.png)
AB 2563 would embed an expansive, legislatively defined meaning of 'sex discrimination' across more than two dozen California codes simultaneously, overriding existing statutory language and judicial interpretation throughout state law.
OUR POSITIONAB 2563 is not a modest clarification. By adding parallel new sections to more than twenty California codes at once, including the Business and Professions Code, Civil Code, Education Code, Labor Code, Government Code, and many others, the bill would hard-wire a single legislative definition of 'sex discrimination' across virtually the entire body of California statutory law. The American Council urges every legislator to vote no and urges every constituent to contact their senator today to demand the same.
The bill's own text declares it is 'declarative of existing law' and is 'not intended to expand or contract any existing rights or responsibilities.' We believe that framing is not credible on its face. A bill that adds new statutory language to more than twenty codes simultaneously, defines terms that those codes do not currently define, and instructs every future reader to interpret existing anti-discrimination provisions through that new definition is, by any plain reading, changing the law. Claiming otherwise does not make it so, and legislators should not be asked to vote for a legal fiction.
The definitions the bill would impose are sweeping. Under facts 7 through 13, 'sex discrimination' would be defined to include discrimination based on assigned sex or gender category, degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes, gender identity and expression, access to and use of gender-affirming care, pregnancy or related medical conditions, decisionmaking about drugs or devices related to pregnancy or related medical conditions, sexual orientation, and variations in sex characteristics including intersex traits. The bill also explicitly defines 'pregnancy or related medical conditions' to include abortion and contraception. Each of these definitions would be installed simultaneously across every major California code.
The conflict rule embedded in every new code section, as described in fact 3 and fact 26, directs that when the new section conflicts with another provision of the same code, whichever provision affords greater individual protections prevails. In practice, this means the new definitions would not simply coexist with existing law. They would reshape how every pre-existing anti-discrimination provision in California is interpreted and applied, in ways that cannot be fully anticipated at the time of passage. That is a significant legal reorganization dressed in the language of clarification.
The American Council holds that sound law is honest about what it does. When a bill simultaneously rewrites interpretive standards across more than twenty codes, defines contested terms for the entire California statutory system, and amends both the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act definitions, the legislature and the public deserve a clear-eyed debate about each of those changes, not a consolidated vote under the banner of declaratory legislation. Defeating AB 2563 is the right outcome, and we ask all people of conscience to make that case to their senators now.
AB 2563 has passed the California Assembly and moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as of August 21, 2026, it was read a third time in the Senate, amended, and returned to second reading, indicating active floor-stage movement in the Senate. The bill's posture — having cleared committee and reached Senate floor readings — places it in the final legislative stretch before a potential enrollment or concurrence vote, with the California Legislature's regular session deadline typically falling in mid-September. Constituent contact directed at Senate members and the Governor's office is most consequential right now, during active Senate floor consideration and before any final concurrence or enrollment action is taken.