Clarita

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States