In a floor debate marked by heartbreak, outrage, and raw honesty, the California Assembly last week refused to restore full felony protections for 16- and 17-year-olds who are bought for sex — leaving a gaping loophole in the state’s laws on child sexual exploitation.
AB 379, a bill originally authored by Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, aimed to criminalize the purchase of sex from any minor — including 16- and 17-year-olds — as a felony, regardless of whether trafficking could be proven. However, the Assembly’s Democrat leadership stripped Krell’s name from the bill, reassigned it to Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz and Assemblywoman Stephanie Nguyen, and adopted watered-down amendments that allow adult sex buyers of older minors to be charged with only a misdemeanor unless prosecutors can prove the minor was trafficked.
What happened next shocked even veteran legislators.
“First of all, I just want to say what happened on the floor is a complete atrocity. We came here to stand up for 16 and 17-year-olds. It’s very simple. 16 and 17-year-olds are minors. They should be treated the same way under the law, protected under law from these dangerous Johns who are buying kids for sex, period. There should not be a different standard whatsoever.”
Gallagher pointed out that this was not a theoretical debate:
“Last year, we called it out that when they took this out, this same public safety committee. When they took out 16 and 17 year olds, we vowed we would fix it. Assemblymember Krell courageously ran the bill to fix that… and this public safety committee, they’re the ones playing politics.”
“Assembly Rule 88 is reserved for a failure of our legislative process… The change that was made that I believe enjoys majority support of this body struck language that would make it a felony to purchase a minor age 16 or 17-years-old for sex.”
When his motion failed, DeMaio gave an impassioned speech in defense of the original bill. He declared:
“What this Bill does is it does pay lip service because it says a couple words that seem to cover 16 and 17-year-olds. But then it takes away the ability of prosecutors to actually prosecute and punish individuals who purchase 16 and 17-year-olds.”
A Prosecutor’s Plea Ignored
Krell, the bill’s original author, addressed the Assembly and explained why the new language was legally insufficient. “What I do care about is whether California protects minors who are being sold for sex… if you’re under 18, a child, a minor… the person who’s buying that person should be charged with a felony,” she said. “It’s plain and simple. Sex without consent, that’s rape. The exchange of money doesn’t change that.”
Assemblyman David Tangipa delivered one of the most emotional speeches of the day, pleading with his colleagues to support the original version of AB 379 and reinstate felony penalties for anyone who buys a 16- or 17-year-old for sex. Speaking with “a broken heart,” Tangipa shared a harrowing personal connection to sex trafficking and its devastating impact on his family and community.
He praised Krell as a hero for taking down Backpage, the notorious sex trafficking website where a member of his family was being exploited. He recounted his own upbringing in North Highlands, one of California’s most trafficked neighborhoods, and the moment he saw a young girl he knew disappear.
“I worked at the McDonald’s off of Roseville Road and Watt Avenue,” Tangipa recalled. “A classmate of mine that was older than me would come in on the later part of the shift. And all she wanted before she started walking on the street was three cookies and that they were hot because all she could afford was, was the $1.”
“Something that will never leave me is a blue sunburnt Silverado from the early 1990s pulled up, and as she waited, walked in, he took her out, and they got in that truck, and we never saw her again,” Tangipa said. Soliciting a minor “should be a felony every time.”
Assemblyman Juan Alanis, a former crimes-against-children detective, stated, “My prior employment as a crimes against children’s detective, I probably have more to talk to about on these issues than most in that building… No matter what their age, 16 or 17, they’re under 18. They’re minors, and we need to protect them.”
Democrat Legislators Defended Their Position
Despite widespread bipartisan frustration, Democrat legislators defended the decision to treat 16- and 17-year-olds differently under the law, arguing that California already has “tough laws on the books” and that discretion must be preserved for prosecutors. Assemblymember Nick Schultz, the newly assigned author of AB 379 after it was stripped from Krell, insisted that “if you contact a minor directly or indirectly… that is a felony,” citing Penal Code 288.3. He accused critics of spreading “a regrettable amount of misinformation,” and asserted that the amended version still protected minors, stating: “This amendment is the first step and more steps that we will take in the coming weeks to strengthen the law to protect our children.”
