'Barrier Protection' Bill Once Again Introduced in CA Assembly

SACRAMENTO—Once again, state Assemblymember Isadore Hall III has introduced another bill to require the use of "condoms and other protective barriers" in the filming of hardcore adult movies. The bill, AB 1576, comes on the heels of Hall's failed attempt to rewrite his own bill, AB 640, during the last legislative session to turn it from a "veterans' access to cigarettes" bill to a bill targeting adult movie production, using much the same language as is in the current bill. AB 1576 would add a new section, 6720, to the Labor Code, though the text of the bill shows that it clearly belongs as an amendment to the Health Code. Hall excuses this lapse by saying, "The Legislature finds and declares that the protection of workers in the adult film industry is the responsibility of multiple layers of government, with the department being responsible for worker safety and the county being responsible for protecting the public health," adding, "Therefore, this section shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from implementing a local ordinance regulating the adult film industry, provided that nothing in the local ordinance contradicts any provision of this section." In other words, anybody who wants to take a shot at enacting another ordinance like LA County's Measure B, have at it. (No mention of the fact that thanks to Measure B, LA County has deprived itself of close to half a million dollars in filming permit fees over the past year, nor the fact that if AB 1576 is enacted, the state will be forced to spend millions of dollars defending its constitutionality.) Section 6720(c) of the bill spells out the main effect it will have on the adult industry: "An employer shall maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and any potentially infectious materials, in accordance with Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Engineering and work practice controls shall include, but are not limited to, the following: "(1) Simulation of sex acts using acting, production, and postproduction techniques. "(2) Provision of and required use of condoms and other protective barriers whenever acts of vaginal or anal intercourse are filmed. "(3) The provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms. "(4) Plastic and other disposable materials to clean up sets. "(5) Sharps containers for disposal of contaminated sharps, including, but not limited to, any blades, wires, or broken glass." The bill also requires employers/producers—which is anyone who films a movie using either actual employees or independent contractors—to maintain an exposure control plan, designate a "custodian of records" to keep track of it, play for all performer testing, hepatitis B vaccinations and "all medical followup required by Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations." The employer/producer is also required to "adopt, implement, maintain, and update, as required, a written health and safety program" and "provide a training program," both in accordance with Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. As expected, one section of the bill reads, "This section shall not be construed to require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of an adult film." (AVN is anxiously awaiting the receipt of Raging Stallion's production American Dreamin' 1, to see how successful the company was in digitally removing from the finished movie the condoms used during production.) The bill also contains what has now became the standard severability clause, meaning that if any provision of the bill is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, it may be severed from the enacted law without affecting the other sections of that same law. And finally, Hall claims that passage of the bill would not cause the state to incur any costs for its implementation, "because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution." (Somehow, we doubt that local agencies and school districts will be the ones footing the bill for the lawsuit that will inevitably be filed if AB 1576 passes.) Free Speech Coalition, the industry trade organization, issued a press release, stating in part, "This is the third time that Assemblymember Hall has attempted to push through mandatory barrier protection; in 2013, he sponsored both AB 332 and 640 in unsuccessful bids to legislate condom use in the adult production industry. "This measure will further drive production out of state and create severe hardships for ancillary businesses," said FSC CEO Diane Duke. "Last year, we were able to defeat AB 332 and 640 by going to Sacramento to lobby. It made a big difference for legislators to see people show up to protest those bills. When we go there again, to fight AB 1576, we will really need the assistance of everyone in the industry—our livelihood in California is at stake." "The primary advocate for mandatory condom regulations is nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), which has supported Hall’s campaigns to have the bills passed into law," the press release continued. "This latest attempt to mandate barrier protection usage is the latest development in AHF’s nearly ten-year long campaign to force legislation on the adult industry." The full text of the bill can be found here. AVN will, of course, be following the progress of this bill through the legislature.