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.  As of July 20 (the day before the Legislature begins its month-long summer recess), SB 219 had already passed two Assembly committees, with only Democrats supporting it, along with Republican Brian Maienschein of San Diego. 

Because SB 219 is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled California Legislature in late August or early September, now is the time to urge Governor Jerry Brown to veto this radical and burdensome bill.

NEW: SAMPLE LETTER URGING 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.

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 senior 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, incur a civil penalty, and also incur a fine of up to $150,000 under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Financially penalizing or shutting down senior 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 California's 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 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.