Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute.

• Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.
• Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs.
• Creates commission to approve certain county mental health programs and expenditures.
• Imposes additional 1% tax on taxpayers’ taxable personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs.
• Prohibits state from decreasing funding levels for mental health services below current levels.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Additional state revenues of about $275 million in 2004–05 (partial year), $750 million in 2005–06, $800 million in 2006–07, and probably increasing amounts annually thereafter, with comparable annual increases in expenditures by the state and counties for the expansion of mental health programs.
• Unknown state and local savings from expanded county mental health services that partly offset the cost of this measure, potentially amounting to as much as the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

• Provides funding to physicians for uncompensated emergency care, hospitals for emergency services, community clinics for uncompensated care, emergency personnel training/ equipment, and emergency telephone system improvements.
• Funded by addition of 3% to existing surcharge rate on telephone use within California, portions of tobacco taxes, and criminal and traffic penalties.
• Limits surcharge collected by residential telephone service providers to 50 cents per month. Monthly cap does not apply to cell phones or business lines.
• Excludes funding from government appropriations limitations, and telephone surcharge from Proposition 98’s school spending requirements.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from an increased surcharge on telephone bills that would be used (1) to reimburse physicians and hospitals for uncompensated emergency medical care and (2) for other specified purposes. This amount would probably grow in future years.
• Continued funding of about $32 million annually in Proposition 99 tobacco tax funds to reimburse physicians and community clinics for uncompensated medical services.

Almost 40 years ago, California emptied its mental hospitals, promising to fully fund community mental health services. That promise is still unfulfilled.

Hundreds of thousands of children and adults in California suffer from severe mental illnesses and cannot get the treatment they need.  These children fail in school. Adults end up on the streets or in jail.

Proposition 63:

• Provides comprehensive mental health care for children, adults and seniors.
• Helps individuals and families without insurance, or whose insurance doesn’t pay for needed services.
• Includes mental health treatment, general medical care, housing, job training, and prescription drugs.
• Is paid for by a 1% tax on income over $1 million per year—people earning less than $1 million per year won't pay anything extra.
• Supports innovative programs that are proven to work.
• Requires annual oversight and accountability procedures to ensure funds are properly spent.

Proposition 63 also provides prevention services to help children, adults and seniors get care before a mental illness becomes disabling.

The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst concludes that Proposition 63 could save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually by reducing expenses for medical care, homeless shelters and law enforcement.

CALIFORNIA'S DOCTORS AND NURSES SUPPORT PROPOSITION 63 BECAUSE TREATMENT WORKS

Mental illness does not have to be disabling. With proper care, children can return to a normal life and enjoy success in school. Adults and seniors can regain their dignity and find productive work.

Mental illness often goes untreated because people lack access to care. State funding covers only a fraction of those needing help. Families whose loved ones begin treatment often find their insurance inadequate.

Proposition 63 provides effective treatment for all of those being denied care.  It gives medical professionals the tools to save lives.

POLICE CHIEFS SUPPORT PROPOSITION 63 BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE CALIFORNIA SAFER

Twenty percent of a police officer's time is spent dealing with people with mental illnesses. One in three people who are homeless are on the streets only because of untreated mental illness.

Our prisons and jails are full of thousands of people with mental illnesses who would not be there if they had been offered treatment.  We should provide care before people end up on the streets, or behind bars. Then our police officers can focus on criminals, instead of people who are ill and need help.

CALIFORNIA'S TEACHERS SUPPORT PROPOSITION 63 BECAUSE IT WILL HELP CHILDREN SUCCEED IN SCHOOL AND IN LIFE

It's heartbreaking to watch children fall into mental illness. They struggle in school, unable to focus on learning. Left untreated, many withdraw from teachers, friends and family. Finding it difficult to "fit in" at school, many drop out. All of these consequences are preventable.

Proposition 63 provides for early intervention and badly needed services. It will help children avoid mental illness, or cope with its effects, and get back on track to learning.

MANY OF US KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS SUFFERED FROM A SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS.  IT IS TIME TO STOP THE SUFFERING.

PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 63.
For more: www.CampaignForMentalHealth.org

DEBORAH BURGER, President
California Nurses Association

CHIEF CAM, President
California Police Chiefs Association

BARBARA KERR, President
California Teachers Association

Firefighters, paramedics, doctors, and nurses agree that passage of Prop. 67 is essential to maintain emergency medical care in California

Every day thousands of Californians are victims of heart attacks, strokes, car accidents, and other medical emergencies. For many, rapid response emergency treatment by a paramedic, doctor, or nurse is the difference between life and death.

YES on Prop. 67 will make sure that rapid response emergency medical care is available when you and your family need it most.

The Problem:

We are facing a crisis in emergency care. According to government reports, there are 64 fewer hospital emergency rooms and trauma centers available for patients in California than there were just a decade ago. Experts predict that many more emergency rooms and trauma centers will close. Children, families and seniors will lose access to doctors, nurses, critical medical equipment, medicines, and essential emergency care.

If an emergency room closes near your home, place of work, or along the routes you drive, the time it takes for an ambulance to get you to a doctor could double, triple, or worse. In an emergency, every second is critical.

Emergency rooms throughout California are severely overcrowded. Patients face long lines and wait times. Firefighters, paramedics, doctors and nurses are overwhelmed and lack the resources to provide quality lifesaving care that every patient deserves.

The Solution:

A YES vote on Prop. 67 will provide needed funds to help:

• Keep hospital emergency rooms, trauma centers, and health clinics open and operational
• Prevent long lines and wait times at local emergency rooms
• Attract and retain highly skilled physicians, nurses, and medical staff at our local emergency rooms and trauma centers
• Provide critical emergency medical equipment and technology
• Support local health clinics that treat non-emergency patients and preserve our emergency rooms for real emergencies
• Equip and train firefighters and paramedics who are often the first to respond and provide medical care in emergencies
• Upgrade our 911 emergency telephone system

Safeguards to ensure funds are properly spent:

Prop. 67 funds emergency medical care with a modest increase to the existing surcharge on telephone use for the 911 system. Prop. 67 caps the amount a phone company can bill residential telephone customers for the new surcharge at 50 cents per month. The new surcharge does not apply to out-of-state long distance calls, and senior citizens and others on basic lifeline phone rates are completely exempt from the additional cost.

For just pennies each month we can preserve emergency care for California’s children, families and seniors. None of the money from Prop. 67 can be taken away by the Legislature to be used for other purposes.

You never know when you will need a paramedic, emergency room doctor or nurse. YES on Prop. 67 will make sure that emergency medical care is available when you and your family need it most.

SAVE EMERGENCY CARE. SAVE LIVES.

Please join firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, and patients in voting YES on Prop. 67.

For more information, visit www.saveemergencycare.org

DARLENE BRADLEY, RN, President
California Emergency Nurses Association

MICHAEL J. SEXTON, M.D., President-elect
California Medical Association

CARMELA CASTELLANO, Chief Executive Officer
California Primary Care Association

We must get the mentally ill off the streets and get them the treatment they need. For too long, those who suffer have been left without hope and without help.

We agree!

However, we are not swayed by those who would use nice words to pass a shortsighted measure that is guaranteed to cause long-term failure. The problems the mentally ill face require a REAL PLAN for the future; not promises of funding tied to dangerously volatile income sources, which can vanish in a heartbeat.

We all remember the economic bubble that burst in California a few years ago. Budget surpluses abounded, but suddenly without warning, the high incomes and windfalls disappeared—and took important tax dollars along with them! Overnight, looming deficits and program cuts appeared. This measure follows the same risky path, pinning itself to those very incomes. Such folly is unreliable and irresponsible.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED INTERESTS pushing this new bureaucracy claim that similar programs have “demonstrated their effectiveness” in terms of “providing services,” but that is not the same thing as reducing mental illness or manifestations of it. Nor does any evidence show that state and local costs have declined as a result.

We need to do something about mental illness, and reject fake solutions like Proposition 63 that only postpone serious fixes for later. This sleight-of-hand substitute is a feel-good proposal that doesn’t plan for the future and doesn’t make sense. Our children and families require better.

We urge you to vote NO on 63.

THE HONORABLE TIM LESLIE, Assemblyman
California State Legislature

DAVID YOW, Member
Citizens for a Healthy California

Respected health care advocates, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Sheriffs’ Association, and the emergency care workers who run the 911 system all OPPOSE PROP. 67 because 90% of the funds go to large health care corporations and other special interests, which means:

• No new emergency rooms or trauma centers.
• No money to upgrade existing emergency rooms.
• No provisions to reduce emergency response times. LESS THAN 1% OF THE MONEY GOES TO THE 911 EMERGENCY SYSTEM.

Prop. 67 is a $540 MILLION PHONE TAX—another MISLEADING attempt to give taxpayer money to special interests. READ THE FINE PRINT—and see how misleading it is:

• Supporters claim it’s “a modest increase” in phone taxes —but it actually INCREASES YOUR PHONE TAXES BY 400%
• Supporters claim that seniors are exempt, but more than 1 MILLION SENIOR CITIZENS will be affected.
• Supporters claim the tax rates are capped, but there are NO CAPS ON CELL PHONE OR SMALL BUSINESS PHONE TAXES.

Prop. 67 DOES NOT PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE to any of the millions of Californians who do not have any. It gives millions to health corporations, but DOES NOTHING TO REDUCE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS OR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

And because there are NO MANDATORY AUDITS OR FINANCIAL CONTROLS, there’s potential for waste and fraud.

Prop 67 won’t solve California’s health care problems, but it will RAISE YOUR PHONE TAXES BY 400%

Say NO to the PHONE TAX. Vote NO on 67.

ANGELA MORA, Founder
Office of the Patient Advocate

ROBERT T. DOYLE, President
California State Sheriff’s Association

DR. CHARLES J. SUPPLE, M.D.

Proposition 63 is a flawed attempt to fix a serious problem. Californians are compassionate, and that’s why we care about making sure that government is both responsible and effective. This tax initiative, however, is neither. It promises wonderful things, but the benefit is much smaller and the price tag much larger than proponents are telling you.

This new law forces the Legislature to continue funding existing mental health programs at their current levels, regardless of effectiveness or efficiency. While United States Department of Justice investigations have found severe abuses within California’s Department of Mental Health, proponents suggest we expand that system rather than first resolving the problems it already faces.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Proposition 63 pins the hopes and needs of thousands of Californians upon a narrowly-drawn segment of a few taxpayers’ incomes. That is not wise, and it is not safe. Of course, most people aren’t millionaires, but when those required to pay this tax end up leaving the state—the way they have been in increasing numbers since the Gray Davis days—they will take their tax dollars with them. The very same tax dollars this program needs to survive. That leaves the rest us stuck trying to pay the tab, and helplessly watching other important services get cut to make up the difference.

On paper, this plan promises a lot. Helping the mentally ill sounds good. However, the measure itself is fatally flawed, because its funding structure is too narrowly drawn and highly vulnerable to even slight economic changes. So, you see, the failure to provide a long-term solution for mental health needs in our state will only create even bigger problems that need to be solved…and leave us with the original challenges, as well.

It is compassionate to help, but this plan is the wrong way to do it. It is time for real reform—not irresponsible measures like this one that merely substitute one broken bureaucracy for another. All Californians deserve a government that plans for the future, not one that threatens it with a nightmarish, risky scheme that will leave us with larger problems than ever before.

Join many Californians from all walks of life, including community leaders, state legislators, health care advocates, elected city officials, and others who care about the people in our communities in voting NO on this well-intended but short-sighted initiative. In the long run, this backward plan will only hurt those it’s meant to help.

DR. WILLIAM ALLEN
Professor, UCLA Department of Economics

THE HONORABLE RAY HAYNES
Assemblyman, California State Legislature

LAW UHLER
President, National Tax Limitation Committee

Prop 67 is really a phone tax—a $540 MILLION TAX INCREASE that will likely increase in the future.

If Prop. 67 passes, we will get HIGHER TAXES, but that’s only part of the story:

1) It’s a 400% TAX INCREASE that consumers would have to pay every year
2) NO CAP ON CELL PHONE TAXES—the more you talk, the more taxes you’ll pay.
3) NO CAP ON SMALL BUSINESS PHONE TAXES.
4) More than 1 million seniors, many of whom live on fixed incomes, will be affected by the phone tax.

LESS THAN 1% OF THE MONEY FROM PROP. 67 WILL GO TO THE 911 SYSTEM. This initiative is a scam. The California 911 emergency dispatchers who run the 911 system DON’T support Prop 67.

THERE ARE NO ADEQUATE FINANCIAL CONTROLS OR AUDITS. Even though this is a massive half-billion-dollar tax increase, it contains no mandatory financial audits to make sure the money is spent properly. In addition to the potential for waste and fraud, Prop 67 will require millions of dollars per year in ongoing administrative costs that the state cannot afford.

THIS INITIATIVE IS MISLEADING.
90% of the money goes directly to special interest groups.

READ THE FINE PRINT, HERE’S WHAT YOU’LL FIND OUT:

1) This is really a $540 million phone tax increase;
2) No cap on cell phone;
3) No cap on small businesses;
4) More than 1 million seniors will be forced to pay higher taxes;
5) No mandatory financial audits;
6) California’s sheriffs and 911 emergency dispatchers oppose the measure because it is misleading and doesn’t do what it says it does.

Listen to what respected voices across California think about the phone tax:

• California’s 911 emergency dispatchers (CALNENA) opposes Prop. 67.
• The California Taxpayer’ Association & Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association oppose Prop. 67 because it’s a 400% ($540 million per year) phone tax increase.
• The California Chamber of Commerce says it will hurt our economy and drive businesses from our state.
• The Congress of California Seniors opposes it because it will force seniors living on fixed incomes to pay higher taxes.
• The California State Sheriffs’ Association says Prop. 67 doesn’t do what it promises to do.

CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS SOME OF THE HIGHEST TAXES IN THE COUNTRY. Just when our economy is starting to bounce back, this huge, half-billion-dollar tax increase could harm business, hurt seniors, and gouge consumers—damaging our economy. WITH NO CAP ON CELL PHONES OR SMALL BUSINESS TAXES, THE MORE YOU TALK, THE MORE TAXES YOU HAVE TO PAY.

VOTE NO ON THE PHONE TAX.

L.W. “CHIP” YARBOROUGH, President
The California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association (CALNENA)

H.L. “HANK” LACAYO, President
Congress of California Seniors

LARRY MCCARTHY, President
California Taxpayers’ Association

PROPOSITION 63 HELPS EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA.

Treating mental illness doesn't just mean helping individuals.

It means better schools and businesses, and safer communities.

Successful treatment keeps adults healthy, employed, and self-sufficient.  It helps children stay and succeed in school.  Police can focus on crime, instead of untreated mental illness.

PROPOSITION 63 EXPANDS A PROGRAM THAT WORKS.

After decades of neglecting mental illness, California began an experimental, community-based mental health program five years ago.  It helps teenagers and adults get the care they need from one place.  Special community teams offer treatment, medicines, housing, job training and other assistance.

The program has been studied extensively (see AB34). The results show that three times more people found employment than had worked previously.  Those enrolled had a 66% reduction in hospital days, and an 81% reduction in jail days.

A panel of nationally recognized experts calls this program a model for the nation.

Right now, the program is small, reaching fewer than 10% of those who could benefit. Thousands are turned away.

Proposition 63 makes this new model program available to the thousands now turned away. 

PROPOSITION 63 REQUIRES STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY.

Under Proposition 63:

• Funding goes only to these proven, new programs.
• Bureaucrats can't redirect the funding.
• An oversight panel of independent, unpaid members supervises expenditures.
• To ensure accountability, they can cut off programs that aren't effective.

Proposition 63 only taxes individuals on their taxable, personal income over $1 million.  The tax is just 1%.  It's even deductible from federal taxes.

Please vote YES on Proposition 63.

CARLO NINO, President
California State PTA

ARETA CROWELL, President
Mental Health Association in California

DR. DANA WARE
California Academy of Family Physicians

Before voting on Prop 67, ask yourself:

Who do you trust to protect quality emergency healthcare for you and you family? Firefighters, paramedics, doctors and nurses OR phone companies?

Out-of-state phone companies and cell phone companies are bankrolling the campaign to defeat Prop 67 and deny essential funding for emergency services.

According to the Secretary of State, the top 5 contributors to the campaign against Prop 67 are:

1. SBC (Texas)
2. Verizon (New York)
3. T-Mobile (Washington)
4. AT&T Wireless (Washington)
5. Sprint (Kansas)

The opponents of Prop 67 use misleading statistics and scare tactics. Prop 67 is a modest and sensible initiative that firefighters, paramedics, doctors, and nurses agree will save lives.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

FACT: Prop 67 caps the surcharge a phone company can add to residential telephone bills at 50 cents per month —a maximum of $6 per year.

FACT: The cost to cell phone users is minimal—If you pay $30 a month, Prop. 67 will cost you 90 cents.

FACT: Prop 67 completely exempts senior citizens on basic lifeline phone service—they will not pay a dime.

FACT: Prop 67 provides for audits to ensure funds are properly spent and prohibits the Legislature and phone companies from raiding these funds.

Voters have a clear choice: watch our emergency medical care system unravel OR vote YES ON PROP 67 to ensure victims of heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and other emergencies receive life-saving emergency care.

SAVE EMERGENCY CARE. SAVE LIVES. YES ON PROP 67.

LOU STONE, Vice President
California Professional Firefighters

RAMON JOHNSON, M.D., Past Chair
California Emergency Medical Services Commission

PAUL KIVELA, M.D., President
California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians

Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

• Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
• Defines abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, conceived but not yet born.”
• Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
• Mandates reporting requirements.
• Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
• Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
• Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, the courts, and state administration combined.

Discounts on Prescription Drugs. Initiative Statute.

• Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by California Department of Health Services.
• Enables certain low- and moderate-income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices.
• Authorizes Department: to contract with participating pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance; to negotiate rebate agreements with participating drug manufacturers.
• Imposes $15 annual application fee.
• Creates state fund for deposit of drug manufacturers’ rebate payments.
• Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications.
• Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness.
• Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund.
• State costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund.
• Unknown potentially significant savings for state and county health programs due to the availability of drug discounts.
• Potential unknown effects on state revenues and expenditures from changes in prices and quantities of drugs sold in California.

Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.

• Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services.
• Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent.
• Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset costs of administration.
• At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts.
• Establishes oversight board.
• Makes prescription drug profiteering, as described [in the proposition text], unlawful.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund.
• State costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund.
• Unknown potentially significant net costs or savings as a result of provisions linking state Medi-Cal rebate contracts and the new drug discount program.
• Unknown potentially significant savings for state and county health programs due to the availability of drug discounts.
• Unknown costs and revenues from the provisions regarding lawsuits over profiteering on drug sales.
• Potential unknown effects on state revenues and expenditures from changes in prices and quantities of drugs sold in California.

Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.

• Authorizes $750,000,000 in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund grants to eligible children's hospitals for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals.
• 20 percent of bonds shall be available for grants to certain University of California general acute care hospitals, and 80 percent of the bonds shall be available for grants to other general acute care hospitals whose missions focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and which meet other stated requirements.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• State cost of about $1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750 million)and the interest ($756 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year.

Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

• Establishes “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” to regulate stem cell research and provide funding, through grants and loans, for such research and research facilities.
• Establishes constitutional right to conduct stem cell research; prohibits Institute’s funding of human reproductive cloning research.
• Establishes oversight committee to govern Institute.
• Provides General Fund loan up to $3 million for Institute’s initial administration/implementation costs.
• Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance Institute activities up to $3 billion subject to annual limit of $350 million.
• Appropriates monies from General Fund to pay for bonds.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• State cost of about $6 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3 billion) on the bonds. Payments averaging about $200 million per year.
• Unknown potential state and local revenue gains and cost savings to the extent that the research projects funded by this measure result in additional economic activity and reduced public health care costs.

Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.

• A "Yes" vote approves and a "No" vote rejects legislation that:
• Provides for individual and dependent health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers;
• Requires that employers pay at least 80% of coverage cost; maximum 20% employee contribution;
• Requires employers to pay for health coverage or pay fee to medical insurance board that purchases primarily private health coverage;
• Applies to employers with 200 or more employees beginning 1/1/06;
• Applies to employers with 50 to 199 employees beginning 1/1/07.
• Applies to employers with 20 to 49 employees if tax credit enacted.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Expenditures fully offset by fee revenues paid mainly by employers, which could range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, to fund a new state program primarily to purchase private health insurance coverage.
• Reduction in county health program costs potentially in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
• Uncertain net fiscal impact on state-supported health programs.
• Increased costs potentially in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually for state and local public agencies to provide additional health coverage for their employees.
• Net reduction in state tax revenues potentially in the low hundreds of millions of dollars.
• In summary, unknown net savings or costs to state and local government.

Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

• Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
• Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
• Mandates various reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions performed on minors.
• Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
• Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
• Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of NetState and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

• Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products.
• Provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health insurance to eligible children.
• Revenue also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco-use-prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention, treatment of various conditions including cancers (breast, cervical, prostate, colorectal), heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity.
• Exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws in certain circumstances.
• Revenue excluded from appropriation limits and minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of NetState and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increase in new state tobacco excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007–08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be spent for various health programs, children’s health coverage, and tobacco-related programs.
• Unknown net state costs potentially exceeding $100 million annually after a few years due to provisions simplifying state health program enrollment rules and creating a new pilot program for children’s health coverage.
• Unknown, but potentially significant, savings to the state Medi-Cal Program and counties from a shift of children from other health care coverage to the Healthy Families Program (HFP); potential state costs that could be significant in the long term for ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment.
• Unknown, but potentially significant, savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to various factors, including an expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.

Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.

• Provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and election type.
• Increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program.
• Imposes new limits on campaign contributions to state-office candidates and campaign committees, and new restrictions on contributions by lobbyists, state contractors.
• Limits certain contributions and expenditures by corporations.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of NetState and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually. The funds would be spent on the public financing of political campaigns for state elected officials.

IN CALIFORNIA, a daughter under 18 can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse, get a flu shot, or have a tooth pulled without a parent knowing.

HOWEVER, surgical or chemical abortions can be secretly performed on minor girl—even 13 years old or younger—without parents’ knowledge.

PARENTS are then not prepared to help young daughters with any of the serious physical, emotional, or psychological complications which may result from an abortion or to protect their daughters from further sexual exploitation and pregnancies.

A study of over 46,000 pregnancies of school-age girls in California found that over two-thirds were impregnated by adult men whose mean age was 22.6 years.

Investigations have shown that secret abortions on minors in California are rarely reported to child protective services although these pregnancies are evidence of statutory rape and sexual abuse. This leaves these girls vulnerable to further sexual abuse, rapes, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.

That’s why more than ONE MILLION SIGNATURES were submitted to allow Californians to vote on the “Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection” Proposition 73.

PROP. 73 will require that one parent or guardian be notified at least 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor daughter.

PARENTS AND DAUGHTERS in more than 30 other state have benefited for years from laws like Prop. 73. Many times, after such laws pass, there have been substantial reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minors.

When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies. Older men, including Internet predators, are deterred from impregnating minors when secret abortions are not available to conceal their crimes.

If she chooses, a minor may petition juvenile court to permit an abortion without notifying a parent. She can request a lawyer to help her. If the evidence shows she is mature enough to decide for herself or that notifying a parent is not in her best interests, the judge will grant her petition. The proceedings must be confidential, prompt, and free. She may also seek help from juvenile court if she is being coerced by anyone to consent to an abortion.

POLLS SHOW most people support parental notification laws. They know that a minor girl—pregnant, scared, and possibly abandoned or pressured by an older boyfriend—needs the advice and support of a parent.

PARENTS have invested more attention and love in raising their daughter, know her personal and medical history better, and care more about her future than strangers employed by abortion clinics profiting from performing many abortions on minors.

A minor still has a right to obtain or refuse an abortion, but a parent can help her understand all options, obtain competent care, and provide medical records and history.

An informed parent can also get prompt care for hemorrhage, infections and other possibly fatal complications.

Vote “YES” on PROP 73 TO ALLOW PARENTS TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THEIR MINOR DAUGHTERS!

www.YESon73.net

WILLIAM P. CLARK, California Supreme Court Justice, 1973-1981
MARY L. DAVENPORT, M.D., Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
MARIA GUADALUPE GARCIA, Organizing Director, Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection / YES on 73

Proposition 78 offers Californians struggling with high prescription drug costs real help, right now. Prop. 78 is a proven program that can take effect immediately, and will deliver critically needed prescription drug discounts to millions of seniors and low income, uninsured Californians.

Known as Cal Rx, Proposition 78 offers Californians the best prescription drug discount program in the country. It is an improved version of a successful program already operating in Ohio that is delivering discounts averaging 31%, saving consumers $15.31 on every covered prescription. Every major prescription drug manufacturer participates in the Ohio program.

"This program is a lifesaver. My family saves $150 a month on prescription
drugs for my husband's heart condition. For us, it's a miracle."
Robin Ford, Canton, Ohio

Proposition 78 is even better than the Ohio program. The California Department of Health Services concludes that the Cal Rx program enacted by Proposition 78 will result in discounts of over 40% to millions of eligible Californians. State officials say that Cal Rx prices will compare favorably to prices in Canada.

Here's how Proposition 78 works:

• The program covers seniors and the uninsured with family incomes up to $58,000 annually.
• Manufacturers will provide prescription drugs to the Cal Rx program at the lowest commercial price they sell to anyone in California and pharmacists will provide additional discounts. According to state officials, the average discount will be at least 40% off regular retail prices.
• Prop. 78 also makes it easier for people to get access to new and existing free drug programs, meaning even more savings for consumers.
• Enrollment is simple. People can sign up at their local pharmacy.
• Prop. 78 does not require a big government bureaucracy to implement. The discounts go right to the patient in their community.
• ALL drugs are eligible for discounts under Proposition 78, not just those on a government determined list.

"Proposition 78 offers real hope to millions of Californians who currently don't
have access to affordable prescription medications. We want all Californians
in need to have access to prescription medications and Proposition 78 will do that."
Rick Roberts, HIV/AIDS Patient and Activist

Proposition 78 enjoys bi-partisan support. It is supported by groups representing seniors, patients, taxpayers, and small businesses across the state. A Los Angeles Times news report found Prop. 78, "would offer one of the most extensive discounts in the country."

Proposition 78 will bring real help, right now. It can go into effect immediately and begin delivering deep discounts on prescription drugs, helping millions of seniors and low income, uninsured Californians.

There are two prescription drug discount proposals on the ballot, but only Proposition 78 will work. Unlike the other proposal, Prop. 78 doesn't require federal approval, provides discounts on a wider range of drugs, doesn't depend on a big government bureaucracy to be implemented, and won't result in costly litigation by trial lawyers.

Please, join seniors, taxpayers, consumers, patient advocates, health care professionals and small businesses, and VOTE YES on Proposition 78.

Kristine Yahn, RN, Executive Director
Californians for Patient Care

Carolyn Peterson, RN, MS, AOCN, Chief Operating Officer
Community Hospice

Doris Luna, RN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse
UC Davis Medical Center

As prescription drug prices soar, more and more Californians are forced to choose between vital medicines and other necessities.

There are two prescription drug measures on the ballot. Prop. 78 is sponsored by drug companies. Prop. 79 is sponsored by consumer, senior and health organizations, and labor unions.

The pharmaceutical industry has pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to defeat Prop. 79, launching what could be the most expensive initiative campaign in California history. Manufacturers like GlaxoSmithKline and Merck have each donated nearly $10 million. Here’s why:

PROP. 79 PROVIDES ENFORCEABLE, NOT “VOLUNTARY,” DISCOUNTS BY DRUG COMPANIES

Prop. 78 is completely voluntary for drug companies: they are free to choose whether or not to offer discounts. But California has tried a voluntary drug discount plan before. The pharmaceutical industry refused to participate so the program dissolved in 2001.

Prop. 79 has an enforcement mechanism.

If a drug company refuses to provide discounts, the state can shift business away from that company and buy from other drug companies that offer discounts.

CALIFORNIA WOULD USE ITS PURCHASING POWER TO GET THE BEST PRICE

Americans pay more for their prescriptions than consumers in many wealthy nations. That’s in part because these other governments negotiate discounts from the drug industry on behalf of their citizens.

California does something similar through Medi-Cal, negotiating discounts of 50 percent and more, saving taxpayers $5 billion in the last 10 years. Prop. 79 builds on this success, using the same mechanism to negotiate these discounts for eligible Californians. As a result, consumers will pay less out of their own pockets for prescriptions at the expense of the drug companies, not taxpayers.

Under Prop. 79, eligible Californians would get a drug discount card to present to their pharmacist to receive discounts of up to 50 percent or more.

PROP. 79 OFFERS DISCOUNTS TO 8-10 MILLION CALIFORNIANS

Nearly twice as many Californians will be eligible for discounts under Prop. 79 than under Prop. 78, including:

• Californians with catastrophic medical expenses who spend at least five percent of their income on medical expenses;
• The uninsured who earn up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($64,360 for a family of three);
• Californians on Medicare for drug costs not fully covered by Medicare;
• Seniors, the chronically ill and others with inadequate drug coverage through private insurers or their employer.

PROP. 79 WOULD SAVE PATIENTS, TAXPAYERS AND EMPLOYERS MONEY

By making affordable drugs more accessible to more people than Prop. 78, fewer people would fall onto Medi-Cal or other public programs, and need to use taxpayer-funded emergency rooms. Prop. 79 can reduce employers’ health premiums by authorizing a new purchasing pool to reduce drug prices for employer-paid coverage.

PROP. 79: BACKED BY DOZENS OF HEALTH, SENIOR AND CONSUMER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

Stand up to the unfair, unaffordable prices of the prescription drug industry. For real, enforceable discounts of up to 50 percent or more on prescription drugs for 8-10 million Californians, VOTE YES on PROP. 79.

Henry L. “Hank” Lacayo, State President
Congress of California Seniors

Elizabeth M. Imholz, West Coast Office Director
Consumers Union

Lupe Alonzo-Diaz, Executive Director
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

California Children's Hospitals treat children with the most serious and deadly diseases like LEUKEMIA, CANCER, HEART DEFECTS, SICKLE CELL ANEMIA, DIABETES, AND CYSTIC FIBROSIS.

Over 1 million times last year, children facing life-threatening illness or injury were cared for at regional Children's Hospitals without regard to a family's income or ability to pay. Children are referred to these pediatric centers of excellence for treatment by other hospitals in California.

Children's Hospitals save hundreds of children's lives every day. Many children are cured. Others have their young lives extended for many years. And all have the quality of their lives improved.

We know. Our children have all been cared for at a California Children's Hospital.

Proposition 61, the CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND, will help make room in these wonderful hospitals to treat the children who need care.

Proposition 61 DOES NOT RAISE TAXES. The bonds will be repaid from the existing State budget.

Proposition 61 FUNDS WILL ALLOW CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS TO INCREASE BED CAPACITY TO ENSURE THAT SICK AND INJURED CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO A REGIONAL FACILITY where they can receive the kind of care that our children got. Children's Hospitals' emergency rooms are critically overcrowded and need enough capacity to handle the seriously ill and injured children sent to them.

Regional Children's Hospitals provide specialized care to children through California. For example:

• 87% of the inpatient care for children who need heart surgery;
• 95% of all surgery for children who need organ transplants;
• More than 64% of the inpatient care for children with cancer.

