California AB957 is just another attack on parents and shows that the government isn’t afraid to through around their fascist authority.
California seems to be on a roll with showing how much they hate the people. Governor Newsom introduced an unconstitutional 28th amendment attacking the 2nd amendment. They’ve also introduced SB553 which prevents employees from confronting shoplifters. Now, a recently amended bill, AB 957, has ignited a fierce debate surrounding parental responsibility, child welfare, and the affirmation of transgender identities. AB 957, introduced by Assembly Member Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, and co-sponsored by State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, has undergone significant changes that could potentially redefine the obligations of parents and organizations regarding transgender children. This article delves into the details of the amended bill, highlighting the implications it could have on parental rights and the child welfare system in California.
The Original Intent and Co-Sponsorship:
Assembly Member Lori Wilson introduced the bill on February 14. The legislation aimed to incorporate considerations of parental “gender-affirmation” in custody cases. State Sen. Scott Wiener, a co-sponsor of the bill, played a significant role in the subsequent amendment process. As the parent of a transgender child, Wilson had a personal stake in the issue, prompting her involvement in crafting the legislation.
The Amended AB 957:
The most consequential change to AB 957 occurred during the bill’s journey through California’s State Senate. Wiener’s amendment fundamentally altered the state’s standard of child care, expanding the definition of parental responsibility to include the affirmation of a child’s gender identity. The revised bill now stipulated that a parent’s affirmation of their child’s gender identity became a crucial factor in determining the child’s health, safety, and welfare. Consequently, this redefinition had far-reaching implications for the entire California Family Code.
Implications for Parents and Organizations:
The potential impact of AB 957 becoming law is a matter of great concern for parental rights advocates and organizations across California. If the bill were to pass, it would grant California courts significant authority, as outlined in Section 3011 of the Family Code, to remove a child from their parents’ home if the parents did not approve of LGBTQ+ ideology. This broadened definition of child welfare raises questions about the extent to which the state can intervene in parental decision-making and impose its views on gender identity.
These aspects of AB 957 have prompted concerns about the erosion of parental rights and the potential infringement on freedom of speech and religious liberty. Critics argue that the bill undermines the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding their child’s well-being, particularly when it comes to sensitive matters such as gender identity. They contend that the legislation effectively forces parents and organizations to adhere to a specific ideology, stifling diversity of thought and impeding open dialogue.
Unanswered Questions and Criticisms:
One of the significant criticisms of AB 957 centered around the absence of a clear definition for what constituted “nonaffirming” behavior towards a child’s gender identity. Susannah Luthi of The Washington Free Beacon noted that the bill failed to address crucial factors such as the child’s age, the duration of their transgender identification, and the distinction between social and medical aspects of gender transition. The lack of clarity regarding these aspects left many uncertain about the legal and practical ramifications of the bill.
ay Richards, the Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, calls AB 957 a “grotesque violation.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)
While more and more European countries pound the breaks on ghoulish gender medicine for kids, California has decided to mandate it. They not only want to make sure that any child with discordant feelings toward his or her sexed body gets fast tracked to cross-sex hormones and sterilizing surgery, state Democrats want to go after parents who might otherwise hesitate. This is a grotesque violation of both children’s and parent’s rights. Decent Californians on the Left, Right, and center should be outraged.
Nicole Pearson, founder of the Facts Law Truth Justice law firm and civil rights advocacy group, condemned AB 957’s unconstitutionality in an interview with The Daily Signal:
This bill makes law that failure to affirm your child’s identity is child abuse. This will be a final, legal determination without any evidence in support, or a hearing with notice or the opportunity to be heard. Assemblywoman Wilson and Senator Scott Wiener are not doctors. They can’t make this determination for every single child aged 0 to 17 in the state and, yet, that is exactly what they’re trying to do here.
If a parent or guardian is unwilling or simply not ready to affirm their 7-year-old’s new identity—as they transition from Spongebob to Batman to Dora the Explorer—they can be found guilty of child abuse under AB-957 if it passes into law.
This is a horrifying bill for children, and for parents and guardians not just in California, but across the country. Gavin Newsom is gunning for president in 2028. If he signs this bill into law, here, it will be headed to every state if he wins.
Wiener’s Previous Involvement and Legal Challenges:
AB 957 was not Senator Scott Wiener’s first attempt to legislate on transgenderism for children. In the previous year, Wiener authored bill SB 107, which made California the first state to establish itself as a sanctuary for minors seeking transgender treatments and surgeries. The passing of this bill sparked legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed by Advocates for Faith and Freedom against Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration. These legal battles highlighted the contentious nature of legislation that intersected with parental rights and transgender rights.
The amended AB 957 has caused a fierce debate in California regarding parental rights, child welfare, and the affirmation of transgender identities. With its potential to redefine the obligations of parents and organizations, the bill has garnered both support and criticism. The lack of clarity surrounding key aspects and the broad discretion given to California courts have raised concerns among parental rights advocates and experts. As the bill continues its journey through the legislative process, it remains to be seen how it will ultimately impact families and the child welfare system in the state.
The potential consequences of AB 957 have prompted intense discussions among various stakeholders. Advocates for parental rights argue that the bill infringes upon the fundamental rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs and values. They contend that the state should not have the power to dictate parental decisions regarding gender identity affirmation, particularly when it comes to minors.
Opponents of the bill also express concerns about the lack of a clear definition of “nonaffirming” behavior. Without specific guidelines, parents and organizations are left uncertain about what actions or beliefs might be considered nonaffirming and subject to potential legal consequences. The ambiguity surrounding these definitions opens the door for potential misuse of the legislation and leaves room for arbitrary judgments.
Moreover, critics question whether California courts have the necessary expertise to determine what constitutes gender affirmation. The decision to label a parent’s behavior as affirming or nonaffirming of a child’s gender identity is a complex matter that requires a deep understanding of individual circumstances, psychology, and child development. Without established criteria and training for judges, the potential for subjective interpretations and biased rulings increases.
Supporters of AB 957 argue that the bill is essential for the well-being and safety of transgender children. They contend that parents who do not affirm their child’s gender identity may subject them to emotional harm and create an unsafe environment. According to proponents, the legislation provides necessary protection for vulnerable individuals and ensures that they have access to appropriate support and resources.
However, concerns persist regarding the potential for abuse of the legislation. Critics worry that individuals, including children, could exploit the law by making false accusations against their parents or caregivers. The risk of malicious or unfounded claims of gender nonaffirmation underscores the need for a clear framework and robust safeguards to protect both children and families.
The outcome of AB 957 will undoubtedly shape the landscape of parental rights and child welfare in California and possibly the entire country.
