,
 

Newsroom

Donate PromoAd Web Dec 2021 260x250

California Releases

10/16/17: 'Nonbinary' on California drivers' licenses teaches children a big lie about sex


SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE

October 16, 2017 -- For Immediate Release

'Nonbinary' on California drivers' licenses teaches children a big lie about sex  

Thomasson: "You're male if you've inherited a Y chromosome from your father; if not, you're female."

Sacramento, California (October 16, 2017) -- Veteran California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good, has issued the following statement regarding Governor Jerry Brown signing SB 179 to invent a catch-all, third sex-gender designation called "nonbinary" to go on drivers' licenses and birth certificates.

"This new law calls transsexuality good, when science, health, logic and love inform us it's bad. Pushing so-called 'nonbinary' upon 15-year-olds applying for a learner's permit or 16-year-olds getting their drivers' licenses tells them a big lie about sex. It's an unchangeable law of Nature that you're male if you've inherited a Y chromosome from your father; if not, you're female. Even the Centers for Disease Control knows that biological men who call themselves women engage in harmful behavior that puts them at the highest risk for HIV/AIDS. Science and God's word agree you're either male or female, not in-between. Now that Governor Brown has signed this illogical bill, parents will have to work even harder to teach their children the reliable facts of life."

Documentation:

The X and Y Chromosomes Determine Your Sex, 23andme.com
"Typically females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y. Mothers always pass an X chromosome on to their children. Whether your father passes on his X chromosome (leading to a pair of X chromosomes) or his Y chromosome (making a mixed set) determines your sex."

CDC Issue Brief, September 2016 [shows men who claim to be women have an HIV transmission rate triple that of homosexual men (2.7% vs. .09%)]: "Transgender people, particularly transgender women, are vulnerable to HIV infection. Available evidence suggests that, in relation to their population size, transgender women are among the most heavily affected populations in the United States ... Meta-analyses and literature reviews of available studies provide evidence of the effects HIV has taken on the transgender community. In a recent analysis of CDC-funded HIV testing conducted nationwide, transgender women had the highest rates of HIV diagnoses (2.7%), followed by men (0.9%), transgender men (0.5%), and women (0.2%)."

Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, The New Atlantis, Fall 2016
Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence. The report has a special focus on the higher rates of mental health problems among LGBT populations, and it questions the scientific basis of trends in the treatment of children who do not identify with their biological sex.

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. The findings that do exist often have sample-selection problems, and they lack longitudinal perspective and explanatory power. Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Yet despite the scientific uncertainty, drastic interventions are prescribed and delivered to patients identifying, or identified, as transgender. This is especially troubling when the patients receiving these interventions are children. We read popular reports about plans for medical and surgical interventions for many prepubescent children, some as young as six, and other therapeutic approaches undertaken for children as young as two. We suggest that no one can determine the gender identity of a two-year-old. We have reservations about how well scientists understand what it even means for a child to have a developed sense of his or her gender, but notwithstanding that issue, we are deeply alarmed that these therapies, treatments, and surgeries seem disproportionate to the severity of the distress being experienced by these young people, and are at any rate premature since the majority of children who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex will not continue to do so as adults. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable studies on the long-term effects of these interventions.

Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment, The Johns Hopkins News-Letter, May 1, 2014
"In 1979, SBCU Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn't, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: "My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it's clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don't go away following surgery. After Meyer's study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to Schmidt, shut the program down...McHugh says that it shouldn't be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer's study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population."

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden, February 22, 2011
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

Sex changes are not effective, say researchers, The Guardian, July 30, 2004
The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective. The Guardian asked Arif to conduct the review after speaking to several people who regret changing gender or believe that the medical care they received failed to prepare them for their new lives. They explain why they are unhappy with their sex change and how they cope with the consequences in the Weekend magazine tomorrow (July 31). Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: "There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised - often to the point of committing suicide." Arif, which advises the NHS in the West Midlands about the evidence base of healthcare treatments, found that most of the medical research on gender reassignment was poorly designed, which skewed the results to suggest that sex change operations are beneficial. Its review warns that the results of many gender reassignment studies are unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants. For example, in a five-year study of 727 post-operative transsexuals published last year, 495 people dropped out for unknown reasons. Dr Hyde said the high drop out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals.

SaveCalifornia.com statement on SB 179, September 15, 2017
"Increasing identity fraud that burdens law enforcement, government agencies, and financial institutions is not good public policy. The current process requiring a licensed physician to verify and a court to confirm gender change is reasonable and prudent. Identity fraud cost Americans $16 billion in 2016 and we must do more, not less, to combat it. Yet SB 179 mandates that a court illogically accept a subjective claim of gender change as 'conclusive proof' in a court of law. This is reason enough for a veto. Diminishing a legal identity verification process to paying a paltry $11 and permitting an unsubstantiated claim to magically morph into legal fact is both unnecessary and unsound."

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.
 

10/4/17: Jerry Brown signs transsexual takeover of California care homes


SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE

October 4, 2017 -- For Immediate Release

Jerry Brown signs transsexual takeover of California care homes  

Thomasson: "Who could have imagined a law sending Californians to jail for saying 'he' or 'she' in a way the State doesn't like? But it's here."

Sacramento, California -- Veteran California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, has issued the following statement responding to Governor Jerry Brown today signing, without comment, SB 219, which will force all California long-term care facilities to submit to the tyrannical transsexual agenda, without limit:

"Existing law prohibits care homes from discriminating on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, or actual or perceived gender identity (HSC 1569.269(b)). Yet this dangerous new law will unnecessarily and excessively penalize certain types of private speech at care facilities, and will impose criminal liability for saying 'wrong' words, including injurious fines and up to a year in jail.

"By imposing severe penalties within a confusing new 'sex change' policy, SB 219 will insensitively condemn care home employees who are non-English speakers and who may misunderstand requests of a resident in gender change transition. Creating harsh criminal penalties is not a sensible solution to delicate communication problems that may arise at care facilities. It's sad that the ruling Democrats ignored the commonsense objections of the California Association of Health Facilities.

"Who could have imagined a law sending Californians to jail for saying 'he' or 'she' in a way the State doesn't like? But it's here. Under SB 219, if a California long-term care home employee refers to a transitioning transgender woman as 'he,' or a transitioning transgender man as 'she,' they can incur a criminal fine and be incarcerated for up to a year, while the care home itself can suffer heavy 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. This merciless squashing of free speech cries out to be ruled unconstitutional."

Understand what SB 219 does:

SB 219 will 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.

When SB 219 becomes law on January 1, 2018, 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"?)

SB 219 will force California care facility 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.

As LifeSiteNews explains, "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.'"

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.
 

7/26/17: Celebrating an end to taxpayer-funded 'sex changes' in the U.S. military


SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE

July 26, 2017 -- For Immediate Release

Celebrating an end to taxpayer-funded 'sex changes' in the U.S. military  

"President Trump's decision reflects the healthy and incontrovertible scientific fact that you're male if you've inherited a Y chromosome from your father, and you're female if you haven't"

Respond today: Thank President Trump by emailing him 

Sacramento, California -- In response to President Donald Trump's admirable decision to remove the harmful transsexual agenda from the United States military, SaveCalifornia.com is urging more young people to enlist in the improved armed forces.

"The U.S. military just got better and now's a great time to enlist," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which supports moral virtues for the common good. "The purpose of our military -- to have strong troop unity and strength that protects Americans and wins necessary wars -- has been restored. Today, Americans who love our military heritage are happy, but those who've forgotten our military's high purpose are upset."

"Mixing biological women into men's barracks or biological men into women's barracks weakens troop morale, trust, and effectiveness," Thomasson said. "The obvious solution to improve our military is to get rid of years of politically-correct social experimentation. Where Obama did wrong, Trump's done right. President Trump's decision reflects the healthy and incontrovertible scientific fact that you're male if you've inherited a Y chromosome from your father, and you're female if you haven't."

