US Newsom signs bill to allow minors from other states to receive medical gender transitions without parental consent - California - The Hellfire State

BREAKING: Newsom signs bill to allow minors from other states to receive medical gender transitions without parental consent

Newsom’s signature on the the bill, SB 107, comes nearly a month after the California legislature passed State Senator Scott Wiener’s bill, which was introduced in 2021.

thepostmillennial.com

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On Thursday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a piece of legislation that will designate the state as a sanctuary for children and teens seeking medicalized gender transitions. Newsom’s signature on the bill, SB 107, comes nearly a month after the California legislature passed State Senator Scott Wiener’s bill, which was introduced in 2021. The bill allows families or individual minors who traveled to the state for the purpose of these medical procedures to be safe from out-of-state authorities acting on subpoenas, warrants, and child custody issues if the minor was brought into the state for procedures like surgical gender reassignments or the prescribing of cross-sex hormones.

The bill would also "prohibit law enforcement agencies from making, or intentionally participating in, the arrest of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against receiving or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care." If a child comes into the state by themselves, the bill states that "A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary for an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care."

In addition, the bill that the state will not honor or enforce "A law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from their parent or guardian based on the parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care" if a case is pending in California courts. According to the Los Angeles Times, Newsom commended the bill during its signing. “In California, we believe in equality and acceptance. We believe that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted for getting the care they need — including gender-affirming care,” Newsom said. “Parents know what’s best for their kids, and they should be able to make decisions around the health of their children without fear. We must take a stand for parental choice.”

BREAKING: Newsom signs bill to allow minors from other states to rece…

archived 30 Sep 2022 18:07:22 UTC

archive.ph

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The fact that the guy who wrote this bill and is Cali's senator is named Wiener is proof that there is a God, and that He has a sense of humor. A twisted sense of humor.

 

[RonPaul2008]

Make no mistake, the state wants to take your kids.
The question is, what rights does a minor have?
If they have the right to do this, then they should all be considered adults, no?
What is special about hormones and getting your dick chopped off that excludes say...firearms purchases or renting cars?

 

[KiwiFuzz]

Make no mistake, the state wants to take your kids.
The question is, what rights does a minor have?
If they have the right to do this, then they should all be considered adults, no?
What is special about hormones and getting your dick chopped off that excludes say...firearms purchases or renting cars?

I literally think a 30-year-old fucking a 13-year-old ("consensually" with no STDs or babies, of course) is less harmful than chopping her tits off.

When you make kiddy diddling seem like a healthier option, you're way ass out over that cornice.

(slight edit for wordsmithing)

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

More likely than civil war is a state declaring that it's kidnapping to do this, filing suit against CA authorities, and it going to the Supreme Court. At that point, the Supreme Court has to decide whether another state government has the power under the Constitution to kidnap your son, chop off his dick, and rape him.

The answer should be no. See: the aforementioned Extradition Clause.

I literally think a 13-year-old fucking a 30-year-old ("consensually" with no STDs or babies, of course) is less harmful than a 13-year-old chopping her tits off.

Damn if that ain't a nuclear hot take....

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It'd be great if an angry parent took matters into his own hands for vengeance.

I literally think a 30-year-old fucking a 13-year-old ("consensually" with no STDs or babies, of course) is less harmful than chopping her tits off.

When you make kiddy diddling seem like a healthier option, you're way ass out over that cornice.

(slight edit for wordsmithing)

Far less harmful, but we shouldn't be allowing any harm (not saying you're advocating for it, just stating the obvious).

 

[Snekposter]

More likely than civil war is a state declaring that it's kidnapping to do this, filing suit against CA authorities, and it going to the Supreme Court. At that point, the Supreme Court has to decide whether another state government has the power under the Constitution to kidnap your son, chop off his dick, and rape him.

Thankfully Sections 1 and 2 of Article IV are extremely explicit on that whole matter.

Note that while Congress has some authority over the whole matter, it must be a matter of law, and as far as I know the chances of any law getting passed that mandates dick chops are slim to none. (Yeah, yeah, rainbows.) This is California being California, and should anyone side with CA, well, expect gun-friendly states to retaliate. The entire point of these clauses in the Constitution was to prevent the sort of tit-for-tat wankery CA and NY want to get up to for the obvious reason that a lot more than two can play at that game, and you can't have a nation if its constituent parts are engaged in a cold war with each other.

