California Senator Warns Parents To Move Away Over Bill

Normally politicians are cheerleaders for their home areas, urging people to move in and build up their districts. But California state Sen. Scott Wilk (R) took the opposite road this week, warning parents that they should flee his state to protect their children.

Wilk’s admonishment came as the Golden State continues to embrace radical gender ideology and turn its back on parents’ rights.

The latest move towards insanity is a bill that would make a parent’s resistance to their child “transitioning” a factor to work against them in custody disputes. Accept this edict concerning your child or face consequences.

Wilk flatly stated that parents who “love their children” should exit the Democratic mecca and get away from the pro-LGBT mania. The senator, now in his 11th year of service, recalled that normally bills are proposed to protect children.

But now, he said, “after 11 years, I’ve concluded that we need to start protecting parents. That’s just not happening.”

The controversial bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strict party-line vote Tuesday, and it included the last-minute addition of the new “transitioning” factor.

The Daily Signal reported the amendment listed “gender affirmation” with other needs children have for “health, safety, and welfare.” As such, it would be taken into consideration in resolving which parent or guardian gets custody of a minor child.

State Senator Scott Weiner (D), who spearheaded many radical gender-related efforts in the California legislature, and Assembly member Lori Wilson (D), co-authored AB 957.

Wilson’s spokesperson attempted to deflect criticism from the amendment by claiming “gender affirmation” would be just one of many factors in the custody decision.

Weiner, a San Francisco representative, introduced a separate bill that would mandate foster parents affirm the “preferred” gender of a child when they enter the home. SB 107 would also provide gender changes to minors without parental consent.

Proponents of AB 957 argue that it merely applies to custody disputes, but conservatives who pay attention are not falling for it. After all, it wasn’t long ago when the battle cry was “we just want to be able to marry.”

No, Wilk is correct when he and others point to the vast slippery slope this amendment sets up. Today it would be divorce proceedings, but tomorrow it could easily be expanded to all families, setting up parents who oppose gender mutilation for child endangerment charges.