California's SAFETY Act Sparks Controversy: Ending School Parental Notifications Draws Backlash
Many see AB1955 as a breach of parental rights, hindering open parent-child dialogue, eroding trust, and as an outrageous government overreach.
Parental rights took a major hit on Monday after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation bill into law that will prohibit school staff from disclosing students who have chosen to socially transition while on school property to their parents. Earlier this year, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, introduced the bill through a legislative procedure known as "gut-and-amend." This procedure is carried out when a lawmaker takes an already approved bill, removes its contents, and inserts new, unrelated bill language.
AB1955 or the SAFETY Act (Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth) prohibits disclosing a child’s sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity regardless of the child’s age to their parents or legal guardians without the permission of the child. The bill is in response to seven California school boards that voted to pass school policies that would prohibit hiding this vital information from the student’s parents or guardians. Many view this as a violation of parental rights, a significant obstacle to maintaining an open dialogue between parents and their children, a factor that diminishes trust, and an outrageous overreach by the government.
The SAFETY Act reads in part:
“This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and the state special schools, and a member of the governing board or body of those educational entities, from enacting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires an employee or a contractor to disclose 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, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of those educational entities from being required to make such a disclosure unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, or the state special schools, or members of the governing boards or bodies of those educational entities, from retaliating or taking adverse action against an employee on the basis that the employee supported a pupil in the exercise of specified rights, work activities, or providing certain instruction, as provided.”
Section 2 of the SAFETY Act points out important changes including:
“(d) Parents and families have an important role to play in the lives of young people. Studies confirm that LGBTQ+ youth thrive when they have parental support and feel safe sharing their full identities with them, but it can be harmful to force young people to share their full identities before they are ready.
“(f) LGBTQ+ pupils have the right to express themselves freely at school without fear, punishment, or retaliation, including that teachers or administrators might “out” them without their permission. Policies that require outing pupils without their consent violate pupils’ rights to privacy and self-determination.
“(g) Pupils have a constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sensitive information about them, and courts have affirmed that young people have a right to keep personal information private.
(j) School policies that support LGBTQ+ pupils and their parents and families in working towards family acceptance on their own terms, without interference from teachers and school staff, build safety and trust within school communities.”
Clinicians frequently present a scenario to parents that could induce feelings of guilt if they choose not to support their child's desire to transition, highlighting a common and contentious issue in the ongoing dialogue around transgender healthcare for minors: “Would you rather have a trans kid or a dead kid?” Unsurprisingly, this guilt trip is also woven into the new bill which cites 2020 data from The Trevor Project that claims, ”affirming school environments significantly reduce the odds of transgender youth attempting suicide.”
Other concerning bills passed by California democrats include:
AB665 which allows children 12 and older to essentially run away from their homes, with the state stepping up to house them.
AB1078 silences parents who object to inappropriate sexual material being dispersed in schools.
SB107 declares California as a sanctuary state for the sterilization of children and gives the state the right to remove the child from their home if the parent does not consent.
California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond released a statement on Monday celebrating the passage of AB1955. In his announcement, Superintendent Thurmond emphasized the significance of this legislative milestone, which he believes will foster a more inclusive and supportive environment for students across California. Thurmond also sponsored SB760, introduced by Senator Josh Newman on February 17, 2023, which calls for all K-12 schools to provide gender-neutral bathrooms. Gender-neutral bathrooms in the school system have raised legitimate concerns about the safety and privacy of students.
PUSHBACK
The President of the California Family Council, Jonathan Keller, issued the following statement post-bill signing:
“Governor Newsom’s signing of AB 1955 is a direct assault on the safety of children and the rights of their parents. By allowing schools to withhold vital information from mothers and fathers, this bill undermines their fundamental role and places boys and girls in potential jeopardy. Moms and dads have both a constitutional and divine mandate to guide and protect their kids, and AB 1955 egregiously violates this sacred trust.”
