Why we left California: Its legislature put crazy woke ideology ahead of kids' wellbeing
One moment crystallized it: sitting in the pediatrician's waiting room, we learned that once our daughter turned 12, we would no longer have access to her medical records without her consent.
That's not parental empowerment. That's state intrusion — and it was just the beginning.
California's unraveling isn't just about affordability or policy overreach. It is also about a government that has deprioritized the safety, dignity, and wellbeing of children in favor of a progressive-left agenda.
Take Assembly Bill 90, which requires community colleges and state universities to create overnight parking programs for the 4.2 percent of homeless students in their systems.
On the surface, it sounds compassionate. In reality, it is a stark admission of policy failure.
In 2016, California adopted the federal 'Housing First' model, which promises permanent housing units — without preconditions — to all struggling with homelessness. This policy was overlaid onto a system that already ranked 49th in the nation in housing units per resident, and that builds just 40 percent of the affordable units it needs annually.
Instead of fixing these systemic failures, AB 90 effectively turned parking lots into student housing, exposing students to crime, isolation, and instability. Assemblymember Darshana Patel (D) stood virtually alone in raising student safety concerns. In a party-line, 6-2 vote, the bill passed committee.
Then there's Assembly Bill 379, written to increase penalties for child sex traffickers. Unfortunately, that version didn't survive. Progressive-left lawmakers stripped the bill of protections for 16- and 17-year-olds — the very age group most targeted by traffickers, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
California's majority party couldn't bring itself to protect minors from sexual exploitation, because somehow this apparently conflicted with their political narrative.
The same pattern shows up in school sports. Two common-sense bills intended to safeguard fairness and safety for female athletes were killed in committee. These bills would have barred biological males from competing against girls— something California Gov. Gavin Newsom himself has admitted to be 'deeply unfair.'
Decades of research and a 2020 study published in Sports Medicine confirm the physical advantages biological males have over females, even after hormone therapy. To refuse to acknowledge this reality is to deny basic science. It isn't just unfair but dangerous to have males competing in girls' and women's sports, especially contact sports.
All this is happening while California funnels billions into climate initiatives and green infrastructure despite ranking 41st in K-12 education and 39th in school safety. California also leads the nation in youth depression and self-harm, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
And let's not forget that during the COVID-19 pandemic, California kept students out of classrooms longer than almost any other state. That decision caused historic learning loss— particularly among low-income students. To date, there has been no meaningful academic recovery plan.
What's the matter with California? To sum up: Parents can't access their children's medical records without the children's permission; students' dorms are the backseats of their Honda Civics; vulnerable teens go unprotected from traffickers; female athletes are deliberately put at risk.
These aren't glitches. They are all symptoms of a deeper collapse — a moral and political refusal to prioritize the wellbeing of children over ideology.
California once led the nation in education, innovation, and opportunity. Now, despite its natural beauty and economic power, it has become a cautionary tale about what happens when a government trades responsibility for radicalism. That's why my family joined the hundreds of thousands of net residents who have moved away to other states in recent years.
Unless its leaders correct course — putting kids first and politics second — California won't just keep failing her children. She will also set a dangerous precedent for the rest of America.
