Young Kim is Bad for Women

Unequal Pay for Equal Work

Kim voted against enacting The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 2015. In September 2015, Kim voted against AB 1354, a bill that enacted:

The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 2015. The bill would require an employer with 100 or more employees in state, as specified, and a contract of 30 days or more, prior to becoming a contractor or subcontractor with the state, to submit a nondiscrimination program to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and to submit periodic reports no more than annually of its compliance with that program. The bill would authorize the department to require approval and certification of the program.The bill would permit the department to require an employer with fewer than 100 employees in state or a contract of less than 30 days to submit a nondiscrimination report. The bill would require the department to define an employee for these purposes. The bill would require the nondiscrimination program to include policies and procedures designed to ensure equal employment opportunities for all applicants and employees, an analysis of employment selection procedures, and a workforce analysis, as specified.

According to the American Association of University Women, AB 1354, would “require contractors working in the state to comply with a pay nondiscrimination program.” The Assembly concurred with Senate amendments 54 to 25, with one not voting, but the Governor vetoed. [AB 1354, Assembly concurred with Senate amendments, 9/8/2015; American Association of University Women, 8/20/2015; AB 1354, vetoed by Governor, 10/11/2015]

Kim voted to revise provision prohibiting employers from paying employees wages less than other employees of opposite sex for substantially similar work. In August 2015, Kim voted for SB 358:

Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions… This bill would revise that prohibition to eliminate the requirement that the wage differential be within the same establishment, and instead would prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, as specified.

The bill passed the Assembly 76 to two, with two people not voting, and became law. [SB 358, passed the Assembly, 8/27/2015; became law, 10/6/2015]

Your Body, Her Choice: Kim Consistently Votes to Take Away Choice

Kim voted against resolution urging federal government to express support for Planned Parenthood and a woman’s fundamental right to control own reproductive decisions. In January 2016, Kim voted against HR 32, a resolution that said:

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly urges the President of the United States and the United States Congress to express their support for a woman’s fundamental right to control her own reproductive decisions, as well as their support for access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

The resolution passed the Assembly 53 to 22. [HR 32, passed the Assembly, 1/19/2016]

Kim voted against requiring licensed covered facilities to provide information about affordable family planning, abortion services, and prenatal care to clients. In May 2015, Kim voted against AB 775, a bill that enacted:

The Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, which would require a licensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. The bill would also require an unlicensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that the facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California.

According to The Sacramento Bee, Black Women for Wellness and NARAL Pro-Choice America sponsored AB 775, which would cover “‘crisis pregnancy centers’ run by anti-abortion organizations.” Under AB 775, anti-abortion centers would have to “inform clients of California public programs that do offer abortions,” and “supply their clients with a telephone number for the appropriate county social services office so the clients can find out if they qualify for those programs that include abortion services.” According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America,

Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers are ground-zero in the fight for reproductive freedom, and Gov. Brown and the California Legislature can be proud of leading the first successful statewide effort to ensure that no woman is tricked into walking through doors of a (clinic) to be manipulated and shamed again.

The bill passed the Assembly 49 to 26, with five people not voting, and became law. [AB 775, passed the Assembly 5/26/2015; The Sacramento Bee, 10/11/2015; AB 775, became law, 10/9/2015]

Kim voted against prohibiting requirement for primary care clinics that provide birth services to enter written agreement to transfer patients to nearby hospitals. In September 2015, Kim voted against AB 1177, a bill that stated:

A licensed primary care clinic is not required to enter into a written transfer agreement pursuant to those provisions as a condition of licensure, except as provided for a primary care clinic that provides services as an alternative birth center, as specified. The bill would require a primary care clinic, except as specified, to send with each patient at the time of transfer, or in the case of an emergency, as promptly as possible, copies of all medical records related to the patient’s transfer, and would require the medical records to include, among other things, current medical findings and a brief summary of the course of treatment provided prior to the patient’s transfer. The bill would require the department to repeal related regulations.

The bill passed the Assembly 51 to 28, with one vote not recorded, and became law. [AB 1177, passed the Assembly, 5/11/2015; became law, 10/9/2015]

Extreme Anti-Choice SBA List Endorsed Kim

Anti-choice SBA List endorsed Young Kim; Kim says ‘fundamental right to life is vitally important…I intend to stand up for it.’ According to their website, the anti-choice organization Susan B. Anthony List endorsed Young Kim for California’s 39th Congressional District. In response, Kim said, “I am grateful to be endorsed by Susan B. Anthony List. The fundamental right to life is vitally important and I intend to stand up for it as a congresswoman.” [Susan B. Anthony List, Accessed 8/17/2018]

SBA List celebrated Kim’s primary win in 2018. In June 2018, the anti-choice organization Susan B. Anthony List “celebrated as its endorsed candidate Young Kim advanced to the general election for U.S. House of Representatives in California’s 39th District.” According to Marilyn Musgrave, SBA List’s Vice President of Government Affairs, “We congratulate Young Kim on advancing one step closer to Washington.” She continued, “As a member of the California Assembly, she stood up to the extreme abortion lobby’s efforts to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion. She will be a dedicated public servant for California taxpayers, not the abortion industry. We encourage pro-life voters to support her at the polls in November.” [Susan B. Anthony List, 6/6/2018]

President of SBA: rape exceptions for abortion ‘abominable.’ According to Life Site in June 2015, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser, when discussing legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks, “said that she believes that rape exceptions are ‘abominable.'” Dannenfelser reportedly said:

I also know that with it, we were able to move forward, and we have the potential of saving 15,000 to 18,000 children a year. No one should give up or give over a rape exception unless there is simply no chance of saving those other children.

[Life Site, 6/11/2015]

SBA List President: ‘perfect abortion bill’ would ‘have an exception for the life of the mother only.’ According to Equity Forward in August 2018, SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said her “perfect abortion bill” would only have an exception for “life of the mother.” Reportedly,

In a 2016 interview with The Telegraph, SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser stated her ‘perfect abortion bill’ would ‘have an exception the life of the mother only.’ Ironically, in the same interview, Dannenfelser “portrays herself as a protector of lives” while refusing to make exceptions even for abortions sought due to health complications. rape or incest.

[Equity Forward, 8/7/2018]

SBA is ‘an organization dedicated only to ensuring that abortion is made illegal.’ According to Equity Forward in August 2018, the Susan B Anthony List “continues to show that it does not stand for the lives and well-being of women, including pregnant women.” The SBA List “should instead call itself what it is:  an organization dedicated only to ensuring that abortion is made illegal.” Reportedly,

The SBA List has strong ties to the Trump administration and is one of the most vocal and well-funded organizations leading the charge to overturn the landmark ruling in Roe v Wade.  Just yesterday, they launched a ‘media blitz’ pressing Democrats in Republican and Republican-leaning states up for re-election this fall to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  SBA List only seeks to ‘protect the unborn and their mothers from abortion,’ and has a blatant disregard for the lives and well-being of women who continue their pregnancies, including those who face severe life and health threatening conditions, including miscarriage and maternal death.

[Equity Forward, 8/7/2018]

Susan B Anthony List ‘doesn’t actually care about the health and safety of pregnant women.’ According to Equity Forward in August 2018, Mary Alice Carter, the Executive Director of Equity Forward, said, “SBA List and those it endorses are not pro-life, they are anti-Roe, anti-pregnant women and out of touch with the majority of Americans, including Republicans, who don’t want to see abortion criminalized.” According to Carter, SBA List doesn’t actually care about the health and safety of pregnant women, but are rather fixated on policing our most personal, private decisions…As pregnant women, specifically women of color, face serious threats to their lives and well-being, one would think a so-called “pro-life” group like SBA List would be leading the battle to remedy these crises and provide sympathy and support for pregnant women.  Instead, they’ve chosen to use their resources to push for extreme policies which are deeply out of touch with the reality of women’s lives.

