California To Legalize State-Sponsored Trafficking Of Children Combined With Child Mutilation And Castration Surgeries

Senate Bill 107, introduced by Scott Wiener, a prominent Democratic state senator, was recently passed and now awaits a signature from Gov. Gavin Newsom. If signed, SB 107 would allow the Golden State to take custody of out-of-state minors who want to become “trans,” but who are prohibited from doing so in their home state.

Even if parents object, minors would still be allowed to travel to California and receive “gender affirming care” in the form of surgical castration, a hysterectomy, and whatever Big Pharma gender-bending pharmaceuticals are needed to become their “true selves.”

The bill received “overwhelming Democratic support,” passing both the House and Senate in California on August 31

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 yeah so I read that differently. What it does is entitle California to disregard another states law that would take a kid away from a parent for trans affirmation. Where does it say they take custody? Also, thanks for linking the bill not crappy websites

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Turtlepower "The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care."

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 Yeah, jurisdiction not take the child away. The point of that statement the way it reads to me is if Alabama says we're going to take your parental rights away because you're allowing your child to transition, California supercedes that judgment and takes jurisdiction to make that decision. Either way it sounds messy and convoluted. Perhaps it is possible to have that loophole...

graphite · 61-69, M

@Turtlepower re: Yeah, jurisdiction not take the child away. ...What the he** do you think it means other than taking the child away?

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Turtlepower Oh, so the kids awaiting mutilation get to live in the courtroom until the mutilation takes place?

UnderLockDown · M

@graphite In court language it means custody! We have all had a chance to watch someone go through "family" court and the language is always broad. Any temporary decisions can last for an eternity too.

graphite · 61-69, M

@UnderLockDown It's going to be a tough road, convincing middle-of-the-road Democrats how freaking evil their party has become and that they to need to leave. 50-60 years of the media cheerleading for Democrats and demonizing Republicans will do that.

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 not how I read it. It gives California the jurisdiction to disregard removal of custody from a parent if it was removed by a state due to trying to give them gender affirming treatment. It's pretty obvious if you read the bill it's changing as well. But sure let's claim child trafficking lol. That's not what this is. I can't just go grab a child, bring them to California, and get their genitals/hormones changed because of this lol.

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@graphite Google the word jurisdiction. In the case of this bill it probably means actually legally granting the parent custody they should have. The only issue I see is if the parents don't have consenting opinions. Then this bill becomes sketchy to me the way I read it.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Turtlepower LOL, and where is the word "parent" in the bill?

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 A person who has legal custody. I'm paraphrasing to say parent. Stop being pedantic, you know what I meant.

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

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 or gender-affirming mental health care. The bill would prohibit a court from finding that it is an inconvenient forum 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. 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. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Turtlepower An aunt? An uncle? A pedophile?

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 Possibly if they are the legal guardian? I mean aunt's, uncle's, and pedophiles can act as parents, step parents, and legal guardians if you want to be pedantic.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Turtlepower Yup, right there in the first sentence, the authorization to prohibit out of state custody holders from getting the child back

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 Yeah, that's not child trafficking.

The first full sentence is below, and the only exception is that they were the guardians and only lost the guardianship due to allowing their child to get gender affirming health care. C'mon now it's pretty easy to read. So spreading propaganda lol. I don't support this law or physically altering the gender of minors but this isn't child trafficking.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Turtlepower What would you call it....pumpernickel?

Turtlepower · 36-40, M

@sunsporter1649 Ok that was pretty funny. You can have a laugh. I'd call it parents or guardians trying to do what they think is right for their kid and having to go to a different state to do it. You made it sound like any Joe Schmoe could kidnap a kid and mutilate their genitalia.