Three Questions California Parents Want Gavin Newsom and the ‘First Partner’ to Answer – RedState

California Governor. Gavin Newsom was palpably angry when members of the media criticized his hypocrisy for enrolling two of his children in a summer sports camp that did not require masks, in violation of state policy (the ethics, wisdom, and science supporting this measure are another topic for another time)…snarling that they were being “weaponized.” At the time, he and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom – via a spokesperson – claimed to have missed the particular email from the camp stating it wouldn’t be ”enforcing masking guidance” (How one squares the enforcement of guidance remains a mystery).

His objection to being called out in the media was wholly unfair because, as the saying goes, what goes for the goose must necessarily go for the gander – never mind his pattern of forgetting that pesky axiom. It is therefore not wrong to ask these questions of the Newsoms. Their children are California children and are therefore subject to the same exposure that he has mandated for the state’s children. You might call it “equitable treatment.”

By way of the Emergency Powers he granted to himself 19 months ago –  and to which he still clings, despite what he boasts as the state’s low infection, hospitalization, and death rates (that the difference between this state and others is minuscule – a fraction of a person – should be noted), Newsom has mandated that all California schoolchildren, whether in public or private settings, receive a Covid-19 vaccination in order to be educated. The State will be able to determine which vaccine each child received. California parents will also have access to the vaccines the Newsoms have given to their children.

QUESTION 1They will ask you. Governor, you shared which drug company’s shot you decided to take back in April: the standard viral vector vaccine by Johnson & Johnson’s, Janssen. This one is most similar to the formula for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination – which is already required (rightly so, considering the severity of those illnesses) for school children. Moderna and Pfizer’s shots use the new mRNA platform. This is obvious to anyone who has been following science. Parents of children as young as 5 years of age will find the new technology quite novel and may need to make a crucial decision due to the lack of studies.

QUESTION TWOFor the Newsom family: What will you do to protect your children against the psychologically devastating effects of Critical Race Theory education. Will you tell them to shake it off because dad was feeling political pressure (and has greater political ambitions) to instate a curriculum that teaches self-loathing and nihilism while instilling racist, segregationist ideals to all children of all colors, creeds, and ethnicities – or, do you really believe this philosophy of “a racial extinction plan” which “murders the souls of white children,” as professor Jason D. Hill characterizes it, will make your offspring better adults and American citizens?

It is worth noting that CRT is necessarily anti-Israel, which makes the launch of the Governor’s Council on Holocaust and Genocidal Education all the more confounding (to parse the difference between antisemitism and disdain for Israel is intellectually dishonest).

THIRD AND FINAL QUESTION: Will you be cool if any of your kids, after turning twelve, were to dial you out of the decision to take puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones – much the way you did to California parents when you signed into law AB 1184, which prohibits insurance companies from notifying them when a minor child consents to such procedures (despite the fact that the parents have financial responsibility)? New law is much more comprehensive and therefore controversial. However, for the purpose of this interrogative this question suffices.

PARENTS WHO DON’T HAVE A VOICE or the time to keep up with every stroke of the governor’s pen have the right to know how you both will navigate the choppy waters you have prescribed for their families. Won’t you kindly consider furnishing some answers?

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Letzgeaux Brande Hahn is a pseudonym for a California parent employed in the entertainment industry who fears reprisal if their full name is used, and who speaks for hundreds more who are in similar situations. This is why we granted an exception from our usual guest opinion pieces guidelines.

About Post Author

Follow Us