A month ago I addressed the Human Rights Torch Relay in Santa Monica along with members of Congress Dana Rohrabacher and Maxine Waters.  The Human Rights Torch Relay’s purpose was to draw attention to the widespread human rights abuses visited upon the people of China by the unelected communist regime in Beijing – while the Olympic torch was nearby. 

About the same time, Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution 119 on Tibet Day (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/acr_119_bill_20080325_introduced.html).  This resolution specifically called out human rights abuses in both Tibet and China, so it was shelved by the Democrats in charge in Sacramento as being too controversial.  Last Thursday, May 15, however, a compromise Tibet Day resolution was allowed onto the floor of the Assembly.  Authored by Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-San Mateo), House Resolution 20 was a mainly positive mention of Tibet and the Dalai Lama (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/hr_20_bill_20080501_amended_asm_v98.html).

I received a letter from the Chinese Communist government a day after voting in favor of the Tibet Day resolution (one can argue the merits of even discussing such things while we have a $17 billion deficit, but, when comparing a resolution supporting human rights to some of the other bills we vote out, at least you can say it was neither harmful nor frivolous).  The letter, dated May 1, was quite remarkable for both its blatant lies and its tone to an American elected official. 

The first Big Lie occurs in the letter’s second paragraph, “Like the US, China attaches great importance to protect the human rights of our citizens.”  Really?  Tell that to the millions of women forced to have abortions in service of China’s one-child policy, not to mention widespread forced infanticide.  Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people brutally imprisoned in the Laogai gulag system (http://www.laogai.org/news/index.php), including Catholic and Protestant house church members, Falun Gong practitioners, and political prisoners.  Tell that to the families of those executed by the government without due process so as to harvest their valuable organs for profit in People’s Liberation Army hospitals. 

(more…)

The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.

The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach.  Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence.  (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF.)  In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage.  How?  By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity.  The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives.  In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy – after all, their “dignity,” “liberty,” and “privacy” would be violated otherwise. 

Allow me to close my comments with two political observations. 

First, the Court’s sweeping ruling is likely to ignite support for the California Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional ballot initiative that would overrule the Court’s decision that should appear on the ballot this November. (See: http://www.protectmarriage.com/.)  This, in turn, may have an impact on other California races, from the President on down to the legislative races.  In this, liberal Democrats should be wary of what they wish for…

Second, I find it ironic to see commentators describe the Court as conservative since the majority of its members were appointed by Republican governors.  Lest we forget, there is a simmering divide in the Republican Party over whether the label “conservative” includes social policy, or only tax and fiscal policy.  Chief Judge Ron George was first appointed by Gov. Deukmejian, then appointed chief justice by Gov. Wilson.  Justice Ron George has had a long history of very liberal rulings long before the same sex marriage ruling.  In fact, back in 1997, I drafted a resolution opposing Justice Ron George for his election in 1998.  It passed the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee, then stalled when it hit the California Republican Party.  It was argued that Justice George was a Republican, so the Party should support him.  The reason for my opposition to Judge George in 1997 was his ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren which overturned a California law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions (“privacy” of the minor girl was the reason cited in that case too).  Other bad rulings already made by Justice George at that time included: a pro-criminal decision in People v. Superior Court (Romero), three anti-private property rights decisions in Ehrlich v. Culver City, Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and Alcarez v. Vece, a pro-public union decision in Loder v. City of Glendale, and an anti-business decision in Stevenson v. Superior Court. 

Of course, there is the remote possibility that Judge George’s terrible ruling really is a Republican plot in the vast right wing conspiracy to boost conservative turnout so much that McCain wins California and is elected President in 2008 – stranger things have happened in the world of politics. 

Just for old time’s sake, I’ve reprinted below the 1997 resolution that passed the OC Republican Party Central Committee only to fail at the California Republican Party convention.  It was authored by me and my long time friend, Fred Whitaker, a respected Orange attorney who should someday be on the California Supreme Court. 

A Resolution Calling to Oppose Confirmation of Certain California Supreme Court Judges.

WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court overturned a 1987 law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions.

WHEREAS, The law in question was a carefully written to meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s strict guidelines for valid parental consent legislation.

WHEREAS, Chief Justice George, Justice Chin, Justice Kennard, and Justice Werdegar ruled that the parental consent law violated the “autonomy privacy rights” of minor girls.  Further that a minor girl’s uninhibited right to an abortion “is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life,…we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution in making the decision whether to continue or to terminate her own pregnancy.” Yet, almost a year earlier, the court ruled that the same law was valid.

WHEREAS, Lower courts in California blocked enforcement soon after its passage in 1987, claiming that girls as young as 13 or 14 possess the necessary maturity and rationality to make informed decisions about abortion.  Yet, under the law do not have maturity and rationality for ear piercing and medical treatment without parental consent until age 18.

