California may soon require judges to look at whether a parent goes along with a child’s “gender identity” during custody disputes, worrying advocates who say parents could lose custody if they don’t agree with a child’s claims to be transgender. 

The Democrat-backed bill, AB 957, passed the State Assembly on Friday and the State Senate on Thursday. If signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill would require judges to consider whether a parent “affirms” a child’s “gender identity” among other factors during custody battles. 

According to the bill, “the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.”

Assemblymember Lori Wilson said that “affirmation” could mean whether a parent provided gender-targeted toys, nail polish, and hair length, according to the Associated Press. 

The bill passed the Assembly 57-16 and was opposed by California Republicans and conservative groups, who say the bill will erode parents’ rights and be easily manipulated. 

“This bill will require judges to equate ‘affirmation of child gender transition’ directly with a child’s ‘health, safety, and welfare’ when determining custody or visitation rights.  Consequently,  parents who do not affirm the chosen gender identity of their child (of any age) risk having their child taken from them,” said the California Family Council. 

In June, when the bill was making its way through the legislature, one attorney representing a mother of a girl who used to have gender dysphoria said that, if passed, the measure could be easily manipulated.

“Family court judges will be compelled to favor the child who will affirm the child’s delusion. Parents can easily game the system and use gender as retaliation against each other. What happens when one parent will socially affirm the child but will not agree to medicalize? Does the parent willing to do more transitioning prevail?” lawyer Erin Friday said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who has voiced some criticism of transgender ideology, said that the bill was dangerous. 

“This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What it actually means is that if you disagree with the other parent about sterilizing your child, you lose custody.Utter madness!” he posted to X.

A new study shows a significant amount of overlap between government and pharmaceutical jobs, leaving the government “vulnerable” to industry bias. 

The study, published in Health Affairs, showed that over half of appointees to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services left their government jobs to work in the pharmaceutical industry, which generally pays more. The study was conducted by the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics and Harvard University.

“Although there are understandable reasons for people to move between the public and private sectors, the study notes that such a revolving door could make government agencies more vulnerable to pro-industry bias,” the USC Schaeffer Center said of the project.

Overall, the study found that nearly a third of those appointed to the Department of Health and Human Services went straight from government work into pharmaceutical industry work. The authors, Genevieve Kanter of USC and Daniel Carpenter of Harvard, evaluated 766 HHS appointees.

“Of people appointed to the Department of Health and Human Services between 2004 and 2020, 15 percent had been employed in private industry immediately before their appointment. At the end of their tenure, 32 percent exited to industry,” an abstract of the study says. 

They found no significant difference between party appointees leaving from government into the the pharmaceutical industry. 

The revolving doors can lead to conflict because of the key roll that federal agencies play in approving new drugs and treatments. 

“Laws passed by Congress get a lot of attention, but a lot of the real action actually happens at the regulatory level,” Kanter said. “Regulatory agencies can decide the fortunes of many companies.”

Kanter added that current law likely did not complete shield the government from bias, with only limited measures in place to prevent overlap. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

“They do not broadly cover a lot of lobbying related to agency decision making – like regulations and drug authorizations – so they don’t necessarily deter that behavior,” she said. “The direction one might go is to expand the cooling off laws. But that’s a blunt instrument for a lot of subtle things that might be going on in terms of the effects of the revolving door.”

“What I am really concerned about is whether the personnel flow might lead to biases in government decision making,” she added.