🚨 CA Gov Newsom VETOES proposed law AB 957! Trans activists wanted courts to remove parental custody if they did not affirm their child’s gender 💪🏾

Neo. The Only. The One.

Neo. The Only. The One.

THE ONE
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
71,910
Reputation
17,276
Daps
306,262
OP is such a terrible poster that he doesn't even know how to make threads correctly. Half of the people in here would be celebrating if they could understand the thread title and what was happening.

What a chump. This fool does more harm to the Democrat agenda on the coli than any maga brehs could ever do :pachaha:
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,040
Reputation
-34,106
Daps
628,549
Reppin
The Deep State
www.latimes.com

Newsom vetoes bill requiring custody hearings consider affirmation of child's gender identity

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required judges presiding over custody battles to consider parents' affirmation of a child's gender identity or presentation.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

Newsom vetoes bill requiring custody hearings consider affirmation of child’s gender identity​

By Jeremy ChildsStaff Writer
Sept. 23, 2023 5 AM PT
California Governor Gavin Newsom.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a Sept.12 interview.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday vetoed a bill that would have asked judges presiding over custody battles to take into consideration a parent’s support for their child’s gender identity — a culture war flashpoint that has drawn vocal criticism from the right.

Assembly Bill 957 would have adjusted California law to instruct judges to consider, among other factors, a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity or expression when determining custody or visitation rights.

In a message accompanying his veto, Newsom wrote that he appreciated the motivation behind the bill and shared “a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians.”

“That said, I urge caution when the executive and legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the judicial branch to apply,” he wrote. “Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.”

Courts, he added, are already required “to consider a child’s health, safety and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these proceedings.”

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), who introduced the bill, said in a statement that she was disappointed with Newsom’s decision to veto.

“I’ve been disheartened over the last few years as I watched the rising hate and heard the vitriol towards the trans community,” Wilson said. “My intent with this bill was to give them a voice, particularly in the family court system where a non-affirming parent could have a detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of a child.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a principal co-author of the measure, called the veto a “tragedy” and said the decision stood in contrast to Newsom’s past advocacy forthe LGBTQ+ community. He said the bill created a modest and commonsense guideline.

“Our job as legislators is to set clear standards for judges to apply and that’s what we did here,” said Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Some state lawmakers, however, applauded the veto.

“This is fantastic news and the right call,” Assemblymember Bill Essayli (R-Corona) wrote on social media.

The bill has drawn criticism and sparked controversy, including among conservatives who claimed it would force parents who do not support their child’s gender identity to give up custody rights.

However, the text of the bill does not specify whether a child needs to be on puberty blockers or have undergone surgery to be affirmed by their parents. Such affirmation, according to the bill, could include a range of actions and be uniquely tailored, as long as it promotes a child’s overall health and well-being.

The bill now returns to the California Legislature. A two-thirds vote in both chambers would be necessary to override Newsom’s veto. The legislation initially passed the Assembly and Senate by margins exceeding that threshold.

Also on Friday, Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 1306, which would have prohibited the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from providing information regarding the release of an incarcerated noncitizen to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a veto message, Newsom wrote that he believes “current law strikes the right balance on limiting interaction to support community trust and cooperation between law enforcement and local communities.”

“However, as an administration, we recognize that improvements in this process are important. CDCR will limit how it communicates with ICE as a federal law enforcement agency, so information is only provided to ICE when a non-citizen individual enters prison and is approaching their release date,” he wrote. “ICE will determine how it will proceed with its enforcement of federal law.”
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,040
Reputation
-34,106
Daps
628,549
Reppin
The Deep State
Adeptus Astartes said:
:leon: Well, damn.

Looks like his argument is that the law already covers this with "welfare of the child", and carving out this explicit language was unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Skillfully done. Let the trans activists cry about it. They overstepped.

ONLY problem...is that there could be a veto-proof majority in CA :snoop:

@the cac mamba @Rekkapryde
 
Worthless Loser

Worthless Loser

Blackpilled
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
17,767
Reputation
5,618
Daps
118,844
OperationNumbNutts said:
Who were the a$$holes that drafted the bill?
Click to expand...
I think it was a black woman lawmaker that was shown in previous tweets in this thread because she has a trans child.

I don't think it's right to demonize trans people and they should be allowed to live a life free of harassment, but going above and beyond to satisfy every little concern they have is bullshyt.
 
O

OperationNumbNutts

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
7,164
Reputation
866
Daps
21,016
Worthless Loser said:
I think it was a black woman lawmaker that was shown in previous tweets in this thread because she has a trans child.

I don't think it's right to demonize trans people and they should be allowed to live a life free of harassment, but going above and beyond to satisfy every little concern they have is bullshyt.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top