The federalist

California’s bill on child custody for transgender individuals is manipulative emotional coercion.

California Bill Threatens First ⁢Amendment ​and Parental Rights

There’s a bill ‍sitting on ⁤Gavin Newsom’s desk right now that would not only render the First‍ Amendment‌ null and void but‌ also ​strip parents of their‌ most fundamental ⁤rights and responsibilities ‌toward their children. It’s not a matter of if the far-left California governor will sign​ it, but when.

The bill, the Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act (AB 957), which last week​ passed the Senate and then,‍ on a party-line ⁤vote, the Assembly, dictates that courts must consider “gender affirmation” in child custody battles. The soon-to-be-law states⁤ that ⁢in seeking to determine the “health, safety, and welfare of⁢ the child,” courts must consider “a parent’s⁣ affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.”

While some Democrat apologists in the media pretend ​ it’s absurd ⁣to think this means conservative parents would ever ⁢lose custody of their​ children by nature of holding conservative values — It doesn’t say judges *have* to ⁢side with the loving, accepting parents, you hateful rubes! — we know how this‌ will go. It’s California, for crying out loud.

But we don’t have to⁣ extrapolate much. Other⁣ media have dropped the facade⁣ and told us exactly where this bill will lead. Here’s CNBC:

Under ⁢the proposed law, parents,⁣ who fail to acknowledge and support their child’s gender transition, could face potential consequences, including the loss ‍of custody rights to another parent or even the state itself. The bill’s supporters argue that ⁢it is in the best interest⁣ of children, aiming to create a more inclusive and affirming environment ​for⁤ gender-diverse youth.

There’s the quiet part ‌out loud: A mom or dad who opts not to indulge their child ⁢in mental illness, who uses the child’s given⁣ name, prohibits the use of puberty blockers, or discourages sterilizing hormones or⁣ surgery could⁤ lose the child not only to the other parent, which is egregious enough⁤ —​ but to​ the state.

As Sarah Parshall Perry, senior‌ legal fellow at ​the Heritage Foundation, has pointed out, this law‌ would stomp on‍ the Constitution’s guarantee to free speech and the free exercise of religion.⁤ It would “muzzle” ‍parents and prevent them from rearing their children in accordance with their deeply held beliefs — beliefs, by⁤ the way, that have been regarded by both Christians and non-Christians as basic laws of nature and fundamentals of civil​ society until about five minutes ago.

This is more than a legal dilemma for Constitutional scholars and⁣ gender-studies midwits to bat around in mahogany rooms and shoddy amici, however. If it feels more nefarious and personal — that’s because‌ it⁢ is. We’ve seen it before.

It’s classic Democrat emotional blackmail. It’s⁤ the left waging psychological warfare on its ideological opponents with barely veiled threats. Oh, you want to see your own child? Well, that’s interesting because ⁤xir needs some hormones xe says you‍ won’t provide. You don’t seem too⁢ concerned with xir’s ⁣health and safety.

This brand of emotional blackmail has already ⁣been tested and ⁤perfected with the suicide card. That is, the aforementioned gender-studies “experts,” medical professionals, journalists, and other Very Smart People™ have decided, based on little to no evidence, that transgender medical interventions are the only acceptable course of action for confused kids. In fact, anything short ​of full “affirmation” is deadly, they say.

With this ‌conclusion in mind — and at ⁣the expense of mounting evidence showing pro-trans policies cause the most harm — they’ve devised “research” that Democrats then present as unassailable. The methodology of these biased studies is wildly problematic. Pro-trans ideologues habitually ‍equate correlation​ with causation, fail to⁤ treat‍ gender dysphoria as a mental illness and⁣ ignore underlying mental health issues such as depression, discount the potential‍ role​ of wrong-sex⁢ hormones in unhealthy ideations, ignore hard facts about the ways ​puberty eventually resolves almost ⁣all dysphoria in minors, discounts‍ rampant social‍ factors, and turns a blind eye to the ‍growing chorus of detransitioners who fell for leftist​ lies and are now⁣ filled with despair.

