Woke Extremism Behind Scott Wiener’s War On Parents
Why is the California lawmaker so determined to dismantle parental authority
Last year, California State Senator Scott Wiener authored legislation (SB 866) allowing children from 12 and up to receive the mRNA vaccine injections for Covid-19 without parental knowledge or consent. “California law already allows 12-17-year-olds to access various forms of healthcare without parental consent, eg, HPV & hep B vaccines, abortion care, birth control, mental healthcare, and domestic violence-related care,” Wiener tweeted. “SB 866 builds on this existing law to expand vaccine access.”
The tweet encapsulated a worldview that pervades Wiener’s politics in both substance and style. The assumption was that children are mature enough to make their own healthcare decisions and that parents are mere impediments to their autonomy, sometimes maliciously. If a 12-year-old suffers the consequences of unprotected sex in California, parents have no inherent right to know. If that 12-year-old is beaten by her boyfriend, the government helps her keep it a secret from her mom and dad. So why shouldn’t a child be able to get a Covid vaccine behind her parents’ back?
Wiener has found even more innovative ways to act upon this dark view of the nuclear family. One Wiener bill, SB 107, now law, advises California courts to retain jurisdiction in custody battles between an out-of-state parent who objects to their child having a supposed change in their sex and a parent who brought their child to California to “transition” medically.
The idea behind Wiener’s bill is not only that a child is perfectly capable of making a life-changing decision that could render them infertile, surgically altered, and unable to achieve orgasm for the rest of their life, but also that the government should actively prevent parents from being able to stop their child from doing so. Wiener has implied that parents who don’t believe that gender transition is the best path for their children are a threat to their children’s safety.
Another Wiener bill, AB 957, would, according to the summary from the legislative analyst, “require the court to strongly consider that affirming the minor’s gender identity is in the best interest of the child if a non-consenting parent objects to a name
The bill would require that the courts, “when determining the best interests of a child, also to consider a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.”
If a parent opposes “top surgery,” breast removal, for his or her teen daughter, that parent should lose in a custody battle to the “affirming” parent, according to Wiener’s proposed law.
Wiener is not himself a parent. Nor does he come from a background in education or another field working with children. He’s a lawyer who became a politician. So why is he so intent upon intruding into family decisions and restricting the ability of parents to decide what’s in the best interests of their children? Why does he assume that parents who don’t believe he knows what’s best for their kids are animated by ignorance and hatred?