The nation's premier pediatric research centers are in Children's Hospitals, making them the source of medical discoveries and advancements that benefit all children. Today, almost 90% of children born with heart defects can be cured or helped considerably by surgery. The survival rate of children with leukemia is now greater than 80 percent.

PROPOSITION 61 WILL ALLOW CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS TO PURCHASE THE LATEST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES and special equipment for sick babies born prematurely, seriously underweight, or with defective organs. These non-profit hospitals need our help!

Children with Heart Disease or Cystic Fibrosis or Cancer have to be admitted over and over to a Children's Hospital to stabilize and treat their life-threatening and debilitating illnesses. Children's Hospitals have the specialists to improve the quality for those kids' lives, helping them to stay at home and stay in school. THE MOST SERIOUSLY ILL AND INJURED CHILDREN ARE BEING SAVED EVERY DAY AT A CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL!

The doctors, nurses and staff at Children's Hospitals are unlikely any other people you will ever meet. Their lives are dedicated to a mission. And that mission is to treat children with the most serious and deadly diseases like Leukemia, Cancer, Heart Defects, Sickle Cell Anemia, Diabetes, and Cystic Fibrosis.

Please join our families and millions of others whose children need California Children's Hospitals. PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 61.

TRENT DILFER, Parent

ERIKA FIGUEROA, Parent

DAVID LIU, Parent

PROPOSITION 71 IS ABOUT CURING DISEASES AND SAVING LIVES

Stem cells are unique cells that generate healthy new cells, tissues and organs. Medical researchers believe stem cell research could lead to treatments and cures for many diseases and injuries, including:

Cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and lung diseases, spinal injuries.

In fact, medical problems that could benefits from stem cell research affect 128 million Americans – including a child or adult in nearly half of all California families.

71 CLOSES THE RESEARCH GAP

Unfortunately, political squabbling has severely limited funding for the most promising areas of stem cell research.

Meanwhile, millions of people are suffering and dying.

Prop. 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, is an affordable solution that closes the research gap, so new treatments and cures can be found.

That’s why a YES vote on 71 is endorsed by a broad coalition that includes OVER 20 NOBEL PRIZE WINNING SCIENTISTS, doctors, nurses, Democrats, Republicans, and dozens of organization, including:

• Alzheimer’s Association, California Council • American Nurses Association of California • California Medical Association (representing 35,000 doctors) • Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation • Chrisopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation • Cystic Fibrosis Research, Inc. • Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation • Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research • Prostate Cancer Foundation • Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California

71 PROTECTS CALIFORNIA’S TAXPAYERS AND BUDGET.

Prop. 71 doesn’t create or increase any taxes.

It authorizes tax-free state bonds that will provide a maximum of $350 million per year over ten years to support stem cell research at California universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research facilities

.•These bonds are self-financing during the first five years, so there’s no cost to the State’s General Fund during this period of economic recovery.

•By making California a leader in stem cell research and giving our State an opportunity to share in royalties from the research, 71 will generate thousand of new jobs and millions in new state revenues.

That’s why California’s Chief Financial Officers, State Controller Steve Westly, and State Treasurer Phil Angelides, endorse Prop. 71.

STRICT FINANCIAL AND ETHICAL CONTROLS.

Research grants will be allocated by an Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee, guided by medical experts, representatives of disease groups, and financial experts—and subject to independent audit, public hearings, and annual public reports.

Prop. 71 also prohibits any funding for cloning to create babies, reinforcing existing state law banning human reproductive cloning. It’s totally focused on finding medical cures.

71 COULD REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS BY BILLIONS.

California has the nation’s highest total health care spending costs—over $110 billion annually. A huge share of those costs is caused by diseases that could be treated or cured with stem cell therapies.

• If Prop. 71 leads to cures that reduce our health care costs by only 1%, it will pay for itself—and it could cut healthcare costs by tens of billions of dollars in future decades.

For more information visit www.Yeson71.com
Vote YES on 71—IT COULD SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMEONE YOU LOVE

ALAN D. CHERRINGTON, PH.D., President
American Diabetes Association

CAROLYN ALDIGE, President
National Coalition for Cancer Research (NCCR)

JOAN SAMUELSON, President
Parkinson’s Action Network

Across California, millions of people are working harder and harder to pay their bills. Worst of all is the skyrocketing cost they pay for health care.

Many companies are forcing employees to pay more for health care through higher premiums or cuts in coverage. For employees, higher insurance costs compete with their mortgage or rent, food, and transportation. Many employees are going without the medical care and prescription drugs their families need, creating a health care crisis in California.

It is simply wrong when employees can’t afford health insurance for themselves and their children. 72 makes sure that private health insurance remains within reach.

72 WILL LIMIT WHAT EMPLOYEES PAY FOR HEALTH CARE
• PROBLEM: Employees are paying more—not just because of rising health care costs, but also because businesses are shifting a greater share of the burden to their workers. The amount California families pay for premiums has increased 70% in the last three years. Last year, employee premiums increased at twice the rate of business premiums. Unless something is done, more and more will be passed on to you.
• SOLUTION: Under 72, large and medium-sized companies must pay at least 80% of the cost of employees’ premiums for health insurance.

72 WILL PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE TO 1.1 MILLION WORKING PEOPLE AND CHILDREN CURRENTLY UNINSURED
• PROBLEM: Some employers do not offer their employees insurance. The number of working people without insurance is increasing.
• SOLUTION: 72 requires large and mid-sized employers to pay for health insurance for employees, extending coverage to an additional 1.1 million working people and their children.

72 ENSURES COVERAGE YOU NEED
• PROBLEM: Already 30% of businesses say they plan to cut benefits. More will follow.
• SOLUTION: Under 72, coverage includes prescription drugs, preventive care, and major medical.

72 PROTECTS TAXPAYERS
• PROBLEM: California taxpayers pay $4.6 billion annually to cover emergency room and health care bills for the uninsured. Taxpayers will pay even more unless something changes.
• SOLUTION: 72 protects taxpayers by providing health care coverage to an additional 1.1 million workers and their children, taking them out of emergency rooms and placing them in the care of their own doctors.

72 LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES
• PROBLEM: Companies that don’t provide affordable health care to their employees have an advantage over companies that do.
• SOLUTION: 72 protects responsible companies from unfair competition by requiring all large and mid-sized companies to pay for health care for employees.

Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, says, “After studying Proposition 72, we conclude it is a necessary step forward that protects health coverage for working Californians.”

By capping employees’ health care premiums, 72 will keep private health insurance within reach of working families.

If nothing changes, workers will continue to pay more and more for health insurance—or lose their coverage. 72 provides an answer. It’s a good first step in protecting employer based health insurance—and the 19 million Californians who depend on it. Visit www.saveyourhealthcare.com.



RICHARD HOLOBER, Executive Director
Consumer Federation of California

DEBORAH BURGER, RN, President
California Nurses Association

RICHARD F. CORLIN, M.D., Past President
California Medical Association & American Medical Association

IN CALIFORNIA, a daughter under 18 can’t get aspirin from the school nurse, get a flu shot, or have a tooth pulled without a parent knowing.

BUT, UNBELIEVABLY, surgical or chemical abortions can be secretly performed on minor girls—even 12-yearolds—without parents’ knowledge.

PARENTS are then not prepared to help young daughters with the serious physical, emotional, or psychological complications which may result from an abortion or to protect their daughters from further sexual abuse, exploitation, and pregnancies.

A study of over 46,000 pregnancies of SCHOOL-AGE GIRLS in California found that over two-thirds were impregnated by ADULT MEN whose mean age was 22.6 years.

Investigations have shown that secret abortions on minors in California are RARELY REPORTED to child protective services although these pregnancies are evidence of statutory rape and sexual abuse. This leaves these girls vulnerable to further SEXUAL ABUSE, RAPES, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.

That’s why more than ONE MILLION SIGNATURES were submitted to allow Californians to vote on the “Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection” / Proposition 85.

PROP. 85 will require that doctors notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing abortions on minor daughters.

PARENTS AND DAUGHTERS in more than 30 other states have benefited for years from laws like Prop. 85. Many times, after such laws pass, there have been substantial reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minors.

When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies. Older men, including
Internet predators, are deterred from impregnating minors when secret abortions are not available to conceal their crimes.

If she chooses, a minor may petition juvenile court to permit an abortion without notifying a parent. She can request a lawyer to help her. If the evidence shows she is mature enough to decide for herself or that notifying a parent is not in her best interests, the judge will grant her petition. The proceedings must be confidential, prompt, and free. She may also seek help from juvenile court if she is being coerced by anyone to consent to an abortion.

POLLS SHOW most people support parental notification laws. They know that a minor girl—pregnant, scared, and possibly abandoned or pressured by an older boyfriend—NEEDS the advice and support of a parent.

PARENTS have invested more attention and love in raising their daughter, know her personal and medical history better, and care more about her future than STRANGERS employed by abortion clinics PROFITING from performing many abortions on minors.

A minor still has a legal right to obtain or refuse an abortion, but a parent can help her understand all options, obtain competent care, and provide medical records and history.

An informed parent can also get PROMPT CARE for hemorrhage, infections, and other possibly fatal complications.

VOTE “YES” on PROPOSITION 85 TO ALLOW PARENTS TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THEIR MINOR DAUGHTERS’ WELL-BEING, HEALTH, and SAFETY!

www.YESon85.net

WILLIAM P. CLARK, California Supreme Court Justice (Ret.)
MARY L. DAVENPORT, M.D., Fellow, AmericanCollege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
PROFESSOR JOSEPH R. ZANGA, M.D., FAAP, Past President, AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics

Smoking Kills.

Public health experts agree: Taxing tobacco will save lives.

The Tobacco Control Section of the California Department of Health Services has issued an analysis of Proposition 86 titled “Economic and Health Effects of a State Cigarette Excise Tax Increase in California.”

The California Department of Health Services has determined that:

Proposition 86 Will Save Lives:

• Prevent nearly 180,000 deaths due to smoking among California kids now under the age of 17.
• Prevent approximately 120,000 additional deaths due to smoking among current California adult smokers who quit smoking.

Proposition 86 Will Reduce and Prevent Smoking:

• The tax increase alone would prevent more than 700,000 kids now under the age of 17 from becoming adult smokers.
• 120,000 high school students and 30,000 middle school students would either quit or not start smoking.
• More than half a million smokers in California would quit smoking.
• Californians would consume 312 million fewer packs of cigarettes each year.

Proposition 86 Saves Money:

• Nearly $16.5 billion saved in healthcare costs.
• Increases state revenue by over $2.2 billion per year. [See the report for yourself at www.yesprop86.com.]

That’s why Proposition 86 is supported by a broad coalition, including:

American Cancer Society
American Heart Association
American Lung Association of California
American Academy of Pediatrics/California Chapter
The Children’s Partnership
American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter
California Emergency Nurses Association
Association of California Nurse Leaders
California Hospital Association
League of United Latin American Citizens
California Black Health Network
Children Now
California Primary Care Association
Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce

The initiative specifically raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $2.60 to help fund some of California’s critical healthcare needs, including emergency care services; health insurance for children; nursing education; tobacco use prevention programs; enforcement of tobacco-related laws; and research, prevention, and treatment of serious health problems, including cancers, heart diseases, stroke, asthma, and obesity.

Proposition 86 includes tough financial safeguards, including annual detailed public reporting of the use of tax funds, independent audits, limits on administrative costs, and a strict prohibition against the Legislature raiding the trust funds for any other government program. This means the money will go exactly where voters intend.

This measure will save lives. With smoking-related illnesses driving up our healthcare costs and overloading our healthcare system, Proposition 86 will help discourage smoking and ease some of the problems caused by preventable, smoking-related illnesses.

SAVE LIVES. TAX TOBACCO. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 86.

CAROLYN RHEE, Chair, American Cancer Society, California Division
P.K. SHAH, M.D., President, American Heart Association, Western States Affiliate
TIMOTHY A. MORRIS, M.D., Board Member, American Lung Association of California

VOTE YES TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE POWER OF SPECIAL INTERESTS AND LOBBYISTS IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT.

VOTE “YES” ON PROPOSITION 89, THE CLEAN MONEY AND FAIR ELECTIONS ACT.

We have a crisis of corruption in our government marked by scandal after scandal and criminal investigations of politicians from both parties. It is time for Californians to clean up this corruption, and make politicians accountable to voters instead of big money campaign contributors.

THE PROBLEM

Right now, special interests like big oil companies, the drug giants, the insurance industry, and HMOs can get their way in Sacramento by donating millions to elect politicians who will owe them favors. Lobbyists and special interests use campaign contributions to pass their pork barrel projects and create loopholes—costing consumers and taxpayers like you billions of dollars each year.

THE SOLUTION: PROPOSITION 89

If you’re dissatisfied with the way campaigns are funded in California and the effect of campaign contributions on state government, Vote Yes on Prop. 89.

YOUR “YES” VOTE WILL:

1. Help level the playing field and make our elections more fair and competitive—so that candidates with the best ideas have a chance to win, even if they are not rich or well connected to wealthy special interest groups and lobbyists.
2. Require candidates to adhere to strict spending limits and reject special interest contributions in order to qualify for public financing.
3. Ban contributions to candidates by lobbyists and state contractors.
4. Set limits on outside, so-called “independent” campaign committees created by big contributors to influence elections.
5. Limit to $10,000 the amount corporations can spend directly on ballot measure campaigns.
6. Restrict contributions by corporations, unions, and individuals to $500 for candidates for state legislature, $1,000 to candidates for statewide office.
7. Establish tough penalties, including jail time and removing candidates from office who break the law.

NOT FUNDED BY INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS OR THE STATE BUDGET

Proposition 89 is specifically funded by a modest increase in the corporate income tax rate—raising it from 8.84% to 9.04%. The resulting corporate income tax rate would still be less than it was from 1980 until 1996. Corporations should pay their fair share in taxes.

WHEN YOU HEAR THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION 89, REMEMBER:

• Opposition to Proposition 89 is being led and funded by the big oil companies, drug companies, the insurance industry, HMOs, and other entrenched interests.
• Proposition 89 was drafted and reviewed by experts in constitutional and election law, and put on the ballot and backed by Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters.
• The opponents of Proposition 89 want to keep the system exactly the way it is, because they know it works for them, NOT for you. They are making false claims against Proposition 89 because they want to keep their political power for themselves rather than having fair elections that make politicians accountable to the voters.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 89! RETURN ELECTIONS TO THE VOTERS AND REDUCE THE POWER OF THE SPECIAL INTERESTS.

Deborah Burger, RN, President, California Nurses Association
Harvey Rosenfeld, Founder, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
Susan Lerner, Executive Director, California Clean Money Campaign

Parents of seriously ill children, like us, appreciate the value of California's Children's Hospitals. Our children received the specialized care they needed and couldn't get anywhere else.

Over 1 MILLION times each year, California Children's Hospitals treat children with the most serious illnesses and injuries. Children facing life-threatening diseases like LEUKEMIA, CANCER, HEART DEFECTS, SICKLE CELL ANEMIA, DIABETES, CYSTIC FIBROSIS and countless other rare conditions are cared for at regional Children's Hospitals every day, without regard to a family's income or ability to pay.

Children are referred to these pediatric centers of excellence by other hospitals and physicians from throughout California for the specialized treatment they need. Children's Hospitals provide

• 88% of the inpatient care for children who need heart surgery;
• 97% of all surgery for children who need organ transplants;
• 71% of inpatient care for children with cancer.

Imagine that.

Children's Hospitals save hundreds of children's lives EVERY DAY. Many children are cured. Others have their young lives extended for many years. And all have the quality of their lives improved. Today, almost 90% OF CHILDREN BORN WITH HEART DEFECTS can be cured or helped considerably by surgery. The SURVIVAL RATE OF CHILDREN WITH LEUKEMIA IS 80%. Imagine that.

