Assemblymember Hall Totally Rewrites Mandatory Condom Bill

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Remember when Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-AHF) (D-Compton) introduced his first mandatory condom (and other barrier protections) bill, AB 332, in the state legislature? Why, it seems like only yesterday, although it was actually just a little more than one year ago, on Valentine's Day. That bill failed to make it out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee before the legislature went on summer recess, effectively killing it—but Hall was already ready with another plan that involved amending AB 640, a bill he'd introduced just a few days after AB 332. AB 640, you may recall, originally targeted retailers who wouldn't accept military ID cards for tobacco purchases, but as of last June 20, the entire text of the bill was gutted and replaced with almost exactly the same text as AB 332—and it essentially suffered the same fate: Though it had made it through the various Assembly committees, the California Senate's Rules Committee failed to act on the bill before the end of the 2013 legislative session, thereby killing it. Which brings us to Hall's latest bill, AB 1576, which he introduced in late January, and which AVN analyzed here. Basically, when originally introduced, AB 1576 tracked the requirements of Sec. 5193 of the California Health Code regarding the avoidance of bloodborne pathogens like sexually transmitted diseases, intending to add a new section, Sec. 6720, to the California Labor Code that would require barrier protections (and lube and "sharps containers") for any "acts of vaginal or anal intercourse [that] are filmed." It was nearly a four-page bill, and had been referred in mid-February to be considered by the Assembly's Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media, and Labor and Employment Committees—so of course, it was time for another rewrite! In the new version, which was filed just last week, AB 1576 no longer tries to add an entire new section to the Labor Code, but rather attempts to amend two existing sections, most notably Sec. 6401.7, which addresses "Responsibilities and Duties of Employers and Employees." Sec. 6401.7 mainly concerns itself with "establish[ing], implement[ing] and maintain[ing] an effective injury prevention program," and seems to be targeting mainly the construction industry, much as Sec. 5193 of the Health Code targets medical workers, but the two sections share many of the same requirements that would also target adult content production. The text that AB 1576 would add to Sec. 6401.7 of the Labor Code is, as follows: "(i)(1) An adult film employer’s injury prevention program shall include documentation that: "(A) Each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, a condom or other protective barrier was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This paragraph shall not be construed to require that the condom or other protective barrier be visible to the consumer in the finished film. "(B) Each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections, including, but not limited to, HIV, not less than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse and that the employer paid for the test. "(2) For the purposes of this subdivision, 'adult film' means any commercial film, video, multimedia, or other recorded representation during the production of which performers actually engage in sexual intercourse, including oral, vaginal, or anal penetration." The changes to Sec. 6319.3 are much less extensive, reaffirming Sec. 6401.7's assurances that new employers in the state won't get fined for violating 6401.7's safety standards for one year... unless "the employer is found to have committed a serious, willful, or repeated violation of that standard, or fails to abate the violation." Of particular note, AB 1576 still requires barrier protections beyond simple condoms, and while it doesn't specifically reference the barriers listed in Sec. 5193—latex gloves, goggles, face shields, et cetera—it's likely that the regulations that would be written if the bill passes will include all of those things—although, once again, such paraphernalia need not be visible in the finished film. Also, testing for STDs and other diseases/conditions would now be required, where the previous version of the bill simply recommended that they be done—and once again, the employer would be required to pay for the testing, which under the new version must take place every 14 days. And finally, whereas the previous version only required barrier protections for vaginal and anal intercourse, the new version also requires them for blowjobs and pussy-licking. How this total rewriting of AB 1576, the text of which can be found here, will affect its consideration by the above-mentioned Assembly committees is unknown, but one thing is likely: Hall and his supporters won't stop tinkering with this bill until they come up with a version they think will pass—and that's bad news for the adult entertainment industry.