Make no mistake, the state wants to take your kids.
The question is, what rights does a minor have?
If they have the right to do this, then they should all be considered adults, no?
What is special about hormones and getting your dick chopped off that excludes say...firearms purchases or renting cars?

View attachment 3706911

Or in other words, pretty much this post. Once you start fucking around with the law in such a blatant manner, you can't shut Pandora's Box.

 

[Wormy]

Leave it to Cali to make me appreciate this shithole I'm in a little more. Thank you.

 

[The Ugly One]

Thankfully Sections 1 and 2 of Article IV are extremely explicit on that whole matter.
View attachment 3707979
Note that while Congress has some authority over the whole matter, it must be a matter of law, and as far as I know the chances of any law getting passed that mandates dick chops are slim to none. (Yeah, yeah, rainbows.) This is California being California, and should anyone side with CA, well, expect gun-friendly states to retaliate. The entire point of these clauses in the Constitution was to prevent the sort of tit-for-tat wankery CA and NY want to get up to for the obvious reason that a lot more than two can play at that game, and you can't have a nation if its constituent parts are engaged in a cold war with each other.

Or in other words, pretty much this post. Once you start fucking around with the law in such a blatant manner, you can't shut Pandora's Box.

It's not quite so cut and dried. Regarding Section 1, you have two states making incompatible "Acts, Records, and Proceedings." One state says that the child's guardianship is with his parents, and the other state, California, says that coming to CA to seek tranny pills means he's now a ward of the State of California. In Section 2, the problem now is that this is, hypothetically, an interstate crime. The feds necessarily will get involved.

That means it goes to the courts. This particular Court seems to like the text of the law a lot more than past courts, but nothing is guaranteed.

 

[Snekposter]

It's not quite so cut and dried. Regarding Section 1, you have two states making incompatible "Acts, Records, and Proceedings." One state says that the child's guardianship is with his parents, and the other state, California, says that coming to CA to seek tranny pills means he's now a ward of the State of California. In Section 2, the problem now is that this is, hypothetically, an interstate crime. The feds necessarily will get involved.

That means it goes to the courts. This particular Court seems to like the text of the law a lot more than past courts, but nothing is guaranteed.

The bill would also "prohibit law enforcement agencies from making, or intentionally participating in, the arrest of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against receiving or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care."

That part directly contradicts section 2 regarding extraditions. You cannot fuck with that sort of thing for obvious fucking reasons.

If a child comes into the state by themselves, the bill states that "A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary for an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care."

That is also going to be subjected to a very strict examination because while it places the child under emergency jurisdiction of the court, the court is still bound by the Constitution to obey the declarations of the other state. California is playing with serious fucking fire here, and its going to burn a lot more than just them.

You're not wrong about this going to the federal courts because its a Constitutional matter, but California is directly stabbing at one of the key tenets of the union, that the states don't fuck with the internal politics of other states. Only the Feds get to do that, and no way does California get to do an end-run to prevent them from getting their cut. Even CARB's fuckery is directly enabled by federal law, after all.

 

[Damocles_Sword]

Shower thoughts on this, but isn't this law the state of california declaring secession from the union in all but name? They are literally claiming warrants, both state and federal are invalid, and just so the faggotiest faggot that has a literal AIDS aura can more efficiently rape and mutilate children.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Yeah, this is going to start having all sorts if nasty tit for tat bullshit coming into play of the courts don't resolve this quick.

For example, imagine a scenario where states just stop accepting the legitimacy of California's driver licenses.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

This will enshrined as a model law once the usual suspects find out this law is autoblocked by the literal Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2) in the Constitution.

 

[Snekposter]

Yeah, this is going to start having all sorts if nasty tit for tat bullshit coming into play of the courts don't resolve this quick.

For example, imagine a scenario where states just stop accepting the legitimacy of California's driver licenses.

