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.


                                   ***************