The bill, known as SB 107, was put forward by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and was passed with “overwhelming Democratic support.” Wiener has justified the measure because of laws passed in states that bar minors who identify as transgender from taking cross-sex hormones and undergoing surgeries to remove healthy organs, which he characterizes as “brutal attacks on transgender children.”
However, the American College of Pediatricians has pointed out that 85% of minors who suffer from gender confusion have their feelings resolved by adulthood, and studies show that undergoing gender transition surgeries and using puberty blocking hormones can lead to increased depression and suicide.
Meanwhile, a host of legal experts have expressed grave concerns about the bill’s legality and consequences for children and parental rights.
“SB 107 is one of the gravest threats to parental rights in recent years,” said Jonathan Keller, president of California Family Council. “If Governor 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.”
Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm specializing in religious freedom protections, expressed additional concerns over SB 107’s custody law issues.
“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,” it stated in a memo. It went on to note that the bill “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.”
The bill raises further questions about who precisely in California would take care of out-of-state minors that would, in the bill’s words, be under “temporary emergency jurisdiction” of the state.
Dr. Jennifer Bauwens has first-hand experience with California’s foster care system, where she formerly provided counseling and therapy for children through a Christian foster care agency in the state.
“What’s happening [in California] is kind of akin to these other states saying that they are sanctuary states for immigration,” she told The Washington Stand. “They want the political kudos, but when it comes to actually serving the people, they don’t have the chops to do it, and they realize what a hot mess it is.”
Bauwens, who serves as director of Family Studies at Family Research Council, went on to observe that the proposed California measure would add yet another can of worms into the already beleaguered foster care system.
“They don’t know what they are opening up in terms of fostering children,” she explained. “If they’re saying, ‘Come to us and the state will take care of you and we won’t relinquish you to your parents,’ then that ultimately means that they are inviting the foster care system to care for these kids, because who else is going to do it? If they are essentially taking them away from their parents and trying to take custody from the parents, then they are basically burdening the foster care system, which is already overburdened across the nation.”
Bauwens continued, “California in particular has a problem with their foster care system, so I don’t know that Governor Newsom really realizes what he is potentially unleashing [if he signs the bill] on the California state system. … Any time that you are divorcing the parent from the child, the child is unnecessarily put into a dangerous situation. Whenever that happens, there is unnecessary risk, and they haven’t outlined where these kids are going to go — I’m assuming the foster care system, but who’s going to be responsible for them?”
She went on to underscore how SB 107 fails to take into account the mental limitations of minors and the inherent vulnerabilities in the foster care system.
“Aside from all these other concerns, we’re talking about children. We’re talking about children who don’t really have the mental capabilities to make these life-long decisions, and then when you have a state system that’s willing to in theory take custody, but having worked in these types of government systems, things fall through the cracks. All you have to do is look at the current state and the things that we hear about foster care. Now, there are some great people that help in that system, and thank God for them. But we also hear horror stories, and so why on earth would we invite children to leave their state, leave their family, so that they can go and be a part of a [large-scale] experiment? It is just crazy.”
“We need to fight this at every front,” Bauwens concluded. “It would be great to see other governors stand up and say, ‘No, you’re not going to take kids from my state.’”
The Department of Education’s newly proposed Title IX rule uses the federal rulemaking process to destabilize students with gender ideology, roll back rights for women and girls, and undermine parental rights, just to name a few — all in order to force the LGBTQ+ political agenda on every public school student in America.
On the 50th Anniversary of Title IX, President Biden’s Department of Education proposed a 700-page federal rule that redefines “sex” in Title IX policies to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Under the new rule, men who claim to be women will be allowed to compete on women’s sports teams, shower in women’s locker rooms, and be housed in spaces previously reserved for women only, i.e., hotel rooms on school sponsored trips and women’s dormitories.
Under the new rule, women and girls who object to this will be guilty of discrimination — because sex discrimination will now be based on (a man’s) “gender identity.” Equal opportunity for women in academics and sport will be erased if this rule is enforced. That fact alone would be enough to oppose the proposed rule, but the radicals running Biden’s Department of Education don’t stop at stripping women’s rights from Title IX: parental rights, due process rights, free speech rights, and other fundamental rights are jeopardized by this authoritarian proposed rule.
Under this version of Title IX, here are a few examples of how the Department of Education will use the power of the federal government:
- Force girls to share intimate spaces like showers, locker rooms, and bedrooms with ;
- Cause girls to lose sex-specific scholarships to males who identify as female;
- Ensure the LGBTQ+ political agenda is incorporated into every public school’s curricula and policies;
- Silence girls who express concerns about their privacy and safety and shut down objections by labeling disagreement as “discrimination”;
- Allow students to file official harassment claims if they are not addressed by their preferred pronouns, even when those do not align with their biological sex;
- Justify the creation of two sets of files for students, one parents are allowed to see and another that “affirms the gender” of children without parental knowledge or consent;
- Redefine terms like “parental status,” “pregnancy,” and “sex” while failing to define concepts like “transgender” or “sexual orientation”;
- Undermine due process protections for those accused of Title IX violations;
- Expand the power of Title IX Officers, granting them enormous enforcement and oversight powers in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities; and
- Erroneously apply Title VII employment case law (Bostock v. Clayton County) to Title IX.
On Wednesday, the Miami-Dade School Board, which represents the nation’s fourth-largest school district, voted against a measure that would have recognized October as “LGBTQ history month.” The vote follows an August 23 school board election in which Miami-Dade was flipped to a conservative majority.
The school board noted its concern that the recognition of “LGBTQ history month” could clash with the Parental Rights in Education Act, which was passed by the Florida legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in March and took effect on July 1.
The law prohibits teachers from leading classroom instruction of gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade.
The vote marks the first time in recent memory that one of the largest school districts in the country (at 357,000 students) has voted to decline the recognition of a “history month” dedicated to controversial sexual lifestyles that many see as an ideological movement that holds powerful sway over academic institutions, corporate America, entertainment, and even sports.
The vote also comes as Americans’ satisfaction with the U.S. education system reached its lowest point in two decades, with a newly released Gallup poll finding that just 42% of adults are “satisfied with U.S. education.” Almost one in four (23%) said they were “completely dissatisfied, while just 9% said they were “completely satisfied.” This follows a poll released in January that found Americans’ trust of teachers reaching an all-time low of 64%.
“Who better than the Cuban-American refugee community in Miami-Dade to reject political indoctrination through public schools,” Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand, noting that newly elected Miami-Dade school board members Roberto Alonso and Monica Colucci are the children of Cuban immigrants. “Many refugees are faithful Christians who instill traditional family values in their children. Many schools already recognize June as Pride month, so adding October as LGBT History Month is a bridge too far. There are plenty of American history topics to cover before obsessing over contemporary issues.”
“We look forward to seeing more stories like this one, when school board members demonstrate responsiveness to parents and defend parental rights and the innocence of children,” Kilgannon concluded.