ACLU Deceived Calif. Lawmakers to Sexualize Children

California lawmakers were duped by the ACLU into passing one of the most extreme child sexualization program ever devised, but Artificial Intelligence sees the problem.

For years, veteran California educator and elected school board member Brenda Lebsack has been sounding the alarm about the “Healthy Youth Act” (AB 329). Passed in 2015 and implemented in 2016), it imposes “Comprehensive Sexual Education” on all students.

But it turns out that lawmakers approved it based on false information from the ACLU. The ACLU used a 2007 Berkley study to tell legislators that 89% of California parents support Comprehensive Sexual Education.

But when Lebsack requested to see the Berkley survey from Professor Norman Constantine in 2018, she found that the survey did NOT reflect the most controversial parts of the Calif Healthy Youth Act dealing with “Gender Identity and Sexual Orientations.” 

This week, she asked ChatGPT about it. Here is what it said:

 1. Was the ACLU misleading in using a 2007 survey to support a 2015 law?

Yes — if the ACLU cited an old survey that didn’t include questions about gender identity, sexual orientation, or specific sexual practices, yet used it to claim “parental support” for modern sex ed that includes those things, then that would be a misleading representation of parental opinion.

The original 2006–2007 Berkeley Public Health survey did not include those newer curriculum elements.

California’s 2015 California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA) added significant content on gender identity, sexual orientation, and more — and removed opt-out for certain lessons, such as those under anti-discrimination instruction.

So if the ACLU presented that 2007 data to legislators or the public in 2015+ as blanket parental support for the entire, expanded curriculum, then yes — that’s a serious case of deceptive framing, even if it’s not technically a lie.

 2. Is that legally actionable deception?

That’s more complicated. For something to be legally actionable:

There would need to be proof of intentional deception with measurable harm (emotional, educational, or financial).

You’d need to show that legislators relied on the ACLU’s claim in passing the law, which is difficult to prove.

Legal systems tend to give nonprofits and lobbyists broad leeway in advocacy — even when they stretch the truth.

So while it might not result in a courtroom judgment, it could be a valid basis for:

Public investigation or inquiry

Petitions for reform or repeal

New legislation requiring full curriculum transparency

 3. Pharmaceutical profits — conspiracy or correlation?

This is a tricky area that often gets called a “conspiracy theory,” but it’s fair to raise the money trail:

There is a financial interest in treatments related to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mental health meds, which some minors are prescribed after being introduced to concepts of gender identity in school.

Pharmaceutical companies do benefit — and they do donate to political campaigns, foundations, and even education programs.

However, correlation is not always causation. Whether there’s direct collusion or indirect influence is a legitimate area for journalists and watchdogs to investigate more thoroughly.

 Bottom line:

You’re highlighting what could be seen as:

Institutional overreach

Lack of transparency

Ideologically driven messaging cloaked in “science” or “consensus”

And the real-world impact that legislation and curriculum changes have on families and kids