Technically speaking, they already can. Driver's licenses are no different from any other license (like say, a business license) in that they're a state-level authorization to engage in otherwise prohibited activity. States are as obligated to accept them as they are say... carry permits. Granted that may change since the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right and both Article IV and the 14th Amendment have things to say about that... But as state governments are quick to remind their subjects, driving is a privilege, not a right. It would ultimately be a hell of a lot more legal than what CA is trying to do, that's for damn sure. After all, Texas is under ultimately under no obligation to extend California residents the privilege of driving on Texan roads save reciprocity for its own residents on California roads.

This will enshrined as a model law once the usual suspects find out this law is autoblocked by the literal Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2) in the Constitution.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Unless children are legally held to service or labor, I don't really think it applies.

 

[The Ugly One]

That part directly contradicts section 2 regarding extraditions. You cannot fuck with that sort of thing for obvious fucking reasons.

That is also going to be subjected to a very strict examination because while it places the child under emergency jurisdiction of the court, the court is still bound by the Constitution to obey the declarations of the other state. California is playing with serious fucking fire here, and its going to burn a lot more than just them.

You're not wrong about this going to the federal courts because its a Constitutional matter, but California is directly stabbing at one of the key tenets of the union, that the states don't fuck with the internal politics of other states. Only the Feds get to do that, and no way does California get to do an end-run to prevent them from getting their cut. Even CARB's fuckery is directly enabled by federal law, after all.

Under the text of the Constitution, yes, but we live in an era where courts have ruled that "sanctuary cities" can subvert federal law, and there's nothing the feds can do about it, because making people who aren't supposed to be here go home is mean. We live in an era of legal Calvinball, where what laws say depends entirely on who's under scrutiny and what the pieties of the moment are. It's like how all election law was made null and void "because COVID." Given that this Supreme Court struck down Roe V Wade, I doubt they would let this law stand. But, well, Clarence Thomas is old, and I don't think Scalia died naturally.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Make no mistake, the state wants to take your kids.
The question is, what rights does a minor have?
If they have the right to do this, then they should all be considered adults, no?
What is special about hormones and getting your dick chopped off that excludes say...firearms purchases or renting cars?

View attachment 3706911

Good question and add smoking and drinking as well.

Edit: I guess our only hope is to count on some Gary Plauche or Bernard Goetz wannabe to take care of these groomers before they reach California.

 

[make_it_so]

California is harboring pedos.

They want pedos to be the next protected minority group.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Shower thoughts on this, but isn't this law the state of california declaring secession from the union in all but name? They are literally claiming warrants, both state and federal are invalid, and just so the faggotiest faggot that has a literal AIDS aura can more efficiently rape and mutilate children.

Better yet, since they just put "gender-affirming care" as a general... theoretically couldn't someone set up gender-affirming care centers that "affirm" people of their correct gender?

Seems like California just accidentally made de-transition clinics taking patients out of state legally protected? Or maybe I'm misreading it.

 

[Damocles_Sword]

Better yet, since they just put "gender-affirming care" as a general... theoretically couldn't someone set up gender-affirming care centers that "affirm" people of their correct gender?

Seems like California just accidentally made de-transition clinics taking patients out of state legally protected? Or maybe I'm misreading it.

Just as bans on gay conversion therapy only apply to therapy to help people overcome homosexuality, "gender affirming care" only means body mutilation.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Just as bans on gay conversion therapy only apply to therapy to help people overcome homosexuality, "gender affirming care" only means body mutilation.

Yeah but that'd be a hell of a fight in a court to say that it isn't gender-affirming care. I can't even begin to imagine what the argument for that would look like. It's not exactly common to call turning someone into a homo "gay conversion therapy" in that sense, and if "gender-affirming care" doesn't allow for the "affirmation" whatever the hell that is, to line up with their sex, then it's not really "affirming" anything.

 

[Random Internet Person]

This is essentially declaring war against the rest of the United States. There's no way that this is constitutional -- California just told the Full Faith and Credit clause to go fuck itself. Or go cut off its own penis. States are required by the Constitution to give "full faith and credit" to "the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Essentially California is now in a state of -- what's that word that libtards love so much? -- insurrection against the United States of America. But, as fucking always -
View attachment 3703376

If that was the case, why has no other state responded to this in order to stop CA from making a move to get the minors?

