California has been ramping up its efforts to trans children against the wishes of parents. With the passage of AB 957 in the state’s legislature, the progressive crowd won another victory in this endeavor. The role of government in family matters has long been a point of contention. But the debate over this issue has intensified over the past few years, especially with the backlash against the inclusion of gender ideology in the classroom.
With the passing of this legislation, parents who do not affirm their child’s chosen gender identity can lose custody of their kids.
There was a fiery debate in California’s legislature over the bill, which, as my colleague Bob Hoge reported, is now headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
The bill, titled the “Family law: gender identity” bill, passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but radical state Senator Scott Wiener (D-SF) added an amendment on June 6 that would change the state’s standard of the well-being of a minor to “include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.”
Now that it’s passed the Senate, the Assembly will need to agree to amendments the Senate attached, which the heavily Democratic legislative body assuredly will. Then it heads to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk, where he will almost certainly sign it since he’s emphasized polarizing gender politics during his tenure as the state’s top leader.
The bill could potentially make you guilty of child abuse if you refuse to call your son “Jane” and buy him dresses. Authorities could take your kid away if you don’t bend the knee:
California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.
By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.
Those supporting the measure weren’t too keen on allowing the opposition to present facts showing that “gender-affirming care,” which includes puberty blockers and potential surgical treatments for minors, is not the healthiest way to help children suffering from gender dysphoria. State Assembly member James Gallagher had his microphone cut when he attempted to bring up a study showing that the majority of children dealing with gender dysphoria later transitioned back to their biological sex:
“I wanna get this out there. It’s important that we know what the science and the information is saying. Even a recent follow up study in 2021 found that out of 139 participants, only 17 persisted in their gender identity, they were looking at young boys. One-hundred-twenty-two, 87%, went back to their biological sex. You can’t have a —”
Gallagher was told his microphone was cut off due to a “time limit on speeches.”
Unbelievable! The California Democrat controlled legislature cut off a Republican lawmaker’s microphone when he presented real data about teens desisting.
— Jonathan Zachreson (@JZachreson) September 9, 2023
He was speaking in opposition to #AB957, a bill which would force parents affirm their child’s perceived gender identity or… pic.twitter.com/G8c451De9e
Despite the Democrat-controlled legislature censoring Gallagher, the question remains: If most children revert back to their biological sex, then would this not show that subjecting them to puberty blockers and surgical treatments is dangerously premature? Moreover, if parents, who understand their children far better than some government bureaucrat pushing an agenda, realize this, why should the state be empowered to punish them?
But that’s not even the worst of the bill. When it is passed, it will mean that refusing to affirm a child’s gender could further enable the state to send men with guns and badges to kidnap these children from their parents' homes. This has already happened, and it resulted in the death of a young girl. The legislation could also compel organizations like schools and hospitals to comply with “gender-affirming care” used on children under the threat of being accused of child abuse – even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Imagine that. Refusing to subject a child to questionable medical procedures and irreversible surgical treatments is now considered child abuse in California.
It is not surprising that a deep blue state like California would pass such a law. But it will not be the last. Other state governments will likely follow suit in the name of “inclusion.” At this point, if parents want to protect their children, they might want to consider residing in a state that does not allow its government to usurp their rights to parent their children as they see fit.
