He should not be celebrating. What actually happened is that his own bill scared California's county governments into admitting something out loud: they are worried they could get sued for how they steer confused kids toward transgender identities. That fear is what gutted his bill, not the political right, and not persuasion. The people who actually stripped his bill's teeth were not MAGA. They were the associations that insure and represent California's own city and county governments.

Why Wiener Bill Scared California Counties

Here is what happened, in plain terms.

Wiener (D-San Francisco) wrote Senate Bill 934 after the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar that talk therapy between a willing client and a licensed counselor is protected speech, not conduct the state can simply ban. That ruling put California's 2012 law against sexual orientation change counseling for minors, SB 1172, on shaky legal ground.

Wiener could not out-argue the Supreme Court, so he tried a different approach. Rather than defend the ban in court, SB 934 would have let people sue counselors and the counselor's employer for counseling reaching back to January 1, 2009. The deadline to sue was extended so minors could wait 22 years after turning 18, adults could wait 10 years from their last session, or anyone at all could sue within five years of whenever they claimed to have "discovered" the harm, with no outer limit on that discovery window. A counselor who last saw a client in 2009 could still be sued today, nearly two decades later, if the former client simply said they only just realized the counseling hurt them. A plaintiff would not have needed a diagnosis. Courts could infer the counseling caused harm simply because counseling happened and distress came later, unless the counselor proved otherwise. Announcing the bill back in March, Wiener called such counseling "psychological torture."

That is not a modest change. That is a mechanism built to make offering this type of counseling too financially risky for anyone to try, even when the client insisted on it.

Where It Fell Apart

Senator Wiener wrote SB 934's counseling ban in supposedly neutral language in an attempt to satisfy the US Supreme Court by targeting any effort by a licensed provider to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, in either direction. That wording was the whole undoing.

County mental health departments realized the same "predetermined outcome" language Wiener meant to use against Christian counselors would just as easily apply to their own social workers and counselors who routinely direct gender-confused kids toward transgenderism. In a July 16, 2026, report to the Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County's own Legislative Affairs office laid it out in writing. The county's Department of Mental Health (DMH) warned that SB 934 could expose the county to liability "beyond the author's intent," reaching even counseling that fully complied with national clinical standards. DMH specifically flagged the risk, stating it was "concerned that individuals who later detransition could bring claims related to earlier treatment, even when that care was consistent with accepted standards at the time."

That warning was not an isolated objection. The California State Association of Counties, the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, the California Association of School Business Officials, Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, the Rural County Representatives of California, the Schools Excess Liability Fund, and Urban Counties of California all told the Legislature they would oppose SB 934 unless the liability was removed. These are not conservative groups. These organizations insure California's local governments, and they told Sacramento that Wiener's bill would come back to bite them.

On August 13, the Assembly Appropriations Committee listened. It stripped out the entire civil lawsuit structure, the extended statute of limitations, the damages, the attorney's fees, all of it, and passed a much smaller bill 11 to 4. The Assembly floor passed that stripped-down version 58 to 18 on August 19. The Senate concurred in those changes 27 to 9 on August 20, and the bill now heads to Governor Newsom's desk.

What Actually Survived

What is left is not the bill Wiener announced. It amends the definition of "sexual orientation change efforts" in the Business and Professions Code to also cover gender identity, defined as directing a minor patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome. Violating it is what it always was under SB 1172: unprofessional conduct, subject to discipline by the provider's own licensing board. No lawsuits. No damages. No 22-year lookback. The entire enforcement mechanism Wiener built his announcement around is gone.

That is not a footnote. Wiener's own press release was titled around giving survivors the ability to seek justice and compensation in court through malpractice claims. That tool does not exist in the bill that passed. He got a modest expansion of an existing licensing rule for minors, the same rule California has had since 2012, and lost the actual weapon he built the bill to create. Calling that a "big win" is spin. Calling it a strengthened ban, when the only teeth the bill ever had got pulled by his own side, is something closer to damage control.

Why This Still Matters

The remaining ban is still a problem, and California Family Council still opposes it, on both fronts the bill touches. SB 934's language never says gay-affirming counseling is fine and faith-based counseling is not. It does not have to. It only has to keep defining "nondirective" as not seeking any particular outcome, and the rest sorts itself. A teenager who tells a counselor he is gay, or that he was born in the wrong body, can still get a licensed professional's help settling into that self-understanding, because affirming what a patient already says he feels is not "seeking to achieve" anything under the law's own definition. A teenager who tells that same counselor he does not want his life defined by those feelings, who wants help resisting them and living according to his Christian faith instead, cannot get that professional's help, because helping him do that is, by definition, seeking a particular outcome, which is exactly what the nondirective exclusion does not cover. The bill does not ban one direction and permit the other by name. It bans "seeking an outcome" and then defines the outcome one side already wants as no outcome at all. That is the same one-way street CFC identified when Wiener first introduced this bill, and it is the same structure the Supreme Court's own justices questioned during arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a state permitting counseling in one direction while banning it in the other, based entirely on which outcome the counselor is helping the client reach.

Jesus told His followers that whoever wants to come after Him must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Him, and that whoever loses his life for His sake will find it (Luke 9:23-24). That call to self-denial is not torture. It is the way Christians have always understood the path to real joy, whether the desire in question is greed, anger, or unwanted sexual attraction. California is telling teenagers the opposite: that denying a sexual desire for the sake of something greater is not a path to happiness but a harm so serious the state should punish any licensed mental health worker who helps them. The Declaration of Independence promised Americans the freedom to pursue happiness as they judge best. It did not authorize Sacramento to decide the path to happiness for them.

"This bill tells a teenager wrestling with unwanted same-sex attraction that the only healthy outcome is to build his identity and his life around those desires, and that a counselor who instead helps him deny himself and follow Christ has committed malpractice," said Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council. "Jesus never called that torture. He called it the way to find your life by losing it. The government has no business declaring that self-denial for the sake of Christ is a harm to be punished while self-indulgence is the only acceptable path to happiness."

Scripture does not treat human desire, sexual or otherwise, as the final word on human identity, and it does not treat that identity as something the state gets to assign and defend by statute either. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). A law that lets one counselor affirm that design, and lets another walk a teenager toward whatever he currently feels, while disciplining anyone who helps a client return to either, was never going to hold together, not in a courtroom, and apparently not even inside California's own government. Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here

To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE

(ICYMI): First Lady Melania Trump, Fox Corporation Announce Landmark Strategic Alliance to Grow Fostering the Future

Mamdani's Grocery Store Plan Lands NYC in Major Court Battle

How Fear of Detransitioner Lawsuits Gutted Senator Wiener's Attempt to Bankrupt Christian Counselors

Beyond Disturbing: Parent Sounds Alarm on Private School That Goes Woke in the Worst Ways (Video)

President Trump Champions Educational Freedom, Putting Students and Parents First

Prayer Alert: Iran's Regime Threatens the Life of Barron Trump, and Melania

Supreme Court Backs Trump Election Integrity Order in Mail-in Ballot Fight

Country Music Legend, and American Sweetheart Dolly Parton Passes Away at 80

Enes Kanter Freedom Details What Caused the Confrontation With WNBA Player

(Watch) US Capital Became an Historic Raceway This Weekend, as Kyle Kirkwood Wins the 'Freedom 250 Grand Prix'

Famed Texas Pastor Sounds a Warning About James Talarico: 'Prostituting Name of Jesus'

The Democrat 'Scheme' to Scam Alaskan Voters over the 'Sullivan' Candidates in AK Senate Race

Prayer Alert: Raging Hawk Fire Forces 42,000 From Homes Near Reno, Injures First Responders

Congress Moves to Rein in Flock Cameras amid Surveillance Concerns

'End Game' on Iran? Bessent Lauds 'Financial Offensive' Targeting Tehran's Oil Trade, Cash Transfers

Parents Beware: Ex-Psychic Calls Disney's Latest Animated Kids' Movie 'Really Disturbing'

Former DNI Tulsi Gabbard Shares Emotional Update on Husband Abraham's 'One-in-a-Million' Bone Cancer Battle (Video)

Sports Columnist Resigns When Seattle Times Spikes His Piece Supporting Female Athletes

AI Data Centers Are Becoming a Flash Point in the Midterm Election

Fentanyl Deaths Plunge 22% Thanks to Trump Admin Crackdown on Deadly Drug Crisis: Fox Exclusive