Earlier last week, the California Assembly Public Safety Committee denied passage of SB-14, a bill which had unanimous consent from the Senate that would increase the level of penalty for sex trafficking to be included as a strike under California’s “Three Strike” law.
Just days later, after swift and striking protest and outrage online, the Assembly took up the measure again in an emergency hearing, and on Thursday, passed the bi-partisan bill.
What is SB-14?
Human trafficking of a minor for purposes of sex for profit under current law incurs a sentence of up to 12 years in prison. If the crime involved force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person, the sentence is 15 years to life. If the person is convicted of inflicting great bodily harm on the victim while trafficking them, a judge can add up to 10 years to a prison sentence.
If the child trafficking bill passes the full Assembly and Newsom signs it, people convicted of the crime would face longer prison terms and potential life sentences. Governor Newsom expressed his concern at the initial blocking of the bill, making it likely to receive his approval.
The Power of Social Media
The online pressure was significant.
Twitter was set ablaze within minutes of the initial strike down.
Bill Wells, the Mayor of El Cajon, CA tweeted, “There are no words. A society that won’t protect its children is not only morally bankrupt but repugnant. At what point do we say enough?”
Even Elon Musk weighed in with, “A. How is it not already a serious felony? B!?”
An account known as “Rooted Wings,” who often posts about California law, particularly around education and LGBTQ agendas, said on Tuesday:
“You know you’re on the wrong side of an issue when you deliver a win for human traffickers. Democrats on the Public Safety Committee proved they have no intention of protecting the lives of Californians, let alone protecting innocent children from the horrors of human trafficking,” California GOP chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said. “What we saw today from California Democrats was heartless and disgusting.”
The owner of the account also posted the names and contact numbers of each assemblyperson who voted against the bill.
This seems to have been an effective tactic.
Federalism in Effect
Assemblywoman Liz Ortega is one of the members who changed her mind.
On early Thursday morning she tweeted, “On Tuesday, I made a bad decision. Voting against legislation targeting really bad people who traffic children was wrong. I regret doing that and I am going to help get this important legislation passed into law.”
An article in CalMatters stated:
“The 48 hours between Tuesday’s original vote and Thursday’s session was yet another collision of California’s goals of reducing incarceration by moving away from tough-on-crime laws, and the political reality of negative advertising.”
The backlash took the form of Democrats do not care about children and are pro-sex trafficking. Of course, the arguments of those who rejected the bill were likely more nuanced than that, or one would hope.
But as CalMatters pointed out, optics matter and these were not good for California.
While everyone has opinions which are now, thanks to social media, on display for the world to see, rarely if ever, do the thoughts of those online result in any significant changes to law or policy, particularly on a federal level.
However, the purpose of America’s federalist system is to make state and local representatives more responsive to their constituents. Local laws should be more malleable and compliant to public sentiment. The closer to home a law is, the more it should acquiesce to the desires of those it affects.
A similar situation arose in Glendale, California, a suburb to the east of Downtown L.A. near Pasadena, when a group of irate parents protested what they considered to be inappropriate content in a sex education curriculum. The Glendale community is heavily Armenian and observant Muslims and typically hold firm beliefs that reject LGBTQ sentiments.
Although the district has not yielded to parent requests, their disapproval should not go unheard. Inflicting an ideology on children that their parents do not agree with is the antithesis of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
It puts the state above its citizens and that is a dangerous slope to start sliding down, and one California does with increasing vigor.
Jennifer Galardi is the politics and culture editor for 19FortyFive.com. She has a Master’s in Public Policy from Pepperdine University and produces and hosts the podcast Connection with conversations that address health, culture, politics and policy. In a previous life, she wrote for publications in the health, fitness, and nutrition space. In addition, her pieces have been published in the Epoch Times and Pepperdine Policy Review. You can follow her on Instagram and Twitter.
From 19FortyFive
Could Joe Biden Get Impeached?
Something Is Wrong With Kamala Harris
‘Breathing Fire’: Donald Trump Goes Crazy On Fox News Interview
