CA: Bill to make purchasing children for sex a felony in California moves forward, but with some changes

Source: 4/16/24

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —A key California Senate committee on Tuesday moved forward with a proposal to make purchasing a child for sex a felony in the state, but it was not necessarily a smooth process for the bill’s author.

Because of that, it raises new questions about the future of the proposal.

Democratic committee members forced Republican author State Sen. Shannon Grove to make changes to Senate Bill 1414 to only allow the felony classification for the purchase of minors under the age of 16. The Senate Public Safety Committee passed the bill 4-0 on the condition of those changes.

SB 1414 would classify the crime as a felony, carrying a maximum penalty of up to four years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Currently, purchasing or soliciting a child for sex is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of up to a year in jail, or a minimum of two days in jail, along with a $10,000 fine.

Democrats on the dais, against Grove’s will, held a vote on the changes before voting to move the amended proposal forward. The vote was moved by State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Skinner, Sen. Scott Wiener and committee chairwoman Aisha Wahab voted to move forward with the amendments as Grove watched in disbelief.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So these are the names of the Politician who govern the California registry.
Im pretty sure all these people got some embarrassing dirt going on in their lives. Let’s see how they like it. If their personal information and their families names and personal information is broadcasted all over the Internet for vigilantes to see because what they forget, a lot of people don’t like them either.
Where do these people live? How much do they make a year? What about their spouses I mean we need to start looking into these people to see who they really are, It’s all public information right.

And boy oh boy, is grove having a fit about it. Hahahahhahaha. I’ll chalk this one up as a win. She’s also lying to her constituents. She claims on twitter she didn’t agree to any amendments, when of course we know she agreed to take out not only the strict liability language, but also the requirement that first time convictions would result in 290 registration.

Wait a minute here…the age of consent in CA is 18 and those adults who have sexual relationships with those who are under 18 is a verboten.

Given that, why is 16 years old being considered here as the cutoff for the sale of a minor for the intended act of sex (whether it happens or not is something else of course) when 18 is the consent age? Are they saying a minor who is 16 or 17 can consent to this sale (which we know is impossible because as a minor they don’t have the ability to do so) but once the act happens it is then an issue because the adult involved had (or attempted to have) sex with a minor at 16 or 17 years old? (The sexual preference argument presented by those who are elected does not fly here when the age is the one thing that needs to be straightened out.)

This is a prime example in the MAKING of why laws on the books for minors are so convoluted. This entire bill should be stopped in its tracks now with the underlying age discussion taking place to understand why those who are advocating to remove 16 and 17 year old minors from the discussion when 18 is the age of consent. This would only add to confusing web of laws woven today WRT minors and adults. You wanna talk about a prime moment to call those in SAC who are elected to fill those seats? Now is it.

This is my “Duh, no sh*t Sherlock” quote of the article: “Make no mistake: Prosecutors have the full ability to use existing laws to send those people to prison for decades,”. Prosecutorial discretion has been around for this nation since before it became a country and still, the DA does not always get it right when they have this power.

Last edited 1 month ago by TS

” It takes two criminals to do this children. A trafficker and a buyer.” ” To force these amendments on me in front of survivors, to water this down to avoid 16 and 17 year olds.” Grove said. Um under California age of consent laws 16 and 17 year olds can’t consent to sex, yet she would like to punish and label them.

Grove must be knee deep in Q, which explains why she’s a quack.

Senator Shannon Grove


Today, the Senate Public Safety Committee refused to pass my bill to send child sex buyers to prison.

Instead of making the buying of kids a felony with prison time, the committee forced me to take amendments I didn’t agree with and watered down my bill to allow a fine or minimum county jail time.

I’d like to thank @senbradford and @SenatorSeyarto
for their incredible support today.

I will be discussing our next steps with our coalition of survivors, advocates, and organizations who are deeply invested in the outcome of this bill. #notonemorechild #sb1414

It’s all B.S. Trafficking is almost entirely a fiction that exists only in the minds of sex hysterics.