A controversial bill in California has undergone revisions that have sparked concerns among critics, who argue that it could infringe upon parental rights and impose a particular gender ideology on families.
The bill, which has already passed the State Assembly, aims to address custody disputes involving children who identify as transgender.
However, opponents worry that the revised version will consider parents’ refusal to “affirm” their child’s gender identity as a violation of health, safety, and welfare, potentially leading to allegations of abuse.
The updated legislation, known as A.B. 957, stipulates that judges presiding over custody disputes involving transgender-identifying children should favor the parent who supports and affirms the child’s preferred gender identity.
The bill’s authors recently introduced changes that broaden the definition of “the health, safety, and welfare” of a child to include “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.”
Critics rightly argue that this amendment might pave the way for non-affirmation to be categorized as abuse.
Erin Friday, a San Francisco attorney and co-lead of the parent coalition Our Duty, voiced concerns about the implications of the revised bill.
She explained, “When you say that gender affirmation is in the child’s best interest for health, safety, and welfare, it takes nothing to say [non-affirmation] is now abuse—because you’re not taking care of the health, safety, and welfare if you’re not affirming them.”
A.B. 957 represents the latest addition to a series of legislation in California that seeks to solidify left-wing gender ideology in state law.
RELATED: Louisiana’s Triumph: Ban on Transgender Treatments for Minors Passed with Bipartisan Support
State senator Scott Wiener (D.), who coauthored the bill with Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D.), is also promoting a separate proposal that would require foster parents to commit to “affirming” children who identify as transgender.
Last year, Wiener introduced a law establishing California as a “haven” where out-of-state minors can undergo sex changes without parental consent.
Amid the ongoing debate, Assemblywoman Wilson’s spokesman, Taylor Woolfork, downplayed the significance of the latest revisions to A.B. 957.
He emphasized that the bill solely pertains to family law and does not extend into criminal law. “It’s not saying [affirmation] is the most important factor or determining factor,” Woolfork stated. “It’s one of many factors that the judge should consider while working out a custody agreement.”
Despite Woolfork’s statement, concerns persist among critics who fear that the bill, coupled with the revised language, could diminish the custodial and visitation rights of parents who do not adhere to radical left-wing gender ideology.
The updated version does not provide a precise definition of affirmation but instructs judges to treat anything less than full affirmation as equivalent to issues such as a history of substance abuse, physical abuse, or neglect.
The legislation does not make distinctions based on a child’s age, the duration of their transgender identification, or the differentiation between social transition and medical sex-change procedures.
Erin Friday expressed her apprehension about the potential ramifications of the revised bill, stating, “It’s not a giant leap—it’s a tiny step to get there. We know exactly where they are going with it. I didn’t think the bill could get worse, but it got worse.”
A.B. 957 sailed through the Assembly in March, securing the support of 51 Democrats, although 16 predominantly Democratic lawmakers abstained from voting.
The most recent modifications to the bill were made public on Tuesday, ahead of its first Senate committee hearing scheduled for next week.
RELATED: New Poll Shows Increase in Americans Supporting Only Two Genders: Demographics Are Surprising
