Protection or Restriction? The California Pronouns Bill

In the California Senate during February, State Senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) proposed SB 219, a bill that would strive to protect members of the LGBT community. Its creation was mostly based on a response to President Trump’s executive order that repealed protections for transgender bathroom rules.

The bill establishes the precedent that hospitals and other care facilities must accommodate all needs of a transgender patient. Those needs include providing the restroom of their preferred gender and even referring to them with the pronoun of that gender.

On May 31st, the legislative piece passed the Democrat-majority State Senate by an overwhelming vote, and within the upcoming weeks, the same is also expected in the Democrat-majority State Assembly.

“It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status,” the bill states.

   Now the intention of this bill is good in helping the LGBT community receive the fair and equal treatment they deserve; however, there will be more struggles for care workers than help to transgender patients.

The consequences for breaking this law could result in either a $1,000 fine and/or even up to a year in jail. I am all for the equality of the LGBT community, but this bill goes beyond ridiculousness.

This not only puts more of a government chokehold on hospitals and clinics through regulations, but it also restricts the free speech of their staff. This is another attempt by the radical liberal Left to stifle speech by workers and punishes them through a minuscule mistake.

This bill will hurt more than it will help, and unfortunately, Democrat-controlled California Legislature will not adhere to the criticisms and warnings of those who only want to help.

This opposition is not sexism, bigotry, or hatred towards the LGBT community; however, protection for one group of people should not come at the cost of the freedom of others.