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

 

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

STATUS: SB 219 has been sent to the Governor. On September 13, the California State Senate gave final approval to SB 219 (voting 26 yes, 12 no, 1 abstention). All Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted no except Anthony Cannella of Stanislaus County abstained. The bill had passed the California State Assembly (lower house, dominated by Democrats) on September 12. The Assembly vote was 55 yes, 19 no, 5 abstain (voting yes were 52 Democrats and 3 "Republicans" -- Catharine Baker of Contra Costa and Alameda counties, Brain Maienschein of north San Diego County, and Chad Mayes of the Yucca Valley / Palm Springs region.

See SaveCalifornia.com's June 1 news release.

Act now to urge Governor Jerry Brown to veto this radical and burdensome bill.

 
USE OUR SAMPLE LETTER TO URGE GOVERNOR BROWN TO VETO SB 219

Here's how to fax or mail your SB 219 veto request letter to California Governor Jerry Brown. Send a letter especially if you operate a care home, are an employee of a care home, or have a relative or friend in a care home. And please ask others to send their letters, especially care homes in your community.

Print our alarming letter to hand-deliver to care home managers
Find long-term care homes near you

Simply copy and paste the following strategic sample letter on your own letterhead (official business letterhead is best), edit as you wish, date it, and add your signature, typed name, title, and mailing address. Then fax your letter to Governor Brown at 916-558-3160 (and also confidentially fax it to SaveCalifornia.com at 916-848-3456), or mail it to Brown, or both fax and mail to him.


* * *

TODAY'S DATE

Governor Jerry Brown
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 219 -- Veto Request

Dear Governor Brown,

Please veto SB 219, which is too broad and goes too far by imposing severe penalties within a confusing new proposed discrimination policy.

For example, under the proposed bill, if a California long-term care home employee mistakenly refers to a transitioning transgender woman as "he," or a transitioning transgender man as "she," the care home or care home manager or care home employee can incur a criminal fine, be incarcerated for up to a year, suffer fines and license revocation by the Department of Public Health, and also incur a fine of up to $150,000 under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Financially penalizing or shutting down long-term care facilities that otherwise provide quality service is not good public policy. SB 219 is overkill for a mistake based on someone's appearance or voice. In addition, this bill insensitively lacks an exemption for religious-based care facilities.

For these commonsense reasons, please veto SB 219. Thank you.

Sincerely,

YOUR SIGNATURE
YOUR NAME
YOUR TITLE
YOUR MAILING ADDRESS

* * *

SUMMARY: SB 219 would require all long-term care facilities – senior homes, convalescent homes, skilled nursing facilities, developmentally disabled, pediatric day health, respite care, etc. – to fully support transsexuality and cross-dressing, including all types of "sex" unless sexual relations are forbidden for all residents. The bill lacks a religious exemption for residents, employees, managers, or owners.

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.