Seriously- Why would he veto this?
Not in full control?
Or he’s trying to win political points for a run for president?
Which seems more logical?
Regardless, THANK YOU GOD!
"
“To the Members of the California State Assembly:
“I am returning Assembly Bill 957 without my signature.
This legislation would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding, to consider, among other comprehensive factors, a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity or gender expression.
I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office.
That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate - in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic - legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply. Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.
Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child's health, safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these proceedings, including the parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity.”
"I’m surprised he vetoed this….
Seriously- Why would he veto this? Not in full control? Or he’s trying to win political points for a run for president?
Which seems more logical?
Regardless, THANK YOU GOD! "
“To the Members of the California State Assembly:
“I am returning Assembly Bill 957 without my signature.
This legislation would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding, to consider, among other comprehensive factors, a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity or gender expression.
I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office.
That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate - in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic - legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply. Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.
Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child's health, safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these proceedings, including the parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity.”
Veto https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AB-957-Veto-Message.pdf
(Pepe Deluxe)
he's running for president, this confirms it. He needed to NOT do this to have a chance.