AFN reported recently on SB 107, legislation introduced by a controversial state senator that gives California “temporary emergency jurisdiction” over children who say they are transgender and want hormone-altering drugs and even body-altering surgery that removes breasts and sex organs.
According to critics, SB 107 treats minors as a victim and disapproving parents as the perpetrator, and California is promising them legal safety for a life-changing trip to the hospital if they can escape a state, such as Texas, and make it to The Golden State.
The bill states clearly such court-ordered protection is specifically for “gender-affirming health care,” not for medical needs such as cancer treatment or for cosmetic surgery.
In a National Review article about the proposed law, author Wesley J. Smith points out the legislation also makes it clear California will ignore other state laws, and ignore objecting court rulings in other states, if the child seeks medical help there.
SB 107 was co-authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, an open homosexual notorious for introducing controversial LGBT-related bills such as one that is now state law. That law shields homosexual and transgender prostitutes from arrest by barring police from arresting them for loitering in a public place.
During recent testimony before a committee, Sen. Wiener assured the Assembly Public Safety Committee his legislation shields parents from recently-passed state laws that criminalize the parents if they consent to “gender-affirming” medical care for a minor.
Sen. Weiner dismissed concerns about California taking legal possession of children as “hyperbole.”
Civil liberties attorney John Whitehead, who leads The Rutherford Institute, tells AFN the gender-affirming bill concerns him because of how it treats the nuclear family and family law.
"Without the autonomous family and private institutions, the government's going to become the Orwellian master of everything,” he warns. “And that's where it's headed."
The bill has alarmed California Family Council, a right-leaning and pro-family group that says the bill ignores parents and violates family courts in other states.
California Family praised state lawmaker Kelly Seyarto for questioning the legality of SB 107. In the same July 1 committee meeting, where Sen. Wiener testified and defended his bill, Seyarto said the legislation appears to violate the state’s Uniform Child Custody law. That law requires California to honor child custody rulings in other states.
“The bill,” Wiener replied, “does not involve rejecting judgements or child custody judgements. That’s not what the bill does.”
That claim by the state senator is dishonest, California Family maintains, because the Committee’s own official nine-page analysis states otherwise.
In that same day of testimony, the committee heard an opposing point of view from Erin Friday, a San Francisco-based attorney. For starters, she said, the bill violates the “Equal Protection” clause guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Regarding the claim the bill shields parents from other state laws, the attorney said it does more than just make California a “sanctuary” for parents living in those disapproving states.
“It makes California the refuge for all children who want to get access to any type of gender interventions. No questions asked. No real mental health assessment. No minimal diagnosis. And no parental consent,” she testified. “So long as the minor child can get to California, she can order up any time of irreversible treatment."
In one portion of the hearing, Friday was told she could not speak after Sen. Wiener described "gender-affirming care" for the committee.
