California Democrats Reject Clause to Make Buying Sex From 16 and 17-Year-Olds a Felony

Democratic lawmakers in California stripped a new bill of a clause that would have made paying for sex with 16 and 17-year-olds a felony.

The Details: The legislation, AB 379, was authored by Democrat Maggy Krell, who spent 20 years overseeing human trafficking cases for the state. The original version would have extended existing laws that increase penalties for those who solicit minors under 16 for sex to include 16 and 17-year-olds. However, Democratic committee members insisted that this clause be removed before passing the bill. The revised version imposes stiffer penalties for “loitering with intent to purchase sex” and sets up a fund for sex trafficking victims.

Opposition Argument: According to Politico (Lean Left bias), “Democrats want to remove 16- and 17-year-olds in large part because they fear parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ relationships involving older teens could prompt them to weaponize solicitation laws.”

For Context: Last year, a similar bill was proposed by Republican lawmakers, but Democrats negotiated a deal to lower the felony cutoff from 18 to 16. Democrat Nick Shultz said the decision to strip the clause is a direct result of this compromise.

Key Quotes: Schultz said, “There was a carefully crafted deal last year. We’re not saying ‘no,’ but what we’re saying is, if we’re going to be thoughtful policymakers, we really need to dive deep into this issue.” Republican Tom Lackey said, “These are girls. These are people that our society should be doing everything they can to protect. So why are we protecting the predator by removing this tenet?”

How the Media Covered It: The story was widely covered by the right, but hardly by the left or center. Politico highlighted California Governor Gavin Newsom’s discontent with removing the clause and said he is “seizing on an opportunity to present himself as a common-sense Democrat.” The New York Post (Lean Right) framed the bill as “meant to protect sex trafficking victims.” It also included the context about the Republicans' past bill and how this was part of a compromise, which Politico did not.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.