Governor Brown Attacks the 1st Amendment; Signs Bill With Jail Time for Refusing to Use Transgender Pronouns

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

SACRAMENTO – In a shocking disregard for the privacy rights of seniors and constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 219 yesterday.

While no doubt well-intentioned, the bill from California state senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) will inflict severe penalties on long-term care center workers if they fail to deny biological facts by using “preferred pronouns” for any patients identifying as transgender. If employees “willfully or repeatedly violate” SB 219, they could be charged with a misdemeanor and subject to punishment of a $1000 fine, or even up to one year in jail.

SB 219 also mandates gender be determined by self-identification, not biology. As a result, female senior citizens will be forced to share bedrooms and other intimate facilities with biological men if those men identify as a women.

“Compelled speech violates free speech,” said Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council. “SB 219 forces people to use words that aren’t even in the dictionary.”

“SB 219 tries to place ‘misgendering’ someone on the same level as physical abuse,” Keller continued. “Everyone should be treated with respect in nursing homes, and that includes those who believe gender is based on biology, not feelings.”

For more information about SB 219, see the following stories:

(6) Comments

  1. Pingback: First They Became a "Sanctuary State," Now CA Stoops Even Lower with 'Gender Pronouns' Law |

  2. Pingback: First They Became a “Sanctuary State,” Now CA Stoops Even Lower with ‘Gender Pronouns’ Law | Pop News Magazine

  3. This isn’t a violation of the first amendment. If you knew what that amendment was for then you’d realize that. Saying this infringes the first amendment is essentially the same thing as saying that an establishment such as a bar who kicks you out for “offensive speech” is infringing when they have every right to kick your ass out for disturbing the other patrons. This still doesn’t change the fact that this is a stupid law even though the motives behind the law is perfectly sound.

    • I strongly disagree. Your “bar” example isn’t an accurate representation of what this law does. I will change your bar example slightly to make my point. This bill isn’t telling a private business what speech it can prohibit within their own establishment. This bill gives the government the authority to punish a private business for the views of it’s employees. It would be like the government coming to a private owned bar and arresting the bar tender because the he verbalized religious or political views the government finds offensive. The government has no authority to come into a private business and ban speech it finds offensive and it has no right to compel the employees of a private business to say words that violate the owner’s sincerely held beliefs. What do you think the First Amendment is for, if not to protect speech that the government finds offensive?

  4. Well at the moment its a useless law that only helps lawyers as per medical treatment standards federal law requires patients be referred to using physical genitalia characteristic pronouns…..AKA it has a penis its male end of story.


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *