AB 1955: The State Is No Parent

**See the bottom of this article for related resources on who to contact, how to contact your representatives, and a template to send.

Assembly Bill 1955, known as the SAFETY Act, prohibits school districts from requiring teachers to notify parents of changes in their child’s pronouns or gender identity. Proponents say this helps to create a safe environment for students to be themselves, but the bill has drawn stark opposition from those advocating for parent’s rights.

Overview

Assembly Bill 1955 is known as the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act, or the SAFETY Act, and was passed by Governor Newsom in July of this year.[1] The bill prohibits schools or school districts from creating policies that require school staff to inform parents of any changes to their child’s pronouns or gender identity.[2] If a child at school decides to present as a different gender than their biological sex, parents will not be informed of those changes as a matter of school policy. In theory, a child will be able to present as one gender at school and then return home as a different gender, while the parents may never know what is happening at school.

California is the first state in the nation to pass a law like this, and it was largely passed in response to other states enacting parental notification bills. Currently there are eight states that require schools to inform parents of changes in a student’s gender identity: Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Alabama.[3] Tennessee’s Governor, Bill Lee, passed Senate Bill 1810 earlier this year, requiring schools to notify parents immediately if their child requests to be called by a different name or pronouns than what is on school records.[4] If parents are not notified, this bill establishes the framework for parents to take legal action against the school due to a violation of law. There are five other states that don’t expressly require parental notification, but do have laws that strongly promote parents’ rights policies. These states are Florida, Kentucky, Montana, Utah, and Arizona.[5]

This type of legislation gained popularity in 2022 when Florida passed the Parental Rights in Education Act, part of which requires schools to inform parents of changes in their student’s emotional or mental wellbeing[6] – which can be interpreted to include changes in sexual orientation or gender. This was quickly coined as the “don’t say gay” bill by its opponents and across the mainstream media. It sparked conversations across the country about parental rights, transgender rights, and school involvement. California’s passage of this bill is in clear opposition to actions taken by Florida and the other states listed. While supporters of the SAFETY Act celebrate it as being a progressive step forward in protecting LGBTQ+ rights, it has already received pushback from specific districts that don’t agree with the move. For example, Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Chino Valley Unified school district, as they already had a parental policy in place.[7] The City of Huntington Beach has also sued the Governor and other officials over the bill, as the city had passed a “parents’ right to know” ordinance.[8] Many opponents have been vocal about their determination to take this issue to court.

Support & Opposition

What are the arguments, both for and against this bill?

AB 1955 was authored and introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward, who represents California’s 78th district – covering the San Diego area. Ward described his motivations for introducing the bill as such:

“Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California. While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family. As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are."[9]

The bill was also supported and advanced by the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. Susan Eggman, the Caucus Chair, said the following when the bill passed:

“Today is a great day for California. With the Governor’s signature on AB 1955, a first in the nation policy, reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth everywhere… Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify.”[10]

Supporters of the bill argue that students who desire to identify as transgender or nonbinary may be doing so against the will of their parents. Students should have the right to present as the sexual orientation and identity that they desire, regardless of how their parents feel about it. They say that these students should not be forced to “come out” to their parents if they are not ready, but legislation in states like Tennessee or Florida does just that. Rather, students should be supported in the education environment to be whoever they want to be, without fear or threat that their parents will find out. Those who take this position also claim that many of the students who desire such a change in their identity are often not supported at home, and so notifying their parents of their choices at school could put them in potential danger, as well as increase their risk of depression, suicidal ideation, or other negative mental health impacts. They also say that legislation passed in other states to defend parental rights are politically motivated attacks on the existence of LGBTQ youth. Lastly, teachers’ unions claim that any policy to notify parents of this type of behavior will “drive a wedge” between educators and students, as students may not feel safe or comfortable talking with their teachers about their identity or mental health since it could be communicated to their parents.[11]

On the other hand, opponents of the bill say that the supposed SAFETY Act doesn’t actually protect students. They argue that first and foremost, parents are the ones who have the fundamental right to raise their children – in their education and their healthcare – not the state. They also argue that the majority of parents want what is best for their children and will seek to love their children in accordance with their values, which is not what is implied by a bill that keeps children from their parents.[12] Notifying parents of anything that happens to their child – whether they break their leg at school, are facing bullying by their peers, receive a failing grade in math, or request to be called a different name – is not optional or just a courtesy given by the school at its discretion, they argue, but rather is a requirement. It is a duty owed to the parents by the school because the school is not their parent.[13]

Jonathan Zachreson of the Roseville City School Board says that parental notification is, “critical to the well-being of children and for maintaining that trust between schools and parents."[14] Similarly, Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark criticized AB 1955, saying, “The law compelling secrecy not only puts children at risk, it is also an unconstitutional invasion of the parent child relationship by the state.”[15]

A Tale of Two Stories

The crux of the issue with this bill is the question of what schools should or should not be required to disclose to parents. The balance in question is when a teacher may withhold information from a parent in the interest of student safety. It seems that supporters are concerned about potential abuse taking place at home if teachers disclose a student’s struggle with gender identity to their parents.