The nation's premier pediatric research centers are in Regional Children's Hospitals making them the source of medical discoveries and advancements that benefit all children. PROPOSITION 3 WILL ALLOW CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS TO PURCHASE THE LATEST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES and special equipment for sick babies born prematurely, seriously underweight, or with defective organs.

PROPOSITION 3 DOES NOT RAISE TAXES. The bonds are an investment in the lives of millions of children who will be cared for over the next 30 years.

Children's Hospitals do not have enough room to handle the growing number of seriously ill and injured children sent to them every day. PROPOSITION 3 FUNDS WILL HELP CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS BUILD MORE BED CAPACITY AND BUY ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THAT ALL CALIFORNIA CHILDREN can get the same excellent care our children got.

These University and nonprofit, charitable hospitals need our help! Children with Heart Disease or Cystic Fibrosis or Cancer have to be admitted over and over to a Children's Hospital to stabilize and treat their life threatening and debilitating illnesses. Children's Hospitals have the specialists to improve the quality of kids' lives, helping them stay at home and stay in school.  

THE MOST SERIOUSLY ILL AND INJURED CHILDREN ARE BEING SAVED EVERY DAY AT A CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL! The doctors, nurses, and staff at Children's Hospitals are unlike any other people you will ever meet. Their lives are dedicated to a mission. And that mission is to treat children with the most serious and deadly diseases like Leukemia, Cancer, Heart Defects, Sickle Cell Anemia, Diabetes, and Cystic Fibrosis.

We can imagine a California where all seriously ill and injured children receive the same care our children got. IMAGINE WITH US. Please join our families and millions of others whose children need California's Children's Hospitals. PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 3.

Robin Meeks
Parent

Mindy Vazquez
Parent

Diane Gibson
Parent

It's time to close the loophole in California law that allows minor girls to be taken for secret chemical or surgical abortions by anyone -- even an adult male who impregnated her -- WITHOUT THE DOCTOR NOTIFYING ANY FAMILY MEMBER. These predators can even take girls out of school to hide their crimes.

Sarah was only 15 when she had a secret abortion. Within days a high fever set in.  No one knew why, or how seriously ill she was. By the time she was hospitalized and doctors determined she had a deadly infection from a torn cervix, it was too late. Sarah died. Had someone in her family known about the abortion, Sarah's life could have been saved.

Proposition 4 -- Sarah's Law -- would require doctors to notify a parent or, in case of parental abuse, another adult family member, such as a grandparent, aunt, or sister, before performing an abortion on a girl under 18. Parental consent is not required, but an adult who cares about her can help her understand all options, ensure competent care, and provide her medical history.

Over the past twenty-five years, more than thirty states have enacted laws similar to Proposition 4. THESE LAWS REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCIES AND SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, WITHOUT DANGER OR HARM TO MINORS.

Medical professionals and lawmakers know children are safer when a family member knows of their medical situation and is informed about risks to their health and safety. New California law requires a parent to provide written consent in person before a minor can use a tanning salon…

Yet a young girl can get an abortion WITHOUT A FAMILY MEMBER BEING NOTIFIED -- and this could endanger her safety, even her life.

WHEN ABORTIONS ARE KEPT SECRET, ADULT SEXUAL PREDATORS GO FREE. Sarah's Law will protect young victims of sexual crimes.

Planned Parenthood performed an abortion on a 14-year-old and then, at the request of the male predator who brought her in, gave her a shot of Depo-Provera so he could have sex with her again right away.

ABORTION PROVIDERS AREN'T REPORTING THESE CRIMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. Family members will!

Planned Parenthood failed to report the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old brought for an abortion by the 23-year-old who raped her. After the secret abortion, the same man impregnated her again, and she had a second abortion.

Sadly, the list of victims of secret abortions continues to grow. Without Sarah's Law, most parents won't know their minor daughter is seeking an abortion.

SECRECY ENABLES ABUSE TO CONTINUE, even abuse inside the home. Sarah's Law will protect vulnerable girls by ensuring abuse is reported and putting their health and safety first.

DON'T LET YOUNG GIRLS LIKE SARAH FACE THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL RISKS OF SECRET ABORTIONS ON THEIR OWN -- or worse yet, COERCED BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR!

Join doctors, nurses, teachers, parents, and law enforcement officials who urge you to protect our daughters and stop child predators by VOTING YES on PROPOSITION 4!

www.YESon4.net

BARBARA ALBY, Author of California's "Megan's Law" Child
Protection Legislation

JOSEPH R. ZANGA, M.D., FAAP, Past President, American Academy of
Pediatrics

THE HONORABLE TONY RACKAUCKAS, J.D., District Attorney, Orange County

California children deserve our protection. The state of California has a long history of approving special dedicated funds for children’s services. Given the state’s current and ongoing budget challenges, we need to take extraordinary steps to once again protect services for children under the age of 5.

This measure is a common-sense solution to California’s budget crisis while also protecting important services for children under the age of 5. It will redirect up to $340 million in reserves currently held by the state First 5 Commission and transfer $268 million annually for the next five years into programs such as child welfare services, early intervention and prevention services for infants and toddlers with developmental disabilities, adoption assistance, foster care, kinship guardianship assistance and direct health care services.

Proposition 1D is consistent with the original intent of voters when they passed Proposition 10 in November 1998. The original initiative added a $0.50 tax on tobacco products to promote, support and improve the early development of children under the age of 5. State and local First 5 commissions have used this money to fund important programs that benefit infants and toddlers, as well as their families. Unfortunately, in tough economic times, families suffer greater stress and larger numbers of children are seen in the child welfare and foster care system. Now, more than ever, the state must use all of its available resources to protect and sustain existing programs. This measure will ensure that children under the age of 5 continue to receive the services currently available to them.

Voting for this measure will not permanently shift these funds away from their original purpose. This solution will help solve California’s current budget crisis and prevent further cuts in services to children under the age of 5. Please vote yes to help our state continue critical services to children under the age of 5.

ROBERT J. BALDO
Executive Director, Association of Regional Center Agencies

When voters approved Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, to provide community mental health services in California, it was one of my proudest achievements. Since the Mental Health Services Act was enacted in 2004, we have helped hundreds of thousands of people who have suffered from untreated and severe mental illness regain lives of meaning and dignity.

As the co-author of Proposition 63, I support diverting funds from the Mental Health Services Act only as a last resort to help balance the state budget this year. California faces an unprecedented $42 billion budget deficit. Solving a budget crisis of this magnitude has been painful and difficult. Everyone has had to give something. But as a collective we must all share in the sacrifice to help put California back on track.

Proposition 1E will save the state's General Fund over $225 million in 2009-10 and up to $234 million in 2010-11 by redirecting funds from the Mental Health Services Act account to the state's Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program for the next two years. Children served under the EPSDT program will continue to receive specialized care for their complex mental health needs.

While the services provided in the EPSDT program are consistent with the approach of Proposition 63, make no mistake about what we are doing here. We are diverting money from the Mental Health Services Act to help reduce the magnitude of cuts that would otherwise have occurred in other state funded programs.

When Proposition 63 was enacted in 2004, voters overwhelmingly approved a 1% income tax on individuals with incomes over $1 million. The success of Proposition 63 has saved the state hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary hospital and prison costs and reversed decades of neglect for people living with mental illness.

Nonetheless, delays in getting new programs started have resulted in $2.5 billion sitting in state coffers. This is more than is needed to fund current services. While in the long run this money is probably best spent on Proposition 63 programs, we cannot afford to only do that right now. And although this shift will reduce the availability of services in the future, we need this funding now to avoid even deeper cuts in other vital state services.

This is a one-time redirection of funds at a time when we face an economic crisis like we have never seen before. This should not be a precedent for diverting Proposition 63 funds in the future. We need every dollar to end the neglect of people living with mental illness.

The focus now is on finishing our work to close the budget gap. By voting yes on Proposition 1E, California can continue to provide critical mental health services to vulnerable children. It's the right thing to do for those who need us most. Please vote Yes on Proposition 1E.

 

SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE DARRELL STEINBERG
Co-Author, Proposition 63

KEEPING TEENS SAFE IS A PRIMARY CONCERN TO PARENTS, BUT Prop 73’s proponents believe government can force teens to communicate with their parents. Who’s kidding who? FAMILY COMMUNICATION CAN’T BE “REQUIRED” BY GOVERNMENT. Talking to our daughters about responsible sexual behavior when they’re young is the best way to protect them.

In fact, MOST TEENS DO TALK TO THEIR PARENTS, BUT SOME JUST CAN’T SAFELY. Proponents are wrong when they say those teens can easily go to court. IT’S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT VULNERABLE, SCARED TEENAGERS FROM ABUSIVE FAMILIES TO SIMPLY “GO TO COURT.” California courthouses are crowded; these teens don’t need to endure a court proceeding.

The proponents are wrong when they assert that internet predators and statutory rapists will be deterred from their despicable actions by new laws like these. THAT’S PREPOSTEROUS—it’s just included to scare voters.

What proponents don’t tell you is this law FORCES DOCTORS TO REPORT these procedures TO THE GOVERNMENT—why does government need to know? They’ve also slipped into their initiative language adding “unborn child, a child conceived but not born” to our Constitution. What does that have to do with notification? We don’t know.

What we do know is that THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, looking at the experience of other states with similar laws, CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE “OVERWHELMINGLY” SHOWS THESE LAWS DO NOT SUPPORT FAMILIES, BUT IN FACT, PUT TEENAGERS IN DANGER.

California’s League of Women Voters, medical experts, and millions of concerned parents urge you to VOTE NO.

Visit www.NoOnProposition73.org.

Deborah Burger, RN, President, California Nurses Association
Kathy Kneer, CEO, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
A. Eric Ramos, M.D., President, California Academy of Family Physicians

Why are Californians struggling with high drug prices? Because the drug companies funding Prop. 78 charge high prices.

If drug companies want to offer discounts voluntarily, they can do it today, without an initiative, without a new program.

• Prop. 78 provides smaller discounts to fewer people and does not allow the state to enforce the discounts. This approach already failed in California.
• Prop. 79 builds on existing efforts that have saved taxpayers billions. It gives more middle and low income Californians bigger discounts that can be enforced.

PROP. 78 USES AN APPROACH THAT HAS FAILED IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE.

In 2001, California created the Golden Bear State Pharmacy which relied on drug companies to voluntarily lower their prices. The state shut it down because very few drug companies agreed to participate.

Prop. 78 uses the same failed approach.

PROP. 78: SMALLER DISCOUNTS, FEWER PEOPLE, NO ENFORCEMENT

Drug companies face no penalty under Prop. 78 if they fail to provide discounts and the industry can shut down Prop. 78 at any time by failing to participate. Prop. 78 does not require any, much less all, drugs to be discounted, and it offers smaller discounts to fewer people.

DON’T BE FOOLED: If Prop. 78 gets more votes than Prop. 79, drug companies win and Californians lose.

That’s why drug companies contributed more than $50 million to pass Prop. 78 and defeat Prop. 79. That’s why consumers, seniors, unions, nurses, and doctors, say VOTE NO on 78 and YES on 79.

Barbara A. Brenner, Executive Director
Breast Cancer Action

Ramón Castellblanch, Policy Advisor
Senior Action Network

Kathy J. Sackman, RN, President
United Nurses Association of California

There are good reasons why pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and patient advocates oppose Proposition 79:

• The measure is so poorly written it will result in years of legal challenges and will never get approval by the federal government.
• It contains the same flaw that caused the failure of a similar program in Maine.
• Proposition 79 would let trial lawyers file thousands of lawsuits claiming that prices are too high or profits are unreasonable. Worse, the measure doesn’t define what is a fair price or profit.

The backers of Proposition 79 rant against the pharmaceutical industry to obscure the real issues. The pharmaceutical industry is just one of many that have spoken out against Prop. 79. Groups representing seniors, physicians, nurses, taxpayers, small businesses and patients all oppose Proposition 79. Prop. 79 is also opposed by leaders in the fight against heart disease, cancer, epilepsy, asthma, AIDS, lupus and many other diseases.

Prop. 79 won’t provide drug discounts to more people than Prop. 78 because Prop. 79 won’t ever take effect. Just like a similar measure in Maine that spent years in court and never resulted in a single drug discount, Prop. 79 is a false promise. And if Proposition 79 did ever get implemented, it would establish a big government program costing taxpayers millions to administer and put at risk over $480 million the state currently receives in drug rebates.

There is only one drug discount program on the ballot that will work and that is Proposition 78. Please don’t be fooled by Prop. 79. It’s the wrong prescription for California.

Rodrigo A. Munoz, M.D., Past President
San Diego County Medical Society

John Merchant, Chair
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Chris Mathys, President
Valley Taxpayers Coalition, Inc.

Rebuilding hospitals can make some select contractors rich – but it does not guarantee health care for anyone.

The principal problem in California—and across America—is that we have an estimated 44 million legal residents (including children) who have no health insurance and tens of millions more who have inadequate coverage.

Persons without adequate health insurance delay seeking care (until they end up in expensive emergency rooms) and government-operated hospitals, as well as the many so-called "non-profit" corporations that run most hospitals, seek to charge the uninsured up to 3 times the rates negotiated by public and private insurers.

The current health care system in California and in our country is littered with middlemen and profiteers who steal limited resources from actual care.

Put differently, the current system is wasteful and unfair. We need a "single-payer" health care system in which every legal resident receives basic health coverage.

In a political system ludicrously dependent upon private campaign contributions, entrenched special interests are able to give money to our elected officials so that their special interests are preserved or enhanced.

If we continue to have a national government beholden to the rich, the California Legislature should establish or offer voters a statewide "single-payer" system in which persons can have more or less insurance - but every legal resident has some insurance.

Closing our eyes to the real problems will NOT make California or America safer or better.

GARY B. WESLEY, Attorney at Law

Stem Cell Research? YES! Human Embryo Cloning? NO

Here are just some of the many problems with Proposition 71:

**It specifically supports “embryo cloning” research—also called “somatic cell nuclear transfer”—which poses risks to women and unique ethical problems. To provide scientists with eggs for embryo cloning, at least initially, thousands of women may be subjected to the substantial risk of high dose hormones and egg extraction procedures just for the purposes of research. In addition, the perfection of embryo cloning technology—even if initially for medical therapies only—will increase the likelihood that human clones will be produced.

**Why privilege this research over other important research and medical needs, especially given the limits on how much California can invest? Why not issue bonds for programs that ALREADY have proven their cost effectiveness? Embryo stem cell research in nonhuman animals has produced only limited results. More compelling evidence of its efficacy should be required before a large commitment of public resources to study it in humans.

** Proponents are manipulating those seeking cures, building false hopes with exaggerated claims and creating a costly program without adequate oversight or accountability.

Stem cell research should be supported, but not this way. And don’t be fooled by those who say the opponents of Proposition 71 are all opposed to abortion and embryo stem cell research. Many of us are pro-choice, do not oppose all embryo stem cell research, and still oppose this initiative.

Vote “No” on Proposition 71

JUDY NORSIGIAN, Executive Director
Our Bodies Ourselves

FRANCINE COEYTAUX, Founder
Pacific Institute for Women’s Health

TINA STEVENS, Ph.D., Author
Bioethics in America: Origins and Cultural Politics

PROPOSITION 72 WILL NOT CONTROL HEALTH COSTS

Health costs are skyrocketing but Proposition 72 WILL NOT control these costs. Proposition 72 makes the problem worse by creating a huge bureaucracy to administer a government-run health care scheme COSTING EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS an estimated $7 BILLION by 2007.

PROPOSITION 72 CREATES A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

The backers of 72 are hiding the fact it creates a government- run system. Read it for yourself!—“Chapter 3. State Health Purchasing Program.” Many people may lose their existing private coverage and end up in the state plan.

