In the bill’s language, it would ban public school officials from disclosing “any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by law.”
Schools are required by law to notify parents if a child is so much as given an aspirin. But if the child is considering getting “trans” hormones or surgery, under AB 1955 the parents could not be notified.
It’s misleadingly titled the SAFETY Act, for Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth. But if children are given puberty blockers, or their reproductive organs are removed, their “futures” becoming parents themselves are inalterably neutered should they in the future decide to “detransition.”
AB 1955 specifically is aimed at curbing local school boards’ abilities to protect their students by mandating parental notification of any drastic changes or mental distress regarding their identity.
American College of Physicians Rejects Puberty Blockers
The link in that statement leads to an LGBTQ Nation statement from April 24, reading, “A study from the University of Connecticut found that a third of youth who were forcibly outed had a greater likelihood of experiencing major depression as well as low family support. Additionally, more than 65% of youth said being forcibly outed was ‘highly stressful.’”“Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. In fact, the package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns prescribers to ‘Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment.’ ... Temporary use of Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility. ...
Parental Groups Oppose AB 1955
“We will continue to oppose AB 1955 as long as necessary,” Lance Christensen, vice president of education policy and government affairs at the California Policy Center (CPC), told me. He finished second in 2022 in the race for California Superintendent of Public Instruction.It’s obvious AB 1955 would abridge the “privileges or immunities” of California parents, as well as “equal protection of the laws” by giving power over their children to the Legislature and state bureaucracies. The use of puberty blockers and removing reproductive organs also violates the children’s “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Will the Governor Sign It?
Which brings up the question: Will Gov. Gavin Newsom sign AB 1955? My guess is: No. He might also maneuver to have it die in the Legislature.He knows this issue is toxic not just with Republicans, but among working-class Democratic and independent voters in such swing states as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia. This issue easily could lose him those and other states for his expected 2028 presidential bid.
The bill has already passed the state Assembly. At the May 29 Education Committee hearing, we’re going to see parents crowd the committee room opposing AB 1955. There even could be some scuffles there or outside the Capitol with LGBTQ groups backing the bill. As the recent campus protests around the country show, America is in a volatile condition now. Mr. Newsom’s opposition to the bill, if indeed that happens, could be portrayed by him as calming things down.
Of course, “trans women” really are men.
The report continues: “Discussing the changes, Health and Social Care Secretary Victoria Atkins said that ‘sex matters and our services should respect that.’” Note she said “sex,” as in biological sex, instead of “gender,” which until recent decades always was a grammatical term.
The report continued: “Women’s rights campaigners welcomed the move, which follows accusations that the health service had been captured by ‘gender ideology.’ Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, a human rights charity that campaigns for clarity on sex in law, policy and language, said: ‘Victoria Atkins explicitly referring to biological sex is very significant. ... We can expect an outraged response from trans rights activists, but this is simply a return to common sense, and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.’”