Michele Steeb is the founder of Free Up Foundation and author of 'Answers Behind the RED DOOR: Battling the Homeless Epidemic,' based on her 13 years as CEO of northern California's largest program for homeless women and children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: An old ballot measure isn't more important than fairness in our national elections
To the editor: I strongly disagree with Mark Z. Barabak's column lambasting Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposal to counter Texas' threatened redistricting ('Gavin Newsom is threatening to end-run California voters. It reflects a terrible trend,' July 23). When Proposition 20 passed in 2010, California voters still believed that our democracy was protected by a system of checks and balances. But things have radically changed since then. Project 2025, a plan connected to several in President Trump's administration and with which his policies have so far closely aligned, means to undermine the very foundations our system is built on. California is under threat, with the federal government taking away funding and trampling our state's legal authorities. If Republicans in Texas and elsewhere essentially help rig the 2026 elections through mid-decade redistricting, those of us who still believe in democracy have to fight back by winning state-level elections and making sure Texas Republicans can't disproportionately grab power in the national election. It would be naive to prioritize protecting a 15-year-old ballot measure when fairness in our elections is at stake. I appreciate that Newsom recognizes this and I support his proposal. Judith Lipsett, Claremont
Vox
a day ago
- Vox
Some Democrats may finally be ready to play dirty over redistricting
is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate at Texas by forcing a state referendum or legislation to redraw districts to give Democrats a five- to seven-seat boost in Congress.A new kind of political battle is emerging between America's parties — one centers on the composition of Congress and congressional redistricting. This process usually occurs every decade, after the US Census finishes its work and releases new demographic information that states use to reconfigure how the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided among the 50 states. But this month, Texas Republicans are scrambling those norms. Republican lawmakers have begun fielding proposals for the GOP-controlled legislature to redraw their congressional maps in the middle of the decade to give the national party an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. It's a blatant power play — jump-started by President Donald Trump's desire to offset potential losses next year and win a bigger Republican majority in the House for the second half of his term. At the moment, it looks likely that Republicans might lose some ground in Congress, as has been the trend for presidents' parties for the last 70 years. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. This mid-decade redistricting effort is not the first time Texas Republicans have aggressively gerrymandered seats to boost their party's representation in Congress, but it is abnormal for redistricting to happen this early, or as a direct response to a president's wishes to gain an electoral advantage. And it doesn't seem like Texas will be the only Republican-controlled state to try this. This sudden gamesmanship is forcing national and state-level Democrats to consider their own tit-for-tat, mid-decade redistricting efforts — and to confront a harsh reality. Many Democrats lack the political will to bend norms in response to these Republican efforts. And those who do will face steep legal and political obstacles, including from their own party. How Republicans are pressing their advantage Republicans have the upper hand on redistricting. In the majority of states across the country, state legislatures have the primary control and power to draw district lines. That includes the three states where Republicans have signaled they will try to redraw maps before the 2026 midterms — Texas, Ohio, and Missouri — all in which the GOP has unified control of the legislature and the governor's office. Through redistricting these states alone, Republicans would be able to gain enough seats to secure a majority after midterm elections. They'd gain about five seats in Texas, anywhere from one to three seats in Ohio, and one seat in Missouri. Republicans currently have a three-seat majority in the House, as a result of resignations and deaths, which shrinks to a two-seat majority if all those vacancies are filled. And there are still more Republican-run states that could be tapped. As Punchbowl News reported this week, five Democratic-held seats could be threatened in Florida if Gov. Ron DeSantis agrees to a mid-decade redraw. And New Hampshire's governor, Kelly Ayotte, could still be convinced by the White House to consider state Republicans' past plans to create another Republican-friendly seat in the state. Other Republican-leaning states — like Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska — are limited from redrawing maps before 2026 by Democratic governors, more moderate Republican legislators and state courts, or the fact that their legislatures aren't in session. Democrats in the three states that will likely create new GOP seats have few options to resist or block redraws. In Texas, Democrats have considered boycotting or preventing the legislature from voting by leaving the state — though Republicans are trying to force them to participate by delaying a vote on flood disaster relief and recovery funding until after their redistricting effort passes. Democrats in Ohio and Missouri have no similar leverage. That leaves out-of-state Democrats as the next line of defense. But they face obstacles there. Democrats are limited by their own advocacy Democrats hoping to strike back have many fewer options. They're limited by the number of states they control, the way those states handle redistricting, and the political will of legislators who view this kind of redistricting as beyond the pale. Democrats have unified control in 15 states, out of which they could probably only gain seats in about nine states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But politicians trying to redraw districts in any of these states will face steep hurdles. In California, Colorado, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, independent or bipartisan commissions have the power to draw congressional maps, not state legislatures. Those commissions were set up after years of bipartisan advocacy for fair representation and liberal activism for better government accountability and transparency. They are enshrined by state law or were set up by state ballot measures, and would require constitutional amendments, a statewide referendum, or court challenges to return redistricting power to the state legislature. That includes California — the state with the largest population — where Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate at Texas by forcing a state referendum or legislation to redraw districts to give Democrats a five- to seven-seat boost. Newsom hasn't yet presented a solid case or plan for how he'd go about doing this, however. And he faces bipartisan opposition to his idea. Other states essentially have prohibitions on mid-decade or early redistricting efforts, Dan Vicuña, a redistricting expert at the government accountability organization Common Cause, told me. The state constitutions of Washington and New Jersey, Vicuña said, contain provisions that limit redistricting to the year immediately following the census, and limit intervention before that time. That leaves Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon as the Democratic states where early redistricting could likely be accomplished with fewer obstacles. Already, some Maryland Democrats are signaling they would try to squeeze one more Democratic seat by redrawing their district lines. National Democrats have said they'll try to gain a seat in Minnesota, though they'll have to wait until state Democrats regain their majority in the senate, where a Democratic lawmaker resigned this week, tying the chamber. Democrats may have no choice but to try redistricting For as much bluster as Democrats are making about trying to retaliate, Republicans are actually taking the steps to do early redistricting. Congressional Democrats, for now, are trying to build support among governors and state lawmakers to engage in this political back-and-forth. According to CNN, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his advisers are exploring legal ways to redraw maps in California, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, and Washington, but those details have yet to be made public. But to stay in the game, Democrats may have to abandon their own rules. The Trump-era GOP has shown their willingness to push the bounds of political norms and bend institutions. There are valid, long-term concerns about what this kind of ad-hoc redistricting will mean for elections and trust in government in the future — what Vicuña described as a 'race to the bottom' — but Democrats, at least in Congress, are accepting that playing fair, or by old norms, isn't enough.
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
California taxpayers will pay $15 million to hire journalists
California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom jammed through a $322-billion budget last month. The biggest headline: Spending to provide healthcare for many undocumented immigrants went away. But there's a nugget that you might have lost in the fine print: Taxpayers will fork out $15 million to hire, train and deploy dozens of journalists around the state. Yes, we're all in the publishing business, together! It's actually been this way since 2023, when state Sen. Steve Glazer of the Bay Area town of Orinda secured $25 million to start the California Local News Fellowship program. That paid for the first three years of the program, and the hiring of about three dozen journalists in 2023 and again in 2024, and soon in 2025, to cover subjects like education, healthcare, the environment, social services and the criminal justice system. The new spending approved last week will create a fourth round of reporters in 2026 (each cohort is hired for two years) and launch a new program to help train news editors. The expenditure once again puts California into stark contrast with Republicans and the Trump administration, which last week slashed $1.1 billion over two years in support for public ratio and television. (You might have noticed local stations like LAist and KCRW cranking up their fundraising appeals to backfill the missing funds.) Paying to support one of America's least popular professions might strike some as a) foolhardy b) wasteful c) unjust. But I am going to go with d) wise. Specifically, penny-wise. Here's why: Accurate news and information has become an increasingly fleeting resource. But it's one that should rank not far behind clean air, food and water on the list of things we need to maintain a healthy and fair society. You might have noticed that information you can trust is becoming as rare as a parking space in San Francisco's North Beach. That's largely because one-third of California's newsrooms have closed in the last 25 years, and more than 65% of journalists have lost their jobs, Glazer noted in a Sacramento Bee op-ed. That's meant 'leaving many communities exposed to unchecked misinformation and government opacity,' Glazer wrote, along with Martin G. Reynolds, co-executive director of the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education. That's the institute that will be helping train editors to meld the next generation of journalists. The first-rate journalism school at UC Berkeley has overseen the fellowship program and matched journalists, who make $60,000 to $65,000 a year, with news outlets. I haven't had a chance to review all the work of the dozens of journalists who have been deployed around California. But I have seen that one reporter, assigned to the Modesto Bee, wrote about a small community's struggle to get safe drinking water. KVCR radio in the Inland Empire got a news fellow who has doggedly reported on the reaction to recent immigration raids. Another of the fellows wrote about how inflation and food insecurity had pushed more people to seek food from nonprofits in Chico. All of this, and a lot more, has been produced for a relative pittance, 0.005% of a state budget of $322 billion. Make no mistake, funding of a few dozen fellowships, alone, will not solve the information crisis. A much bigger investment will be required. That's why the Legislature has been looking toward the information economy's biggest companies as a potential source of support for journalism. Internet giants like Google — with a recent annual revenue of $359 billion — have been enriched by high-quality news content while news outlets have been cutting staff. Some in the state want the digital giants to pay to support outlets that employ reporters, editors and photographers. They're the ones, after all, who provide the stories that often pop up at the end of Web searches. But the final outcome of that fight remains to be decided. Alexandra says, 'I don't know if it's pampering per se, but my furry angel Oliver has enrolled in sheep-herding classes in Malibu, swim classes when he was a baby, and last year he got a David Bowie-themed lightning bolt tattoo from the WeHo spa Dogue for a birthday party.' Email us at essentialcalifornia@ and your response might appear in the newsletter this week. Today's great photo is from Times contributor Mariah Tauger at the property of Lindsay and Daniel Sheron, who designed and built their own home on a vacant hillside lot in Mount Washington over the course of three years. Jim Rainey, staff writerDiamy Wang, homepage internIzzy Nunes, audience internKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
