Assembly Bill 2164 authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would have prohibited California’s governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person related to their providing a legally protected healthcare activity in the Golden State to transgender individuals, or if they provide reproductive services. It provided certain exemptions, such as an extradition required by federal law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Most people allegedly disagree that trans people should have medical care, and that means we just shouldn't? That's a hell of a fucking take.

Our existance is what's up for debate on the right. Trump started this term declaring that legally we don't exist. It's not hyperbole. Every concession towards the right is another step towards their goal. Capitulation here is madness, I'm sorry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    But your problem is you are not acknowledging the people you're talking to or about. Somebody says I disagree on sports and you bring up medical care.

    I remember back in the day democrats came out against gay marriage. Many people recognized this was a necessary thing for them to say in order to win elections. And the net result for gay people was a supreme court that granted them the right to get married.

    The Trans community hears somebody disagree with their right to play whatever sport they want and there reaction is to burn the whole country to the ground. It is short sighted.

    If a politician says they don't support your right to Healthcare, that is specific to that politician. Newsom has signed plenty of bills that support the Trans community. Even in his conversation with Charlie Kirk he gave a lot of support to the Trans community which I generally ignored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    He vetoed a bill aimed at protecting trans medical care. That's what this entire discussion has been about. Fuck off with your sports.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

    His reason, as I mentioned in another comment, was that this bill was intended to limit the governor's rights. Since he is the outgoing governor, he didn’t think it would be right to sign a bill that limits the rights of the new governor. This is something Republicans have done to Democrats in the past and is also not OK.

    Be careful about getting triggered by a headline when there is nuance in the article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Limit the governor's power to do what exactly? Let's see here...

    would have prohibited California’s governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person related to their providing a legally protected healthcare activity in the Golden State to transgender individuals, or if they provide reproductive services.

    You support here the governor being allowed to extradite anyone who provides medical care to trans people, as well as pregnant people. You argue to prevent this is not okay. And you don't understand why trans people are upset? Are you even trying?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Not every bill that has good things in it is good. It makes for a great rage bating headline, though.

    His actual comment if you care:

    While I share the author's views on the importance of protecting these important healthcare services, extradition is an exclusively executive function. When discretionary, that discretion is appropriately placed with the Governor. I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    So you think a legislature trying to reign in executive power and put additional guardrails in place to curtail "executive authority" is a bad thing? Especially when this is the guy trying to replace Trump?

    Ignoring the healthcare aspect of this bill and just taking that argument at face value, there is no circumstance where I would elect a president who has no interest in ceding authority back to a legislature after this administration's shitshow. We clearly need less executive authority, and if Newsom is treating that as a non-starter, he's not fit for office.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago

    I think it's different than vetoing a bill because he hates the Trans community. That's what this headline implies, and people are going right along with it.

    there is no circumstance where I would elect a president who has no interest in ceding authority back to a legislature after this administration's shitshow.

    This sounds like setting wildly unrealistic expectations about who is acceptable to vote for.

  • source
  • parent