California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

HARK! · Jun 16, 2023

A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6.

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

BREAKING: California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

AB 957 rewrites the California Family Code to include "gender affirmation" as a basic need parents must provide their children.

www.dailysignal.com

SabbathBlessings · Jun 16, 2023

HARK! said:
A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6.

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

BREAKING: California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

AB 957 rewrites the California Family Code to include "gender affirmation" as a basic need parents must provide their children.

www.dailysignal.com

You can lose custody if you don’t go along with this as young as 7 years old. If you love your children move from California.

Handmaid for Jesus · Jun 16, 2023

It is a bill, not a law. It has a way to go.

JimR-OCDS · Jun 17, 2023

Those pastors and Christians who are silent on this bill, in order to not offend people and
stay out of politics, are the same type of people who would've gone along with Hitler and
the Nazis if they had lived in the 1930's Germany.

Handmaid for Jesus · Jun 17, 2023

JimR-OCDS said:
Those pastors and Christians who are silent on this bill, in order to not offend people and
stay out of politics, are the same type of people who would've gone along with Hitler and
the Nazis if they had lived in the 1930's Germany.

What they need to do is lobby their elected representatives and insist they vote the bill down. Just my opinion.

HARK! · Jun 17, 2023

Handmaid for Jesus said:
What they need to do is lobby their elected representatives and insist they vote the bill down.

HARK! said:
AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3,

Fantine · Jun 17, 2023

It is a problem for both supportive and unsupportive parents. In red states, parents cannot get the medical care or educational support they believe their child needs.

I do strongly support Gov. Newsom's promotion of a 28th amendment putting boundaries around the 2nd amendment after the many unconscionable decisions of NRA educated Supreme Court justices.

HARK! · Jun 17, 2023

Fantine said:
It is a problem for both supportive and unsupportive parents. In red states, parents cannot get the medical care or educational support they believe their child needs.

I do strongly support Gov. Newsom's promotion of a 28th amendment putting boundaries around the 2nd amendment after the many unconscionable decisions of NRA educated Supreme Court justices.

What does any of this have to do with the State making it a crime for parents to protect their children from being mutilated?

Let's stay on topic.

Arcangl86 · Jun 17, 2023

So, even looking at the amended version of the bill, it doesn't say what the OP claims it does. The section is about child custody claims, not removal proceedings or child abuse. And while it does include parental affirmation of gender identity, it does it as part of a larger evaluation of what would be better for the child's health, safety and welfare. So it's not even one of the elements the judge needs to consider in custody proceedings on it's own, but only part of a larger analysis. So this is, like many things including the LGBT+ community recently, much ado about nothing.

HARK! · Jun 17, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
So, even looking at the amended version of the bill, it doesn't say what the OP claims it does. The section is about child custody claims, not removal proceedings or child abuse. And while it does include parental affirmation of gender identity, it does it as part of a larger evaluation of what would be better for the child's health, safety and welfare. So it's not even one of the elements the judge needs to consider in custody proceedings on it's own, but only part of a larger analysis. So this is, like many things including the LGBT+ community recently, much ado about nothing.

(B) If a nonconsenting parent objects to a name and gender marker change to affirm the minor’s gender identity, the court shall strongly consider that affirming the minor’s gender identity is in the best interest of the child pursuant to Section 3011 of the Family Code.

California AB957 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2024-01-29) Family law: gender identity. [Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.]

legiscan.com

JimR-OCDS · Jun 17, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
So, even looking at the amended version of the bill, it doesn't say what the OP claims it does. The section is about child custody claims, not removal proceedings or child abuse. And while it does include parental affirmation of gender identity, it does it as part of a larger evaluation of what would be better for the child's health, safety and welfare. So it's not even one of the elements the judge needs to consider in custody proceedings on it's own, but only part of a larger analysis. So this is, like many things including the LGBT+ community recently, much ado about nothing.

But gender identity affirmation is in the bill and can be used to remove a child from a parent's custody.

It doesn't belong in the bill, period!

Fantine · Jun 17, 2023

In red states, the government t
Is assuming the role of "nanny" in interfering with family medical decisions.
In California, the government is overreaching in the opposite direction.
I believe both are overreach.
While no doctor should prescribe puberty blockers without substantial evidence of psychological counseling and evaluation of the whole family, it is a family decision.
Not California's. Not Bible Belt red state's.

Arcangl86 · Jun 17, 2023

HARK! said:
(B) If a nonconsenting parent objects to a name and gender marker change to affirm the minor’s gender identity, the court shall strongly consider that affirming the minor’s gender identity is in the best interest of the child pursuant to Section 3011 of the Family Code.

California AB957 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2024-01-29) Family law: gender identity. [Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.]

legiscan.com

That was in the version passed in the assembly, but not the current bill up for debate in the Senate.

ralliann · Jun 17, 2023

HARK! said:
(B) If a nonconsenting parent objects to a name and gender marker change to affirm the minor’s gender identity, the court shall strongly consider that affirming the minor’s gender identity is in the best interest of the child pursuant to Section 3011 of the Family Code.

California AB957 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2024-01-29) Family law: gender identity. [Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.]

legiscan.com

This is moving to we the little people are becoming simply breeders for the state. Isn't that what has been said woman are? "birthing people".

Fantine · Jun 17, 2023

Is it inconsistent to support "parental choice" to refuse life saving vaccines or masks but to assert "government authority" to prevent children with medical/psychological diagnoses of transgenderism from care?

Similarly should we assume governmental power to require vaccinations but protest vigorously if parents, after thorough evaluation, want to deny puberty blockers or trans surgery for their minor teens free of government interference?

HARK! · Jun 17, 2023

Fantine said:
Similarly should we assume governmental power to require vaccinations

No.

Can we get back on topic now?

HARK! · Jun 17, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
That was in the version passed in the assembly, but not the current bill up for debate in the Senate.

Since you are asserting this claim; you should have no difficulty proving a link to this purported "current bill" to support this unfounded claim.

friend of · Jun 17, 2023

Fantine said:
Is it inconsistent to support "parental choice" to refuse life saving vaccines or masks but to assert "government authority" to prevent children with medical/psychological diagnoses of transgenderism from care?

Similarly should we assume governmental power to require vaccinations but protest vigorously if parents, after thorough evaluation, want to deny puberty blockers or trans surgery for their minor teens free of government interference?

There is nothing "life saving" about facilitating the mutilation of children's bodies, which this sick bill is trying to do.

Fantine · Jun 17, 2023

As I see it, the topic is an example of potential government overreach. It is impossible to condemn California's preventing parents from protecting (in their view) their children without also condemning red states like Arkansas whose parents believe they are protecting their children by assisting them in gender transition.
Either both are acceptable or unacceptable.
Should parents make those sensitive medical decisions or the state?

Arcangl86 · Jun 17, 2023

HARK! said:
Since you are asserting this claim; you should have no difficulty proving a link to this purported "current bill" to support this unfounded claim.

I don't have to since you already did so. Your own post has a link to the bill as currently being debated in the State Senate.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

שמע

Well-Known Member

You can't steal my joy

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

You can't steal my joy

שמע

Dona Quixote

שמע

Newbie

שמע

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Dona Quixote

Newbie

christian

Dona Quixote

שמע

שמע

A private in Gods army

Dona Quixote

Newbie

Similar threads