No, it just proves that our ancestors and God are right about the homosexual menace. He's the same guy that got knowingly exposing others to HIV lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor. He's also the one who said chomos don't need to be on the list if they and their victims are within 10 years of age. He championes both bills under the guise of gays being treates fairly...

He deserves the worst that the universe can muster.

The bartender in the retchid hive of scum and villainy. Maybe things will happen to where he’s the one pointed to when the question of LGBT rights are warped back to “gays can get married” and no further.

It's already been made precedent that california rules supreme above both the other states and federal laws. I give it about a year before they start funding the tranny underground railroad. State funded kid snatching purely for the sake of pushing fetishes on children. This is what civil war is going to be. Americans fed up with cali's bullshit and taking it upon themselves to minecraft the tyrants they didn't elect that are destroying their lives IRL.

That’s assuming things get to the level of guns and sabotage and bombings. I’ll believe the conflict of Troubles happening when I see it.

Here's how they expect it to work:

1. A groomer Venmos your 13-year-old son bus fare after meeting him on Discord
2. The groomer calls whatever California authority he needs to to let him know that your child is seeking medical transition.
3. You discover this.
4. You call your state police.
5. They call the CA police, the CA police say, sorry, this kid is protected from you under CA state law.
6. The state of California declares your son to be a ward of the state and puts him on tranny hormones.
7. Your son continues to live with the groomer, who rapes him.

Sounds about right, except you forgot to say how step 7 is spun into a good thing, or mention how the relationship being presented has been a healthy thing going on since Ancient Greece (this is probably something leftists actually believe).

This is true. Civil Wars require alot of conditions for it to even happen. For starters, when it becomes apparent that the people in power refuse to do their job to serve the people and this results in the general populace starts seeing them as someone you shouldn't ask for help. And then you start seeing people take matters into their own hands and make utterly disconnected societies within the society. See the Muzzie no-go zones in Europe. Or the Hasidics in the US. For bullets to start flying everywhere ala Balkan War, that one requires the right match to light the massive powderkeg sitting in the US.

View attachment 3706519


Shit like this is how you create rebels overnight. And people are definitely taking notes on who's enabling this garbage.

And the people taking notes probably aren’t talking online.

As for separate societies, I really doubt things will get to the level of no go zones. Things either fall apart or get crushed before they get to that level.

More likely than civil war is a state declaring that it's kidnapping to do this, filing suit against CA authorities, and it going to the Supreme Court. At that point, the Supreme Court has to decide whether another state government has the power under the Constitution to kidnap your son, chop off his dick, and rape him.

And then that becomes a matter of the ideological bend. Trump got 3 confirmations and Biden has 1 confirmation, so it becomes a matter of which side gets the next confirmations as both sides get more entrenched.

Thankfully Sections 1 and 2 of Article IV are extremely explicit on that whole matter.
View attachment 3707979
Note that while Congress has some authority over the whole matter, it must be a matter of law, and as far as I know the chances of any law getting passed that mandates dick chops are slim to none. (Yeah, yeah, rainbows.) This is California being California, and should anyone side with CA, well, expect gun-friendly states to retaliate. The entire point of these clauses in the Constitution was to prevent the sort of tit-for-tat wankery CA and NY want to get up to for the obvious reason that a lot more than two can play at that game, and you can't have a nation if its constituent parts are engaged in a cold war with each other.

Or in other words, pretty much this post. Once you start fucking around with the law in such a blatant manner, you can't shut Pandora's Box.

Kind of surprised we haven’t seen any real fireworks outside of Twitter takes and appearances on news shows.

Shower thoughts on this, but isn't this law the state of california declaring secession from the union in all but name? They are literally claiming warrants, both state and federal are invalid, and just so the faggotiest faggot that has a literal AIDS aura can more efficiently rape and mutilate children.

If that was the case, we’d see the hammer brought down in the case of immigration sanctuaries in the name of the military and other forces like ICE barging into limits to carry out an order for someone to be deported. We didn’t get those, so how would you expect this to be any different unless bounty hunters make a comeback?

 

[make_it_so]

I do, but at least I live in the saner part of the state.
The festering menace is still creeping up north, unfortunately.

When are you guys gonna finally team up with the eastern Oregon folks and make the State of Jefferson a thing?