Other members echoed Schultz’s argument for discretion and complexity. Assemblymember Ash Kalra said, “Let’s speak to the reality of what we’re talking about here,” insisting that adults raping 16-year-olds were not “being released two days later.” He warned that a uniform felony mandate might unjustly ensnare close-in-age peers or limit prosecutorial flexibility. Kalra also argued that survivors’ groups had raised concerns with the original language — using this as a reason to support the amendments. In a similar vein, Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen defended the changes by emphasizing that “sometimes bills need years to work on” and asked her colleagues to trust her “commitment that we bring a Bill that is better than what was presented.” While acknowledging the pain of sex trafficking victims, these lawmakers ultimately prioritized a more gradual legislative approach — one that critics argue continues to leave the most vulnerable minors without equal justice under the law.
Krell, a former prosecutor and the original author of AB 379, rejected the notion that existing law sufficiently protects older minors, directly challenging the idea that 16- and 17-year-olds should be treated differently. She reminded her colleagues that under both federal and California law, “any person under the age of 18, any minor who is bought for sex is considered a victim.” Addressing claims that Penal Code 288.3 already covers such conduct, she explained that it does not explicitly include prostitution (Penal Code 647(b)), which leaves critical legal gaps: “We could easily include 647B in 288.3 if we wanted to. And then it would be clear that contacting a minor would include prostitution. But right now that’s unclear.” Krell emphasized the moral and legal clarity that should guide the debate: “If you’re 17 years old on a street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that’s rape. That should be treated as a felony.” Her rebuke made clear that intent language and vague amendments are no substitute for real justice — and that any law falling short of equal protection for all minors is not good enough.
As Senator Shannon Grove put it, “There are Democrats, not all of them, but a certain number of Democrats, [who] are actively, actively engaging in keeping minors in a sex slave industry while protecting perpetrators. How is that even possible?”
The fight isn’t over.
California Family Council and its allies will continue working to close this legal loophole and protect all minors from predators. Let there be no mistake: there is no such thing as a child prostitute. Only children waiting for the justice they deserve.
www.californiafamily.org
AB 379, a bill originally authored by Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, aimed to criminalize the purchase of sex from any minor — including 16- and 17-year-olds — as a felony, regardless of whether trafficking could be proven. However, the Assembly’s Democrat leadership stripped Krell’s name from the bill, reassigned it to Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz and Assemblywoman Stephanie Nguyen, and adopted watered-down amendments that allow adult sex buyers of older minors to be charged with only a misdemeanor unless prosecutors can prove the minor was trafficked.
What happened next shocked even veteran legislators.
“A Complete Atrocity”
After a failed attempt to restore the original bill on the Assembly floor using Rule 88, Republican lawmakers gathered for a press conference. Assemblyman James Gallagher, visibly shaken, called out the injustice in no uncertain terms:“First of all, I just want to say what happened on the floor is a complete atrocity. We came here to stand up for 16 and 17-year-olds. It’s very simple. 16 and 17-year-olds are minors. They should be treated the same way under the law, protected under law from these dangerous Johns who are buying kids for sex, period. There should not be a different standard whatsoever.”
Gallagher pointed out that this was not a theoretical debate:
“Last year, we called it out that when they took this out, this same public safety committee. When they took out 16 and 17 year olds, we vowed we would fix it. Assemblymember Krell courageously ran the bill to fix that… and this public safety committee, they’re the ones playing politics.”
A Bill Hijacked on the Floor
In a rare procedural move, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio invoked Rule 88, which allows the full Assembly to bypass committees when the normal process has broken down. DeMaio argued that the Public Safety Committee’s hostile amendments broke faith with California’s voters:“Assembly Rule 88 is reserved for a failure of our legislative process… The change that was made that I believe enjoys majority support of this body struck language that would make it a felony to purchase a minor age 16 or 17-years-old for sex.”
When his motion failed, DeMaio gave an impassioned speech in defense of the original bill. He declared:
“What this Bill does is it does pay lip service because it says a couple words that seem to cover 16 and 17-year-olds. But then it takes away the ability of prosecutors to actually prosecute and punish individuals who purchase 16 and 17-year-olds.”
A Prosecutor’s Plea Ignored
Krell, the bill’s original author, addressed the Assembly and explained why the new language was legally insufficient. “What I do care about is whether California protects minors who are being sold for sex… if you’re under 18, a child, a minor… the person who’s buying that person should be charged with a felony,” she said. “It’s plain and simple. Sex without consent, that’s rape. The exchange of money doesn’t change that.”
A Heartbreaking Reality
The floor debate included personal stories from lawmakers whose communities have been devastated by California’s lenient sex crime policies.Assemblyman David Tangipa delivered one of the most emotional speeches of the day, pleading with his colleagues to support the original version of AB 379 and reinstate felony penalties for anyone who buys a 16- or 17-year-old for sex. Speaking with “a broken heart,” Tangipa shared a harrowing personal connection to sex trafficking and its devastating impact on his family and community.
He praised Krell as a hero for taking down Backpage, the notorious sex trafficking website where a member of his family was being exploited. He recounted his own upbringing in North Highlands, one of California’s most trafficked neighborhoods, and the moment he saw a young girl he knew disappear.
“I worked at the McDonald’s off of Roseville Road and Watt Avenue,” Tangipa recalled. “A classmate of mine that was older than me would come in on the later part of the shift. And all she wanted before she started walking on the street was three cookies and that they were hot because all she could afford was, was the $1.”
“Something that will never leave me is a blue sunburnt Silverado from the early 1990s pulled up, and as she waited, walked in, he took her out, and they got in that truck, and we never saw her again,” Tangipa said. Soliciting a minor “should be a felony every time.”
Assemblyman Juan Alanis, a former crimes-against-children detective, stated, “My prior employment as a crimes against children’s detective, I probably have more to talk to about on these issues than most in that building… No matter what their age, 16 or 17, they’re under 18. They’re minors, and we need to protect them.”
Democrat Legislators Defended Their Position
Despite widespread bipartisan frustration, Democrat legislators defended the decision to treat 16- and 17-year-olds differently under the law, arguing that California already has “tough laws on the books” and that discretion must be preserved for prosecutors. Assemblymember Nick Schultz, the newly assigned author of AB 379 after it was stripped from Krell, insisted that “if you contact a minor directly or indirectly… that is a felony,” citing Penal Code 288.3. He accused critics of spreading “a regrettable amount of misinformation,” and asserted that the amended version still protected minors, stating: “This amendment is the first step and more steps that we will take in the coming weeks to strengthen the law to protect our children.”
Other members echoed Schultz’s argument for discretion and complexity. Assemblymember Ash Kalra said, “Let’s speak to the reality of what we’re talking about here,” insisting that adults raping 16-year-olds were not “being released two days later.” He warned that a uniform felony mandate might unjustly ensnare close-in-age peers or limit prosecutorial flexibility. Kalra also argued that survivors’ groups had raised concerns with the original language — using this as a reason to support the amendments. In a similar vein, Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen defended the changes by emphasizing that “sometimes bills need years to work on” and asked her colleagues to trust her “commitment that we bring a Bill that is better than what was presented.” While acknowledging the pain of sex trafficking victims, these lawmakers ultimately prioritized a more gradual legislative approach — one that critics argue continues to leave the most vulnerable minors without equal justice under the law.
Krell, a former prosecutor and the original author of AB 379, rejected the notion that existing law sufficiently protects older minors, directly challenging the idea that 16- and 17-year-olds should be treated differently. She reminded her colleagues that under both federal and California law, “any person under the age of 18, any minor who is bought for sex is considered a victim.” Addressing claims that Penal Code 288.3 already covers such conduct, she explained that it does not explicitly include prostitution (Penal Code 647(b)), which leaves critical legal gaps: “We could easily include 647B in 288.3 if we wanted to. And then it would be clear that contacting a minor would include prostitution. But right now that’s unclear.” Krell emphasized the moral and legal clarity that should guide the debate: “If you’re 17 years old on a street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that’s rape. That should be treated as a felony.” Her rebuke made clear that intent language and vague amendments are no substitute for real justice — and that any law falling short of equal protection for all minors is not good enough.
What’s Next?
Despite the objections of dozens of lawmakers and survivor advocates, the Assembly voted 55–21 to adopt the weakened amendments. The bill now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — neutered and stripped of the very protections it promised.As Senator Shannon Grove put it, “There are Democrats, not all of them, but a certain number of Democrats, [who] are actively, actively engaging in keeping minors in a sex slave industry while protecting perpetrators. How is that even possible?”
The fight isn’t over.
California Family Council and its allies will continue working to close this legal loophole and protect all minors from predators. Let there be no mistake: there is no such thing as a child prostitute. Only children waiting for the justice they deserve.
‘Open Season’ on Teens: Assembly Sabotages Bill to Protect Minors from Sex Buyers - California Family Council
In a floor debate marked by heartbreak, outrage, and raw honesty, the California Assembly last week refused to restore full felony protections for 16- and 17-year-olds who are bought for sex — leaving a gaping loophole in the state’s laws on child sexual exploitation. AB 379, a bill originally...
www.californiafamily.org
wants to destroy children while they are young in hopes that they don't become a Christian. The battleground is our minds. Scripture tells us that 
ing that something is done about these people take a stand against the wiles of 
