MURRIETA, CA — A lawsuit was filed this week from Murrieta challenging a California law that allows families to flee to California from states that prosecute parents for allowing their children to receive gender-biased childcare .
The lawsuit comes after Senate Bill 107 was introduced by Senator Anthony Wiener (D-San Francisco) and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September. The law provides legal protections for parents and guardians fleeing states that ban gender-affirming health care for youth.
A press release by Murrieta-based Advocates For Faith & Freedom on Tuesday announced the lawsuit on behalf of the nonprofit Our Watch.
Pastor Tim Thompson of 412 Temecula Valley Church is President of Our Watch in Murrieta.
“One of my top priorities has been protecting parental rights, and I believe SB 107 is a dangerous, irresponsible law that is an attack on those rights,” Thompson said in Tuesday’s news release.
“The law,” the press release reads, “denies parents the right to access their child’s medical information on the grounds that it is ‘gender-affirming healthcare’ or ‘gender-affirming mental health care,’ and allows California courts to extend emergency jurisdiction to adopt a child seeking gender-affirming care.”
However, experts say the law does protect parents of trans children. In fact, in most cases, youth under the age of 18 in California must obtain permission from their parents or guardians to access medical treatment. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but none pertain to gender-affirming grooming.
“California law requires parental or guardian consent for gender-affirming care of minors,” Rebecca Gudeman, senior director of health for the National Center for Youth Law, told WNEP after the governor signed the law into law. “Senate Bill 107 does not change any law or policy regarding who can consent to health care in California.”
Instead, the experts say, the law focuses on how California should deal with investigations by other states — particularly investigations into foreign parents and guardians seeking gender-affirming care for their children in the Golden State.
Several states have now enacted laws that allow parents to be prosecuted if they seek gender-affirming care for their children.
Senate Bill 107 allows California to resist another state’s attempt to remove parental custody if the proposed removal is based on those parents’ efforts to obtain gender-affirming care for their child, said Wendy Seiden, visiting professor at the Fowler School of Law from Chapman University Policy Fact.
Additionally, Courtney Joslin, law professor for Martin Luther King Jr. at the University of California, Davis School of Law, told Politifact the law has nothing to do with who gets custody of a child during an argument and doesn’t mention allow this court take custody.
“It just describes which courts have jurisdiction in those multi-states [custody disputes],” She said.
The law clarifies that California courts have jurisdiction over all custody cases that may arise when parents bring their children to the Golden State for care. Additionally, SB 107 does not grant California permission to take custody of a child if a parent disagrees with a child’s decision to seek gender-affirming health care, the experts said.
Asaf Orr, senior attorney and director of the transgender youth project at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told Politifact the law does not give California carte blanche to remove a child from a parent’s care.
If parents disagree about whether their child should receive gender-affirming care in California, a state court would hear that case and rule based on the evidence presented by both parents, Orr told Politifact. Foreign laws would not apply to the court’s determination.
Wiener claims that SB 107 has three main components:
“1) It prohibits the enforcement of a statute of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from their parent or guardian if the parent or guardian allows their child to receive gender-affirming health care. The law would prevent California law enforcement from cooperating with individuals or extrastate agencies regarding the provision of lawful gender-affirming healthcare being performed in that state. Consequently, families can come to California to avoid having their transgender children taken away from them.
“2) It prohibits compliance in California with any out-of-state subpoena requesting health or other related information about people coming to California to receive gender-affirming care if the subpoena relates to efforts, people to criminalize or remove children from their homes. Some states are considering legislation that would extend their criminal bans even to residents who travel abroad to receive gender-affirming health care.
“3) It prohibits law enforcement involvement in the arrest or extradition of any person that criminalizes allowing a person to receive or provide gender-affirming health care when such conduct is lawful in California and to the fullest extent permitted by federal law.” It states that it is California public policy that any out-of-state criminal arrest warrant based on violation of another state’s statute against receiving gender-affirming care has the lowest priority for prosecution in California.
Tuesday’s lawsuit alleges that SB 107 was passed in direct hostility to the laws of conservative states like Alabama and Texas and is therefore unconstitutional.
The lawsuit is just one of Pastor Thompson’s many attempts to make the conservative voice “the dominant force in California politics.” Read more here:
