There's a mind-blowing battle playing out in Sacramento among the Democrats who dominate California politics. We told you this week about how these same Democrats quietly killed a bipartisan bill, without debate, that would have implemented the successful reading instruction program that has allowed Mississippi students to overtake California kids in early literacy. They did so at the furious behest of California's anti-education, anti-child teachers unions, who are among the deep-pocketed left-wing special interest groups who rule the party that rules the state. This maneuver even offended the leftist editors of the leftist San Francisco Chronicle, but it's business as usual in the leftist state. If that weren't bad enough, Democrats have chosen to double down on cartoonish evil -- and I don't use that word lightly -- by debating over whether purchasing children for sex should be a felony.
I'm not exaggerating or making this up. Here's a local news program in Sacramento laying this story out earlier in the week:
California Democrats appear to be internally arguing over bill to include 16-and 17-year-olds in a state law that has made it a felony to purchase a child for sex.
— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) April 28, 2025
The bill faces a key deadline Friday, and it's been dropped from the Assembly Public Safety committee agenda. pic.twitter.com/osPqCU7OTL
This journalist then reported the following development: "BREAKING: Assembly Public Safety Chairman Nick Schultz confirms AB 379 will be changed by committee tomorrow to exclude felony charge for those who buy 16 and 17 year olds for sex. He says he wants to host info hearings on the issue in the fall." There were so many Democrats who opposed changing existing law (more on that in a moment) to classify buying sex from minors who are 16 and 17 years old that the relevant committee chairman decided against making the change. He said they need informational hearings to study the issue, and punted it. They need informational hearings to study whether it should be a felony to purchase children for sexual exploitation. This is the elected California legislature, mind you, not the internal deliberations of child traffickers. The sickness and depravity is hard to describe. Politico tried to, poorly, in this piece published Tuesday night -- writing that the whole firestorm is "not quite that simple." Actually, it is quite simple:
[Legislators engaged in] several days of the Assembly Public Safety Committee playing so-called agenda chicken over a bill from Democratic Assemblymember Maggy Krell. Her legislation would criminalize loitering with the intent to buy sex and expand a soliciting law authored by state Sen. Shannon Grove to include 16- and 17-year-olds after Democrats carved the older teens out of the bill last year. Although Chair Nick Schultz and the committee advanced Krell’s bill, the legislation still fueled the online conservative outrage machine that goes into overdrive every time a sex trafficking-related bill hits the Capitol. Today, the anger was over committee amendments that once again cut from the bill the provision adding older teens back into Grove’s soliciting law. “These are girls,” said Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican on the committee. “These are people that our society should be doing everything they can to protect. So why are we protecting the predator by removing this tenet?”
Progressive Democrats...supported Grove’s bill last year only with the carveout excluding older teens. They were not happy to see the age range reappear — even in a piece of legislation authored by their own member. State Sen. Scott Wiener told Playbook he was “just floored” by Grove trying to expand the law after agreeing to Democratic amendments last year. As opponents to the bill reiterated during the hearing today, Democrats want to remove 16- and 17-year-olds in large part because they fear parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ relationships involving older teens could prompt them to weaponize solicitation laws. Krell — a former prosecutor who has spent her career working on sex trafficking issues — told reporters she accepted the panel’s amendments because leaders had taken the bill off the agenda, and doing so was the only way to secure a hearing. When asked about Democrats’ long-held concerns about the age range, Krell still seemed surprised they wanted to maintain the carveout.
The article sneers at the "conservative outrage machine" kicking into high gear over...child sex trafficking. If there's ever an issue worthy of outrage, would that not be it? And why did "progressive" Democrats ever demand a carve-out to make sure soliciting sex from children who are 16 and 17 is not a felony? Because they argued parents might "weaponize" the law against LGBTQ kids, or something. This is ludicrous and disgusting. Paying children for sex should be a felony. Period. It's demented that "progressives" have decided to try to twist this into a racial or LGBT "justice" issue. The Democratic sponsor of this law is right to be "surprised," a mild word, that her colleagues want to "maintain the carve-out." Gov. Gavin Newsom, eager as ever to run for president, seems to have enough political sense to see how this might play nationally, but just wait for it:
The statement above is from his office.
— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) April 29, 2025
This is now the third time the governor has spoken up when Democrats in CALeg have stalled or blocked tougher consequences for those in child sex trafficking industry. https://t.co/MBaXaBtJ59
That's less insane and evil than what other Democrats are doing here, of course, but does Newsom have any credibility here? We've seen him claim moderation on a number of issues lately, hoping that nobody pays attention to his extremist actions on precisely those same fronts. He wants new vibes to overshadow his governing actions. If it's so obvious that buying 16 and 17-year-olds for sex is a despicable crime (it is), why did he sign the law with the carve-out? And why was that watered-down law even necessary in the first place? Because the leftist politicians who run California had previously made buying kids for sex a mere misdemeanor. Newsom is complicit:
From CA GOP source: pic.twitter.com/wjpkwMgMD8
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) April 29, 2025
If Newsom's presidential ambitions are what ultimately forces this issue and protects children under California law, so be it. But given his track record, it's highly likely that the governor would be siding with the "progressives," or at least deferring to them, if he weren't looking for a job promotion from a national electorate that might take a much more hostile view of child sex trafficking and prostitution than his fellow left-wing politicians in Sacramento. I'll leave you with my conversation with a California lawmaker about this outrageous battle:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member