As the school year begins, AB 1955 goes into effect. It’s a measure supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom that requires public schools to keep a child’s gender transition confidential from parents at the child’s request.

The new law has prompted backlash from surprising quarters, most notably Tesla magnate Elon Musk, who pledged to move various business operations out of California in response to the measure.

AB 1955 undermines basic principles of California law regarding minors and their inability to consent to significant decisions independently from their parents or guardians. It emanates from the left’s culture-war hatred and suspicion of parents who may not share their views on sexuality and gender.

In California, minors are generally deemed to lack capacity: the degree of knowledge, experience, and judgment necessary to validly consent in situations that could impact their own or others’ long-term well-being. Lack of capacity is why minors generally cannot sign contracts or liability waivers, smoke, drink, vote, have sex, or consent to medical treatment.

California shattered this principle decades ago out of resentment for conservative parents’ views on abortion. In 1997, the California State Supreme Court overturned a law requiring that parents give their consent before their minor child could receive an abortion. Democrats and abortion advocates vigorously opposed and defeated three different ballot initiatives in the 2000s that attempted to require parental notification before a minor’s abortion.

As a result, California liberals committed themselves to a massive, illogical carveout to general principles regarding childhood incapacity. From the age of 12, other than reporting sexual assault, healthcare providers may not tell a child’s parents information regarding their reproductive health, unless the child agrees to it. There is no requirement for any indication of abuse by the parents: the child simply controls the privacy privilege and consents to her own healthcare provision.

Reproductive healthcare can be extraordinarily complicated and consequential, which precisely indicates the need for parental involvement. A 14-year-old with an STI may not know what medications she is allergic to, her blood type, what insurance she has, her social security number, family histories of illness, or other information critical to her healthcare provision. Absent indications of abuse, It is dangerous and cruel to leave a child on her own to handle such questions.

Parents Need to Be Involved in Child’s Gender ID Discussions

Similarly, parents need to be involved in discussions of a child’s gender identity, and AB 1955 shoves them out.

Various studies indicate at least 80% of children who express transgender ideation cease identifying as transgender as adults. Parents would reasonably want to know and understand that their child is attempting to present themselves with a new, static identity in school. The unsettled science surrounding gender transition approaches makes it more important than ever for the parent to be involved. Research evidence that gender treatments had no measurable benefit recently led to the United Kingdom banning transgender treatments for minors.

Under AB 1955, a student at Clovis High School, for example, could “come out” as transgender to fellow students, teachers, and school personnel — a population of roughly 3,000 people. School officials could change the student’s records, address the student by a different name, and generally support the student’s “social” gender transition.

While the whole school would know of this child’s new identity, the parents who love and care for their child would be in the dark. The school’s communications with the parents would become an elaborate charade, carefully shielding them from any indication of their child’s newly assumed identity.

If there is evidence of abuse in a family situation, then certainly that should be reported and examined regardless of gender questions. School personnel are already mandatory reporters. But, as with reproductive health, AB 1955 dictates that the child solely controls the privacy privilege, even where there is no indication of abuse.

Children Are Responsibility of Parents, not School or State

I believe AB 1955 comes from the same motives that undergirded abortion advocates in the 1990s and 2000s. Liberals in the Legislature think that a child’s reproductive health or gender identity is inherently at risk in the hands of parents whose ethical beliefs about sex, gender, and life do not align with their ideals.

I am one of millions of California parents who believe that biological sex is constitutive to identity, and that human life is precious and inviolable from conception. Such views are not abusive when they inform my child-rearing decisions. My children are fundamentally my responsibility, not the school’s or the state’s.

If those views are to be legislated out as socially and legally unacceptable, then California is heading down a dark road towards outright tyranny.

About the Author

John Gerardi is an attorney, executive director of Right to Life of Central California, and co-founder and Development Director of the Obria Medical Clinics of Central California.

Make Your Voice Heard

GV Wire encourages vigorous debate from people and organizations on local, state, and national issues. Submit your op-ed to bmcewen@gvwire.com for consideration.