• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

California

Sep 19 2025

California Legislature Passes ‘License to Kidnap’ Act, Other Horrible Legislation

Despite opposition from parents, the California Legislature passed AB 495, the euphemistically titled Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025. The bill allows anyone to claim to be a child’s caregiver – without parental consent or knowledge.

Parental rights activists called the bill the “License to Kidnap Act” and “The California Trafficking Bill,” as it allows non-parents to fill out a “Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit,” claim “affinity within the fifth degree of kinship,” and make medical and educational decisions on behalf of a child.

As California Family Council (CFC) explains, the bill allows anyone who fills out the form to be designated as a child’s caregiver, without any safeguards such as a background check, finger printing, notarization or parent signature.

It’s just one of many horrific bills approved by the legislature and passed on to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing. These include a measure that requires school identification cards to include the suicide hotline number of a radical LGBT activist group, a bill that makes physician-assisted suicide a permanent part of California law and legislation assuring access to dangerous abortion drugs. 

Here’s a roundup of recently passed measures from the California State Legislature that threaten life, children, parents and religious freedom.

AB 495 – Family Preparedness Act  

Supporters say the measure was needed to protect children when their parents were detained or deported, since it allows another adult to communicate with educators and medical practitioners on behalf of a child.

But CFC explained the bill allows any adult to sign the Caregivers Authorization Affidavit without any parental involvement. The group said:

Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa) made a similar point on the Senate floor when she said the affidavit process “has exposed the massive safety risk our current caregiver authorization affidavit process poses.”

She pointed out that someone could make important decisions for a child by “simply filling out an eight-question form that is not required to be notarized, checking a box to indicate that they are a relative, and presenting a form of ID that is never verified for authenticity.”

Pastor Jack Hibbs, of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, bluntly stated his opposition to the bill, “This is actually a dream come true for kidnappers, traffickers, and pedophiles. It is so bad, so dangerous.”

AB 727 – Pupil and Student Safety

The bill requires “public schools that serve pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and public institutions of higher education that issue pupil identification cards” to print the number of The Trevor Project’s LGBTQ+ suicide hotline on those ID cards.

This practice actually endangers students, as CFC explained:

The Trevor Project is an influential, politically active organization with a budget of over 100 million dollars that pushes vulnerable minors with thoughts of suicide to embrace LGBTQ identities and behaviors.

On top of this, their suicide counselors introduce minors to the Trevor Space, an online community to connect vulnerable teens with unverified adults in online chat rooms that encourage them to reject their families and find affirming friends in clubs that explore various gender identities and sexual orientations.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt described the threat to children and parents’ rights, “This is not neutral mental health support. It is ideological indoctrination wrapped in rainbow packaging and pushed on emotionally vulnerable kids, without parental consent or accountability.”

The requirement violates religious freedom and promotes a sexual agenda that is in direct opposition to many families’ deeply held values and beliefs.

SB-403 – End of Life Option Act

California’s original physician-assisted suicide law, the End of Life Option Act, was set to end in 2031, but this bill extended the law permanently. CFC opposed the measure, saying:

EOLOA normalizes and permanently enshrines physician-assisted suicide as a form of healthcare. This law violates the biblical standard that every human life is sacred, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and should be protected until natural death. Permanently legalizing assisted suicide undermines the inherent dignity of vulnerable individuals, including the elderly, the disabled, and the terminally ill, by suggesting that their lives are less worth living.

The organization added that state-sponsored and assisted suicide should not be labeled compassionate, adding, “Instead, policies should promote quality palliative care, mental health support, and spiritual comfort as a just and loving response to suffering that values human dignity.”

AB 54 – Access to Safe Abortion Care Act

Of course, abortion is never “safe” for the child being aborted. And abortion is not “care” for the mother or her preborn child, as this bill euphemistically proclaims. But the California legislature is intent on keeping abortion-inducing drugs easily available for women.

According to CFC, “This bill reaffirms California’s commitment to making abortion drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol widely available without fear of civil, criminal, or professional consequences.”

The pro-life organization explains the danger and harms of abortion drugs, stating:

AB 54 entrenches and expands the reckless distribution of abortion drugs, treating the ending of unborn human life as routine “healthcare” and eliminating critical safeguards that protect women and girls.

These abortion-inducing drugs carry serious health risks, including hemorrhage, infection, and emotional trauma, yet AB 54 sweeps aside all concerns in favor of promoting the abortion industry’s political goals. 

California Family Council is calling on all Californians who care about life, children, parental rights and religious freedom to contact Governor Newsom and urge him to veto these brutal, destructive measures. 

Image from Shutterstock.

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: California

Jul 14 2025

California Interscholastic Federation ‘Gender Diversity Toolkit’ Reveals Extent of Radical ‘Transgender’ Participation Policies

The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) allows boys nearly unrestricted freedom to play girls sports and change in girls’ locker rooms, a “gender diversity toolkit” for coaches reveals.

The only criteria? The male student must “most consistently express himself” as a girl (whatever that means).

It’s no secret CIF and the California Department of Education allow students to participate in sports consistent with their subjective “gender identity,” rather than their biological sex. The Department of Justice sued them for it last week, alleging the policy violates Title IX protections against sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions and activities.

But the true extent of CIF’s “gender inclusion” policy is hidden in the “Gender Diverse Youth Sport Inclusivity Toolkit,” an online guide helping coaches integrate “transgender” and “nonbinary” players.

Thus far, the rules primarily apply to boys interested in joining girls teams.

Here’s what the Daily Citizen uncovered.

Male students can participate in girls sports with no objective criteria.

CIF does not require male athletes submit any proof of gender confusion to play in girls sports.  The toolkit claims asking for such evidence not only violates “transgender” students’ privacy but levies “arbitrary and discriminatory” requirements against them.

The document references a policy brief from the California School Board Association (CSBA), which prohibits school officials from soliciting documentation of a student’s “gender-related identity” unless they have “credible information” indicating the identity is false.

The brief does not clarify what constitutes such information. In Lucia Mar Unified School District, two girls publicly alleged a male teammate acted inappropriately in the girls’ locker room.

He remains on the girls team.

Students can switch “identities” and teams at will.

The toolkit says students that switch “gender identities” may be allowed to participate on a girls team one semester and a boys team the next.

CIF’s “Philosophy of Gender Identity Participation,” as articulated in the toolkit, allows athletes to play on teams consistent with their gender identity or “the gender most consistently expressed.”

This addition, which is not included in CIF’s bylaws, allows students significant room to change their “gender identity.” The toolkit normalizes such changes, telling coaches:

A student’s understanding of their gender identity may take some time to fully discern. They may understand the gender they are not but still need to discover the gender that they are.
Students can change their “gender identities” based on factors like their “confidence.”

One of the Frequently Asked Questions included in the toolkit asks how coaches should determine what sports league a “nonbinary” student should join.

In this case, CIF instructs coaches to allow the student to “select the gendered team on which they feel most comfortable participating.” The policy allows the student to consider factors like “established camaraderie with fellow athletes, personal safety and privacy concerns.”

CIF allows the student to change their “selected gender,” so long as the change “is a result of a deeper understanding of their gender identity.”

It’s unclear how coaches can make this determination without asking for documentation but, regardless, it’s not a hard and fast requirement. The toolkit reads:

A student may have other reasons for changing their gender identification and those can be considered with an emphasis on optimizing the athlete’s confidence, safety and privacy.
While any student may ask for a private space to change, coaches are not allowed to preemptively move a boy to a separate changing area.

The toolkit instructs coaches to accommodate students that ask for a private space to change. However, it stops coaches from assigning “transgender” students a separate changing area unless they ask for it.

“No student should be forced to use an all-gender facility such as a staff bathroom simply because they are trans or gender diverse,” it reads, calling such actions discriminatory.

CIF encourages coaches to prepare girls for a boy to join their team.

The toolkit encourages coaches to mentally prepare girls to accept a male on their team and in their locker room in the name of sportsmanship.

“There is no need to wait for the arrival of a trans athlete to begin conversations with team members about the value of inclusion,” the toolkit reads, continuing:

Any team would benefit from the articulation of, and expectations surrounding, good sportsmanship values.

In another section articulating CIF’s expectations of students, it associates accepting “transgender” athletes with “being gracious winners and losers,” “being a team player,” and “having a supportive and encouraging attitude towards yourself and others.”

“Communication of these expected practices are what builds the foundation for any unexpected situation, including the welcoming of a new trans teammate,” the toolkit concludes.

In this way, CIF enlists coaches in rewiring girls’ perceptions of their own physical boundaries. The University of Pennsylvania tried the same trick in 2022,  when Lia — formerly Will —Thomas joined the women’s swim team.

When athletes like Paula Scanlon expressed discomfort changing in front of Thomas, UPenn officials allegedly offered them therapy to “become more comfortable sharing previously sex-segregated spaces with members of the opposite sex.”

CIF will not tell parents when a “transgender” athlete joins their child’s team.

Perhaps most alarmingly, CIF will not, as a rule, inform athletes and their parents when a boy joins a girls team unless he gives officials explicit permission.

This is consistent with the way CSBA instructs schools to “balance” a “transgender” student’s “right” to conceal their “gender identity” and other students’ right to privacy — just issue a blanket disclosure about the state’s “gender inclusion” policies at the beginning of each year.

CIF’s “Gender Diverse Youth Sport Inclusivity Toolkit” offers boys every incentive to assume a female or “nonbinary” “gender identity.” Meanwhile, female athletes have no guarantee of privacy or equal athletic opportunity, and no recourse in the event of sexual assault and harassment.

Unfortunately, CIF isn’t alone. Public school systems across the country are adopting similar policies, to the unmitigated detriment of students and families.

To learn more about problematic school policies in other states, click on the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

DOJ Lawsuit Describes California Department of Education’s Infuriating Treatment of Girls

Feds Sue California Department of Education, Interscholastic Federation for ‘Illegal Sex Discrimination’

UPenn Will Strip ‘Lia’ Thomas of Medals, Apologize to Female Athletes

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

California Sues DOJ Over ‘Transgender’ Athlete Ban

Feds Pressure California After Boy Wins in Girls Track and Field Championship

Girls Sports Coaches are Incentivized to Recruit Men — Parents Shouldn’t Let Them

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports

Girls Shouldn’t Apologize for Protesting Boys in Girls Sports

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Written by Emily Washburn · Categorized: Culture, Education · Tagged: California, Girls Sports, Title IX, transgender

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy