California

California prison inmate pregnant after state lets biological men into women’s prison

California prison inmate pregnant after state lets
biological men into women’s prison 1

This editorial is brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

CHOWCHILLA, CA – According to reports, at least one female prison inmate at the Central California Women’s Facility has turned up pregnant since the state passed legislation allowing biological men to be housed in biological women’s prison facilities.

The group Women’s Liberation Front, or WoLF, took to Twitter on July 26th sharing news that they’ve confirmed at least one woman becoming pregnant inside of the CCWF:

“We have now heard from seven different people inside CCWF that at least one woman, possibly more, is now pregnant after being housed with a male felon who was transferred to the women’s prison under SB132.”

The tweet also retweeted a previous account, where WoLF wrote:

“Conditions are described as ‘a nightmare’s worst nightmare’ by women incarcerated in California after the passage of @Scott_Wiener’s SB 132. Now, the system is bracing for a wave of pregnancies and increased violence in the facilities. #StopSB132”

This is of course an outcome that people with an IQ above room temperature could’ve seen coming: that housing biological men in prison facilities created specifically for biological women were going to result in someone becoming pregnant.

This issue at hand is none other than SB 132, the bill brought to life in California that has seen men given the opportunity to request to be housed in women’s prisons in California.

The law itself has such a low barometer for what’s needed for a man to be housed in a women’s prison facility, that all a male inmate needs to do is basically recite some of the lyrics of Shania Twain’s “Man! I Feel Like a Woman” to administrative staff and they’re on the path to being housed with women in prison.

And officials in California had to know that either women were going to be sexually assaulted or have casual affairs with these male inmates, because reports show that California is now giving condoms and Plan B to female inmates housed in the prisons.

In a report on that aspect from WoLF, the organization says that the prison administration handing out contraceptives to female inmates is a “tacit admission” that officials knew that acts of sexual assault could happen with the enactment of SB 132:

“The new resources are a tacit admission by officials that women should expect to be raped when housed in prison with men, where all sex is considered non-consensual by default within the system.”

WoLF’s report also mocked how male inmates trying to infiltrate women’s prisons in California are being coddled in the process, while officials are ignoring the concerns of real women who could suffer from this disastrous law:

“The men who wish to transfer need only take a laughable “Right Person, Right Prison” class —  which covers hard-hitting topics like: “You may be asked questions, How will you handle that?”, “Trans fears of being housed with cis”, and “What’s in it for you?”.

Apparently, CDCR believes this is an adequate way of screening the men requesting transfer to ensure that housing them with women is appropriate.”

And any sort of male inmate, regardless of the crimes they’re convicted of, can get themselves in a women’s prison in California. Yes, even convicted rapists and those with a history of violence against women.

What’s all the more concerning regarding the passage of SB 132 is that a poll released back in October of 2020 found that a majority of voters disagree with policies that infringe upon the existence of single-sex areas – such as prisons, changing rooms, and homeless shelters.

As if issues regarding pregnancies, sexual assaults/rapes aren’t concerning enough, California is also putting these women at elevated risks of contracting HIV by accommodating the whims of men that either have a gender identity crisis or are looking to exploit the language found in SB 132.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

We at Law Enforcement Today have previously covered the travesty that is SB 132 in previous editorials.

Here’s one shared back in June that gives further insight into the language of the bill and how this will be latched onto by male predators in the prison system. 

_

This editorial is brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

CALIFORNIA – It’s been nearly six months since the passing of SB 132, an ill-thought bill passed under the guise of tolerance and inclusivity that allows biological men to be admitted as inmates into women’s prisons.

And with the law now having been put into practice for nearly half a year, the process of inserting men into spaces meant specifically for women is speeding up – and the consequences for allowing this abhorrent practice to continue and amplify is certain to come at the cost of incarcerated women’s’ general safety and possibly lives.

The concept of common sense, in terms policies and approach towards sensitive areas, has been completely abdicated in the name of “understanding” and “tolerance.”

But at what point must the clamoring of things like “tolerance” be no longer entertained with ridiculous accommodations, when the price of that accommodation is literally at the expense of potential abuse and torture?

Well, in the name of “tolerance” toward the transgender community, California brought about a law that went into effect in January of 2021 that allows those who identify as a particular sex to be housed in a prison designed for actual specified biological sexes.

Basically, a biological man who says they are a lady can find themselves housed in a women’s prison with actual biological women – while they still have a completely intact and functioning penis.

Here’s the bill summary text from SB 132, noting this absurd accommodation to someone’s whim of self-identity:

“The bill would require the department, for a person who is transgender, nonbinary, or intersex to only conduct a search of that person according to the search policy for their gender identity or according to the gender designation of the facility where they are housed, based on the individual’s search preference. The bill would additionally require the department to house the person in a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference, except as specified.”

The keywords in that bill are that prison officials must “house the person in a correctional facility designated for men or women based upon the individual’s preference.”

Now of course there is the caveat stop mentioned in that statement, that says “except as specified” – however, when reviewing the entirety of the bill text that is currently in law,  there are really no exceptions.

In fact, the word “except” is only in the bill summary and not anywhere written in the legislation as it stands today.

Now one may be wondering whether or not this is a hyperbolic take on SB 132, insofar that maybe it’s not as point blank as described earlier in that someone with perfectly functioning male genitalia can be admitted into a women’s prison.

Rest assured, that is not hyperbole, as here is the bill text that shows not only can someone have their fully functioning penis and be placed into a women’s prison – they can actually be a straight biological male that just feels like a woman:

“(c) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not deny a search preference pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or a housing placement pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) based on any discriminatory reason, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

“(1) The anatomy, including, but not limited to, the genitalia or other physical characteristics, of the incarcerated person.

“(2) The sexual orientation of the incarcerated person.

“(3) For a denial of a housing preference pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), a factor present among other people incarcerated at the preferred type of facility.”

Also, if you take a look at section (3) above, that is very nifty legal jargon within SB 132 that says it doesn’t matter if “other people incarcerated at the preferred type of facility” object to a particular biological male being housed at their prison.

It’s completely understandable to have little to no sympathy for those that have ran afoul of the law – everyone in prison committed a crime and are sentenced to a period of confinement for their respective offenses.

The keyword there is “confinement.”

But this nonsense from California that is SB 132 is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment, specifically for women that are incarcerated in the state prisons – because the punishments allocated for non-violent offenses (which the majority of women in the U.S. are incarcerated for non-violent offenses) is not the risk of sexual violence or physical abuse coming from a man’s hands.

Back in 2018, the slogan “believe women” became wildly popular and circulated, namely within progressive circles in response to the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Yet in 2021, progressive states like California won’t even listen to women, as through their legislative processes they’ve effectively rendered the significance behind what it is to be a woman meaningless.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Facebook Follow First

Read the Full Article

California
California Parents Are Pulling Children From Public Schools
California Biggest Public Sector Union Opposes Newsom's Vaccine Order

You might also like
Menu