[Equity Forward, 8/7/2018]

Anti-abortion groups like SBA List seek to overturn Roe v. Wade after Kennedy SCOTUS retirement. In June 2018, The Hill published an article entitled, “Anti-abortion groups see opening to overturn Roe v. Wade with Kennedy retirement”:

Anti-abortion groups see the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, announced Wednesday, as their best shot in decades to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide. ‘Justice Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court marks a pivotal moment for the fight to ensure every unborn child is welcomed and protected under the law,’ said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. Abortion opponents have hoped that President Trump would get the chance to appoint another conservative anti-abortion rights justice who would vote in their favor should abortion cases rise to the high court. Trump has previously vowed to nominate ‘pro-life’ justices to overturn Roe V. Wade.

[The Hill, 6/27/2018]

Anti-abortion advocates like SBA List ‘teeing up… winning challenge’ to Roe v. Wade in 2018. In April 2018, Politico reported that the “anti-abortion movement believes it’s one Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice away from a shot at overturning Roe v. Wade, and advocates are teeing up what they hope will be the winning challenge”:

From Iowa to South Carolina, lawmakers are proposing some of the most far-reaching abortion restrictions in a generation, hoping their legislation triggers the lawsuit that eventually makes it to the high court. Mississippi just approved the earliest abortion ban in the country — at 15 weeks of pregnancy — and Kentucky last week banned the procedure used in most abortions after 11 weeks. Legislatures in Ohio and South Carolina are weighing total prohibitions of the procedure, while Iowa is considering a ban as soon as a heartbeat is detected — all bills that if signed into law would violate Roe and prompt lawsuits. ‘That could ultimately be a bill that revisits Roe v. Wade,’ Ohio state Rep. Ron Hood said of his bill to prohibit all abortions. ‘One flip of a Supreme Court justice, and revisiting Roe v. Wade looks very, very promising’… Under a precedent set by former Speaker John Boehner, King said House GOP leaders won’t bring an anti-abortion bill to the floor unless it is supported by three groups: National Right to Life, the Susan B. Anthony List and the Family Research Council. The latter two support King’s bill.

[Politico, 4/15/2018]

Kim previously endorsed by group ‘dedicated to making abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest.’ According to Planned Parenthood’s past voter guide for California’s 65th Assembly District election,

Young Kim is endorsed by an Orange County pro-life committee dedicated to making abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s health is in danger. Young Kim is endorsed by the Orange County Tea Party which has repeatedly taken positions against women’s access to reproductive health care.

[Planned Parenthood, Accessed 8/17/2018]

Anti-choice legislators ‘emboldened’ by Trump’s anti-abortion actions. In May 2018, Vox reported that “Trump’s presidency may be shaping abortion law around the country anyway. Perhaps emboldened by his judicial appointments, legislators are introducing new abortion bans that directly challenge the tenets of Roe”:

One such law, a ban on abortions after 15 weeks, was signed by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryantin March. More states have moved to restrict abortion since: on May 4, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill banning abortions after a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, or as early as six weeks. A Kentucky law signed by the governor in April limits certain types of procedures for patients pregnant for more than 11 weeks, and a law recently passed in Indiana would require doctors to report patients’ personal information to the state. The law, which contains exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities, but none for rape or incest, was immediately challenged in court by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state’s last abortion clinic. On Tuesday, a judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking the law for the next 10 days. After that, the future is in doubt for anyone seeking an abortion after 15 weeks in the state of Mississippi… The ultimate goal is to open the door for nationwide restrictions on abortion rights. And with Trump in the White House, that goal might be more achievable than ever.

