California Assembly Bill 379, designed to combat child sex trafficking, has been modified by removing a provision that would have made it a felony for buyers of 16 and 17-year-old victims, reducing it to a misdemeanor, in order to secure a legislative hearing. State Assemblywoman Maggy Krell reluctantly agreed to the amendment, emphasizing her commitment to protecting minors and noting the bill still criminalizes predatory behavior and establishes a victim support fund. The bill faced criticism from California Assembly Republicans who argue that it weakens protections for minors and fails to adequately punish offenders. The decision to amend the bill was perceived by some as a strategy to prevent it from being heard, with further penalties and fines being considered in its stead. The controversy highlights ongoing legislative challenges in addressing sex trafficking laws, especially regarding the protection of older minors.

Assembly Bill 379 aimed to align the penalties for sex traffickers with those for consumers but was altered to exclude felony charges for those purchasing 16 and 17-year-olds for sex, treating such actions as misdemeanors instead.

State Assemblywoman Maggy Krell expressed her disapproval of the amendment, stating her life's work is to protect minors from sex trafficking, yet conceded to the change to ensure the bill could proceed through the legislative process.

The bill still includes measures to criminalize those loitering to purchase teenagers for sex and sets up a fund to aid victims, which Krell believes are significant steps in combating sex trafficking.

California Assembly Republicans criticized the amendment, arguing it undermines efforts to protect minors and questioned why Democrats would reduce the severity of penalties for buyers of minors.

The controversy arose from a prior law that criminalized the purchase of children 15 and younger for sex as a felony but excluded 16 and 17-year-olds, which the newly introduced bill sought to address.

Some lawmakers suggested that the amendment removal was a tactic to effectively kill the bill by preventing it from being heard, while others proposed increasing penalties and fines instead.

The debate reflects larger tensions within the California legislature over how best to protect minors from trafficking while balancing legislative and political challenges.