BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
3
4
0
SB 340 (Jackson)
As Introduced February 20, 2013
Hearing date: April 23, 2013
Penal Code
MK:mc
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
ANTI-REPRODUCTIVE-RIGHTS CRIMES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1770 (Padilla) - Ch. 206, Stats. 2008
SB 603 (Ortiz) - Ch. 481, Stats. 2006
SB 780 (Ortiz) - Ch. 899,
Stats. 2001
Support: California Police Chiefs Association; The American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District
IX (California); American Association of University
Women; California Medical Association; California
Latinas for Reproductive Justice; Planned Parenthood
Affiliates of California
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SUNSET ON THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT BE
(More)
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageB
ELIMINATED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the sunset on the
Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act.
Existing law establishes the California Freedom of Access to
Clinic and Church Entrances Act (FACE), which prohibits acts
that by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction,
intentionally injure or attempt to injure, intimidate, or
interfere with, any person or entity because that person or
entity is a reproductive services client, provider, or
assistant, or in order to intimidate any person or entity, or
any class of persons or entities, from becoming or remaining a
reproductive health services client, provider, or assistant.
FACE also prohibits intentional damage or destruction of
property because the owner is a reproductive health services
client, provider, assistant, or facility. Furthermore, FACE
provides the same protections to religious worshippers and
places of worship. (Penal Code § 432.2.)
Existing law makes violations of the FACE act a misdemeanor.
(Penal Code § 423.3.)
Existing law also establishes the Reproductive Rights Law
Enforcement Act (RRLEA). RRLEA requires the Attorney General to
1) collect and analyze information relating to anti-reproductive
rights crimes (ARRCs); 2) develop a plan to prevent, apprehend,
prosecute, and report ARRCs; and 3) submit an annual report to
the Legislature. (Penal Code § 13777.)
Existing law provides that the Commission on the Status of
Women shall convene an Advisory Committee to report on the
implementation of RRLEA, the effectiveness of the Attorney
General's plan, and make recommendations to the Legislature
relating to RRLEA. (Penal Code § 13777.2.)
(More)
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageC
Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST) to produce and make a two-hour telecourse on
ARRCs available to law enforcement agencies. (Penal Code §
13778.)
Existing law provides that the RRLEA shall remain in effect
until January 1, 2014.
This bill deletes the sunset on the RRLEA.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
(More)
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageD
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
(More)
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageE
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The California Freedom of Access to Clinic and Church
Entrances Act (FACE Act) and the Reproductive Rights
Law Enforcement Act (RRLEA) were enacted in 2001 to
combat anti-reproductive rights crimes (ARRCs) and are
set to sunset in January of 2014.
An anti-reproductive-rights crime (ARRC) is defined in
Penal Code §13776(a) as:
a crime committed partly or wholly because the
victim is a reproductive health services client,
provider, or assistant - or -
a crime that is partly or wholly intended to
intimidate the victim, any other person or entity, or
any class of persons or entities from becoming or
remaining a reproductive health services client,
provider, or assistant.
Under California law, protection for men and women
seeking reproductive health care services is ensured by
The California FACE Act, which created civil and
criminal penalties for individuals who interfered with
a person's participation in religious services or
access to reproductive health care facilities and the
RRLE Act, which directed the Attorney General to
develop a plan with input from subject matter experts
to prevent and report anti-reproductive rights crimes.
(More)
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageF
The FACE Act and RRLEA have offered an invaluable
protection for people seeking reproductive health
services through their directives to the California
Department of Justice to develop prevention,
apprehension, prosecution, and reporting plans for
anti-reproductive rights crimes.
Repealing the sunset on the California FACE Act will
ensure Californians' freedom to participate in the
faith of their choice and in protecting access to
Californians' reproductive health. FACE and RRLEA work
hand in hand to protect people seeking access to
reproductive health services and faith centers.
Often times, the only information policy-makers and
stakeholders have in addressing anti-reproductive
rights crimes is the reporting of ARRC. Without
accurate information, crucial policy steps regarding
protecting these groups might not have the qualitative
data to support necessary funding or legislative
remedies.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to gather
information related to anti-reproductive rights crimes
and analyze the effectiveness of existing law in
consultation with subject matter experts. Extending
the Reproductive Rights Law
(More)
Enforcement Act indefinitely would also ensure advisory
committee reports on the effectiveness of existing law
regarding anti-reproductive rights crimes continue.
These analyses must continue to help better implement
policies that accurately reflect the problem of ARRCs
in reproductive health centers.
Without accurate data and oversight of this law, there
is no government accountability in insuring protections
and justice for individuals seeking reproductive health
services.
2. The Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act
Existing law establishes FACE, which adds criminal and civil
provisions to state law regarding the commission of certain
activities that interfere with a person's access to reproductive
health services and facilities or with a person's participation
in religious services. Existing law also establishes RRLEA,
which specifies law enforcement training requirements on the
topic of ARRCs and requires the implementation of a plan and
reporting scheme by the Attorney General.
A survey by the California Senate Office of Research showed that
more than half (50.9%) of participating clinics and medical
offices experienced anti-reproductive rights crimes between 1995
and 2000. Forty-eight percent of survey participants who
reported the crimes to law enforcement were dissatisfied with
the response. The report indicates, "complaints about responses
included officers who were unfamiliar with the law, officers who
tried to mediate [. . .] rather than mak[e] arrests, and law
enforcement agencies accused of refusing to enforce laws other
than for major cases."<1>
According to DOJ the following numbers of anti-reproductive
---------------------------
<1> Special Report to the Legislature on Senate Bill 780
California Freedom of Access to Clinics and Church Entrances Act
and Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act, California
Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, p.
21-22 (2003).
(More)
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageH
rights crimes were reported in California since specific
reporting has been required:
2003 - 10 reports;<2>
2004 - 8 reports;<3>
2005 - 9 reports;<4>
2006 - 4 reports.<5>
2007-6 reports <6>
2008---5 reports.<7>
2009---10 reports<8>
2010---4 reports <9>
2011---9 reports<10>
---------------------------
<2> 2003 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc03net.pdf?
<3> 2004 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc04net.pdf?
<4> 2005 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc05.pdf?
<5> 2006 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc06.pdf?
<6> 2007 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc07.pdf?
<7> 2008 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc08.pdf?
<8> 2009 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc09.pdf?
<9> 2010 DOJ: Anti Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc10.pdf?
<10> 2011 DOJ: Anti-Reproductive Rights Crimes in California
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/mi
sc/arrc/arrc11.pdf?
SB 340 (Jackson)
PageI
3. Eliminating the Sunset on the RRLEA
Existing law provides that the Reproductive Rights Law
Enforcement Act shall be repealed on January 1, 2014. The law
was originally set to expire in 2008 but the sunset was extended
to 2014. The supporters believe that keeping the RRLEA in place
is important so that there is information on these crimes and so
that law enforcement training on how to handle these types of
crimes continues.
Specifically, in support the California Medical Association
states:
CMA supports access to safe medical care and believes
that medical decisions should be left to patient and
physician, including those related to reproductive
health. Threats to health care providers who offer
reproductive health services inhibit both safe medical
care and the patient/physician relationship. The
Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act creates a
mechanism by which to track these threats and crimes
committed and to develop a plan to address them as
necessary. The need for tracking this information
continues and so should the law.
***************