The former head of the state board charged with implementing
72 says it won’t work:

“Proposition 72 is fatally flawed and poorly structured. It mandates coverage without controlling costs and forces workers and employers to pay whether they can afford to or not. Proposition 72 just doesn’t work.”

John Ramey, Former Executive Director
Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board

PROPOSITION 72 DOES NOT HELP THE UNINSURED OR TAXPAYERS

We all want to help the uninsured, but Proposition 72 isn’t the solution. Up to 500,000 workers’ jobs will be at risk if Proposition 72 becomes law. These people could end up unemployed AND uninsured.

THREATENS ACCESS TO YOUR DOCTORS

Under Proposition 72’s state plan, you could lose access to your doctors and hospitals and have to be treated by government-approved providers.

Proposition 72 is not the kind of reform we need! PLEASE JOIN DOCTORS, CHARITIES, EDUCATORS, AND TAXPAYERS—VOTE NO ON 72!

THOMAS LAGRELIUS, M.D., President
California Chapter, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

GLORIA RIOS, Director
California Association of School Business Officials

ON COUPAL,President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

NO LAW CAN FORCE FAMILIES TO COMMUNICATE.

Of course, parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers’ lives, but in the REAL WORLD, some teenagers live in dangerous homes. Some parents are violent or sexually abuse their daughters.

IN THE REAL WORLD, Proposition 85:

• WON’T STOP CHILD PREDATORS. Backers are exploiting our fear of predators to advance their own political agenda.
• WON’T REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCY.
• PUTS TEENS AT RISK. Scared, pregnant teens from abusive families won’t go to court . . . but they may resort to dangerous back-alley abortions—or even consider suicide.
• MEANS DANGEROUS DELAYS IN CRITICAL MEDICAL CARE. The New England Journal of Medicine reported that, after a law like this took effect, some pregnant teens waited months to seek care, getting riskier second trimester abortions.

The California Supreme Court found “overwhelming” evidence that similar laws in other states cause real harm to teenagers and families.

Don’t be misled.

For ninety years, Planned Parenthood has been a trusted provider of quality healthcare. Caring staff counsel pregnant teens to talk to parents—and most do.

Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics COMPLY WITH ALL CALIFORNIA LAWS ON CHILD ABUSE REPORTING. To charge NOW that they protect criminals is ridiculous. DHHS’s Office of Inspector General’s recent investigation didn’t find evidence of a single reporting violation.

The San Jose Mercury News says Proposition 85 is “PART OF A LARGER STRATEGY TO CHIP AWAY AT LEGALIZED ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES.”

Prop. 85 threatens teens . . . and a whole lot more.

VOTE NO.

DONNA W. CHIPPS, Executive Vice President, League of Women Voters of California
BO GREAVES, M.D., President, CaliforniaAcademy of Family Physicians

JEANNE A. CONRY, M.D., Vice Chair, the AmericanCollege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX California

Helping people stop smoking and keeping kids from starting is important. Unfortunately, less than 10% of the $2.1 billion in new tax money goes to programs that help smokers quit or keep kids from starting. Here’s what’s really in the initiative:

• Huge hospital corporations are spending millions promoting Prop. 86 because they will pocket hundreds of millions of dollars every year. HMOs will also get millions of dollars each year.
• Almost 40% of the $2.1 billion in new tax money from Prop. 86 goes to hospitals—THAT’S OVER $800 MILLION A YEAR THAT HAS VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH STOPPING SMOKING!
• The $2.1 billion comes from an unfair $2.60 tax increase on each pack of cigarettes—an increase of almost 300%.

Here’s what Prop. 86 is really all about:

• Section 9 gives hospitals an exemption to antitrust laws.
• There’s nothing in Prop. 86 that limits what hospitals can charge taxpayers for emergency services for the uninsured. This amounts to an open taxpayer checkbook!
• There are no guarantees on how the money will be spent.
• Under California law approved by voters (Proposition 98), approximately 40% of any new taxes are dedicated to our schools. The huge hospital corporations don’t want to share with our schools and kids, so they included a CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION (Section 15) so that NONE of these funds will go to our schools.

Check it out for yourself: www.86facts.org.

Prop. 86 is really about special interests amending our Constitution for their benefit.

No on 86.

MONICA WEISBRICH, RN, Operating Room Nurse
JAIME ROJAS, President, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
MALCOLM SIMPSON, Public School Teacher

Here’s what you should know before voting:

PROPOSITION 89 IS A TAX INCREASE TO PAY FOR POLITICIANS’ NEGATIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.

The supporters of Proposition 89 don’t tell you that what this measure really does, plain and simple, is raise taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars so politicians can run their campaigns at taxpayers’ expense.

Everything we don’t like about political campaigns – negative television ads and junk mail in our mail boxes – would still be there. The only difference is OUR TAX DOLLARS would be paying for it.

AFFECTS SMALL BUSINESSES TOO

They claim that Proposition 89 is about reducing the impact of big corporations in elections, but it also SEVERELY LIMITS the ability of many small businesses from backing [sic] candidates or impacting measures.

That’s why the California Small Business Association opposes Prop. 89.

PROP. 89 IS COMPLICATED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

They say Prop. 89 was crafted by election experts, but they don’t tell you that major portions of a similar measure were recently thrown out by the Supreme Court. The truth – Prop. 89 is a complicated, 55-page measure that won’t work.

PROP. 89 IS UNFAIR

And the biggest deception of all – the authors of Proposition 89 are special interests too! They wrote Prop. 89 so they can still contribute BIG MONEY to ballot initiatives, while small businesses, non-profits, and others are virtually SHUT OUT. Prop. 89 is a power grab by a single special interest to dominate elections under the guise of campaign reform.

DON’T BE FOOLED BY PROP. 89 – IT’S PHONY REFORM.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 89.

Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers’ Association
Betty Jo Toccoli, Chair, California Small Business Roundtable
James M. Hall, Former Chair, California Fair Political Practices Commission

Our economy is in trouble. Families are struggling financially. Our state government cannot balance its books. Now is NOT the time to saddle ourselves, our children and our grandchildren with more debt.

The campaign managers for Proposition 3 know they tug at voters' heartstrings by  framing Proposition 3 as "for the children." But the direct beneficiaries are medical supply houses, pharmaceutical companies, hospital administrators, and other special interests. They will receive nearly $1 billion of the tax payers' money after "investing” a small amount to qualify and campaign for this initiative.

This is a terrible abuse of the initiative process.

Those behind Prop. 3 are not telling you another important fact - that unspent funds from the earlier "children's hospital bond" (Prop. 61 in 2004) are still available. Instead of spending the money that voters have already authorized, they are demanding more - even though our economy is struggling, and competition for those dollars is fierce.

Proponents claim: "Proposition 3 does not raise taxes." Who would they have you believe pays the bill? The tooth fairy? This bonds' principal and interest (nearly $2 billion over 30 years) will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. Soon, either taxes will be raised or other state expenditures, such as schools, law enforcement or parks, will be reduced. There is no "free lunch."

In these troubled economic times, Californians cannot afford big new spending and the massive debt that comes with it. Vote NO On Prop. 3.

SIGNED BY:

Lewis K. Uhler
President, National Tax Limitation Committee

Ted Gaines
California State Assemblyman

James V. Lacy
Director, American Conservative Union

PLANNED PARENTHOOD, California HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRAGEDIES DESCRIBED ABOVE. 

In fact, NONE of these cases HAPPENED IN CALIFORNIA.

Proponents want you to believe absurd charges so you'll ignore 4's real dangers.

Don't be misled.

In the real world, LAWS LIKE THIS CAN'T FORCE TEENS TO TALK TO THEIR PARENTS but may cause them to seek illegal, unsafe abortions, go over the border or even consider suicide.

PROP 4:

WON'T REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCY.
PUTS TEENS IN DANGER.
ENCOURAGES LAWSUITS AGAINST DOCTORS.

The facts:

• "SARAH;' (whose real name was Jammie Garcia Yanez-Villegas ) was a married mother, with a child, when she died in Texas in 1994. Nothing in Prop 4 would have prevented her tragic death.

• PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROTECTS TEENS, NOT PREDATORS. Its staff complies with all child abuse reporting laws. 97% of what Planned Parenthood does involves preventive care, comprehensive sex education and cancer screenings.

• When pregnant teens need help, Planned Parenthood's caring counselors urge teens to talk to parents -- and most do ... and IF THEY FIND EVIDENCE OF ABUSE, THEY REPORT IT.

Backers are exploiting fears to advance their own political agenda: The San Diego Union Tribune reported that THEIR REAL GOAL IS TO OUTLAW ABORTION.

Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, but extremists are making wild charges to divert voters from the real and dangerous consequences of 4. For the real facts about its danger to teens, visit www.NoonProposition4.org

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS KEEPING TEENS SAFE. VOTE NO

Kathy Kneer,
President, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Dr. Raquel Arias,
Associate Dean, Obstetrics and Gynecology (Keck School of Medicine)
University of Southern California

Dr. Jeannie Conry,
Chair, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX

PROPOSITION 1D ELIMINATES FUNDING FOR OUR CHILDREN

Prop. 1D hurts children. It’s a cynical scheme by Sacramento politicians to seize money from local health and education programs.

Who do you trust? The politicians who wrote the ballot description above or parents, teachers, doctors, nurses, and law enforcement officials who are voting no on Prop. 1D:

“Prop. 1D hurts children. It will cut effective preschool and early education programs that are key to children’s long-term success in school.”
— Professor Joe Kahne, Dean, School of Education, Mills College

“Prop. 1D will eliminate proven anti-smoking programs that keep families healthy and lower healthcare costs that burden every taxpayer.”
— Albert Wang, M.D., Co-Chair, Friends of Children with Special Needs

“Prop. 1D cuts effective programs that start kids on the right track to keep them out of trouble. It will hurt kids and add to the strain on law enforcement and taxpayers.”
— Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County

“As a PTA mom, I don’t want to see $1.6 billion taken away from local programs and put in the hands of Sacramento bureaucrats.”
— Lisa Greer, Past PTA President, Riverside Drive Elementary School

Prop. 1D violates the will of voters who twice approved local health, education, and anti-smoking programs. Prop. 1D replaces voter-mandated local control with Sacramento bureaucracy.
Now, in these tough times, common sense says the last thing our children and families need is cuts to local health and education programs and to lose more money to Sacramento politicians.

DELAINE EASTIN
Former California Superintendent of Schools

GEORGENE LOWE, R.N.
Health Linkages Coordinator, Santa Barbara County

ELIZABETH HITESHEW
Coordinator Early Childhood Education, UCLA Education Extension Division

California's $42 billion deficit is unprecedented.

Closing a gap of this magnitude has resulted in difficult and painful choices for everyone.

While I respect the decisions that our legislative leaders have had to make, I don't agree that we should pass Proposition 1E to temporarily divert funds from Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act.

The amount of money this measure transfers to the state general fund is a small fraction of the state budget. On the other hand, the Mental Health Services Act, in many cases, provides the only meaningful source of help for our most vulnerable citizens.

Many children are benefiting from early intervention and treatment. It is bringing hope to families who have a member suffering from a severe mental illness.

Even more vital is the funding for prevention and early intervention that is providing opportunities to avoid the failures of our past. This will save money for hospitals and healthcare, and in the end help balance the state budget.

We shouldn't take money from the Mental Health Services Act that was approved by the voters. These programs are helping hundreds of thousands of people living with mental illness in our community. To take away the funding would put this progress at risk.

We can end the tragedies of kids failing in school, prevent homelessness, and change lives for the better. Let's keep Proposition 63 funding in place, for our children and for our future.

Please vote NO on Proposition 1E.

LOU CORREA
State Senator

PARENTS RIGHTFULLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEENAGERS' LIVES and all parents want what is best for their children. BUT GOOD FAMILY COMMUNICATION CAN'T BE IMPOSED BY GOVERNMENT.

Parents care most about keeping their children safe. That means always safe, even if they feel they can't come to us and tell us everything.

Family communication must begin long before a teen faces an unplanned pregnancy. The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior from the time they are young and fostering an atmosphere that assures them they can come to us.

Even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents might be afraid to talk to them about something as sensitive as pregnancy.

And sadly, some teens live in troubled homes. The family might be having serious problems, or parents might be abusive, or a relative may have even caused the pregnancy.

THIS LAW PUTS THOSE VULNERABLE TEENAGERS—THOSE WHO MOST NEED PROTECTION—IN HARM'S WAY, OR FORCES THEM TO GO TO COURT. Think about it: the girl is already terrified, she's pregnant, her family is abusive or worse. She's not going to be marching up to a judge in a crowded courthouse. She doesn't need a judge, she needs a counselor.

Mandatory notification laws make scared, pregnant teens who can't go to their parents do scary things, instead of going to the doctor to get the medical help they need. In other states, when parental notification laws make teenagers choose between talking with parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion—even though it is dangerous. Sometimes teenagers are just teenagers.

And if, in desperation, teenagers turn to illegal, self-induced or back-alley abortions many will suffer serious injuries and some will die.

The CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS AND THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ALL OPPOSE Proposition 73. Mandatory notification laws may sound good, but, in the real world, they just put teenagers in real danger.

THE REAL ANSWER TO TEEN PREGNANCY IS PREVENTION, AND STRONG, CARING FAMILIES—NOT NEW LAWS THAT ENDANGER OUR DAUGHTERS.

California's teen pregnancy rate dropped significantly over the last decade without constitutional amendments or forced notification laws. That's because doctors, nurses, parents, teachers and counselors are teaching teenagers about responsibility, abstinence and birth control. These programs will help keep our daughters safe and out of trouble.

Talking to our daughters when they are young and fostering a place where they can freely communicate is the best solution.

BUT IF—FOR WHATEVER REASON—OUR DAUGHTERS CAN'T OR THEY WON'T COME TO US, WE MUST MAKE SURE THEY GET SAFE, PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ATTENTION AND QUALITY COUNSELING FROM CARING DOCTORS AND NURSES.

As parents, we want to know when our daughters face a decision like this so we can be helpful and supportive. But also, as parents, our daughters' safety is more important than our desire to be informed.

Please join us in voting NO on Proposition 73.

Robert L. Black, M.D., FAAP, Officer of the Board, American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
Ruth E. Haskins, M.D., Chair, Committee on Legislation, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX California
Deborah Burger, RN, President, California Nurses Association

THE DRUG LOBBY IS SPENDING HISTORIC AMOUNTS TO BLOCK THE REAL SOLUTION FOR FAIR DRUG PRICES

Prop. 78 is a smokescreen designed and bankrolled with tens of millions of dollars from the prescription drug lobby to block Prop. 79, a real discount solution put forward by consumer, health, and senior groups. Under their cynical strategy, if both measures get a majority, the one with more votes becomes law.

Newspapers report that just one contribution from GlaxoSmithKline for $8.5 million could be “the largest ever from a corporation to a California campaign.” Drug companies donated $50 million to Prop. 78 by mid-July, on track to run what could be the most expensive initiative campaign in California history.

Jan Faiks, VP with PhRMA, the industry’s lobbying arm, told the Los Angeles Times “the industry would spend ‘whatever it takes’ to defeat [Prop. 79].”

PROP. 78 RELIES ON MANUFACTURERS TO VOLUNTEER DISCOUNTS: A PLAN PROVEN TO FAIL

Prop. 78 relies on drug manufacturers to voluntarily lower their prices and does not allow the state of California to enforce the program.

California tried this voluntary approach in 2001. The Golden Bear State Pharmacy was designed to offer seniors voluntary discounts on prescription medications. More than 500 drug manufacturers were invited to participate, yet only 14 agreed. Unable to implement it successfully, Governor Schwarzenegger closed the program.

According to news reports, the drug companies said they didn’t participate in Golden Bear because if they did, they would have to give the federal government the same rebates they were giving to California seniors. Have they really changed their minds four years later? Can we trust the manufacturers to voluntarily lower their prices now? No.

PROP. 78’S DISCOUNTS CAN END AT ANY TIME

The drug lobby buried a provision in Prop. 78 that allows them to effectively close their discount program when too few manufacturers voluntarily lower their prices.

As stated in their initiative, Prop. 78 could end at any time if there are too few participating manufacturers, or insufficient discounts, or too few participating consumers.

Make no mistake, this provision was included by the drug companies so they can end the program at any time and protect their profit margins.

FEWER PEOPLE ARE ELIGIBLE, DISCOUNTS ARE LESS

Half as many Californians are eligible for discounts under Prop. 78 as under Prop. 79. Prop. 78 provides no discounts to many uninsured Californians, those with catastrophic medical bills, and the chronically ill such as cancer and diabetes patients with inadequate drug coverage.

The discounts offered by Prop. 78 are based on the “lowest commercial price” set by the drug companies. These discounts could be anywhere from 15 to 40 percent—significantly less than Prop. 79’s discounts.

VOTE NO on PROP. 78, a smokescreen by the pharmaceutical industry to block the real solution to high prices.

Instead, VOTE YES on PROP. 79 for fair prescription drug prices.

Nancy J. Brasmer, President
California Alliance for Retired Americans

Richard Holober, Executive Director
Consumer Federation of California

Jacqueline Jacobberger, President
League of Women Voters of California

We all want to provide cheaper prescription drugs to needy Californians, but Proposition 79 just won’t work. It’s based on a flawed proposal from the state of Maine that never went into effect, never delivered a single discount and was ultimately abandoned by Maine. Californians don’t need another false initiative promise that will result in years of legal challenges and ultimately never go into effect.

“Maine residents were counting on a drug discount program that was just like California’s Proposition 79. But it was tied up in court and never received approval from the federal government. Not a single patient got a discounted drug as a result of that failed program.”
Calvin Fuhrmann, MD FCCP
Kennebruk Medical Center, Maine

Backed by public employee unions, Proposition 79 sets up another big government program that will cost California millions. With huge budget deficits that already affect funding for critical programs, how can we take on a massive new government program? On top of that, Proposition 79 jeopardizes over $480 million in rebates that taxpayers currently receive from pharmaceutical companies.

Because Proposition 79 changes the state’s Medi-Cal program, which is largely funded with federal dollars, the federal government would have to approve Proposition 79. No federal administration, Democratic or Republican, has ever approved a program like Proposition 79.

Why won’t Proposition 79 receive federal approval? Prop. 79 risks the health of poor patients in order to provide drug discounts for people who make as much as $77,000 annually, including some people who already have health insurance. Proposition 79 says that if a drug manufacturer does not provide steep discounts to these higher income Californians, they can’t provide prescription drugs to help the poor, seniors and disabled patients who depend on Medi-Cal.

“Proposition 79 jeopardizes access to prescription drugs for the lowest income and most vulnerable individuals in the state.”
Neva Hirschkorn, Executive Director
Epilepsy Foundation of Northern California

A hidden section in Proposition 79 will let trial lawyers file thousands of frivolous lawsuits simply by claiming the price charged for the product is too much or that the manufacturer’s profits are too high. The initiative doesn’t define what is a fair price or a reasonable profit! Worse, trial lawyers don’t need a client to bring these lawsuits and can keep for themselves 100% of the money they are able to force from a defendant!

“Last November, Californians passed Proposition 64 to prevent shakedown lawsuits. Proposition 79 would re-open the door to shakedowns, flood our courts with frivolous litigation and drive up the cost of prescription drugs.”
John H. Sullivan, President
Civil Justice Association of California

Like so many previous initiatives, 79 won’t deliver what it claims. It will result in years of litigation and will ultimately be rejected by the federal government. It creates an expensive big government program, jeopardizes the health of low income Californians and will result in a deluge of frivolous litigation benefiting trial lawyers at our expense.

Prop. 79 is the wrong prescription for California. Join seniors, taxpayers, health advocates, patients and small businesses and VOTE NO on Proposition 79.

Tom Murphy, Chair
California Arthritis Foundation Council

John Kehoe, Policy Director
California Senior Advocate League

Rodney Hood, MD, President
Multicultural Foundation

California voters have already approved billions of dollars in bond sales and have mortgaged the future.

The Legislature can always come up with yet another "motherhood and apple pie" project that would be nice.

However, raising the money (at this time of deficits and high debt) by more borrowing is not responsible.

Not only the principal but also decades of interest would have to be repaid.

GARY B. WESLEY, Attorney at Law

WE SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, NOT CORPORATE WELFARE

It’s wrong to launch a costly new state bureaucracy when vital programs for health, education, and police and fire services are being cut. We cannot afford to pile another $3 billion in bonded debt on top of a state budget teetering on the edge of financial ruin.

General Fund bond debt will grow from $33 billion on May 1, 2004, to a Legislative Accounting Office projection of $50.75 billion in debt by June 30, 2005—a staggering 54% increase in just 14 months!

WHO BENEFITS?

Backers will cynically use images of suffering children and people with disabilities in their commercials, but pharmaceutical company executives and venture capitalists contributed $2.6 million to put this measure on the ballot. By getting taxpayers to fund their corporate research, they stand to make billions with little risk.

NO ACCOUNTABILITY

And who will oversee how this money is spent? According to the fine print, the proponents give themselves power to exempt their “Institute for Regenerative Medicine” from aspects of our California “open meeting” law (specifically passed to stop this kind of backroom deal-making).

Why do proponents want to keep what they are doing a secret? If we’re being asked to pay for this research, then it should be freely available to all, not just to those who will be “awarded” special contracts by the “Institute.” The initiative also grants the “Institute” power to rewrite California’s medical informed consent safeguards.

Most importantly, the fine print specifically prohibits the Governor and Legislature from exercising oversight and control over how this money is spent—or misspent. Even if the state teeters on the brink of financial ruin, our elected representatives will still have to borrow and spend this money, because the proponents are putting this money grab into our Constitution.

BAD MEDICINE

Opponents of this boondoggle include liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, medical professionals and stem cell researchers. We all strongly support Stem Cell Research, but oppose this blatant taxpayer rip-off that lines the pockets of a few large corporations.

If there was any doubt about the true motives of the corporate promoters of this bond debt, one need only look at what it doesn’t fund. The fine print does not initially fund adult and cord blood stem cell research. Adult and cord blood stem cell research has already produced more than 74 major medical breakthrough, but this measure excludes support for these proven areas of research, without a two-thirds vote of the Institute’s “working group”.

Consider just one example: Cord blood stem cells are being used to treat sickle cell anemia with a staggering success rate of 90%. That’s real progress, helping real people, but it may not receive one penny from this initiative.

Join with millions of your fellow citizens in demanding an end to “corporate welfare” and bonded debt. This is no time to spend billions we don’t have on a self-serving sham.

Vote “NO” on Proposition 71. It’s not what they say it is.
www.NoOn71.com

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California State Senator

JOHN M.W. MOORLACH, C.P.A.
Orange County Treasurer

H. REX GREENE, M.D., Cancer Center Director and Bioethics Consultant

Real health care reform should control costs and cover more people, but Proposition 72 fails that test. Passed by the Legislature with no meaningful hearings and signed by Governor Davis just days before he was recalled, Proposition 72 creates a huge government-run health care system funded by an estimated $7 billion in new taxes by 2007 on employers and workers.

WORKERS MAY LOSE PRIVATE COVERAGE
Proposition 72 may hurt people who already have health coverage through their employer. You could get forced out of your current plan and into the government run system! Under Proposition 72 you could lose access to your personal doctor and hospital and end up with a high deductible policy that requires you to pay thousands out of your pocket before getting coverage.

BUREAUCRATS GIVEN TOO MUCH POWER

Under Prop. 72, bureaucrats determine what medical
services and providers are covered by the state-run health system and how much you’ll pay to support the government- run plan. There are no caps on the administrative fees they can charge. The Orange County Register called it health care with, “the bedside manner of the DMV.”

PAY WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT

Proposition 72 is poorly written. You can’t decline coverage even if you don’t want it or can’t afford your share of costs! Employees will pay up to 20% of the cost!

KILLS JOBS/ECONOMY

Proposition 72 will damage California’s economy and mean MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE because thousands will lose their jobs as companies close or move out of state. California businesses already struggling with high workers’ comp and energy costs just can’t afford billions in new health care costs.

COSTS WORKERS $1,700 PER FAMILY

Covered workers will be forced to pay up to 20% of the premiums. The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimates family coverage will cost workers up to $1,700 per year.

Employers must pay 80% of the cost. Many must also
pay for dependent coverage, costing over $6,800 per worker
each year.

COSTS SCHOOLS AND NONPROFITS MILLIONS

The Association of California School Administrators says Proposition 72 will cost school districts hundreds of millions annually—money urgently needed in classrooms! Nonprofit organizations like Easter Seals and the Goodwill of
Long Beach and South Bay oppose Prop. 72 because it makes it harder to provide services to people in need. Here’s how Proposition 72 damages Californians:

“At Easter Seals, the high costs and mandates of Proposition 72 will force us to stop creating new and needed services for people with disabilities.”
Gary Kasai, President, Easter Seals Superior California

“Proposition 72 will mandate the worst kind of managed health care we have. This means there will be more and more patients with terrible insurance.”
Thomas LaGrelius, M.D., President, California Chapter, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

“Prop. 72 will discourage those of us who have worked so hard to fulfill the American dream from growing their business and providing more jobs in our communities. Some will simply have to close shop.”

C.C. Yin, Restaurant Owner
JOIN EMPLOYERS, EDUCATORS, DOCTORS, NONPROFITS, AND TAXPAYERS: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 72!

ALLAN ZAREMBERG, President
California Chamber of Commerce

SANDRA CARSTEN, President
Association of California School Administrators

JAMES G. KNIGHT, M.D., 2003 President
San Diego Medical Society

DOCTORS AND NURSES, including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, American Academy of Pediatrics-California District, California Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-District IX California, STRONGLY OPPOSE PROPOSITION 85.

They understand that while PARENTS RIGHTFULLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEENAGERS’ LIVES, in the real world, SOME California TEENAGERS COME FROM HOMES where they can’t talk to their parents, where there is violence, or WHERE A FAMILY MEMBER HAS SEXUALLY ABUSED THEM.

THESE TEENS CAN’T GO TO THEIR PARENTS. They fear being kicked out of their homes, beaten, or worse. Proposition 85 forces these teens to delay critical medical care or turn to self-induced or illegal back-alley abortions. Some will go across the border; some will suffer serious injuries or even consider suicide.

PROPOSITION 85 PUTS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF TEENAGERS AT RISK.

No law can mandate good family communication. The real answer to teen pregnancy and abortion is strong, caring families and comprehensive sex education, including abstinence. But sadly, not all California teens live in homes with strong, caring families.

For OUR MOST VULNERABLE TEENAGERS—those who most need protection—PROPOSITION 85 PUTS THEM IN HARM’S WAY OR FORCES THEM TO GO TO COURT.

FORCING A SCARED, PREGNANT TEENAGER who can’t go to her parents INTO CALIFORNIA’S OVERCROWDED COURT SYSTEM WON’T WORK— AND COULD CAUSE TEENS MORE HARM. Courts are already backlogged, there’s a lot of red tape, and they are hard to navigate, even for adults.

Think about it. The teen is scared, pregnant, her family might be abusive. SHE DOESN’T NEED A JUDGE. SHE NEEDS A COUNSELOR AND GOOD MEDICAL CARE—WITHOUT DELAY.

Proposition 85’s new bureaucratic rules WON’T GUARANTEE that parents are notified. Who will sign for the mail? What happens when the mail is delayed, or the parents aren’t home, or the teen intercepts the letter?

The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention and caring families—NOT NEW LAWS THAT ENDANGER OUR DAUGHTERS.

AND PROPOSITION 85 IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING TEENS FROM OLDER MEN AND SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Clinics already provide counseling about responsible behavior and report illegal activities.
Proposition 85 won’t reduce teen pregnancy rates, can’t force families to communicate, is complicated and unworkable . . . and is not about predators—BUT IT WILL PUT GENERATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S TEENAGERS AT RISK.

WE ALL MUST CARE enough about Proposition 85 to VOTE NO because DEFEATING Prop. 85 is about KEEPING OUR DAUGHTERS SAFE and PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

SUPPORTERS of Proposition 85—including the Traditional Values Coalition, Evangelicals for Social Action, and Right to Life of Central California—ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WANT TO OVERTURN ROE v. WADE and BAN ALL ABORTIONS. Despite what they say, Proposition 85 ISN’T ABOUT PARENTAL RIGHTS; IT’S ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

Join PARENTS, DOCTORS, NURSES, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA and VOTE NO on 85. For more information about REAL TEEN SAFETY, VISIT OUR WEBSITE, www.noon85.com. VOTE NO ON PROP. 85.

JACK LEWIN, M.D., CEO, California Medical Association
ROBERT L. BLACK, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
KATHY KNEER, CEO, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION 86—STOP THE $2.1 BILLION TAX HIKE!

We all want to improve our healthcare system, but Proposition 86 is the wrong solution. Prop. 86 is an unfair tax increase supported by special interests who are amending our Constitution to benefit themselves.

Prop. 86’s proponents say it’s about encouraging people not to smoke, but it isn’t. It’s really a money grab by huge hospital corporations who will reap hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year!

• Less than 10% of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting.
• The largest share—almost 40%—goes to hospitals, many of which are funding the campaign for the new tax.
• HMOs will pocket millions from Prop. 86. WHY ARE HUGE HOSPITAL CORPORATIONS SPENDING MILLIONS TO PASS PROP. 86?
• Hospitals wrote Prop. 86 to give themselves an exemption to antitrust laws, giving them legal protection to divvy up and limit many medical services, and then raise prices without worrying about competition.
• Prop. 86 puts no limits on what hospitals can bill taxpayers for emergency services for the uninsured. Why should hospitals be allowed to charge taxpayers several times what they charge insurance companies for the same treatment?

PROP. 86: ANOTHER LOTTERY MESS

Like the state lottery, it will be nearly impossible for voters to know how the new taxes will be spent. Prop. 86 lists program after state program that gets a cut of the estimated $2.1 billion in new tax revenue.

PROP. 86: NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS

Prop. 86 throws millions of dollars at new bureaucratic state programs without adequate legislative or governmental oversight. There are NO GUARANTEES how the money will actually be spent or assurances the money won’t be wasted.

PROP. 86: INCREASES OUR DEFICIT

Prop. 86 contains 38 pages of spending mandates. But experts agree that the amount of money raised by this tobacco tax will decline over time. Declining revenues and demands to fund Prop. 86’s programs will only worsen our deficit. Other important programs like education, transportation, and law enforcement might have to be cut, or taxes raised further.

PROP. 86: INCREASES CRIME

Law enforcement groups oppose Prop. 86 because it will increase crime and smuggling. Stolen and smuggled cigarettes are already a big source of money for gangs and organized crime. If Prop. 86 passes, a single truckload of stolen cigarettes could be worth over $2 million to criminals.

PROP. 86: UNFAIR

Prop. 86 taxes smokers to pay for programs that have nothing to do with smoking, like obesity programs. Less than 10% of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting.

PROP. 86: LOCKED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION

Proposition 86 amends our Constitution and statutes. When problems and abuses are discovered, it will be nearly impossible for the Governor or the Legislature to fix them. The Constitution should not be changed for a special interest money-grab.

Please join health professionals, law enforcement, taxpayers, and small businesses in voting NO on Proposition 86.

