Late last month, the California legislature voted to pass a bill that would allow the State to take custody of out-of-state minors seeki...
Late last month, the California legislature voted to pass a bill that would allow the State to take custody of out-of-state minors seeking gender transition surgeries and cross-sex hormones – even if these actions go against the wishes of the child’s parents.
The measure, SB 107, which was introduced in July by Democrat state Senator Scott Wiener as part of efforts to turn California into a “sanctuary state” for trans mutilation of children (aka. gender-affirming care), passed both the house and the senate on August 31st with “overwhelming Democratic support.”
The sickening legislation now sits on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, awaiting his signature. He has until September 30th to sign or veto the bill. Despite not taking action as of yet, Newsom is expected to sign the measure into law before the timeframe ends this month.
When introducing the bill, Senator Wiener – the same radical who introduced pieces of legislation that would allow anyone 12 or older to get vaccinated without parental consent, mandate drag queen story hour in grade school, and relax the punishment for child sex offenders, among others – claimed it was necessary for the state to take action because of laws passed elsewhere in the US that restrict minors who identify as transgender from accessing radical and destructive treatments such as cross-sex hormones and surgeries to remove healthy organs. Wiener characterizes these laws that protect American youth as “brutal attacks on transgender children.”
Unbelievably, there are seemingly no restrictions or qualifications for the law to take effect. In other words, if the whim of any child is to access these destructive sex-change treatments, but one or both parents aren’t allowing it, California’s courts can take custody of that child in order to administer the drugs and/or surgery. All the court would need to prove is that the minor has been ‘mistreated or abused’ which is defined as being ‘unable to obtain gender-affirming health care.’ As of now, it is unclear if the child has to enter California before the law takes effect, or if the state can interfere and assist the child in traveling and accommodations.
The bill states that a child must be present in the state for the measures to take effect, but, continues to say that physical presence in the state is “not necessary” to make a determination about custody. Either way, this law goes far beyond any established form of government intervention in personal family matters.
From SB 107:
“…(c) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.(d) The presence of a child in this state for the purpose of obtaining gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined by Section 16010.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is sufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)….…3424.(a) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined by Section 16010.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”
What’s most troubling is that the bill seemingly incentivizes minors to travel to California behind their parent’s backs in search of this type of ‘care.’ As the California Family Council points out, radical activists in the state can easily “weaponize” the law to prey on out-of-state children.
From California Family Council:
It’s not hard to see how activists could quickly weaponize SB 107. Since the bill instructs state agencies to ignore the circumstances of how a child came to the state for gender transitioning, SB 107 invites children to run away from their families or even be trafficked across state lines.
As for the children’s wellbeing, once the state takes custody, the text of the bill does not describe any specifics when it comes to how these children will be cared for, let alone where they will be housed. The only information given is that the out-of-state minors would be under the “temporary emergency jurisdiction” of the state.
Opponents of SB 107 rightly view the measure as a direct assault on parental rights and a gross overstepping of authority by the notoriously ‘progressive’ state. Additionally, the issue goes much deeper than parental rights, as the very notion of gender-affirming care has been widely proven to cause severe long-term consequences (sterility, bone loss, other health issues) and increased suicide rates among young people who are coerced into medically transitioning.
Thankfully, several notable advocacy groups in California are mobilizing against the legislation and are already gearing up their legal challenges for if, and when, Newsom signs the bill into law.
Jonathan Keller, the president of California Family Council, called the measure “one of the gravest threats to parental rights in recent years” and vowed to fight the state through the courts in a statement last week. In addition to his and others’ efforts to reverse this bill, Keller called on the Attorney Generals of other states to come together and figure out a solution.
From Keller:
“If Gov. Newsom foolishly signs this measure, California should brace for lawsuits. Other states’ attorneys general will not sit idly by as California steals children from parents who don’t want them sterilized with these trans-treatments.”
Many are also pointing out that the law is undeniably unconstitutional, as it strips away several rights that are enshrined in our country’s founding document. In a damning statement released last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group, hammered the California legislature and called into question the measure’s ability to stand up to the most basic legal challenges.
From ADF’s statement:
“SB 107 violates parental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution by giving California courts the ability to strip parents who reside in another state of their parental rights if their child travels to California to obtain gender transition procedures…
…[SB 107] would override the jurisdiction of courts in a family’s home state that are usually the proper forum for custody determinations. SB 107 could also conflict with various federal laws, including those governing which state courts have jurisdiction to determine child custody and federal laws governing extradition requirements between the states.”
At no other point in history has a government entity seized custody of children from parents at the behest of a child’s manipulated views about reality. Not only that, but, the reasoning behind it – to allow children access to these destructive and life-altering medical treatments – is making the issue worse, not better.
It shouldn’t take a scientist or a clinical study to see that we should not be giving young children, who don’t have the faculties to make these types of life-altering decisions on their own, drugs that are used to chemically castrate pedophiles (Lupron, puberty blocker) – let alone giving young, healthy girls’ double mastectomies in the name of ‘gender affirmation’ – it’s unspeakable what these monsters are doing to America’s children.
And now we have SB 107 thanks to Commiefornia… The precedent this law sets alone should terrify every American.
No comments