Parental Rights Group Sues AG Rob Bonta Over Trans Kid Refuge Law

Attorney General Rob Bonta has been sued by parental rights non-profit group Our Watch on Tuesday over a recently passed law that made California a refuge state for transgender children and their families from other states that criminalize youth “gender-affirming care” treatments. The group says that the law is unconstitutional and interferes with parental rights.

Transgender health care, also known as “gender-affirming care,” includes the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental health conditions, as well as sex reassignment therapies, for transgender individuals.

Brought before the state legislature last year, Senate Bill 107, authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), was passed and signed into law in September by Gov. Gavin Newsom. SB 107 subsequently became law in January, officially prohibiting health care providers and service plans from releasing medical information related to someone allowing a child to receive “gender-affirming health care” in response to a criminal or civil action, including a foreign subpoena, based on another state’s law that authorizes a person to bring a civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allows a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care. Law enforcement agencies are also now prohibited under the law from arresting or extraditing the child or the people who approved the gender-affirming care due to an out-of-state law against gender-affirming care.

SB 107 also prohibits the removal of a child from the custody of a parent or guardian based on them allowing a child to receive gender-affirming care, with courts being prohibited from finding it to be an inconvenient forum where the law or policy of another state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming care and the provision of such care is at issue in the case before the court.  Courts are also prohibited from considering the taking or retention of a child from a person who has legal custody of the child, if the taking or retention was for obtaining gender-affirming care.

All together, the bill creates a sanctuary state for transgender kids and their families and allowing them to receive health care. However, many quickly called into question the legality of the law, with many finding it to be unconstitutional. This led to California parental rights group Our Watch to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Tuesday.

According to the suit, submitted by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom law firm, SB 107 violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, violates protections under the first and fourteenth amendments, and violates the rights of parents in deciding what is best for their children. The suit also demands a jury trial over the bill, as well as an official judicial declaration that SB 107 is unconstitutional.

“California recently passed Senate Bill (‘SB’) 107, which violates the right of every parent in every state to direct the upbringing and care of their child,” the lawsuit said. “SB 107 allows minors to obtain gender transition procedures like harmful puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries without parental consent, while denying parents access to their child’s medical information. The bill also allows California to exercise ‘emergency jurisdiction’ over minors seeking gender dysphoria treatment.”

“SB 107 interferes with the parents right to control the important medical decisions of their children. Parents, not the government, are best suited to decide whether their child should undergo a life-altering and irreversible surgery that seeks to change the sex of the child. SB 107 overrides the jurisdiction of courts in a family’s home state that are usually the proper forum for custody determinations by allowing California courts to take emergency jurisdiction to make custody determinations over a child struggling with gender dysphoria. California has decided that its courts – not those of the family’s home state – should be the final arbiters of whether parents are fit to raise their child.”

SB 107 taken to court

Our Watch president Tim Thompson added on Tuesday, “SB 107 violates the U.S. Constitution protections under the First and 14th Amendments because it allows the taking of the child away from his or her parents to California to obtain gender transition procedures. SB 107 also violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the United States Constitution, which requires California to defer to the laws and jurisdiction of the 49 other states regarding the care and custody of children.”

“One of my top priorities has been the preservation of parental rights, and I believe SB 107 is a dangerous, irresponsible law that is an assault on those rights.”

However, many trans groups and advocates denounced the lawsuit on Tuesday, saying that the law is critical for trans people to get the health care they need to transition in peace.

“A lot of other states right now are putting in restrictions or have leaders supporting new restrictions  like putting trans kids into foster care when their parents approve of gender-affirming care for them,” trans advocate and assistance giver for those wanting to come to California fur further trans care, told the Globe Tuesday. “Under this law California has, any crazy law like that is stopped at the state border. But now groups here are trying to bring it down. Without California, there is no real place for them to go. The law is critically important.”

Others noted that the overturning of the law could be an uphill battle.

“There are a lot of factors into cases like these, from what judge hears it to how good the state’s lawyers are in defending the law,” added legal researcher Rolando Suarez, Jr. to the Globe on Tuesday. “For this SB 107 case, it is generally difficult to reverse bills passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor. And taking on an Attorney General isn’t exactly a walk in the park. But, as we’ve seen in he past, many others presented their case well and they won, so there’s also a decent chance.”

More on the suit is expected soon.