Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 8772-268-8216 and the access code is 621-7161. Just as a side note, we don't know how many people wish to call in today, but for any bill, testimony, so called MeToo testimony via phone will consist of individuals identifying themselves, their organization and their position. And we'll only do that for 15 minutes.

That may mean that on some bills there may not be folks who are waiting on the phone line who will be able to provide their testimony. Of course, anyone who is here in the building is welcome to provide MeToo testimony after the two primary witnesses testify. We're holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building. I'll ask all Members of the Committee to be present. Room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. We are almost there.

If one more Member arrives, we will have a quorum. Before we hear today's presentations on bills, let us. One, two, three. Not quite. I'm going to note the bills that are currently on consent. And once we have a quorum, we'll take up the consent items. There are six items on the consent calendar today. They are as follows. File number five, AB 690, by Assembly Member Chen. File item number seven, AB 410, by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. File item number eight, AB 502, by Assembly Member Lee.

File item number Nine, AB 288 by Assembly Member Maienschein. File item number 10, AB 1179, by Assembly Member Pacheco. And file item number 11, AB 1740, by Assembly Member Sanchez. Alright, here we go. Almost. A few announcements. I want to welcome two staff Members to Judiciary Committee, Margaret Buxton and Ian Dougherty. I see Ian's here with us in the room. Thank you, Ian, for being here. Margaret has joined us as Committee Assistant and Ian has recently joined staff as Staff Counsel.

So welcome to both of you. I want to note for the first bill in particular... 1, 2, 3, 4. You know what? Let's establish a quorum here. Okay. And then we'll do consent. Thank you, Senator Wilk, for that suggestion.

For the purpose of establishing a quorum. Umberg? Here. Umberg, here. Wilk? Present. Wilk, present. Allen? Ashby? Here. Ashby, here. Caballero? Durazo? Here. Durazo, here. Laird? Here. Laird, here. Min? Niello? Stern? Wiener? Wiener, present. You have a quorum.

Alright. Let's do this. Let's then take up the consent calendar. Is there a motion?

I would move the consent calendar.

Senator Laird moves the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar with a motion by Senator Laird.

Madam Chief Counsel, if you would call the role.

Absolutely. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk? Aye. Wilk, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Min? Niello? Stern? Wiener? Wiener, aye. You have six with six to zero with some Members missing.

Alright, we'll put that on call, 6-0. Alright, I see Assembly Member Wilson is here with us. I want to note, for the first bill, we allow two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each witness will be provided two minutes to speak. After the primary support and primary opposition witnesses have spoken, we'll then hear from all the MeToos. As I've described the MeToo testimony, it is as follows. Your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill.

We'll then turn to phone testimony. We'll hear from both support and opposition phone testimony at the same time. There will be a 15 minutes limit on phone testimony. For those of you on the phone, please limit your testimony again to your name, your affiliation, your position on the bill. If you wish to further expound on your position, you can submit a letter to the Committee using one of the methods described on the Judiciary Committee's website. Just a note to all those who are watching.

We actually can read. So we're going to begin with our first author. I have to proceed to the Assembly. I'll be back here shortly, but thank you, Assembly Member Wilson. So I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Wilk, and I'll be back shortly. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Assemblywoman, go ahead and proceed.

Good afternoon, Senators. I am here to present AB 957, a Bill that would clarify that when it comes to Family Code Section 300:11, specifically when it comes to disputes over custody, that the definition of the health, safety, and welfare of the child include a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity. Senators, currently, when parents do not agree on affirming a TGI, which I'll use that acronym, regularly, means transgender, gender diverse, and intersex.

When a parent do not agree on affirming a TGI child's gender identity, the Family code fails to provide guidance on how judges should consider the best interests of a TGI child. AB 957 was originally introduced to amend both Family Code 3011 and the Code of Civil Procedure, but after working with the Committee, it was narrowed in scope to only amend family Code 3011. The amendments taken do not substantially differ from its previous version.

Our Bill was always amending Section 3011 of the Family Code. However, instead of stating that a judge must consider a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity because it's in the best interest of the child to affirm their gender identity, the amendments provide better clarity that as a judge, it's considering factors in a custody dispute. The health, safety, and welfare of the child also include the affirmation of the children's of a child's identity.

This amendment allows judicial discretion when conducting an analysis of the best entrance of the child. Given that affirmation can occur in many different ways, the language prevents the creation of a checklist that must be met in order to demonstrate affirmation. I also want to take the opportunity to address some things that have been stated about this Bill. I've heard from some folks that our Bill does not define what affirmation means.

However, a plain language reading of the word affirmation is that to affirm a child's gender identity is to accept and support it. Family code 300:11 also does not strictly define the term health, safety and welfare, but courts are able to interpret the plain language meaning of these words to account for a myriad of circumstances depending on the case before them. In addition, some have expressed concerns that this Bill equates the lack of affirmation on gender identity to abuse.

First, our Bill is not referencing the Criminal Code and would not be used as any sort of means of deeming or charging a parent as abusive. Second, it should be stated that this code section is not solely related to abusive behavior as in the same code section. The judge must also consider the nature and amount of contact with both parents, which has nothing to do with abuse. Some have concerns about forcing medical procedures upon children.

We also want to clarify that our Bill is not referencing gender affirming care or gender affirming health care, which is a separate process between one's Doctor and a child's parents and not something we are asking a judge to consider custody upon. Others have expressed concern that folks who are tolerant of their child's gender identity will be incorrectly labeled as not affirming their child's identity. Affirmation is not binary, just like health, safety and welfare is not binary. Family courts and judges are looking at the whole picture.

If both parents are accepting of their child's gender identity, this issue will not be the theme that tips scale towards any parent. Affirmation of gender identity looks different for each individual, but the primary modality of gender affirmation is family acceptance and social support. It is also a recognition that all people, no matter their age, are dynamic and constantly growing and changing. What affirmation looks like at one stage of growth may look very different from another stage.

The intent behind our amendment is specifically to allow nuance for the judge to account for similar situations, and the larger issue surrounds parents who are antagonistic to their child's gender identity. Being antagonistic to a child's gender identity dramatically affects a child's mental well being. Conversely, in TGI children that experience familial acceptance, suicide attempts are reduced by half. TGI youth are already at a higher risk of depression, mental health crisis, self harm, and suicide than their CIS peers.

82% of transgender folks experience suicide ideation and 40% make a suicide attempt in their lifetime. Furthermore, many TGI children are not safe in their own homes because of a non informing or abusive caretaker. This leads many TGI youth to run away from home, leaving them vulnerable to housing instability, expectation, and abuse. Research demonstrates that family acceptance of LGBTQ plus youth is a crucial protective factor, a crucial protective factor in combating depression and substance abuse.

Wellrounded social support from friends and family Members is strongly associated with the positive mental development, physical health, and overall well being. AB 957 would center the health and welfare of TGI youth by acknowledging that affirmation of their gender identity is in their best interest. I would like to now introduce my witnesses, Jonathan Clay with Trans Youth Liberation and Melissa Thomas with the Women's foundation of California.

I'll remind each speaker two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Whenever you're comfortable.

Proceed, chairperson and Senators, my name is Melissa Thomas. My pronouns are they them. I'm an attorney and a police Policy Institute state Fellow. The Women's foundation of California is a proud co sponsor of AB 957, the Trans Gender Diverse and Intersex, or TGI, Youth Empowerment Act.

Nearly one in five Trans and nonbinary youth attempted suicide last year, but LGBTQ plus youth who felt a high rate of social support from their families attempted suicide at less than half the rate of those who felt less social support. We could cut suicide attempts by TGI children in half simply by empowering parents to support their children, which can include using their correct pronouns, calling them by their names, letting them wear gender affirming clothing, or even seeking gender affirming care.

Family Courts center the best interests of the child in all decisions about visitation and custody. As articulated in this Committee's analysis, these decisions are extremely fact specific. Family Code 3011 lists several factors to consider, including the health, safety and welfare of the child. Current law, however, does not address the unique needs of TGI kids, particularly in the really difficult situations where only one parent affirms their child's gender identity.

AB 957 would clarify what has already been confirmed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and World Professional Association for Transgender Health that affirming a child's gender identity is integral to their health, safety and welfare. This would mean that parents who accept their children for who they are would be recognized by the courts for what they are already doing, looking out for their children's best interest. Last year, fewer than one in three Trans and non binary kids found their home to be gender affirming.

This year, we can change that by empowering parents to affirm their TGI children. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of Trans Family Services and Trans Youth Liberation. I'm a board Member for Trans Youth Liberation. We're a San Diego based group that have served over 3500 Trans family and their youth and their families. We serve families on a journey of having a transgender child, families who often find themselves in a family court not only navigating custody and visitation, but also a gender journey. This Bill will codify that affirming a child's gender is in their best interest.

This will simply add gender affirmation to the current list of factors to consider for custody and visitations. And I just want to emphasize that to consider this is still left up to judges and their discretion as they weigh a multitude of factors in making these decisions. In the family law process, we have served many families that have found themselves in family court with one parent who is following the lead of the child and affirming and one parent who is not.

This situation puts the child and the family in a very vulnerable position. The court needs to have guidance on how to make these decisions and to be able to put the needs of the child first, which should be what everyone tries to do going through a family law process, as well as provide affirming parent the support they need to continue to affirm their gender diverse child. This Bill will do just that.

AB 957 should not be confused with the rhetoric around gender affirming medical care. Affirming a young child looks like changing names, new clothing, maybe haircuts. Medical care is only for adolescents and happens within the confines of a team of doctors, mental health providers, the youth and their families. Having to be in the family court is challenging enough for any child, but for our gender diverse children can be devastating.

I speak here today on behalf of these youth and their families, and I urge your support of this Bill. And I'll just note, as the analysis so articulately defined, and as the author has pointed out, the challenges for transgender youth and suicide, isolation and suicide is very real. Having worked with a lot of these families, we hear all these stories. Sorry.

And so anything that we can do to affirm those children and help them through this process and reduce those threats to their lives, I think is worthy of consideration by this Legislature. Thank you very much.

Thank you. At this time, anybody who is in support of the Bill can come up to the desk there. This is called me, too testimony. So your name and organization, if you belong to one, and your position on the build. So this is supporters.

Good afternoon. Craig Pulser. On behalf of Equality California, proud co sponsor and strong support.

Thank you. No. All right, well, now we're going to go to primary. zero, we do have a few outside. OK, great.

Alicia Benavidez Lewis, here in strong support. My personal capacity, on behalf of my Trans sister.

Thank you.

Arisa Dean from Los Angeles. Here in strong support of AB 957.

Thank you.

Jasmine Amens, on behalf the National Center for Youth Law in Strong Support.

Thank you.

Kim McElmay, California. I'm in support.

Thank you.

Quinn Vidas from Folsom, California. I'm in support because Trans kids deserve a future. Trans Kids'lives matter, and we must stop trans genocide.

Thank you. Joshua views, Folsom, California. And I'm in support. Thank you.

Tyler Rindy, on behalf of the California alliance of Child and Family Services, in support. Thanks.

Anna Marie Smith, Sacramento. I support.

Thank you.

Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, in support. Thank you.

Noah Bartelt with ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Serena Nuran. I'm a college student. I'm very, very strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Estrada, on behalf of California Latinas for Reproductive justice and strong support.

I'm Carrie west with the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats. Strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. Evan Menton, openly transgender advocate. Know how important this life saving Bill is. And strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Beth Mora Mora employment law, plaintiff, employment attorney. Strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Forrest Cameron. I'm a student intern at the Western center on Law and Poverty. Strong support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Christopher Sanchez, policy advocate at the Western center on Law and Poverty. Dido with my intern. We strongly support this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mariko Yoshiha, on behalf of equal rights advocates, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Samantha Shady. I'm with citizens for choice in Nevada county, and I'm in full support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Theodore Brito. I'm a student at UC Davis, and I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sofia Pedrosa. I'm a gender fluid attorney here in California in strong support.

Thank you. Sergeants, is that all? Okay, great. Now we'll move to opposition on the Bill. Do we have any primary witnesses? Again, 2 minutes. Two speakers. 2 minutes.

I am Aaron Friday, lead of our duty, an attorney and a mother of a girl who used to believe that she was a boy. AB 957 is the first Bill in the nation to codify into law that a parent who does not affirm the gender identity of the child is abusive. There is no nuance in this Bill.

It matters not the age of the child, the absurdity of the identity adopted comorbid mental health issues or persistence, family court judges will be compelled to favor the child. Who will affirm the child's delusion? Parents can easily game the system and use gender as retaliation against each other. What happens when one parent will socially affirm the child but will not agree to medicalize? Does the parent willing to do more transitioning prevail?

AB 957 unambiguously states that the health, safety and welfare of the child includes a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity. If it passes, it will be child abuse. If one does not affirm a child's gender identity, and not just in custody cases, the triad of words health, safety and welfare will be used by CPS judges and police to take children away from parents like me, who knew better than to concretize their child's gender identity.

The Penal Code defines neglect as harm to a child's health and welfare. It also defines harming a child as causing the child's health to be endangered. Child abuse or neglect is defined in the Penal Code as endangering the health of a child. In a case last year entitled Hall Saul H. A minor was not returned to his parents because returning him to his family was not in the best interest of his health, safety and welfare. So there we have it, folks.

Any parent who does not affirm the gender identity of their child is an abusive parent. Upwards to 88% of all gender confused kids will return to their being comfortable in their sex bodies if they are not affirmed. We really want to penalize parents for their belief in science.

Thank you. Next.

My name is Abigail Martinez. It has been three years and 164 days since I lost my daughter Yaley. I miss her every single day. Let me tell you how she died. My daughter was murdered by a gender ideology. CPS took my daughter when she was 16 years old. It was helped by her public school counselor, an LGBTQ group, Rise and another Trans identified girl. My daughter was taken from her loving home because the State of California claimed I was abusive for not affirming her Trans identity.

I lost my daughter over a name and a pronoun. Even after I promised to call her a male name. It wasn't enough. My daughter was not a boy trapped in a girl's body. She had mental health issues. Against my consent, my daughter was given testosterone. Instead of therapy, the LGBTQ group used her to raise money for them. Look at the poor reject Trans boy. They said, why are there so many transgender in foster care? Because this.

They take them from their families, tell them to run, then steal them parents are given one option to treat their distressed child, affirm drug and remove their healthy body part. Or else lost your child. The abuse claim against me was finally dropped, but it was too late. The damage was done. By then, my daughter was in a horrible mental and physical pain. My daughter knocked down in front of a train. She was murdered by gender ideology. I beg you, stop pushing gender ideology. I don't want any parent to feel what I feel every day. Affirmation is not good for the health, safety and welfare of any child.

Thank you for sharing that. I'm sure that was incredibly difficult. Now we will move on to witnesses in opposition that are in the room. We'll do the same drill as the proponents, meaning name. And if you have an organization list that and that you support, I meant to oppose. I'm sorry.

My name is Marilyn Hammond. I'm a grandmother, a mother and a Christian. And I adamantly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Harrison Tinsley, a father of a three year old child. Who stands to get devastated by this Bill. Please vote no. Thank you.

Jennifer Johnson, Placer county resident. I strongly oppose. DB 957. Thank you,

Veronica. And I urge you to vote no. I oppose. I'm a mom.

Wendy Schaffner, Democrat. I have a gender confused daughter. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Jennifer Kennedy from Los Angeles. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Joni Shoemaker. On behalf of the San Joaquin County Republican Assembly. I strongly urge you to vote no on this Bill.

Thank you.

Sarah Thornton, co founder of Freedom Angels, a human and civil rights organization. And we're opposed to the weaponization of gender identity in the family court.

Okay, thank you.

Denise Aguilar, co founder of Freedom Angels. Opposed to the spell stop the genocide of our children.

Thank you.

Hazy Page, with Mom Army, Freedom angels, and on behalf of other people. I live in Placer County, so I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Dick Smith. I'm the founder of Mom army, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. My name is Adam Vina, and I oppose this Bill. My son has been groomed since the age of two years old. And I have lost my son because of the grooming. And I haven't held or seen my son in two and a half years. I oppose this Bill. Thank you. Scott.

Sabrina Williams. I am the Sacramento Battalion leader for Mom Army. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Liz Nemecheck, Mom Army, Orange County. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Beth Fergs, California Family Council. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Christine Marin. I'm from Alhambra, small heights, Mom army, LA. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Barbara Walker from Alameda, California, mother of three. I strongly oppose this Bill. Why would we ask parents all their children the opposite.

Just me too time. Thank you.

My name is Patricia Cabralla from Orange County and I oppose this Bill that would devastate families, especially from Indigenous and Rafa Chicano, Chicano community.

Thank you.

I'm Aka Mrs. G. And I'm here from Orange County, California. And I oppose this Bill and I'm here for my three children and every child in America.

Okay, thank you.

Ali Snyder, registered voter, parent, Member of Standing for Women I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Brandon Wagner, U. S. History teacher, father of 2. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Andrea Domitic Davis, California, mother of four and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Kathleen Siler, Camilla County, mother of three and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Mike Carlson, I'm a Californian, a left leaning populist, and I strongly oppose these bills which are an evolution of eugenics. Thank you.

Catherine Carlson, San Mateo. And I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Lori Boatler, Sacramento, mother, grandmother and great grandmother and I deeply oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Joseph Boatler, Sacramento. I also am a father, grandfather and a great grandfather, and I deeply oppose this Bill. Thank you. It's wrong. Thank you.

Yvette Corcoran, registered nurse, mother of two teenagers and San Francisco resident. Senator Wiener. I adamantly oppose this Bill.

Again, I want to remind everybody, this is simply me to testimony your name. If you have an organization, share it and your position on the Bill. No editorializing.

Joshua Coleman from Roseville, California, and I vehemently oppose this Bill that targets vulnerable children. Thank you.

Shannon Hile of Sacramento Moms for Liberty and we oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Heather Heil, Sacramento county resident and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Daphne Hewitt, representing Catholic families for freedom and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Tanya Vera. I live in California and my daughter was picked up by the LGBTQ and I oppose to all of them.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sandra Marquez. I'm a people of this great United States Republic. I'm a student of the US Constitution and the California Constitution, and I vehemently oppose this.

Thank you.

Unconstitutional. Thank you.

Hello. Heather Delfs, mother of three, grandmother of one, and represent Elkgrove, Mama, Papa Bears and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Wendy Minas from Los Angeles, California. On behalf of my children, my many friends and family back in Los Angeles, I oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Evelyn Gonzalez. I'm here for my grandchildren and my children, and I deeply oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Deborah Patterson from Pacifica, a grandmother, mother, and deeply oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Jessica Romero from Kalusa County. I'm a mother of three, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Virginia Yarak, El Dorado Hills Republican women, mother of five, grandmother of four, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Jessica Mackey. I'm an East County resident, a mom, and an ICU nurse, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Jessica Reed, El Dorado County. I'm an independently registered voter, a nurse, and a mother, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kim Shea. I am from Lake County, and I adamantly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, thank you. From hearing from the people. My name is Ray Holm. I represent Tuolumne County, and I'm a grandfather and a father, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you, sir.

Svetlana Andres. On behalf of Ukrainian community, I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Clark Andrus, Sacramento county, father of four, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you, sir. Now we're coming in this way. Okay, just a little bit.

Buenas Tardes, Miamo Carolina Lopez, Yomiyaponga. Estelle Elgrove. Ms. Ashby. Gracias.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alina Callahan. I'm a teacher and a parent in Elgrove. I oppose this Bill.

Lisa Renee Dani, from elk grove california and I oppose this bill

Thank you.

April Bean, parent from Sacramento county, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Jeanette Phelps, parent and grandparent from Sacramento county, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Alison Novello, representing reality encompassed values, and I oppose this Bill.

My name is Brandon Carasalis, father from Alameda, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, my name is Kim Emerson, and I strongly oppose this Bill. And I'm from Granite Bay, California.

My name is Arthur Gorman. I am a Shasta County Board of Education, a representative of Area 2. I represent 17,000 people that voted for me, and we oppose this Bill.

My name is Amy Anderson. I'm a mother of five in Orangeville, California, and I vehemently oppose this dogmatic and dangerous Bill. And safeguarding is not a dirty word or term.

Hello, my name is Catherine Mcbride, Placer county mother of three and future grandmother, and I very wholeheartedly oppose this dangerous and sickening Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kasha Williams, on behalf of California Parents Union, representing thousands of Members, parents, teachers, grandparents, in opposition to AB 957. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Audra Sterit. I'm representing my family, and I'm a concerned about mental health of our children. And I am against this Bill.

Hello, I'm Margaret Arader. I am the parent of three children. Some of them are adults. I am representing truth and facts, and I am opposed to 957.

Hello. I am a resident of Placer County, business owner of Sacramento, and Roger Niello is my Senator. I hope he opposes AB 957.

My name is Rochelle Connor. I'm an abolitionist for Frederick Douglass foundation of California. I represent marginalized, unrepresented families of color. And we oppose 957 and respectfully ask for a no vote.

I'm Stephen Barossa. I live in Sacramento. I oppose gender affirming care being a prerequisite for custody. It should not be subjected to children.

Thank you, sir.

Hi, I'm Julius Giles, Independent journalist. I oppose AB 957. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Lisa Disbrough. I represent informed parents of Contra Costa and La Marindans for education, and I hope that Senator Glazer opposes this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Max Bonilla. I'm a Sacramento resident. I'm with rebuild California, that's rebuildCalifornia.com, to voice my opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Lee Fryer, Placer county resident. Father, I oppose this Bill and I urge all of you to oppose it, too. Thank you.

Hello, our representatives. Thank you. My name is Linda Bagnell. I'm from Placer county, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Charlie Simons, live in Placer County, and I would like to, in the name of Christ Jesus, pray against this evil.

Thank you very much, sir. I assume you're opposed. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Josie Reed from Bakersville, California, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sue Williams. I, too, am from Bakersville, California, mom of five, grandma of 14, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Sarah Martinez. I'm a mom from Contra Costa County, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Kara Butler, also from Contra Costa County. I adamantly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ruth. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and I oppose this Bill.

Is that it?

Hello. My name is David Bolog from the Organization affirming transgender children is right for Some families, but not all in opposition.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tina. I'm from Sacramento. I'm opposed to this Bill with a complete disrespect of parental.

Thank you, ma'am. All right, next, please.

Hi, my name is Angelique Payne and I'm from El Dorado county, and I strongly oppose this Bill. It's only our job to parent our children.

All right, thank you.

Hi, my name is Nicole Jensen, mother of three young boys, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Ariane Adam Chakova. I am a public school teacher, an activist, and a resident of San Francisco, where I am a registered Democrat and a lifelong progressive.

My son is opposed. All right, thank you very much. All right, next, please.

My name is Kim Green. I am here to oppose 957. I'm a registered Democrat and political progressive from San Francisco.

Thank you.

And a public school parent.

All right, thank you very much, ma'am. Next, please.

My name is Beverly Talbot. I'm a registered Democrat, a Democratic Party volunteer, and a longtime resident of San Francisco. I strongly oppose AB 957, which is coercive. Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am. So let me just go over the ground rules. So for me, too, testimony, and that's what we're in right now, is me, too testimony. If you give us your name, your affiliation and your position on the Bill, I assume that those who are now testifying are all opposed. If we go beyond that, then unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask for the next person to appear at the microphone. All right, next, please.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Cronin, registered Democrat, lifelong progressive. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

From San Francisco. My name is Cheyenne Kenny. I'm a central Committee Member for the Alameda County Republican Party, and I strongly oppose AB 957.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

We can.

I am so happy to be here. My name is Veronica, and I'm sorry, but I cannot support this Bill. I'm sorry. I'm from Marysville, I suppose AB 957. Have a great day.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Kenny. I'm from Oakland, California. I represent poor moms against overreaching hands and the band Hammerlock and the good people of Oakland.

All right.

I oppose.

All right, thank you very much, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Marcus. I oppose AB 957 with all the great Californians.

All right, thank you very much.

How's it going, guys? My name is Jose. I'm from Santa Clara County, and I oppose Bill 957.

All righty. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Barbara Hyde from Fremont, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Amanda Covitana. I'm a lesbian. I live in San Mateo county, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Kelly Alterman. I'm from Alameda, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Lori Arthur. I'm from Alameda County, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

All right.

My name is Carla Monroy. I'm from Hayward, and as a Hispanic mother, I'm here representing Hispanic parents. And I oppose AB 957.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Teria Ali. I live in Alameda County, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Courtney Di Augustine. Sacramento county, opposed strongly.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Pam Smith, and I oppose this Bill. And I'm a registered voter.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Debbie Munter. I am a nurse anesthetist. I'm a mother, and I really oppose this destructive Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sarah Long. I'm a family nurse practitioner out of Oakland, California. I strongly oppose this destructive Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rochelle. I live in Sacramento county, and I'm a mother of three children, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Dear. Senate Judiciary Committee, my name is Stephanie. I was an independent, but now I'm a Republican because I need to be able to stand up.

All right, thank you. I appreciate your testimony. All right, thank you.

Afternoon. Brena Sheehy here. On behalf of our client, perk advocacy in opposition to AB 957.

Thank you.

Les Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy center, in strong opposition to AB 957.

Thank you. Thank you.

Deborah King, and I'm the County of Sacramento county, and I'm a mother of two children, and I oppose 957.

Thank you.

My name is Beau King. I live in Sacramento county, and I strongly oppose AB 957.

Thank you.

Christine Campbell, concerned parent, strong opposition.

Thank you.

Brandon Campbell, Faith Baptist Church Week in California, Northern California, Director of the Capital Connection for Independent Baptist Churches, in opposition.

Thank you.

Tim Bennefield, pastor of Golden Valley Baptist Church in Patterson and also a father of three and strong opposition of 957.

Thank you.

Richard Miller, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Atwater, California, also father of five. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Pastor Donnie Wilson. Lighthouse Baptist Church in Marino Valley, California, Southern California, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Aj Harold, pastor of solid rock Baptist Tabernacle in Los Angeles County, also Professor at Pacific Baptist College in Los Angeles County, father of 12, strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Haley Gregory, a concerned mom to me, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Grace Gregory, concerned woman, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Jim Edmonds, father of two, strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Gabrielle Ingram, founder of Stand up Sacramento county in Angelic Ashby's district, strongly opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Amy. I am in Senator Ashby's district, and I oppose this Bill and ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Gary Lindsay, father of two, opposed.

Thank you.

Angelina Ramirez, mother of five, and I oppose.

Thank you.

Jessica Wagner, mother of two, teacher of thousands, I oppose.

Thank you.

Jesus Ventura on behalf of the Soldiers of St. Michael of Elk Grove, we strongly oppose.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Francisco Garibay, longtime Stocktonian. I oppose to AB 957 and AB 665.

Thank you. Alright, give us your name.

Francisco

And your position on the bill.

I'm in opposition.

Alright, thank you.

My name is Mary Jane, and I'm in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Melissa. I am a mother of four, and I'm also in opposition.

Thank you.

My name is Ana Moreno from Contra Costa County, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rebecca Smith, and I wanted to state my opposition to AB 957.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, we're going to now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in both support and opposition to AB 957. Just for those of you who are on the phone line, we're going to take 15 minutes of testimony, and then we're going to cut it off. That means that there are a number of people who are currently waiting on the phone line that won't be able to provide their testimony. However, feel free to send us written communications. You can look at our website and that will give you instructions as to how to submit written communications. Alright. Moderator, if you turn to the phone line, go ahead and open the lines.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0. Your area tone is placed into the queue. You may remove yourself from the queue by pressing one, then zero again. We will be going to line 117. Please go ahead.

Opposition?

Go ahead. State your name, your affiliation, and your position.

In opposition

Your name. Your affiliation.

Gary Gruber, Sacramento.

Opposed?

Opposed.

Alright, next caller.

Next, we'll go to line 207. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Vanessa Santos. I'm from Stanislaus County, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, we'll go to line 133. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Wendy Beal. I'm with Moms for Liberty, Placer County, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, go to line 213. Please go ahead.

Next, we'll go to line 198. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Asael Limon Senior. I represent all the fathers in Southern California, and I strongly oppose.

Next, we'll go to line 187. Please go ahead.

Nudia Panegas from Van Nuys. I oppose this bill.

Next, we'll go to line 167. Please go ahead.

My name is Jordan Renick. I'm from Bakersfield, California, and I'm strongly in opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 226. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you. Go ahead.

Hi. Sorry, there's an echo. My name is Sharina Latch. I'm a mother of three, and I represent Indigenous tribes and mental health advocate. And I'm in strong opposition of AB 957. Keep your hands off our kids.

Thank you very much.

Next, we're going to line 149. Please go ahead.

I am Blake Anderson, a homeowner within an HOA and a registered voter in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego City. I'm a normal gay person and not an LGBT gay, and I oppose the bill.

Thank you.

Next, we go to line 193. Please go ahead.

My name is Araceli Mendez, out here from Fresno County calling, and I oppose the bill.

Next, we go to line 222. Please go ahead.

Hello. Fernando Orozco, Los Angeles County. Single father and emergency room registered nurse, opposed this bill.

Next, we go to line 162. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Dawn Caruso. I'm a Santa Clara resident and a mother, and I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we're going to line 234. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Erin Evans. On behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California, in strong support. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 218. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm... Rodriguez. I'm from Stanislaus County, and I oppose this bill.

Next, we're going to line 63. Please go ahead. 63, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Doris. I'm a mother of two and a nurse, and I am opposed to AB 957.

Next, we're going to line 60. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Sarah Kim on behalf of TV Next and Asian community, I strongly oppose this destructive bill. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 165. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jack Assadourian, a lifelong resident of Glendale, California, and on behalf of the Armenian American community, I adamantly oppose AB 957. Thank you very much.

Next, we go into line 182. Please go ahead.

Suzette Rijo, Los Angeles. I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we go into line 125. Please go ahead.

This is Mariah Baughn, MD, a licensed and practicing medical doctor in the State of California and mother in San Diego. I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, we'll go to line 191. Please go ahead.

My name is Lori Lopez from Riverside County, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, we go to line 124, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Eric Troy from Riverside, California, father of two. I'm an atheist, and I typically lean liberal, but I strongly oppose this bill.

Next to go to line 224. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Maria Salis. I'm a nana, mom from California, and I oppose this bill.

Next, we're going to line 199. Please go ahead.

Ashley Elizabeth, and I vehemently oppose this bill.

Next, we go to line 114. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Karen Reese, Christian home school mom from Contra Costa County. I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, we're going to line 232. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Christy Brown from San Diego County, mother of three, and I strongly oppose.

Next, we'll be going to line 105. Please, go ahead.

Michelle Ortiz, Whittier, California, mom of four, strongly oppose this bill on behalf of my family.

Next we'll be going to line 141. Please go ahead.

Hi, Teresa Barnes of Los Angeles, California, mom of three, strongly opposed.

Next, we're going to line 118. Please, go ahead.

Julie Harris, San Francisco, California, mom of two, strongly opposed.

Next, we go on to line 153. Please, go ahead.

My name is Linda Radcliffe, resident of San Diego County, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Next, we go on to line 135. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Chris. I'm a parent and an educator and a registered Democrat in LA County, and I oppose this bill.

Next, we're going to line 196. Please go ahead.

My name is Jamie Reyes, mother of two, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, we're going to line 215. Please go ahead.

My name is Bridget Ayers from Chino, California. I'm a Christian mother of six, and I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we go on to line 93. Please, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Laurel Gregory, I'm from Orange County, mother of three, former teacher. I strongly oppose this dangerous bill.

Next, we go on to line 169. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Susan Barka of Orange County. I'm a mother of four and a public school teacher of 26 years, and I oppose AB 957. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 85. Please, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Shannon Kurtz, mother, representing California Parents Rights Act Now. We strongly oppose.

Next, we go on to line 84. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Timothy Kim, I'm from Stanislaus County. I'm a pastor. I strongly oppose this bill.

Next, we go on to line 75. Please go ahead.

My name is Gina Robertson from West Covina, and I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we'll go to line 160. Please go ahead.

My name is Raquel Holguin. I represent Catholic Families for Freedom, San Bernardino and Riverside County, and we strongly oppose this bill.

Next we'll go to line 156. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Nicole Malpi. I oppose AB 957. I'm from LA County. Thank you.

Next we go into line 205. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Teresa Rodriguez from Riverside County. My mother and grandmother and I strongly oppose this bill.

Next we'll go into line 180. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Ivania Duarte, mother of three. I'm from LA County and I oppose AB 957.

I do apologize. I accidentally connected my line. We will go to line 197. Please go ahead.

My name is Denise Rodriguez. I am a mom and a California resident, and I strongly oppose Bill AB 957.

Next, we'll go to line 210. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Jacqueline Seha, mother of two, and I oppose this Bill.

Next, we'll go to line 214. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Nusheen Deitches from Temecula Valley. I'm strongly opposed to AB 957.

Next, go to line 248. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Eric Harris, Disability Rights California. Strong support of AB 957.

Next, go to line 247. Please go ahead.

Penny Harrington, mother and grandmother from San Diego, county, strongly opposed.

Next, we'll go to line 206. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Joanne Piota, mother, grandmother, registered nurse from San Diego. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 188. Please go ahead.

Debbie Perez Farokes, California. I'm a mother, grandmother and health professional who currently helps detransitioning individuals. I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we'll go to line 175. Please go ahead.

My name is Jasmine Holsher. I'm a mother from Los Angeles County and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Next, we're going to line 74. Please go ahead.

Alison Guyman from Orange County. I'm a parent and I oppose.

Next, we're going to line 54. Please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Connie Jordan. I represent the Coalition of Mothers and grandmothers of Orange County and we are opposed.

Next, we'll go to line 245. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Kenneth from Riverside County, school board advisor for Lexit, also co founder of Fathers of Fortitude and a governing board trustee. I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we will go to line 163. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Annette Pantoha. I'm calling from Riverside, California. I'm a mom of three and I strongly oppose AB 957.

Next, we'll go to line 172. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Marion Syed, and I'm a gender nonconforming future mother in San Mateo County. And I strongly oppose AB 957. Thank you.

Next, we'll be going to line 192. Please go ahead.

Jessica Sanchez and I strongly oppose this.

Next, we go to line 97. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Anna McCorian. I am opposing AB 957.

Next, we go to 213. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Ace Anaya. Half of the California TGI Policy alliance, which is a co sponsor. I strongly support.

We have 1 minute left. For those who wish to call in.

Next, we go to line 237. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Kelly Shankowski from Monterey County. I represent over 7000 Members in alliance to protect children, and I strongly oppose this ridiculous Bill.

Next, we'll go to line 200. Please go ahead.

Hi, Adiana Young from Highland, California. Mother two I oppose this Bill.

Next, we'll go to line 255. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Rochelle, and I am in San Joaquin county, and I am strongly opposed to that pedophile, Scott. We are holding office.

All right, thank you. Moderator next caller, please. Next caller, please.

Next, we'll go to line 119. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is April Schnarz. I'm a speech pathologist, parent voter from Los Angeles County, and I strongly oppose.

All right, thank you. Moderator last call.

All right, the last one we'll be taking is line 186. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Esther Clark. Valencia, California. Mother and special education teacher. I strongly oppose AB 957. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, bring it back to Committee. Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have to say, I've been following a lot of the commentary online and in the media about this Bill, and unfortunately, there's been a pretty massive misinformation campaign about this Bill by the right wing media and right wing social media influencers. It is tragically a massive and well orchestrated campaign to erase trans children, to pretend they don't exist, to suppress them. Which honestly, is no different than the suppression that we have seen for centuries, the suppression of gay and lesbian kids. And we need to remember that all the arguments that we hear against so many parts of this Bill and against acknowledging the existence of trans kids, those have all been made against gay and lesbian kids, that you can change them, that it's not real, that it's a phase, that they're confused, that it's a mental health problem. Let's not pretend for a second that the attacks on and the attempts to erase trans kids, let's not pretend for a second that that is not also an attack on gay and lesbian kids. It absolutely is. I want to thank the author for introducing this Bill and for leading on this Bill and for persevering on this Bill, even despite the just horrific personal attacks that have been launched against her. The author is someone with deep lived experience who knows exactly what she is talking about. I also just want to note that in the right wing media, there has been, at times, an erasure of the author's leadership. There are articles that leave her name out entirely and only mention my name. Even though I am not leading on this Bill, I am not the lead author of this Bill. Either minimize her role or erase it entirely. Why would you do that? We should ask ourselves why they would do that. Because it benefits their narrative that this is about perversion and harming kids. It benefits that narrative to say that the Bill is somehow introduced by a gay man who doesn't have children, using photos of me from Folsom Street Fair. I like those photos. But why choose those photos over other photos? It benefits our narrative way more than acknowledging that the author who is leading on this Bill is a straight woman with kids, including a trans kid who knows exactly what she's talking about. It's straight up homophobia and it's disrespectful to the author. This Bill is not about gender affirming care, but that has been raised over and over and over again online and here today. So I want to say a few things. There's this narrative that people are somehow, like, going to steal or stealing kids and forcing them to have gender affirming care. There's also this narrative that a massive number of people transition and regret it. These narratives are false. In California, gender affirming care, other than counseling can only happen if a parent consents to it. The age of consent, if the kid is not emancipated, is 18. So when kids in California receive gender affirming care, it is overwhelmingly with the consent and the support of their parents. We also know from studies that the vast, vast majority of trans people, including kids who transition, do not regret their transition. There was a review of 27 studies involving almost 8000 teens and adults who transitioned, and 1% regretted their decision. Of course, for anyone who does regret, we should support them and they should have access to all of the health care that they need, but that should not deprive the other 99% from receiving health care. We also know that affirmation, gender affirmation, and gender affirming care dramatically benefits the mental health of trans kids. There was an NIH study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, quote, Transgender and Nonbinary Youth sustained improvement in depression and anxiety over two years after starting treatment with gender affirming hormones. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association about Youth. 13 to 20. Those receiving care had a 60% lower odds of depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality compared to youth who hadn't received cares. And we know there are various studies that show that trans youth with supportive parents have significantly lower risk of suicidality. Trans kids with supportive parents have significantly lower risk of attempting suicide. People, I think some have been led to believe that this Bill somehow applies to every family and that we heard it at the beginning, that this complete misrepresentation of the Bill, that the cops are going to come into people's homes and grab their kids because you're not affirming enough. This Bill is about divorce proceedings and custody. That's what this is about. This Bill is about situations where the Family Court is already involved, where you are already in court because you have kids, you're getting a divorce, and the court has the job of deciding custody, visitation, et cetera, where the court is already scrutinizing every aspect of the family's life. Courts consider a huge number of factors when they decide custody and visitation. Many, many factors. All this Bill does is clarify that among all of those many, many other factors, that affirmation of the child's gender should be considered. Because we know that gender affirmation has mental health benefits and we know that having supportive parents makes it less likely that that child will attempt to kill themselves. Are we really going to say that those facts are somehow not relevant to a divorce and custody proceeding? Of course the court should take those into account, and that's why this Bill is important, and I'm happy to move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Wiener, others, Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And because of the tremendous interest in this Bill, I actually had a substantial number of the emails my office received polled and I read them and I listened to the testimony. I've read and reread the analysis. And one thing I should say just clearly is name calling is not persuasive. We're trying to look at this on the merits, and the question is what this Bill does. And what this Bill does is it's one of many, many factors in deciding visitation and custody. Not the only factor, not the deciding factor. It allows judicial discretion. And if. Will the courts be required to side with a parent that affirms their child's gender identity? No. Will the Bill require a parent to provide their child with gender affirming care to win a custody dispute? No. Will parents who do not affirm their child's gender identity be found liable for child abuse and have their child removed from their home? No. These are clear things here. And it was said that this was a prerequisite for custody. It is not. The one interesting thing is one of the emails said young people need support and counseling above all. I totally agree. And that is generally part of the process in all these proceedings or in dealing with the whole issue of gender affirming care. And the age of consent was already described. And so I think this has been talked about as being something that this particular Bill is not. And one other thing to say is Senator Wiener talked about just sort of gay and lesbian kids. And there was a very interesting study done by San Francisco State. It was roughly 10 years ago, and I think it addresses these issues. But it was something that was not a surprise. And it was looking at kids. And if they were substantially rejected by their family, it turned out they were at a much higher risk for drugs, for living on the streets, for having to do things to make a living that we would want no child to do, or they felt better about themselves. They were much more successful. And the interesting thing was they circled back to the parents that were surveyed, and it actually changed people's minds because the last thing they really wanted was for their kid to be on the streets or their kid to be more at risk because of them. And I think the same thing is at effect here. And yet this Bill doesn't reach that far into it. It just says it's one of many, many things that be considered. It doesn't require. This is about solely visitation and custody discussions that are in court. This isn't a health care Bill. This isn't a law enforcement Bill. This doesn't set up fines. And so I think that's the reason that we have to consider this on its merits, and I will be supporting the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Others. All right. Senator Allen.

Well, let me start by saying that Senator Laird is absolutely right about a number of these things. I think that we're talking about custody here, and this is such an incredibly sensitive topic because the relationship between a parent and a child is so sacrosanct. But, that really is at the heart of the Bill. I think some of the comments that have been made, including during the testimony, really are just not what's in the Bill, at least from my understanding. I've read the analysis. Certainly, you know, Senator Laird's comment about how this is supposed to be, at least the way it's framed, it would be, one of many factors that would be taken into account is the way I read the Bill. All that being said, I think there's a kernel of truth to some of the concerns that have been raised, and I certainly want to make sure that just because someone has, I don't know if someone might be religious, for example, and there's nothing that they do as a parent, that would impact the health and welfare and mental well being of the child. They accept the child's decisions, but they struggle with it themselves. I would certainly want to make sure that person wasn't dinged under a custody dispute in the context of this Bill. And so I guess my challenge, I've heard various interpretations through the course of the conversation today about the word affirmation affirmed, and in some respects, it seems to be almost purposely vague. From my perspective, affirmation has always seemed like a proactive thing. And I guess I'm happy to support the Bill today, but I would like the author and the chair to spend some time working together on tightening up some of the language so that we can make sure that a parent for whom we have no concern about impacting the mental health of the child, but who may have a personal, perhaps a religious conflict with gender fluidity, wouldn't be dinged if we don't have a concern about their ability to be a good parent to that child. And that's my concern. I think looking at this Bill, and I know that there's conversations happening between the author and the chair that I hope will be fruitful over the course of the next few weeks so that we can tighten up the language and get to a place that I think meets the goals of the author while also addressing what I hear is the legitimate concerns from some folks on the opposition.

Assemblymember Wilson, you can respond, or would you like to respond toinyour close?

I can respond in my close if that's fine. I don't know if there was any.

Other satisfactor you, Senator Allen.

Sir, I know there are other Members who want to speak.

All right. And Senator Niello wishes to speak. So go ahead, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for pronouncing my name the way it is in the mother Country. Appreciate that this is a difficult issue, and I have the greatest of respect for my colleagues, Senator Wiener and Senator Laird. Senator Laird and I have known each other for a lot of years, and I don't come to the question with any particular bias one way or the other. But gender affirmation care is a relatively new thing. Gender dysphoria is not. It's just more recognized recently. And gender affirmation care is a way of treating that in a way that Senator Wiener eloquently defended. And I get that. The issue is, though other countries around the world are beginning to question this. The UK, in fact, did a comprehensive review of gender affirming care, and they described the social transition as an active intervention with significant effects on child or young persons in terms of their psychological functioning, and emphasized that it is not a neutral act and better information is needed about outcomes. The systemic review found the evidence on managing gender incongruence inconclusive due to lack of long term data. Similarly, Sweden, Finland, and Norway have since rejected gender affirmative care for children. Now, I don't know which side of it is correct. I'm just saying I'm new to the issue, and I understand what Senator Laird said in clarifying what this Bill does. But the elevation of the issue accepts gender affirmation care as an accomplished science and accepts gender affirmation as the appropriate approach by a parent. And my concern is, given the conclusions of the UK and those three Scandinavian countries, not exactly restrictive types societies, I have concerns about making the conclusion that this Bill does, bringing it into a custody dispute and.

Is that a question, Senator Niello? No, it's not. Okay.

The author is certainly welcome to address it in her close.

All right.

I just want to make sure if it's okay to clarify. Are you noting that gender affirmation care is in the language of the Bill? Are you noting that gender affirmation is equivalent to gender affirmation care? So I know how to respond appropriately?

Yeah. No, I'm not saying that they're equivalent. What I am saying is that the supposition of the Bill is that gender affirmation should be considered in custody issues.

Okay.

And that, I think, brings along the implication that to make the affirmation that the care, gender affirmation care would be appropriate and that should be considered in a custody case.

Thank you for that clarification. But I'll do it in the close.

I understand it is very difficult to conclude to the contrary of that in my mind.

Understood. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Senator Caballero. Then Senator Wilk, then Senator Ashby.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank everybody that showed up here today. This is a difficult conversation, and it's a difficult conversation because it has to do with our children and it has to do with their welfare. But let me just tell you that to me, this Bill is about listening to our children. It's about accepting them for who they are. It's about loving them unconditionally, even if they're different from us. And we're asking courts to make a difficult decision when there is a family separation, a divorce or a separation, it's hard for judges to figure out. I'm an attorney and I've sat through many, many cases and seeing how difficult it is for the court who has to rely on information that the parents give as to what's going on in the family dynamics. And usually what a social worker has to say after doing an investigation and trying to determine what should happen to children. And so I understand how challenging this is. So let me just say that I'm going to support the Bill today because I understand where you're trying to go with this and the triggers that make it very difficult. And I do appreciate what Senator Niello had to say is that there is a conflation of gender affirmation with gender affirmation medical care. And so I think the most telling statement you made is about family acceptance and social support, because that's really what we're looking at, is do the children have that level of acceptance with the discussions that are going on because the discussion is very difficult with a four year old than it is with a 16 year old. I think there's some work that's needed on the affirmation because I think it can be conflated. I don't have the answer today, but I think it's important that we use words that a judge can reasonably understand to meet to mean not that there's medical care that's going to be given, that may be necessary in some instances, which I won't discuss here. But really what we're talking about is support and acceptance, because the high suicide rate, the high disconnect with society is when there's not family acceptance, when there's criticism and non acceptance and the kind of bullying and ostracization that can occur because a child may just be trying to discover who they are. And I think that's really what we want to support. And children have different interests all along their life, and we want parents to really focus on being there and being, accepting and helping their children through whatever transition that they're going through, because it's not just in the family, it's in society as well. So in any case, I really appreciate what you're trying to do, and I want to encourage you to continue the discussion, and I reserve the right not to support it on the floor if it doesn't change, because I think that there's challenges with exactly what does it mean? And I don't think we want to send something to the court that causes confusion or wrong decisions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Caballero. Senator Wilk, then Senator Ashby, Then Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank everybody for coming out and testifying today. I'm now in year 11 in the state Legislature, and all the time we're proposing policies to protect children. Well, after 11 years, I've come to a conclusion that we need to start protecting parents. That's just not happening. I've been here, witnessed a full frontal assault on charter schools, taking away parents choice and how their children could be educated to the detriment, particularly of children of color. In recent years, we have put government bureaucrats between parents, children and doctors when it comes to medical care. And now we have this, where if a parent does not support the ideology of the government, they're going to be taken away from the home. Now, I agree with both Senator Wiener and Senator Laird that today it only involves divorce proceedings. And frankly, a judge can already factor this in. But I can assure you it's not going to end with divorce proceedings. In the past, when we've had these discussions and I've seen parental rights atrophied, I've encouraged people to keep fighting. I've changed my mind on that. If you love your children, you need to flee California. You need to flee. We are moving towards the pathway of the handsmaid tale. California is becoming the new Juliet, and it just breaks my heart. Born and raised in this state, I love this state. I'm not going to stay in this state because it's just too oppressive, and I believe in freedom, and so I'm going to move to America when I leave the Legislature.

All right, Senator Ashby.

Okay. On that note, I'm not 11 years into my term in the Legislature. I'm about five months into my term in the Legislature, and I'm going to do the best I can here on this Bill. I want to start by saying that, Assembly Member Wilson, I'm happy to see you standing vertically in front of us, brave, with your bald head and all, and presenting your bills, not just this one, but all of your bills. It's really honorable, and I know you're fighting your own battles, and I'm just happy to see you standing in Sacramento today. I called her yesterday because I had a lot of concerns about the bills. I didn't want to bother her because she is dealing with a lot of personal health issues. But I felt like I was hearing from so many people, and if you are keeping track today, it's like a parade of my constituents on both sides. These are the tough ones, when people you care about are on both sides of an issue. And my office has been inundated with thousands of calls. I am a lifelong Democrat. I am a Christian. I am a mom. I consider myself to be a strong ally of the LGBTQ community. I do have situations similar to this in my own family. And yesterday, my very good friend Doug Piper took his own life, and he is a Member of the TGI community. He's not a child, but he is a young man, and I'm trying to take all of that in. I want to take nothing away from anyone's experiences here. I watched carefully as people spoke, and folks spoke passionately on both sides. And you all have deep personal experiences. What I want to say to you on both sides is any parent who stepped to the mic today and said, I love my child more than the government ever will, I believe you. I know you do. This really wouldn't change your outcome, because what this Bill actually does is already in the Bill if a good judge is sitting in front of you, because the Bill calls for the judge to weigh all the circumstances affecting the child's health and well being. If it were to come to the attention of a judge, and I, too, have a law degree and have sat with many families, if it were to come to the attention of a judge that the child was somewhere in a fluid discussion around gender, the judge would ask, they would already do this. They would already ask, does this child have, as Senator Caballero said, family support? That is going to be a reasonable question. What I shared with the author is that I'm having trouble. My law degree mind is forcing me, like Senator Allen very eloquently stated, to have trouble accepting a Bill with terms that are not codified in law because of exactly what Senator Niello said. People are conflating child abuse. This isn't even the Penal Code. This is only in a divorce proceeding. This doesn't have anything to do with that. By the way, in this particular code, even if you were an alcoholic or you had a substance abuse, it wouldn't be a penal code violation under this section of the law because this is only about custody. It is just something that the judge is taking into consideration when they're trying to make the best decision on behalf of a child. So when Senator Niello said that things are being conflated, like actual health care with affirmation, and Assemblywoman Wilson says she means affirmation to be the plain language definition of family acceptance and support, that I understand, and I think there would be broader support for that language. So I would like to echo Senator Allen and Senator Caballero and I believe Senator Nilo's comments that I'm hoping for some clarification when this comes to the Senate Floor and know goes back to the Assembly and on to the Governor, it needs clarification because there are so many people out here who spoke to language that isn't actually in this Bill. But I understand why they did. And I've seen the Twitter warriors who are particularly venomous towards Senator Wiener, and I read this Bill so many times, called some colleagues more senior to me and asked them what they thought of the language, sat down with them, called people I know in the community, tried my very best to do outreach to read messages, to become as informed as I possibly could, and even called you. I know that the process in the Legislature is a little foreign to the audience. It was to me, too. I'm still getting used to it. Like my colleagues, I want to give you the time to make that clarification. The only way to do that is to support you today. I also think what you are seeking to achieve as the mother of a trans child is noble and righteous. But I also want to hear the voices of all the people in the room that are saying, what exactly does this mean? Or they've already decided what they believe that it means. But the law does not bear that outt. At the heart of this Bill, it is about judicial discretion. That is really what this is about. And for me, both in my professional career and here as a Legislator, I have been a supporter of judicial discretion, because judicial discretion means we give the judge as much information as we can, and we ask them to make the best choice and decision that they can based on their experiences. Our system is really set up that way. As Senator Laird said, this question does not become the paramount question. It does not become a question that leads to some penal code or some action taken by CPS. CPS is not involved in these proceedings, nor would they have time for this. This is just about making sure that a child is in a loving, supportive home. And when I think about the number of kids who have taken their own lives because they didn't feel they were in a loving, supporting home, I feel like it is a relevant and righteous question for judges to ask when they're going through this proceeding. So I'm going to support you today, Assemblywoman Wilson, but I am going to join my colleagues in asking you to work with Senator Umberg as judiciary chair on adding some clarifying language that makes it clear that you are really seeking family support and acceptance for children who are working on their self identification, gender identity. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ashby, Senator Durazo.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author. Takes a lot of courage when you know that there's something like this that could trigger a lot of criticism. And I want to thank you for your enormous courage. And my way of thanking you is to support you. It seems to me a very simple and fundamental issue that's taken up in family court. How are you treating the child? That seems to me like a very direct and simple way of looking at it. Are you treating the child with the love and the support that they deserve, or are you treating the child with animosity, with even hate, with even emotional trauma or even physical abuse? Those are all things that a judge should be allowed to consider when they look at the whole family situation. To me, it should be clear for a judge that if the parent is treating them with love, unconditional love, and support and care that everyone deserves, then that's what the judge, that's where the judge will go, and that's how the judge will make a decision. I have in my family two trans members. I love both of them equally before, during, and after. And that's how I would decide whether or not that child should stay in the family. I am so proud of them for having the courage to do what they're doing, and that's how I'm looking at this Bill through the eyes of unconditional love. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. There also Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to note, since a reference was made before the Handmaid's tale, and Gilead, if you look at that story, what happened there is women were forced to give birth, and LGBTQ people were executed by hanging. I just want to say that because I just strongly disagree with that remark.

All right, thank you, Senator Wiener. All right, thank you, Assembly Member Wilson. It's a credit to your leadership and your fortitude that a platoon of Assembly Members are here, which is unusual. They're not just here because they've got a Bill coming up. I think they're here to support your leadership and your fortitude. Point number one. Point number two is that we are charged, at least my view is we are charged to affect public policy here in this Committee and the Legislature. And this Committee is unique in the sense that I believe it is our responsibility to craft laws that can be implemented by a court so that the court receives the kind of direction and guidance that we believe is good public policy and when that law should apply. I've heard my colleagues, my colleagues and you and I have had a discussion about more than one discussion about this, and I believe that you are of honor and that we will continue to work to make sure that the Bill as interpreted by the court will be done in a way that is consistent with your view and our view of public policy. But let me just ask when this applies. So my understanding is that in terms of any custody dispute, that an agreement between the two parents basically doesn't require a judge to intervene. Parents can agree as to whatever form of custody, so long as it doesn't endanger the child, is appropriate, that that will be left alone. The court is not going to intervene when two parents make an agreement as to the appropriate custodial relationships. Is that your understanding?

That's absolutely my understanding. It's only in the case of where any of the laws related to Family Code Section 3011 come into play is when parents do not agree.

Right. So if parents agree, the court need not intervene, number one. Number two is that when two parents don't agree and it requires court intervention, that if the child in question is cisgendered, the child in question has no interest in transitioning, has no indication that they wish to transition to another gender, that the court need not engage in that conversation, that issue analysis at all. Is that your understanding?

Absolutely.

All right. So it's only when parents can't agree, only when there's a family dispute between two parents and one child is either wishing to, interested in, or in the process of transitioning that this would even come into play, is that your understanding.

Would even potentially be considered just because a child is what we call TGI, Trans gender diverse or intersexed, it would only come into play if there was a parent that was antagonistic or anti or non affirming and there was one that was. So just being TGI wouldn't even make this into play either. There'd have to be a distinction between the two parents, and that's what the Bill does. Marks makes a distinction.

But in the overwhelming number of cases where parents can't agree, the Courtney's intervened and the children have no interest or not in transition, this would not come into play. So we're talking about a very small number of cases, right?

Absolutely.

All right. So then is it your understanding, actually, it's not just your understanding. It's the law that says that the interests of the child are preeminent when the court makes a decision. It's the health, I believe it's actually in law. It's the health, welfare and safety of the child that is the preeminent concern of the judge.

Yes, absolutely. First and paramount is health, safety and wellness or welfare.

And the court is in a difficult position to be able to evaluate that based on whatever information the judge has at the time.

Absolutely. Yeah.

And so in terms of the health, welfare and safety, as I understand it, that if you have a child, a TGI child and you have a parent who is not just intolerant but is antagonistic to that child, that can create an issue as to the child's health, welfare and safety, is that right?

It absolutely can. It absolutely can. And we've seen study after study showing that when there is an antagonistic or non affirming parent, that can create an issue for a child.

All right, I think we've heard some studies, and then secondarily, when there's a family that is supportive that actually does benefit the child's health, welfare and safety. Is that your understanding also?

Yes, absolutely.

All right. And so in terms of this law that we're considering today, and it's the sense that the Committee of this Bill is going to pass on, that we will continue to work to make sure that to Senator Allen's point, that if you have a parent who perhaps has a religious belief that is not consistent with someone wishing to transition but is unconditionally loving and tolerant, that that doesn't preclude that parent from having custodial rights, is that your understanding also?

Absolutely. And I think with the language that we have, it would say that. But I get that there might be some lack of clarity that some of our Senators who I adore have concern with. And I think there is opportunity for us to continue that discussion as a part of the legislative process with both you and, of course, Assembly Chair of Judiciary, because it would have to come back to that house as well.

And in the case where parents can't agree, number one. Number two is that there's a child who wishes transition or is in transition, then in that rare case, then the court would take into consideration the parents attitudes towards the transition.

Absolutely. And as it was noted from some of the testimony and even from some of the discussion amongst the Senators here, is that there is an allowance right now for that judicial discretion under the umbrella of health, safety and welfare of the child. But as we know, judicial discretion, they're human beings as well, and all human beings, I love to say it, are beautifully complex and beautifully imperfect. And so this makes it so that there's consistency in judicial discretion, recognizing that parents affirmation, which is the exact language, parent affirmation of child's gender identity is in their best interest versus going to a judge who might determine that that's not in their best interest. And then in the case of a TGI child, rule against the other parent.

And as I understand from our conversation, this is but one of many, many factors that the court is, in the rare case where there is a child who would be within the category as defined by this Bill. In that instance, the court can take into account this as well as all the other factors that have been both listed and other factors, for example, the finances that the court may think are important. Is that right?

Yes, because looking at the totality of the situation, we expect that a child that is in the family court system is coming for a judge, and a judge has all the information at their disposal brought to them by not only the parents, but other outside agencies that may be involved in the care of that child. And so looking at the totality of information, they are weighing a decision. And so what this Bill does is say, as a part of that totality, we want you to add in one more factor. We want to add to not take away all these other things or abuse or that, but just add to that discussion and make sure it's on the radar of a judge, a child who is TGI, they need to be seen and their voices are heard and ensure that they're in an affirming, safe and a supportive environment.

All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. Would you care to close?

