BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 340
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 340 (Jackson)
As Introduced February 20, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-7
PUBLIC SAFETY 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Jones-Sawyer, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Mitchell, Quirk, Skinner | |Bradford, |
| | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| | | |Holden, Pan, Quirk, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Melendez, Waldron |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, |
| | | |Donnelly, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Eliminates the January 1, 2014, sunset date on the
Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act (RRLEA).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the California Freedom of Access to Clinic and
Church Entrances (FACE) Act, 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. The FACE Act
also prohibits intentional damage or destruction of property
because the owner is a reproductive health services client,
provider, assistant, or facility. Furthermore, the FACE Act
provides the same protections to religious worshippers and
places of worship.
2)Establishes the FACE Act.
3)Provides under the FACE Act that specified actions are
SB 340
Page 2
prohibited, including acts that by force, threat of force, or
physical obstruction, intentionally injury or attempt to
injure or 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 from becoming or remaining a reproductive
health services client, provider, or assistant.
4)States that any person who by force, threat of force, or
physical obstruction that is a crime of violence intentionally
injures, intimidates, interferes with any person lawfully
exercising his or her First Amendment right of religious
freedom at a place of religious worship is punishable as
specified under the FACE Act.
5)Prohibits any person, by nonviolent physical obstruction, from
interfering, intentionally injuring, intimidating, interferes
with, or attempting to do any such act, because that person or
entity is a reproductive health services client, provider, or
assistant, or in order to intimidate any person or entity from
becoming or remaining a reproductive health services client,
provider, or assistant.
6)States that any person who, by nonviolent physical
obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes
with any person lawfully exercising his or her First Amendment
right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship is
punishable as specified under the FACE Act.
7)Prohibits any person from intentionally damaging or destroying
the property of a person, entity or facility, or attempting to
do so, because the person or entity or facility is a
reproductive health services client, provider, assistant, or
facility.
8)Provides that violations of the FACE Act are misdemeanors,
punishable by varying fines and jail terms according to the
section(s) violated.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Minor absorbable General Fund (GF) costs to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for data collection and analysis.
SB 340
Page 3
2)Minor absorbable special fund costs to the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST) to provide training
materials.
3)Negligible potentially state-reimbursable costs to local law
enforcement for reporting anti-reproductive rights crimes to
the DOJ.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "The FACE Act and RRLEA have
offered an invaluable protection for people seeking reproductive
health services. Through the RRLE Act's directives to the
California Department of Justice to develop prevention,
apprehension, prosecution, and reporting plans for
anti-reproductive rights crimes, Californians have an
enforcement policy that helps protect their access to churches
and clinics, as defined in the FACE Act.
"FACE and RRLEA work hand in hand to protect Californians'
privacy and dignity. Removing the sunset on the RRLE Act is
crucial in order to protect Californians' access to reproductive
health services.
"Furthermore, the prevention and reporting of anti-reproductive
rights crimes is crucial in ensuring an accurate reflection of
access for people seeking reproductive health services. Often
times, this is the only information policy-makers and
stakeholders have in addressing anti-reproductive rights crimes.
"An extension of the Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act
would also ensure advisory committee reports on the
effectiveness of existing law regarding anti-reproductive rights
crimes. These analyses must continue to help better implement
policies that accurately reflect the problem of ARRCs in
reproductive health centers.
"Californians will face increased discrimination and
intimidation regarding their reproductive health choices and
privacy unless we ensure this statute is preserved.
"California must continue to protect access to reproductive
health services and must ensure proper enforcement of its laws.
Without accurate data and oversight of these policies, there is
SB 340
Page 4
no government accountability in insuring protections and justice
for individuals' reproductive access and privacy."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0001469