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. ***************