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.
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:
BREAKING: CA Assembly Democrats just gutted a bill (AB 379) that would have made it a felony crime to purchase 16 and 17 year old minors for s*x! This is the vote tally! Green was to gut! Hold these extremists accountable! pic.twitter.com/y5n9iCnTOH
— Carl DeMaio (@carldemaio) May 1, 2025
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:
Perfect. They’re dressed for Sexual Assault Awareness Month while fiercely debating whether to close their own loophole allowing adults who purchase children for sex to avoid felony charges. Literal, despicable virtue signaling. Jeans proclaim one message, votes another. https://t.co/QjRj8Milyz
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 1, 2025
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:
CA Assembly Democrats just blocked a provision (under AB 379) that would have made it a felony to purchase 16 or 17 year-old children for s*x. Watch Asm. Carl DeMaio's comments: pic.twitter.com/eGkZotZDbq
— Office of Asm. Carl DeMaio (@AsmDeMaioOffice) May 1, 2025
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:
WOW: @AssemblyDems @MarkJGonzalezLA goes on an unhinged rant attacking @AsmRepublicans @carldemaio for being gay but somehow voting against the civil rights of gay people by wanting to make it a felony to solicit 16 and 17-year-olds. https://t.co/hXvluRN06G pic.twitter.com/fTB9rvU0tJ
— California Republican Party (@CAGOP) May 1, 2025
‘You’re betraying your gay identity and gay civil rights if you vote to ensure solicitation of minors for sex is a felony’ makes my blood run cold. Leave me the hell out of whatever this version of ‘gay rights’ is & don’t you dare purport to speak for me. What is wrong with you?
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 1, 2025
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?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member