XPost: alt.california, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics
XPost: alt.activism.children.molesters, alt.politics.democrats.d
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/emilyhoeven/article/california- legislature-newsom-child-trafficking-20305199.php
Are California Democrats trying to make themselves irrelevant?
They must be — because it’s getting increasingly difficult to come up with rational explanations for the self-sabotaging actions they’re taking in
the state Legislature.
After a month that saw prominent state Democratic leaders take absurd
stances on bills to improve early childhood literacy and housing
availability, Assembly members on Thursday argued for more than an hour
about whether it should be a felony to purchase 16- and 17-year-olds for
sex.
Their ultimate conclusion: We’ll think about it — but probably not.
Assembly Democrats overwhelmingly voted to strip AB379 by Assembly Member
Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, of its key provision — to toughen penalties for offenders convicted of purchasing 16- and 17-year-olds for sex to match
the punishments for those convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger.
Instead, they inserted an amendment stating, “It is the intent of the Legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old
victims and strengthen protections in support of victims of human
trafficking.” Krell’s name, along with those of nearly two dozen co-
authors, was also wiped from the bill and replaced with two new authors: Assembly Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz, D-Burbank, and Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove (Sacramento County).
The irony, of course, is that keeping Krell’s intact bill would have been
the strongest protection for 16- and 17-year-old victims.
Krell knows what she’s talking about: As a former prosecutor in the
California Department of Justice, she helped bring down Backpage, one of
the largest sex trafficking websites in the world.
The Democrats’ refusal to back her effort forced Gov. Gavin Newsom to take
a break from podcasting and issue a stern statement: “The law should treat
all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of
the intended victim’s age.”
Why are the consequences for those who try to purchase sex from 16- or 17- year-olds different from other minors in the first place?
Last year, state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, introduced a bill to require child sex buyers to face felony charges. At the time, offenders
faced only misdemeanor charges — a maximum of one year in jail and a
potential $10,000 fine.
Grove was fresh off a giant political victory over Democrats: In 2023, the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed her bill to classify human
trafficking of minors as a “serious” felony, arguing that offenders
already faced potentially lengthy sentences. This tone-deaf reasoning
sparked immediate backlash and a swift intervention from Newsom and
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister (San Benito County), and
Grove’s bill was revived and signed into law.
But Democrats in the Senate Public Safety Committee balked at Grove’s new
bill, suggesting it could lead to teenagers being punished for having sex
with each other or be weaponized against LGBT people. Over Grove’s
objections, they amended the bill to loosen protections for 16- and 17- year-olds. Under the revised bill, which Newsom signed into law, people convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger for sex could face either misdemeanor or felony charges on the first offense and felony charges on
the second offense. But those protections would only apply to 16- and 17- year-olds if they could prove they were victims of human trafficking.
This carve-out was a political compromise, but it made little logical or
moral sense. As Krell emphasized in passionate comments Thursday, “There
is no such thing as a child prostitute.” She noted that under federal law, “You’re automatically a victim of human trafficking if you’re under 18 and bought for sex. … Sex without consent, that’s rape. The exchange of money doesn’t change that.”
But, once again, Democrats are contorting themselves into rhetorical
pretzels to defend the indefensible.
“This bill with the amendments sends a clear message to every 16- and 17- year-old who has been caught in the nightmare of human trafficking — you
are not invisible, you are not alone, and we will fight for you,”
proclaimed Assembly Member Mark González, D-Los Angeles.
The amendments sent a message, all right — that purchasing a 16- or 17- year-old for sex isn’t as bad as purchasing other underage victims.
Meanwhile, Assembly Member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, chastised Republican lawmakers for their “selective outrage,” noting that President Donald
Trump sought to appoint former Rep. Matt Gaetz — who was found to have
likely engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl — as his
attorney general.
Yet Berman’s argument undermined his own stance: By refusing to support
Krell’s bill in its original form, he was effectively arguing that people
who purchase 17-year-old prostitution victims shouldn’t face more severe penalties. His view would give the Matt Gaetz’s of the world a pass.
Schultz, meanwhile, slammed the Assembly for “playing politics” with the
bill. After the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday voted to pass Krell’s bill after once again carving out older teenagers, Republicans — sensing blood in the water — said they would force a floor vote on the
issue Thursday, and Krell defied Assembly leadership by announcing she
planned to vote with Republicans. This infuriated Rivas and Schultz, who
said Krell had agreed to accept the committee’s revisions.
But what the Democratic caucus sees as political insubordination, average Californians are likely to see as a righteous battle.
“Somehow, as the president tanks our economy and deports innocent
children, the American people still don’t trust Democrats,” said Assembly Member Jasmeet Bains, D-Bakersfield. “Any sane person knows that
purchasing a 16- or 17-year-old for sex should be a felony, not a
misdemeanor. This should not be a debate.”
But even Newsom’s intervention couldn’t save Krell’s bill Thursday — 56 Assembly Democrats voted to move the bill forward with the Schultz and
Nguyen amendments. Republicans were joined by just three Democrats in
voting against the amendments: Krell, Bains and Assembly Member Joaquin Arambula, D-Fresno.
Ignoring Newsom, a lame-duck governor with just one year left in his term,
is one thing. But clinging to nonsensical arguments in defense of bad
policy is another.
Rather than admit they’re wrong, far too many Democrats seem perfectly
happy to sanctimoniously dig the party’s political grave.
--
November 5, 2024 - Congratulations President Donald Trump. We look
forward to America being great again.
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.
Every day is an IQ test. Some pass, some, not so much.
Thank you for cleaning up the disasters of the 2008-2017, 2020-2024 Obama
/ Biden / Harris fiascos, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)