On April 21, CFER, member co-plaintiffs and the American Civil Rights Project (ACR Project)  **filed a** [**lawsuit**](https://www.americancivilrightsproject.org/blog/acr-project-for-cfer-and-its-members-challenges-californias-black-infant-health-program/) **in Sacramento to challenge the state’s Black Infant Health (BIH) program**. In the legal action, we argue that the State of California has engaged in racial discrimination through BIH, violating the U.S. and California Constitutions, as well as Title VI in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since 1989, the California Department of Public Health has maintained this program, handing out favorable treatment to pregnant women and newborns on the basis of race. At the beginning, BIH was promoted as an initiative to equalize health outcomes for Black mothers and children as compared to those from other groups. It has been 37 years since the program’s inception and the state has no plan to transition the program from a racially exclusionary premise to a race-neutral one. Dispensing this public benefit based on race violates:

· The Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution

· Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

· Provisions of the California Constitution, including its Equal Protection Clause (Article I, Section 7) and—to the extent BIH operates through contracts—Prop. 209(Article I, Section 31)

Answering CFER’s  [call for plaintiffs](https://www.cferfoundation.org/posts/post-BIH-action-alert)  , three courageous CFER members agreed to join the lawsuit as representative taxpayers. Our lawsuit also compliments a parallel class-action  [challenge](https://pacificlegal.org/case/jimenez-california-bih-program-race/)  in the launched by another CFER member in federal court with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation.

[First name], there is no question that protecting the health of all pregnant women and newborns—of all races—is a worthy social goal.  When governments go beyond that kind of laudable commitment to advance the health and safety of  _only_  pregnant women and newborns of a single race to the exclusion of others, that’s something else entirely.

We are asking that the Sacramento Superior Court declare the BIH program unconstitutional and illegal, issue a writ of mandamus commanding the state to cease using state resources or funds to support it so long as it continues to discriminate on the basis of race, and for related preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Once again, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. We have seen the fruitful outcomes of CFER’s legal advocacy in many past cases and we believe we will prevail again. If you have any information on potentially unconstitutional public programs throughout California, can you please let us know?

medium_cover0823.jpeg

small_cover0823.jpeg

thumbnail_cover0823.jpeg

cover0823.jpeg

We just sued the California Department of Public Health to stop the unconstitutional “Black Infant Health” program

Please join CFER and CFER friends in Sacramento next month as we plan to tour the State Capitol and voice our concerns on ACA 7. We will meet with state senators and their staffers, give them handouts on why California should stand behind equal rights and speak on the importance of Prop. 209.  
  
Currently, ACA 7 is still pending committee assignments at the Senate Rules Committee. It may be assigned at any moment. If this partial and dangerous repeal goes on the state ballot, it will be a grave threat to equal education rights. Please consider writing to your state senator(s) in opposition to the bill. You can find your state senator(s) [here](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=bfef84347f&e=0111f1f5cd). Alternatively, you can utilize this one-click emailing [tool](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=daa60521e2&e=0111f1f5cd) developed by CFER partner Equal Rights for All Pac.  
  
**If you can participate, please register through this  [link](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=01de59fb4d&e=0111f1f5cd).** We look forward to seeing you in May!

**Location:** 1021 O St., Sacramento, CA 95814

**Date/Time:** 9 am -5 pm PT, Monday, May 11th, 2026

large_campaign endorsements (4).png

medium_campaign endorsements (4).png

small_campaign endorsements (4).png

thumbnail_campaign endorsements (4).png

campaign endorsements (4).png

Join us on Monday, 5/11 in Sacramento for a "No on ACA 7" Capitol tour!

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic  [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a810_b97d.pdf)  in  _Mirabelli v. Bonta_, effectively ending California’s state policy of gender secrecy. As a result, California school districts can no longer facilitate children’s gender transitions without informing parents. Nor will teachers be forced, against their religious beliefs and moral convictions, to use different names and pronouns behind parents’ backs.

Congratulations to all the parties involved in bringing this victory through our nation’s higher court, including lead counsel Paul Jonna of the Thomas More Society, who helped CFER take down religious chants in the ethnic studies curriculum in 2021!

While we celebrate such a decisive win for parental rights and religious freedom, we can’t ignore another emerging reality: progressive  _educrats_  and teacher activists are  [scheming](https://yubanet.com/california/california-legislative-lgbtq-caucus-condemns-supreme-court-shadow-docket-mirabelli-ruling/)  ways to circumvent and undermine the ban in defiance. As with the previous landmark Supreme Court  [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf)  in  _SFFA v. Harvard_, which bans race-based college admissions, the other side always spins the story and concocts false narratives. This time, opponents of parental rights and traditional family values condemn the ruling as “forced outing” and “anti-LGBTQ+” rhetoric. Individual school districts are being given a signal to carry on the harmful gender ideology as usual.

We can’t let that happen. Although the law and national policies are favorable to our side, it is our responsibility to monitor the implementation at the local school district level. Once again, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Please allow us to make the following suggestions to help you bring the positive changes from the court to your local community:

1. Speak up at your next school board meeting and put the school district on notice regarding the ban on gender secrecy.

2. Continue to monitor curricula, policies and initiatives in your local school district for evidence of indoctrination and discrimination.

3. Connect with fellow parents and citizens to grow and sustain the movement for parental rights, transparency, excellence, merit and truth.

CFER is ready and willing to help you on your journey. Please let us know how we can be of best assistance to you in your specific situations/circumstances.

medium_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

small_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

thumbnail_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Supreme Court ruled against gender secrecy. We must make sure schools follow the law!

California’s progressive political establishment has a never-ceasing desire to insert race into public policies, even in the face of legal risks. As you may know, in January, CFER [finalized](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=283af60219&e=0111f1f5cd) a settlement with San Francisco for the latter to defund four unconstitutional guaranteed income programs. Two of the four programs provided cash stipends to black pregnant women and mothers. **While California’s most progressive icon backed down from using race to determine recipients of government assistance for maternal/infant health, the State Government doubled down with a program called “**[**Black Infant Health**](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=251e6b5aa4&e=0111f1f5cd) **(BIH).”**  
  
Branded as “a health equity program that offers individual and support to pregnant and post-partum Black mothers and birthing people,” BIH seeks to “help participants enhance life skills within **a culturally affirming and supportive environment that honors the unique history of Black women and birthing people, reduces stress, and build social support**.” Specifically, the program provides: 1. 10 prenatal and 10 postpartum sessions designed to empower and support participants; 2. 1:1 support available to 16- and 17-year-old participants and those who are unable to attend group sessions. The initiative was “created in recognition that **anti-Black racism, social and economic stressors, and neighborhood conditions** contribute to poor birth outcomes for Black mothers, birthing people, and infants.”

Ladies and gentlemen, this is **government-endorsed racism in action**. Should the government help at-risk expecting mothers? Of course! **But it should do so without regard to race**. Besides, the research cited by the California Department of Public Health in justification for BIH is rudimentary and false. There are some over-the-top grievance studies generalized to legitimize the theory of systemic inequities as an overarching structure behind disparities. The state also misinterprets more rigorous studies to place race over more influential factors such as a host of previous health conditions. CFER Executive Director Dr. Wenyuan Wu has detailed the abuse and misuse of research in similar programs [here](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=9f725a856d&e=0111f1f5cd).  
  
Back in 2023, when the State Legislature considered [AB 1701](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=15c936cb46&e=0111f1f5cd) “Black Infant Health: California Perinatal Equity Initiative,” CFER [opposed](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=b0f6ac77c2&e=0111f1f5cd) it. In our position letter, we wrote:  
  
“According to data from the March of Dimes, during 2017 and 2019, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births in California was lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (2.9), compared with for White infants (3.2), Hispanic infants (4.4), and Black infants (8.3)… [I]n 2020, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 861 women in the United States died related to pregnancy, out of a total of about 3.6 million births—a rate of 0.02 percent. Over 350 were white, while under 300 were black.”  
  
Our evidence-rich position was ignored and the bill was signed into law. But government action should not be the final say on this matter. **We still have the court of law and we intend to use it to defend equal treatment against racial favors**.  
  
As such, can we recruit your support in helping CFER identify potential victims that are missing out on government assistance to their maternal health and their babies’ care? **If you know someone who is pregnant or planning to get pregnant soon, can you please connect us with her? That person can help CFER bring a legal challenge against the state to stop BIH as an unnamed member plaintiff.**  
  
Currently, BIH is present in these [communities](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=f930775139&e=0111f1f5cd) “where over 90% of African-American births occur.” We would love to talk with an eligible member plaintiff from one of these areas but we are also open to any Californian who is expecting. Simply reply to this email if you have a lead and we will be in touch!

medium_BIH.png

small_BIH.png

thumbnail_BIH.png

BIH.png

Pregnant or planning to? Join us to halt statewide “Black Infant Health” program!

CFER and two member co-plaintiffs have taken City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Human Rights Commission to court to stop the unconstitutional reparations fund  [plan](https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7780553&GUID=38D11F1B-4BCE-4A10-BECD-3538001502B1&Options=ID|Text|&Search=reparations). Represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), we filed the lawsuit with the Superior Court of the State of California in San Francisco, along with Mr. Richie Greenberg and Mr. Arthur Ritchie. Both co-plaintiffs are CFER members and San Francisco residents.

“Thanks to our strategic ally PLF, we are able to launch this timely legal challenge shortly after the reparations plan was enacted,” commented CFER President Frank Xu. "We are confident that the equal rights for all San Franciscans, including our courageous co-plaintiffs Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Ritchie as well as many unnamed CFER members in San Francisco, will be defended swiftly and resolutely!"

“I’ve been keenly paying attention to this issue of Reparations for several years now, watching as city hall officials (and now the mayor), have consistently ignored law and constitutional rights of us taxpayers. They have put rhetoric and ideology ahead of the city’s residents,” said Mr. Richie Greenberg. “I have reached out to the Board of Supervisors, the mayor, the city attorney and the reparations committee itself to demand they cease wasting taxpayers’ money on this unconstitutional plan, and the time has come to bring them to court.”

The San Francisco Reparations Plan was  [formulated](https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/AARAC%20Reparations%20Final%20Report%20July%207%2C%202023.pdf)  in July 2023 by the Human Rights Commission. It was accepted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in September 2023. The Board formally  adopted  the plan into an ordinance in December 2025. In order to qualify for the plan’s benefits in homeownership, employment, business, education and health, an individual must be:

a. An African American descendant of a chattel enslaved person or the descendant of a free black person prior to the end of the 19th century, or has identified as black/African American on public documents for at least 10 years;

b. 18 years or older;

c. And born in and/or migrated to San Francisco before 2006 and has proof of residency in San Francisco for at least 10 years.

Our lawsuit argues that San Francisco has violated the constitutional principle of equal protection in instituting such a sweeping reparation plan that essentially imposes “racial classifications on present-day residents who neither endured enslavement nor inflicted it.” By doing so, San Francisco has weaponized government action, public authority and taxpayer dollars to distribute benefits on the basis of race and ancestry. Specifically, the San Francisco Reparations Plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Proposition 209 and California Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection (Article I, Section 7).

We are asking the San Francisco government to stop the plan immediately, declare that racial preferences in the plan are unconstitutional, and pledge that it will not use any government resources or public funds to support discriminatory programs going forward.


medium_Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape (1).png

small_Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape (1).png

thumbnail_Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape (1).png

Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape (1).png

CFER sued San Francisco to stop its reparations plan 


We are starting the new year on a triumphant note. After nearly two years, San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a settlement [agreement](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=d8cc0b4232&e=0111f1f5cd) with CFER and our taxpayer co-plaintiffs. According to the agreement, **the City and County of San Francisco agreed to permanently defund the following four “guaranteed income” programs**:

-   **Black Economic Equity Movement (BEEM)**, which transferred $500/month for one year to eligible participants who are “Black young adults ages 18-24 in San Francisco and Oakland.”
-   **Guaranteed Income for Transgender People (GIFT)**, which gave $1,200/month for a year and a half to participants who are “Transgender, Non-Binary, Gender Non-Confirming, and Intersex.” It was designed to “prioritize enrollment of Black, Indigenous, or People of Color,” as well.
-   **Abundant Birth Project Version 1.0 (ABP 1.0)**, which provided $1,000 - $1,500/month for the duration of a woman’s pregnancy and then for the first two months of the baby’s life to Black and Pacific Islander pregnant women in San Francisco.
-   **Abundant Birth Project Version 2.0 (ABP 2.0)**, which was designed “to provide Black mothers with monthly incomes of $600 to $1,000 for 12 months” and “serve a minimum of 425 individuals from the pregnant priority population.”

With mayoral approval, the settlement was finalized earlier this month. **The favorable conclusion of this important legal challenge, for which CFER and our co-plaintiffs were represented by our ally American Civil Rights Project (ACR Project), paralleled our earlier [success](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=8de20580aa&e=0111f1f5cd) in prompting Sacramento to close down its race-based child/parent welfare program.** The settlement also constitutes **CFER’s first major victory in 2026**. More importantly, ending these frivolous and unconstitutional government programs serves the public interest for all San Francisco taxpayers and all Californians.  
  
“California and its subdivisions should not need reminding that racial discrimination is illegal. They should comply with American law, even when no one is watching. But we _are_ watching and–when they don’t–we will make sure that either voluntarily or because compelled by the Courts, America’s laws guarantying equal protection prevail,” commented ACR Project Executive Director Dan Morenoff.  
  
As a faithful watchdog dedicated to equal treatment, **CFER does not shy away from challenging unequal, discriminatory and illegal government preferences in court.** We are always ready and willing, and our legal advocacy partners are mightily able. If you are a CFER member, you can [log onto](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=b4b41246eb&e=0111f1f5cd) our newly developed member portal to see the current cases we are planning to take on and check if you can help as a member plaintiff. If not, please [sign up](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=d39aaa192a&e=0111f1f5cd) today and join CFER’s various initiatives for equality, merit and freedom. You can also help power up CFER’s mission and operations with a kind [donation](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=fd746e3454&e=0111f1f5cd).  
  
As always, thank you for the support and trust!

medium_Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape.png

small_Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape.png

thumbnail_Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape.png

Green and White Watercolor Congratulations A4 Landscape.png

First victory in 2026! San Francisco forced to defund unconstitutional programs due to our lawsuit

State Policies

Local School District Policies

CRT in School Districts

Defund DEI

Research by CFER Allies

CFER Research & More

Alliance Building

Endorsement

Become a member

CFER Foundation

Policies

Research

Alliance

Posts