Emotionally Driven Politics Results in Stupidity
One Tweet That Obliterated a CBS News Host's Rant at Wake Forest
Will This Man Be the GOP Senate Nominee in Georgia Come 2026?
Federal Judge Drops Another Bombshell on Trump Administration Over Deportation Flight
President Trump Issues a Warning to Vladimir Putin in Blunt Post
Were They Set Up? Trump Administration Considering Pardons for Those Convicted in Whitmer...
Former GOP Lawmakers Cry Foul About Felony Assault Charges Against Democrat Politician
Politico's 'Shadow Cabinet' Idea to Fight Trump
Duffy Explains 'Key' Part of Plan to Address Air Traffic Controller Shortage
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Shares Hopeful News on Tariffs, the Economy
Education Belongs to Parents Again
Speaker Mike Johnson Defends House Budget From Claims of Adding to National...
Time to Strike in Iran
On Genocide, and ‘Genocide’
Maryland Democratic Rep. Posts About Abrego Garcia As His 'Constituent' on Memorial Day
Tipsheet

UPDATE: California Democrats Gut Amendment to Make Buying Minors for Sex a Felony

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

If you need the backstory here, read this post from yesterday, which lays the facts out in all their sordid inglory.  A coalition of some Democrats, Republicans and law enforcement officials have been attempting to undo some of the harm to children embedded in a number of terrible California laws.  Perhaps most notably, they're rightly targeting a 2024 "compromise" -- made at the insistence of "progressives" -- that re-established the purchase of children for sex as a felony, but only after a carve-out exempting sexual solicitation of 16- and 17-year-old minors was added to the legislative language.  Buying those children for sex, which is often tied to all sorts of other heinous sexual exploitation and crimes like trafficking, remained a mere misdemeanor under state law.  This week's efforts to eliminate that appalling loophole was defeated yesterday, overwhelmingly, by Sacramento Democrats, who gutted and watered down the amendment's language as to make it worthless and unenforceable.  

Advertisement

The amendment's Democratic sponsor voted against this gutting, as did several other Democrats, along with unified Republicans. But it passed anyway (55-21) under California's regime of one-party rule.  Look at this absolute disgrace:


Perversely, legislators debated and cast this vote on 'denim day,' which features lawmakers dressed in jeans to their signal support for Sexual Assault Awareness Month.  Signal being the operative word:


Carl DeMaio, a Republican from Southern California whose interview I posted yesterday, passionately opposed this pro-child prostitution abomination.  Ruling Democrats scolded him for violating a parliamentary rule by naming a fellow legislator, even in a positive context.  That's what raised their faux ire, as opposed to the child sex exploitation they have enabled.  Note his points about Gov. Gavin Newsom, who now says he favors all child solicitation being a felony, but who's paved the way for all of this with the bills he's signed:

Advertisement


During the floor debate, in an especially loathsome move, one Democrat suggested that DeMaio (who is gay) is betraying gay "civil rights" by demanding that purchasing minors for sex be a felony under California law.  I cannot contain my contempt for everything that this clip represents:


I'll observe, broadly speaking, that pretending that child sexual solicitation and exploitation is somehow a gay "civil rights" issue seems more like a confession from some people than any sort of reasoned or defensible policy stance.  If radical activists take offense to being labeled "groomers" by critics, they might want to consider not conflating child sexual solicitation and exploitation with gay rights, and enshrining the former in law, using the latter as their excuse.  It's sickening.  Some of the politicians who voted for gutting the amendment claim they "intend" to install additional protections for 16- and 17-year-olds later in the year.  We'll see, but I wouldn't hold your breath.  But there's a reason why certain forces fought tooth and nail to make this crime category misdemeanors, then battled fiercely for the carve-out, then strongly opposed closing the loophole this week. Why "intend" to do something later while refusing to do so now?  

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement