by James A. Bacon
Delegate Elizabeth Guzman, D-Prince William, stirred the hornet’s nest when she told WJLA last week that she would reintroduce a bill to expand the definition of child abuse to include inflicting “physical or mental injury” on children due to their gender identity or sexual orientation. Republicans criticized the criminalization of parental rights. The story went viral nationally before other local media had a chance to touch it.
The bill is so crazy (see Kerry Dougherty’s post below) that many Democrats have made a point of distancing themselves as well. But not all.
It’s worth noting that the original bill introduced in 2020 had two co-patrons: Del. Ibraheem Samirah, D-Herndon, and Senator Joe Morrissey, D-Richmond.
Also, while House Minority Leader Don L. Scott Jr., D-Portsmouth, declared that Guzman had assured him that she would not reintroduce a bill, he proceeded to defend her, according to The Washington Post. “She said her comments were taken out of context and that she does not want to criminalize any parents.”
How were her comments taken out of context? The original WJLA report said that Guzman, a social worker by profession, wanted parents to face criminal charges “if they do not affirm their child’s sexual orientation and gender identity.” Some Republican commentators took the use of the word “affirm” to refer to parents denying gender-affirming medical treatments.
In truth, the word “affirm” does not appear in the bill. However, that’s not to say that critics don’t have ample cause for concern. Here is what the 2020 bill said (my bold):
“Abused or neglected child” means any child less than 18 years of age … whose parent or other person responsible for his care creates or inflicts … a physical or mental injury on the basis of the child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.“
The question then becomes defining what constitutes a “mental injury.”
According to the Post, WJLA followed up with additional quotes from the Guzman interview:
“Are you saying non-affirming parents are committing abuse against their children if they don’t affirm their gender identity or sexual orientation?” asked reporter Nick Minock.
“No,” Guzman said, “I’m not saying that.”
But it does not matter what Guzman says her intent is. What matters is how the language of the bill can be interpreted. More precisely, how would a future Democratic gubernatorial administration interpret the language? How would “progressive” school districts interpret it? How would “progressive” advocacy groups and lawyers filing lawsuits interpret it?
Many transgender activists contend that failure to affirm a child’s transgender identity can cause mental anguish and increase the risk of suicide. It defies credulity to think that these same activists would decline to argue that parents who refuse to accept a child’s transgender identity are inflicting a mental injury upon the child.
Fortunately, moderate Democrats, such as U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger, who is running for re-election, are treating the bill as radioactive, there is zero chance in the current political environment that it will pass.
On the other hand, the totalitarian impulse to assert the power of the state over the power of parents is not likely to go away. I see the Guzman flap as a trial balloon. She tested the idea. It didn’t fly. The time is not right. But we’ve all seen how ideas that were unthinkable five years ago are mainstream today. Virginians need to be eternally vigilant against activists who think they know better than parents how to raise their own children.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.