[Vox, 5/4/2018]

Ohio GOP seeks to ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest. In March 2018, NPR reported that the Ohio GOP introduced HB 565, a bill that would “prohibit abortions even in cases of rape, incest or danger to a woman’s life”:

The proposal would allow criminal charges against both doctors and pregnant women seeking abortions and would characterize an ‘unborn human’ as a person under Ohio’s criminal code regarding homicide. That means abortions could be punishable by life in prison or even the death penalty. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio criticized the proposal, calling it an obvious attempt to give the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision providing the right to have an abortion.

[NPR, 3/20/2018]

Iowa introduced ‘nation’s most restrictive abortion ban’ in 2018. In May 2018, CNN reported that the governor of Iowa signed into law a bill that “prohibits doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected.” According to CNN, “The legislation, which has been called ‘the heartbeat bill,’ is widely described as the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban.” According to pro-choice advocates, the legislation would “effectively ban abortion at six weeks and before a woman is aware that she is pregnant.” The anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List praised the legislation, saying, “The bold pro-life action taken by the Iowa legislature reflects growing national pro-life sentiment and restlessness under the extreme status quo imposed by Roe v. Wade.” [CNN, 5/4/2018]

Kim Worked for Anti-Choice Rep. Royce for 21 Years

Kim worked for Rep. Royce, who voted for multiple abortion bans, for 21 years. In May 2018, NBC News reported that Kim worked for US Representative Ed Royce for 21 years, beginning when Royce was a state senator and continuing when he was elected to Congress. Kim was reportedly a “community liaison and director of Asian affairs.” According to the Los Angeles Times, Royce was a 13-term Republican Congressman representing California. Previously, Royce represented Orange County in the California state Senate for a decade, beginning when he was 31-years-old. In January 2018, Royce announced that he would not seek reelection to Congress. [NBC News, 5/16/2018; Los Angeles Times, 1/8/2018]

In 1999, Royce voted to ban minors from traveling across state lines to receive abortions. In June 1999, Royce voted to pass HR 1218, also known as the Child Custody Protection Act, which made it a “federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.” The bill passed the House in a 270 to 159 vote. [HR 1218, Vote #261, 6/30/1999; On The Issues, 6/30/1999]

In 2002, Royce voted to prohibit governments that receive federal funding from ‘discriminating’ against health care providers that refuse to ‘refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services.’ In September 2002, Royce voted to pass HR 4691, also known as the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibited, Federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law ‘conscience clause’ that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.

The bill passed the House in a 229 to 189 vote. [HR 1691, Vote #412, 9/25/2002]

In 2011, Royce voted to prohibit use of federal funds for ‘any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.’ In May 2011, Royce voted to pass HR 3, also known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which prohibited “federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.” In explaining the support for the bill, Republican Rep. Fortenberry said,

Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities–in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

The bill passed the House in a 251 to 175 vote. [HR 3, Vote #292, 5/4/2011; On The Issues, 5/4/2011]

In 2013, Royce voted to ban abortion, only provided rape and incest exemptions if it was reported to law enforcement of government agency. In June 2013, Royce voted for:

Passage of the bill that would create a nationwide ban on abortions performed at 20 weeks or later, except in cases where the life of the woman is in danger. It would provide exceptions to the ban in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest against a minor, if it has been reported to law enforcement or a government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. It also would impose criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban and subject violators to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both.

The bill passed, 228-196. [CNN, 6/17/2013; Politico, 6/18/13; HR 1797, Vote #251, 6/18/13]

In 2016, NARAL gave Royce 0% rating for record on abortion. In 2016, NARAL, a pro-choice organization, gave Rep. Royce a 0 percent rating for consistently voting against pro-choice legislation. [NARAL, 2016]

In 2017, Royce voted for 20-week abortion ban imposing criminal penalties on doctors, with exceptions for rape and incest only if it had been reported to law enforcement. In October 2017, Royce voted for:

Passage of the bill that would prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later and would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. It would provide exceptions for cases in which the woman’s life is in danger as well as for pregnancies that are a result of rape for pregnancies that are a result of rape against an adult woman, if the woman received counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. An exception would be provided for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor if the rape or incest had been previously reported to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The bill would require a second doctor trained in neonatal resuscitation to be present for abortions where the fetus has the ‘potential’ to survive outside the womb.

