Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) is chastising his opponent in the 2024 cycle – former Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) for endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris’ (D) running mate, Governor Tim Walz (D-MN).
This seems like an easy decision for former Rep. Murcasel-Powell to endorse the Democrat Party’s presidential ticket.
So, what is the Scott campaign’s rationale?
Last year, Gov. Walz signed a bill that removed part of Subdivision 44 of Minnesota’s state human rights law which used to state, “Sexual orientation does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.”
MUST READ 🧵
Harris-Walz will force this radical gender ideology into every school. https://t.co/UCYYUyuB4A
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 7, 2024
Later, an amendment was added to the bill which attempts to clarify the issue: “The physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult is not a protected class under this chapter.”
In a press release, the Scott campaign claims that “pedophiles are protected under state law” in Minnesota due to Walz’s signature.
“Under Tim Walz’s leadership, criminals in Minnesota are free to burn cities to the ground and pedophiles are protected under state law,” said Sen. Scott’s campaign. “These are the kinds of dangerous policies that the radical socialist ticket wants to enact nationwide. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell fully supports this radical ticket, and immediately embraced this pedophile protector. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and the radical socialists she supports are too dangerous for Florida. That’s why she’s struggling to win her primary, and if she does, Floridians will reject her once again in November.”
This statement from the campaign doesn’t appear to be fully true, but it does beg the question of why the language was removed in the first place.
Minnesota State Representative Leigh Finke (D-MN), the state’s first transgender legislator, was one of the sponsors of the bill. She told USA Today:
"The bill updates outdated language that incorrectly ties pedophilia to a person's sexual orientation," Finke said in an email. "Nothing in the bill changes or weakens any crimes against children, or the state's ability to prosecute those who break the law. Of course, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation – which is why the language never should have been included in the statutory definition in the first place."
Pedophilia might not be a sexual orientation. But if pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, then why was that specific clarification removed from the bill? Why provide less transparency regarding twisted people’s desires for sexual abuse of children? Why make it more confusing?
Yes, a man might be into blondes and a woman might be into men who are six feet tall. Those are preferences.
However, while the Minnesota bill clearly states that pedophiles are not a protected class, the removal of the clarification that pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation seems to reduce pedophilia to a mere (illegal) preference. The change in the language gives off the impression of “Yeah, pedophilia is illegal, but it isn’t a sexual orientation. Don’t be a bigot toward the pedophilic community.” If that wasn’t the case, then the removal of the bill's original language wouldn’t have been necessary.
The bill does not appear to change any laws in The North Star State, but its language surrounding the view of pedophilia certainly has.