LARRY McCARTHY, President, California Taxpayers’ Association
JAMES G. KNIGHT, M.D., Past President, San DiegoCounty Medical Society

STEVEN REMIGE, President, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

Don’t be fooled by Proposition 89. Prop. 89 is NOT about cleaning up politics. But it is 56 pages of new, complicated, confusing election rules that won’t work.

Proposition 89 was put on the ballot by a single special interest group, the California Nurses Association, that wants an UNFAIR advantage in California elections while small businesses and individuals are effectively SHUT OUT of the political process. Even other labor organizations, like those representing teachers, fire fighters and law enforcement do not support Proposition 89, because it RESTRICTS their participation in the political process as well.

PROPOSITION 89: NOT JUST ABOUT BIG CORPORATIONS

The authors of Prop. 89 say they are trying to stop big corporations from having too much influence. But Prop. 89 restricts many small businesses from backing candidates or supporting and opposing initiatives. Even a mom-and-pop business, if it is incorporated like many are, is restricted under Prop. 89.

Proposition 89 also restricts many non-profits groups that want to educate voters about the issues they care about. For example, a group of crime victim advocates will be limited in warning voters about a candidate who is soft on crime. Teachers will be limited in helping elect candidates who will support improving our schools.

PROPOSITION 89: INCREASES TAXES TO PAY FOR NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS

California has many urgent priorities to get our state back on the right track.

Proposition 89 contains a $200 million tax increase and gives that money to politicians to spend on their negative TV ads and junk mail.

Proposition 89 places virtually no limits on how the politicians spend their taxpayer-financed campaign funds. It means that we, the taxpayers, will be paying for negative ads!

PROPOSITION 89: WON’T STOP WEALTHY CANDIDATES

Proposition 89 puts no limits on wealthy candidates who try to buy California elections.

Under Proposition 89, a politician using taxpayer funds and running against a wealthy candidate can get up to ten times the normal taxpayer money to run his campaign. A candidate for Governor could qualify for up to $200 million of taxpayer money to run his or her campaign.

PROPOSITION 89: IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

James Hall, past chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, says:

“Proposition 89 is unconstitutional, unfair, and won’t work.”

Supporters of 89 say it is modeled after measures in other states. But the United States Supreme Court recently found the contribution and expenditure limits in a similar measure from Vermont unconstitutional because they limit free speech and violate the First Amendment.

PROPOSITION 89: WE ALREADY HAVE CAMPAIGN LIMITS

Californians have already passed a campaign finance reform law, Proposition 34, which strictly limits contributions to candidates. This law has survived several court challenges and is working. We don’t need Prop. 89.

SAY no TO PROPOSITION 89!

Proposition 89 is unfair to small businesses, non-profits and groups representing working Californians. It is a waste of our precious tax dollars, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s just another confusing measure that won’t work. Please join small businesses, taxpayers, educators, organized labor and so many others in voting NO on Proposition 89.

Allan Zaramberg, President, California Chamber of Commerce
Tony Quinn, Former Commissioner, Fair Political Practices Commission
Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers’ Association

At a time when California is already deeply in debt, when its residents' ability to pay off bonded debt is questionable and its credit rating causes bond interest rates to soar, adding bonded indebtedness for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise to the point of absurdity.

But even if more bond debt were not an issue, this measure is badly flawed.  This nearly $1 billion bond measure is another abuse of the initiative process in that it has been bought and paid for by the special interests (hospitals, their administrators and staffs), who will benefit directly, personally and monetarily from its passage.

And this is not the first time that these same special interests have turned to the initiative process. In 2004 they sponsored a carbon copy of this initiative for $750 million. They are back again, this time for even more. And yet hundreds of millions of dollars from the earlier bond (Prop. 61) remain unspent. Remember, these are not impoverished institutions. Several are part of the well-funded University of California system, and the others have substantial private and foundation support.

This gigantic spending initiative is framed as helping "children's hospitals," using "children" as the justification for circumventing the normal legislative process by which state spending priorities are better determined. Yet a careful reading of the definition of "children's hospital" reveals that 80% of the money may go to any acute hospital so long as it treats children, among other patients. It appears that a driving force behind this measure is to provide a backdoor way of compensating hospitals for treating indigents (including illegal aliens) who don't pay their way through the front door.

While this bond measure represents that the proceeds will be used for capital improvements, the definitions are so loose that it appears funds can flow to finance or reimburse just about any project a creative grant-writer is nimble enough to "sell" to the bond fund decision-makers. And "selling" isn't tough, because the decision-makers are all part of the same team - and nearly $10 million of the bond funds are available for "administrative costs," i.e., paying grant writers and others.

Any one of the acute general hospitals that qualifies under this measure may receive a grant of up to $98 million. Is it any wonder that the hospitals which stand to benefit directly from this measure have been eager to fund the signature gathering and the campaign for this measure?

Proponents hope you will react emotionally to their framing of this measure: it's "for the children." Don't be swayed by the labeling. You have a chance to stop this special-interest abuse of the initiative process and discourage others from misusing it in the future.

And remember who will pay the bill for the bond over the next 30 years: your children and grandchildren. If you really want to help them, don't saddle them with more debt of this kind.

Lewis K. Uhler,
Pres. National Tax Lim. Comm.

Edward ‘Ted’ Costa
Pres. People’s Advocate

Jon Fleischman
Publisher, Flashreport.org

PROPOSITION 4 PUTS TEENS AT RISK.

The AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT

The CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,

The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS,

The AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, DISTRICT IX

The CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,

And parents throughout California urge you to VOTE NO on 4.

MANDATORY NOTIFICATION LAWS MAY SOUND GOOD, BUT, IN THE REAL WORLD THEY PUT TEENAGERS IN REAL DANGER.

A SCARED, PREGNANT TEEN who can't go to her parents can feel trapped and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care she needs, she MAY CHOOSE AN UNSAFE, BACK ALLEY, ILLEGAL ABORTION, GO ACROSS THE BORDER OR EVEN CONTEMPLATE SUICIDE.

Proposition 4 is DANGEROUS.

PARENTS RIGHTFULLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEENAGERS' LIVES.  We want our daughters to come to us if they become pregnant. BUT, IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT ALL TEENS LIVE IN HOMES WHERE COMMUNICATION IS POSSIBLE and, even in the best homes, many teens aren't able to talk about something as sensitive as pregnancy.

IF OUR DAUGHTERS COULDN'T COME TO US, for whatever reason, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS KEEPING THEM SAFE. New laws cannot force our teens to talk to us, but they may force them into the back alleys ... or worse.

PROPOSITION 4 DOESN'T PROTECT TEENS IN DANGEROUS HOMES. A scared pregnant teen is not going to go to her doctor, claim mistreatment and then stand by as law enforcement comes to the door -- the same door she has to return to. She may not seek care at all.

Prop 4 is not about "family involvement." Family notification is no more than a state-scripted form letter sent to another relative who may not live in the same town. Prop 4 contains NO REQUIREMENT FOR COUNSELING and no requirement that the other adult help her when she is in crisis. PROP 4 PUTS OUR MOST VULNERABLE TEENAGERS IN HARMS WAY ...

OR FORCES TEENS TO GO TO COURT.

Think about it: she's pregnant, she can't go to her parents, and she's already desperate. She isn't going to go to court to reveal the most intimate details of her life to an unfamiliar judge in an impersonal courthouse. SHE DOESN'T NEED A JUDGE; SHE NEEDS A CARING COUNSELOR AND SAFE, QUALITY MEDICAL CARE, WTTHOUT DELAY.

MANDATORY NOTIFICATION LAWS MAKE SCARED, PREGNANT TEENS WHO CAN'T GO TO THEIR PARENTS DO DANGEROUS THINGS.

And if in desperation, teenagers turn to illegal, self-induced or back-alley abortions, THEY WILL SUFFER SERIOUS INJURIES AND SOME WILL DIE.

REAL FAMILY COMMUNICATION MUST START LONG BEFORE A TEEN FACES AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY. The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking with them about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior -- including abstinence -- from the time they are young and fostering an atmosphere assuring they can come to us.

Because NO LAW CAN MANDATE FAMILY COMMUNICATION and while mandatory laws like these may sound good, IN THE REAL WORLD THEY JUST PUT TEENAGERS IN REAL DANGER.

TO PROTECT TEENS, please vote No on 4

Dr. Myles B. Abbott, Chair
American Academy of Pediatrics, California District

Donna Gerber
California Nurses Association

Nancy Schubb, President
California Association of School Counselors

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING VOTERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PROP. 1D IS THAT IT WILL TAKE $1.6 BILLION AWAY FROM CRITICAL LOCAL HEALTH AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN AND GIVE IT TO SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS.

Prop. 1D was placed on the ballot by Sacramento politicians to take local funding from children's health and education programs in every community. These funds were approved by voters in two previous elections.

Don't be fooled by the deceptive ballot description written by Sacramento politicians. Prop. 1D seizes money from local medical, health, and education experts and puts it in the hands of Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats.

In 1998 Californians voted to dedicate tobacco taxes to specific local health and education programs for children. Voters acted because Sacramento politicians were unwilling to fund these critical programs. In 2000, the tobacco companies tried to take this funding away and were soundly defeated at the ballot box. Today Sacramento politicians are trying to take these funds away. California voters said no to big tobacco. Now we must say no to Sacramento bureaucrats by voting no on Prop. 1D.

Prop. 1D will eliminate:

• Health care, immunization, and booster shots for 120,000 California children
• Preschool and education services for more than 200,000 children
• Smoking prevention aimed at 550,000 pregnant women and parents of young children
• $36 million every year for children's hospitals, school nurses, and smoking prevention

Proposition 1D will make California's budget problem worse by giving more money to the Sacramento bureaucrats. Independent studies show that every dollar invested in young children yields a seven dollar return in savings on courts, prisons, remedial education, and foster care. Proposition 1D is the kind of short-term Sacramento gimmick that created our state budget crisis in the first place.

Proposition 1D was placed on the ballot by Sacramento politicians who want you to trust them instead of the leading pediatricians, parents, teachers, nurses, and law enforcement officials who urge you to join them in voting no on Prop. 1D.

California voters said no to the tobacco companies. Now it's time to say no to Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats. Stand up for California's children and families and vote no on Prop. 1D.
Don't trust the ballot language written by Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats. See what world renowned pediatrician and author T. Berry Brazelton, M.D., and other nonpartisan independent experts say. Visit www.NoOnProposition1D.com

PAMELA PIMENTEL, R.N.
Maternal-Child Health Specialist

PAMELA SIMMS-MACKEY, M.D.
Associate Director of Medical Education, Children's Hospital & Research Center, Oakland

LETICIA ALEJANDREZ
Executive Director, California Family Resource Association

Five years ago, California voters made the decision to invest in our public mental health system. Through the Mental Health Services Act, Proposition 63, Californians were clear in their commitment to expand community mental health services. Following forty years of neglecting the mentally ill, in 2004 voters turned a new page and passed Proposition 63 and thereby began to rebuild California's public mental health system. Even in this difficult time, we ought to respect the will of the people.

The Mental Health Services Act is changing lives. More than 200,000 people have received mental health services. Among those, nearly 20,000 children, youth, adults, and older adults are getting the proper help—medication, therapy, housing and transportation—for them to recover from severe mental illness. Nearly 40 percent of these individuals had at least one emergency room visit before they enrolled in the Mental Health Services Act program. After they participated in Mental Health Services Act programs, fewer than 10 percent visited the emergency room.

These Mental Health Services Act programs are saving the state valuable resources by reducing pressure on our overburdened jails and prisons. People who have received Mental Health Services Act services are much more likely to receive treatment and not be incarcerated. Additionally, these programs have been shown to reduce homelessness, hospitalization, out-of-home placements, and school failures, further providing relief to strapped counties, school districts and hospitals.

Additionally, the Mental Health Services Act will reduce the need for future mental health services through early intervention and treatment. In California, 50,000 are children experiencing early symptoms of mental illness. The Mental Health Services Act emphasis on early intervention and treatment will help these children before their symptoms become debilitating.

Shifting Mental Health Services Act funds away from these programs will impede us from serving even more people. I recognize how difficult the current fiscal climate is. However, Mental Health Services Act programs are working and save the state money. We need to preserve programs that are effective and respect the will of the people. Please vote no on Proposition 1E.

LOU CORREA
State Senator

THE OPPONENTS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND:

• How parental notification laws work.
• How the juvenile court system works.
• How the abortion industry works.

Opponents say that "in the real world" notification laws "just put teen-agers in real danger." But OVER THIRTY STATES already have such laws, and THEIR REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE SHOWS THESE LAWS REDUCE MINORS' PREGNANCY AND ABORTION RATES WITHOUT DANGER AND HARM TO MINORS.

If an abused minor does not want a parent notified, Prop 73 requires strict confidentiality and an appointed guardian to assist her in juvenile court proceedings, usually informal and in judges' private chambers. The judge will decide whether it is in the girl's best interest to involve a parent, or whether she is mature and well-informed to decide—and will report evidence of abuse to a child protective agency so abuse problems will be addressed. The opponents' solution allows a secret abortion and return to the abuse.

Opponents say that parents "must make sure" their daughters "get safe professional medical attention" from "caring doctors."

BUT HOW? PARENTS WHO ARE KEPT IN THE DARK CAN'T ENSURE ANYTHING FOR THEIR DAUGHTERS. Minors getting secret abortions don't seek out "quality counseling" and "caring doctors." They are shuttled through abortion clinics where no one knows them or has their medical records or history.

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORTED MANY ABORTION BUSINESSES ARE "CHOP SHOPS" WHERE SUBSTANDARD CARE RESULTS IN INJURIES AND DEATH.

PARENTAL NOTIFICATION WORKS.

FOR OUR DAUGHTERS' SAFETY, HEALTH, AND PROTECTION, VOTE YES on 73!

PROFESSOR TERESA STANTON COLLETT, J.D., National Authority on Parental Notification and Involvement Laws
JANE E. ANDERSON, M.D., FAAP, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine
KATHERINE R. DOWLING, M.D., FAAP, FAAFP, Associate Professor Emeritus, Family Medicine, University of Southern California, School of Medicine

Proposition 78 is based on a successful Ohio program that delivers big discounts to consumers. Every major drug manufacturer participates in Ohio. Proposition 78 is an improved version of Ohio’s program and will produce even larger discounts.

Even opponents admit that Proposition 78 could result in 40% discounts for consumers. Because it is adapted from a program already in operation, Proposition 78 won’t be subject to lengthy court challenges. Unlike Prop. 79, Proposition 78 doesn’t need federal government approval. Prop. 78 can take effect immediately, helping millions of seniors and low income, uninsured Californians get relief from high prescription drug costs.

The comparison to the Golden Bear program is misleading. That program was flawed, couldn’t be implemented under federal rules to give Californians the largest discounts possible and was abandoned by the state. Proposition 78 was written to FIX that problem.

This year, the Schwarzenegger administration, working with leading Democrats, came together in the Legislature to support the CalRx program contained in Proposition 78. Had some legislators not succumbed to pressure from special interest groups and defeated CalRx in the Legislature, Californians would already be getting drug discounts.

Opponents falsely claim Proposition 78 can be abolished by drug companies. ONLY THE STATE can end the program if, for example, federal law changes and a new program becomes available that is better for Californians.

Proposition 78 is supported by dozens of groups representing seniors, taxpayers, small businesses, consumers, health care advocates and patient groups. It offers millions of Californians real help, right now on prescription drug prices. Vote YES on Proposition 78.

Tom Murphy, Chair
California Arthritis Foundation Council

Rusty Hammer, President
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

James S. Grisolia, M.D., Senior Vice President
Epilepsy Foundation of San Diego County

If Prop. 79 won’t work, why did drug companies contribute more than $50 million to defeat it?

PROP. 79 IS BASED ON CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE

Prop. 79 builds on a successful effort that reduces drug costs for California through enforceable discounts.

