In a stunning turn of events, the California legislature has passed a bill that could have far-reaching implications for parental rights and the well-being of children. Assembly Bill 957, which was advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, seeks to redefine family law and classify parents who refuse to “affirm” their children’s self-proclaimed gender identity as engaging in child abuse. The bill has sparked outrage and prompted Republican Senator Scott Wilk to urge families to consider leaving the state.
Wilk, who has been vocal about his concerns regarding parental rights, expressed his deep dismay over the erosion of these rights and issued a heartfelt plea to families: “Leave California now if you care for your kids. Get out of here!” His passionate stance reflects the gravity of the situation and the potential consequences for families who hold different beliefs or concerns about their children’s gender identity.
The bill introduces significant changes to Section 3011 of the Family Code, which deals with custody disputes. Under the proposed legislation, judges would be compelled to consider the affirmation of a child’s transgender identity when determining the child’s best interests. Failure to affirm a child’s chosen gender identity would be deemed as child abuse, with potential consequences for parental custody. Furthermore, the bill extends its reach beyond parents to institutions such as schools, churches, and hospitals, mandating their compliance in affirming gender transitions in minors.
Critics argue that the language of the bill is overly vague and lacks necessary distinctions, failing to differentiate between social transitions and medical interventions. Concerns have been raised about the impact on children of different ages and the duration of their identification as transgender. Detractors of the bill, including Senator Wilk, argue that it infringes upon parental authority and stifles individual freedoms.
The measure has drawn widespread opposition from parents and family-rights organizations who view it as an encroachment on their fundamental rights. Erin Friday, the head of pro-parents group Our Duty, highlights the lack of nuance in the bill’s text and its unprecedented criminalization of “gender-affirming” denial as child abuse in the United States. Critics maintain that the bill disregards factors such as a child’s mental health, the authenticity of their gender identity, and the need for balanced decision-making in family court proceedings.
Psychologist Stella O’Malley, representing the nonprofit organization Genspect, raises concerns about the bill’s ambiguity and the potential distress it may cause. O’Malley emphasizes the importance of allowing children to play an active role in decision-making regarding their care, but also cautions against disregarding the impact of immaturity in such matters. She argues that the bill’s affirmative approach risks overlooking critical considerations and imposing undue pressure on children.
Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, the bill’s author, has advocated for the full affirmation of children in all aspects, irrespective of their gender or academic performance. However, the bill still needs to pass the California State Senate before it can reach the desk of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, where its ultimate fate will be decided. The passing of this bill would mark a significant development in the ongoing debates surrounding gender identity, parental rights, and the well-being of children.