The issue over parental rights and the privacy of trans students in California is brewing as lawmakers seek to limit the authority of public schools in the state. 

Legislators in Sacramento have sent a bill, AB 1955, to Gov. Gavin Newsom, which would bar school districts from notifying parents if their child uses different pronouns or identifies as a gender that’s different from what’s on school records.  

The bill is currently in the enrollment process, but Newsom will have 12 days to sign it into law once he receives it, his office told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. 

During an emotional June 27 hearing on the state Democratic-led Assembly floor, Assemblyman Bill Essayli, a Republican, vehemently opposed the legislation. Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Wood, a Democrat, repeatedly chastised Essayli for speaking off-topic and had his microphone cut off several times. 

TRANSGENDER ATHLETE COMPLAINS ABOUT LACK OF SPORTSMANSHIP FROM FELLOW RUNNERS AFTER WINNING GIRLS STATE TITLE

The bill passed by a 60-15 vote. 

“California is leading the nation in assaulting parental rights,” Essayli told Fox News Digital in a statement. “AB 1955 is dangerous and defies common sense by stripping parents of their constitutional and God-given right to raise their children.”

“It’s now up to Governor Gavin Newsom to decide whether he will sign this policy and make the erosion of parental rights one of the central issues in his presidential ambitions,” he added. 

Newsom has appeared to play to a national audience as speculations about a possible presidential bid refuse to go away. Last year, he vetoed a bill that would have required courts to consider whether a parent affirms their child’s gender identity when making rulings on custody and visitation.

A bill Essayli proposed last year, AB 1314, would have done the opposite of AB 1955 by requiring schools to notify parents of changes in their child’s gender identity. The proposal failed to advance from the education committee.

During last week’s debate, things almost got out of hand when Assemblyman Corey Jackson, who is part of the LGBTQ community, had to be restrained as he tried to move toward Essayli following his remarks. 

BIDEN OFFICIALS PUSHED TO DROP AGE LIMIT ON TRANS SURGERIES FOR MINORS: REPORT

California Assemblyman Bill Essayli seen speaking against a bill that would require schools to not tell parents when their child changes their gender identity. (California state Assembly)

There are things young people have a right to decide for themselves when it’s appropriate, Jackson said. 

“What we’ve seen is that we’re neglecting that right that they have,” he told Fox News Digital. “It’s a parent’s responsibility to build the type of relationship for a student to be willing to confide in them. We are not an extension of their parenting.” 

Before the vote, Assemblyman Chris Ward, author of AB 1955, said the bill will strengthen families and will allow people to have the “dignity of deciding when they are ready to share some of the most private information about themselves.”

“When you have a policy that requires teachers to do things that they know are not in the best interest of the kids, it causes trauma and damage that experts across the board tell us is true,” he said. 

Corey said he was confident that Newsom will sign AB 1955, while blaming Republicans for instilling “fear and hate.”

“This is politically driven,” he said. “These are not just parents out of nowhere saying this is an issue.”

James Gallagher, the California Assembly Republican Leader, said he has issues with the assumption that telling parents about their child’s gender identity puts students at risk. 

“One of the concerns that I’ve had from the beginning of this legislation is that I feel like it draws almost a default of: ‘School officials and teachers and counselors, they’re always safe and parents are not safe’,” he said last week. “I think we would probably agree on both sides that’s not true.”

A parents’ rights supporter holds up a sign during a Chino Valley Unified School District board meeting at Don Lugo High School in Chino on Thursday night, July 20, 2023. (Getty Images)

The bill came as school districts across California have enacted parent notification policies. Many of the policies have been tweaked after the state sued the Chino Valley Unified School District to halt the enforcement of its mandatory gender identity disclosure policy. 

In March, the district amended the policy and will only mention that a child has requested a change to their student records.

California voters will get to decide in November if they want the state to borrow $10 billion to pay for climate and environmental projects — including some that were axed from the budget because of an unprecedented deficit.

The 28-page bill to put the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024on the ballot was approved by both the Senate and Assembly late Wednesday.

This was the last day lawmakers had to approve the climate bond proposal to get the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) was acting as governor Wednesday because Gov. Gavin Newsom was in Washington. McGuire is a supporter of the proposed climate bond and was expected to sign the legislation Wednesday night.

“Ensuring that our communities have the resources to protect themselves from wildfires, drought and floods is critical to the long-term success of the Golden State,” McGuire said in a press release Monday.

The language of the bill had been negotiated in secret over the last several months but did not become public until 9:57 p.m. Saturday.

California taxpayers would pay the bond back with interest. An analyst for the Assembly estimated that the $10 billion bond would cost the state $650 million a year for the next 30 years or more than $19 billion.

Scott Kaufman, legislative director at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said the cost could be much higher if the interest rate on the bonds turns out to be higher than the 5% rate the analyst used.

“These bonds will be paid by people decades from now that didn’t even get to vote for their authorization,” Kaufman wrote to the bill’s author in a letter opposing the measure.

Earlier this year, Sacramento legislators had proposals to place tens of billions of dollars of bonds on the November ballot for efforts as varied as stopping fentanyl overdoses and building affordable housing.

But those plans were deflated in March when a $6.4-billion bond measure promoted by Newsom to help homeless and mentally ill people got 50.18% of the vote, barely enough to win approval.

In a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 64% of likely voters said it was a “bad time” for the state to issue bonds to pay for state projects and programs.

Dozens of environmental groups, renewable energy companies, labor unions, water agencies and social justice advocates have been lobbying state lawmakers to place the climate bond on the ballot.

The lobbying intensified after Newsom proposed spending $54 billion on climate efforts in 2022 but then cut that funding to close recent massive budget deficits.

According to the bill, $3.8 billion would be allocated to water projects, including those that provide safe drinking water, recycle wastewater, store groundwater and control floods.

An additional $1.5 billion would be spent on wildfire protection, while $1.2 billion would go toward protecting the coast from sea level rise.

Other money would be used to create parks, protect wildlife and habitats and address extreme heat events.

The language requires that at least 40% of the money go to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities, defined as populations where the median household income is less than 80% of the area average or less than 80% of the statewide median.

Some legislators pulled their support of the bond, saying this provision had recently been weakened so that more money would go to people who were not financially disadvantaged.

Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano) said before the Assembly vote that the definition of vulnerable populations had been diluted. “It’s fundamentally unjust,” she said.

Hundreds of millions of dollars from the bond would benefit private industry. For example, it would provide $850 million to clean energy projects, including the proposed offshore wind farms. Those planned wind projects are already benefiting from subsidies in President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Governments often take out long-term debt to pay for infrastructure projects that are expensive to build but will last for decades. Yet some of the planned climate bond spending would go to operate programs that could long be over by the time the bonds are paid off. For instance, a portion will go to “workforce development” or the training of workers.

And up to 7% of the money or $700 million can go to administration costs.

“We are already seeing the devastating effects of climate change — more extreme heat waves, catastrophic fires and floods, coastal erosion, and severe droughts,” Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) said in a press release. “Every part of our state is affected, and unless we take action now, the cost to address these impacts will become increasingly overwhelming.”