Skinner’s SB 36 “Safe Haven” Bill panders to Abortionists and Child Traffickers

Photo Credit: California State Senator for District 9 Nancy Skinner speaks about the rising omicron variant cases in California at Native American Health Center in Oakland, Calif., on Dec. 22, 2021. (Harika Maddala/ Bay City News)

Skinner’s SB 36 “Safe Haven” Bill panders to Abortionists and Child Traffickers

The California legislature is wasting no time implementing the Future of Abortion Cartel’s Christmas Wish list for 2023.  Senator Nancy Skinner has already introduced a measure to prevent law enforcement from executing valid arrest warrants issued by other states if those warrants concern abortion or “gender affirming” care. California has already passed legislation empowering children to obtain abortions without parental knowledge.  The state recently passed legislation empowering the state to strip children from parents to medically transition them (SB 107).

Senator Skinner’s pretentiously named “Safe Haven” billSB 36, is an unconstitutional, virtue signaling carveout pandering to abortionists and those who profit from human and child trafficking. Moreover, SB 36 is wholly unnecessary and will cost California taxpayers untold amounts in legal fees to defend legislation that, on its face, violates the U.S. Constitution.

Similar to recently passed bills SB 1666, and SB 2091, SB 36 is next level interstate legislative lawfare designed to 1) undercut foreign states’ valid laws, 2) strip power from judges and bail bondsmen to execute valid warrants issued by other states; and 3) intimidate law enforcement officials from doing their statutory duties by creating a private cause of action against them.  It usurps valid judicial power to enforce other states’ laws.

SB 36’s proposed revisions to the California penal code clearly violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution which states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

SB 36 will add Section 847.5 to the Penal Code to read:

847.5. (b) A magistrate shall not issue a warrant for the arrest of an individual whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of laws of another state that authorizes a criminal penalty to an individual performing, receiving, supporting, or aiding in the performance or receipt of an abortion or gender-affirming care if the abortion or care is lawful under the laws of this state, regardless of the recipient’s location.

(c) A bondsman or person authorized, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1299.02, to apprehend, detain, or arrest a fugitive admitted to bail in another state who takes into custody a fugitive admitted to bail in another state whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of laws of another state that authorizes a criminal penalty to an individual performing, receiving, supporting, or aiding in the performance or receipt of an abortion or gender-affirming care if the abortion or care is lawful under the laws of this state, regardless of the recipient’s location, without a magistrate’s order, is ineligible for a license issued pursuant to Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 1800 of the Insurance Code, and shall forfeit any license already obtained pursuant to those laws.

(d) A person who is taken into custody by a bail agent in violation of subdivision (b) may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive, monetary, or other appropriate relief against the bondsman and bond company within three years after the cause of action accrues.

On its face, the bill’s subsections (b), (c) and (d) impermissibly violate the U.S. Constitution.  Subsection (b) unlawfully forbids magistrates from complying with valid court orders issued in foreign states. Subsection (c) strips bail agents and bondsmen licensing from complying with valid court orders issued in foreign states. Subsection (d) creates a private cause of action designed to chill the enforcement of foreign states’ laws.

 

Together these sections clearly and blatantly violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause by instructing those tasked with enforcing our laws not to comply, thwarting enforcement of foreign laws against abusers and human traffickers who may flee to California to escape prosecution in other states, denying justice to their victims. Together they act to create a confusing morass inhibiting officials’ duties to comply with other state officials’ legal requests.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our land.  Thanks to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, states now decide how to regulate abortion.  Dobbs did not change, in any way, the applicability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article 4.  California may proclaim itself an “Abortion Sanctuary”; however, California may not thwart the laws of other states to suit its radical pro-abortion agenda.

SB 36 is unconstitutional on its face.  It will subject taxpayers to a lengthy and expensive judicial battle which California will ultimately lose, money that could be better spent on providing meaningful aid to low-income women who want to keep their unborn babies.

Susan Swift Arnall, Esq.
susan@righttolifeleague.org

Civil Rights attorney for the Unborn, Wife and Mother of 7. Member California State Bar, SAG/AFTRA.