The bill passed, 237-189. [HR 36, Vote #549, 10/3/2017; CQ, 10/3/2017]

Politico: ‘Barring a major upset, next year there won’t be a single House Republican who supports abortion rights.’ In June 2018, Politico reported that barring a major upset, next year there won’t be a single House Republican who supports abortion rights. The retirements of Reps. Charlie Dent and Rodney Frelinghuysen mark the end of the line for abortion rights supporters in the Republican Conference. And there’s no GOP nominee in a competitive race who backs abortion rights this year. [Politico, 6/28/2018]

AHCA Would Jeopardize Preventive Services, Maternity Care

AHCA would repeal requirement that Medicaid plans cover preventive services such as breast and cervical cancer screenings. In May 2017, the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) published the report entitled, “Ten Ways That the House American Health Care Act Could Affect Women,” that said the AHCA would repeal the requirement that Medicaid plans cover preventive services such as breast and cervical cancer screenings:

Currently, all private plans, Medicaid expansion programs, and Medicare must cover recommended preventive services without cost sharing. Important services for women include: breast and cervical cancer screening, osteoporosis screening, pregnancy related services, well woman visits, and contraception… The AHCA would maintain preventive services requirements for private plans, but would repeal the requirements for the Medicaid expansion population. Preventive services for adults are covered at state option for other Medicaid beneficiaries. States could opt to roll back coverage of preventive services for this group.

[Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/08/2017]

AHCA would allow states to eliminate requirement that essential health benefits, like maternity care, to be covered, which could cost women up to $1,000 per month more. In May 2017, TIME reported that the AHCA would allow states to eliminate the requirement that essential health benefits, like maternity care, to be covered, which could cost women up to $1,000 per month more. Time reported:

But another group who could end up paying thousands more? Those who become pregnant, according to yesterday’s Congressional Budget Office analysis of the recently passed American Health Care Act. The recently passed bill allows states to apply for waivers to redefine what are termed Essential Health Benefits in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. Under the current law, EHBs include categories of care like mental health services, prescription drug coverage, and maternity and newborn care. The CBO projects that if states can redefine these categories, maternity care, mental health care, and substance abuse services are most likely on the chopping block. So what happens if you’re one of the 50 million-plus people who live in a state that seeks out these waivers, and you become pregnant ? You can purchase a rider, estimated at an additional $1,000 per month. The average pregnancy and delivery could cost over $3,000 out-of-pocket even with private insurance; the riders would add a few thousand dollars to that total.

[Money, 5/25/2017]

Kim Does Not Look Out for New Mothers

Kim voted against requiring schools to provide reasonable accommodations for breast-feeding. In September 2015, Kim voted against AB 302, a bill that required:

A school operated by a school district or a county office of education, the California School for the Deaf, the California School for the Blind, and a charter school to provide, only if there is at least one lactating pupil on the school campus, reasonable accommodations to a lactating pupil on a school campus to express breast milk, breast-feed an infant child, or address other needs related to breast-feeding. The bill would require that these reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, access to a private and secure room, other than a restroom, to express breast milk or breast-feed an infant child, permission to bring onto a school campus any equipment used to express breast milk, access to a power source for that equipment, and access to a place to safely store expressed breast milk. The bill would also require that a lactating pupil on a school campus be given a reasonable amount of time to accommodate the need to express breast milk or breast-feed an infant child.

The Assembly concurred with Senate amendments 62 to 14, with 4 not voting, and the bill became law. [AB 302, Assembly concurred with Senate amendments, 9/3/2015; became law, 10/9/2015]

GET UPDATES