In a surprise move, California governor Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the controversial bill that would have directed judges in custody cases to favor the parent who ‘affirms’ their child’s transgender delusions.
A California bill would require judges to consider a parent’s acceptance or affirmation of their child’s gender identity when weighing child custody disputes.Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday vetoed Assembly Bill 957, which lawmakers passed earlier in September. The Assembly approved the measure and sent it to the governor’s desk on a party-line vote of 57-16. . . . . Bill author and Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat, said the intent of the bill was to protect the health and well-being of transgender children and noted parents would not be required to move forward with gender-affirming health care.Lawmakers supporting the measure said gender affirmation would not be the only factor judges would need to consider if it were to become law.
Speculation is rife that Newsom is setting himself up to run for president.
But reading Newsom’s veto response, it seems that he may be one of the few Democrats savvy enough to understand that such moves can be used against Democrat anti-American policies in red districts and states (archive link).
This legislation would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding, to consider, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office.That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply. Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.
He’s not wrong, but if he didn’t haven’t presidential aspirations, he would not care one tiny bit if this route could be used against Democrats . . . or if signing this radical bill into law would be wildly unpopular outside California.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY