This week Governor Brown of California signed into law the notorious SB 967, the “Affirmative Consent” law which requires all California universities to institute a policy of establishing affirmative consent with respect to defending sexual assault allegations, or risk losing state funding. Ms. Mitchell, one of the first fathers’ and mens’ rights attorneys in the country, and founder of DadsRights.org, testified in opposition to SB 967 during legislative hearings in Sacramento in March. At that time, Ms. Mitchell offered her services, at no charge, to Senator De Leon to help him revise the proposed language of SB 967 to address the concerns that she raised.
During that legislative hearing, Senator De Leon, the bill’s primary author, was advised by several members of the Senate Education Committee to take Ms. Mitchell up on her offer, as the senators had the same concerns as did Ms. Mitchell, having to do with the language of the bill being vague and overbroad, and also with the lack of due process afforded the young men who would be accused under this law.
Ms. Mitchell drafted model language as an alternative, which she provided to Senator De Leon. However, his office ignored all overtures and offers, and the result is what we have today: the Governor signing into law what amounts to carte blanche for any girl with whom a man is intimate to revise history, withdraw her consent after the fact, and destroy the young man’s life.
“Let us be very clear. Sexual assault on campus is an important issue. However, what Governor Brown has signed into law today has the effect of offering a ‘license to accuse’ to any woman who regrets her consensual activities of the night before, while providing no protection to the accused,” says Mitchell.
“It is a shame, although not surprising, that Senator De Leon and Governor Brown pandered to the feminist agenda here, despite the urgings of their own colleagues on the Senate Education Committee” added Mitchell. “I know that I would never allow my own son to attend a university in a state where the simple act of kissing his girlfriend on the cheek would fall within the definitions of sexual assault under a law that provides him with no protections against such an accusation – constitution be damned.”