PROP. 79 SAVES TAXPAYERS MONEY

The discounts are delivered to consumers from drug companies and pharmacies. This not only saves money for consumers, and gets them the care they need, it also saves taxpayers money on health care costs.

PROP. 79 CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY

“Thousands of Maine residents have received drug discounts through our program, without the need for federal approval, despite aggressive opposition and litigation by the pharmaceutical companies.”
Maine Governor John E. Baldacci, July 2005

PROP. 79 HELPS CALIFORNIANS GET THE DRUGS THEY NEED

Prop. 79 will not put the health of poor Californians at risk. It employs the same, successful mechanism the Medi-Cal drug program has used for the last decade to help provide California with the best price. Protections are already in place to ensure Medi-Cal patients don’t go without the prescriptions they need.

IF ANYBODY USES THE COURTS AGGRESSIVELY, IT’S THE DRUG COMPANIES

The drug companies launched dozens of lawsuits across the country to keep discount efforts like Prop. 79 from becoming law. They have already sued to block Prop. 79, only to have the case dismissed by a judge.

Join consumer, senior, and health organizations: VOTE YES on Prop. 79.

Check the facts and research for yourself.

Visit www.VoteYesOnProp79.org.

Betty Perry, Public Policy Director
Older Women’s League of California

Michael Weinstein, President
AIDS Healthcare Foundation

Jacqueline Jacobberger, President
League of Women Voters of California

We've never heard of this attorney who opposes Proposition 61. Have you?

He says that Proposition 61 will hurt California's future. He's wrong.

PROPOSITION 61 WILL GIVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF SICK KIDS A CHANCE TO HAVE A FUTURE--beat their illnesses and live long and happy lives.

Many mothers of critically ill children worked hard to collect the signatures to put the Children's Hospital Bond on your ballot because California's Children's Hospitals save lives every single day!

Children with leukemia, cancer, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease. Children who are severely injured in car wrecks and house fires.

Thanks to the miraculous work, the finest pediatric research and the loving care kids get at California's Children's Hospitals survival rate are improving dramatically.

Today, 80% of children with leukemia are making it and 90% survive delicate heart surgery.

This attorney tries to make a joke out of Proposition 61 by calling it a "motherhood issue".

It is a "motherhood issue." And AS MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF VERY SICK KIDS WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES.

Please vote YES on Proposition 61, the Children's Hospital Bond.

JENNIFER HUMMER, Parent

DAVID LIU, Parent

DEBBIE CERVANTES, Parent

NOBEL PRIZE WINNING MEDICAL RESEARCHERS, DOCTORS, AND PATIENT GROUPS HAVE STUDIED THIS MEASURE AND URGE: YES on 71.

•Stem cell research is the most promising area of research aimed at finding breakthrough cures for currently in curable diseases and injuries affecting millions of people.

•71 is a well-designed program to find those cures.

•It’s vitally needed because stem cell research is being restricted by politics in Washington.

The claims by opponents are misleading political scare tactics.

71 SUPPORTS ALL TYPES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH—including adult and cord blood stem cell research.

71 FOCUSES ON RESEARCH BY NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS—NOT CORPORATIONS.

•It’s specifically designed to support the type of breakthrough research conducted by universities, medical schools, hospitals and other non-profit institutions.

71 REQUIRES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

•71 specifically says the institute overseeing the research MUST COMPLY WITH OPEN MEETING LAWS.

It requires PUBLIC HEARINGS and INDEPENDENT AUDITS reviewed by the California State Controller and an independent oversight committee.

71 PROTECTS CALIFORNIA’S BUDGET.

Prop. 71 is a good investment. Studies led by a Stanford University economist project that 71 will generate millions in new state revenues from royalties and new jobs, and that new medical treatments and cures can REDUCE CALIFORNIAS’ HEALTH CARE COSTS BY BILLIONS.

71 is endorsed by over 20 Nobel Prize winning scientists, medical groups representing over 35,000 California doctors and non-profit disease groups representing millions of suffering patients.

VOTE YES on 71—TO FIND CURES THAT WILL SAVE LIVES.

LEON TAI, MD, Director
Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center,
University of California at San Diego

PAUL BERG, PH.D., Nobel Laureate
Professor of Cancer Research
Stanford University

ROGER GUILLEMIN, M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate
Distinguished Professor,
Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Opponents are using scare tactics so voters will be afraid to approve protections for employees. Their claims are false.

SCARE TACTIC: GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
REPLACES PRIVATE COVERAGE

Prop. 72 sets standards for health coverage and the share of costs employers must pay—just like the minimum wage sets standards for wages.

“Prop. 72 is the opposite of government-run health care. It strengthens private employer health insurance.” John Garamendi, California Insurance Commissioner

If you already get health insurance from your employer, your employer can keep that same coverage under 72 and can continue to pay up to 100% of premiums. You get the security of knowing your employer cannot pay less than 80% of premiums and must maintain preventive care, prescription drugs, and major medical.

SCARE TACTIC: 72 COSTS MORE

Opponents claim premiums could be $1,700 under 72. But the average California family ALREADY pays $2,452 in premiums (Sacramento Bee, 3/17/04).

Under 72, the average California family will save money.

SCARE TACTIC: JOB KILLER
• Corporate lobbyists always complain about California’s business climate, but California is the world’s 6th largest economy.
• 93% of California’s restaurants and retailers are exempt.
• Businesses will benefit from a healthier, more productive workforce.

IF WE DO NOTHING:

• Employee premiums will keep rising.
• More working families will be uninsured.
• Taxpayers will continue paying health care costs for employees of big companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds.

Don’t be confused by scare tactics. 72 keeps private health care within the reach of California families.

PAUL KIVELA, M.D., President
California Chapter American College of Emergency Physicians

BARBARA E. KERR, President
California Teachers Association

TOM PORTER, California State Director
AARP

When parents learn their daughter is pregnant, ALMOST ALL RESPOND WITH LOVE AND SUPPORT.

PROPOSITION 85 OFFERS CLEAR BENEFITS TO YOUNG GIRLS:

• The parent can assist her daughter in selecting a doctor. Many abortion clinics employ doctors who have been disciplined by the medical board for INCOMPETENCE, NEGLIGENCE, CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, OR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Many have been cited by health officials for UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
• An informed parent can respond quickly to post-abortion complications. Abortion complications can result in permanent injury, even death. Teens who have secret abortions often delay seeking treatment. PARENTS WHO DON’T KNOW, CAN’T HELP.
• Parents who learn their daughters are victims of sexual assaults can intervene to protect them. Many abortion providers CHOOSE NOT TO REPORT SEXUAL ABUSE, abandoning these girls to FURTHER SEXUAL ABUSE.

www.ChildPredators.com

In the rare case of familial abuse, a court will permit a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying a parent—then notify child protective services so she can be helped, NOT LEFT VULNERABLE TO FURTHER HARM.

A parent of two young teenage daughters, GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER said it would be “. . . THE ULTIMATE OF BEING OUTRAGED . . .” if someone took his daughter for a secret abortion.

OVER THIRTY STATES already have laws like PROPOSITION 85, and THEIR EXPERIENCE SHOWS THESE LAWS REDUCE MINORS’ PREGNANCY AND ABORTION RATES WITHOUT DANGER AND HARM TO MINORS.

Currently, the state PAYS FOR SECRET ABORTIONS FOR MINOR GIRLS. PUT PARENTS IN CHARGE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

VOTE “YES” on PROPOSITION 85! PROTECT OUR DAUGHTERS! See: www.YESon85.net

PROFESSOR TERESA STANTON COLLETT, J.D., National Authority on Parental Notification and Involvement Laws
JANE E. ANDERSON, M.D., FAAP, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
PROFESSOR JOSEPH R. ZANGA, M.D., FAAP, Past President, AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics

Make no mistake; big tobacco corporations are bankrolling opposition to Prop. 86.

Raising cigarette taxes means fewer people will smoke—especially kids. That hurts tobacco company profits.

They’ve seen the report by the California Department of Health Services which says that Prop. 86 will reduce the number of cigarettes sold in California by 312 million packs each year.

The report also says that Prop. 86 will prevent 700,000 kids from starting to smoke and save 300,000 lives.

Tobacco companies invest over $1 billion a year marketing cigarettes in California. This is a market they won’t give up without a fight.

When executives of the tobacco companies were called before Congress and put under oath, incredibly, each and every one of them lied by testifying that cigarettes are not addictive.

They lied to Congress under oath and now they’re lying to you.

Their arguments against Prop. 86 are outright distortions and untruths.

Read Prop. 86 for yourself. You’ll see that it includes specific and tough financial safeguards, independent audits, and strict limits on administrative costs. Funding is directed to proven, successful public health programs.

Californians pay more than $8 billion each year in medical costs due to smoking—that’s $700 per family per year—whether you smoke or not. The Department of Health Services report confirms that Prop. 86 will help reduce those costs.

Big tobacco will do, say, and spend anything to defeat Proposition 86. Don’t believe it.

Save Lives. Reduce Smoking.

Vote Yes on Proposition 86.

MILA GARCIA, R.N.,Member, American Heart Association, Western States Affiliate
WILLIE GOFFNEY, M.D., FACS, President, American Cancer Society, California Division 2006–07
RICK DONALDSON, Ph.D., RCP, Chair, American Lung Association of California

Elections should be decided by voters, not special interests. Elections should be about who has the best ideas, not who has the most money. Vote YES on Proposition 89 for fair and clean elections.

Proposition 89:

• Levels the playing field and makes our elections fairer and more competitive. Advocates for crime victims, education, healthcare, seniors and other regular Californians will no longer be drowned out by big campaign spenders.
• Saves taxpayers money by ending the incentive for legislative giveaways on lobbyist-driven projects. The $3.3 billion in corporate tax loopholes today cost each California household $275 every year.
• Provides the antidote to negative advertising. Candidates who accept public financing must participate in real debates and cannot hide behind negative 30-second ads.
• Does not increase taxes on individuals. Small businesses will not foot the bill.
• Creates a Clean Money public financing system like those in other states that protects free speech and has been proven to be effective and constitutional.
• Opens our elections to a diversity of qualified candidates from all walks of life, like teachers, nurses, and firefighters, not just those with access to the most money.
• Sets tough penalties for those who violate the law.

The special interests oppose Prop. 89 because they like the control they have over our political system today. As a Los Angeles Times headline said, “Prop. 89: So Good It’s Scary – To Sacramento.”

It’s time to put the voters back in charge. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 89.

JACQUELINE JACOBBERGER, President, League of Women Voters
RICHARD L. HASEN, J.D., PhD, Constitutional election law professor
KATHAY FENG, Executive Director, California Common Cause

The opponents of our Children's Hospitals say, "bonded indebtedness for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise."

We ask you, what is more essential than investing in hospitals where over one million times each year California children are treated for traumatic injuries and illnesses like cancer, leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis? What infrastructure is more vital than the technology and facilities for neonatal care and organ transplants for children?

Proposition 3 is an investment in the health of California children whose lives will be saved over the next 30 years.

The university and nonprofit, charitable Children's Hospitals that meet the strict eligibility standards of Proposition 3 are 100% dedicated to the most seriously ill and injured kids in California.  Children's Hospital Bond funds are rigorously accounted for and controlled by the State Treasurer. And Proposition 3 - with principle and interest - is one of the smallest bonds ever.

These opponents cross the line when they attack the integrity of the people who have dedicated their lives to saving our children. These three men recklessly argue that the people who do this good work will "benefit directly, personally and monetarily" from the bond. Their whole argument is mean-spirited, hypocritical, and untrue. Proposition 3 is a sound investment with a return that is . . . priceless.

Parents of seriously ill children, like us, appreciate the value of California's Children's Hospitals. Our children received the specialized care they needed and couldn't get anywhere else.

Please vote Yes on 3.

Robin Meeks
Parent

Mindy Vazquez
Parent

Diane Gibson
Parent

NOTIFICATION LAWS ARE PROTECTING GIRLS IN OVER 30 STATES, and have been for up to 25 years.

THAT'S WHY LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORTS PROPOSITION 4!

Read the opposing argument carefully. Notice it says "may" and "if." There are NO REAL STORIES. Not a single example of a "real" teenager harmed by a notification law. THAT'S BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

Out of millions of girls, the opposition couldn't find ONE REAL GIRL harmed by a notification law.

Meanwhile, the list of victims of secret abortions keeps growing.

A 12-year-old was given alcohol by an adult male who raped her when she passed out. Weeks later, the rapist's mother took her to an abortion clinic and afterward dumped her 30 miles from home. The police finally located her after the girl's frantic mother reported her missing. She was suffering severe abortion complications that could have led to her death had she not received immediate medical treatment.

Adam Gault, 41, lured a 14-year-old from her home with promises of drugs and a job. Instead, she became his sex slave for a year, captive in his house. When she became pregnant, Gault arranged an abortion for her at Planned Parenthood. PLANNED PARENTHOOD didn’t report the girl’s victimization.

Secret abortions leave girls vulnerable to further sexual abuse, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases. Predators are free to prey on new victims.

VOTE YES ON 4 to protect REAL GIRLS in the REAL WORLD, victimized by secret abortions and sexual predators.

www.YESon.net

MARY L. DAVENPORT, M.D., Fellow
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

THOMAS MURPHY GOODWIN, M.D., FAAP, FACOG, Professor of
Obstetrics & Gynecology arid Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California

THE HONORABLE ROD PACHECO, J.D.,
District Attorney, Riverside County

Today, state and local First 5 commissions are sitting on almost $2.5 BILLION in unspent tax funds. At the same time, our most vulnerable children face deep cuts to health and social services programs that were enacted to close California's $42 billion budget gap. Proposition 1D ensures that these programs continue to get the funds they need to keep their doors open.

Proposition 1D temporarily redirects a portion of UNSPENT MONEY to protect at-risk children across California. Over the next five years, Proposition 1D will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for services to children under the age of five, including health care, child development, early prevention services, and foster care. If Proposition 1D does not pass, these vital services will lose this funding.

As California faces this unprecedented fiscal crisis, it's critical that we spend our tax dollars as wisely as possible—while taking every step possible to protect our most vulnerable. That is why we need to vote YES ON 1D. Ensuring children's access to health care and critical protective services must be California's priority.

Proposition 1D:

• PROTECTS OUR YOUNGEST AND NEEDIEST CHILDREN by ensuring essential programs receive the funding they desperately require.
• PROTECTS LOCAL FIRST 5 COMMISSIONS allowing them to continue their vital work in California's communities.
• DOES NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES by using existing, unspent money that the state already has in its account.

During this difficult economic time, we must take this step to protect our children.

Vote yes on Prop. 1D!

JAVIER V. GUZMAN
Principal Consultant, The California Latino Child Development Association

ROBERT J. BALDO
Executive Director, Association of Regional Center Agencies

The opponents of Proposition 1E say that Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, is providing essential and effective services for hundreds of thousands of people living with mental illness who weren't receiving treatment before. I agree. The Mental Health Services Act is changing lives as we rebuild our public mental health system in California.

But we are facing an unprecedented crisis in California—a $42 billion budget shortfall, a deficit like we have never seen before. We have made painful cuts to education, colleges, health care and transportation as well as programs that serve seniors and families who need our help most. There are no easy choices.

Proposition 1E will redirect funds from the Mental Health Services Act to the state's Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, which provides mental health services to children, for the next two years. This will not reduce the level of Mental Health Services Act services currently being provided.

The diversion of funds from Proposition 63 should never happen again. But solving a budget crisis of this magnitude has required that we all sacrifice for the collective good. Voting yes on Proposition 1E protects kids and ensures that our most vulnerable Californians will continue to receive critical services. Yes on Proposition 1E.

SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE DARRELL STEINBERG
Co-Author, Proposition 63