Thank you so much. I will add to just one follow up that I forgot to mention is there has been a lot of conversation about taking children away from parents. That happens in a dependence proceeding. It doesn't happen in Family court. Family court deals with just disagreements between two parents, and no state removal is involved in that in any way. All parents have a right to see if they're not abusive or anything of that nature, have a right to spend time with their children. But I would like to thank all the Senators for the robust discussion. It was great to hear from everyone present talking about this. I would definitely like to thank my witnesses, Jonathan and Melissa, for coming and providing their testimony. I'd also like to thank, of course, my Assembly Members for coming and showing support. That's how we roll in the Assembly, and that's a good thing. And also every single person that spoke on this Bill, whether in support or against, and all those that have submitted testimony in support or against, and every single person that has emailed a Senator or Assembly Member on this Bill in support or against. Thank you. I appreciate you. I am glad that you are a part of the voices that are speaking to your representatives about what you care about and what concerns you. I appreciate you taking the time not only to communicate, but also to be physically, for those who are physically present, to be here to speak in support or opposition, it is appreciated. That is a part of our democratic process. I would encourage everyone. As always, we can disagree, but as has been said, we don't have to be disagreeable. I am proud to author this legislation. I am proud as a mother, no qualifier, as a mother of a trans child, as a Christian woman, as a leader in my community, as a representative of the 11th District, as a black woman, I am proud to author this legislation because it is absolutely important that TGI kids are seen in the family court system and seen in a way that affirms them, which at the end of the day is affirmation is about emotional, community, social support. We affirm our children continually. And yes, they're children. They're changing, they're growing, but giving them a safe place to be children and to grow in who they are, recognizing that they are completely separate from you. But at the end of the day, for every single parent, it should be about raising our children to be whole and healthy adults. I was a young mom. I got pregnant very young, and I didn't know what it meant to be a parent. But I remember as I was carrying my child, as I was graduating high school, I knew one thing, that was going to be a whole and healthy child because I didn't have that. That was going to be a whole and healthy adult. And that was intent. And so whatever decision, my child came to me with the issues of the world, the cares of the world, that was the focus. That was the focus that they would be whole and healthy adults. And how could I generate a community, an atmosphere, that would allow them to be that? When a child is in a divorced proceeding, it is such an anxious time, not only for the children, but for the parents as well. It is the craziest time ever. And having been a child, in that, I know what that feels like from a child point of view. I don't know what it feels like from a parent point of view, and I'm glad about that. But there are so many parents who I've heard from who are just. It's such a crazy time. And I want to say to them that this allows their children to be seen. That's it. It's not saying you're bad or you're good. It just allows, if you have a TGI child to be seen in a judicial system that says it is a state policy based on scientific research, not just something anecdotal. That affirmation of a child's gender identity is a good thing. To create a safe place for them is a good thing. And it doesn't leave for judicial discretion to say otherwise, because that's what's happening. That is what is currently allowed by law. And having been a black woman who raised black sons in California, I love judicial discretionary. But there is some issues, because, guess what? They are human beings. And so we want to make sure that they understand that every judge in the State of California recognizes that for a TGI child, affirmation is in their absolute best interest. Period. And I will work with Senator Umberg. I will work with Assembly Member Maienschein, both heads of our judiciary system. Within our legislative bodies to make sure that by the time this passes in the Senate and the Assembly and gets to the governor's desk, that it provides the most clarity possible. Allowable without creating a checklist. Because nobody wants a checklist. Without being so nuanced. We make it irrelevant, and we make it hard for judges to be able to determine. We allow our judges to have judicial discretion. There's a lot of things that we don't define in this language. But I am definitely open, as I always am, on every single one of my bills. And until it gets to the governor's desk, it is open for discussion and amendments. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. If you can call the role. I'm sorry, Madam Chief Council.

This is AB 957 by Assembly Member Wilson with a motion by Senator Wiener. The motion is due pass. Umberg, Umberg aye. Wilk, Wilk no. Allen, Allen aye. Ashby, Ashby aye. Caballero, Caballero aye. Durazo, Durazo aye. Laird, Laird aye. Min, Min aye. Niello. Stern. Wiener, Wiener aye. You have eight to one so far with members missing.

All right, we'll put that on call. All right, five minute break. Let's take a five minute break so folks can clear the room, and then we'll hear from Assembly Member Aguiar Curry.

Okay. Call the Judiciary Committee back to order. The chair and the Vice Chair are off presenting bills in other places. And once again, it has devolved to a third person. We're going to move to item number two, Assembly Bill 933 with Assembly Member Aguiar Curry. Welcome to the Committee the floor is yours.

Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Number three. And Members, I'm here to present AB 933, joint authored by myself and my joint author, Assembly Member Chris Ward. This Bill protects survivors of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination for stepping up and speaking out against their abuser. It is imperative that we use our power as legislators to protect them from ever having to experience sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination under our watch. Members, an act of sexual assault is committed every 68 seconds. And I want to stress that sexual violence does not just affect women, it happens to people of every gender, identity, gender identity, age, or sexual orientation. The survivors are our family, our friends, the staff who support our every accomplishment, and other members of our communities, including the extended capital community. As you all know, the halls of this very institution have not been immune to the unlawful, unwelcomed, and toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination. We must do better. The MeToo movement gave many assault and harassment survivors the opportunity to bravely join countless others in sharing their stories on a national platform in solidarity. However, while survivors courageously came forward, many were served with defamation lawsuits by their abusers. Defamation lawsuits have become the weapon of choice by perpetrators to intimidate, punish, and silence their accusers. Existing law makes certain complaints of sexual harassment privileged and protected from civil defamation actions. However, these protections are limited and leave survivors potentially open to defamation lawsuits if they engage in certain forms of speech. AB 933 will protect survivors of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination by clarifying that claims made in good faith are a form of protected speech. Our expert attorneys and advocates have spent countless hours working on this language to ensure that the protections in this Bill empower and encourage survivors to continue speaking out about their own experience in a safe and protected manner. By exposing these predators, we can prevent them from reoffending. And that means that our staff is safer, our families and our neighbors are safer, and the public at large is safer. With me today to testify in support is Beth Mora, a defamation law expert with Mora employment law, and Pamela Lopez, a survivor, a friend, and a courageous member of our capital community.

Thank you very much. And we, under our rules right now, allow two witnesses for, and when we get to it, two witnesses against. And you each have up to two minutes. So welcome to the Committee.

Yes, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief. Pamela Lopez, on behalf of myself, as some of you may know, I am a Member of the Capitol community, which affords me a little bit of political know how with regard to organizing, grassroots organizing, knowing how to identify attorneys and so forth. And I want to share with you that in spite of all of those privileges, the process of being sued for defamation, after getting over the very scary decision to have the courage to come forward and share the story of being sexually assaulted by a powerful and famous man is just absolutely bruising. I did share my story of being sexually assaulted by a very powerful Member of this body. And thank God all of the fantastic lawmakers in the California Legislature had the courage to take action against him as they should have. But the thing that made coming forward and sharing my story terrifying was that I might be sued for defamation. I had faith that my colleagues in the Legislature would believe me, but I was scared of being sued for defamation and on behalf of myself and my spouse and my young child, the family members who went through this process with me for over four years. I just want us all to take a second and imagine for me how scary it was. And now imagine for a person who's never had to speak in public, who's never met with the press, who doesn't know what it is to find an attorney, any of those things. Every Christmas, my child's first and second and third and fourth birthdays, every major event and holiday for our family was overshadowed by the fact that our family was being sued for defamation. The process went on for years, and the process itself was the punishment. I felt confident that eventually my attorneys would prevail, but a loophole in the existing law made it possible for a really powerful person to come after me and come after me and come after me. And he made sure that not only I, but my family felt that he was out for blood and that we ought to be afraid. I kept. It's silly, but I kept $10,000 cash in an envelope under my sink.

This is not really testimony I wish to interrupt, but you've gone 15 minutes, seconds over.

The process is horrible, and it is bruising and it is terrifying. It was extremely difficult for my spouse. I do not want anybody to ever have to have this experience again. And on behalf of the thousands of women who have had the courage to step forward, I urge you to take away the defamation lawsuit itself as a tool for punishing survivors. Thank you all for your support.

Thank you. And the chair has arrived. And so

Thank you, Senator Laird. All right, next witness, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Beth Mora and I have been representing employees for over 22 years in matters including sexual assault, sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. I am here in strong support of AB 933 which will help prevent the abusive and retaliatory defamation lawsuits that I see in my practice. All too often, this Bill will simply make it clear that when a survivor speaks out about assault, harassment or discrimination that it is privileged speech. Under the current law, this current kind of speech is often protected under Civil Code 47, but because there are some gray areas, it can leave survivors open to attack by perpetrators. In my practice, I have represented numerous clients who have experienced horrible and traumatic sexual assault, sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, who are then retraumatized by claims of defamation brought by the perpetrators specifically designed to silence them. These are victims who have already shown tremendous courage by making a complaint, who have often lost their jobs, lost their benefits, do not have means to provide for care that they desperately need after suffering harassment, discrimination and assault, who cannot afford an attorney and offering are hiring someone like me on contingency who cannot defend a defamation claim. The often outcome is silence, fear, and they will not speak. It is extremely difficult for survivors to speak about their abuse. To even consider speaking about this abuse and the weaponization of defamation lawsuits is a form of secondary victimization. In my practice, I am forced to warn victims of this victimization and retraumatization. And then the result is they now sit in fear and consider not speaking at all. These claims.

Thank you. If you could wrap it up.

Thank you. With AB 933, we will ensure survivors of sexual assault and harassment and discrimination are adequately protected from defamation lawsuits and clarify that the claims made in good faith are a form of protected speech if we truly want.

All right, thank you very much. I appreciate your. All right, witnesses in support.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co sponsors of this Bill, urge your support.

Thank you.

Hi, Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in the room in support seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's now turn to the opposition. Anyone in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one in opposition. All right, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderater if you would queue up those on the phone who are in support or opposition to AB 933.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition of AB 933, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line 362. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. Jessica Senders, on behalf of Equal Rights advocates, proud to co sponsor and in support.

Thank you.

Next, go to line 373. Please. Go ahead.

Mr. Chair. And Members Michelle Teran Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in strong support of AB 933. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next will be going to line 356. Please go ahead.

Hi. Yes, we can hear you.

