As I have researched the alleged issues, I realize that there has been not only disinformation, but combined with short sightedness and lack of thorough analysis, the reactionary ‘endorsements’ of Cox have been sorely misplaced.  John Cox has simply stated that he is Pro-Life, which is inconsistent with his vote for Pro-choice Libertarian  Gary Johnson for president.  Yet, the ‘movement’ seems disinclined to exact any consequences upon him for that.  The primarily cited reason for rejection Travis Allen’s representation that he is Pro-Life is the number of time he abstained on legislation that was of interest to the Pro-Life lobby.  The most oft cited of those is dealt with here, but the analysis of the other pieces of legislation that Travis Allen is faulted for, are similarly innocuous when looked at in the detail of impact his vote may have had.

Labels are funny things.  They have become a knee jerk reactive prompt, that we respond to like Pavlov’s dog.  We have to, above all, bring humanity back into policy and politics, or we truly have accomplished nothing, in particular, when we call ourselves advocates for “life”.  We should be more careful with words like “choice” and “family planning” and realize that they are just words.  We should also be up to speed on what is happening in Pro-Life non-profits, charities and life affirming medical clinics.  Organizations that not only affirm life, but provide….choices, AND, Family Planning.  Just because we use words that are used by bad guys, does not mean, we are bad guys.

 SB 743, was entitled, The Protection of Choice for Family Planning Providers. It was presented to the Assembly on 9/13/17.  The problem that many “Pro Life” leaders are having on this particular bill is that Travis Allen did NOT vote on it, he abstained.  In discussion this with those conservatives who oppose Travis Allen as a governor candidate, no one could tell me exactly what difference his vote would have made.  The answer lies in the 55-21 split, in favor of passage.  Travis Allen’s vote, yes, no, or abstain, was in fact, irrelevant.  It would have passed no matter what Travis Allen did.  

Travis Allen is further faulted by these “Pro Life” advocates, for abstaining on other “Pro Life” bills.  Anyone who has ever been in Sacramento and conversed with conservative legislators there in the past three decades, knows, that you must pick your battles.  In the interests of what you can get done, you might have to ignore and let go of what you can not get done.  A few years ago, a California Senator told me that Jerry Brown was the best ally we conservatives had in Sacramento. It puzzled me at first, but I realized it was because the Governor, with his veto power, was holding a fiscally conservative line periodically, which provided the conservatives some maneuvering ability, not much, but some.  During the 6 years that Travis Allen has been in the State Assembly in Sacramento, the Democrats have had a majority, (more than half) and for all but two years it was a Super-majority (More than two thirds).  The minority in such a hostile environment, must have some shrewd strategy and survival skills. 

The passage of SB 743, is not in any way the apolcalyptic defeat of the Pro Life Movement that they are making it out to be.  In reviewing the listed advocates and opponents of this legislation, I am (again) puzzled as to whether anyone taking a side,  actually read it.  Of course, a variety of Planned Parenthood organizations supported it.  Particularly puzzling though, is the Catholic opposition to it.   Catholic charities strongly support many pro-life pregnancy centers that will benefit greatly from this legislation.
The legislation, SB 743, does not specifically, or exclusively, fund abortion.

It provides that if a woman is receiving funding for her medical care through a government subsidized health plan, she should be able to CHOOSE her provider.  What is unreasonable about that?  She may choose abortion with that blank check of benefits given her, but she can ALSO choose life affirming medical care for herself and her unborn child.  These medi-cal and medicaid benefits are a tremendous help to those life affirming medical centers, and those centers offer so much more to mothers than Planned Parenthood does. 

“Medi-Cal managed care plan shall not restrict the choice of the qualified provider from whom a beneficiary enrolled in the managed care plan may receive family planning services covered by the Medi-Cal program”  SB743 (

Maybe their issue is that women might choose Planned Parenthood.  She may, however, choose a life affirming medical clinic for her ‘family planning services’.   Choice, it is not a bad thing, and it is not a bad word. The question the Pro Life Lobby should be asking itself, is are WE doing ENOUGH to support these kinds of centers and divert these women to them?  Are we making these known?  Are they as easily recognized, branded and exposed and familiar to the public as Planned Parenthood.  Women, and men, go to Planned Parenthood because they are shocked, surprised, overwhelmed, unsure and immensely afraid.  They go to what they know.  Why cant we change what they know?  There are other OPTIONS.  They have real CHOICES.

With the woman having a real choice, she can choose a life affirming center.  It is up to the Pro Life movement to step up the game to reach these women.  With President Trump signaling that he will be enforcing Title X limitations on funding to abortion providers, this opportunity is truly wide open for life affirming medical centers to expand their reach and their market share.  While we myopically focus on old battle fields, opposing anything and everything that might benefit Planned Parenthood, an entirely new opportunity is springing up to simply put them out of business.  We will miss it if we keep splitting hairs over whom is Pro-Life enough for us.

Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions each year. They offer no prenatal care, no parenting support and refer only 2,500 adoptions.  That is not any range of CHOICE.  Pro Life Pregnancy clinics offer real support, and, real choice.  Choice is not a bad word, we just surrendered it and let them have it.  We should take it back.  Choices, when they are real and meaningful, are good things.  

It does not seem that any of Travis Allen’s opponents thought of this.  Again, though, Travis Allen did not vote on this, did not sponsor this, and was not a deciding factor in its passage.  It remains however a deciding factor in Pro Life organizations and activists rejecting him as a candidate.

The failure to fully consider the scope of this and other legislation, the full impact of life affirming ministries and organizations is incredibly short sighted of “Pro-Life” activists, but to compound their error of improperly analyzing the impact of this law, by saddling an illusive negative impact, upon a legislator and now governor candidate who had NOTHING to do with its passage, is just simple incompetence, and utter unfairness.

Travis Allen, is by far the best candidate we have seen for Governor of California in many years.  I just hope it is not too late to undo the misinformation damage that has occurred from these improper analyses.

I am a Pro Life Activist, I work in Life Affirming ministry, and I will be voting for Travis Allen.