SACRAMENTO—In a nearly unanimous vote, the Labor and Employment Committee of the California State Assembly this afternoon passed AB 1576, the mandatory condom and personal protective equipment bill for all adult industry shoots in the state, sponsored by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III.
A number of witnesses spoke in support and opposition to the bill, and a few members of the committee followied those statements with questions related to STD transmission and the constitutionality of the bill, but in the end the question of the state's responsibility to protect workers prevailed among even committee members who declind to support a similar measure last year.
The bill now moves on to the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media Committee for consideration, after which it will make a final stop at the Approprations Committee before being put before the full legislature.
The first supporter of the measure to address the room was the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Hall, who spent several minutes talking about why the bill is more necessary than ever. Bringing a raw passion to his statements, the legislator said that since his last efforts to control safe sex practices on set, "the working conditions for adult film actors have not gotten better—they have actually gotten worse."
His did not support that contention in detail, however, other than to say that there had been five documented cases of HIV transmission from adult actors alone, and claimed that the three "unprecedented" moratoriums put in place last year were "unenforced and largely ignored by the industry."
That said, he insisted that "testing does not prevent" the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and stated with certainty that industry testing is as good at preventing STDs "as a pregnancy test is at preventing pregnancy." However, he did add that because the industry moved last year to introduce "announce revised from 28 to 14 days," that should make such a protocol "good enough to be enforced under state law."
Regarding opponents' claims that the bill is unconstitutional and that producers are already fleeing the state, he basically denied the accuracy of both contentions, stating that the Measure B ruling last year by U.S. District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson in Vivid v Fielding determined that "it is not unconstitutional to require condoms, and with all the talk of moving, sex work is not legal in Nevada and where it is legal, condoms are required."
Hall then stated his wish that the industry stay in California—" I don't want them to go anywhere but California"—but said it would be unseemly for the legislature to put profits over workplace safety.
"The home of the industry is still and will be in California," he stated, adding, "But this legitimate legal business should be treated no different than any other industry. Workers in [adult entertainment] are employees and workplace safety should not be negotiable." With that, he concluded his statement asking felloe committee members for a yes vote.
Next to speak was Rand Martin of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who basically made three points intended to refute claims made in a letter to the Committee sent by opponents to the bill. First, with respect to issues of constitutionality, he stated, "We are not doing Measure B in this bill. Constitutionality issues articulated by [Judge Pregerson are] not applicable to this bill."
Second, regarding the "demonstrable flight of adult film," Martin claimed that opponents "make that contention based on film permits pulled, but the problem with their argument is that the numbers they use is suspect." His point is that the numbers used for requested filing permits in 2012 was a lowball number, considering the number of shoots in the area, and that the lower number of permits sought for 2013 is equally "absurd." He did however neglect to address the argument that film permits is just one indicator of "production flight."
Finally, Martin stated that the law is very clear with respect to sex work in Nevada, and claimed that not only is all sex work filmed in Las Vegas underground, but that the law in Las Vegas already requires condoms and also that performers be under 21 years of age.
"If they think they'll get a better deal in Las Vegas," he concluded, "they are surely mistaken."
The next supporter to speak was Cameron Adams, who shot under the name Cameron Bay until contracting HIV last year in a highly publicized case. Telling the Committee that she had been "a performer for all of three months, " Adams said she had been diagnosed July 27, and shot three scenes after that test. She also recounted events that allegedly transpired on a Kink.com set. (Kink was subsequently fined by Cal/OSHA for violations related in part to its condom policy.)
The events included one participant injuring her breast—forcing her to get her breast redone—and a situation in which her scene partner cut his penis in her mouth. After stopping to address the wound and see if another performer could take his place, Adams said of the shoot, "We ended up having to continue to do the scene with the performer who had cut his penis, and we did not use protection."
Adams also said that she does not think condoms are only to protect for STDs, and claimed that an individual can get sick from interacting with another partner aside from getting an STDs. She also told the Committee, "I got an earlier kidney infection from an earlier shoot with multiple partners and no condoms, making me more susceptible for HIV," and concluded her remarks with the observation, "I believe condoms in porn is not the question people should be asking; the question is why they are not already mandatory."
Performer Rod Daily spoke next in support of the bill, and told the Committee that he was diagnosed with HIV last year, adding, "All my scenes were condom. I never contracted a single STD." He also alluded to a past relationship with Cameron Adams, and made the basic claim that "The performers don't actually have a voice. I'm sure they would all like to use condoms, but no one says anything because they're scared.
"My situation is different because I did mostly gay and always used condoms," he added, "but no, there is no voice."
At this point in the proceedings, the Committee chair asked remaining supporters of the bill to simply state their name and association in the interest of time. Those individuals included former performers Hayden Winters and Darren James (who contracted HIV in 2004), performer Jessie Rogers ("I contacted herpes on an adult film set, and I support this bill."), someone from Planned Parenthood and another person from AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Three people got to speak in opposition to AB 1576, performer Nina Hartley, FSC chair Jeffrey Douglas and FSC CEO Diane Duke. Each was under pressure from the chair to be as succinct as possible, as Hall's bill was but one piece of business scheduled for the hearing.
Hartley recounted her status as a registered nurse and a "working performer with 30 years experience," telling the Committee that HIV does not originate on set but is brought on to sets by people who have engaged in unsafe sex in their private lives, which is why the industry has "testing protocols in place to stop HIV at the door."
She added, "This bill would not have prevented one single case [of HIV last year]," and stated that many STDs are not prevented by condoms. She said over 17,5000 individual scenes have been shot without any transmission of HIV while five new cases are discovered in Los Angeles every day.
"This is a solution in search of a problem," she concluded.
Douglas addressed constitutional issues related to the bill, and also noted that there are problems in the current bill that were not in the previous version, AB 332. He said the upcoming opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Judge Pregerson ruling is critical to considering the constitutionality of the bill, and reminded the Committee that the lower court found elements of the law to constitute "prior restraint," a serious precursor to a finding of unconstitutionality, and added, "There is a likelihood that they will find it unconstitutional."
Regarding new burdens in the bill, he said it mandates that private medical information be collected and maintained by production companies, and opined that there will be "hundreds of small studios required to maintain personal medical info, and it is absurd to think many of them can protect that private information."
He added that the notion that adult protection is legally protected in only two states is equally absurd, and claimed that there is adult production in 50 states year around.
"The flight of adult businesses from California is very, very real," he said, adding, "The Las Vegas laws mentioned [during the hearing] do not apply to adult productions," but to prostitution.
Addition opponents of the bill were thereafter allowed only to state their name and company. Michael Stabile representing Kink.com voiced his support, as did an individual from Manwin.
Following the conclusion of statements in support and opposition, a few Committee members asked questions related to constitutional issues, the specter of industry flight to another state, and Hartley's claim that the bill would not have stopped last year's HIV cases.
Regarding the last point, Hartley replied, "It is my understanding they did not contract HIV on the set. We have to test at the front door, so to speak."
Douglas responded to the constitutionality question by reiterating, "Judge Pregerson in his ruling made the finding that Measure B represented a prior restraint."
On the subject of industry flight, Douglas also commented, "The largest talent agency in the business has moved to Las Vegas," and Kink's Stabile started to say something about the company filing "a change of use permit" with San Francisco before being cut off by the chair. He was certainly referring to news related by MissionLocal.org today that Kink owner Peter Acworth has filed plans with the city's Planning Department "that would convert the building’s production studios into office space."
Following a few more comments by legislators, including one Committee member who felt compelled to explain to the room that he would not be voting at all, explaining, "I do not appreciate either side of this argument."
The chair then allowed Hall to make some final comments, during which he said, in part, "It's about more than HIV, but all STDs, and what the industry has subjected employees to every day, and like I said, there is no flag that will cover the shame this industry has placed on performers."
Before voting, Chairman Hernández also weighed in, stating that while he had declined to vote on Hall's condom bill last year, he would be voting in support of it this year, and encouraged the others to do the same, saying, "I'm not comfortable with the argument that we need to protect an industry's profits on the back of a worker. So I am proud to support this bill today."
AVN contacted the Free Speech Coalition for comment on this developing story, but had not received a response as of post-time.
