With the recent explosion of information about HHS endangering migrant children by not properly vetting the homes that the children were being sent to, I had a horrifying thought: Did California legislators specifically pass AB-1518 and SB-1414 to ensure that the State of California could profit off child sex trafficking?
I. Scott Wiener
Back in 2024, I wrote an article titled “Why Do I Think Scott Wiener is Evil?” where I made a list of specific pieces of legislation that were tied to Mr. Weiner which I believe led to an increase in crime and/or physical harm to constituents, particularly children: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=3016.
In my opinion, the most concerning issue addressed in that article was the gutting of SB-1414, the bill to make child sex trafficking a felony. Thanks to changes made by the public safety committee, the bill in its final version only protects some children in some circumstances:
1. Sex trafficking a child who is 16 or 17 year olds was decriminalized, so traffickers and “Johns” can still sell/buy 16 and 17 year olds without fear of felony prosecution.
2. Buying a child who is 15 and under is only a felony if the “John” is a repeat offender, so there are still no protections in place for a child who is with a “John” who has never been caught before.
3. There are no punishments for a child selling/purchasing another child. So a 17-year old can traffic/buy an unlimited number of infants with no penalties whatsoever.
II. Dr. Akilah Weber-Pierson
In March of this year, it came to my attention that San Diego Senator Dr. Weber-Pierson was encouraging vulnerable people to give their private information to a San Diego NGO that had allegations of the staff sexually assaulting clients and allegations that the employees were newly released prisoners. They were specifically looking for illegal aliens with children, particularly children under six. I wrote an article titled “Is State Senator Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson Involved in Human Trafficking?” where I pointed out some legislation that she’d voted for that helps facilitate human trafficking: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=4284.
In the article, I’d noted that she’d voted for AB-495, which makes it easy for children to be kidnapped from schools via an affidavit. The NGO helping the vulnerable people have all the private information needed in order to create a false affidavit and kidnap the children.
She also voted for AB-1518, in which the State of CA agreed to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens being employed by CA companies as long as the employers collected the millionaire income tax rate for the state from the illegals. No proof that labor laws were being followed was required. Not only was the state explicitly allowing the exploitation of illegal aliens, the state itself was profiting off of said exploitation. While AB-1518 only passed at the end of 2025, all it did was make an existing temporary law, AB-2660, permanent. No changes were made to the law itself.
III. Catherine Blakespear
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a human trafficking seminar hosted by Catherine Blakespear. They closed the seminar without taking questions from the audience, so as the speakers were getting up to leave the stage, I screamed “Ms. Blakespear, why did you vote for AB-1518?” She didn’t answer. I loudly explained to the room that AB-1518 was literally the State of California running its own labor trafficking ring. One of her staff approached me and asked me to send a follow up email with my concerns. I sent two emails.
One addressed labor trafficking: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/I-Am-the-One-Who-Made-the-Scene-Last-Night-at-the-Human-Trafficking-Prevention-Seminar.pdf
The other addressed how she had voted for a series of bills which helped facilitate child sex trafficking: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Part-2-Why-I-believe-the-human-trafficking-prevention-seminar-hosted-by-Ms-Blakespear-on-July-16-2026-was-not-credible.pdf.
IV. Connecting the Dots
Why wouldn’t sex traffickers utilize AB-1518? Sex trafficking has all kinds of cover operations, such as massage parlors, where pimps can present themselves as legitimate businesses. Why wouldn’t a sex trafficker pay the State of CA the extra income taxes in order to ensure the state didn’t do any investigating into their operation?
And with SB-1414, why wouldn’t the sex traffickers utilize children as a part of their operations? After all, there are zero consequences for trafficking a 16 or 17 year old. If they vetted their Johns to ensure none had prior arrests, there would be zero consequences for trafficking younger children.
Prior to SB-1414, child sex trafficking wasn’t a felony at all, and what was then AB-2660 ensured that the state could get a cut of the revenue generated by child sex trafficking. It appears to me that the intention of SB-1414 in its final form was to ensure the state could continue to profit off of child sex trafficking.