Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Governor Vetoes Baby Surrender, Other Democratic Measures
Title:US CA: Governor Vetoes Baby Surrender, Other Democratic Measures
Published On:2006-10-01
Source:Sacramento Bee (CA)
Fetched On:2008-08-17 23:03:32
Winners, Losers on Bills' Last Day

GOVERNOR VETOES BABY SURRENDER, OTHER DEMOCRATIC MEASURES

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ended the year's bill-signing period
Saturday by vetoing a handful of key Democratic bills, including
measures that would have allowed illegal immigrants to receive
financial aid for college and extended the time a mother could
legally surrender her baby.

For Democrats, the vetoes marked the end of an extraordinary
four-week period in which they and the Republican governor joined
forces on major proposals to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, lower
drug prices for the uninsured and promote competition in the cable
television field.

By the time Schwarzenegger finally put his pen down Saturday, ending
a marathon of bill signings eight hours before a midnight deadline,
he had vetoed 261 and approved 910. Most were proposed by Democrats
and set to take effect Jan. 1.

Schwarzenegger's legislative actions come less than six weeks before
the state's Nov. 7 election, potentially leaving political ammunition
for and against his re-election campaign.

Key Democratic measures vetoed Saturday by Schwarzenegger includes:

Assembly Bill 1873, to allow mothers of unwanted babies up to 30 days
- -- rather than the current 72 hours -- to surrender their newborns to
hospital emergency rooms or other designated sites without fear of prosecution.

Senate Bill 160, to allow illegal immigrants who graduated from
California high schools to apply for state financial aid to attend college.

Assembly Bill 2948, to commit California to a multistate compact in
which states would cast their electoral votes for the presidential
candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide.

Assembly Bill 1147, to legalize the growing of industrial hemp for
in-state commerce.

Senate Bill 440, to expand protections against unauthorized telephone
charges and to notify consumers of their right to contest bills.

Assembly Bill 1778, to prevent the unwanted release of high school
students' personal information to military recruiters by taking
additional steps to inform parents of their rights.

Schwarzenegger also vetoed Assembly Bill 2360, a curiosity because it
was sparked by actor Tom Cruise's disclosure last year that he had
purchased an ultrasound machine for his home. The bill would have
reserved the sale of such equipment to licensed practitioners or
medical facilities.

Dozens of other bills were approved by the governor Saturday,
including measures to implement a statewide plastic bag recycling
program, authorize construction of a Capitol Park memorial to
California's genocide survivors, reduce lead content in pipes, and
require the makers of wireless computers to warn consumers about
protecting their personal information.

Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, vowed to reintroduce the
newborn safe-surrender bill rejected by Schwarzenegger.

"We introduce a lot of bills in Sacramento, but few have the
possibility of changing people's lives," he said. "This one would
have saved babies' lives."

Torrico said extending the time parents can surrender their newborns
without penalty -- from three to 30 days -- would lead to more
unwanted babies legally turned over to enhance their safety and
security. The bill also would have authorized fire stations to accept
the infants.

Critics argued the extension could backfire, leaving newborns in the
hands of troubled parents who might neglect or abuse them for up to a
month, perhaps waiting until visible signs of violence had faded,
before surrendering them. Other opponents said AB 1873 could increase
county costs and encourage parents to bypass adoption procedures,
thus depriving fathers of their parental rights.

In California, "safely surrendered" babies are turned over to county
officials for adoption, but since the abandonment process sidesteps
typical adoption procedures, adoptive parents could be deprived of
vital health and genealogical information, critics said.

Schwarzenegger, in his veto message, said AB 1873 could put "newborns
in greater risk by keeping them in an unsafe environment without
proper care and supervision."

Torrico disagreed, saying the veto means that parents who can't
decide whether to surrender their baby within three days will end up
keeping it, even though they don't appreciate the newborn and could
lose control and harm it.

Schwarzenegger's veto of Senate Bill 160, regarding college aid for
illegal immigrants, also prompted a vow by its author to reintroduce
the measure in January.

Current law allows illegal immigrants attending California's public
colleges or universities to pay a lower amount, called "in-state
tuition," if they attended high school in the state for at least
three years and earned a diploma. Schwarzenegger supports the
existing "in-state" tuition law, but he rejected SB 160, which would
have extended the concept further by allowing those illegal
immigrants to apply for financial aid.

In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said providing such aid to
illegal immigrants would be unfair to legal residents.

"While I do not believe that undocumented children should be
penalized for the acts of their parents, this bill would penalize
students here legally by reducing the financial aid they rely on to
allow them to go to college and pursue their dreams," he said.

State Sen. Gil Cedillo, who proposed SB 160, said that by denying
financial aid, the state could unfairly deprive immigrants of a
quality education. He argued that some of California's best and
brightest students would be forced, because of their immigration
status, into menial jobs in an era when the United States needs
skilled workers to compete in a global marketplace, Cedillo said.

"These children had no say in where they grew up," he said. "The only
decision they made was to study hard, work hard and play by the
rules. If they've done that, why should we discriminate against them?"
Member Comments
No member comments available...