SB 219: Requires private care facilities to fully support 'LGBT'

 

Oppose SB 219 -- Forces care facilities to embrace 'LGBT'

STATUS: The May 31 vote on SB 219 in the 40-member California Senate was 26 yes, 12 no. Only Democrats voted "aye." See SaveCalifornia.com's June 1 news release.

SUMMARY: SB 219 would require private care facilities – senior group homes, convalescent homes, skilled nursing facilities, etc. – to fully support homosexuality, bisexuality, and especially transsexuality, including cross-dressing, as well as all types of “sex” on the premises, unless sexual relations are forbidden for every resident. There is no religious exemption for any dissenting resident, employee, manager, or owner.

 

 

ACT NOW: Tell your California state assemblymember who represents the district where you live: "Oppose SB 219 -- it's poorly drafted, lacks a religious exemption, and will cause problems and grief for parents and grandparents." 

CLICK HERE to find your California state senator

UNDERSTAND: If SB 219 becomes law, it will be unlawful and criminal for any private care facility to:

1. Not call a transsexual’s desire pronoun “he” or “she” or the transsexual’s new “male” or “female” name.

2. Move or evict a transsexual resident for acting out their transsexual behavior, even if other residents are disturbed by it.

3. Respect the wishes of a person in a shared room not to have a transsexual roommate.

4. Maintain order by keeping biological males and biological females from sharing rooms and beds.

5. Refuse to help dress men in women’s clothes or women in men’s clothes, since the new law mandates a “right to wear or be dressed in clothing, accessories, or cosmetics that are permitted for any other resident.”

6. Protect privacy in men’s and women’s restrooms and bathing areas, despite the bill’s mandate for unisex bathrooms, “regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming.”

7. Restrict homosexual or transsexual “sex” with other residents or visitors on the premises, unless there is a uniform ban on sexual relations for all residents.

8. Fail to introduce all employees to a new government-endorsed curriculum called, “Building Respect for LGBT Older Adults.”

9. Despite all the above, private care centers could not “deny or restrict medical or nonmedical care that is appropriate to a resident’s organs and bodily needs.” (So, with a cross-dressing biological male, the private care facility would be forced to treat him as a "woman," but then as the man he is in regard to his "organs and bodily needs"?)

One of the worst things about SB 219, as LifeSiteNews explains, is “if an elderly woman living at a nursing home in California is upset that she has been assigned a severely gender-confused man (say, a man with penis intact and artificially-induced breasts who dresses like a woman) as a roommate, her request to be reassigned another roommate could be termed ‘discriminatory.’”

Another disturbing result of SB 219 is it would force employees, often Hispana or Filipina women, to abandon all morals, reason, and logic by being legally forced to dress up a biological man, if he demands it, in bra, panties, and women's clothes; being forced to put on him women's earrings and necklaces and panty hose and women's shoes; and being forced to apply make-up, eyeliner, and lipstick.