By Flor Blanco and James Bradley, August 19, 2024
On Wednesday, August 7th, the Orange County Board of Education joined the Anderson Union High School District, and the Chino Valley Unified School District in a lawsuit filed against CA Governor Newsom to challenge AB1955, known as the SAFETY Act.
The SAFETY Act was drafted by CA Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego). It bans CA schools from creating policies requiring parental notification in situations related to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The law arrives after school districts in CA began establishing parental right notification policies last year in response to concerns about gender transitioning occurring within schools without parental knowledge.
“Our schools should be safe havens for all students, not places where some are marginalized for simply being who they are. Amidst the growing assault on LGBTQ+ rights in California and across the nation, it’s crucial that schools take the necessary steps to create an environment where every student feels valued and affirmed for who they are. The SAFETY Act reaffirms students’ constitutional and statutory rights not to be subjected to forced outing at school and it also reaffirms that forced outing policies and any form of retaliation against teachers, parents, and allies who protect students against such constitutional and statutory harms are a clear violation of state law. As we continue to reinforce California’s commitment to provide safe and inclusive educational spaces that uphold the rights of all students, my office commends the LGBTQ Caucus for their leadership, and Governor Newsom for signing the SAFETY Act into law, to ensure no student is ever forcibly outed against their will, especially when such disclosure could result in serious harm,” says CA Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Board President of the Orange County Dept, of Ed (OCDE). Dr. Williams is strongly opposed to the bill. He claims the SAFETY act is Orwellian double speak and misidentifies the purpose of this bill. He claims that there is nothing that protects children and infants and in fact it puts children at great risks because parents will not be in their children’s lives.
Details of the SAFETY Act suggests types of parental notification policies as forms of “harassment” of school staff, as described in Section 2 of the bill. Assm. Ward’s Office, purports that this is not a correct interpretation of the bill. Section 220.1 of the Education Code under AB 1955 clarifies in existing law that teachers cannot be retaliated against for simply doing their jobs – specifically, by supporting them in exercising their existing rights under the law as well as teaching approved educational materials. Assm. Ward’s office believes that separately, it is correct to state that the bill merely prohibits teachers and school staff from being compelled to out students – the bill does not ban these conversations from taking place on a case-by-case basis. Some opposed to the bill are concerned that it removes a parent or guardian’s ability to seek disciplinary actions in situations where gender-identity is not disclosed. The SAFETY Act does leave the discretion to disclose up to school staff, a decision which some have claimed that most staff members are not trained to handle.
“Who in their right mind thinks it’s a good idea to create and pass laws that make it illegal for parents to be part of their child’s educational experience? The morally corrupt political cartel of Thurmond, Bonta, and Newsom. Remember their names, their unions, and special interest groups, and the harm they have done to families when you vote,” states Sonja Shaw, a parent, and the Board President of Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD).
Tracy Henderson the founder of California Parents Union points out, “The plain text language of AB1955 prohibits the enacting and enforcement of a policy, rule or regulation to require school staff to notify parents and guardians about their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not prohibit school staff from having those conversations with parents and guardians. Teachers can simply choose not to comply with a student’s request to be called by a preferred pronoun. And any school district lawyer that tells you otherwise is giving bad legal advice,”
The bill arrives amid growing support of gender affirming care among institutions, such as the Children’s Hospital of Orange County (CHOC), that have links to on-site supports within schools. These supports proliferated with the passage of CA AB1184 in 2021 that allowed minors 12 and over to seek mental health services without knowledge of the parent and required insurance policies of parents to pay for such services without parent notification. Oddly, that bill did include disciplinary actions for insurance companies who would not comply. Simultaneously there is word of a growing detransition movement among youth who opted for affirming care as minors, as mentioned in the movie “No Way Back.” The movie highlights detransitioners who describe the ease of obtaining affirmative care and admit that they would have benefitted from hearing from someone that the transition state may be temporary.
A large section of AB1955 describes multiple supports that will be established for parents and guardians of children for situations related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This part of the bill beckons the question of how parents could receive these supports when the primary supports many are calling for is to be notified? When asked, Assm. Ward’s Office indicated that AB 1955 has nothing to do with gender-affirming medical treatment – which, it must be noted, that gender-affirming medical treatment already requires parental consent. Per Assm. Ward’s office, Section 217 of the Education Code under AB 1955 is designed to support parents, guardians, and families of LGBTQ+ students by providing them with critical supports and resources as they work towards acceptance on their own terms. It is crucial that students are able to talk with their families on their own terms and not at the whim of others. When asked the same question, Dr. Williams responded that parents will lose their role as decision makers and care givers when this law takes effect. This bill augments government agents as substitutes for parents.
Funding supports to parents and guardians as promised under this bill could be a waste of taxpayer funds because parents and guardians would not be aware of their minor child transitioning due to the restrictions in this bill and won’t enroll. When asked a question regarding this possibility, Assm. Ward’s Office responded. They reiterated again, a child cannot receive gender-affirming medical treatment without parental consent, so this question is a non-issue. It is not the role of a teacher to police their students’ genders and sexual orientations and break hard-earned trust by forcibly outing students against their will. Parents are always free to have important conversations with their child about their child’s gender identity at home in an environment where privacy is not a concern, and where politicians do not set the rules and parameters around the private family discussion. The supports to parents and guardians under this bill ensure parents are equipped with the tools to have these conversations around identity at home. OCDE President Dr. Williams believes this bill presents a false and misleading message. It hurts local control of education and dismantles the rights of parents.
“The signing of AB 1955, a gut-and-amend bill pushed through hastily, is an egregious attack on constitutional parental rights. Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta, Superintendent Thurmond, and the rest of the political cartel have shown their true colors as cowards who prioritize special interests over the voices of parents. This legislation weaponizes the system against those who know and care for their children the most. It is morally corrupt and was enacted to prevent parents from exercising their rights and to avoid being outsmarted by a school district and parents who challenged them. It’s always been about their ego,” says CVUSD Board President Shaw.
CA Assemblyman Ward seemed to have quickly drafted AB1955 after a citizen group failed to obtain enough ballots to place a citizen initiative that would allow the CA voters to determine if parents should by law be notified about gender identity. When asked this if move was an example of a violation of power under the color of law, the office replied that Assemblymember Ward and the LGBTQ Caucus had worked diligently on legislation to support LGBTQ+ students, their families, and teachers from forced outing policies for over a year. The member and Caucus wanted to first allow for litigation to play out in court, to which there were rulings in favor of LGBTQ+ students’ rights against forced outings. As such, Assemblymember Ward introduced AB 1955 after a year-long effort to codify existing protections against forced outings. Also, it must be noted that AB 1955 was introduced before the ballot proposal failed – the bill was not introduced in response to the ballot proposal.
Dr. Williams says that Ward is a government change agent and advances Marixification of Education through Brazilian Paulo Freirs’s classic philosophy and indoctrination. CVUSD Board President Shaw stated, “Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) is still being sued by Bonta, supported by this political cartel, for what they called an illegal policy, all while they back a bill to make parental involvement illegal. Even Elon Musk is taking his company to Texas. This is a loss for families in California, and they are not alone in exiting due to the lawlessness and mess Newsom has brought into our beautiful state. The timing of Newsom’s actions is horrific, given the recent attempted assassination of President Trump. It’s slimy and shows a complete disregard for the well-being of families in California.”
In March 2024, CVUSD modified the original parental notification policy by getting rid of words referencing gender or bathrooms. Instead, the new policy requires a parent or guardian be notified when a change is made to a student’s record. The Liberty Justice Center, which is the firm representing the school boards fighting AB1955, position the case as a violation of rights of parents and school staff secured by the 1st and 14th Amendments and the statues aligned with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which requires parental access to all of a child’s school records. Shaw shares CVUSD’s commitment, “Regardless of death threats and attempts to silence us, we will not give in, and families will walk away winning in the end. Every parent in California is now aware of this betrayal and will rise to challenge it. We are grateful for the Liberty Justice Center representing us in this case. Unlike the political cartel who is wasting our hard-earned tax money, they never require a penny from us and allow us to fight the good fight. We will continue to fight relentlessly to protect our children and ensure that our rights are upheld. This battle is far from over, and we will not rest until justice is served and parental rights are fully restored.”
AG Bonta’s office ensures the bill promotes student safety. His office stated that Attorney General Bonta is committed to providing his unwavering support to ensure every student has the right to learn and thrive in a school environment that promotes safety, privacy, and inclusivity.
Links