WHEREAS, These arguments, aside from ignoring common sense and human experience, are irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality which is supposed to be the only reason for the court to overturn legislation.

WHEREAS, A parent’s right to direct his or her child’s upbringing is among the most basic of human rights.

WHEREAS, Justice Mosk, in dissent, pointed out that according to the ruling, the privacy rights for minor girls would reach to those who were as young as nine years old.

WHEREAS, Justice Brown, noted in her dissent that the California Constitution protects “a parent’s interest in directing his child’s upbringing” and that the “liberty interest of a minor is qualitatively different than that of an adult, being subject both to reasonable regulation by the state and to an extent not permissible with adults.”

WHEREAS, It is illogical and inconsistent to require that minors obtain parental permission for aspirin at school, tattoos, tanning salons, body piercing, drivers’ licenses, etc., but not for a dangerous and invasive procedure like an abortion.

WHEREAS, This Court’s judicial activism is reminiscent of the Rose Bird Court when, the rule of law in California succumbed to the whim of four justices occupying seats on its highest court.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Republican Party joins the Republican Party of Orange County in calling upon itself and all those of good will to actively oppose confirmation for any California State Supreme Court Justice who voted to overturn the 1987 law requiring parental consent for minor girls to obtain abortions.

Cosponsors:
Fred M. Whitaker, Member
Chuck DeVore, Member

If $4.00 for a gallon gasoline is pinching your checkbook, just wait until you see your electric and natural gas bills in the coming year.

California gets 42 percent of its electricity from natural gas.  Many homes also use natural gas for heating, cooking, and hot water.  Natural gas prices increased 45 percent in the past year.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that gas costs may double soon. 

Gas and coal power 70 percent of America’s grid.  Coal prices have already doubled, following demand and oil price increases.  This has caused electrical rate increases across the nation.  Virginia is looking at a 29 percent rate increase this summer.  Oregon saw a 10 percent rate increase last year with another 9 percent by next January.  Maryland residents will see their electric bills rise almost 8 percent in June, increasing home electric costs by $137 a year to $1,800 annually.  Maryland’s commercial customers can expect rate hikes of 27 percent to 41 percent price by the summer.

Higher costs boost conservation efforts as consumers and business cut back and become more efficient users of energy.  In addition, government mandates and subsidies boost conservation efforts, albeit unevenly and without the efficiencies of the market. 

Conservation alone is not enough, however.  As our population and economy grows, we use more energy.  Further, the growing economies of China, India and others will continue to put great pressure on world supplies of oil and gas, keeping world prices on a constant upward ramp.  This means that conservation at home will do little to moderate energy prices as the cost of energy is determined by a global market.  Americans should conserve when it makes sense to do so – but we should not confuse conservation by itself with a comprehensive energy policy. 

California is especially vulnerable to natural gas price hikes since we get a plurality of our electricity from burning gas.  Accounting for the fixed costs of power generation and distribution, this means we could be looking at a 20-30 percent increase in electrical costs in the near future. 

Increased use of wind power can actually increase our dependence on natural gas since wind needs to be backed up by large natural gas power plants.  Solar can help offset peak energy demand on hot days, but it is still as costly as natural gas and some five to ten times more costly than coal, hydro, or nuclear power. 

Adding to California’s dire energy picture is our current policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 12 years, and another 80 percent on top of that by 2050 (returning per capita emissions to levels not seen since wood-burning Colonial days).   A just completed federal study on the effects of the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, a national version of California’s AB 32 greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, showed it would add costs of $723 costs per household by 2030.  That’s $723 more than whatever the higher costs for energy will add to the family budget. 

It is growing more apparent by the month that turning to modern nuclear power is the only way we can realistically address the twin challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our reliance on imported oil and natural gas.  While California continues to dally on the energy front, making the false hope that somehow wind, solar, and conservation can do it all, other states are moving ahead.  There are new nuclear power plants starting the licensing process in Maryland and Texas with bipartisan legislation looking at nuclear power in Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois and other states.  Ohio’s Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, just signed a bill that requires electric utilities to generate 25 percent of their energy through renewable energy including new nuclear reactors by 2025.

California needs to get serious about energy.  Failure to get energy policy right will cause California to hemorrhage good paying jobs while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.  Since California is the most electrically efficient state in the U.S. and the most environmentally advanced, it makes no sense for us to effectively ship jobs to coal-fired states back East, or, worst yet, to India or China.  In fact, the most environmentally intelligent thing to do would be to encourage an increase in California goods and services since our environmental impact per value of goods produced is low compared to dirty, coal-fired economies such as China.  

(For more on nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions and imported fuel, see my paper in UC Berkeley’s Ecology Law Currents, “Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power” http://www.boalt.org/elq/C35.01_05_DeVore_2008.04.10.php).

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com