Hello?

Yes. Hi, I'm Sandy. I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

There are none other in the queue, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to Committee for questions. Questions, comments. Seeing none, is there a motion? Senator Ashby moves the Bill. All right, Senator. Member Aguiar Curry, would you care to close?

I would just like. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. You've been through a lot this afternoon and thank you very much for your attention. Appreciate it. And I'm just, you know, helping out my friend here, as well as others under defamation law. Thank you so much. And to be brave takes bravery. And we saw bravery earlier in this. This is a place that you got to make sure you have a brass backbone, let me tell you. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number two. AB 933. The motion is due pass. Umberg, Umberg aye. Wilk. Allen, Allen aye. Ashby, Ashby aye. Caballero, Caballero aye. Durazo, Durazo aye. Laird, Laird aye. Min, Min aye. Niello. Stern. Wiener, Wiener aye. You have eight to zero, with Members missing.

8-0. We'll put it on call. Thank you. All right, 1 second. All right. I think. Assembly Member Holden, I understand that others have been kind enough to allow you to present your Bill. All right.

You all right? Assemblymember Holden, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to thank the members for allowing me to present AJR 1, which condemns Azerbaijan's blockade of the Lachin corridor, the only road connecting Artsakh, Armenia. AJR 1 urges the Biden Administration and the United States government to take immediate action to assist the Armenians of Artsakh. The blockade of the Lachin corridor began December 12, 2022. It has been more than six months, six months where 120,000 Armenians, including 30,000 children, have faced life-threatening shortages of vital provisions.

I stand with the 205,000 Armenians in California whose relatives, friends and children are impacted by this blockade. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "In the end, we will all be remembered, not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Questions or comments by Committee Members? Seeing none. zero, yes, Senator Durazo.

Yes. Thank you very much. I just want to thank the author. Yeah. Were you going to comment? Do I do this now?

Good point. Yes, thank you very much. All right, let's do support and opposition. Those in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. Wait a minute. There's one approaching the microphone. Okay, your fleet afoot. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Kira Ross, on behalf of the cities of Glendale and Pasadena, both in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, others in support. All right, let's take opposition. Those in opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone. All right, now let's go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those on the phone who are in support and in opposition to AJR number one.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we make a comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. And we do have a comment from line 356. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi, this is Sandy. And we have too many problems here in the United States we need to focus on. So I oppose this.

Alriighty, thank you very much. All right, next caller.

And there are currently no more in the queue at this time.

All right, now we'll come back to one more, all right.

One moment while their line number is taken. And that will be going to line 372, please. Go ahead.

Hi, is that me? I'm a little confused by the process.

Because I'll straighten you out. I'll straighten.

Ma'am, I'm going to straighten you out. All you need to do is give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on AJR 1. All right? Thank you very much. All right, let's come back to committee now, Senator Durazo.

Thank you very much. Yes. As the author has said, I just want to add that during this time of over 180 days, Azerbaijan has imposed this blockade against Artsakh and periodically cutting off the electricity and gas, threatening the region's communication. The consideration of AJR 1 comes at a pivotal time, and it's important for California to continue to lead the effort, not only in this country, but also throughout the world.

So I also call on action, call as a call of action on our Federal Government to ensure the US stands on the right side of history. So thank you, author, and plan to support. Thank you.

All right, other comments? Questions? All right, Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My parents grew up during the Korean War in its aftermath, and I can say, honestly, I don't think I would be here. My parents would have grown up in something like Communist North Korea, but for the sacrifices of American GIs. And I do think we have an obligation, it's part of our American values, to call out aggression and violence. We're certainly doing that in Ukraine. And what is happening in Armenia is largely not nearly, well, as covered as what's happening in Ukraine.

But I want to commend the author for pointing this out, for standing in solidarity with the Armenian people. I'd ask to be made a co author at the appropriate time.

All right, other comments? Questions? There was a motion. Was there a motion by Senator Caballero? Motion by Senator Caballero. Senator Holden, you care to close?

Thank you. I would just say that I appreciate the committee's support. This is a very important issue for all of us to stand united and with solidarity behind the Armenian community here in California. On behalf of those in Artaskh and Armenia, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll. Senator Caballero made the motion.

This is file item number six, AJR 1. The motion is be adopted. [Roll Call] You have eight to zero with members missing.

8-0, we'll put that on call. Thank you. All right, Assemblymember Carillo.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 542, which seeks to increase flexibility for small California storage owners by allowing them to advertise lien sales for bidders on a publicly accessible website. Before I begin, I would like to respectfully accept the committee's technical amendments. This is a common sense bill which has received a partisan support and zero no votes in the assembly.

Specifically, this bill required there be two notices and that at least one of the notices should be in the newspaper. It also removes the requirement that the newspaper advertisement include a general description of the goods and adds a second option to advertise in the newspaper and online for two consecutive weeks. California consumers use self-storage for many reasons. In most cases, storage rental agreements are successful, but there are those rare situations where consumers fail to pay their rent.

When this happens, a lien sale may be conducted and operators must publish an advertisement in a newspaper to make the public aware of the upcoming sale. This advertisement piece is what the bill seeks to address. Advertisements are intended to attract buyers for the foreclosure action items and it is in the storage facility's best interest to reach the most amount of people.

To ensure this happens, AB 542 will give storage owners the option to advertise upcoming lien sales on a publicly accessible website while still requiring them to advertise once in a newspaper of general circulation. In this age, in the internet and other electronic means of communication, print newspaper publication is not the only method of vision of public notice in every community. 32 other states offer alternative mechanisms for advertisement of lien sales or have no advertisements requirements whatsoever.

AB 542 will put California in line with these other states and joining me to testify in support and answer technical questions today is Carlos Kaslow with Self Storage Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the senators today. My name is David Carlos Kaslow, I'm a California attorney, retired general counsel for the Self Storage Association. They asked me to speak on this bill. The legislation that we're looking at was enacted back in 1981. I was there at that time and did actually work on this bill when I was about 30 years old.

It's 41 years later and the self storage industry has changed and the way that information is disseminated has also changed. And this is a modest bill. It's one that tries to take in as many perspectives as possible where only the requirement for two newspaper advertisements still exist, except in a situation where the operator advertises as a newspaper and also posts the lien sale online. And online lien sales are becoming a bigger factor in the industry where it's moving towards 50% of the lien sales.

And it just seems that with the technological changes we're looking at, this change in the law makes sense. Bidders go to these websites and sales take place at these websites. So this isn't a particularly, again, I say this is a modest bill. It's a very small change, and we really do, the self storage operators of this state, the California Association and Self Storage Association, really would like to have your support on this bill and ask you for your affirmative vote. I thank you very much.

Thank you. Others in support seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Anyone else here in the hearing room in support? None. All right, let's now turn to the opposition. Those in opposition, please approach.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs, and I'm here for the California News Publishers Association in opposition. Also joining me is Brittany Barsati, general counsel to help answer any questions. A lot has changed since 1981. I think we all would agree with that.

But unfortunately, what hasn't happened is any mechanisms for objective metrics to prevent sort of the wild west of using anyone's self-interest and their own website with any objective standards to ensure how effective website notice is. What do we know about the current law? The current law? You have over 1700 statutes that require newspaper notifications. The reason for that is because they were objective, they were verifiable, they're proactive. And we have measures, metrics where courts can judicially determine that a newspaper reaches enough people.

We don't have any of those things for websites. We have no way of knowing what the website traffic is in the time of the notice period or how useful it is. And the bill does two things. One, it eliminates one of the newspaper notices. But second, and this is important, the bill also eliminates the general description of the goods that are going to be put up for auction.

So it is the primary function, I think, of this committee to ask the question, how does this benefit the public? How does it give the public more information instead of less? And the reality is this bill will result in less information. The public won't get as much information about what the contents of the storage unit are, and the public won't get two newspaper notifications two weeks in a row. And I should note that the California newspaper publishers have searchable websites.

Thank you, if you would wrap it up.

So the other thing I was going to add is it is a redundant system with website that hosts the information for all legal notices that's searchable. So you, in fact get both.

All right, thank you. Next witness, please.

Hi, I'll just. Brittany Barsotti with the News Publishers Association. Our ethnic media partners, California Black Media and Ethnic Media Services, also join us in opposing this bill. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

All righty. Thank you very much. All right. Others here in the hearing room who are in opposition to AB 542. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those on the phone who are in support and opposition to AB 542.

And once again, if you'd like to show support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. 1, 0.

First. We'll go to line 382. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer. calling n behalf of the California Moving and Storage Association, my apologies for our late letter. We asked the author and the committee to consider applying the same standard that is agreed to in this bill to warehouse owners who also conduct lien sales.

I'm sorry. You're in support?

Yes, sir.

Okay, alrighty. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 356. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi. This is [uninteligable] and I oppose this unnecessary bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final in queue is line 385. Please go ahead.

It. Line 385. You're open.

Hi, my name is Rosalinda Prestio, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back.

And we have no further in queue.

All right, back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Caballero moves the bill. Assemblymember Carrillo you care to close?

Just want to thank you for your time. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number four. AB 542. The motion is do pass, as amended. [Roll Call] 6-0, members missing.

All right, we'll put that on call.

Next. We would normally have Assemblymember Ward AB 223, but I do not see him present in the hearing room. So let's turn to item number three. AB 254, which I believe Senator Ashby is going to present.

Thank you, Chair Umberg. I am presenting AB 254 on behalf of Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. This is her bill, but I am proud and honored to stand with her in support of AB 254, which extends the safeguards of CMIA, which is the Confidential Medical Information act, and HIPAA, to reproductive and sexual health data collected by digital services so that this information cannot be sold. We know that a lot of the digital services apps do sell data.

We do not want them selling the reproductive, sexual health data that the women who use their sites put into their system. Nearly one third of United States women use reproductive and fertility tracking apps to guide them through their lives and through their pregnancies. There are various apps that do this. You're familiar, I'm sure, with some of them, like an Oura Ring or a sleep tracker. Fitness and food apps.