Opponents of a bill that would require all foster parents in California to “affirm” the chosen gender identities of children in their care have called the proposed legislation an attack on constitutionally protected religious freedom and parental rights.
“We need to make sure affirmatively that these families are going to be supportive and not hostile to these children,” he said.
The bill would require foster parents “to demonstrate the capacity to meet the needs of a child, regardless of the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Under SB 407, potential foster parents would also be assessed for their ability “to care for and supervise children and youth of all sexual orientations and gender identities.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 407 with an 8-2 vote. It is the second committee to pass the bill, which now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Opposition
Greg Burt, representing the California Family Council and the Pacific Justice Institute, opposed the bill, noting there is already a severe shortage of foster homes available in the state, with an 8 percent decrease in 2020, according to a report from the news outlet The Imprint.The bill targets religious people who are known to be the most likely to become foster parents because of their religious convictions to do so, Burt told the committee.
“How many families of faith are you going to lose if this bill passes?” he asked the committee. “A great majority of these people of faith hold traditional views on gender identity and human sexuality.”
“The high court said the government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of the religious nature,” he told the committee.
“This is not a law neutral to religion,” he said. “It forces resource families to choose between providing care for the weaker members of the community and maintaining fidelity to their faith.”
Erin Friday, an attorney and the western U.S. regional co-leader of Our Duty, an international group that opposes transgender ideology and gender transitions of minor children and adults under 25 years old, also testified against the bill.
The bill would force foster parents to support the social gender transitions of children in their care, she said, and social transitioning, such as using a child’s self-chosen names and preferred pronouns, is the precursor to “a medical pathway that leads to the irreversible puberty blockers, sterilizing cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgeries,” which have been rejected in England, Finland, and Sweden for minors.
Support
Craig Pulsipher, the legislative director of Equality California, dismissed criticisms of the bill.“Claims that this bill would shut out a class of families from the foster care system based on their religious beliefs are patently untrue,” he said. “The bill simply ensures that all resource families are willing and able to uphold the rights of foster youth in their care.”
Tyler Rinde, the deputy director of child welfare policy at the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, told the committee SB 407 would strengthen the existing approval process for foster parents and help to prevent discrimination.
“To become a resource parent, there’s a set of criteria that one must meet, and if the prospective caregiver cannot meet these, they should not be approved,” he said. “We often don’t know which youth are gay or non-binary or which children will come out.”
State Sen. Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento), who said she has worked at group homes in the foster care system, supported the bill, claiming that all it does is say to foster parents “that if you’re going to adopt a child, no matter how old they are, that you accept the fact that they may or may not be something other than what you thought they were the day that you brought them into your home.”
Every child needs to know they’re loved unconditionally no matter what sexual or gender identity they choose, she said.
“People can have whatever view they want, whatever religious perspective they want,” Wiener said. “They don’t have a right to harm the children that they’re raising. They don’t have a right to try to convert a kid and engage in psychological torture.”
Related Legislation
Meanwhile, Ashby introduced SB 824, which would expand the authority of the California Department of Social Services to waive restrictions for the placement of children with extended family members and friends with criminal records. The committee passed her bill 11-0 the same day.Wiener, an LGBT activist, took the opportunity to blast millions of Americans for their widespread criticism of Anheuser Busch over partnering with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender activist, who posted an ad for Bud Light on Instagram.
Wiener called the public backlash “disgusting.”
“What’s happening in this country is terrifying,” he said. “California should have no part of it, and so I’m happy to support this bill.”
Friday, who opposed SB 345, told The Epoch Times after the meeting that Mulvaney is insulting because “he mocks women.”
“This man is a caricature of women,” she said. “The only important things to him are how he looks, his hair, his lipstick and makeup, and that’s an affront to every woman.”
SB 345 would also state that “interference with the right to reproductive health care services and gender-affirming health care services is against the public policy of California.”
Friday, a self-described Democrat, said the Democratic lawmakers want to eliminate any liability for doctors who perform “this type of mutilation.”
Combining gender-affirmation with abortion is political maneuver to tie transgender laws to those that are more popular, she said.
“They’re tying it together with abortion because they know that is an issue heavily supported by Democrats, even though Democrats are opposed to ‘gender-affirmative care,’” she said.