There is no question that a good teacher cares about the wellbeing of the children in their classroom. No good teacher wants to knowingly send their students home to abusive parents. Because children come to school from all different backgrounds, households, and upbringings, teachers unfortunately have to be aware that negligent or abusive homes are a real possibility for some of the students they will interact with. The National Children’s Alliance compiles statistics on child abuse across the United States, and they estimated that in 2022, 8 children out of every 1,000 children experienced abuse or neglect at home.[16] Teachers can be agents of great influence if they catch signs of this abuse and help get the child to a safe situation. But teachers are also not parents, and when a child has good parents who are not abusive, then teachers do not love their students nearly as much as their parents love them. Additionally, parents have rights when it comes to knowing certain information about their children – which is why parents are required to sign off on field trip permission slips, or why they must be informed and consent to if their child is receiving medical care from the school nurse. We get into muddy waters when asking the question, what constitutes as abuse? When does a teacher’s disagreement with a parent’s choices warrant raising concern? When does it warrant keeping information from the parents?

Let’s look at two stories to see if real world examples can help us answer these questions to some degree. Take note from these stories the situations of each child, and the responses of school staff. In Ackley, Iowa, an eight-year-old boy showed up to school to begin the third grade, but immediately his teacher noticed something was off. He seemed severely underweight for his age and height, and as he spent time in class, the teacher continued to notice signs that something was wrong – the boy was constantly asking for food and patches of his hair were falling out. Eventually, the student told his teacher something about being locked up at home and being denied food. The teacher immediately contacted the Iowa Department of Human Services and reported what the student had said, opening an investigation into the parents.[17] What was uncovered in the time that followed was horrible. Authorities found that the boy lived with his father and his father’s girlfriend, and they kept the boy locked in a 6x6-foot cage in the basement for over nine hours a day. There was no light inside the enclosure, there was no bedding, and he wasn’t allowed out to use the bathroom. The boy had to sleep on the concrete floor in his own urine until he was let out for school each morning. He was also deprived of food and had physical scarring on his back, arms, and legs. It was even discovered that the parents not only beat the child but also encouraged their dog to bite him.[18] Thanks to the teacher’s reporting, the child was removed from the home and placed with a safe family and the parents stood trial for their abuse.

Around the same time as this case in Iowa, there was a teenager in Arcadia, California also showing signs of distress to her teachers. Yaeli Galdamez had suffered from depression since she was in the eighth grade, and by the time she reached high school her condition had only worsened. Teachers and school staff noticed her struggle, and they offered her counsel through seeing the school’s psychiatrist. Yaeli’s depression wasn’t new, but she did begin to express a new confusion around her gender identity. Yaeli’s mother, Abigail, was a devout Christian who had raised Yaeli and her three other children as a single-mother, and she had previously disclosed to school staff that Yaeli struggled with depression. But as Yaeli worsened, the school did not talk to Abigail or notify anyone outside of the school about her struggles. Instead, they encouraged Yaeli to join the LGBTQ Club, and her counselor further encouraged her not to talk to her mom about what she was feeling. As time progressed, her counselor began to encourage her that she was transgender, that gender transition would ease her depression, and that she would be better off living separately from her mother – who still had no idea what was happening with Yaeli or that she had expressed desire in changing her gender identity.[19]

Do you see a difference in the two situations? In the first story, the teacher saw clear signs of mistreatment of the student, and when asked, the boy confided current, ongoing physical abuse he was suffering at home. In the second story, school staff see signs of depression in Yaeli, which are in line with her history of depression since before high school. When providing care to the teenager, they uncover she is newly confused about her gender identity. There is no ongoing abuse disclosed, and as far as the school can tell, Yaeli’s mother is aware of her history of depression which she disclosed to the school. Yaeli did not express any fear of abuse when talking with her counselor, only that her mother was a Christian.

These stories might seem like they are so different they don’t have any connection to each other – and if you are thinking that, then that is entirely my point in juxtaposing them against one another. They are meant to show you exactly the type of situations Assembly Bill 1955 is addressing. AB 1955 has nothing to do with the first story. If teachers or school administrators see warning signs of abuse for any reason, connected to gender identity or not, they must report the signs they have seen and let it be investigated further. However, AB 1955 directly relates to the second story. If teachers or school administrators become aware that a child may want to make changes to their gender identity – whether by a new name or new pronouns – then AB 1955 makes it so that teachers do not have to disclose that to parents, regardless of the student’s present situation at home. There could be no history of abuse, and no warning signs of potential abuse, and yet AB 1955 says that for the sake of protecting the student, parents do not have a right to know about changes in their child. It's important to see that when it comes to the argument of abuse, AB 1955 does not require any evidence of actual abuse to be effective. It takes away the parent’s right to know what is happening with their child before the parent even has a chance to respond.

Parental Rights

This is where we must begin to peel back and expose the underlying assumptions that were made by our legislature and our governor to pass AB 1955. One assumption is that it is the state’s responsibility to protect children from their parents. AB 1955 seems to indicate that if there is even a chance that a parent could potentially become abusive toward their child, then it is the school’s job to withhold information from the child’s parent to prevent that from happening. The problem is that this takes a small group of people’s bad behavior – namely, abusive parents – and projects it onto an entire population – all parents. It assumes that teachers are the ones who stand in between parents and children to make sure that children are safe. I would argue that this assumption is wrong, and it is not the place of the state to be making.

Take a hypothetical a scenario as an example – let’s say that lawmakers noticed that most crimes are committed at night, between the hours of 11PM and 6AM. They start to believe that anyone who is out between those hours is most likely out to commit a crime. So, your city puts in place a permanent curfew that says no one can be out of their homes from the hours of 11 in the evening to 6 o’clock the next morning. This, they say, will stop crime from happening overnight. That would be an insane overreach by your city officials to stop crime. You would argue that just because some people choose to use the late evening or early morning hours to make bad decisions doesn’t mean that all people, or even most people, will. Maybe you were out late at a friend’s house just catching up on life, or maybe you like to get your day started with an early morning run. There are probably over one-hundred reasons and special circumstances that you could argue would make being out between 11PM and 6AM perfectly reasonable, and it is an unreasonable position for the government to assume that everyone has criminal intent, then legislate certain restrictions around that assumption.

That is what is happening with parental rights and abuse in the case of AB 1955. The State of California is increasingly taking the position that because some parents may abuse their children, no parent is entitled to rights to know important information about their child, such as changes in their mental health, and as a result state intervention is becoming more and more necessary in the lives of all children. You may have never abused your child, nor would you ever consider abusing your child, but because someone else has, now the state thinks it can parent your child the way they see fit to prevent you from doing what you would never do. It’s a false assumption.

This ignores the basic common sense which says that parents are the ones who are responsible for feeding, clothing, providing for, loving, and raising their children. They know their child better than anyone else in the world, and they are the ones who will be held accountable for their welfare. I say this is common sense because when you look at the creation of a family, there is no other option for how things should be. A couple creates a child, and they are bonded to that child in a way that no other person on the planet is. From the time their baby is born, parents spend every moment caring for her, keeping her alive, loving her, dreaming for her future. And this makes sense, because she belongs to them, and they belong to her. It’s a primal bond that is intrinsic to every mother and father.

Instances of abuse require special treatment for the protection of the children in the abusive situation. But they are not the norm. We cannot shift the baseline assumption about a reality in society around a special circumstance, and we certainly cannot legislate sweeping policy that removes certain rights from every parent based off it. This relates to AB 1955 because we should not assume from the start that every parent is an abuser and therefore all children need the interference and protection of the state. There should be steps in place for when that sad situation is proven to be true in a family, but it should not be the implied state of every family. Just because some parents forfeit their parental rights due to their actions does not mean that all parental rights should be taken away by the state.

This also ignores the reality that parents have a fundamental right to parent their children in accordance with their religion and values, and to know all that goes on in the life of their child. These are essential tenets built into our very Constitution and Common Law. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to include the parental right to “make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”[20] This has been upheld in legal precedent through the years. In 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that, “The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”[21] In 1944 the Court confirmed this principle by ruling in another decision that, “The custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.”[22] Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled the following in year 2000, “So long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children, there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of the parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s child.”[23] All of these quotes from Supreme Court rulings serve to show that our Constitution and our Common Law uphold the idea that parents have the right to raise their children without government interference.

Even further, the concept of parental rights far transcends even our Constitution. John Locke, the well-known English Philosopher and political theorist whose ideas heavily influenced our Constitution, wrote on parental writes in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Listen to what he says about parents’ role in bringing up their children:

“All parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them….This is that which puts the authority into the parents’ hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this care on their offspring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as his wisdom designed it, to the children’s good, as long as they should need to be under it.”[24]

Locke perfectly articulates the idea that ultimately parents are the ones who have the responsibility, and therefore the right, to raise their children. He points to the fact that this is a God-given right, not dictated by government but rather recognized by it.

Which leads perfectly into the ultimate source and authority for parental rights, which is that they are given by God and not able to be taken by government. The Ten Commandments themselves order man’s responsibility to first honor God, and then to honor parents. The Bible also lays out the parental responsibility to care for their children. First Timothy 5:8 charges that one who does not provide for his family is not to be considered within the faith. In Ephesians 6:4, fathers are commanded to discipline their children without provoking them. When a child does not have parents, followers of God are called to care for the orphan and to mirror God’s heart in being a father to the fatherless.[25] The government’s job is to recognize and protect these God-given rights, as they are inalienable and endowed by the Creator in the same way that the other freedoms in our Constitution are asserted to be.

When a child is dropped off at school on Monday morning, the parent is not signing over their rights and letting their teachers raise them. The parents are still the ones who are primarily charged with their wellbeing and development, and they have been given the right to raise them in accordance with their values and religion. At the end of the day, what a teacher or school administrator thinks about a parent’s religion, or parenting practices, does not matter. When they have their own children, they can choose to parent or raise the in whatever way they see fit; just because they oversee their education during the day does not mean that they can step in as a pseudo-parent and operate without the parent’s knowledge or consent.

The point is this: the state isn’t your child’s family. The government isn’t your child’s parents. YOU are their family, YOU are their parents, and YOU have been tasked and entrusted with their wellbeing and protection. No school should ever have the right to withhold or hide information from you about your child – not about if they took an Advil that day, not about if they are going on a field trip next week, and certainly not about if they are questioning their identity or transitioning their gender.

Love Equals Truth

What about the accusation that parents who do not affirm their child’s gender transition are abusive by the nature of not supporting their newfound gender identity? Do schools then have the right to withhold information from parents, if they know they will not be supportive?

I would respond to that claim with all the points I just made, as well as a reminder that we have religious freedom in this country – meaning that part of parental rights is the right to raise your children in line with your religious values and ideals. But I want to take it a step further than just parental rights. Because even outside of a parent’s religious freedom, we must stand firm on the reality that there is objective truth. It is not just a matter of opinion as to whether a parent is abusive or not. There is objectivity as to what actions by a parent are good and what actions are bad, or what is abusive versus what is loving. Objectively, the most loving action a parent can do is tell their child the truth.

In our society today, we are told at every turn that love means agreement and affirmation. If you love someone, you should support everything they do and say. If you disagree with them or challenge their beliefs, then that makes you hateful and toxic. But that twists what love really is. Love can never lie, and love certainly cannot allow someone to do something that is harmful to them while knowing full-well that it will be harmful. This concept is another commonsense principle of life that we are all innately aware of. If a parent watches their child stick out their hand above a hot stove and doesn’t attempt to stop them as they smash it down on the heat, I would guess most of us would say that is not very loving on the parent’s part. The parent knows the child will burn their hand if they touch the stove, the parent could easily grab the child’s hand to prevent them from burning their hand, but if the parent watches them do it anyway, we would feel compelled to ask: why in the world wouldn’t you protect them? Parents have the instinct to protect their babies from the things they know will hurt them.

The same is true for ideological harm as well. It is never loving to lie, especially when you know the lies are just that – lies – and will cause destruction. A loving parent will tell their child the truth, no matter if the truth makes their child angry or isn’t what they want to hear. The entire job of parents is to keep their children from doing things that hurt them because they do not know any better. Parents hope to teach their children the skills and wisdom to be able to care for themselves as adults and operate meaningfully within society. This means that parenting involves telling your kids the things they don’t want to hear – especially when they don’t want to hear it. No, you can’t eat that ice cream for dinner. No, you can’t stay out past midnight with your friends. And no, you cannot change your gender no matter how you are feeling. This is controversial today, but just because it is controversial doesn’t mean that it isn’t simple. It is simple. Parents who do not affirm a child who expresses desire to switch genders are simply telling their child the truth and trusting that truth in the long run will do far better for them than lies in the short term.

We have lost in our society the idea that you can disagree and still be loving. If parents disagree with their children, then our society is quick to call those parents “toxic” and tell young people to set boundaries to cut those parents or family members out of their lives. We see this trend especially prominent throughout the holidays. Just this past Thanksgiving, my social media was flooded with posts encouraging young people that it’s best to cancel the holidays with their families who disagree with them politically for the sake of their mental health, and instead to spend the holidays with chosen family who will affirm their beliefs. This is unhealthy. We must be able to disagree with each other and tell each other where we disagree to constantly evaluate our beliefs and sharpen each other. We cannot survive as a society if all disagreement is labeled discrimination and hate.

As it relates specifically to this bill, it is not abuse for parents to raise their children in the truth – meaning that if your son expresses desire to be a girl, it is not abuse to lovingly tell him the truth and to seek counsel for how to address the underlying issues he is struggling with that are leading him to question his gender identity. Allie Beth Stuckey, conservative commentator and host of the Relatable podcast, put it this way in her book, Toxic Empathy, “Empathy for a lie leads to destruction. Telling the truth about transgenderism is the only way to love.”[26]

To the Christian

Speaking specifically to my readers who are fellow Christians for a moment about all of this, we know that all of these issues – parental rights, gender ideology, and truth – are rooted and grounded in the Word of God. God designed the family unit. He delegates His authority to parents to raise their children to walk in His ways. God also designed gender. He is the One who made us male and female. We know that these truths far transcend culture, philosophy, the Constitution, and even common sense. These are principles of a world that He designed and described for us in the Bible.

The nuclear family is one of the most sacred institutions in our society that should be defended and upheld by our government, not threatened and certainly not destroyed. It is the primary protector of the most vulnerable among us – namely, children. Why is it so important? Because God created it and ordained it as such! He knows that when parents either abdicate their responsibility to protect and provide for their children, or they are kept from doing so by something like the state, children are left defenseless. As Christians, we care deeply about the vulnerable, and we are called to fight for the protection of the innocent. That means that we must be informed about legislation that directly impacts groups like children and families so that we are not blind to what is happening across our state – and so that we can work to change things when they go against what we know is good and right. It also means that if you are a parent, you need to know how your state either protects or threatens your rights and your family so that you can make informed decisions like where to send your kids to school and what information you are entitled to by law. This bill is a matter of moral right versus wrong, and by being informed about it, the darkness at work to separate children from their parents and to confuse them about their gender is exposed.

Christians are the ones who must care the most on issues like these, because we are the ones who can have the most confidence in our beliefs. We are not swayed by society or by our feelings, we are directed by the Word of God. Our foundation is sure and steady, and we know that ultimately it isn’t our opinions that are unpopular, but God’s own design. He promises that He will give us the courage to stand for truth in the face of adversity. There is a lot of adversity behind AB 1955. But Christian, your child, or your friend, or your coworker will never be persuaded to know the love of Christ if you do not stand firm. I know that heavy topics can seem intimidating to speak out against, especially in a state like California where it seems like so much of the majority is against you. It is also scary as a parent to try to raise your children in the Lord, knowing your values are unpopular and may even get you accused of abuse. And it must be even scarier to tell your child what they don’t want to hear, even in the face of emotional manipulation and threats they or others make against you. But compromising your stance won’t change hearts and minds. To quote Allie Beth Stuckey once more, she says:

“It’s tempting as Christians to believe that we can be nicer than God, that we can appeal to people better by being more polite or gentler than He is…. Maybe if we’re squishy or silent or secular enough on the controversial issues of our day, then the world will like us…. [But] we will never out strategize Him in appealing to the unbelieving world. People are won over by Christian courage, not Christian compromise.”[27]

Christian, the people who disagree with you on this issue, maybe even your own children, will be won over by your courage, not by your compromise. Where do you get that courage from? Psalm 121 puts it best, “I lift up my eyes to the mountains—where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.”

Real People, Real Implications

With all that being said, there’s one last point I want to make on this topic. When we hear about bills like this one, it is easy to categorize them in our minds as somewhat overblown, and maybe even qualify our responses by saying we don’t want to fearmonger. We have the tendency to wonder – but is that really happening? After all, I went to school as a kid, and I turned out fine. Is it really that big of a deal? But when it comes to the safety and protection of children, I guarantee you – it most certainly is a big deal. It is the responsibility of every parent, and every adult, to ensure they are not putting children at risk or in danger, either by their direct actions OR by their negligence in inaction. We must be clear-eyed and level-headed, not willing to experiment with the lives of children because we thought the odds would somehow favor us.

I want to go back to a story I started earlier, the story of a very real family who was impacted by California’s policy positions on parental rights and adolescent gender identity – a story that has been hidden away, downplayed, and ignored by our representatives in government and our mainstream media. I want to finish their story to shed light on the fact that bad legislation has real consequences, and those consequences are devastating to real people.

Abigail Martinez is a mother of four children. She immigrated to the United States from El Salvador when she was a teenager. She has lived and raised her family in southern California. She is also a devout Christian, and those values have been present in her parenting throughout the lives of her children.[28] Abigail’s daughter, Yaeli, began struggling with depression and bullying when she was in eighth grade.[29] By the time she was in high school, she began to question her sexuality. School faculty and staff did not alert Abigail to her daughter’s struggles, but rather they encouraged her to join her school’s LGBTQ Club.[30] This group encouraged Yaeli to keep her identity, her questioning, and her part of the group a secret from her mother.[31] While she was in the group, Yaeli met a girl who believed she was a boy, and this transgender student convinced Yaeli that the reason for her depression was due to the fact that she too was actually a boy. Her school also provided her counsel through the school psychologist, who further encouraged the idea that Yaeli really was transgender, and that her worsening depression would be treated by pursuing gender transition. Yaeli’s school district, Arcadia Unified, directed their staff to keep all information about students’ gender identities or pronouns private from parents, which meant that while Yaeli was being encouraged by her school groups and counselors to pursue transition, absolutely nothing was communicated to her mother, Abigail.[32]

As Yaeli began to socially transition to “Andrew,” Abigail became aware of the counseling being given to her daughter. She immediately protested the counsel of Yaeli’s school, given it was against her Christian beliefs, as well as encouraged her counselor to work to address the root causes of Yaeli’s depression. Meanwhile, Yaeli attempted suicide, resulting in hospitalization, and the school quickly blamed Abigail. They urged Abigail to call Yaeli by her new chosen name, Andrew, and her preferred pronouns, and they threatened that Yaeli’s suicidality was Abigail’s fault, and no one else’s.[33]

When Yaeli was just 16 years old, the family of the transgender student Yaeli had met at the LGBTQ Club took Yaeli home from school and hid her from Abigail for multiple days. During this time, the school counselor told Yaeli that if she told the police her mother was abusive, the state would take care of her and pay for her gender transition. As a result, the California Department of Child and Family Services took Yaeli out of her mother’s custody and instead placed her in a group home. Abigail was placed on a child abuse registry, and she was only allowed to visit her daughter for one hour per week under the supervision of activists from the Los Angeles LGBT Center. Abigail was told by the court that she was not allowed to talk about God or her Christian faith, under threat that if she did, her visitation rights would be revoked. She recalled, “I was told not to talk about God. They told me if you do that, you’ll never see your daughter.”[34]

The courts approved for Yaeli to receive testosterone and “gender-affirming care” as a minor, and for three years she identified as Andrew while on cross-sex hormones. By the time she was 19, Yaeli reached out to her mother, in need of food and help with her continued depression. Yaeli told Abigail that she had been the only person to ever be there for her. She also confessed that she knew she would never become a boy, and that the hormones had caused her severe bone pain. Abigail, after all the excruciating years, was finally absolved of the abuse allegations against her, but Yaeli’s suffering had never been addressed. At just 19 years old, Yaeli knelt in front of a train that ended her life.[35]

This story is horrendous. I can’t imagine the depth of suffering that both Abigail and Yaeli went through during her teen years, and the immense loss that Abigail feels every day since Yaeli’s death. Neither of them was treated the way they deserved – by the school district, by the courts, by the state. Yaeli deserved better as a suffering teenage girl, and Abigail deserved better as her mom. It’s only from the wickedness of the school’s choices that Yaeli’s story spirals into being taken from her mother, being placed in a group home, and being put on cross-sex hormones. It all started in her school.

The school should have encouraged Yaeli that no matter what she believed about her identity, her mother loved her and was looking out for her best interests. They should have told that poor girl that relief from her depression would never be found in lies about her gender, and it certainly wouldn’t be eased by being removed from the care of the person who loved her most in the world. They should have promoted a healthy and loving relationship between Yaeli and her mom, teaching Yaeli as a young person that even if she disagreed at times with her mother – even over big issues – that they could still have a respectful relationship, and that they could work together to address the struggles she faced. That disagreement doesn’t inherently equal abuse, and that Yaeli could be respectful of her mother’s religious beliefs and values even if she decided they were not her own as she aged. And of course, they should have alerted Abigail immediately of the changes they were seeing in Yaeli, the identity crisis she was walking through, and the advice and counsel they were giving her daily – especially as that counsel involved something as monumental as gender transition.

But they didn’t do any of that. They decided from the outset that Abigail was a bigoted, religious zealot who would never accept Yaeli, which meant she was abusive and no longer deserved to be involved in the care of her daughter. They stepped into her place as the parent, evidenced by completely disregarding Abigail’s right to know what was going on with Yaeli’s mental health and how she was being counseled. They never gave Abigail a chance as Yaeli’s mother to help her daughter as she struggled. Instead, they lied to both Yaeli and Abigail, and they encouraged Yaeli to lie and to run away from her mom, painting Abigail as an abuser and teaching Yaeli that if Abigail didn’t affirm her, it meant she didn’t love her. Most wicked of all, they advocated to the state to legally strip Abigail of her parental rights, preventing her from seeing or speaking to her daughter, physically keeping her away in Yaeli’s most vulnerable time of need, and threatening her not to share the only hope that could actually save her – her Christian faith.

I hope you can see how evil these actions are. These policies, pursued by activists and liberal lawmakers, are pushed under the guise of promoting a safe learning environment for students to be themselves – but was Yaeli protected? Was Yaeli safe to be herself – a scared, depressed, and confused teenage girl in need of a loving relationship with her mother? Was she able to learn safely and effectively, without the interference of political battles and hidden agendas? No, she was a pawn used right in the center of them, even as she admitted that she would never become the opposite sex, even as she suffered intense pain from the so-called “gender-affirming care” she was promised would solve her problems, even as her depression and suicidal ideations worsened. It was precisely in her weakest moments that the state didn’t let up but pressed in harder. They didn’t care about her; they didn’t care about the pain she was in or the suffering she was experiencing. All they cared about was pushing the narrative that your traditional Christian mother is abusive, but we are so welcoming, inclusive, and loving. Look at how loving we are! Take these drugs that are worsening your pain and ignore the fact that your depression hasn’t let up! Who needs parents – we’re your parents now!

But the State of California was not there when Abigail found out she was pregnant with Yaeli. They did not carry her for 9 months of pregnancy, anticipating her arrival. They did not care for her as a newborn, deciphering every whimper and cry, changing diapers every few hours, feeding her, rocking her to sleep, waking up with her in the middle of the night. They didn’t celebrate her first birthday, or her first steps, or her first words. The state didn’t fret over her every time she got sick, they weren’t the ones who rubbed her back when she couldn’t sleep or read her one more story because she had a nightmare. They didn’t help her with her homework or encourage her when she felt like she couldn’t do it, they didn’t celebrate her good report cards and help her with her bad ones. They didn’t teach her to ride a bike or to look both ways before crossing the street or to not talk to strangers or any of the other hundreds of things that Abigail taught her precious daughter as she grew older. They weren’t there for every Christmas, for birthdays, for graduations, for all the special events that marked the passage of time and Yaeli’s growing up. They didn’t pray for her every night, that she would be safe, that she would come to know and serve the Lord, that she would always know she was loved. All of that was done by Yaeli’s mother – all of that was shouldered by Abigail for all 19 years of Yaeli’s life. But it didn’t matter – not to the school or the state. They walked in and they destroyed this family without second thought for the sacrifice and dedication of Abigail’s life to raising and loving her daughter.

Can you imagine if that was your child? Can you imagine if you found out that your child’s school was going behind your back to counsel your child – your baby – that you were abusive and that they should report you? Could you imagine the pain of watching a judge rule in a court of law that you are unfit to be your child’s parent? Could you imagine only seeing your precious son or daughter for just one hour per week, and for your conversations with them to be monitored? Could you imagine knowing they were in excruciating pain, emotionally and physically, but that there was nothing you could do? Could you imagine your child taking their life because the suffering was too heavy, and you couldn’t step in to help them shoulder it?

In California, that could be your son or your daughter. Our state will not give one single thought to taking them away from you if they are given the chance. They didn’t with Yaeli and Abigail, what makes you think they will with you?

The only response, the only answer, is that this is unequivocally unacceptable. We must rise up and demand change. The state is not a replacement for family, and we can never accept them taking the role of the parent. Too many lives are at stake, including yours. Children are being taught to hate their parents, and loving parents are losing their God-given right to raise their children. This must end, and it must end now. This is your call to action. If you didn’t know before, you know now – what will you do about it?

Action Items

What is there to do about it? Let me give you a few tangible action items that you can follow to make a difference in this area.

First, if you are a parent, you need to immediately evaluate your schooling decisions for your children. I’m not here to give you a prescriptive approach on what type of school is best for your child. What I am here to do is to warn you about what is taking place in public schools across the state and challenge you to take it seriously. Your child will spend most of their time, most of their upbringing, in school. The people who educate them daily will have the most access to their hearts and minds. Now, they are empowered by California law and by legal precedent to withhold critical information from you about their mental health, as well as to persuade them if necessary to accuse you of abuse. Is that a wise environment for them to be in, day in and day out? You need to know your local school district, and you need to gain confidence that where you are sending them will not lead them astray, away from truth and away from the Lord.

Second, you need to contact your representative in government immediately. Use the resources at the bottom of this article to find your representatives and their contact information. Additionally, see the template I have attached for you to follow in reaching out to them. This issue is too important to not make our voices heard. Children’s lives are at stake. Our legislative representatives need to hear from an overwhelming flood of their constituents that this bill is not acceptable, that this is not what the people who they represent want. They can work to overturn it. They can push for its appeal or amendment. But they won’t do anything if we don’t bother them about it. We have to be the squeaky wheel standing up for the protection of our children. If every member of every church across California flooded them with notification of disapproval, they would not be able to ignore us. We have thousands of churches across the state; as the family of God, let’s get to work. Take this step, and then encourage everyone you know to do the same. So, use the template below. You just have to put in your name and send it to your representative, who you can find in the links below.

Third, this is a battle that is fought in court. We must change the laws, whether by pushing for this bill to be repealed, or by overturning it via legal precedent. There are organizations who are taking up the cause of fighting cases like Abigail Martinez’s in court to help parents who have lost their children to the state. Two organizations I recommend supporting are the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Pacific Justice Institute. Both of their websites are linked below as well. These organizations have a wealth of resources online regarding parental rights and education. In fact, the ADF has a great resource for parents navigating gender ideology in schools that gives parents practical questions to ask their child’s school when considering if it is a safe place for them to be. These organizations also represent conservative, Christian parents who are in the unfortunate need of legal counsel in our state, and they do it for free.

Fourth, get involved in your local school district. This again will most likely apply if you are a parent with children in your local district’s schools. Even if the system is broken on a statewide level, you can still stand up to support transparent policies in your local district. Not every district agrees with the state, as I mentioned Huntington Beach doesn’t earlier. Support policies that hold schools accountable for informing parents of any information about their child, that require parental consent for instruction on sex and gender, and that promote a parent’s right to review all curriculum taught to their child in the classroom.[36]

Lastly, and most importantly, for the Christian, pray. Pray that wicked politicians who promote the destruction of the family unit would be exposed and would not succeed in their agenda. Pray that wise politicians, who value the family, who value truth, and who love the Lord would prevail and would take office in our state. Pray for the children who are not able to be homeschooled or attend a Christian school, that the Lord would protect them from the harm of legislation like AB 1955. Pray that teachers would have the wisdom and courage to defy state law and act in the true interest of children by keeping their parents informed. And pray that evil laws, like the one discussed today, would be overturned and replaced by better laws, that promote order, goodness, and truth.

Resources:

Where to find your representatives and how to contact them: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/who-are-my-representatives

Template for contacting your representative about AB 1955: https://www.thecaliforniaconversation.com/s/Template-for-AB-1955.pdf

Alliance Defending Freedom: https://adflegal.org/

Pacific Justice Institute: https://pacificjustice.org/

ADF Parent Guide for Navigating Gender Ideology in Schools: https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/public/2023-08/ADFD_AD_Parental%20Rights%20Guide_DESKTOP_FINAL2_20230810_SECURE.pdf

References:

[1] California Legislative Information, “Bill Text - AB-1955 Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act.,” July 15, 2024, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955.

[2] Knutsen, Max. “California’s SAFETY Act: What the New Law Means for Parents, Students, and Teachers.” Plural Policy, July 18, 2024. https://pluralpolicy.com/blog/california-ab-1955-safety-act/.

[3] “Movement Advancement Project | Forced Outing of Transgender Youth in Schools,” n.d. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/youth/forced_outing.

[4] McNeill, Zane. “Tennessee Law Will Force Schools to Out Trans Students to Their Parents.” Truthout, May 9, 2024. https://truthout.org/articles/tennessee-law-will-force-schools-to-out-trans-students-to-their-parents/.

[5] “Movement Advancement Project | Forced Outing of Transgender Youth in Schools.”

[6] Florida House of Representatives. “CS/CS/HB 1557 (2022) - Parental Rights in Education.” myfloridahouse.gov, March 29, 2022. https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76545.

[7] Lambert, Diana. “Newsom Signs Bill to End Parental Notification Policies at Schools; Opponents Say Fight Is Not Over.” EdSource, July 17, 2024. https://edsource.org/2024/newsom-signs-bill-to-end-parental-notification-policies-at-schools-but-opponents-say-its-not-over-yet/715767.

[8] Watrobski, Kristina. “California City Sues Newsom Over ‘Egregious’ Gender Identity Law: ‘Compelling Secrecy.’” KEYE, September 19, 2024. https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/california-city-sues-newsom-over-egregious-gender-identity-law-compelling-secrecyg-secrecy-huntington-beach-gavin-newsom-rob-bonta-tony-thurmond-ab-1955-lgbt-crisis-in-the-classroom.

[9] Blount, Mike. “New SAFETY Act Signed Into Law to Protect LGBTQ+ Students in California.” Official Website - Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward Representing the 78th California Assembly District, July 15, 2024. https://a78.asmdc.org/press-releases/20240715-new-safety-act-signed-law-protect-lgbtq-students-california#:~:text=This%20life%2Dsaving%20legislation%2C%20AB,sought%20to%20forcibly%20out%20students.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Lambert, “Newsom Signs Bill to End Parental Notification Policies at Schools; Opponents Say Fight Is Not Over.”

[12] Atkinson, Grant. “California Safety Act Would Codify Reckless Disregard for Parental Rights – Alliance Defending Freedom,” November 4, 2024. https://adflegal.org/article/california-safety-act-would-codify-reckless-disregard-parental-rights/.

[13] Sharp, Matt. “Parental Notification Policies Keep Children Safe.” Alliance Defending Freedom, October 11, 2024. https://adflegal.org/article/parental-notification-policies-keep-children-safe/.

[14] The Associated Press. “California Bans School Rules Requiring Parents Notification of Child’s Pronoun Change.” NPR, July 16, 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/07/16/nx-s1-5041437/california-bans-school-rules-requiring-parents-notification-of-childs-pronoun-change#:~:text=Trump's%20Terms-,California%20bans%20school%20rules%20notifying%20parents%20of%20kids'%20pronoun%20change,person%20without%20the%20child's%20permission.

[15] Watrobski, “California City Sues Newsom Over ‘Egregious’ Gender Identity Law: ‘Compelling Secrecy.’”

[16] National Children’s Alliance. “National Statistics on Child Abuse - National Children'S Alliance,” October 10, 2024. https://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/national-statistics-on-child-abuse/.

[17] KCCI. “Authorities: Teacher Saved Child From Alleged Child Abuse.” Https://Www.Kcrg.Com, July 19, 2018. https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Authorities-Teacher-saved-child-from-alleged-child-abuse-488576361.html.

[18] Reinitz, Jeff. “Cops: Ackley Couple Locked up Young Boy, Starved and Beat Him.” The Courier, July 18, 2018. https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/cops-ackley-couple-locked-up-young-boy-starved-and-beat-him/article_841a24ac-d038-541b-8f4e-618e00171a27.html.

[19] First Liberty Institute. “California Mom Who Lost Daughter to Suicide Over Gender Issues Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parental Rights.” First Liberty, November 30, 2023. https://firstliberty.org/media/california-mom-who-lost-daughter-to-suicide-over-gender-issues-urges-supreme-court-to-protect-parental-rights/.

[20] Nation, Patricia. “Parental Rights Are Constitutionally Established and Deeply Rooted in the Supreme Law of the Land.” America First Policy Institute, May 24, 2024. https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/parental-rights-are-constitutionally-established-and-deeply-rooted-in-the-supreme-law-of-the-land#:~:text=The%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20Protects%20Fundamental,children%20when%20the%20Court%20observed:

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Parental Rights Foundation. “A History of Parental Rights - Parental Rights Foundation,” January 6, 2022. https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/legal/parental_rights_history/.

[25] Smothers, Colin J. “The Foundation of Human Society: A Christian Case for Parental Authority.” Public Discourse, August 12, 2020. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/08/66250/#:~:text=Parental%20authority%20is%20enshrined%20in,20%3A12).

[26] Stuckey, Allie Beth. Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. Page 62. Penguin Group, 2024.

[27] Ibid, 168.

[28] Toney, Kayla A., Kelly J. Shackelford, Jeffrey C. Mateer, David J. Hacker, Jeremiah G. Dys, and First Liberty Institute. Brief of Amicus Curiae Abigail Martinez in Support of Respondents, 2024. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/328201/20241015112749966_No.%2023-477_Brief.pdf.

[29] Stonestreet, John, and Kasey Leander. “How The Church (and the State) Failed Abigail Martinez.” Breakpoint, August 31, 2022. https://breakpoint.org/how-the-church-and-the-state-failed-abigail-martinez/.

[30] Toney et al., Brief of Amicus Curiae Abigail Martinez in Support of Respondents.

[31] First Liberty Institute, “California Mom Who Lost Daughter to Suicide Over Gender Issues Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parental Rights.”

[32] Toney et al., Brief of Amicus Curiae Abigail Martinez in Support of Respondents.

[33] Stonestreet and Leander, “How The Church (and the State) Failed Abigail Martinez.”

[34] Toney et al., Brief of Amicus Curiae Abigail Martinez in Support of Respondents.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Alliance Defending Freedom. “NAVIGATE DESTRUCTIVE GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SCHOOLS,” 2023. https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/public/2023-08/ADFD_AD_Parental%20Rights%20Guide_DESKTOP_FINAL2_20230810_SECURE.pdf.