READ THE BILL: Is California Making Itself a Refuge for Minors Who Want Gender-Transition Treatments?

Josh Hild, Unsplash

On Monday, the co-founder of the parental rights group, Moms For Liberty, was suspended from Twitter after criticizing California’s SB 107, which they say was intended to “liberate” children from restrictions on gender-transition treatments for minors. 

On the other hand, Senator Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, claims that the legislation is intended to “provide refuge in CA for trans kids & their families from states that are criminalizing them & MDs & threatening to remove trans children from their homes.”

Chalkboard Review staff reviewed the legislation, as well as Wiener’s claim, and determined:

The abstract of the legislation notes that “existing law, known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, provides the state exclusive jurisdictional basis for making an initial child custody determination, and permits a California court to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction in specified circumstances. Existing law permits a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum.”

In other words, California has control over child custody arrangements unless it feels that another state would be more suited to the task. 

What SB 107 does is prevent California from deeming itself an “inconvenient form” in any case “where the law or policy of another state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined, and the provision of such care is at issue in the case before the court.”

In addition, “the bill would prohibit the enforcement of an order based on another state’s law authorizing a child to be removed from their parent or guardian based on that parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care…The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care. The bill would additionally prohibit a court from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child, if the taking or retention was for obtaining gender-affirming health care or mental health care.”

“This bill would declare another state’s laws authorizing a civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allows a child to receive gender-affirming health care to be contrary to the public policy of this state. The bill would prohibit the application of that law to a controversy in state court, and would prohibit the enforcement or satisfaction of a civil judgement received under that law. The bill would prohibit a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from releasing medical information related to a person or entity allowing a child to receive gender-affirming care in response to a criminal or civil action, including a foreign subpoena, based on another state’s law that authorizes a person to bring a civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allows a child a child to receive gender-affirming health care. The bill additionally would prohibit law enforcement agencies from making, or intentionally participating in, the arrest of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against receiving or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable.”

Altogether, SB 107 would essentially establish itself as a sanctuary state on transgender matters. Scott Weiner’s general claims are accurate.

Chalkboard Review Staff
The Chalkboard Review Staff often collaborate on Read the Bill and report articles to ensure multiple perspectives and founded data points are presented.

Don't Miss Out!

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay on top of the latest education commentary and news everyone ought to know about.