"President Trump has put a stop to the taxpayer-funded 'sex change' procedures and operations costing the People nearly $2 BILLION over ten years," Thomasson said. "We thank him for ending the transsexual disruption in our military. Even people who didn't vote for Trump should be grateful."

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.
 
 

9/15/17: 3 imprudent bills Jerry Brown should veto


SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE

September 15, 2017 -- For Immediate Release

3 imprudent bills Jerry Brown should veto  

Don't mess with DMV, courts, police, banks, care homes, religious schools, hospitals

Sacramento, California -- Veteran California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, has issued the following statement regarding three reckless bills passed by the California Legislature that Governor Jerry Brown should veto:

SB 179: "Increasing identity fraud that burdens law enforcement, government agencies, and financial institutions is not good public policy. The current process requiring a licensed physician to verify and a court to confirm gender change is reasonable and prudent. Identity fraud cost Americans $16 billion in 2016 and we must do more, not less, to combat it. Yet SB 179 mandates that a court illogically accept a subjective claim of gender change as 'conclusive proof' in a court of law. This is reason enough for a veto. Diminishing a legal identity verification process to paying a paltry $11 and permitting an unsubstantiated claim to magically morph into legal fact is both unnecessary and unsound."

SB 219: "Existing law prohibits care homes from discriminating on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, or actual or perceived gender identity (HSC 1569.269(b)). Yet this bill would unnecessarily and excessively penalize certain types of private speech at care facilities, and would impose criminal liability for wrong speech, including injurious fines and up to a year in jail. In particular, SB 219 would insensitively condemn care employees who are non-English speakers and who may misunderstand requests of a resident in gender change transition. Creating harsh criminal penalties is not a sensible solution to delicate communication problems that may arise at care facilities."

AB 569: "Religious entities have an inherent right to hold their own moral policies. Yet AB 569 brashly violates the bright line between Church and State, and puts government in the dangerous and ill-advised role of regulating religious practices. People have different views on abortion, and the State must resist imposing a certain opinion that creates more conflict by forcing religious schools and hospitals to abandon their dearly-held beliefs. What's more, AB 569 would usher in greater litigation, making previously-protected matters of conscience mere sport for unscrupulous lawyers."

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.
 

6/1/17: California Democrats impose abortion agenda (AB 569) upon religious schools

 

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE

June 1, 2017 -- For Immediate Release

California Democrats impose abortion agenda (AB 569) upon religious schools
Thomasson: "Do Californians want a State religion that forces churches what to believe?"

Sacramento, California (June 1, 2017) -- Democrats that dominate the California State Assembly have voted for impose their pro-abortion agenda upon churches, religious schools, religious colleges and universities, religious hospitals, religious care facilities, religious business owners, and other religious institutions in California.

AB 569 prohibits religious institutions from having codes of conduct or any employee policies that prohibit abortion or limit "reproductive health care decisions" in any way. If this bill becomes law, religious institutions in California with non-"ministerial" employees can no longer uphold their beliefs about contraception, abortion, or sex outside of marriage in employee policies.

The May 31 vote on AB 569 in the 80-member California Assembly was 54 yes, 17 no, 9 not voting. Voting yes for AB 569 were 52 Democrats, along with "Republicans" Catharine Baker of Alameda and Contra Costa counties and Brian Maienschein of north San Diego.

"Any legislator who claims to support religious freedom but who voted for this invasion of religion is a liar," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which upholds moral virtues for the common good. "AB 569 destroys religious freedom since many religions consider sex outside of marriage and the killing of pro-born babies sins against God. By rejecting a religious exemption, the bill author, Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, has declared war on religious liberty statewide, in violation of both the California and the United States constitutions."

"This intolerant bill brashly crosses the line between Church and State," Thomasson said. "The new 'religion' of AB 569 is to tell children at church schools that good Christianity is where teachers and church secretaries have unmarried sex and get abortions. This is the big nose of the government poking itself where it absolutely doesn't belong. Do Californians want a State religion that forces churches what to believe?"

 

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

 

    SEE MORE STATEMENTS

     » List of all news releases

    BOOK AN INTERVIEW

     » Call for a phoner, Skype, more