In addition, Chino Valley Unified, represented by the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit aggressively challenging the new law. According to The Blaze, “The Chino Valley Unified School District under the leadership of Sonja Shaw, for instance, became the first district in the state to embrace a policy last year whereby school officials must inform parents if their kids request to use the bathroom intended for members of the opposite sex as well as if their confused children ask to use names and pronouns that don't correspond with reality or their official documents.”
The Press Office for Governor Newsome responded to the lawsuit on 𝕏 writing, “This is a deeply unserious lawsuit, seemingly designed to stoke the dumpster fire on this website rather than surface legitimate legal claims. #AB1955 preserves the child-parent relationship, California law ensures minors can’t legally change their name or gender without parental consent & parents continue to have guaranteed & full access to their student’s educational records consistent with federal law. We’re confident the state will swiftly prevail in this case.”
Emily Rae, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center said in a statement:
“PK-12 minor students, most of whom are too young to drive, vote, or provide medical consent for themselves, are also too young to make life-altering decisions about their expressed gender identity without their parents’ knowledge. But that is precisely what AB 1955 enables—with potentially devastating consequences for children too young to fully comprehend them.
“School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have a constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school. Parents are the legal guardians of their children, not Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta, or Superintendent Thurmond. We will continue to defend parents’ rights and children’s well-being by challenging invasive laws like AB 1955 in court, at no cost to taxpayers”
Many are outraged by what they see as a new hierarchy established by the state. Matt Kim makes a vital point in a short clip on 𝕏: In recent years, educational standards in both reading and math have notably declined, raising concerns about students' preparedness for the future. Despite these pressing issues, the state of California has shifted its focus towards enhancing the privacy protections for minor children when it comes to their desire to socially transition behind the walls of schools.
Educational experts and concerned parents argue that instead of addressing the falling proficiency in essential subjects that students will rely on throughout their lives, the state's efforts are being directed towards policies that diminish parental involvement. This shift has led to a growing discourse on the balance between safeguarding children's privacy and ensuring their academic success.
In response to a post on 𝕏 made by Assemblyman Chris Ward in late May, Erin Friday, Esq. stated the following:
“Schools affirming a student’s self-loathing and rejection of their perfect natural self behind parents’ back is wrong. That is a transgender child. You have a child - imagine someone influencing your child to join a new religion in secret. How would you feel? Imagine being a little boy who likes feminine things and is asked if he is really a girl and is taught by the school that he could actually be a girl. What would your life be like now? Ask your husband if he ever thought he was supposed to be a girl? Now maybe you will understand that the trans-agenda harms kids who would just grow up to be gay. California is transing the gay away. Sterilizing gay kids. Shortened their lives. Transitioning is the ultimate conversion therapy.”
Senator Kelly Seyarto (California State Senator for the 32nd Senate District) spoke at the CFC Press Conference in opposition to AB1955 before yesterday’s Senate Floor Hearing saying, “AB1955 undermines the role that parents have in ensuring the safety of their kids…If you are leaving the house as one person but acting out at school as a different person, that could be a real problem and parents are going to find out eventually through the informal channels of communication.”
In addition to disappointment from the general public, celebrities like billionaire mogul Elon Musk weighed in on the passing of the SAFETY Act. Thursday posting to 𝕏, Musk said of the new law, “The goal is this diabolical law is to break the parent-child relationship and put the state in charge of your children”
Earlier this week on 𝕏 Musk declared he would be moving the SpaceX headquarters, “This is the final straw. Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas.”
Socially transitioning at school without parental consent or knowledge can be troublesome for several reasons. First and foremost, it bypasses the essential role parents play in their child's upbringing, potentially causing distrust and conflict between parents and schools. It can also lead to misunderstandings or a lack of support for the child's needs outside of the school environment. Additionally, without parental involvement, there may be inadequate preparation and support for the child, both socially and emotionally, which are crucial during such a significant life change. Children making such life-altering decisions without the knowledge of their parents sets a dangerous precedence.
The law will go into effect in January 2025.
The first thing child predators do is gain the child’d trust and then try to drive a wedge between children and their parents. This law is an open invitation to pedophiles to get jobs at schools and groom kids.
A pox on their houses & the sooner the better!