[READ:‌[READ:Telling​ Kids To Hate Their Biology Might Be What’s Actually Killing‌ Them]

But never let bad science get in the⁢ way of an agenda.‌ Would you rather have a ​live son or a ⁤dead daughter?,‍ they manipulate. A lack of acceptance has driven trans suicide rates and self-harm‍ through the roof.

A law this unconstitutional is bound to ‌wind up in the courts. And I suppose we should be thankful there’s one remaining recourse. But if all conservatives have on their side is a waiting game‍ until ⁣the courts eventually slap California lawmakers on the wrist, they have nothing. In fact, getting GOP-opposed laws tied up in the slow gears of the court system⁢ is exactly what Democrats‍ are expecting. They’re counting on it. The more ‍they can⁣ keep conservatives and jurists busy, the more radical laws and ‍policies they can keep shoving out the door. We​ can’t ​stop⁢ them​ all. How many poor parents and children will ⁣be casualties in the ⁤meantime?

But don’t lose the human element in the legislative games. Rabid ideologues and‌ iconoclasts who want to remake America and its children in their own image aren’t afraid ⁢to use the⁢ most vulnerable among us as‌ pawns. Self-censorship will only ⁤be⁢ the start. ⁢It’s emotional blackmail, plain and simple. Do what ​we say,⁣ or else.

What potential consequences could conservative parents face under this bill?

R children according to their own beliefs and values. This bill goes against the very fabric of the First⁣ Amendment and infringes upon⁤ parental rights that are deeply rooted in our society.

The⁢ Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act, also known as ⁢AB 957, aims to introduce a concerning provision in child custody battles. According to the bill, courts must now consider a parent’s “affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression” when determining the child’s well-being. This means that a parent’s acceptance or refusal to conform to their child’s chosen gender identity ​will ‌have ⁤a significant impact on custody decisions.

While some may argue that this ⁤provision⁢ won’t affect conservative parents who hold different views on gender identity, we must recognize the potential consequences of such a law. California has a long history of progressive policies that often ‍disregard conservative values, and it would be naive to believe that conservative parents won’t ⁤be affected by this provision. As the saying goes, “the proof is in​ the pudding.”

CNBC, a reliable‍ source,​ has already shed light on the potential implications of this ‌bill. Parents who fail to acknowledge and support their child’s gender transition could face severe consequences, including ​the loss of ⁤custody⁤ rights to ⁤another parent or even the ​state itself. This is a direct infringement on parental⁣ rights and a brazen attempt to force compliance with a particular ideology.

The supporters ⁤of AB 957 argue that it is ⁤in the best interest of children and seeks to create a more inclusive‌ and affirming environment‌ for gender-diverse⁤ youth. While⁢ inclusion and affirmation are crucial, it should not‍ come at the⁣ cost of trampling on the rights of parents and suppressing freedom ⁤of speech. Parents ⁣have the right to guide and educate their⁢ children according to their own beliefs and values. By dictating how parents should affirm their child’s gender identity, ​this bill undermines the freedom of parents to exercise their‌ religious and moral convictions.

Sarah Parshall Perry, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, rightly points out ⁤that this legislation goes against the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech and the free exercise of ⁤religion. It limits parental autonomy and effectively silences parents‌ who may hold differing views on gender identity. This is a dangerous precedent that​ sets the ​stage for ⁢further erosion of fundamental rights and liberties.

The implications of AB 957 are clear: it threatens​ the First Amendment and infringes upon parental rights. It opens the door for the‌ state ⁤to intervene in family ⁣matters and forcefully impose⁣ its ideology ‌on parents and children. We must not allow this bill to become law without a fight. It is vital for concerned citizens to voice ⁢their opposition and ensure that our constitutional rights ​and parental rights are protected.

In conclusion, AB 957 poses a significant threat to the First Amendment and‌ parental rights in California. ​This bill, ‍if signed into law ​by Governor Gavin Newsom, would undermine the fundamental principles that ⁤our nation ⁢was built upon. It would grant the state unprecedented power to dictate how parents should affirm their ​child’s gender identity, silencing dissenting voices and limiting freedom⁢ of expression. We must stand up against ⁤this dangerous encroachment on our rights and send a clear message that the First Amendment and parental ⁢rights‌ must be protected at all costs.

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker