WELL. MORNING, EVERYONE. GOOD
MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETING. AH,
RIGHT. A B 9 20 BRIAN, A B
1119 WICKS AND A B 13 OH, TWO
LACKEY HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE
HEARING. WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA
TODAY, INCLUDING SEVERAL ITEMS
AND MAYBE A LITTLE MORE
CONTROVERSIAL. WE'LL SEE.
HOPEFULLY NOT, BUT BUT SO WILL
NEED TO BE EFFICIENT WITH OUR
TIME AS A REMINDER EACH SIDE
WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAIN
WITNESSES, UM UP TO TWO MINUTES
TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF, OR
OPPOSITION TO A BILL. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES SHOULD STATE THEIR
NAME AND ORGANIZATION ONLY THIS
ALLOWS ALL AUTHORS A FAIR CHANCE
TO PRESENT THEIR BILLS AND ALL
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND EQUAL
CHANCE. TO HAVE THEIR POSITION
REFLECTED IN THE RECORD AS WE
PROCEED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS OUR
COMMITTEE RULES TO ENSURE THAT
WE MAINTAIN ORDER AND TO RUN
BOTH A FAIR AND EFFICIENT
HEARING IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
THE GOAL OF HEARING AS MUCH FROM
THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
OUR TIME, WE WILL NOT PERMIT
CONDUCT THAT DISRUPTS, DISTURBS
OR OTHERWISE IMPEDES THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT. OF THE PROCEEDINGS. WE
WILL NOT ACCEPT DISRUPTIVE
BEHAVIOR OR BEHAVIOR THAT
INCITES OR THREATENS VIOLENCE,
INCLUDING VEILED THREATS. RULES
OF CONDUCT BY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC INCLUDE NO TALKING OR
LOUD NOISES FROM THE AUDIENCE.
PUBLIC COMMENT MAY BE PROVIDED
ONLY AT THE DESIGNATED TIME AND
MUST BE LIMITED TO YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL. UH, NO
ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
THIS HEARING. PLEASE BE AWARE
THAT VIOLATION OF THESE RULES
MAY SUBJECT YOU TO REMOVAL OR
OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
SO WITH THAT, OUT OF THE WAY, WE
WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
FIRST WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO THANK
YOU ALL FOR BEING SO PROMPT S A
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
HERE. HERE DAILY CONNOLLY DIXON
HANEY CHOLERA. PACHECO. HERE
HAPPEN. SURE REYES RIVAS
SANCHEZ. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
QUORUM. WE WILL START WITH ITEM
NUMBER ONE A B 67. MR MURATSUCHI
, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. MR CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 67, WHICH
PROPOSES A HOMELESS COURT PILOT
PROGRAM TO BE ADMINISTERED BY
THE STATE JUDICIAL COUNCIL. THIS
IS A PROPOSAL TO GET SMART ON
FIGHTING HOMELESSNESS. IT'S
USING PROPOSING TO USE CRIMINAL
COURTS NOT TO CRIMINALIZE
HOMELESSNESS, BUT TO PROVIDE
WRAPAROUND SERVICES, ESSENTIALLY
A DIVERSION COURT TO GET SMART
ON ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS BY
PROVIDING PROGRAMS SUCH AS
HOUSING SUPPORT. MENTAL HEALTH
SUPPORT SUBSTANCE ABUSE SUPPORT
TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ROOT
CAUSES OF MANY OF THE LOW LEVEL
CRIMINAL OFFENSES THAT TOO MANY
OF OUR ON HOUSED INDIVIDUALS AND
UP IN CRIMINAL COURT. FOR THIS
IS A PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
AS WELL AS THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH. IT IS A PROGRAM THAT IS
PART OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S 2020
WORKING GROUP ON HOMELESSNESS
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS, A
PROGRAM THAT SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION WOULD PROVIDE A
GRANT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE AND
SUPPORT MORE SUCCESSFUL HOMELESS
COURT PROGRAMS. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE BILL
ARE MICHAEL WEBB, THE REDONDA,
PETE'S CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY
PROSECUTOR, AS WELL AS THOMAS
MORE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, WHICH
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FOR THE
RECORD. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THEY HAVEN'T COME IN
OFFICIALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL YET, BUT MR MOORE IS HERE
TO TESTIFY AND TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. WELL, GOOD MORNING.
UH IT'S A PLEASURE TO SPEAK
BEFORE YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS
MIKE WEBB. I'M THE ELECTED CITY
ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, AND OUR HOMELESS COURT IS
AN EFFORT TO GET PEOPLE WHO ARE
CHRONICALLY HOMELESS AND OFTEN
HAVE BEEN IN AND OUT OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR
DECADES. UM. THE WHAT'S
DIFFERENT ABOUT OUR HOMELESS
COURT IS WE BRING IT TO THE
COMMUNITY WHERE THE UNHAPPIEST
INDIVIDUALS ARE AND AS SUCH, WE
HAVE MUCH GREATER ATTENDANCE
TYPICALLY. INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
ON THE HOUSE. DON'T MAKE IT TO
THE COURTROOM AND WE HAVE A 79%
ATTENDANCE RATE IN ARE MUCH LESS
THREATENING, MUCH LESS
INTIMIDATING HOMELESS COURT. THE
GOAL IS TO REMOVE ALL THE
OBSTACLES THAT PREVENT SOMEONE
FROM BECOMING HOUSED. BY
BRINGING ALL THE RESOURCES FROM
D M V TWO MENTAL HEALTH,
ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELING, ADDITIONAL DRUG
COUNSELING ALL THERE AND IT'S
WORKING. I SPOKE BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR ON A SIMILAR
BILL AND WHAT WE DIDN'T HAVE
BECAUSE IT JUST STARTED IN
SEPTEMBER OF 2020 WAS, UM
DAMAGED DEMONSTRATED PROOF THAT
IT WAS WORKING. THE HOMELESS
COUNT, BASED ON THE POINT IN
TIME IS STILL INCREASING AT A
SLOWER RATE IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY IN OUR SERVICE PROVIDER
AREA SPA EIGHT. IT WENT UP 17
4.4% WE DECREASED THE AMOUNT OF
HOMELESS BY 44% IN THE POINT IN
TIME COUNT, AND IT'S AT THE
LOWEST RATE IN IT IN NEAR SENSE
NEARLY A DECADE. 2013 WAS THE
LAST TIME WE HAD A LOWER
HOMELESS RECORD. I WILL SAY
HAVING BEEN A PROSECUTOR FOR 35
YEARS. THIS IS THE ONE TIME
WHERE EVERYBODY'S INTERESTS ARE
ALIGNED. THE DEFENSE, THE
PROSECUTION, THE DEFENDANT AND
THE COMMUNITY WE ALL WANT TO SEE
BEYOND HOUSED INDIVIDUALS GET
PERMANENTLY HOUSED. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. IT'S AN HONOR
TO BE HERE FROM THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES AND IN SUPPORT OF A
B 67. I WANT TO BEGIN BY
UNDERSCORING SOMETHING THAT'S
BECOME VERY APPARENT. AND THAT'S
THAT. UM. THERE'S A STRONG
CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HOUSING AND SECURITY AND PUBLIC
SAFETY. A B 67 ADDRESSES THOSE
ISSUES AT TWO ENDS BY MINIMIZING
SYSTEM IMPACT BY CREATING A PRE
PLEA DIVERSION PROGRAM. AND BY
OFFERING A CHANCE TO EXPUNGE
RECORDS, CLEARING, UM EFFORTS,
RECORDS RELIEF THAT CAN HELP
PEOPLE GET ACCESS TO HOUSING AND
SERVICES THAT THEY NEED TO GET
IEDS TO GET EMPLOYMENT TO GET
JOBS. AND EVEN STUDENT LOANS.
AND SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
PROGRAM FOR US, UM, WHEN I FIRST
CAME TO REDONDO BEACH AND MET
CITY ATTORNEY MIKE WEBB WERE
PEOPLE THAT OBVIOUSLY COME FROM
DIFFERENT SIDES, WHERE
ADVERSARIES IN THE COURT SYSTEM
BUT IN THIS ASPECT WHERE WE'RE
ON THE SAME SIDE AND WHEN, WHEN
YOU COME TO THE COURT, THE
OUTDOOR CORDEN REDONDA, YOU SEE
THAT IT IS A REAL CORD, BUT IT
HAS THE ATMOSPHERE OF A RESOURCE
FAIR BECAUSE WE'RE ALL THERE ON
THE SAME SIDE, UM, TO ENHANCE
THE SERVICES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE
THERE, AND I WANT TO TELL YOU A
QUICK STORY ABOUT A WOMAN NAMED
MICHELLE AND SHE CAME TO US, UM
HAD BEEN LIVING BEHIND A
DUMPSTER FOR EIGHT YEARS IN
REDONDO BEACH. SHE CAME TO THE
HOMELESS COURT WITH FIVE OPEN
CONVICTIONS, AND SHE BEGAN
WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE TEAM.
EVERYBODY WORKED TOGETHER TO
BRING MICHELLE INSIDE, SAFE
BECAUSE WOMEN OFTEN COME TO US
THROUGH A VERY DIFFERENT PATHWAY
, SOMETIMES THE VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL
ABUSE. COMING INSIDE HAS A
DIFFERENT SENSE OF IMPORTANCE
AND URGENCY. AND SO MICHELLE HAD
A DISABILITY AND TOOK HER A LONG
TIME TO GET HURT LICENSE, WHICH
WAS A REAL BARRIER TO GETTING
HOUSING. UM SHE WAS ADOPTED AND
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT STATES YOU CAME
FROM. AND WHEN SHE GOT HER I D
SHE WAS FINALLY BROUGHT INSIDE.
SHE NOW HAS TWO YEARS. RECOVERY
FROM METH ADDICTION, AND SHE
LIVES INSIDE PERMANENT HOUSING
WITH THE HELP OF THE REDONDO
BEACH HOMELESS COURT, SO IT'S AN
HONOR TO BE HERE AND SUPPORT
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY PLEASE. MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS SYLVIA SALAS SHAH HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA. AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
KATHLEEN DOMAIN. SORRY KATHLEEN
DOMINGO WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE. THANK YOU
SEEN NO FURTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
SAYING NONE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE. MR
SALIH. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. HAVE
A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM BUT MR
MURATSUCHI, THIS WENT TO PUBLIC
SAFETY BEFORE IT CAME HERE.
CORRECT THAT IS CORRECT. AND IT
IT PASSED, I THINK ON A
BIPARTISAN VOTE THERE THAT IS
CORRECT. THE BILL'S BEEN CHANGED
BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND HERE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS INITIALLY
THIS WOULD JUST COVER
MISDEMEANORS. AND NOW, UM, AT
THE REQUEST OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY
GEORGE GASCON. THAT FELONIES ARE
NOW COVERED. IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT IS CORRECT. AND IF I MAY,
MR SALIH AS A FELLOW FORMER
PROSECUTOR, I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN
. UH THE RATIONALE. UM THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HAS
APPEARS NOW OFFICIALLY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. UM THEY.
EXPRESS TO MY OFFICE THAT OFTEN
TIMES THAT THE HOMELESS UM YOU
KNOW, ARE FACING LOW LEVEL
NONSERIOUS, NONVIOLENT, NON SEX
OFFENSE, FELONIES THAT THAT YOU
KNOW, WOULD BENEFIT FROM THESE
TYPE OF WRAP AROUND SERVICES TO
TRY TO GET UH, YOU KNOW, TRY TO
ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE
CRIMES. UM AND SO YOU KNOW, WE
MADE SURE THAT WE LIMITED IT TO
NONSERIOUS, NONVIOLENT, NON
SEXUAL OFFENSES AND ONLY WITH
THE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
PROSECUTING AGENCIES. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, I WOULD SUSPECT THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD HAVE A
VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH. THEN,
UH, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN
TERMS OF THEIR APPROVAL OF THE
USE. THIS IS PROVIDING A TOOL
BUT NOT A MANDATE ON PROSECUTING
AGENCIES. I APPRECIATE THAT THE
PROBLEM IS THE LIST OF WHAT'S
CONSIDERED NONSENSE. SERIOUS NON
VIOLENT I MEAN RAPE OF AN
UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IS CONSIDERED
NONSERIOUS AND NONVIOLENT. UM
YES, RAPE OF AN UNCONSCIOUS
PERSON. IS NOT SERIOUS,
NONVIOLENT FELONY DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS NONSERIOUS
NONVIOLENT. SO THERE REALLY
SERIOUS CRIMES THAT ARE
CONSIDERED TECHNICALLY
NONSERIOUS AND NONVIOLENT. AND
THEY'RE JUST I APPRECIATE THE
INTENT. I MEAN, I THINK WE ALL
WANT TO HELP. YOU KNOW, HOMELESS
PEOPLE FIND A PATH OUT OF THERE,
BUT WE HAVE TO BALANCE PUBLIC
SAFETY AS WELL. AND I THINK
THAT'S MY CHALLENGE. I HAVE A
QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY
DON'T SHOW UP TO HOMELESS COURT?
WILL THERE BE ANY CONSEQUENCES
IF THEY'RE IN A PROGRAM AND THEY
STOPPED PARTICIPATING? WHAT WILL
HAPPEN? I CAN SPEAK TO IT IN
REDONDO, UM WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY
DON'T SHOW UP? UM EVENTUALLY A
WARRANT IS ISSUED AND THEN OR
THAT THEY STOPPED PARTICIPATING
. THEY STOP MAKING EFFORTS TO
BECOME ON HOUSE, THEN THEIR
RETURN TO TRADITIONAL COURT. SO
THIS IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM THAT
, UM IF THEY DON'T WANT TO
PARTICIPATE, THEN THEY RETURNED
TO TRY. FINAL PROSECUTION IN OUR
CASE TORN SPIRIT OF COURT, AND
THEY'LL BE HELD THEY'LL BE HELD
ON THAT WARRANT UNTIL THEY GO
BACK TO COURT WILL BE RELEASED
BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS THEY GET
ARRESTED. THEY GOT A WARRANT.
THEY GET ARRESTED. THEY GO BACK
ON THE STREET, AND THEY NEVER.
THERE'S NO REALLY ANY ANY TEETH
THERE ON THE GROUND HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH THIS BILL BECAUSE
IT'S SO IT'S THERE IN THE SAME
POSITION. UM AT, UM THERE AT THE
SAME POSITION AS ANY OTHER
PERSON. IF HOMELESS COURT DIDN'T
EXIST, THEY WILL BE HELD ON BAIL
OR NOT HELD ON BAIL UNDER THE
SAME STANDARD AS ANYONE ELSE
CHARGED WITH A CRIME, SO THIS
DOESN'T I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM
OR IDENTIFYING BUT THIS DOESN'T
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
ALL RIGHT. I MEAN TO THE AUTHOR
. JUST IF YOU'RE WILLING TO
REMOVE THE FELONIES, OR MAYBE
FOCUS ON WARBLERS. I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD
BECOME SUPPORTIVE OF, BUT I JUST
THINK A BLANKET EXEMPTION OR
BLANKET ALLOWANCE FOR ALL NON
SERIOUS FELONIES MAKES IT
DIFFICULT. THANK YOU, MR SALEI.
I APPRECIATE YOU KNOW YOUR
CONCERNS. I MEAN, I TO BE
HONEST, I ORIGINALLY RESISTED,
INCLUDING ANY ANY FELONIES.
PERHAPS MR MOORE, WITH THE
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
KIN ADDRESS SOME OF THE SPECIFIC
CONCERNS THAT YOU RAISED. THANK
YOU. I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERN THAT YOU RAISED ABOUT
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SOMEBODY'S
CONVICTED OR CHARGED WITH RAPE
OF AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON. THERE
IS, UM. AND EXCLUSION IN THESE
COURTS AND IN THIS LANGUAGE IN
THE BILL FOR ANYBODY THAT'S
REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER 2 90,
WHICH IS REGISTRATION AS A SEX
OFFENDER, SO IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT RAPE OF AN
UNCONSCIOUS PERSON WOULD ALSO BE
EXCLUDED FOR THAT REASON
INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT NOT
FALLING INTO THE PARTICULARIZED
CATEGORY OF A SERIOUS OR VIOLENT
FELONY AND ALSO JUST TO POINT
OUT THAT IT IT IS A TOOL. THESE
ARE COLLABORATIVE COURTS. SO IF
THERE'S NO AGREEMENT WITH THE D,
A, THE PROSECUTION AND THE
COURT, UM THAT PRECLUDES ENTRY
INTO THE COURT SYSTEM FOR THOSE
REASONS, TOO. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. MS REYES. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING THIS BILL TO US. I
WANT TO ASK IS THIS VOLUNTARY?
SO IF SOMEBODY COMES INTO COURT
, THEY TOLD YOU HAVE TO DO THIS
OR THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO IT IN
REDONDO. IT'S ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY
. IT'S A PRE PLEA. UM UM,
SITUATION AND WE THOUGHT LONG
AND HARD ABOUT THAT. AS A
PROSECUTOR, UM OUR TRADITIONAL
THINKING WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT
WE REALIZED YOU CAN'T THREATEN
SOMEONE INTO SEEKING THE
SERVICES THEY NEED TO OBTAIN
PERMANENT HOUSING, SO IT IS AN
ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY PROGRAM AND
THERE ARE NO DIFFERENT POSITION.
IF, UM THEY SAY NO OR THEY FALL
OUT OF THE PROGRAM. THEN THEY
WOULD BE IF THIS PROGRAM DIDN'T
EXIST. BUT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT
TO FIND PERMANENT HOUSING WE DO
EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE
THROUGH THIS PROGRAM TO HELP
THEM. OVERCOME THE BARRIERS TO
THEM GETTING HOUSING AND, UH AND
IT WORKS. WONDERFUL AND THE ONLY
CAVEAT I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS,
BUT THE DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES THAT THEY TALK
ABOUT, I THINK ARE REAL, AND I'M
SURE THAT MR TUCCI, IT IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL BE
LOOKING AT. YES UH AND IF I CAN
ADD TO MR WEBB'S COMMENT, MISS
REYES, UM YOU KNOW, FIRST OF
ALL, I MEAN, I RESPECT THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS. CALIFORNIA IS
CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT
BE A STEP TOWARD CRIMINALIZING
HOMELESSNESS. BUT IN FACT, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IS IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL, SAYING THAT THIS
IS A STEP AWAY FROM, UH, A STEP
TOWARD DECRIMINALIZING
HOMELESSNESS. UH AND AGAIN TO
EMPHASIZE MR WEBB'S POINT, THIS
IS AH, AS YOU HEARD, UH, YOU
KNOW, ONLY THROUGH THE CONSENSUS
OF THE PROSECUTING AGENCY AND
THE, UM UH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE. UM
ATTORNEYS. WELL THIS AS WELL AS
OF COURSE, THE, UH THE DEFENDANT
, AND IN FACT, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHTS
THE POINT THAT UNLIKE SOME OTHER
PROPOSALS, THIS PROPOSAL DOES
NOT INFRINGE UPON ANYONE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THANK
YOU, MS DICKSON. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. CHAIR I JUST TO
CLARIFY ON I'M SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS IF THERE IS A CLARIFICATION
ON THE FELONIES, BECAUSE THAT'S
A BIG CONCERN TO ME. I COME OUT
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND I WE'VE
BEEN DEALING WITH HOMELESS AND
WE DON'T WANT TO CRIMINALIZE THE
HOMELESS, BUT THERE ARE SERIOUS
FELONIES THAT ARE SOMETIMES
COMMITTED. I JUST WANT TO BE
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT EXCUSING
SERIOUS FELONIES. SO CAN WE WORK
TOGETHER AFTERWARDS, JUST TO
FOLLOW UP ON MR SALLY'S POINT
TO, UM, MISS DIXON, I AGAIN I
APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN AS A
FORMER LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, UM YOU KNOW, I
CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY
KIND OF SERIOUS FELONIES. BEING
DIVERTED OUT. YOU KNOW, I WANT
TO SEE SERIOUS VIOLENT SEX
OFFENDERS LOCKED UP. UM UH AND,
UH AND I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE
USED AS A LOOPHOLE TO NOT PURSUE
. UM YOU KNOW, UH, APPROPRIATE
PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES, BUT BUT
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN. THIS
IS AT THE ONLY AT THE
DISCRETION. UH IF, IF THE
PROSECUTOR IN ORANGE COUNTY HAS
ANY CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, THIS, UH
, APPROACH BEING, UH, USED FOR
AH AND FOR FELONY CASES WHERE HE
WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THE
INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY
CAN REJECT THIS THIS APPROACH,
BUT CERTAINLY I YOU KNOW WHETHER
WITH YOU OR MR ASTLEY, I WILL
WELCOME CONTINUED, UH,
DISCUSSION ON THIS BILL. VERY
GOOD. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. UH MR MURATSUCHI,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
. I WOULD REITERATE AS SOMEBODY
WHO SPENT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION
OF MY CAREER WORKING WITH THE
HOMELESS AS A CENTER OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, HOMELESS
HOMELESSNESS AND WE WORKED,
PARTICULARLY WITH THE CHRONIC
POPULATION THE MENTALLY ILL. AND
YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DID THIS IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AND IT HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL, BUT THE KEY IS ONE
OF THE KIDS IS IT HAS TO BE
COLLABORATIVE. AND IT HAS TO BE
VOLUNTARY. SO YOU HAVE THE D A.
YOU HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU
HAVE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
ACTUALLY WORKING SIDE BY SIDE TO
RESOLVE A PROBLEM REMOVED THE
ADVERSARIAL NATURE OF THAT, AND
THAT'S HOW YOU START TO REDUCE
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF
HOMELESSNESS. BUT HE ALSO MAKE
SURE THAT SOME OF THE SAME
PEOPLE AREN'T CONTINUALLY GOING
THROUGH AGAIN AND AGAIN. 15 16
17 18 TIMES AND THAT'S IMPORTANT
. SO WITH ALL OF THAT, I THINK
THIS IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL IN THE
TOOLBOX APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATIVE NATURE. OF IT. IT
SHOULD BE NOTED, OBVIOUSLY, THAT
IT HAS TO BE AGREED UPON. SO
WITH THE SERIOUS CRIMES WITH SEX
OFFENSES IN PARTICULAR, UM, THAT
WON'T COME INTO PLAY HERE. SO
WITH THAT, PLEASED TO SUPPORT
THE BILL, UH AND WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM MR HANEY. SECOND
FROM HIS REYES. UM ANY CLOSING,
MR MURATSUCHI? RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR IVAN. WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND AS CLERK, COLORADO. Dð
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
MAIENSCHEIN REALLY NOT VOTING.
CONNELLY. CONNOLLY, I, DICKSON
DICKSON. I HANEY CHOLERA. CHICO
CHICO, I POP IN MY REYES RACE I
RIVAS SANCHEZ. MOTION PASSES. DO
I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. ISRAEL'S MOVES, MR
CONNELLY SECONDS. AH CONSENT
CALENDAR INCLUDES 82 88
MAIENSCHEIN A B 6 90 CHEN MAYBE
8 75 GABRIEL 89 59 MCCARTHY A B
17 40 SANCHEZ ESCORT TO CALL RAW
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI
SALEI CONNOLLY COMMONLY I.
DICKSON DICKSON. I HANEY KALRA.
PACHECO PACHECO, I POP IN AND I
RAISE MY RIVAS SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
I CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. MR.
RODRIGUEZ, YOU'RE UP. A B 70
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND TRAUMA
KITS. YOU MAY. OPEN MR RODRIGUEZ
. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT A B 70, WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE CERTAIN PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE BUILDINGS THAT UNDERGO
RENOVATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS
WITH COSTS THAT EXCEED 100,000
TONS START AND MAINTAIN SIX
TRAUMA KIDS ON THEIR PREMISES IN
ORDER TO TREAT PEOPLE IN NEED OF
MEDICAL EMERGENCY CARE DURING A
TRAUMATIC EMERGENCY EVENT. THIS
BUILDS AN EXPANSION OF A B 20 TO
60 FROM LAST YEAR, WHICH
REQUIRED THE PLACEMENT OF TRAUMA
KITS AND SIMILAR NEW
CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS. IN
RESPONSE TO THE TRAGIC MASS
SHOOTING AT SANDY HOOK
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, A GROUP OF
DOCTORS CONVENE A PANEL OF
NATIONAL EXPERTS FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES TO CREATE AND
IMPROVED RESPONSE SYSTEM
DIRECTED PRIMARILY AT THE
CONTROL OF LIFE THREATENING
BLOOD LOSS. IN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. THE GROUP OF
EXPERTS CONCLUDED THAT
BYSTANDERS IMMEDIATE RESPONDERS
SHOULD BE TRAINED AND EMPOWERED
TO STOP HEMORRHAGE IN ORDER TO
SAVE LIVES. THESE EXPERTS ALSO
RECOMMENDED TRAUMA KITS BE
PLACED IN PUBLIC PLACES SUCH AS
SHOPPING MALLS, SCHOOLS, SPORTS
VENUES, TRANSPORTATION CENTERS,
ETCETERA NEXT TO A E. D S.
RECOGNIZING THE DIFFICULTY TO
MAINTAIN DIRECT PRESSURE. THEY
ALSO RECOMMENDED THE USE OF
TOURNIQUETS TO CONTROL SEVERE
BLEEDING, WITH MASS CASUALTY
EVENTS BECOMING MORE COMMON A B
2015 AND 2015 PRESIDENT OBAMA
LAUNCHED THE STOP THE BLEED
CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE BYSTANDERS
TO BECOME TRAINED AND EMPOWERED
TO TAKE LIFE SAVING ACTION WHILE
M S PERSONNEL ARE EN ROUTE.
DURING THESE TRAGIC EVENTS, A
PERSON SUFFERING FROM SEVERE
BLOOD LOSS CAN DIE WITHIN FIVE
MINUTES, SO EVERY SECOND COUNTS
. THAT IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT
TO ENSURE OUR IMMEDIATE
RESPONDERS HAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS
AND EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO SAVE AND
RENDER BURN C CARE AT THE SCENE
OF AN EMERGENCY. WITH ME TO
PROVIDE TESTIMONY, OR CHARLIE
MULLIGAN, WHO WAS A LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR OR ADVOCATE ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS AND DR
CIGARETTE, BURRESS, WHO IS A
TRAUMA SURGEON AND ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF SURGERY AND TRAUMA
DIVISION AT LOMA LINDA
UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS AND
THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS OF
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.
THANK YOU. FIRST WITNESS. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF ADDRESSING YOU. I
AM DR SIGRID BORIS, A DOUBLE
BOARD CERTIFIED TRAUMA SURGEON
AND SURGICAL INTENSIVE IST AT
LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER. GLOBAL LINDA IS AN
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
VERIFIED LEVEL ONE TRAUMA
CENTER. I SEE PATIENTS BLEEDING
ON A DAILY BASIS, AND SOME OF
THEM DO NOT SURVIVE, HAVING LOST
TOO MUCH BLOOD IN THE FIELD. WE
KNOW THAT UNCONTROLLED BLEEDING
IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF
PREVENTABLE DEATHS WITH ABOUT
45,000 INDIVIDUALS DYING EVERY
YEAR. RECENTLY A WORKER A
SUSTAINED A PARTIAL AMPUTATION
OF HIS UPPER EXTREMITY. LUCKILY,
A BYSTANDER APPLY TO COMMERCIAL
CAT TOURNIQUET. AND WAS ABLE TO
STOP THE BLEEDING THAT BOUGHT
HIM ENOUGH TIME TO GET TO THE
HOSPITAL. IT TAKES ONLY A FEW
MINUTES TO BLEED OUT MUCH FASTER
THAN THE AVERAGE EIGHT MINUTES
THAT IT TAKES AN AMBULANCE TO
ARRIVE. IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT
BYSTANDER WITH ACCESS TO
TOURNIQUET THAT THIS PATIENT
SURVIVED. BLEEDING CONTROL KITS
OUT IN THE COMMUNITY WILL SAVE
LIVES. THESE KIDS CONTAINED
PACKING SUPPLIES AND TOURNIQUETS
MEANT TO CONTROL BLEEDING IN THE
FIELD. THIS GIVES PATIENTS THE
MUCH NEEDED TIME TO GET TO THE
HOSPITAL AND LIVE. WE HAVE
EXCELLENT DATA SHOWING THE
BENEFITS OF ACCESS TO BLEEDING
CONTROL KITS. L. A COUNTY SHOWS
UTILIZATION OF TOURNIQUETS
DECREASE THE IN HOSPITAL DEATHS
FROM 9% TO 1% WHEN TOURNIQUETS
ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIELD. IN
ADDITION, A RECENT PEER REVIEWED
ARTICLE SHOWED THAT 95% OF
FAMILIES WANT THEIR JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS TO LEARN. STOP
THE BLEED, INCLUDING TOURNIQUET
PLACEMENT. THIS THEN REQUIRES
ACCESS TO BLEEDING CONTROL KIDS
TO HELP SAVE A LIFE. WE DO NOT
KNOW IF OR WHEN WE WILL NEED A
BLEEDING CONTROL KIT CALIFORNIA
LED THE WAY WITH A B 20 TO 60 TO
PLAY SPEEDING CONTROL CONTROL
KITS AND NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
BUILDINGS. AND WE THANK YOU FOR
EVERYONE'S SUPPORT. LET US LEAD
THE WAY TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE
ACCESS TO BLEEDING CONTROL KITS
TO YOUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. I
URGE YOU TO VOTE YES, ON A B 70.
OUR PATIENTS AND OUR COMMUNITY
DESERVINGLY THIS TO SAVE LIVES
AND TO STOP THE BLEEDING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'LL KEEP MY
COMMENTS BRIEF THIS MORNING. MY
NAME IS CAROLYN MEDALLION WITH
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS HERE THIS
MORNING ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN
RED CROSS, A PROUD CO SPONSOR
AND SUPPORTER OF A B 70. THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS IS SUPPORTIVE
OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS
IT INCREASES THE AVAILABILITY OF
TRAUMA KIDS ALLOWING FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE IN THE
CASE OF TRAUMATIC EVENTS. AS WE
ALL KNOW ACCIDENTS, NATURAL
DISASTERS AND SHOOTINGS HAPPEN
WITHOUT WARNING. EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS LIKE THESE RELY ON
AVERAGE CITIZENS TO TURN INTO
FIRST RESPONDERS IN AN INSTANT.
WHEN EVERY SECOND COUNTS
INCREASED PUBLIC ACCESS TO LIFE
SAVING TOOLS INCLUDED IN THE
TRAUMA KIT WILL SAVE LIVES IN
CLOSING. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A
SECOND TO APPLAUD THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER AND HIS LEADERSHIP IN
THIS SPACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME. AND WE ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT TODAY ON A B 17.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? SEEING
NONE. WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
SAYING NINE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEEN AND WE HAVE MOTION. THE
BILL. MOTION FROM IS REYES
SECOND FROM MR HANEY. AH!
STRAWBERRY GETS YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE TO HELP ME SAVE LIVES.
THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO APPROACH AS THE CLERK TO
COLORADO MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
I, SALI CONNELLY. CONNELLY I
DICKSON DICKSON. I HANEY HANEY,
I CORA PACHECO PACHECO EYE
POPPING UP AND I RAISE MY RIVAS
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, I MOTION PASSES
, BUT THANK YOU, MR RODRIGUEZ.
NEXT UH AND FILE ORDER, MISS
ADDIS. WE DON'T.
WELCOME IS ADDIS MAY OPEN. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HONORABLE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR TWO
WITNESSES FOR BLEEDING BRAVELY
JOINING US THIS MORNING. THE
SURVIVORS WHO SHARED THEIR
EXPERIENCE WITH ME AS WELL AS
THIS COMMITTEE STAFF AND MY OWN
FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS
BILL. I'M HERE WITH YOU TO
PRESENT A B 4 52 THE JUSTICE FOR
SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ACT.
THAT WILL LIFT THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON CHILDHOOD SEXUAL
ASSAULT CASES. DOING SO WILL
PROVIDE SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT THE CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY
TO SEEK JUSTICE AND HEALING. NO
MATTER THEIR AGE AND CREATE
GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY OF
PERPETRATORS OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL
ASSAULT. THE MAJORITY OF WHOM
COMMIT THESE ACTS ON MULTIPLE
CHILDREN OVER DECADES, IF NOT
STOPPED. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE 33
POINTS ON THIS BILL. FIRST THE
SPILL DOES WANT HIM VERY
IMPORTANT AND SIMPLE THING.
EVERY MOVES THAT DEADLINE BY
WHICH A CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT
SURVIVOR MUST COME FORWARD.
SECOND THIS BILL IS PROSPECTIVE
, MEANING IT IS SOLELY FOR
FUTURE CASES OF CHILD SEXUAL
ASSAULT THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN OR
EXCUSE ME OCCURRED JANUARY 1ST
2024 OR AFTER THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS MAKE THIS INTENTION
EXPLICIT AND THIRD. THERE IS NO
REVIVAL WINDOW ON THE SPILL. THE
JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
OF CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT ACT WAS
CREATED BASED ON THE FIRST
PERSON STORIES THAT SURVIVORS
HAVE SHARED WITH ME. AND THESE
SURVIVORS SHARED THREE KEY
THINGS. FIRST OF ALL THE
EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AS A CRUEL, ARBITRARY AND
UNNECESSARY BARRIER TO THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK JUSTICE. AND
CREATING THIS BARRIER. THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PREVENTS
AND NEEDED OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEALING. AND THIRD IN NOT
ALLOWING SURVIVORS TO COME
FORWARD AT ANY AGE. CALIFORNIA
IS UNINTENTIONALLY DISALLOWING
CASES THAT COULD PREVENT
PERPETRATORS FROM ABUSING DOZENS
OF ADDITIONAL CHILDREN. THE
CURRENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
FOR CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT IS 40
YEARS OLD. AND WHILE 40 YEARS
OLD MAY SEEM LONG ENOUGH FOR
MOST SURVIVORS, IT IS NOT IT IS
NOT NEARLY THE TIME NEEDED TO
PROCESS WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM AS
A CHILD, LET ALONE TO COME
FORWARD. IN FACT, CHILD USA DATA
SHOWS THAT OVER HALF OF SEX
ABUSE VICTIMS THAT OUR CHILDREN
FIRST DISCLOSED THAT THEY WERE
ABUSED AT AGE 50. AND OTHER
STUDIES SHOW THAT THE AVERAGE
AGE AT WHICH A SURVIVOR COMES
FORWARD IS ACTUALLY 52. SO FOR
SOME, IT MAY BE HARD TO
UNDERSTAND WHY IT TAKES SO LONG
FOR SURVIVORS TO COME FORWARD
AND AS YOU WILL HEAR FROM OUR
VERY BRAVE WITNESSES, THERE ARE
MANY THINGS THAT PREVENT BOTH
CHILDREN AND ADULTS FROM COMING
FORWARD, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW
THEY HAVE BEEN ABUSED. SOME OF
THAT MIGHT BE THAT THEY DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO
THEM ACTUALLY WAS SEXUAL
ASSAULT. SOME OF IT IS
INTERNALIZED SHAME OR FEELING
RESPONSIBLE. SUMMIT OF SOME OF
THAT IS FEAR OF BEING HURT AGAIN
PUNISHED OR OUTCAST. AND IT'S
ALSO NOT HAVING TRUSTED ADULTS
TO TALK. OR SIMPLY NOT BEING
BELIEVED. SO WHAT? WE CANNOT
TAKE AWAY THE PAIN OF CHILDHOOD
SEXUAL ASSAULT. CALIFORNIA
SHOULD NOT CLOSE THE DOOR TO AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR JUSTICE SOLELY
BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS PASSED THEIR
40TH BIRTHDAY. YOU MAY HEAR A
NUMBER OF ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS
FROM OPPOSITION ABOUT WHY WE
SHOULD NOT EXERCISE THE TOOLS WE
HAVE TO PROTECT CHILDREN. YOU
MAY HEAR FROM OPPOSITION THAT
LIFTING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WOULD BANKRUPT THEIR
INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE EITHER THEY
BELIEVE IT IS TOO DIFFICULT TO
TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ACTIONS OF A GROOMER AND THE
ACTIONS OF CARRYING ADULTS OR
THAT IS SIMPLY TOO DIFFICULT TO
STOP THE ABUSE. ACCORDING TO
DATA FROM THE U. S DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT
TRUE. AS THE RATES OF CHILDHOOD
SEXUAL ASSAULT HAVE DECREASED BY
ALMOST HALF BETWEEN 1993 AND
2005. SO WE KNOW THAT OUR
INSTITUTIONS CAN AND MUST DO
BETTER. FINALLY THE OPPOSITION
MAY SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE TURN
IT IBS TO CIVIL COURT, SUCH AS
PAID THERAPY OR IMPROVED
TRAINING. WELL. BOTH ARE
IMPORTANT NEITHER OR
REPLACEMENTS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR CIVIL COURT ACTIONS THAT CAN
CREATE BOTH HEALING FOR
SURVIVORS AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
PERPETRATORS. SO OPPOSITION MAY
ASK FOR CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
AND I WILL REITERATE WHAT STAFF
ANALYSIS HAS ALREADY SHARED WITH
YOU. THAT THE ISSUE IS MISPLACED
AS A B 4 52 ADDRESSES ONE THING.
AND ONE THING ONLY. THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS. IT DOES NOT
CHANGE EXISTING LAW ON ANY OTHER
WAY. SO NOW I'D LIKE TO ASK TO
TURN IT OVER TO THE MOST
IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.
OUR BRAVE WITNESSES DOROTHY
SMALL AND MELANIE SIKOTA, WHO
WILL SHARE THEIR STORIES WITH
YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
DOROTHY SMALL AND I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT A B 4 52. I CAN ATTEST
FIRSTHAND TO EVERY THING THAT
WAS JUST STATED REGARDING THE
FACT THAT PREDATORS ARE USUALLY
PEOPLE THAT HAVE FORMED A
POSITION OF TRUST WITH US. AT IN
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I WAS
THREE AND I WITNESSED THE RAPE
OF MY COUSIN BY ONE GRANDFATHER
AND AT 5.5. AFTER MY MOTHER
PASSED AWAY, I WAS RAPED BY MY
PATERNAL GRANDFATHER. AND THEN
THROUGH ADOPTION ENDED UP HAVING
EMOTIONAL ABUSE THAT WAS OF THE
WORST KIND. I HAD NO SENSE OF
NORMALITY. LOVE WAS MIXED WITH
ABUSE AND TRAUMA. UM AND I
COULDN'T ESCAPE AS A CHILD. YOU
CAN'T RUN AWAY AND YOU FIND A
WAY TO SURVIVE THAT AND MAKE
THAT WORK. BUT SOMETHING IS NOT
RIGHT. AND, UM IT'S THE DEEPEST
NEED OF EVERY CHILD AND EVERY
HUMAN BEING TO FEEL LOVED,
WANTED AND NEEDED AND A VALUE
AND WORTH AND IF YOU'RE TOLD
THAT YOU'RE NOTHING OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, AND YOU'VE
EXPERIENCED ABUSE THAT IS JUST
UNACCEPTABLE OF SEXUAL NATURE.
BY THE FIRST INSTITUTION THAT WE
ARE INTRODUCED TO, WHICH IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT INSTITUTION, OUR
FAMILY. AND THEN YOU GO TO
SCHOOL. YOU'RE CARRYING THAT
BURDEN WITH YOU. YOU FEEL
UNLOVED, UNWANTED, AND YOU
BELIEVE THAT? SEXUAL ASSAULT IS
SOMETHING TO BE DISMISSED AND
PUSHED ASIDE BECAUSE YOU NEED
THAT PERSON TO SURVIVE. UM,
SCHOOL IS MANDATORY. YOU DON'T
HAVE AN OPTION. YOU CAN'T LEAVE
YOUR CHAT YOUR FAMILY AS A CHILD
, NOR CAN YOU WALK AWAY FROM
YOUR SCHOOL SYSTEM SO AS A MINOR
AT THE AGE OF 16 OR 17 YEARS OLD
, I WAS GROOMED BY A HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHER WHO WAS, UM 10 OR 15
YEARS OLDER THAN I AM MARRIED
MAN POSITION IN POLITICS FROM
TOWN. SO THAT WAS MY FIRST LOVE.
AND IT WAS SEXUALLY, UM,
APPROACHED. AND WHEN I REPORTED
IT, I WAS BLAMED. AND I DID THE
RIGHT THING TO REPORT THAT
BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO
HURT ANYBODY ELSE. SO THAT IS
ANOTHER OBSTACLE TO COMING
FORWARD COMING FORWARD AS
CRITICAL, BUT SO OFTEN WHEN YOU
DO YOUR BLAMED EVEN AS A CHILD
AFTER WHAT MY GRANDFATHER DID TO
ME. MY MOTHER HADN'T EVEN BEEN
DEAD THAT LONG. HE WARNED ME, HE
SAID. IF YOU TELL ANYBODY, I
WILL TELL THEM YOU'RE LYING AND
YOU'LL GET IN TROUBLE. BUT EVEN
AS A LITTLE GIRL, I MUST HAVE
HAD AN OUNCE OF STRENGTH. BUT I
WAS ABLE TO TELL BUT THEN AGAIN
, I HAD MY FACE SLAPPED AND IT
WAS LIKE I WAS BLAMED AGAIN. AND
THAT FOLLOWED ME AT 18. I BECAME
I WENT INTO THE NURSING PROGRAM.
I WORKED IN MEDICINE FOR 41
YEARS WORKED IN PEDIATRICS. I'VE
SEEN CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSE OF
CHILDREN. AND I ALSO WENT ON AS
AN ADULT TO CARRY THAT
VICTIMIZATION SO THAT I WAS RE
VICTIMIZED OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
THROUGH ALL MY SIGNIFICANT
RELATIONSHIPS. I DID NOT KNOW
LOVE OUTSIDE OF ABUSE. THEY'RE
JUST PUSHING IT ASIDE. AND WHAT
HAPPENED TO ME AT THE AGE OF 60
WAS THE LAST STRAW. WHEN I WAS
SEEKING HEALING. I HAVE BEEN IN
THERAPY WITH A CLINICAL
PSYCHOLOGIST SPECIALIZING IN
CHILDHOOD TRAUMA. FOR EIGHT
YEARS. YEAH THE FIREWALL WAS SO
THICK. WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO
TELL ME JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE.
THERE WAS NO HOOK. HE WAS TRYING
TO TELL ME THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO
ME WASN'T WASN'T NORMAL. IT
WASN'T OKAY, BUT WHEN I WAS
GROWING UP, I WAS TOLD IT WAS
LOVE. THAT WAS OKAY. SO WHO DO
YOU BELIEVE SO I HAD A REALLY
STRONG RESISTANCE TO THE THERAPY
THAT HE WAS TRYING TO PERFORM.
AND I ENDED UP GETTING SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED BY ROMAN CATHOLIC
PRIEST IN MY CHURCH AT THE AGE
OF 60. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY
SANCTUARY I HAD LEFT. AND I AM
NOT A LITIGIOUS PERSON, AND I
TRIED TO DEAL WITH IT WITH
VICTIM ADVOCACY THINKING I COULD
WORK THIS OUT, BUT IN THE END
CONTINUE TO BE VICTIM BASHED AND
SHAMED. AND FED INTO MY ALREADY
TOXIC SHAME. AND THEN I FEARED
WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS MAN GOES ON
AND DOES THIS TO SOMEONE ELSE?
AND THEN I REMEMBERED THE
PROMISE I MADE TO MYSELF WHEN I
WAS AN ADOLESCENT THAT IF I
LIVED LONG ENOUGH THAT ONE DAY I
WOULD STAND UP FOR THOSE WHO ARE
OPPRESSED AND ABUSED. SO I GOT
THE COURAGE AND STRENGTH TO SEEK
THE ASSISTANCE OF MY FORMER
ATTORNEY WHO HAS PASSED AWAY JOE
GEORGE SR. AND HE WAS ALSO A
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST AND A
LAWYER, AND I TOLD HIM WHAT
HAPPENED TO ME AND HE
REPRESENTED ME. I WAS RIGHT ON
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION RIGHT
ON THE EDGE. AND ALTHOUGH THE
PSYCHOLOGIST THAT I SAW COULD
NOT GET. TO THE WOUND. HE WAS
ABLE TO HEAR ME. I COULDN'T HE
COULDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR ME. BUT
WHAT REALLY HELPED WITH JOE
GEORGE WITH THE ATTORNEY IS THAT
HE VALIDATED ME. HE BELIEVED ME
. HE HEARD ME AND HE AND HE
CARED AND HIS CREDENTIALS AS A
PSYCHOLOGIST HELPED HIM TO
UNDERSTAND THE SYMPTOMS OF
COMPLEX POST TRAUMATIC STRESS,
WHICH ALSO INVOLVES ALCOHOL
MISUSE, WHICH I ALSO SUFFERED
FROM HAVE ALSO HAD CANCER FROM
ALL THE STRESS AND STRAIN. AND
FINALLY, HERE'S THIS
PSYCHOLOGIST WHO CAN DO
SOMETHING. SO HE ADVOCATED. HE
STOOD UP WITH ME, AND WE STOOD
UP AGAINST THE MOST POWERFUL
INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH. AND IT WAS
DURING THAT PROCESS. THAT I
FINALLY FELT. MAYBE I AM WORTH
FIGHTING FOR BECAUSE HAD THIS
NOT HAPPENED. I THINK I COULD
NOT HAVE GONE ON MUCH LONGER. I
MEAN, IF I COULDN'T BE HEALED IN
THERAPY, THEN WHAT HOPE WAS
THERE? SO THAT PUT HE BELIEVED
IN ME? AND NOW I WENT THROUGH
LITIGATION PROCESS AND MEDIATED.
UM AND THAT BORE $200,000. I
DON'T HAVE A NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT. I CAN SPEAK ABOUT IT.
AND SHORTLY AFTER MEDIATION.
ABOUT SIX MONTHS LATER, I JOINED
THE SURVIVORS NETWORK OF THOSE
ABUSED BY PRIESTS AND OUR
ADVOCATE FOR OTHERS, ALL AGES
ADULTS ABUSED AS CHILDREN. THE
REASON WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO
DROP THE AGE OF 40 IS I'LL BE 69
IN MAY. AND IT'S JUST NOW THAT
I'M FALLING OUT ENOUGH. SHE'LL
BE ABLE TO PUT THE FEELINGS WITH
THE MEMORIES. WHICH ARE PRETTY
HORRIFIC. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY
ALCOHOL AND THREE YEARS AND
THERE'S NO PSYCHIATRIC
MEDICATIONS TO DULL THE MEMORIES
, SO I'M BEING FLOODED WITH
THEM. AND SO I HAVE A THERAPIST
AND TOGETHER. HE'S WALKING WITH
ME WHILE I DO THE WORK AND I'M
FINALLY GETTING HEALING FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE. SO MAY
WHEN I TURN 69 ALSO HAVE 27
YEARS. CANCER FREE AND THAT'S
IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY
DIFFICULT TESTIMONY COMMITTEE
APPRECIATES HEARING THAT NEXT
WITNESS, PLEASE. THIS MORNING.
MY NAME IS MELANIE SIKOTA, AND I
AM THE SURVIVOR SUPPORT
COORDINATOR FOR SNAP, WHICH IS
THE SURVIVORS NETWORK OF THOSE
ABUSED BY PRIESTS. SNAP IS THE
OLDEST AND LARGEST SUPPORT GROUP
FOR VICTIMS OF CLERGY SEXUAL
ABUSE. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF A B 4 52, WHICH
SNAP SUPPORTS. CHILDREN SIMPLY
DO NOT HAVE THE SUPERPOWER TO
COMMUNICATE THEIR ABUSE. WHEN IT
HAPPENS, STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT
THE AVERAGE AGE FOR VICTIMS TO
COME FORWARD AND REPORT THE
CRIMES THEY SUFFERED IS 52.
DELAYED DISCLOSURE IS THE MAIN
REASON WHY A B 4 52 IS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. SCIENCE IS TELLING
US THAT THE CURRENT CIVIL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN
CALIFORNIA, WHICH ALLOWS
SURVIVORS TO FILE LAWSUITS 22
YEARS PAST THE AGE OF MAJORITY
OR BY AGE, FIFTH BY AGE, 40 IS
SIMPLY TOO SHORT A TIME FRAME
FOR MOST VICTIMS. THE JUST
CLOSED REVIVAL ROOM WINDOW
ENABLED BY A B 2 18 GENERATED
NEW DATA FOR SNAP TO EXAMINE
FROM THE LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. THAT DATA CONFIRMS
THAT THE TIME LAG FROM ABUSE TO
REPORTING IS GENERALLY ABOUT 40
YEARS, WHICH MEANS THE CREST FOR
THE 2022 2022 CIVIL WINDOW WAS
1982. THE FILINGS SHOW THAT 70%
OF THE LITTLE GATIEN CENTERS ON
PRE 1982 ACCUSATIONS. 84 52
WOULD MAKE IT MUCH MORE LIKELY
THAT FUTURE ASSAULTS WILL COME
TO LIGHT. WITH THOSE REPORTS,
MORE ABUSERS WILL BE EXPOSED AND
REMOVED FROM POSITIONS OF
AUTHORITY. THEIR TESTIMONY IN
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD ALSO
SHED LIGHT ON THE CURRENT
BEHAVIOR OF INSTITUTIONS
REGARDING THE COVER UP OF CHILD
SEX ABUSE. FUTURE CHILDREN WILL
BE SAFER AS A RESULT. WITH THE
DATA IS SAYING IN PLAIN ENGLISH
IS THAT A MOUNTAIN OF SEXUAL
ABUSE ACCUSATIONS WILL CONTINUE
TO BE MADE IF SURVIVORS ARE
SUPPORTED BY LAWMAKERS, AND
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD. PLEASE ACT TO PROTECT
CHILDREN, NOT PREDATORS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU OTHER WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS. MELISSA. COZY UM, WE
HAVE A CRIME SURVIVORS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE, AS WELL AS
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS
SURVIVED AND PUNISHED.
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN,
PRISONERS AND SISTER WARRIORS.
FREEDOM COALITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JAMIE.
HALF WHISKEY, JACK. WE'RE
REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION BASED ON
RECENT AMENDMENTS AND WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER HELP.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, REBECCA
GONZALEZ WITH THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS,
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? SEEN NONE. WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS DOROTHY
JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL, AND MAGISTRATE ER
RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL. WE RECOGNIZE THE
AUTHOR'S INTENT, AND WE AGREE
WITHOUT A DOUBT. THAT WE NEED
SCHOOLS TO BE A SAFE PLACE FOR
CHILDREN TO LEARN AND GROW, AND
WE ALSO BELIEVE STRONGLY IN THE
NEED TO PROVIDE SURVIVORS
MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
WELL 84 52 DENY OBLIQUELY LOOKS
FORWARD. IT DOES BUILD ON
CURRENT LAW WITHOUT ANY FURTHER
GUARDRAILS TO PROVIDE ASSURANCES
THAT TODAY'S SCHOOL RESOURCES
SUPPORTING TODAY'S CLASSROOMS
AND STUDENTS WILL NOT BE AT RISK
FOR MAJOR LOSSES. AND JUST A
REMINDER THAT THE CURRENT STATUE
OF LIMITATIONS IS 40 YEARS OLD,
OR WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF
REALIZING PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM WAS
A RESULT OF A SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
ACTION. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE
AUTHOR AND HER STAFF TO DISCUSS
THIS MEASURE IN DETAIL, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
AMENDMENTS REFLECTED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AGAIN TO
CLARIFY THAT THIS IS A
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. WE WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF
AGAIN FOR THEIR TIME AND THE
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS THAT IS A
VERY FINE JOB OF OUTLINING THE
GROUNDS FOR OUR OPPOSITION AND
SUMMARIZING FROM PAGE SIX OF THE
ANALYSIS. WE REPRESENT THE
SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL LEADERS
THAT DEDICATE THEMSELVES TO OUR
CHILDREN ON A DAILY BASIS. OUR
AGENCIES HAVE TAKEN INTENTIONAL
STEPS WITH TRAINING REPORTING
INTERVENING. REMOVE THE THREAT
OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH AN
AMPLIFIED FOCUS IN RECENT
DECADES. BUT WE DO BELIEVE THERE
ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO WHAT A B
4 52 OFFERS. WHEN THE
UNTHINKABLE HAPPENS,
ALTERNATIVES TO PRESERVE THE
FINANCIAL SOLVENCY OF OUR
SCHOOLS WHILE STILL PROVIDING
MEANINGFUL PAST FOR SURVIVORS TO
SEEK RESOLUTION. AND YES, WE ARE
TALKING A LOT ABOUT CURRENT LAW
. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT
DEMONSTRATES HOW MUCH RISK WE
ARE FACING AS A SCHOOL ENTITY
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA STATUTES ARE
UNIQUELY CRAFTED AND THEY'RE
DIFFERENT THAN FROM THE WAY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAWS CRAFTED
AND DIFFERENT THAN OUR OTHER
STATES ARE CRAFTED. SO IT WILL
BE TODAY'S RESOURCES. TODAY'S
PROP $98 BEING SET ASIDE NOW TO
SERVE AS A REMEDY FOR POSSIBLE
ACTS IN THE FUTURE, AND THIS IS
AT THE SAME TIME THOSE DOLLARS
ARE BEING TASKED WITH REMEDYING
ACTIONS OF THE PAST AND A BURDEN
ON TODAY'S STUDENTS. SO FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS. HELLO
EVERYONE. MY NAME IS CRAIG
SCHWEIKERT. I AM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP AND THE
CURRENT PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO 4 52. ALTHOUGH WE
RECOGNIZE THE AMENDMENTS, UH,
ARE SIGNIFICANT AND VERY HELPFUL
. UH WE BUST REMAIN IN
OPPOSITION. I WOULD LIKE TO A
PAUSE, APPLAUD THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE,
WHICH, AS A FATHER AND THE
PUBLIC SERVANT AND MY WIFE BEING
A VICTIM OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL
ASSAULT. I FEEL THAT I HAVE
SPENT 35 YEARS TRYING TO PROTECT
STUDENTS FROM THIS TYPE OF
ACTION. UM. UH AND WE ABSOLUTELY
SUPPORT THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
OF PERPETRATORS. WE FREQUENTLY,
UH, COOPERATE WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO SEE THAT THEY ARE
PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT
OF THE LAW. UM UH, BUT
LITIGATION ISN'T THE ANSWER. WE
ARE AH, WRIST PULLING JPS AND WE
ARE SELF FUNDED TO FILL THE GAPS
THAT LIABILITY INSURANCE WON'T
ENSURE WE ARE NONPROFIT PUBLIC
ENTITIES THAT PAY THE COST OF
THESE CLAIMS. FOR OUR MEMBERSHIP
AND THOSE FUNDS COME RIGHT OUT
OF PROP $98 R R. J P S ARE OVER
1000 SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND WE
HAVE PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR THEM
FOR SINCE 1986 WHEN THE
INSURANCE MARKET NO LONGER WOULD
UM. UH WE HAVE GROWN AND
IMPROVED OVER THE YEARS TO
PROVIDE ECONOMICAL SUPPORT FOR
OUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS. BUT THE
CURRENT SITUATION IS BECOMING
DIRE. WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR
FAIR VICTIM COMPENSATION.
HOWEVER 4 52 IS NOT THE ANSWER.
CURRENTLY, IT'S CREATES STRICT
LIABILITY. FOR REGARDLESS OF THE
SCHOOLS, KNOWLEDGE OR
CONSIDERATION OF OUR SUBSTANTIAL
EFFORTS. TO PREVENT ABUSE. WE
ARE CURRENTLY PAYING HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO
LAWSUITS, HALF OF WHICH IS GOING
THROUGH THE LEGAL COMMUNITY. WE
FEEL THAT IT WOULD. IT'S SO MUCH
BETTER USE OF MONEY IF THAT
MONEY COULD SOMEHOW BEFORE.
FOILED TO, UH FUNNELED TO
VICTIMS ASSISTANCE RATHER THAN
UH, TO TRIAL ATTORNEYS. AH! IT'S
CURRENTLY SIR SIR. AND SINCE I
GAVE THEM A LITTLE EXTRA TIME,
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE
EXTRA TIME. BUT I ASK THAT YOU
START WRAPPING UP YOUR COMMENTS.
UM VERY QUICKLY NOTE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS MAKES IT IMPORTANT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR EMPLOYERS TO
DEFEND THESE CASES, AND, UH,
IT'S BASICALLY YOU'RE PUNISHING
TODAY'S STUDENTS BECAUSE WE'RE
PAYING AND TEACHERS WITH TODAY'S
DOLLARS FOR THINGS THAT HAPPENED
30 YEARS AGO, WHEN THE STANDARDS
WERE DIFFERENT, AND, UH, WE
DIDN'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE WE
HAVE TODAY OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO
PROTECT THE VICTIMS. AH, I AH!
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? NAME
AND ORGANIZATION ONLY, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, LEILANI AGUINALDO
ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL SUCCESS
LIABILITY FUND, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING BEFORE 52. ELIZABETH
BASKETBALL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION SCHOOL BUSINESS
OFFICIALS ALSO ABOUT ROSE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSING THE BILL.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
JASON HAMILTON ON BEHALF OF
PRISON, PUBLIC RISK INNOVATION,
SOLUTIONS AND MANAGEMENT
RESPECTFULLY AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING, DAVID KRIEGER FOR
KEENAN ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOOLS
ASSOCIATION FOR ACCESS RISK. SO
IN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LIABILITY
EXCESS FUND, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL LIABILITY EXCESS FUNDS
AND THE STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION OF
COMMUNITY COLLEGES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SEEN NO FURTHER, UH
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION IN
THOSE AREAS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. YES WE HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. MR KALRA. AH THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH
REMEMBER AT US FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I KNOW IT'S A VERY IT'S
CHALLENGING. I KNOW THAT THE
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND
DISTRICTS DON'T WANT TO OPPOSE.
I IMAGINE I DON'T THINK ANYONE
WOULD, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS
CLEARLY A DIFFERENT
SENSITIVITIES, YEARS AND DECADES
AGO AND IN A GOOD WAY, WHERE FAR
MORE SENSITIVE AND UNDERSTANDING
AND THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHAT WE
SHOULD AND WE CAN AND SHOULD DO.
TO PROTECT OUR STUDENTS. THAT
BEING SAID, I DON'T BELIEVE THE
BURDEN SHOULD BE ON THOSE THAT
WERE VICTIMIZED AS CHALLENGING
AS IT IS FOR DISTRICTS TO
RECONCILE THE FINANCES, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT I THINK AT THE
END OF THE DAY. IF THAT'S THE
CASE, THEN WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
A WAY TO, UM, TO HELP THE
DISTRICTS WITH THE FINANCIAL
BURDEN. UM IF IT'S POSSIBLE AT
ALL WITHOUT PUTTING THE BURDEN
ON THE VICTIMS, THE REALITY IS
THAT EVERYONE'S DIFFERENT. AND
EVERYONE'S TRAUMA IS DIFFERENT,
AND WE CAN'T DICTATE BASED UPON
WHETHER YOU'RE 40 OR 35 OR 55.
WHAT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO, YOU
KNOW TO DEAL WITH THAT TRAUMA TO
HAVE IT COME TO LIGHT. UH AND
EVEN AS THE OPPOSITION SAID, I
THINK THIS DOES BUILD ON CURRENT
LAW, AND I THINK AS THE ANALYSIS
VERY CORRECTLY PUT, UM THE ISSUE
IS NOT AS MUCH WITH WHAT THE
STATUE LIMITATION IS ITS WITH
THE STANDARD THAT'S BEING
APPLIED, AND IT'S CURRENTLY
BEING APPLIED. THIS IS JUST
ABOUT EXPANDING THE STATUE
LIMITATION, SO UM, YOU KNOW IF
THE OPPOSITION FEELS THAT THAT
STANDARD IS TOO ONEROUS BURDEN,
THEN I THINK THAT LEGISLATION
DEALING WITH THAT STANDARD IS
REALLY WHAT SHOULD BE IN IN
DISCUSSION, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS.
AND SO, UM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE
AND UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES OF
THE OPPOSITION. UM BUT I THINK
THAT THE TARGET OF THAT CONCERN
REALLY IS ON THE STANDARD OF
PROOF RATHER THAN ON THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS. FOR THAT REASON,
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. THANK
YOU, MR CARTER. WE HAVE A MOTION
FOR MR KALRA. SECOND FROM MS
REYES. MR SALIH. JUST A QUICK
QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS. UM SIR
, YOU SAID THIS BILL WOULD
CREATE STRICT LIABILITY. WE'RE
IN THE BILL. DOES IT DO THAT? UM
ESSENTIALLY BY THE LANGUAGE
INSTEAD OF AND OR YET. BASICALLY
MAKES THEM VERY, VERY DIFFICULT
TO DEFEND. BECAUSE IF THEY KNEW
WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN
THE, UH PLAYING A SPAR IS ABLE
TO ARGUE THAT WELL, YOU SHOULD
HAVE KNOWN I LIKE WHAT REFERENCE
OF THE BILL? I DON'T SEE THAT IN
THERE. MISS MR VICE CHAIR, SO
THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO CURRENT
LAW. THAT'S THE CURRENT
STANDARD, AND THIS BILL WOULD,
AS WAS STATED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER. THIS WOULD EXTEND THOSE
EXISTING LAWS. SO YOU'RE RIGHT.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT STATUE
LIMITATIONS. UM BUT IT IS STATE
THAT IT IS KNOWLEDGE SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN OR FAILED TO PRESENT OR
PREVENT, AND THAT IS CONTAINING
WITH CONTINUING EXISTING THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CLEAR
RECORD. THIS BILL DOES NOT ALTER
THE STANDARD. IT JUST CHANGES
THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS. I
JUST WANTED THAT TO BE CLEAR
THAT THIS WASN'T CREATING STRICT
LIABILITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR
CONNELLY? YEAH JUST WANT TO KNOW
IT, AS DISCUSSED WITH THE AUTHOR
WOULD LIKE TO BE A CO AUTHOR ON
THIS BILL AND APPRECIATE THE
WORD THANK YOU ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? SEEN NONE. YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. WELL THANK YOU SO MUCH
. I'LL JUST SAY THAT THERE ARE A
FEW MOMENTS WHEN WE HAVE A TRUE
OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE LIVES FOR
THE BETTER TO CREATE HEALING AND
ULTIMATELY TO OFFER AN ANTIDOTE
FOR THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT
HAPPEN IN OUR WORLD. AND RIGHT
NOW IS TRULY ONE OF THOSE
MOMENTS AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM OUR
WITNESSES, SO THEREFORE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
ON A B 4 52 TO LIFT THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS ON CHILDHOOD
SEXUAL ASSAULT. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO A PROBES AS A
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CHAIN MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI
CONNELLY. CONNELLY. I DICKSON
DICKSON. I HANEY CHOLERA!
CHOLERA I CHICO CHICO EYE
POPPING UP AND I RACED RACE I
REVERSE. HI SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
AYE. UH YOUR ITEM IS OUT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR BAUER-KAHAN.
WITH WHAT I SEE THE PUZZLE. THE
PUZZLED LOOK ON MISS WICKS.
WE'RE GOING IN FILE ORDER, SO.
REBECCA'S I LIKE THE FAKE
PUZZLED LOOK, MISS WICKS. I LIKE
IT DID ASK ME TO KIND OF
BELIEVE, WHICH MADE ME FEEL VERY
LOVED. YOU DID GET I WAS. I WAS
DEBATING THAT YOU DID GET IN
KIND OF RIGHT UNDER THE WIRE. SO
I'VE BEEN I WILL TELL YOU MISS
WEEKS. I HAVE BEEN KIND OF
CONSIDERING THAT, BUT I HAD SAID
FILE ORDER, SO BUT YOU'RE
PUZZLED LOOK, IS DULY NOTED. MS.
WICKS MISS BARRACK BEHAN. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I
WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT I
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
, UM, WHICH ADDS STANDING FOR
THE VICTIMS AS WELL AS INCREASED
IMPORTS, MEN FOR COUNTY COUNCIL
AND CITY ATTORNEYS. UM SO WE'RE
HERE TODAY BECAUSE CRISIS
PREGNANCY CENTERS IN CALIFORNIA.
OUTNUMBER LEGITIMATE CLINICS. 3
TO 1. THEY SPECIFICALLY TARGET
LOW INCOME WOMEN, AND THEY USE
ADVANCED ONLINE ADVERTISING TO
TARGET WITH MISLEADING LANGUAGE
PROMISING ABORTION CARE, BUT ARE
NOT LICENSED FACILITIES. NOR DO
THEY PROVIDE SUCH CARE. GOOGLE
MR X ONE INTENSE SEARCHES FOR
ABORTION TO THE CRISIS PREGNANCY
CENTERS WITH THE INCREASE IN
WOMEN COMING TO CALIFORNIA. AND
THE INCREASE IN CONFUSION AROUND
ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE. IT IS
CRITICAL THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA
WE TAKE INCREASED MEASURES TO
ENSURE PEOPLE ARE NOT LIED TO
WHEN THEY'RE SEEKING HEALTH CARE
IF YOU WERE TO WALK INTO A STORE
TO BUY ANYTHING, SAY A TV AND
YOU'RE MISLED AND ITS DIMENSIONS
YOU WOULD KNOW THAT WAS WRONG IF
YOU WALK INTO A FACILITY SEEKING
HEALTHCARE, AND YOU LIED TO
THAT'S ALSO WRONG BUT HAS DIRE,
DIRE CONSEQUENCES. PATIENTS WHO
WALK IN. AND GET CARE IN THESE
NON LICENSED NON HEALTH
FACILITIES ARE TOLD. ABOUT
MISINFORMATION REGARDING THEIR
OWN PREGNANCY. HOW FAR ALONG
THEY MAY BE SO AS TO BELIEVE
THEY DON'T HAVE THE OPTIONS THAT
THEY MAY HAVE. OFTEN THEY'RE
MISLED ABOUT THE SIDE EFFECTS OF
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICAL CARE
, SO THEY WRONGLY BELIEVE THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE MONTHS
OFF OF WORK IF THEY TAKE
ABORTION MEDICATION OR THAT IT
MAY CAUSE CANCER OR OTHER THINGS
THAT ARE JUST PATENTLY FALSE AND
THIS IS ALL DONE TO TAKE OPTIONS
AWAY FROM WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING
HEALTH CARE. SO THIS BILL TAKES
IT A STEP FURTHER HERE IN
CALIFORNIA TO ENSURE THAT THOSE
WHO ARE MISLED IN THE CARE OF
ANY PROVIDER CAN SEEK REMEDY AND
ENSURE THAT THEY GET ACCURATE
AND SAFE HEALTHCARE AS WE SHOULD
BE PROVIDING FOR EVERY
CALIFORNIA WOMEN. WOMEN WITH ME
AND SUPPORT TODAY IS DR KELLY
PFEIFFER, CALIFORNIA POSITION
WITH 20 YEARS OF FAMILY PRACTICE
AND PRINCIPLE OF CARROT ACCESS
STRATEGIES. AND KATHERINE COHEN,
STAFF ATTORNEY WITH YOU SELECT U
C L, A LAWCENTER AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW AND
POLICY. FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. SORRY.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY I AM PROUD TO BE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF 83 15 AND DANGEROUS
LIES ABOUT ABORTION CARE. MY
NAME IS KATHERINE COHEN AND I'M
, A STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE LAW
CENTER ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
LAW AND POLICY. CRISIS PREGNANCY
CENTERS, OR CPCS, HAVE A
DOCUMENTED RECORD OF DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED
TO DETER AND DISRUPT ACCESS TO
ABORTION CARE. RECENTLY
COLLEAGUES OF MINE PUBLISHED A
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CPCS IN
CALIFORNIA, A REPORT TITLED
DESIGNED TO DECEIVE DESPITE
PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS MEDICAL
CLINICS, 90% OF CPCS IN
CALIFORNIA OFFER NO PRENATAL
CARE. 75% HAVE NO PHYSICIAN ON
STAFF. AND 58% OFFER ONLY NON
DIAGNOSTIC ULTRASOUNDS, WHICH
CANNOT DETECT GESTATIONAL AGE,
DETECT FETAL ANOMALY OR IDENTIFY
AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY. FURTHER
THE MAJORITY OF CPCS IN
CALIFORNIA 66% MCFAUL SOR BIASED
MEDICAL CLAIMS ABOUT PREGNANCY
OR ABORTION, ALMOST 37% PROMOTE
ABORTION PILL REVERSAL AND
UNTESTED PROTOCOL THAT THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS
CALLED UNETHICAL AND NOT BASED
IN SCIENCE IN CALIFORNIA. CPCS
OUTNUMBER LEGITIMATE ABORTION
CLINICS, SUBJECTING PATIENTS
ACROSS THE STATE TO BIASED
COUNSELING AND PUTTING PEOPLE'S
HEALTH AT RISK. 83 15 WILL
PROVIDE A REMEDY TO COUNTER THIS
MISINFORMATION AND IS CONSISTENT
WITH CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT TO
BEING A REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
STATE. FURTHER IT WILL PROTECT
THE STATE'S ABILITY TO SERVE AS
A SAFE HAVEN FOR THOSE SEEKING
CARE FROM OTHER STATES, WHICH
ARE CENTER ESTIMATES COULD BE UP
TO 16,000 ADDITIONAL PATIENTS
PER YEAR. EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA
SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS
EVIDENCE BASED CARE WITHOUT
BEING TRICKED ABOUT WHAT
SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE OR GIVEN
FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR
HEALTH. FOR THESE REASONS, I
STRONGLY URGED THE COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT A B 315. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. THANK
YOU. I'M DR KELLY PIPER. I'VE
BEEN AN ABORTION PROVIDER FOR
OVER 20 YEARS. I CURRENTLY
PRACTICE IN RURAL CALIFORNIA. I
ALSO FLY TO KANSAS AND ARIZONA
PLACES THAT DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF
THEIR OWN PROVIDERS. MANY OF MY
PATIENTS HAVE SUFFERED SEVERE
HARMS FROM CPCS AND I SEE THEM
EVERY DAY. I SEE PEOPLE FORCED
INTO LATER PROCEDURES BECAUSE
THEY GO INTO A CLINIC THINKING
THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN ABORTION
PILL. THERE'S THEY GIVE GET
FALSE INFORMATION. FALSE
ULTRASOUNDS DELAYS, REPEAT
VISITS. SO BY THE TIME THEY SEE
ME, THEY'RE TOO LATE. IN OTHER
PARTS OF MEDICINE. WHEN I GET A
TEST RESULT FROM ANOTHER
PROVIDER, I TRUST IT. I HAVE TO
REPEAT AN ULTRASOUND AND EVERY
PERSON WHO BRINGS ME A CPC FILM
BECAUSE, AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MENTIONED PEOPLE GIVEN IMAGES OF
OTHER PEOPLE, THEY TAKE A FILM
AND GIVE IT SOMEONE ELSE'S
ULTRASOUND TO THEM TO TRICK THEM
TO THINKING THEY HAVE MORE TIME
OR TO TRICK THEM INTO THINKING
THEY'RE TOO FAR ALONG TO GET THE
CARE THEY NEED. MY PATIENTS HAVE
NO IDEA THAT THIS INFORMATION IS
NOT PRIVATE, AND THESE CENTERS
ARE NOT BOUND TO HIPPO, SO THEY
GIVE EXTENSIVE PERSONAL AND
PRIVATE INFORMATION TRUSTING
THAT A WEEK UP PRIVATE YET THESE
CENTERS CAN RELEASE THAT TO
WHOMEVER THEY WANT WITH NO
CONSEQUENCES AS HE TEENAGERS
WHOSE LIVES WOULD BE DEVASTATED
IF THIS INFORMATION WAS
RELEASED, I SEE PATIENTS WEEPING
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE SINCERELY
THAT BY GETTING THIS ABORTION
THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO HAVE
A CHILD THAT THEY WILL RISK
CANCER THAT THEY WILL RISK
MENTAL ILLNESS. AND THEY WALK
OUT OF THE CENTRE'S BELIEVING
THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, EVEN
THOUGH THERE ARE MANY STUDIES
REPUTED, REFUTING THEM IN ANY
OTHER PART OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
. THAT WOULD BE INCONCEIVABLE.
IMAGINE IF YOU GO TO A
CARDIOLOGIST AND YOU'RE GIVEN A
FAKE TEST RESULT THAT TRICKS YOU
INTO GETTING A CARDIAC SURGERY
YOU DON'T NEED HAS HAPPENED IN
READING IT WAS CRIMINAL AND IT
WAS SHUT DOWN. YET THIS TYPE OF
FALSE INFORMATION HAPPENS EVERY
DAY FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA WITH NO CONSEQUENCES.
SO CPCS ARE GIVING FALSE
INFORMATION. THEY'RE TRICKING
PEOPLE THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN
ANY PLACE IN MEDICINE PEOPLE TO
BE ABLE TO TRUST THEIR PROVIDERS
. I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR
AUTHORSHIP OF THE A B 315 AND I
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY PLEASE. GOOD MORNING,
JESSICA STANDARD ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND
STRONG SUPPORT. REBECA GONZALEZ
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT SEEN NONE.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. WHERE
WE SIT RIGHT HERE. AND YOU? IF
YOU WANT TO PULL THIS ONE OVER A
LITTLE BIT, MAYBE YOU ALL CAN
MOVE DOWN JUST A TINY BIT. THANK
YOU CHAIR MEMBERS AND JUST TURN
THE MICROPHONE. THIS BETTER CAN
YOU HEAR ME? YEAH THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
SUSAN SWIFT ARNALL. I AM IN
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY AND I AM THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
FOR THE RIGHT TO LIFE LEAGUE. A
B 3 15 IS YET ANOTHER
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO
SILENCE PRO LIFE SPEECH. THE
BILL PREVENTS SOMEONE PERFORMING
A QUOTE PREGNANCY RELATED
SERVICE FROM USING FALSE OR
MISLEADING STATEMENTS. QUOTE
RELATED TO THEIR PROVISIONS OR
LACK OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.
EXISTING STATE LAW ALREADY BARS
FALSE AND MISLEADING BUSINESS
ADVERTISING. SO WHAT SORT OF
STATEMENT RELATED TO A PERSON'S
PROVISIONS OR LACK OF PROVISION
OF ABORTION WOULD BE FALSE OR
MISLEADING? UNDER A B 3 15? THE
BILL IS VAGUE, UNDEFINED AND
MEANINGLESS. OUR CONSTITUTION
AND THE CASE LAW INTERPRETING IT
MANDATES THAT LAWS BE
SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR SO THAT ONE
CAN KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THEY
LAWS VIOLATE THE 14TH AMENDMENT
IN RAPE VERSUS WASHINGTON, THE U
. S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT
STATE LAW VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE WHERE IT'S
LANGUAGE FAILS TO EXPLAIN
EXACTLY WHAT CONDUCT IS
PROHIBITED. MAYBE 3 15 DOES NOT
DEFINE WHAT SORT OF STATEMENT
RELATING TO ABORTION IS
PROHIBITED. THE BILL GIVES NO
EXPLANATION OR A GUIDANCE
WHATSOEVER. IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.
ADVERTISING IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FORM
OF RE SPEECH. THE SUPREME COURT
IN NEPHILA VERSUS BASARA
EXPLAINED THAT STATES CANNOT
CHOOSE THE PROTECTION THAT
SPEECH RECEIVES UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, AS THEY WOULD THAT
WOULD GIVE THEM A POWERFUL TOOL
TO IMPOSE INVIDIOUS
DISCRIMINATION OF DISFAVORED
SUBJECTS. ABE'S 3 15 IT'S
INTENTIONALLY VAGUE LANGUAGE
INVITES ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT BY
THE STATE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ACTIONS THAT
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PRO
LIFE PROFESSIONAL SPEECH,
TAXPAYER FUNDED STATE WEBSITE
ABORTION DOT CA.GOV ALREADY
DESCRIBES CRISIS PREGNANCY CARE
CENTERS AS MISINFORMATION. AND
MAYBE I NEED YOU TO WRAP UP.
YES, SIR. A B 3 15 IS DESIGNED
TO CHILL CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED SPEECH. IT PROVIDES A
MEANS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
DISAGREE IDEOLOGY WITH THE
IDEOLOGY TO TARGET PRO LIFE
COMPANIES AND PUT THEM OUT OF
BUSINESS. FOR THIS REASON IT
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND
THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD REJECT IT
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. MY
NAME IS TATTOO QUÊ. AND I AM
FROM THE GAMBIA, WEST AFRICA. I
AM A SINGLE MOM. I WORK FULL
TIME AND I AM A PART TIME
COLLEAGUES, STUDENT I HAVE BEEN
RAISING MY DAUGHTER ALONE BY
MYSELF. AND TWO YEARS AGO I WAS
PREGNANT AND I WAS GOING TO BE A
SINGLE MOTHER AGAIN. I FELT SO
ALONE. I NEEDED SOMEONE TO HELP
ME. SOMEONE TO LISTEN. I ASKED
MYSELF HOW WE LIKE AFFORD ALL
THESE THINGS THAT MIGHT MY
DAUGHTER AND MY OWN PUNCH ON
CHILD WILL NEED SIERRA PREGNANCY
MADE IT POSSIBLE. I WENT TO THE
CLINIC. THEY SHOWED ME RESPECT
AND KINDNESS. THEY TOLD ME
CLEARLY WHAT THEY ORGANIZATION
WAS ABOUT AND WHO THEY WERE. I
WENT TO THE PRENATAL PRINT, UH,
PERIOD PRENATAL PARENTING
CLASSES. THEY GAVE ME EVERYTHING
I COULD NOT AFFORD FOR MY KIDS.
INCLUDING DIAPERS, WIPES. CAR
SEATS THROAT, LISS. AND BABY
CRIBS. THEY CONNECTED ME WITH
OTHER SUPPORT GROUPS OF OTHER
SINGLE MOTHERS. I FELT LIKE I
BELONGED. THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I
WAS GOING THROUGH AND ENCOURAGED
ME TO PRACTICE SEATTLE PROJECT.
UM SEATTLE PREGNANCY TO THIS
VERY DAY STILL SUPPORTS ME
KNOWING THAT I AM WORKING VERY
HARD TO PROVIDE MY CHILDREN, THE
THINGS THAT I CANNOT AFFORD. AS
A MOTHER AS A SINGLE MOTHER.
NEVER DID THEY EVER TELL ME FOR
ONCE? TO KEEP MY BABY. THEY
LISTEN TO ME. THEY KNOW THAT I
CHOSE LIFE. PREGNANCY CENTERS
LIKE SIERRA PREGNANCY, GIVE $14
MILLION AND SERVICES. TO
CALIFORNIA FAMILIES. IT ONLY
HARMS SINGLE MOTHERS LIKE ME AND
THEIR KIDS. AND OTHER NON GROWTH
, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO
SPEND MONEY TO DEFEND LOSSES.
TWO DIFFERENT AGAINST REFERRALS
LAWSUITS. I KNOW I CAN STILL
RELY ON SCARE PREGNANCY TO RAISE
MY KIDS. PLEASE VOTE NO. TO A B
31 16 THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? NAME
AND ORGANIZATION ONLY PLACE.
CARRIE WILCOX, SARAH PREGNANCY
AND HEALTH AND I ASK THAT YOU
OPPOSED 315. MARIE LEATHER BE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF PREGNANCY
CARE AND SECTOR SACRAMENTAL LIFE
CENTER IN OPPOSITION. CHRISTINE
CAMPBELL. MR CONCERNED PARENT
AND OPPOSITION. PASTOR BRANDON
CAMPBELL, THE FAITH BAPTIST
CHURCH IN THE CALIFORNIA CAPITAL
CONNECTION FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR IN
OPPOSITION. JULIE THREE BUTTE
COUNTY VACCINE ADVERSE EVENT
REPORTING SYSTEM ADVOCATE
OPPOSED. MR TURN MEMBERS, MOLLY
SHE IN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SHANNON
HEIL, A CONCERNED PARENT, AND I
OPPOSE NICOLE YOUNG CONCERNED
PARENTS OPPOSE. WILLIAMS AS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN ASKING FOR A NO
VOTE ON A B 315. THANK YOU.
ANDREA DOMESTIC CONCERNED MOM
AND I OPPOSE. TED WHO TACO
CONCERNED PARENT I OPPOSE. ERIN
FRIDAY. I OPPOSE. SASHA. ANYA. I
OPPOSE. ALI SNYDER REGISTERED
VOTER, TAXPAYER CONCERNED PARENT
I OPPOSED. BILL DONOVAN,
GRANDFATHER AND I OPPOSE. THANK
YOU. JENNIFER KENNEDY. I OPPOSE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SEEN NONE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
S¼ NONE. MR. SALIH. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. UM. I HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. UM JUST LET ME ASK THE
AUTHOR AS FAR AS THE REMARKS
ABOUT BEING A ON CONSTITUTIONAL
HAVE YOU BEEN ADVISED BY
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS BILL?
SO AS YOU KNOW, CONVERSATIONS
WITH LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ARE
PRIVILEGED. SO I'LL ANSWER THE
QUESTION FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE
AND NOT REVEAL THAT PRIVILEGE.
UM SO I DO NOT BELIEVE. NOR DOES
THE ANALYSIS STATE AS I'M SURE
YOU'VE READ THAT THIS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DIFFERENT
SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PRIOR
LEGISLATION. THE FACT ACT THAT
WAS OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME
COURT AND THAT THAT DECISION
SAID YOU COULD NOT FORCE THESE
CENTERS TO SPEAK IN ANY WAY TO
PROVIDE DISCLOSURES. THIS DOES
NOT MERELY PROHIBITS FALSE,
MISLEADING ADVERTISING, WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY ALREADY LAWFUL. AND UH
, I HEARD YOU SAY THE CONCERN IS
FALSE INFORMATION, BIAS
COUNSELING, AGGRESSIVE
COUNSELING. I'VE HEARD SAME SAME
COMPLAINTS ABOUT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD CENTER. SO WITH THIS
LAW, ALLOWING PRIVATE CITIZENS
SOUP, PLANNED PARENTHOOD IF THEY
WERE ENGAGING IN SIMILAR CONDUCT
, THE BILL APPLIES TO ANYONE
PROVIDING PREGNANCY RELATED
SERVICES. IT'S CONTINENTAL PLAN
FOR PARENTHOOD COULD BE SUED
UNDER YOUR BILL PROVIDED FALSE
INFORMATION. UM AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
IT'S VERY HARD TO COME AND
TESTIFY PUBLICLY. I PERSONALLY
SEEN THE GREAT WORK THAT THE
CENTERS DO. I HAVE CORONA LIFE
SERVICES IN MY DISTRICT AND
RIVERSIDE LIFE SERVICES. UH
YOUNG, ESPECIALLY YOUNG,
PREGNANT WOMEN. THEY'RE VERY
SCARED. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO
DO. AND THE CENTERS PROVIDE
SUPPORT, AND THEY ALSO PROVIDE
RESOURCES TO ABORTION SERVICES,
IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT, BUT
WHAT THESE CENTERS DO IS MAKE
SURE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR
OPTIONS ARE, AND THEY HAVE
RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND SUPPORT
IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THE CHILD,
I THINK, REALLY, THIS BILL IS
ABOUT ARE WE PRO CHOICE OR WE
PRO ABORTION AND IF WE APPROACH
CHOICE, WE NEED TO ALLOW THESE
CENTERS TO OPERATE. UM WITH SOME
SOME SOME LATITUDE THERE
PRIVATELY FUNDED. THEY GET NO
TAX ASSISTANCE. UNLIKE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, WHICH IS A
GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED
, SO I JUST I WOULD URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE
PRO CHOICE, YOU KNOW, LET THE
CENTERS DO WHAT THEY DO. IT'S
READY, UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN
MISLEADING ADVERTISING. THERE'S
NO REASON TO UM, PUT A TARGET ON
THE CENTER'S BACK. SO ALL OF THE
OPPOSING RESPECTFULLY THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ARE COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. WE'VE SEEN NONE. WE
HAVE EMOTION FROM MR KALRA. DO
YOU HAVE A SET? SECOND FROM MS
REYES. UH THANK YOU, MS.
BARRETT. CAN YOU MAKE CLOTHES?
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
AND I JUST WANT TO CLOSE BY
SAYING THAT NOTHING IN THIS BILL
WOULD PREVENT AND THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE AND TELLING YOUR
STORY WOULD PREVENT THE TYPES OF
SERVICES THAT WERE DESCRIBED BY
THE WITNESS. NOTHING WOULD
PREVENT THE SUPPORT AS IT
RELATES TO DIAPERS AND WIPES.
AND YOU WILL SEE THIS
LEGISLATIVE SESSION BILLS THAT I
LOOK FORWARD TO CO AUTHORING
THAT PROVIDE THOSE KIND OF
SERVICES TO WOMEN DIAPERS WIPES
THE SUPPORT THAT LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS NEED. TO DO THE
PARENTING THAT THEY DO. UM AND I
KNOW I HAVE PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE
AUTHORING BILLS THAT SUPPORT
PEOPLE WHO NEED THE SERVICES
THAT THEY CAN'T OTHERWISE GET.
WHAT THIS BILL PREVENTS IS LIES
AND MISLEADING INFORMATION AND
NOBODY SHOULD WALK INTO ANY
ESTABLISHMENT. IN CALIFORNIA AND
RECEIVE INFORMATION THAT
MISLEADS THEM SUCH THAT THEY DO
NOT RECEIVE THE HEALTH CARE THEY
NEED, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL
PREVENTS. AND LIKE I SAID IT
WILL ALLOW FOR SUPPORT, BUT IT
WILL NOT ALLOW FOR LIES THAT
STOP PEOPLE FROM HAVING ACCESS
TO SAFE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE.
THANK YOU, SO THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO APPROACH AS SUPPORT.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN IAS ALY
SALINO CONNELLY CONNELLY I
DICKSON DICKSON NO! HANEY HAITI
I CHOLERA CHOLERA. I PACHECO
CHECKOUT. I PAPIN HAPPENED. I
REYES RACE. I REVERSE REVERSE I
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NO MOTION
PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
NEXT AND FOLLOWERS, MR GIBSON.
MA'AM. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
YOU, BUT YOU GOT IT. YOU CAN'T
COME UP HERE TO THE PODIUM. AND
AS AS MR GIBSON'S PREPARING, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE'RE
PROCEEDING IN FILE ORDER BECAUSE
IT'S THE MOST RESPECTFUL TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE
ON TIME DOING WORK, SO I WANT
THE AUTHORS TO KNOW THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR ITEMS THAT THEY
NEED TO BE HERE ON TIME READY TO
PRESENT THEIR ITEMS, SO THERE'S
NO CONFUSION FROM AUTHORS, SO WE
EXPEDITE THE COMMITTEE AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE RESPECTING THE TIME OF ALL
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO COME
HERE, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE
PROCEEDING IN IN FILE ORDER. AND
WITH THAT, MR GIBSON, YOU'RE
NEXT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, ALLOW ME TO
PRESENT THIS BILL. IT'S
CERTAINLY A PRIVILEGED TO
PRESENT THIS BILL BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE ASSEMBLY BILL 3 60,
WHICH AIMS TO BAN THE TERM
EXCITED DELIRIUM AS A LEGITIMATE
DIAGNOSIS OR CAUSE OF DEATH ON
THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THOSE
WHO HAVE LOST THEIR THEIR LIVES
WHILE IN POLICE CUSTODY. BEFORE
I BEGIN. I WANT TO RESPECTFULLY
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS AND THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH US ON
MAKING AND STRENGTHENING THIS
BILL. UM THE DIAGNOSTIC AND
STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL
DISORDERS. ASSEMBLY BILL 3 60
BUILDS UPON PRIOR LEGISLATION
THAT I AUTHORED LAST SESSION A B
4 90 THAT BANS LAW ENFORCEMENT
FROM USING ANY TYPE OF KARATE,
ARTERY RESTRAINTS OR CHOKE OWES
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
EXCITED DELIRIUM IS A TERM THAT
IS USED TO DESCRIBE MANY CARER
HEURISTICS SUCH AS EXCITABILITY
PARANOIA. EXTREME AGGRESSION,
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE APPARENT TO
IMMUNE TO, UM, PAIN. THIS TERM
HAS BEEN USED TO AS A CATCH, ALL
FOR DEATHS THAT INVOLVED POLICE
RESTRAINTS. HOWEVER THE MAJORITY
OF INDIVIDUALS. WHO HAVE DIED
FROM EXCITED DELIRIUM HAVE BEEN
AFRICAN AMERICANS. BLACK PEOPLE.
LATINOS. MEXICANS. OR ANY OR
OTHER RACE OF INDIVIDUALS. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN 2010 REPORTS DONE ON
DEATHS IN POLICE CUSTODY IS FROM
POSSIBLE EXCITED DELIRIUM FOUND
THAT WATCH THIS, 166 REPORTS
REPORTED DEATHS. 56% WERE
AFRICAN AMERICANS AS WELL AS
LATINOS. 56% ADDITIONALLY, A
REPORT DONE IN TEXAS FROM 2005
TO 2000 THROUGH 2017 DISCOVERED
THAT MORE THAN ONE IN SIX DEATHS
, UM IN POLICE CUSTODY WERE
LINKED TO EXCITED DELIRIUM. WE
CONTINUE TO SEE THE IMPACTS OF
THIS TERM TODAY WITH THE DEATHS
OF ANGELO QUINTO. OF ANTI R
CALIFORNIA. ELISSA MCCLAIN.
ABOUT GROWER AGORA, UM,
COLORADO. AND SO MANY MORE NAMES
THAT TIME WOULD NOT PERMIT FOR
ME TO ARTICULATE LET ME TELL YOU
A STORY. IN 2020. I WISH THAT I
HAD MET THIS YOUNG MAN. IN 2020
ANGELO KEEN TO A FILIPINO
AMERICAN, UNITED STATES VETERAN.
DEALING WITH A MENTAL CRISIS
STOPPED BREATHING AT THE HANDS
OF POLICE. TWO OFFICERS FROM
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
KNEELING ON HIS NECK. ANGELO
QUINTO DIED FIVE MINUTES WELL,
FIVE MINUTES HE LAID THEY LAID
ON HIS NECK FOR FIVE MINUTES. HE
STOPPED BREATHING BECAUSE OXYGEN
WAS RESTRICTED TO HIS BRAIN.
ANGELO KATO'S CASE IT TOOK EIGHT
MONTHS AFTER HIS DEATH FOR THE
CONTRA COSTA CORONER'S OFFICE TO
ISSUE A REPORT BEFORE THE
AUTOPSY. BEFORE THE AUTOPSY. THE
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
ANGELA'S CUENTOS DEATH WAS A
TRIBUTE TO WATCH THIS EXCITED
DELIRIUM SYNDROME. EXCITED
DELIRIUM SYNDROME IS NOT
ACCEPTED AS A LEGITIMATE TERM BY
ANYONE. BY ANYONE. LET ME
QUANTIFY THAT BY THE AMERICAN
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION BY THE
AMERICAN AND THANK YOU, PATRICK
ASSOCIATION AND THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION. THEY ALL HAVE
DEBUNKED THIS TERMINOLOGY BEING
USED IN. ADDITIONALLY THIS IS
NOT RECOGNIZED AS A DEFINITION.
CONSISTENT CAUSE THAT IS
RECOGNIZED AS A DIAGNOSIS IN THE
DIAGNOSTIC STATISTICAL MANUAL OF
MENTAL DISORDER. YET THIS TERM
IS STILL BEING USED TO EXPLAIN
INDIVIDUALS DEATHS BY A MEDICAL
EXAMINER. BY BANNING THIS TERM.
IT WILL ALLOW US TO FOCUS ON THE
UNDERLYING FACTOR THAT
CONTRIBUTES TO ANY INDIVIDUALS
ACCUSED. OR ACTUAL DEATH OF OH,
BY SOMEONE BEING IN CUSTODY AND
HERE TO SUPPORT ASSEMBLY BILL 3
. 60 IS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION. UM CARMEN, UM NICOLE COX,
WHO WILL TESTIFY AND SUPPORT
YES. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
AND THANK YOU ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GIBSON FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
VERY IMPORTANT BILL. MY NAME IS
CARMEN NICOLE COX, DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT A C O U
CALIFORNIA ACTION, AND WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 3 60.
IMPORTANTLY I WILL NOTE THAT A
CORNER IS A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
, NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT
AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO FOLLOW THE POLICIES OF
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS URGED THIS
BODY TO ENSURE THAT CORONERS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOLLOW
THE LEAD OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN
PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION. THE
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION. AS A SIMILAR
MEMBER, GIBSON NOTED, NEITHER OF
THESE ORGANIZATIONS RECOGNIZE
EXCITED DELIRIUM. IT HAS BEEN
CALLED JUNK SCIENCE. IN FACT,
EXCITED DELIRIUM HAS NO INTERNAL
CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES CODE,
WHICH MEANS IT CANNOT BE
ASSIGNED AS A DIAGNOSIS OR AS A
CAUSE OF DEATH FOR STATISTICAL
PURPOSES. AND IT HAS ACTUALLY
NEVER. IT HAS NEVER APPEARED IN
ANY VERSION OF THE GSM, WHICH IS
THE MAIN DIAGNOSTIC TOOL USED BY
PHYSICIANS AND MENTAL HEALTH
WORKERS IN THE US AND IT IS NOW
AND ITS FIFTH EDITION.
IMPORTANTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL
EXAMINERS, HAS SAID THAT THE
GROUP DOES NOT AND I'M QUOTING
HERE DOES NOT PROMOTE OR SUPPORT
THE DIAGNOSIS OF EXCITED
DELIRIUM. NOR DOES IT. CONSIDER
A VET, NOR DOES IT CONSIDER A
VALID CAUSE OF DEATH. AND HERE
IS AN EXTENDED QUOTE. FROM THE
PRESIDENT, IF A PERSON
EXPERIENCES AND ACUTE DELIRIUM
PRIOR TO DEATH THE UNDERLYING
CAUSE OF DEATH IS THE PROCESS
THAT CAUSED THE DELIRIUM SUCH AS
THE ACUTE COCAINE TOXICITY,
ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL, ETCETERA. I
GO ON. WE AGREE THAT THE EXCITED
DELIRIUM THAT EXCITED LARIAM IS
NOT A RECOGNIZED MEDICAL
DIAGNOSIS, END QUOTE. THIS TERM
HAS OWNED THIS TERM ONLY HAS ANY
USE WHEN DEVELOPING
JUSTIFICATION FOR DEATHS
PRIMARILY IN POLICE CUSTODY.
THAT MEANS PEOPLE ARE WALKING
AROUND EXPERIENCING THE SYMPTOMS
OF SO CALLED EXCITED DELIRIUM
AND AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT
ENCOUNTER POLICE THEY WON'T DIE
FROM THIS CONDITION. WHY SHOULD
WE DENY THE PEOPLE? WHY SHOULD
WE DENY PEOPLE THE RESPECT AND
DECENCY OF PROFESSIONALISM
MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAD AN
ENCOUNTER WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT?
I WILL CLOSE BY NOTING THAT WHAT
IS EVEN MORE TROUBLING THAN A
MEDICAL OR LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROFESSIONAL USING TERMINOLOGY
THAT HAS NO BASIS IN SCIENCE IN
THEIR ROLE AS A GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL. IS THAT WHEN THE
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
INCLUDING PHYSICIANS, RESIDENTS
AND MEDICAL STUDENTS, ADOPTED A
POLICY OPPOSING EXCITED DELIRIUM
AS A DIAGNOSIS IT NOTED. IT
NOTED USE OF THE TERM AS
JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCESSIVE FOR
EXCESSIVE POLICE FORCE
DISPROPORTIONATELY CITED IN
CASES WHERE BLACK MEN DIE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT CUSTODY. THE POLICY
WAS NOT ADOPTED IN A VACUUM. IT
ECHOED RESEARCH RECOGNIZING
POLICE BRUTALITY AS A PRODUCT OF
STRUCTURAL RACISM. OUR GOVERNOR
. THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR HAS
SAID, QUOTE AS A NATION, WE CAN
ONLY TRULY THRIVE WHEN EVERYONE
OF US HAS. THE OPPORTUNITY TO
THRIVE ARE PAINFUL. HISTORY OF
SLAVERY HAS EVOLVED INTO
STRUCTURAL RACISM AND BIAS BUILT
INTO AND PERMEATING THROUGHOUT
OUR DEMOCRATIC AND ECONOMIC
INSTITUTIONS. ON THIS DAY IN
2021, I NEED YOU TO KIND OF WRAP
UP. ON THIS DAY IN 2021. THEN
THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZED MARCH
21 2021 AS THE INTERNATIONAL DAY
FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION. HERE WE ARE
EXACTLY TWO YEARS LATER WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BREATHE FURTHER
LIFE INTO SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 17, WHICH STATED,
WHEREAS RACISM CAUSES PERSISTENT
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND
HOUSING, EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT
TRANSPORTATION. AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE. AND AN EMERGING BODY OF
RESEARCH DEMONSTRATES THAT
RACISM IS A SOCIAL DETERMINANT
OF HEALTH. NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DECLARES RACISM A PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS AND WILL ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATE IN THE DISMANTLING
OF RACISM. I ASKED THAT YOU BE
RESOLVED TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE
IN THE DISMANTLING OF RACISM BY
ENDING THE UNMERITED AND
RACIALIZED USE OF THE TERM,
EXCITED DELIRIUM. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? GOOD
MORNING, REBECCA GONZALEZ WITH
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS. CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SAYING
NON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. YES, MR PACHECO.
I HAD A I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS, AND I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. BUT I'M JUST
CURIOUS. HOW DO YOU HAVE ANY
CONVERSATIONS BEEN HAD WITH THE
CORONER'S OFFICE TO SEE UH, HOW
THIS TERM CAME ABOUT, UH WHAT
THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE
MEANING OF THIS TERM UM, FROM MY
OFFICE AND MY STANDPOINT NO.
WHEN WE INTRODUCE ASSEMBLY, BILL
4 90 THIS IT CAME UP, UM AROUND
THE SAME TIME. ANGELO CUENTOS,
UM, INQUIRY CAME UP. UM NO
CORNERS OFFICE. WE USE THE SAME
TERM. WE USE THE TERM TERM IN
AND TESTIMONY AND NO ONE HAS
REBUTTED THAT AT ALL. IN TERMS
OF IT'S BEING USED AS THE A C L
U INDICATED. AH, THAT'S A
BELIEVE WAS A DOCTOR HAD USED
THIS TERM AROUND SOMEONE USING
COCAINE AND SOME DRUGS, AND
THAT'S WHEN IT ACTUALLY CAME UP.
BUT THERE WAS NO VALIDATION
WHATSOEVER FROM THE AMERICAN, UM
, YOU KNOW, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
OR ANY OF THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION OR ANYONE LIKE THAT
. THIS WAS THIS WAS ACTUALLY A
MADE UP TERM, AND IT HAS BEEN
USED SYSTEMATICALLY WHEN
INDIVIDUAL DIE IN THE CUSTODY OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND WE'RE THIS
BILL IS TRYING TO PROHIBIT THAT
FROM ME BEING USED BECAUSE WHEN
A PERSON DIED AND THE MEDICAL
EXAMINER OFFICE DO WHAT THEY'VE
BEEN TRAINED TO DO, AND THEIR
SIGNATURES OF CAUSE OF DEATH IS
A FIXED ON THAT DEATH
CERTIFICATE. THAT'S WHAT THE
PERSON SHOULD BE, UH, THE CAUSE
OF DEATH SHOULD BE NOT SOMETHING
THAT IS NOT VALIDATED OR MADE
UP, AND WE FOUND OUT THAT THIS
IS IN FACT HAS BEEN THE CASE. IT
HAS THE TERM BEEN USED IN ANY
OTHER INSTANCES TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
NO. IS THAT QUESTION FOR ME OR
EITHER OF YOU IF ANYBODY KNOWS I
BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER
INSTANCES WHERE THE TERM HAS
BEEN USED, UM DO WE KNOW THOSE
NUTS SINCE MOST OF THE CREDIBLE
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE IDENTIFIED IT
AS JUNK SCIENCE AND DO WE KNOW
ABOUT AROUND WHEN THIS TERM WAS
CAME ABOUT. I DON'T I DON'T HAVE
THAT INFORMATION, BUT I'D BE
MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO GET IT TO
YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. SEEN NONE. UH WE
HAVE A MOTION. MR KARA, SECOND
FROM MS RACE. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS A MINUTE TO APPROACH MR
GIBSON. YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE ONE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK WHAT I VOTE. THIS BILL WAS
PRESENTED IN THE ASSEMBLY PUBLIC
SAFETY AND RECEIVED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT. UH WE BELIEVE WE'RE
GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND WE WANT TO THANK OUR
PARTNERS WHO SUPPORT THIS BILL,
WHICH IS CAMPAIGN ZERO. THE A C
O U THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND OTHERS. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
WHEN I VOTE. THANK YOU. AND JUST
TO CLARIFY, I MISSPOKE. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED AS
THE COURT TO PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I, DICKSON
DICKSON. I HANEY HANEY. I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I PACHECO I
PAPIN HAPPENED. I RAISE RAISE I
RIVAS RIVAS SANCHEZ. MOTION
PASSES. THANK YOU, MR GIBSON,
MISS WICKS. MAYBE 5 24
DISCRIMINATION, FAMILY CAREGIVER
STATUS, MISS WICKS. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR, AND I ALWAYS LOVE
LISTENING TO MY COLLEAGUES FILLS
PRESENT. SO I ADDED MYSELF AS A
CO AUTHOR, EVEN OKAY, THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WOULD BE 5 24 PROHIBITS
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES
BASED ON THEIR FAMILY CAREGIVING
STATUS. THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT
WORKPLACE POLICIES DO NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE
BECAUSE THEY ARE FAMILY
CAREGIVERS. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
EMPLOYERS TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO
POLICIES FOR CAREGIVING STATUS.
IN APRIL 2020, A GROUP OF HOTEL
CHAIN WORKERS WERE LAID OFF
BECAUSE OF PANDEMIC CLOSURES.
WHEN THINGS STARTED TO OPEN UP
EVERYONE, BUT THE MOTHERS WERE
CALLED BACK. THE HOTEL MANAGER
ASSUMED THEY WERE BUSY HELPING
KIDS WITH REMOTE SCHOOLING.
INDEED, MANY OF THOSE MEMBERS
MOTHERS DID WANT TO RETURN THEY
NEEDED THE INCOME. 79% 1 STUDY
FOUND THAT MOTHERS WERE 79% LESS
LIKELY TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR
HIRE. HALF AS LIKELY TO BE
PROMOTED AND OFFERED AN AVERAGE
OF $11,000 LESS AND A SALARY FOR
THE SAME POSITION AS SIMILARLY
QUALIFIED NON MOTHERS. I
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT FROM THIS
COMMITTEE WHEN I PRESENTED A
VERSION OF THIS BILL LAST YEAR,
AND IN FACT, THE CHAIR, UM,
SPOKE FAVORABLY ON BEHALF OF IT
IN COMMITTEE AND RESPONSE. UH,
WE ARE NOT TOUCHING, REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION. ALL THAT'S
SOMETHING WE ACTUALLY TOOK OUT
OF THE BILL THIS YEAR. WE
NARROWED IT TO TAKE OUT THE
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PORTION
OF THE BILL. MORE THAN 200,
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND STATES,
INCLUDING ALASKA, DELAWARE, NEW
YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS HAVE
ALREADY OUTLAWED EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PARENTS
AND OTHER CAREGIVERS COVERING
ALMOST 30% OF THE AMERICAN
WORKFORCE. BUT NOT YET HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL IS
SUPPORTED BY THE CALIFORNIA
LAWYERS EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATION,
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES LEGAL AID
AT WORK AND THE CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
AMONG OTHERS. WITH ME TO TESTIFY
HERE AND SUPPORT IS LIZ MORRIS
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF HASTE.
SING CENTER FOR WORK LIFE AND
JULIE PARRISH FROM THE LEGAL AID
AT WORK TO HERE TO DISPEL CLAIMS
OF INCREASED LAWSUITS. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS JULIA PERISH AND
I'M A SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT
LEGAL AID AT WORK, WHICH IS A
STATEWIDE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
THAT ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF
WORKERS PAID LOW WAGES THROUGH
OUR FREE LEGAL HELP LINES AND
CLINICS WE HEAR FROM THOUSANDS
OF WORKING CALIFORNIANS EVERY
YEAR. UNFORTUNATELY
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WORKERS
BECAUSE OF FAMILY CAREGIVING
STATUS IS REAL. ALTHOUGH THE
NORM OF A MOTHER STAYING HOME
AND TENDING TO ALL THE FAMILY
MEMBERS IS A THING OF THE PAST
THAT IF IT EVER EXISTED AT ALL,
AND WE KNOW THAT IT DIDN'T EXIST
FOR MOST PEOPLE, ASSUMPTIONS AND
STEREOTYPES ABOUT CAREGIVING
PERVADE THE WORKPLACE TODAY. AND
THESE ASSUMPTIONS CAN DRIVE
UNFAIR TREATMENT THAT HARMS
WORKERS IN TERMS OF LOWER WAGES,
LOST PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
OR EVEN BEING FIRED OR NEVER
BEING HIRED AT ALL. IN FACT,
FAMILY CAREGIVING IS BECOMING
MORE VISIBLE TO EMPLOYERS. ONE
IN SIX AMERICANS ASSISTS WITH
THE CARE OF AN ELDERLY OR
DISABLED FAMILY MEMBER AND ONE
IN 12 ARE NOW PART OF THE
SANDWICH GENERATION WITH
CAREGIVING. UM RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR YOUNG CHILDREN AND OLDER
FAMILY MEMBERS. FAMILY
CAREGIVING HAS A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON
MOTHERS AND WOMEN OF COLOR ARE
EVEN MORE DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED BY FAMILY CAREGIVING. A
RECENT EXAMPLE FROM OUR HELPLINE
IS, UM MOM WHO WAS PLANNING ON
RETURNING FROM MATERNITY LEAVE,
CALLED HER EMPLOYER TO DISCUSS
HER RETURN. DURING THAT
CONVERSATION. SHE WAS FIRED BY
HR AND THEY EXPLAINED THAT THEY
FORESAW HER CHILD CARE WOULD BE
A DISRUPTION AND AFTER SHE
RETURNED AND AGAIN, THIS IS
SIMILAR TO THE EXAMPLE THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS UM,
SHARED SHE NEVER ACTUALLY WAS
ABLE TO RETURN. SO THE DECISION
DECISION WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHO SHE WAS
AND THE KIND OF WORKER SHE WOULD
BE BECAUSE OF HER FAMILY
CAREGIVING STATUS. THIS BILL
WOULD SIMPLY PREVENT WERE
EMPLOYERS FROM TREATING THEIR
EMPLOYEES WORSE BECAUSE OF THEIR
FAMILY CAREGIVING STATUS. IT IS
THE MOST BASIC EMPLOYMENT
PROTECTION THAT WE SHOULD NOT
LET THOSE WHO CARE THAT WE
SHOULD THAT WE CAN CARE. UM THAT
WE CAN PROVIDE CARE FOR OUR
FAMILY MEMBERS AND NOT LET THAT
STAND IN THE WAY OF OUR
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. UM
THIS BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE
EMPLOYERS TO GRANT CAREGIVERS
ANY PRIVILEGES THAT IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE TO OTHER EMPLOYEES. SO
FOR THAT WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF
85 4. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
I'M LIZ MORRIS. I'M THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR WORK
LIFE LOT. THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA S F EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FAMILY
CAREGIVERS IS WELL DOCUMENTED,
HARMFUL AND PERVASIVE. IT
JEOPARDIZES THE ECONOMIC
SECURITY OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
CARING FOR THEIR LOVED ONES, AND
IT WEAKENS OUR ECONOMY.
ESPECIALLY BY DRIVING WOMEN OUT
OF THE WORKFORCE. THE QUESTION
IS WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. MAYBE 5
24 OFFERS A VIABLE SOLUTION THAT
HAS ALREADY BEEN BEEN TESTED IN
FOUR OTHER STATES AND HUNDREDS
OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AROUND
THE COUNTRY. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN
IN NEW YORK, MINNESOTA, ALASKA
AND DELAWARE, IS THAT LAWS
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST FAMILY CAREGIVERS WORK
FOR EMPLOYEES AND BUSINESSES
ALIKE. WHY IS THIS TRUE?
UNFORTUNATELY MANY EMPLOYERS ARE
NOT ATTUNED TO THE WAYS THAT
BIASES AGAINST CAREGIVERS AFFECT
THEIR PERSONNEL DECISIONS, AS
WELL AS THE WAYS THAT ACTING ON
THOSE BIASES CAN VIOLATE OTHER
EXISTING EMPLOYMENT LAWS LIKE
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SEX AND
RACE DISCRIMINATION. A B 5 24
WILL PROVIDE CLARITY THAT
TREATING CAREGIVERS WORSE, BASED
ON STEREOTYPES IS UNLAWFUL. IT
WILL INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYERS TO
RECOGNIZE AND WEED OUT THIS FORM
OF BIAS. AND BY DOING SO WILL
HELP EMPLOYERS TO AVOID NOT ONLY
CAREGIVER DISCRIMINATION BUT
ALSO OTHER CURRENTLY UNLAWFUL
EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS WE'VE LEARNED
FROM THESE OTHER STATES THAT THE
IMPACT OF CAREGIVER ANTI
DISCRIMINATION LAWS IS THAT
EMPLOYERS RETAIN VALUABLE
EMPLOYEES REDUCED REDUCED GENDER
INEQUITIES AND AVOID LITIGATION.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE IDEA
THAT THESE LAWS WILL NOT
INCREASE LITIGATION IS NOT JUST
WISHFUL THINKING. IT IS THE
DOCUMENTED EXPERIENCE OF
BUSINESSES IN THESE FOUR OTHER
STATES. A RIGOROUS 2021 ANALYSIS
FROM THE CENTER FOR WORK LIFE
LAW FOUND THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF
COMPANY WILL BE SUED UNDER ONE
OF THESE LAWS IS ESSENTIALLY
ZERO. IN THE FOUR STATES THAT
PROHIBIT CAREGIVER
DISCRIMINATION. THERE WAS LESS
THAN ONE LAWSUIT PER YEAR PER
STATE FILED ON AVERAGE. THE
REALITY IN SOME IS THAT
DIRECTING EMPLOYER AWARENESS TO
CAREGIVER DISCRIMINATION AND TWO
MINUTES IF YOU COULD PLEASE
CONCLUDE AH, IT, UH, LITIGATION
CAN BE AVOIDED UNDER 85 24.
THANK YOU APPRECIATE IT. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE? STATE, YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
JESSICA SENATOR ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES PROUD CO
SPONSOR AND SUPPORT AND ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
MARIKO YOSHIHARU ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ALSO PROUD
CO SPONSOR. THANK YOU. DAVID
FEINBERG, REPRESENTING AARP. WE
ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS JENNY
CASSIDY, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA WORK AND FAMILY
COALITION. WE'RE PROUD CO
SPONSOR AS WELL. AND I HAVE THE
PERMISSION TO TESTIFY FOR THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS ALSO IN
SUPPORT CARRYING ACROSS
GENERATIONS. FRIENDS COMMITTEE
ON LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA
WORK SAFE. BREASTFEED L A U F C
W WESTERN STATES COUNCIL,
CITIZENS FOR CHOICE AND THE TECH
EQUITY COLLABORATIVE. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M AARON
EVANS ON BEHALF OF NARAL PRO
CHOICE CALIFORNIA HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MOLLY ROBSON WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD, AFFILIATES
OF CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MICHELLE TERAN WOLF WORK WITH
THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS, WOMEN AND GIRLS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. REBECA GONZALEZ
NATIONALIST ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKFORCE, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER AND SUPPORT. MOLLY
SHANNON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. PAM LOPEZ ON BEHALF
OF WORK, EQUITY AND SUPPORT. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, SEEN
NONE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. SORRY TO HAVE MY BACK
TO SOME OF YOU. CHRIS MAKELELE
ON BEHALF OF SHERMAN, THE
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER. I WANT TO
RAISE TWO ISSUES FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THE FIRST IS THE
EXPANSION OF FIAT. THE BILL
WOULD AMEND THE GOVERNMENT CODE,
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
ACT THAT CURRENTLY HAS 18
PROTECTED CLASSIFICATIONS. THIS
BILL WOULD ADD 1/19 FAMILY
CAREGIVER STATUS. FIFA APPLIES
TO PUBLIC EMPLOYERS AND PRIVATE
EMPLOYERS WITH FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES. AND IT ISN'T FORCED
BY A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AND
IN THAT PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLAINANT
CANNOT ONLY GET THINGS LIKE
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
ATTORNEY'S FEES, BUT EVEN
PUNITIVE DAMAGES SO IT'S A GRAVE
CONCERN. ANY TIME THE
LEGISLATURE LOOKS AT EXPANDING
THE FETA STATUTE. HISCOX
INSURANCE. GRANTED IT'S A FEW
YEARS AGO. NOW THEY'RE STUDY,
BUT THEY FOUND THAT THE AVERAGE
DISCRIMINATION CLAIM TO DEFEND
IT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS
ABOUT $166,000. A PRETTY
DAUNTING AMOUNT. I BELIEVE FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE STATE.
THE SECOND ITEM IS. THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE OVER THE PAST 15 OR
SO YEARS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY
PASSING ANYWHERE FROM 40 TO 60,
NEW LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS.
EACH AND EVERY YEAR, WHICH IS A
HUGE BURDEN FOR THE GENERAL
EMPLOYER COMMUNITY, BUT
PARTICULARLY THOSE SMALLER
EMPLOYERS. THE SECOND THING IS
THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY
CAREGIVER STATUS. IF YOU LOOK AT
THE DEFINITION AT THE BEGINNING
, WE FIND SOME TERMS THAT WE
MIGHT EXPECT LIKE CHILD PARENT
GRANDPARENTS. BUT IT CONCLUDES
WITH OR WHOSE ASSOCIATION WITH
THE EMPLOYEE IS THE EQUIVALENT
OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. WHICH
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION COULD APPLY
TO JUST ABOUT ANYONE. THERE ARE
NO GUARD RAILS IN THIS LANGUAGE
, AND IT'S DEFINITELY A
SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION. LAST
POINT, MR CHAIR IF I COULD.
CALIFORNIA HAS A NUMBER OF
SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION. WE ALSO HAVE A
NUMBER OF LEAVES, MISS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS RECENTLY
ADDED DESIGNATED PERSONS TO THE
SEA FOR LEAVE. AND SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE VERY RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE THIS, BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS,
ACTUALLY, HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO THE SPILL. SO JOB
KILLER AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THE
ACCOMMODATION PIECE. SO, AS MS
WICK STATED, THIS IS THE THIRD
TIME THIS BILL HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED AND BY THIS VERSION
DOES NOT INCLUDE EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE REGARDING
ACCOMMODATION. OUR CONCERN IS
THAT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE
BILL AS WRITTEN IS A DE FACTO
ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENT.
CAREGIVER STATUS, AND THE
CONCEPT OF IT IS REALLY
INTERTWINED WITH THE CONCEPT OF
GIVING AN EMPLOYEE TIME OFF,
NEEDED OR SCHEDULING CHANGE TO
ACT AS A CAREGIVER, AND SO ARE
CONCERNED THAT ANY DENIAL OF
THESE REQUESTS COULD RESULT IN A
DISCRIMINATION CLAIM. A QUARTER
OF APPEALS IN CALIFORNIA
ACTUALLY ALLOWED A VERY SIMILAR
CLAIM LIKE THIS TO MOVE FORWARD
REGARDING THE ISSUE OF
ASSOCIATIONAL DISABILITY, WHICH
IS THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS A
DISABILITY. THE PLAINTIFF HAD
BEEN TERMINATED FOR REFUSING TO
WORK HAS GIVEN SCHEDULE HAVING
AFTER HAVING AN ALTERNATE
SCHEDULING REQUEST TONIGHT, THE
REASON BEING TO CARE FOR A
FAMILY MEMBER. THE COURT
REVERSED THE TRIAL COURTS
GRANTING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
THE EMPLOYER, SAYING THAT THE
CONCEPTS OF ACCOMMODATION AND
DISCRIMINATION ARE INTERTWINED.
THEY REJECTED THE DEFENDANT'S
STATEMENT THAT THAT WAS REALLY A
FUNDAMENTALLY ACCOMMODATION
ARGUMENT. UM AND THEREFORE, EVEN
THOUGH THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY
ASKED TO REVIEW IT, CAUSE OF
ACTION RELATED TO ACCOMMODATION,
OR WHETHER THERE WAS A LEGAL
DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE THEY SAW THE
NILE DENIAL OF THE SCHEDULING
REQUEST AS ACCOMMODATION. SO
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THIS CASE
GIVES A GREEN LIGHT FOR THIS
TYPE OF ARGUMENT TO BE MADE IN
COURT OR IN DEMAND LETTER. AND
AS MR MCKAY LEE POINTED OUT A
LAWSUIT RISK OF 160,000 IS A
TREMENDOUS LIABILITY RISK,
ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL BUSINESS. I
DO JUST WANT TO ADDRESS REALLY
QUICKLY. THE STATEMENTS MADE
ABOUT LITIGATION. ALL OF THIS
STATE, OTHER STATES AND LOCAL
ORDINANCE BILLS ARE FAR FAR MORE
NARROW THAN THE ONE IN THIS BILL
. FOR INSTANCE, MOST OF THEM
SIMPLY ADDRESS PARENTHOOD. NOT
THE EXTENT EXCEPTIONALLY BROAD
DEFINITION THAT MR MCKAY, LEE
POINTED OUT. ALSO IN CALIFORNIA
. YOU HAVE ABOUT 46% CHANCE MORE
LIKELY TO BE SUED THAN ANY OTHER
STATE, ACCORDING TO A STUDY BY
HISCOX AND FURTHER IF YOU LOOK
AT WEST WELL, WHICH IS ONLY A
TINY FRACTION OF ALL THE
LAWSUITS FILED UNDER THESE
LIVES, IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE
ALASKA REMAIN, IT'S ABOUT 100
200 CASES IN CALIFORNIA. IT'S
OVER 5500. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY PLEASE. JAMIE HAVE WITH A C
JACK RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK
YOU. RYAN ELENA, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LATIFA
ALEXANDER WITH THE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE
DISTRICTS AND RE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. PERSONALLY, I WOULD
ALSO ON BEHALF OF PRISON IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, BRIAN LITTLE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASONS STATED BY SHERMAN CAL
CHAMBER THANK YOU. LAWRENCE KANE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY POST.
THANK YOU. HAVE BEEN COMING
AFTER THE CALIFORNIA LEGAL FOOD
PRODUCED PRODUCERS OPPOSED THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? SEEN NONE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
YEAH, THAT'S PACHECO. HELLO AND
, UH, WELCOME. THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. I DID HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY
CAREGIVERS OR REASON WHY IT'S SO
BROAD. SO THAT'S ALREADY
EXISTING LAW THAT DEFINITION. UM
SO WE'RE USING EXISTING LAW AND
IT IT SAYS, ESSENTIALLY, AH
FAMILY FAMILY MEMBER MEANS AS
SPOUSE, CHILD PARENT SIBLING,
GRANDPARENT GRANDCHILD, DOMESTIC
PARTNER OR ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL
RELATED BY BLOOD OR ITS
ASSOCIATION WITH THE EMPLOYEE IS
THE EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY
RELATIONSHIP, SO WE'RE USING A
PRE EXISTING DEFINITION THAT
ALREADY EXISTS. AND WE'RE HAPPY
TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT AS THE
AS THE PROCESS GOES THROUGH WITH
AND WE'RE MEETING WITH THE
CHAMBER AS WELL TO CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION. THAT'S GOOD. I'M
GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THANK YOU. MS
PAPIN. YEAH, I WOULD CONCUR. I
FIND A LITTLE AMBIGUITY WITH THE
EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY
RELATIONSHIPS. SO IF I CAN GET
SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT, AND THEN
ALSO, WHAT IS? WHAT ARE YOUR
THOUGHTS ON? WHAT? WE JUST HEARD
THAT DISCRIMINATION IS SORT OF
AN ACCOMMODATION, AS EVIDENCED
BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. IS THERE
SO THAT ON ON THE ACCOMMODATION
PIECE? YEAH. UM ON THE
ACCOMMODATION, UM, CONCERN THAT
WAS RAISED BY THE CHAMBER
SPECIFICALLY WOULD REFER TO THE
ANALYSIS SETTING THE COMMUNITY
TO REALLY STRONG ANALYSIS. UM
AND IN WHICH IT STATES DESPITE
THE OPPOSITE. OPPONENTS CLAIM
THAT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
WOULD CREATE A QUOTE DEFACTO
OBLIGATION ON THE EMPLOYER TO
PROVIDE AN ACCOMMODATION. THIS
VERSION, IN FACT, OPTED NOT TO
INCLUDE SUCH LANGUAGE. THE
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
PROCEDURES FOUND IN SECTION
12940. M THROUGH N ARE NOT
MODIFIED IN ANY WAY IN THIS BILL
. AND SO IT GOES ON TO SAY,
ASSUMING THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT
ENGAGE IN ANY OTHERWISE
DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOR ON THE
BASIS OF EMPLOYEE CAREGIVER
STATUS. THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT
BE LIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I'D LOVE I'D LOVE TO SEE
YOU WORK ON YOUR FURTHER
DEFINITION. AND AGAIN. IT'S
WHERE WE'RE USING A DEFINITION
THAT ARE EXIST, BUT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT AND HAPPY
TO MEET WITH THE CHAMBER. YOU
KNOW, WE MET WITH HIM QUITE A
BIT LAST TIME WILL CONTINUE TO
MEET WITH THEM OPEN DOOR POLICY
HERE, ALWAYS IN MY OFFICE. AND I
ALSO FOUND THAT WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY SIT DOWN WITH
OPPOSITION YOU CAN UNDERSTAND
AND OFTEN COME TO A BETTER
ARRANGEMENT THROUGH THAT
PROCESS. ABSOLUTELY. WE WANT TO
SEE PEOPLE PROTECTED. BUT WHEN
IT GETS THESE SMALL MOM AND POP
BUSINESSES AND WE HAVE THESE, UM
IT JUST GETS VERY DIFFICULT,
VERY PRECARIOUS FOR THEM. SO IF
YOU CAN, ZERO IN ON THAT THAT
WOULD BE AWESOME. OKAY, GREAT
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE? MR SALIH.
THANK YOU. YEAH I HAVE THE SAME
CONCERNS AND YOU KNOW THE BEAUTY
OF BEING THE LEGISLATURE'S WE
MAKE LAW, BUT WE CAN ALSO CHANGE
THE LAW. SO WOULD YOU BE WILLING
TO AMEND? I MEAN, LOOK AT
AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF
FAMILY MEMBERS AND MAKE IT MORE
NARROW. AS I MENTIONED, I'LL
TALK TO THE OPPOSITION AND WE
CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE I
SYMPATHIZE WITH BUSINESSES WHO
HAVE TO PROVIDE SERVICES. UM
THEY HAVE SCHEDULES. AND IF
PEOPLE ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, LAST
MINUTE CALLING OUT AND IT'S NOT
REALLY A IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER
NEED. I JUST I WONDER ABOUT THE
CASE FOR ABUSE. AND SO, UM, I
LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY
WORKING WITH YOU ON AND MAKING
THIS LAW BETTER. SURE MISS DIXON
. THANK YOU. CHAIR. QUICK
QUESTION DOES JUST I'M
SYMPATHETIC TO THE SMALL
BUSINESS IMPACT. I THINK THAT'S
QUITE CONCERNING TO ME. SO I'D
LIKE TO SEE THAT WORKED ON TWO
PERHAPS ELIMINATE THEIR
OBJECTION. COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR
ME? DOES THIS INVOLVES SIMPLY
JUST FAMILY CAREGIVING, NOT A
BUSINESS, SO JUST A PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP OF HIRING A
CAREGIVER. SO WOULD THIS BE
COVERING FAMILIES AS WELL? YES.
SO THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME
BECAUSE UM, IT JUST CREATES AN
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL. FOR LEGAL
AH CHALLENGES IF THERE IS A
DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE NOW IN A
BUSINESS THEY HANDLE THAT THEY
HAVE HUMAN RESOURCES. THEY HAVE
ALL KINDS OF PROCEDURES TO
HANDLE EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION
. BUT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
FAMILIES AND CAREGIVING I'M SURE
MANY OF US HAVE BEEN THROUGH
THESE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU JUST
WANT TO NOT BE UNDER THE THREAT
OF A LAWSUIT. THAT COULD BE, UH
EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS TO THE
FAMILY'S HEALTH IN TERMS OF
FINANCIAL SITUATION, SO I'M
PLEASED TO HEAR YOU'D LIKE TO
WORK ON SOME WAYS TO PERHAPS
NARROW THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT WOULD QUALIFY, BUT I AM
CONCERNED IN THAT AREA. YEAH AND
AS I MENTIONED, WE WILL
DEFINITELY CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION. I THINK THE THING
THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO
COMBAT HERE IS, YOU KNOW AGAIN,
THE STUDY THAT FOUND THAT 79% OF
MOTHERS WERE LESS LIKELY TO BE
RECOMMENDED FOR HIRE LESS LIKELY
TO BE ADVANCED, PAID LESS. THOSE
ARE SOME OF THE REALLY EGREGIOUS
THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
TACKLE HERE BUT AGAIN I HEAR THE
CONCERNS AND WILL CONTINUE TO
HAVE CONVERSATIONS. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. OKAY SEEING NONE
MISTAKES. YOU MAKE CLOTHES
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE. WE
NEED A MOTION MOTION, MR KALRA,
SECOND FROM MR HANEY. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT CLERK TO CALL THE
ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
ESSENTIALLY CONNELLY CONNELLY.
I. DIXON HANEY. HANEY I CHOLERA
. PACHECO HØI PAPIN HAPPENED, I
RAISE RAISE I RIVAS RIVAS
SANCHEZ. YOUR MOTION PASSES.
THANK THANK YOU, MR AGUIAR-CURRY
BEFORE ANYONE ELSE SNAKES IN
HERE. OH, SENTENCE HERE, BUCKET
AND. YOU HAVE TWO BILLS, SO
WE'LL LET WE'LL LET WE'LL LET
WE'LL LET MISS AGUIAR-CURRY GO.
SHE'S BEEN VERY PATIENT. BUT
MISS WILSON, YOU'LL BE NEXT WITH
YOUR TWO BILLS.
WHAT HAPPENED? MHM IS THAT GOD?
CRAIG? THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE
TO PRESENT A B 9 33 JOINT
AUTHORED BY MYSELF AND MY JOINT
JOINT AUTHOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CHRIS WARD. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS AND
FOR WORKING WITH MY STAFF AND
THE SPONSORS ON AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE. I AM PLEASED TO AMEND
AMEND THE BILL TODAY AND ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
SUGGESTED BY YOUR STAFF. THIS
BILL PROTECTS SURVIVORS OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT, HARASSMENT OR
DISCRIMINATION FOR STEPPING UP
AND SPEAKING OUT AGAINST HER
ABUSER. IT IS IMPERATIVE
IMPERATIVE THAT WE USE OUR POWER
AS LEGISLATORS TO PROTECT THEM
FROM EVER HAVING TO EXPERIENCE
SEXUAL ASSAULT, HARASSMENT OR
DISCRIMINATION UNDER OUR WATCH.
MEMBERS AND ACTIVE SEXUAL
ASSAULT IS COMMITTED EVERY 68
SECONDS AND I WANT TO STRESS
THAT SEXUAL VIOLENCE DOES NOT
JUST AFFECT WOMEN. IT HAPPENS TO
PEOPLE OF EVERY GENDER, IDENTITY
, AGE AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
THE SURVIVORS ARE OUR FAMILY,
OUR FRIENDS, THE STAFF WHO
SUPPORT OUR EVERY ACCOMPLISHMENT
AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING OUR
EXTENDED CAPITAL COMMUNITY. AS
YOU KNOW. THE HALLS OF THIS VERY
INSTITUTION HAVE NOT BEEN IMMUNE
TO THE UNLAWFUL, UNWELCOME AND
TOXIC CULTURE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
, HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
. WE MUST DO BETTER. THE ME TOO.
MOVEMENT GAVE MANY ASSAULT AND
HARASSMENT SURVIVORS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BRAVELY JOIN
COUNTLESS OTHERS ENSURING THEIR
STORIES ON A NATIONAL PLATFORM
IN SOLIDARITY. HOWEVER WHILE
SURVIVORS COURAGEOUSLY CAME
FORWARD, MANY WERE SERVED WITH
DEFAMATION LAWSUITS BY THEIR
ABUSERS. DEFAMATION LAWSUITS
HAVE BECOME THE WEAPON OF
CHOICE. BUY PROPERTY. PREPARE
REPARATIVE, I GUESS. SAY NO FOR
BRYARS, TOO INTIMATE, PUNISH AND
SILENCE THEIR ACCUSERS. EXISTING
LAW MAKES CERTAIN COMPLAINTS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, PRIVILEGED
AND PROTECTED FROM CIVIL
DEFAMATION ACTIONS. HOWEVER
THESE PROTECTIONS ARE LIMITED
AND LEAVE. SURVIVORS POTENTIALLY
OPENED A DEFINITE DEFAMATION
LAWSUITS IF THEY ENGAGE IN
CERTAIN FORMS OF SPEECH. 89 33
WILL PROTECT SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT, HARASSMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION BY CLARIFYING
THAT CLAIMS MADE IN GOOD FAITH
OR A FORM OF PROTECTED SPEECH.
OUR EXPERT ATTORNEYS AND
ADVOCATES HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS
HOURS WORKING ON THIS LANGUAGE
TO ENSURE THAT THE PROTECTIONS
IN THIS BILL, EMPOWER AND
ENCOURAGE SURVIVORS TO CONTINUE
SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR OWN
EXPERIENCE IN A SAFE AND
PROTECTED MANNER BY EXPOSING
THESE PREDATORS. WE CAN PREVENT
THEM FROM RE OFFENDING AND THAT
MEANS THAT OUR STAFF IS SAFER.
OUR FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS ARE
SAFER AND THE PUBLIC IS AT
LARGE, SAFER. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT IS BETHMOORA
, A DEFINITE NATION LAW EXPERT
FROM MAURA EMPLOYMENT LAW. AND
PAMELA LOPEZ, A SURVIVOR, A
FRIEND AND A COURAGEOUS MEMBER
OF OUR CAPITAL COMMUNITY. THANK
YOU. FIRST WITNESS. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS BETHMOORA. AND I AM HERE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
CO SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, I HAVE
BEEN REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES FOR
22 YEARS, VICTIMS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE
WORKPLACE. I AM HERE AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF A B 933, WHICH WILL
HELP PREVENT THE ABUSIVE AND
RETALIATORY DEFAMATION LAWSUITS
THAT I SEE ALL TOO OFTEN IN MY
PRACTICE. THIS BILL WILL SIMPLY
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN A
SURVIVOR SPEAKS OUT ABOUT SEXUAL
ASSAULT, HARASSMENT OR
DISCRIMINATION, THIS IS
PRIVILEGED SPEECH. UNDER CURRENT
LAW, THIS KIND OF SPEECH IS
OFTEN PROTECTED UNDER CIVIL CODE
47, BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME
GREAT AREAS THIS CAN BE LEAVE.
THIS CAN LEAVE SURVIVORS OPEN TO
ATTACK BY PERPETRATORS. FOR
EXAMPLE, MS LOPEZ HIS CASE HERE
THAT SHE TRIED THE TRIAL COURT
MISTAKENLY FOUND THAT HER
STATEMENT AT A PRESS CONFERENCE
DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE
PROTECTED PROTECTION OF FAIR AND
TRUE REPORTING PRIVILEGE UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION, 47 B THIS PRIVILEGE
APPLIES IF SUBSTANCE OF THE
COMMUNICATION CAPTURES THE GIST
OR STAYING OF THE STATEMENT MADE
IN AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING. IN MS
LOPEZ CASE, A LEGISLATIVE
PURSUIT PROCEEDING ULTIMATELY,
THE COURT OF APPEAL, REVERSE
THIS DECISION AND HOW THAT HER
STATEMENTS TO THE PRESS DID FALL
WITHIN THE WITHIN THE SECTION 47
B BECAUSE THEIR STATEMENTS TO
THE PRESS WOULD REASONABLY BE
UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO THE
ALLEGATIONS IN HER COMPLAINT TO
THE ASSEMBLY, AND THERE WAS A
FAIR AND TRUE REPORTING.
ALTHOUGH THE COURT ULTIMATELY
UPHELD MS LOPEZ HIS SPEECH AS
PRIVILEGED, SHE HAD TO ENTER
YEARS OF LITIGATION, AND MANY
SURVIVORS ARE SIMPLY UNABLE TO
TAKE ON THAT COST AND EMOTIONAL
TOLL OF SUCH A LENGTHY AND
COSTLY LITIGATION. IN MY
PRACTICE, I SADLY HAVE
REPRESENTED NUMEROUS CLIENTS
EXPERIENCED HORRIFIC AND
TRAUMATIC SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND GENDER
DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE.
WHO ARE THEN RE TRAUMATIZED BY
CLAIMS OF DEFAMATION BROUGHT BY
PERPETRATORS. SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED TO SENSE THEM. THESE
ARE VICTIMS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR
JOBS, WHO HAVE THEN LOST THEIR
BENEFITS WHO HIRED ATTORNEYS ON
CONTINGENCY FEE WHO CANNOT
AFFORD TO PAY FOR THIS WHO ARE
RE TRAUMATIZED, SOMETIMES WORSE
BY THE DEFAMATION. IT IS TRULY
HORRIFIC, AND THEN THEY ARE
SILENCED. IN A WAY THAT ARE
TRULY MORE VICTIMIZING AND CAN
EVEN IMAGINE. WE HAVE NOT MADE
PROGRESS WITH ME, TOO. WE ARE
MORE BACK BEHIND WHERE WE
STARTED. A B 9331 SURE SURVIVORS
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT FOR US MINT
AND DISCRIMINATION OR ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED FOR DEFAMATION
LAWSUITS. CLARIFYING THAT CLAIMS
MADE IN GOOD FAITH OR FORM OF
PROTECTED SPEECH, AND DOING SO
THE BILL WOULD BE WOULD MAKE IT
HARDER TO FOR PERPETRATORS TO
RETALIATE AGAINST SURVIVORS WITH
LEGAL THREATS AND INTIMIDATION.
THE PROTECTIONS IN THIS BILL
WILL HELP ENCOURAGE SURVIVORS TO
SPEAK. THE TRUTH EXPOSED THE
BEHAVIOR FOR THOSE WHO ARE
HARMED. IF YOU TRULY WANT TO
EMPOWER THE PROTECT THOSE
SURVIVORS WHO SPEAK OUT, CLIENTS
SAID. YOU HAVE SO OFTEN. I TRULY
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT WEEK.
GOOD GOOD MORNING COMMITTEE. UM
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PAMELA
LOPEZ AND I AM SO TIRED OF
TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND WORKPLACE RELATED SEXUAL
ASSAULT. I BET THAT MANY OF YOU
WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE CAPITAL
COMMUNITY SINCE 2017 ARE TIRED
OF HEARING ME TALK ABOUT IT,
TOO. AND THAT WOULD BE FAIR
BECAUSE IT'S A MISERABLE THING
TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT. IT'S A
VERY PAINFUL TOPIC, BUT I DON'T
HAVE THE LUXURY OF FORGETTING
ABOUT THIS TOPIC BECAUSE IT HAS
BEEN A PART OF MY DAILY REALITY
AND MY FAMILY'S DAILY REALITY
FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, AND I
WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOT JUST
MYSELF, BUT HOW THIS IS AN
EXPERIENCE THAT AFFECTS ALL
SURVIVORS. WHO HAVE HAD THE
COURAGE TO STEP FORWARD AND THEN
EXPERIENCE A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT
. I'M IN THE LUCKIEST OF
POSITIONS BECAUSE I'VE HAD THE
SUPPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA ANTI
SLAP PROJECT AND THE NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, SUPPORTING
MY DEFENSE AGAINST A DEFAMATION
LAWSUIT, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR OVER
THE PAST FIVE YEARS. MY SON WAS
AN INFANT UNDER ONE YEAR OLD
WHEN I STEPPED FORWARD AND
SHARED MY STORY. AT THE REQUEST
OF THE VERY APPROPRIATELY
RESPONDING ASSEMBLY THAT SAID,
STEP FORWARD AND TELL US WHO
ASSAULTED YOU. THIS HAS BEEN A
DAILY REALITY FOR FIVE YEARS. MY
SON WAS A BABY EVERY LITTLE
MOMENT OF HIS LIFE, MY EVERY
LITTLE MOMENT THAT I'VE SHARED
WITH MY SPOUSE OVER THE PAST
FIVE YEARS, CHRISTMAS BIRTHDAYS
I HAVE HAD HANGING OVER MY HEAD
THE CLOUD THAT I AM BEING SUED
FOR DEFAMATION BY A REALLY BAD
PERSON WHO IS ABSOLUTELY OUT FOR
BLOOD. AND THAT IS THE
EXPERIENCE OF EVERY SURVIVOR WHO
STEPS FORWARD AND SHARES THEIR
STORY AND IS THEN SUED BY
DEFAMATION, AND IT'S IMPORTANT
TO CONSIDER THAT THOSE
DEFAMATION LAWSUITS ARE NOT JUST
TO GET THE SURVIVORS LIKE ME WHO
HAVE THE COURAGE TO STEP FORWARD
. THEY ARE SENDING A MESSAGE TO
OTHER PEOPLE. WOMEN MEN, PEOPLE,
OF ALL, UM GENDER ORIENTATIONS
WHO STEPPED FORWARD AND TALK
ABOUT BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
AND ATTEMPT TO STAND UP FOR
THEMSELVES. THEY'RE SENDING A
MESSAGE THAT THE LAW WORKS IN
THE FAVOR OF THE SUPER WEALTHY
AND SUPER POWERFUL AND THAT THE
LAW IS NOT FAIR AND THAT IT DOES
NOT WORK IN FAVOR OF PEOPLE LIKE
ME. THAT'S NOT TRUE. MAYBE 9 33
SENDS A MESSAGE BACK THAT. HEY
WE AS A COMMUNITY COLLECTIVELY
FOR EVERY PERSON IN CALIFORNIA
WHO STEPS FORWARD WE'VE GOT YOUR
BACK AND YOU WILL NOT BE SUBJECT
TO A DEFAMATION LAW. LAWSUIT
LIKE THIS. THANK YOU ALL. AND
THANK YOU TO ASSEMBLYWOMAN
AGUIAR-CURRY FOR THIS BILL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
WHAT MOTION FROM MR KALRA.
SECOND FROM IS REYES WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT HI JESSICA CENTER ON
BEHALF OF EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
PROUD TO CO SPONSOR AND SUPPORT
ALSO ON BEHALF OF WESTERN CENTER
IN LONG POVERTY AND SUPPORT.
JULIA PERISH ON BEHALF OF LEGAL
AID, WORK AND SUPPORT. MICHELLE
TERAN WOLF WORK WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? SEEN
NONE. WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, MS
REYES. AS LOPEZ. WE'RE NOT TIRED
OF HEARING YOU. TO HEAR YOU
REMINDS US THAT WE'RE NOT DONE.
THAT THERE IS MUCH WORK THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROTECT
THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMS. I DO
APPRECIATE SO MUCH THAT YOU'VE
NOT LET THIS GO BECAUSE YOU YOUR
VOICE BECOMES THE VOICE OF SO
MANY OTHERS. SO THANK YOU FOR
THAT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, MR
RAINEY. THANK YOU. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR. AND ALSO, I
THINK MS LOPEZ FOR YOUR COURAGE
. I'VE KNOWN YOU FOR A LONG TIME
AND I AM CONTINUOUSLY INSPIRED
BY YOUR WILLINGNESS TO STAND UP
AND YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH TO
CHANGE THIS PLACE AND THE
CULTURE OF THIS BUILDING AS
WELL. AND YOU KNOW TO BE ABLE TO
GO THROUGH WHAT YOU'VE GONE
THROUGH AND ALSO, UH, REALLY
WORKED TO CHANGE. THE REALITIES
OF WHAT SURVIVORS EXPERIENCE
WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS SO
CRITICAL BECAUSE PEOPLE
EXPERIENCE THE VIOLENCE AND THE
VICTIMIZATION AND THEN
EXPERIENCE IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AS
THEY GO THROUGH THE LEGAL
PROCESS, AND SO I'M REALLY
GRATEFUL THAT YOU ALL HAVE
CONTINUED TO CHANGE THESE LAWS.
UH AND ALSO CHANGE THE CULTURE
OF THIS INSTITUTION AS WELL. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AS
WELL AND VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL. MISS DIXON. THANK YOU
CHAIR. UM IT DOES TAKE A LOT OF
COURAGE. I ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE.
I JUST HAVE SOME CLARIFYING
QUESTIONS. UH WAS YOUR CASE IS
STILL PENDING. WE ARE IN THE
FINAL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO
ATTEMPTING TO SECURE ATTORNEY'S
FEES FROM MR DE BOTANY. SO UH,
PREVAILED UP UNTIL I HAVE
PREVAILED. BUT I AM STILL
WORKING WITH ATTORNEYS. I HAVE
TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THEM. SIGN DOCUMENTS SHOW
UP HAVE CONVERSATIONS, BUT WE
HAVE PREVAILED AND I DON'T WANT
TO SPEAK OUT OF SCHOOL. BUT THAT
WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO, SO IT WAS
A VERY LONG PROCESS. I'M REALLY
TROUBLED BY THAT. WHEN, UM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. YOU MENTIONED
MADE IN GOOD FAITH IS THAT THE
DEFINITION IS A COMMENT THAT WAS
MADE IN GOOD FAITH THAT I HEAR
THAT CORRECTLY. OR WHO SAID THAT
BE MADE WITHOUT MALICE. UM AND
IT HAS TO BE MADE A GOOD FAITH
OR A REASONABLE BECAUSE IF I WAS
MADE OR DETERMINED MADE WITH
MOUSE, AND IT'S SUBJECT HAS
DIFFERENT LEGAL HAS BEEN MADE
WITH MALICE. YEAH. AND SO
EXISTING PRIVILEGED LEGAL OR
LAWYER CLIENT. RELATIONSHIP
ISN'T THAT PRIVILEGED? THOSE
LAWS DON'T COVER THIS. SO IN
GOING PUBLIC WITH AN ALLEGED
DEFAMATION JUST HAVE BREAK THEIR
ATTORNEY. CLIENT PRIVILEGE
TURNING QUITE PRIVILEGED
WOULDN'T COME INTO PLAY LIKE YOU
PRIVILEGE TURNING CLIENT
PRIVILEGE WOULD ALWAYS BE
RELEVANT UNLESS SOMEONE WAVES
THAT PRIVILEGE. I DON'T SEE THAT
OVERLAPPING HERE. OKAY
MISUNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION.
THAT'S FINE. I GUESS THAT'S THE
WHOLE POINT. WHEN SOMEONE THEN
COMES PUBLIC, UH, THEY'RE WAVING
IT BETWEEN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE ONGOING LAWSUIT OR GOING
PUBLIC WITH IT TRYING CLIENT
PRIVILEGE AND THIS PROBABLY
WOULDN'T OVERLAP REGARD. NO.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MHM MR. SILLY BRIEFLY.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM I
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. I
KNOW WHAT COURAGE IT TAKES TO
SPEAK PUBLICLY AND SYMPATHIZE
WITH THAT. UM I WILL TELL YOU
I'M A NEW MEMBER HERE. SO
LUCKILY, I GUESS I WASN'T YOU
KNOW, PART OF THE PRIOR CULTURE.
UM FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE
HAVE BEEN ADVANCES. I MEAN TO
SAY THAT ME, TOO, HASN'T
RESULTED IN BENEFITS. I MEAN,
THEY'RE REFORMS HERE AT THE
LEGISLATURE. I KNOW AN
ORIENTATION. I WAS RECEIVED A
LOT OF TRAINING ON ON THIS
SUBJECT. UM WEINSTEIN HAS BEEN
CONVICTED, UM, OF MULTIPLE
COUNTS. NOW BILL COSBY WAS
CONVICTED, SO I DO THINK THERE'S
BEEN SOME POSITIVE EFFECTS OF
THIS MOVEMENT. ONE OF THE
CONCERNS I HAVE IS BALANCING THE
NEED TO OBVIOUSLY EMPOWER AND
PROTECT VICTIMS, BUT ALSO WITH
PROTECTING INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO
MIGHT BE FALSELY ACCUSED AND
THAT'S ALSO VERY TRAUMATIZING TO
BE ACCUSED. SLANDERED OR, YOU
KNOW, AND HAVE YOUR LIFE AND
REPUTATION. I THINK THAT THE
BEST EXAMPLE IS WHAT HAPPENED TO
THE TO THE DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS
, YOU KNOW WHO WERE ACCUSED OF
RAPE, AND THAT TURNED OUT TO NOT
BE TRUE, AND THEIR WHOLE LIVES
WERE DESTROYED AND TURNED UPSIDE
DOWN. SO MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
BILL IS YOU'RE ELEVATING. YOU'RE
CREATING BASICALLY BLANKET
IMMUNITY FOR STATEMENTS ON THIS
TOPIC AND BY ELEVATING IT TO THE
PUBLIC FIGURE STATUS, WHICH
REQUIRES MALICE. IT'S ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN THOSE CASES.
THAT'S WE KNOW THAT YOU CAN JUST
LOOK AT SLANDER CASES INVOLVING
PUBLIC FIGURES. SO MY CONCERN IS
THAT BY HAVING BLANKET IMMUNITY
, THERE'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE
A DETERRENCE TO PEOPLE MAKING
RECKLESS. UM ACCUSATIONS. MALICE
IS VERY HARD TO PROVE. THEY
COULD JUST SAY OH, YOU KNOW, I
MADE A MISTAKE. I WASN'T I
DIDN'T REMEMBER CLEARLY. AND SO
THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THE BILL
IS THERE'S IT'S A BALANCE AND WE
HAVE TO PROTECT VICTIMS BUT ALSO
PROTECT THE INNOCENT. I WOULD
JUST ADD ASSEMBLY BUMPER AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS THAT
I AM AWARE THAT I HAVE BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF, UM MALICIOUS AND
DEFAMATORY COMMENTS AFTER I
STEPPED FORWARD, EVERY SURVIVOR
WHO'S EVER MADE THE DECISION TO
STEP FORWARD AFTER EXPERIENCING
SEXUAL ASSAULT. TAKES THAT
DECISION VERY HEAVILY BECAUSE WE
KNOW ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS
THAT THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO
HAPPEN TO US IS EITHER TO OUR
FACE OR BEHIND OUR BACK. A LOT
OF I DON'T MEAN TO SAY AN OFF
COLOR WORD IN COMMITTEE, BUT YOU
KNOW A LOT OF S L U T SHAMING
RIGHT? THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT PEOPLE DON'T STEP FORWARD.
AND SO I HAVE. I HAVE NEVER EVEN
HAD IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT A
DEFAMATION LAWSUIT IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT MY
REPUTATION. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW
THAT MY REPUTATION WAS IN PERIL
AFTER I WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED,
AND I DID. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
WRONG SO WITH REGARD TO
DEFAMATION LAWSUITS. I WOULD
JUST POINT OUT THAT YOU KNOW,
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY MAN OR WOMAN
. WHATEVER YOUR GENDER
ORIENTATION. I HOPE THAT THE
AVERAGE WORKING JOE DOESN'T
IDENTIFY WITH THESE RICH AND
POWERFUL PEOPLE WHO FILE THESE
DEFAMATION LAWSUITS BECAUSE THAT
IS A RICH AND POWERFUL PERSONS
GAME. REGULAR PEOPLE LIKE ME. WE
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PUT UP
DEFAMATION LAWSUITS. ANYWAY IF
SOMEBODY IS SPEAKING BADLY ABOUT
US IN A WAY THAT CAN BE DAMAGING
TO US, SO I HEAR YOU. UM BUT YOU
KNOW THE WAY THAT THE PRACTICE
ACTUALLY PLAYS OUT. IT'S VERY
MUCH THE WEINSTEINS OF THE WORLD
WHO WHO ABUSED THESE CASES. AND
I FEEL I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A
REALLY GOOD POINT. GOOD
QUESTION, SIR. AND I THINK
YOU'VE MADE SOME VALUABLE POINTS
. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN EVERY CASE I
HAVE I HAVE TO WARN THE PERSON
WHO'S LOOKING AT THE CASE ABOUT
THE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING AND
THAT IS NOT JUST THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO BE CHALLENGED AND
SHAMED. UM BUT IT'S ALSO THAT
THEIR SPECIES SHIFTING. IF YOU
BRING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT, THEY
CAN COME AFTER YOU FOR FEES AND
COSTS. CORRECT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
. NO, NOT JUST WITH THE SLAP
MOTIONS OR BUT THEY YOU CAN BE
THE COURT CAN ORDER YOU TO PAY
THE DEFENDANT THEIR FEES AND
COSTS. SO THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS
AND RAILS PUT IN PLACE FOR
BRINGING A FLAVORS LAWSUIT. AND
SO THE DEFAMATION CLAIMS ARE
ACTUALLY NOW THINGS I HAVE TO
WARN PLAINTIFFS ABOUT SAYING NOT
JUST DO I HAVE TO WARN YOU THAT
IF YOU BRING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT
OR LAWSUIT THAT'S EVEN JUST
KICKED OUT. THERE CAN BE FEES
AND COSTS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO
PAY. NOW. THEY MIGHT SUE YOU.
AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THIS
MASSIVE CHILLING EFFECT? IS THAT
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
SILENCING AND TAKING US
BACKWARDS IS IT'S THE FEAR AND
THE GUARDRAILS OF FEES AND COSTS
FOR FEE. HA! CLAIMS EXISTED
ALREADY. WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH
THE DEFAMATION CLAIMS IS NOW
PEOPLE WHO WOULD SPEAK BEFORE
ARE SO TERRIFIED OF BEING SUED
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO
DEFEND THEM. THAT THEY'RE NOT
SPEAKING AT ALL. THAT'S WHAT WE
MEAN ABOUT GOING BACKWARDS. I
APPRECIATE THAT. I UNDERSTAND. I
THINK MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS
JUST VERY IT'S HIS BLANKET
IMMUNITY. IT'S KIND OF BROAD.
AND SO MAYBE THERE'S A NARROW
WAY TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT I HEAR
YOU. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.
IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE. IT'S A
DIFFICULT BALANCE. BUT THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. AH THANK YOU IN
PARTICULAR IS LOPEZ. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I KNOW IT'S
DIFFICULT EACH TIME YOU HAVE TO
DO THIS, BUT IT'S ALL TOGETHER.
WE'RE ALL DOING IT TOGETHER
TRYING TO GET THROUGH TOUGH
TOPIC RIGHT? AND SO THIS IS A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. SO
PLEASED TO SEE AUTHOR FOR I WANT
TO THANK YOU WANT TO THANK MS
LOPEZ FOR ATTENDING TODAY? THIS
HAS BEEN TOUGH AND MANY OF US
NOT MANY OF YOU THAT ARE UPON
THE DIETS TODAY. WE'RE HERE WHEN
THIS ALL HAPPENED, AND THIS HAS
BEEN GOING ON WAY TOO LONG. SO I
RESPECT THAT YOU HAVE SHARED
YOUR STORY ONCE AGAIN. LET'S
HOPE IT'S NOT AGAIN BUT AGAIN. I
WANT TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO
RESPECTFULLY ASK HER. I VOTE
THANK YOU WITH THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED. ESCORT PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN, I S ALY. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I DIXON NOT REALLY.
HANEY HANEY, I CHOLERA. CHOLERA
I PACHECO PACHECO EYE POPPING
HAPPENED? I RAISE RAISE I RIVAS
RIVAS SANCHEZ. THE MOTION
PASSES. THANK YOU. MISS WILSON,
YOU HAVE TWO BILLS. WE'LL START
WITH A B 5 49. AND THEN A B 9
57.
MISS WILSON MAY PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I
AM PLEASED TO PRESENT A B 549
THE CALIFORNIA ELIMINATION OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN ACT
, THE CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS C DOLL
WAS AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY
ADOPTED IN 1979 BY THE UNITED
STATES GENERAL ASSEMBLY. IT HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED AS AN
INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS FOR
WOMEN. TO DATE 187 OF THE 190
FOR U. N MEMBER NATIONS HAVE
RATIFIED THE UNITED STATES HAS
NOT THIS BILL SEEKS TO IMPLEMENT
THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY OF
RIGHTS, OPPORTUNITY AND
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT CALIFORNIA
WOMEN AND GIRLS DESERVE AS HALF
THE POPULATION. AND WORKFORCE.
CEDAW PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE
FRAMEWORK FOR CHALLENGING THE
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO GENDER
DISCRIMINATION, OCCUPATIONAL
SEGREGATION AND THE PERSISTENT
WAGE GAP IMPACTING CALIFORNIA
WOMEN. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE
ALL STATE AGENCIES AND
CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSION
ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS
TO CONDUCT A SELF EVALUATION TO
ENSURE THAT THE STATE DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN
THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
STATE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS,
INCLUDING THE ALLOCATION OF
FUNDING AND DELIVERY OF
SERVICES. WITH ME TODAY ARE
MICHELLE TEHRAN WILL FORK, THE
DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
LEGISLATION FROM THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF
WOMEN AND GIRLS AND ASHLEY HAVE
A SH WITH THE UNITED NATIONS
ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO.
GOOD MORNING, GOOD MORNING CHAIR
MAIENSCHEIN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MICHELLE
TERAN WOLF WORK, AND I'M THE
POLICY DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS. THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS WOMEN AND GIRLS IS PROUD
TO CO SPONSOR THIS BILL AND HIS
ADVOCATED FOR STATE PUBLIC
POLICY AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION
THAT CENTERS THE ECONOMIC NEEDS
OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN AND GIRLS
FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS. TOGETHER
WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE
LEGISLATURE, LOCAL COMMUNITIES,
PRIVATE INDUSTRY, THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE AND AGENCIES THAT MAKE UP
THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE
ECOSYSTEM WHERE MOVING THE
NEEDLE FORWARD TOWARDS CREATING
A MORE EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA. IN
NOVEMBER 2022. THE COMMISSION
RELEASED THE CALIFORNIA
BLUEPRINT FOR WOMEN'S PANDEMIC
ECONOMIC RECOVERY, WHICH
ANALYZED THE ECONOMIC IMPACT THE
PANDEMIC HAD ON WOMEN AND
CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY AS A WHOLE
, AND WE PUT FORTH A SPECIFIC
PUT FORTH SPECIFIC POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS DESIGNED TO
REBUILD THE ECONOMIC
INFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR STATE IN A
WAY THAT SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA'S
CONTINUED GLOBAL ECONOMIC
COMPETITIVENESS BY SUPPORTING
THE ESSENTIAL WORKFORCES WHO ARE
PREDOMINANTLY WOMEN. WHAT WE
FOUND WHICH WILL BE OF NO
SURPRISE TO ANY OF YOU IS THAT
WOMEN AS A GROUP WENT INTO THE
PANDEMIC WITH GREATER ECONOMIC
BURDENS WERE HARDER HIT IN TERMS
OF JOB LOSS AND ADDED STRESSORS,
SUCH AS CAREGIVING. AND NEEDED
MORE SUPPORT TO GET BACK ON
THEIR FEET. THE PANDEMIC
HIGHLIGHTED MANY OF THESE
INEQUITIES AND FURTHER
EXASPERATED ISSUES WOMEN AND
THEIR FAMILIES WERE FACING PRIOR
TO THE PANDEMIC. WHILE
CALIFORNIA HAS MADE MANY
IMPORTANT INVESTMENTS IN
OVERALL, WOMEN HAVE LARGELY
RETURNED TO THE WORKFORCE AT THE
SAME PERCENTAGE THEY OCCUPIED
PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC THAT'S
STILL IS ONLY ABOUT 77% WITH
NEARLY ONE IN 10, CALIFORNIA
WOMEN NOT WORKING AND CONTINUED
BARRIERS FOR WOMEN WITH HIGH
SCHOOL DIPLOMAS, WOMEN OF COLOR
, DISABLED WOMEN AND MEMBERS OF
THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.
ADDITIONALLY THE GENDER WAGE GAP
GREW SIGNIFICANTLY DURING THE
PANDEMIC AND THE LIFETIME LOSSES
TO RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND THE
IMPACT OF POTENTIAL
HOMEOWNERSHIP AND CAREER
PROGRESS FOR WOMEN, WHICH
LARGELY STALLED DURING THE
CRISIS WILL BE FELT FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME. THIS BILL A
B 549 ADDRESSES SOME OF THE GAPS
IN A SIMPLE INTERNAL DATA
COLLECTION SUPPORTED FOR STATE
AGENCIES NEEDED TO ELIMINATE
BLIND SPOTS ACROSS THE STATE
ECOSYSTEM WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
BURDENS AND REGULATIONS BY
ASSISTING EACH STATE AGENCY IN
CONDUCTING ITS OWN INTERNAL
EXAMINATION OF GENDER EQUITY AND
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND
PROGRAMS. THE COMMISSION IS
PERFECTLY POSITIONED TO HELP
BUILD A FOUNDATIONAL PROCESS IN
WHICH GENDER EQUITY IS SIMPLY A
PART OF HOW CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CONDUCTS BUSINESS.
THE PASSAGE OF A B 549 WILL
BUILD ON OUR COLLECTIVE VALUES
OF EQUALITY AND OFFER A ROADMAP
FOR THE STATE TO ADDRESS
SYSTEMIC DISPARITIES AND
INADVERTENT BLIND SPOTS IN ALL
DEPARTMENTS, POLICIES, BUDGETS
AND THROUGH THE PROVISION OF
DIRECT AND INDIRECT SERVICES.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MAIENSCHEIN
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR EYE
BOAT. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
ASHLEY RAVISH A. I AM A CO
SPONSOR OF A B 549, THE CDR ACT
REPRESENTING THE UNITED NATIONS
ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO. I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL BEFORE
YOU 85 49 RECOGNIZES THAT
EFFECTIVE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND
HIGH QUALITY EVIDENCE REQUIRE
BOTH GOOD DATA AND A REVIEW OF
THE DATA THROUGH AN
INTERSECTIONAL LENS. 85 49
REMEDIES THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF
ADEQUATE DATA THAT IMPEDES OUR
PROGRESS AND CREATES AN
INTERAGENCY APPROACH TO A GENDER
ANALYSIS. AS BOTH A STANDARD FOR
DATA INFORMED POLICY MAKING AND
A DEFAULT. THE FACT IS WOMEN AND
GENDER EXPERIENCE CYCLES OF
UNCERTAINTY DIFFERENTLY.
DEPENDING ON THEIR VARIED AND
INTERSECTIONAL IDENTITIES, AS
WELL AS SOCIETAL IMPACTS OF
SYSTEMS OF POWER PRIVILEGE. AND
RESOURCE ALLOCATION. QUALITY
DATA TURNED INTO EVIDENCE CAN
HELP GOVERNMENT AGENCIES,
OFFICIALS AND OTHERS DECIDE
WHERE TO FOCUS THEIR EFFORTS.
FIND WAYS TO IMPROVE INCREASE
ADOPTION OF GOOD PRACTICES AND
BUILD PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF
AND TRUST IN GOVERNMENT.
UNDERSTANDING THE AVAILABILITY
OF GENDER RELATED INDICATORS
OVER TIME HELPS CALIFORNIA TO
IDENTIFY THE PROGRESS WE HAVE
MADE AS A STATE. AS WELL AS THE
OBSTACLES YET TO OVERCOME. WE
CANNOT ADDRESS WHAT WE DO NOT
MEASURE. A B 549 SEEKS A GENDER
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS, BUDGETS
AND SERVICES AND POSITIONS THE
STATE AGENCY MOST CAPABLE OF
PROVIDING SUPPORT TO ASSIST ALL
DEPARTMENTS IN THE GENDER AUDIT.
THIS IS BOTH A COST SAVING
MEASURE AND A MATTER OF BEST
PRACTICE FOR INTER AGENCY
COLLABORATION. THANK YOU. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
OF A B 5492 FUNDAMENTALLY
INCLUDE WOMEN AND GENDER AT
EVERY LEVEL OF CALIFORNIA'S
ECONOMIC ASPIRATIONS. AND
RECOVERY. THANK YOU WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS,
KATHY VAN OSTEN, REPRESENTING
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN, CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. REBECA GONZALEZ
NATIONALISTS ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER AND SUPPORT. MOLLY
ROBSON WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD,
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? SAYING
NONE WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
LISA MULLINS, ADULT FEMALE WHO
HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED A GENDER
GAP. AH I OPPOSE THIS BILL. I'M
AN ADULT HUMAN FEMALE. I'M NOT A
GENDER. NICOLE YOUNG. I'M IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. CAT CURTAIN. ADULT HUMAN
FEMALE. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
JUDITH CAHILL, REGISTERED
DEMOCRAT. I'M AN ADULT HUMAN
FEMALE. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
BARBARA WALKER. ADULT HUMAN
FEMALE. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
ALICE SNYDER. I'M A WOMAN. ADULT
HUMAN FEMALE. I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. JENNIFER KENNEDY. WHAT IS
A WOMAN? I AM ONE. I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. MY NAME IS SHANNON. HEIL
I'M AN ADULT WOMAN AND I HAVE
NOT SUFFERED ANY OF THIS. I
OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY NAME IS TED
WHO? TACO OBJECTIVELY. I'M AN
ADULT HUMAN MALE. I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. ZEBRAS IN ON BEHALF OF
LIBERAL PARENTS. IN SUPPORT OF
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE. I
OPPOSE THIS BILL. STEPHANIE
SWELL A AM AN ADULT FEMALE WOMAN
AND I WILL STAY ONE. THANK YOU.
JULIE THREE, BUTTE COUNTY AND
VACCINE INJURED FEMALE AND MY
MOM'S A VACCINE FATALITY FEMALE
AND I OPPOSED THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. CHARLOTTE JOHNSON. ADULT
HUMAN FEMALE. I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. SASHA ANYA CHICO HEALTH.
CHICO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ADVOCACY. I POST THIS BILL.
MICHAEL HAAS. MM. L AND I OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? SEEING
NON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. MS REYES. MISS
WILSON. I WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
BILL. IT'S JUST ASKING STATE
AGENCIES TO SHARE WITH US.
EVALUATE THE PROGRAMS TO MAKE
SURE THEY'RE NOT DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS. IS THAT
CORRECT? YES ABSOLUTELY. BY
ASKING EACH STATE AGENCY TO
CONDUCT ITS OWN INTERNAL
EXAMINATION OF GENDER EQUITY AND
FUNDING AND PROGRAMS. WE CAN
HELP BUILD A SET OF FOUNDATIONAL
PROCESSES IN WHICH GENDER EQUITY
IS SIMPLY A PART OF HOW WE DO
BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU MOVE THE
BILL MOTION FROM ISRAEL'S SECOND
SECOND FROM MR REVIS ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? MR ASTLEY. THANK YOU
. JUST TWO MEMBERS OF THE
AUDIENCE IF I THINK SOME OF YOUR
SPEAKING ON 89 57, WHICH WILL BE
HEARD NEXT, SO THIS IS NOT THAT
BIG, OKAY? OKAY I WILL ADDRESS
MY COMMENTS, THEN I DON'T HAVE A
ISSUE WITH THE INTENT OF THE
BILL. UM MY QUESTION IS WHY DO
WE NEED TO REFERENCE CETA? MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S A
CONTROVERSIAL RESOLUTION THAT'S
NEVER BEEN RATIFIED BY BY THE
SENATE. SO CAN WE JUST DO THIS
WITHOUT REFERENCING CETA? AND
THE BILL. I THINK, AS I NOTED,
IN MY OPENING STATEMENT IS THAT
IT'S IMPLEMENTING THE SET OUT
PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
, OPPORTUNITY AND
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT CALIFORNIA
WOMEN AND GIRLS DESERVE AS HALF
OF THE POPULATION AND WORKFORCE
AND SO BECAUSE IT'S REFERENCING
THOSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S BUILT
UPON. THAT'S WHY WE ARE
REFERENCING THAT IN THE AND IN
THIS LANGUAGE. OKAY AND I'LL SEE
IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER FURTHER.
FROM WHERE? UM YES, I CAN TAKE
THAT ASSOCIATED IS A FRAMEWORK.
FOR BUILDING A MORE EQUITABLE
PATH FOR WOMEN AND GENDER TO
ACHIEVE EQUALITY. IT'S NOT A SET
OF LAWS OR PRACTICES ITS
GUIDELINES, SO IT'S GUIDE RAILS.
IF YOU WILL. REFERENCING CEDAW
IS JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE
ACCEPTED NORMS. AS FAR AS
WHETHER OR NOT THE U. S HAS
RATIFIED IT. THIS IS NOT WHAT
THIS BILL IS PARTICULARLY, UM,
IN REFERENCE TO HOWEVER, WE DO
HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BY THREE
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND TWO
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS
UM, PASSAGE OF BOTH SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEES AND TWO
HEARINGS. IT'S JUST NEVER BEEN
UP ON THE SENATE FLOOR FOR A
FULL VOTE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
UH SEEN NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND, MISS WILSON. YOU
MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE AND THANK YOU TO
ALL THOSE SPOKE WHETHER IN
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL WITH THAT TO THE MEMBERS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
WE HAVE THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO APPROACH THE CLERK TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE, SLE. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I DIXON. ANY ANY. I
KALRA. PACHECO PACHECO, I POP
IN. HAPPENED I RAISE RIVAS
SANCHEZ. MOTION PASSES. NEXT
ITEM IS WILSON IS A B 957 FAMILY
LAW, GENDER IDENTITY AND YOU MAY
PROCEED. I'LL GIVE A MOMENT FOR
MY WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD.
WELL HELLO, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ONCE AGAIN. I AM HERE TO PRESENT
A B 957. THIS IS A BILL THAT WE
REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER A
PARENT'S AFFIRMATION OF THE
CHILD'S GENDER IDENTITY WHEN
DETERMINING THE BEST INTEREST OF
A CHILD. THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE A COURT TO STRONGLY
CONSIDER THAT AFFIRMING THE
GENDER IDENTITY OF A MINOR IS IN
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
IF A NON CONSENTING PARENT
OBJECTS TO A NAME CHANGE TO
CONFORM TO THE MINERS, JENNER
IDENTITY MEMBERS. WHEN PARENTS
DO NOT AGREE ON AFFIRMING A T G.
I THIS IS TRANSGENDER, GENDER,
DIVERSE INTERSEX. I'LL USE THAT.
UM ACRONYM REGULARLY. T G I
TRANSGENDER, DIVERSE, GENDER
DIVERSE INTERSECTS. SO WHEN
PARENTS DO NOT AGREE ON
AFFIRMING A T G CHILD'S GENDER
IDENTITY, THE FAMILY CODE DOES
NOT SPECIFY HOW A JUDGE SHOULD
DETERMINE THE BEST INTERESTS OF
ACHY G I CHILD. GÂY YOUTH ARE AT
HIGHER RISK OF EXPRESSION.
MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. SELF HARM
AND SUICIDE. THEN THEY'RE CYSTS
PEERS. HAVING AT LEAST ONE ADULT
AND A CHILD'S LIFE WHO AFFIRMS
THEIR GENDER IDENTITY DECREASES
THEIR CHANCES OF ATTEMPTING
SUICIDE SIGNIFICANTLY. 82% OF
TRANSGENDER FOLKS EXPERIENCED
SUICIDE IDEATION AND 40% MAKE A
SUICIDE ATTEMPT IN THEIR
LIFETIME. RESEARCH DEMONSTRATES
THAT FAMILY ACCEPTANCE OF LGBT Q
PLUS YOUTH IS A CRUCIAL
PROTECTIVE FACTOR AND COMBATING
DEPRESSION. AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
AND CAN DRAMATICALLY REDUCED
RATES OF SUICIDE BY HALF.
FURTHERMORE MANY T G I CHILDREN
ARE NOT SAFE IN THEIR HOME HOME
BECAUSE OF A NON AFFIRMING OR AN
ABUSIVE CARETAKER. THIS LEADS
MANY T G. I USED TO RUN AWAY
FROM HOME, LEAVING THEM
VULNERABLE TO HOUSING
INSTABILITY. EXPLOITATION AND
ABUSE. WELL ROUNDED SOCIAL
SUPPORT FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY
MEMBERS IS STRONGLY ASSOCIATED
WITH POSITIVE MENTAL
DEVELOPMENT. PHYSICAL HEALTH.
AND OVERALL, WELL BEING. AS A
MOTHER OF A TRANS YOUTH. I
EXPERIENCED THIS FIRSTHAND IN MY
OWN HOME. AND WE PROVIDED SOCIAL
SUPPORT. NOT ONLY FROM OUR
FAMILY BUT FROM OUR FRIENDS, AND
WE BEGAN AS WE JOURNEY THROUGH
THIS PROCESS WITH OUR OWN CHILD
TO BE A CARETAKER TO OTHERS WHO
CAME TO OUR HOME TO SEEK REFUGE
FROM NON AFFIRMING PARENTS. THIS
IS PERSONAL. I'VE EXPERIENCED
THIS IN OUR COMMUNITY. A B 957
WOULD CENTER THE HEALTH AND
WELFARE OF T G. I YOUTH BY
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AFFIRMING
THEIR GENDER IDENTITY IS IN
THEIR BEST INTEREST. I'M GOING
TO REPEAT THAT 89 57 WOULD
CENTER THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF
T G I YOUTH BY ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT AFFIRMING THEIR GENDER
IDENTITY IS IN THEIR BEST
INTEREST. I NOW WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES. KATHY
MUEHLEGG, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOR TRANS FAMILY SUPPORT
SERVICES. AND CAMILLA CAMUS,
LEÓN FROM GENDER JUSTICE LOS
ANGELES. GOOD MORNING, KATHY.
MOLE LEGS. SHE HER MY PRONOUNS.
I AM THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF TRANS FAMILY SUPPORT
SERVICES AS WELL AS TRANS YOUTH
LIBERATION. WE ARE LOCATED IN
SAN DIEGO, AND TO DATE HAVE
SERVED OVER 3500 TRANS YOUTH AND
THEIR FAMILIES. WE SERVE
FAMILIES ON THE JOURNEY OF
HAVING A TRANS CHILD FAMILIES
WHO OFTENTIMES FIND THEMSELVES
IN FAMILY COURT, NOT ONLY
NAVIGATING CUSTODY AND
VISITATION, BUT ALSO A GENDER
JOURNEY. THIS BILL WILL CODIFY
THAT AFFIRMING A CHILD'S GENDER
IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS. THIS
IS SIMPLY ADDING GENDER
AFFIRMATION TO THE CURRENT LIST
OF FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
CUSTODY AND VISITATIONS, THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER MAJOR
MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH AND
EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, ALL
AGREE. THAT AFFIRMING A CHILD'S
GENDER IDENTITY IS BEST
PRACTICES. WE HAVE SERVED MANY
FAMILIES THAT HAVE FOUND
THEMSELVES IN FAMILY COURT WITH
ONE PARENT WHO IS FOLLOWING
THEIR LEAD AND AFFIRMING THEIR
IDENTITY AND ONE PARENT WHO IS
NOT THIS SITUATION PUTS THE
CHILD IN THE FAMILY IN A VERY
VULNERABLE POSITION. THE COURT
NEEDS TO HAVE GUIDANCE AND HOW
TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS AND TO
BE ABLE TO PUT THE NEEDS OF THE
CHILD FIRST, AS WELL AS
PROVIDING THE AFFIRMING PARENT
THE SUPPORT THEY NEED TO
CONTINUE TO AFFIRM THEIR CHILD'S
IDENTITY. THIS BILL WILL DO JUST
THAT. A B 9 57 SHOULD NOT BE
CONFUSED WITH THE RHETORIC ABOUT
GENDER FIRMING MEDICAL CARE,
AFFIRMING A YOUNG CHILD LOOKS
LIKE CHANGING NAMES. NEW
CLOTHING, MAYBE A HAIRCUT.
MEDICAL CARES ONLY FOR
ADOLESCENTS, AND IT HAPPENS
WITHIN A TEAM OF DOCTORS, MENTAL
HEALTH PROVIDERS, THE PATIENT
AND THEIR FAMILIES. HAVING TO BE
IN FAMILY COURT IS CHALLENGING
ENOUGH FOR OUR CHILDREN. BUT FOR
GENDER, DIVERSE CHILDREN, IT IS
DEVASTATING. I SPEAK HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF THESE YOUTH AND
THEIR FAMILIES. WE HAVE SERVED
AND I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. HELLO CHAIRMAN AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. MY NAME IS
CAMILLA CHAMELEON AND I'M A
STAFF MEMBER AT GENDER, JUSTICE
, LOS ANGELES AND A SALAS POLICY
INSTITUTE STATE FELLOW. WE HAVE
SERVED THE TRANSGENDER, GENDER,
DIVERSE AND INTERSEX COMMUNITY
FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND WE
BELIEVE IN THE DIGNITY OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY T G I
YOUTH. T G I YOUTH DESERVE THE
RIGHT TO LIVE WITHOUT FEAR,
GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AND HIGH
RATES OF DISPROPORTIONATE HEALTH
INEQUITIES. CALIFORNIA HAS SET
MARY PRESIDENTS BEFORE AND MAYBE
957 IS AN ADDED MEASURE TO
ENSURE TRANS ADULTS LIKE ME AND
FAMILIES LIKE MINE WHO WENT
THROUGH FAMILY COURT CAN FEEL
EMPOWERED RIGHT NOW. THE SECTION
OF THE CODE STATES NOTHING ABOUT
THIS VERY VULNERABLE POPULATION
OF KIDS WHO WE KNOW ARE AT A
HIGHER RISK OF HARM,
HOMELESSNESS, SUICIDE ABUSE AND
MENTAL HEALTH DISPARITY. PLEASE.
IN A STUDY BY THE FAMILY
ACCEPTANCE PROJECT. LGBT Q.
LESBIAN GAY, BISEXUAL AND
TRANSGENDER ADOLESCENTS AND
FAMILIES. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE
AVERAGE AGE THAT YOUTH REALIZED
THEY WERE LGBT Q WAS AS YOUNG AS
SEVEN OR NINE WITH EVEN GREATER
OPPORTUNITY FOR GENDER IN
CONGRUENCE COMMONLY DESCRIBED
DURING THE TEENAGE YEARS. THE
MISINFORMATION OF THIS BILL WILL
SHARE THAT THE PARENTAL RIGHTS
ARE UNDER ATTACK. BUT WHAT WE
MUST ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT A B 957
HELPS PARENTS WHO SUPPORT THEIR
T G. I CHILDREN BY CLARIFYING
ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT AFFIRMING
A CHILD'S GENDER IDENTITY IS IN
THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST.
NEARLY ONE IN FIVE TRANS AND NON
BINARY YOUTH ATTEMPTED SUICIDE
IN THE YEAR 2022 BUT L G B T Q
YOUTH WHO FELT SOCIAL SUPPORT
FROM THEIR FAMILIES REPORTED
ATTEMPTING SUICIDE AT LESS THAN
HALF THE RATE OF THOSE WHO FELT
LOWER, MODERATE SOCIAL SUPPORT.
WE COULD CUT SUICIDE ATTEMPTS IN
HALF SIMPLY BY EMPOWERING
PARENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR T G I
CHILDREN AND TO LISTEN WHEN
THEIR T G I KIDS TELL THEM WHO
THEY ARE. CALIFORNIA OFTEN SETS
THE GOLD STANDARD FOR POLICIES
PROTECTING MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES AND POPULATIONS.
STATES ACROSS THE NATION. LOOK
TO OUR EXAMPLE. VOTING I ON THIS
MEASURE GIVES CALIFORNIA THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD ON THIS
LEGACY AND ALLOWS OUR STATE TO
LEVERAGE OUR POSITION TO
ULTIMATELY EMPOWER LGBTQ YOUTH
AND THEIR PARENTS. THE T G I
YOUTH EMPOWERMENT ACT AS A SMALL
STEP FORWARD IN THE FIGHT TO
CREATE A MORE DIGNIFIED
EQUITABLE AND SAFER WORLD FOR
LGBTQ YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES
EARNED YOUR I VOTE AND THANK YOU
FOR CONSIDERING A B 957 TODAY.
THANK YOU WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, CRAIG PULSIPHER ON
BEHALF OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA
AND THE LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER
, BOTH PROUD CO SPONSORS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. BECCA CRAMER
MATTER ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ACTION, ALSO IN SUPPORT. REBECA
GONZALEZ NATIONALISTS
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS,
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AND STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING TO BE A
WOOLY ON BEHALF OF THE AND PART
OF THEM. COLLECTIVE CALIFORNIA
LATINAS FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE
FOR BIRTHRIGHT AND PARENTING
CELEBRATION ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HELLO JASMINE EYMAN'S
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CENTER
FOR YOUTH LAW IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, MOLLY ROBSON ON ON
BEHALF OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD,
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. JONATHAN CLAY BOARD
MEMBER FOR TRANS YOUTH
LIBERATION HERE IN SUPPORT. MR
TARYN MEMBERS. I'M AARON EVANS
ON BEHALF OF NARAL PRO CHOICE
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? SAYING
NONE. SUPPORT SUPPORT. OKAY SAY
NO FURTHER WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH. YEAH
WILL ALLOW WILL ALLOW TWO
WITNESSES. TWO MAIN WITNESSES
TWO MINUTES. AND YOU CAN SIT
RIGHT HERE.
CÁC THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN
MAIENSCHEIN AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS TED WHO? DOC? OH THE
DEDICATED LOVING FATHER OF TWO
BOYS BUT HAVE CUSTODY OF ONLY
ONE BECAUSE I HESITATED TO
SOCIALLY AND MEDICALLY
TRANSITION. THE OTHER ONE. MY
OTHER SON DECIDED THAT HE WAS A
WOMAN AFTER MY EX WIFE'S SISTER
WAS BRUTALLY STABBED BY HER
HUSBAND. HE NO LONGER WANTED TO
BE A MAN. MY SON LIKELY IS JUST
A SENSITIVE GAY KID. MY EX WIFE
PLACED MY THEN 16 YEAR OLD SON,
PUBERTY, BLOCKERS AND ESTROGEN
AGAINST COURT ORDERS. MY SON IS
NOW 18 AND LIKELY UNABLE TO
FATHER A CHILD SINCE THE ROOT
CAUSE OF HIS TRANS IDENTITY WAS
NEVER EXPLORED HIS CO MORBID
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES CONTINUE
UNABATED. SOON HE WILL BECOME A
LIFELONG MEDICAL PATIENT NEEDING
HORMONE REPLACEMENT. EITHER.
MALE OR FEMALE, REGARDLESS FOR
THE REST OF HIS LIFE. HE WILL
HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FINDING A
LIFE PARTNER. EXISTING DATA ARE
CORRECT. HE WILL BE MORE
SUSPECT. MORE SUCCESSFUL,
SUSCEPTIBLE. SORRY SUSCEPTIBLE
TO BECOMING A DRUG ADDICT AND
HOMELESS AND HE WILL HAVE AN
ALMOST 20% HIGHER CHANCE OF
SUICIDE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
OTHER WITNESSES STATED. DESPITE
THIS, I WAS SOMEHOW THE VILLAIN
BECAUSE I THOUGHT MY SON WAS
JUST PERFECT IN HIS NATURAL
BODY. I WAS DEEMED AN UNFIT
PARENT BECAUSE I DID NOT I
WANTED TO GET HIM THE PROPER
MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT HE NEEDED
. I AM THE PARIAH BECAUSE I DID
NOT WANT TO SUBJECT HIM TO
EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND LET'S
BE 100% CLEAR. THESE ARE
UNAPPROVED DRUGS NOT APPROVED BY
THE FDA FOR THESE PURPOSES,
WHICH ACTUALLY MEANS THAT THESE
SATISFIED THE TECHNICAL
DEFINITION OF HUMAN
EXPERIMENTATION IN OUR HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE. LOOK IT UP.
LOOK UP THE HUMAN
EXPERIMENTATION CHAPTER, PLEASE.
NORWAY, FINLAND, SWEDEN AND
BRITAIN HAVE ALL STOPPED THE
GENDER AFFIRMATIVE CARE MODEL
FOR MINORS. FRANCE AUSTRALIA AND
NEW ZEALAND ARE NOT FAR BEHIND.
THESE COUNTRIES NO LONGER
RECOMMENDS SOCIALLY
TRANSITIONING OR MEDICALIZING
MINORS EXCEPT IN VERY LIMITED
RESEARCH SETTINGS TO WRAP UP. I
UNDERSTAND AND I DID SEE SOME
WITNESSES EARLIER. SPEAK QUITE A
BIT LONGER, SO I DO HOPE YOU
WILL INDULGE ME LETTING YOU WRAP
UP IN THIS CASE. BOTH WITNESSES
WERE UNDERNEATH THE TIME AND I'M
STILL ALLOWING YOU TO WRAP UP SO
PLEASE CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY.
MAYBE ANOTHER PARAGRAPH. THE
RECENTLY RELEASED NIH TWO YEAR
STUDY DID NOT SHOW THAT PUBERTY
BLOCKERS OR HORMONES, HORMONES
PREVENT SUICIDE AND MINERS. IN
FACT, TWO OF THE 317 PARTICIPANT
PARTICIPANTS IN THAT STUDY
TRAGICALLY COMMITTED SUICIDE.
WHAT LOVING PARENT WOULDN'T
PROTECT PROTECT THEIR CHILD FROM
THIS MEDICAL SCANDAL, SENATOR
WIENER, A CHILD, CHILDLESS MAN
EXCORIATED TEXAS FOR PUNISHING
PARENTS WHO TRANSITIONED THEIR
KIDS SENTENCE. YOU'RE GOING TO
GET ONE MORE SENTENCE, SO PICK A
SENTENCE. STERILIZING GAY AND
LESBIAN CHILDREN IS NOT IN THEIR
BEST INTEREST STERILIZING AND
LESBIAN CHILDREN IS NOT IN THEIR
BEST INTEREST NEXT WITNESS. AND
LET ME JUST REFRESH. EVERY
WITNESS GETS TWO MINUTES. THAT'S
THE RULES. SO YOU'LL HAVE TWO
MINUTES ALSO, I LET LET THIS
GENTLEMAN GO OVER. MA'AM, YOU'LL
HAVE TWO MINUTES. MY NAME IS
BETH BORN. I AM A MOTHER OF A
DAUGHTER. WHO SENDS AGED 14
THOUGHT SHE WAS A BOY. MY EX
HUSBAND UNILATERALLY CHANGED HER
NAME AND BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO
DENY THAT THE BABY THAT I BIRTH
WAS NOT REALLY THE FEMALE THAT
CAME OUT OF MY FEMALE BODY. LAST
SUMMER, I SELF SELFLESSLY GAVE
UP PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF HER IN
EXCHANGE FOR A COURT PROHIBITION
OF ANY MEDICAL TRANSITION. SHE'S
ALMOST 18 AND NOW IDENTIFIES AS
NON BINARY AND SHE'S SHOWING
SIGNS OF BEING COME COMFORTABLE
IN HER FEMALE BODY. AND. IT'S
PROOF THAT THESE GENDER
IDENTITIES CHANGE OVER TIME AND
SHOULD NEVER BE ACTED ON
MEDICALLY AND CHILDREN. 89 57
WILL REQUIRE A COURT TO PREFER
APPARENT WHO WILL SUBJECT THEIR
CHILD EXPERIMENTAL MEDICAL
TREATMENT TREATMENTS NOT PROVEN
TO RELIEVE GENDER DYSPHORIA OR
PREVENT SUICIDE MEDICAL
TREATMENTS THAT LEAD TO
PERMANENT PHYSICAL HARM AND
PERMANENT STERILITY. THIS BILL
WILL FORCE PARENTS TO DO WHAT
THEY KNOW IS NOT RIGHT OR
HEALTHY FOR THEIR CHILD IF THEY
WANT TO RETAIN CUSTODY. I
LISTENED TO 10 D TRANSITIONS AND
TWO SISTERS AT SPOKE AT THE
CAPITOL ON MARCH 10TH 11 OF THEM
ARTISTIC ARE AUTISTIC. THREE
HEATHER BREAST REMOVED BEFORE
THE AGE OF 16. THE GIRLS WHO ARE
ON TESTOSTERONE TAKING VOCAL
CORDS, CHRONIC JOINT PAIN
LINKING LEAKING WOUNDS WHERE
THEIR BREASTS USED TO BE
ATROPHYING, BODY PARTS, PAINFUL
SEX AND CHRONIC PAIN THAT NO
DOCTOR KNOWS HOW TO FIX. THERE
ARE TWO CASE STUDIES OF YOUNG
WOMEN DYING OF FATAL LIVER
CANCER FROM OFF LABEL
TESTOSTERONE. USE ONE JUST 17.
THE OTHER DIED IN THEIR EARLY
THIRTIES. I IMPLORE ALL OF YOU
TO DO YOUR RESEARCH READ THE
STUDIES WATCH THE FILMS SUCH AS
AFFIRMATION GENERATION, WHICH
TELLS THE STORY OF WHY THERE IS
A 5000% UPTICK OF KIDS, MOSTLY
GIRLS, MOSTLY AUTISTIC CHILDREN,
MOSTLY GAY CHILDREN. SAYING THAT
THEY ARE TRANS VOTE NO ON 89 57
CHILDREN GROW UP IN REALITY AND
NATURALLY BY LETTING THEIR
PARENTS PROTECT THEM. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES? ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. NAME
AND ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, SNYDER
REGISTERED VOTER TAXPAYER WOMAN
CONCERNED PARENTS STRONGLY
OPPOSED. CHARLOTTE JOHNSON
CONCERNED PARENT. I HAVE A
QUESTION TO ASK ALL OF YOU. UM I
AM JUST NEED NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE TWO MAIN
WITNESSES FOR EACH NOW IT'S JUST
THE NAME AND ORGANIZATION PART,
WHICH IS A RULE FOR BOTH SIDES
OPPOSE BECAUSE WHO KNOWS? TRIED
TO HIT APPARENT THANK YOU. CAT
CURTAIN DE TRANSITION ER AND
BIOLOGISTS AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. AFFIRMATION DOES NOT
SUICIDE. NICOLE YOUNG CHAPTER
CHAIR MOMS FOR LIBERTY PLASTER
COUNTY. I REPRESENT OVER 12,000
CONCERNED PARENTS AND CITIZENS,
AND I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. SHANNON HYO
CONCERNED PARENT AND I OPPOSE
THIS BILL. AT LEAST A MONTH.
MULLINS MOTHER OF A DAUGHTER
CAUGHT UP IN THE STUFF AND
STRONGLY OPPOSE ERIN, FRIDAY,
DEMOCRAT LEADER OF OUR DUTY 3000
PARENTS ARE REPRESENTED. MY
DAUGHTER FORMERLY THOUGHT SHE
WAS A BOY. MICHAEL HAAS STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. BILL DONOVAN,
SINGLE PARENT, FATHER AND
GRANDFATHER NOW AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. JENNIFER
KENNEDY. I'M AN ATTORNEY
CONCERNED PARENTS OF PASADENA IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
HI RENEE. YES. MARA PARENT OF A
TEENAGE DE TRANSITION, ER AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY
NAME IS BEN FERNANDEZ. I
REPRESENT AN INCREASING
POPULATION OF GEN. Z AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSED STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. DIEGO RIVERS
FERNANDEZ AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. GIANNA NEGRI 18 YEARS
OLD AND A STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. MOLLY SHE IN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
STEPHANIE SWELL, ALEJO'S MOTHER
, GRANDMOTHER AND GREAT
GRANDMOTHER. JULIE THREE. CHICO
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE GOT AN 11
YEAR OLD TRANSITION WITHOUT ANY
PARENTS KNOWLEDGE, AND I'M A
BEAR'S VICTIM. ADVOCATE STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS, BILL. THANK YOU.
WILLIAMS REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA
PARENTS UNION ON BEHALF OF OUR
THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS ASKING FOR
A NO VOTE ON A B 957. THANK YOU.
MAGDALENA BOWEN. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. REALLY READ?
NO. SO I AM A STUDENT AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. SASHA
ONION, CHICO ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH ADVOCACY. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. BARBARA WALKER
, DEMOCRAT MOTHER OF THREE. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. NO
CHILD IS BORN IN THE WRONG BODY.
JUDITH CAHILL, REGISTERED
DEMOCRAT. I'M A MOTHER IN SANTA
CLARA COUNTY. AND I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. HOW DO YOU AND I AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. I'M
ZEROS AND DEMOCRAT ON BEHALF OF
LIBERAL PARENTS IN FAVOR OF
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE. I
OPPOSED THIS BILL. CHRISTINE
CAMPBELL, JUST A CONCERNED
PARENT, STRONG OPPOSITION.
BRANDON CAMPBELL, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL CONNECTION
FOR INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCH'S
PASTOR, THE FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH
AND CONCERNED PARENT IN
OPPOSITION. GABRIELLE INGRAM,
FOUNDER OF STAND UP SACRAMENTO
COUNTY 20% OF CHILDREN WITH
GENESIS MORE FIA WHEN THEY
FINISH PUBERTY ARE JUST GAY. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE. DO
WE HAVE A MILK? MR SALIH? THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I DO
APPRECIATE, UM THE WAY YOU RUN
THE MEETING, MR CHAIR AND GIVING
US UH, THE LATITUDE TO ENGAGE. I
APPRECIATE THAT, UM MISS WILSON.
I DO RECOGNIZE THIS SO DEEPLY
PERSONAL ISSUE FOR YOU AND I
APPRECIATE YOU SPEAKING FROM
THAT PERSPECTIVE ALSO APPRECIATE
YOU ACKNOWLEDGING THE IMPORTANCE
OF PARENTS AND THEIR ROLES IN
GUIDING, UM YOU KNOW, TRANS
YOUTH AND THE RATES THAT HAS AN
DROPPING THEIR RISK FOR
DEPRESSION AND SUICIDE, OTHER
MENTAL HEALTH, AND THAT'S ONE OF
THE REASONS THAT I SUPPORT
EMPOWERING PARENTS AND NOT
ALLOWING OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR
ENTITIES TO TRANSITION STUDENTS
WITHOUT THEIR THEIR PARENTS'
KNOWLEDGE. BUT LET ME ASK YOU
THIS, UM. THIS BILL DOESN'T JUST
SAY THAT THE COURT SHOULD
CONSIDER WHAT'S BEST FOR THE KID
. IT SAYS IT MAKES A
DETERMINATION THAT THE COURT
MUST CONSIDER THE PARENTS
AFFIRMATION BECAUSE IT IS IN THE
BEST SENSE OF INTEREST OF THE
CHILD. SO MY QUESTION IS. WHY DO
WE ASSUME THAT AFFIRMING A SEVEN
YEAR OLDS? UH, OPTION OR A SEVEN
YEAR OLDS. UH DECISION IS ALWAYS
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CHILD. IT DOES. IT EXCLUDES A
LOT OF OTHER FACTORS. UM YOU
KNOW AND EXCLUDES PARENTS WHO
MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS OR WANT TO
SEEK PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE AND
DIAGNOSING THE GENDER DYSMORPHIA
AND EXPLORING IT. SO I JUST I'M
HAVING TROUBLE WITH. WHY DO WE
ASSUME THAT THAT IS ALWAYS GOING
TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE CHILD IN EVERY SINGLE CASE?
WELL, LET ME NOTE JUST TO
CLARIFY BEFORE I GET DEEPLY INTO
YOUR QUESTION AND ALSO GIVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE
TESTIFYING. UM TO SPEAK AS WELL
, UM, BECAUSE, AS WAS NOTED FROM
THE TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION, UM
, THE CODE THAT THIS IS
ADDRESSING FAMILY CODE 3011 IS
INTENDED TO FOCUS THE DISCUSSION
AND DISPUTE ABOUT VISITATION OR
CUSTODY AROUND THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, WHICH
YOU NOTED NOW. THIS SECTION OF
THE CODE LISTS SEVERAL FACTORS
FOR COURTS TO CONSIDER WHEN
DETERMINING THE BEST INTERESTS
OF THE CHILD. IT'S NOT TALKING
ABOUT MEDICAL ISSUES IN ANY
RELATION, IT'S TALKING ABOUT
WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE CHILD. SO THIS PARTICULAR
BILL ADDS THE VERY IMPORTANT
FACTOR THAT AFFIRMING A CHILD
GENDER IDENTITY IS IN THEIR BEST
INTERESTS, WHICH IS WHAT YOUR
QUESTION IS ABOUT. WHY DOES IT
GET? WHY DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY
THAT IN A AFFIRMATIVE WAY, AND
IT REALLY IS BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE
A SEVEN YEAR OLD WHO'S WHO'S
TALKING ABOUT HAVING A POTENTIAL
TO SAY I BEING ABLE TO
ARTICULATE THAT THEY BELIEVE
THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
GENDER AS THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY
. THEN IT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AND
THROUGH CARE. IT SHOULD BE
DETERMINED AND THAT'S WHAT WE
DID WITH OUR OWN CHILD. AND THAT
WOULD GIVE THE ABILITY FOR A
PARENT WHO WASN'T SURE TO AFFIRM
AND GET THEIR CHILD THE CARE
THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE THAT SO
THEY CAN BEGIN TO ARTICULATE
THAT DETERMINATION. BUT BY
SAYING AND REJECTING IT AND
WHOLESALE, THEN YOU'RE
ESSENTIALLY REJECTING YOUR CHILD
AND THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF A CHILD. WE SHOULD
BE AFFIRMING OUR CHILDREN IN
EVERY POSSIBLE WAY AND GETTING
THEM WHATEVER APPROPRIATE CARE
THEY NEED, WHETHER IT'S BASED ON
THEIR GENDER, WHETHER IT'S BASED
ON HOW THEIR STUDIES ARE IN
SCHOOL, IT DOESN'T MATTER. OUR
CHILDREN SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. AND
THIS IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO
INCLUDE GENDER AFFIRMATION AS A
PART OF THAT. I'LL GIVE IT OVER
TO MY, UM WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
FOR A MOMENT BEFORE I ENTERTAIN
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR FOLLOW
UP QUESTIONS FROM YOU, SIR. SO
I'LL JUST ADD THAT IT'S GENDER
DYSPHORIA, AND THERE ARE PLENTY
OF RESEARCH BOTH FROM THE
MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND THE MENTAL
HEALTH COMMUNITY THAT AFFIRMING
A CHILD'S GENDER IDENTITY IS IN
THE BEST INTEREST FOR THEM. AND
WHEN WE HAVE CASES WHERE I HAVE
SEEN WITH OUR OWN CLIENTS THAT
ONE PARENT IS AFFIRMING AND THE
OTHER ISN'T ALL THE EFFORTS AND
ENERGIES GOES INTO THAT FIGHT,
AND THAT IS NOT THE BEST
INTEREST OF THIS CHILD WHO NOW
FEELS LIKE MAYBE THEY'RE THE
CAUSE OF THIS BREAK UP IN THE
FIRST PLACE. I HAVE SEEN KIDS
WHOSE ONE PARENT HAS AFFIRMED
THE OTHER HASN'T AND IT
VISITATIONS HAS GONE AND CUT
HAIRS. OR KIDS WHO HAVE TO TAKE
OTHER CLOTHES BECAUSE WHEN THEY
GO TO THE NON AFFIRMING PARENTS'
HOUSE, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
WHERE THERE WAS THOSE CLOTHES.
AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT
THIS DOES TO THE MENTAL HEALTH
OF THESE CHILDREN OF THE CODE,
SWITCHING THAT THEY'RE
CONSTANTLY HAVING TO DO BASED ON
THIS BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVEN'T
MADE A DETERMINATION THAT'S THE
SUFFERING THAT I SEE WITH THESE
KIDS. LET ME ASK THIS FOLLOW UP
AND I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF
EVERYONE'S TIME. UM AYE. I GUESS
MY CONCERN IS THAT AS A POLICY
WHERE STATING THAT IT'S ALWAYS
IN THEIR BEST INTEREST,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SITUATION
IS, UM AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
STRUGGLING WITH THAT THEY'RE A
SEVEN YEAR OLD MAY NOT KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT WHAT THEY'RE
DEALING WITH. AND UM I THINK
ADULTS ARE FREE TO DO WHATEVER
THEY WANT. BUT HERE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT KIDS, CHILDREN,
SEVEN YEAR OLDS WHO WHO ARE
STILL DEVELOPING. UM AND TO HAVE
THE COURT STEP IN AND JUST SAY
THIS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE
CASE. I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS FOLLOW UP
QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY
EXAMPLES AND WHERE JUDGES ARE
GETTING THIS WRONG OR THERE'S
SOME ABUSE IN THE FAMILY COURT
SYSTEM BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING
HERE IS REMOVING THE DISCRETION
FROM THE JUDGES, AND WE'RE
MOVING AN INDIVIDUALIZED
TERMINATION SO A JUDGE CAN LOOK
AT A SPECIFIC CASE AND SAY IN
THIS CASE, YES, I CAN SEE THIS
CHILD TRULY HAS GENDER. UM
DYSPHORIA AND, UM, IT'S IN THEIR
BEST INTEREST THAT THEY BE WITH
THIS PARENT, BUT WE'RE TAKING
THAT ANALYSIS OUT, AND WE'RE NOT
EVEN GONNA HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION ANYMORE. WE'RE
GONNA SAY IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO
BE THIS WAY. SO WHY NOT TRUST
THE JUDGES TO DO THE TO DO THE
WORK IN THE COURT AND WHAT'S THE
BEST INTEREST FOR THAT CHILD
BEFORE THEM THERE? IT ADDS IT AS
A FACTOR. CURRENTLY, IT'S NOT A
FACTOR CURRENTLY. THEY DO NOT
HAVE DISCRETION TO BE ABLE TO
CONSIDER THAT AS A FACTOR. WHAT
CAN WE CHANGE IT TO JUST SAY
IT'S A FACTOR? THE WAY IT READS
NOW IS THAT THEY HAVE TO
CONSIDER AFFIRMATION BECAUSE IT
IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS AND
SAFETY WITH THE NAME CHANGE. IT
SAYS THE COURTS HAVE TO SIDE
WITH THE PARENT WHO'S SEEKING
THE NAME CHANGE, SO IT DOESN'T
PROVIDE THE COURT WITH MUCH
LATITUDE THERE. I MEAN, IF
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE WILLING
TO WORK ON. UM BUT I JUST
RESPECTFULLY I, AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? SEEN NONE MOTION FROM
MR HANEY. SECOND FROM MR KALRA.
MISS WILSON, YOU MAKE CLOTHES.
THANK YOU TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE. AND ONCE AGAIN THANK
YOU TO ALL THOSE WHO SPOKE IN
SUPPORT AND ALL THOSE WHO
SUPPORT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION. I
APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT ON
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND
THAT'S HOW WE DO THINGS IN
CALIFORNIA, DEMOCRATIC,
TRANSPARENT, PUBLICLY INVOLVED
PROCESS. I APPRECIATE THE
WITNESSES FOR SHARING FROM THEIR
EXPERTISE AND THEIR OWN PERSONAL
STORIES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE. OKAY, THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS. ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I DAILY SALINO
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DIXON HANEY
. CHOLERA CHOLERA I, PACHECO
CHICO, I PAPIN HAPPENED. I REYES
REYES. AYE RIVAS. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ. NO MOTION PASSES. NEXT
UP, MR BRIAN. THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION. SURE. YEAH, THANK YOU.
YOU CAN DO THERE. AND MR MR
BRIAN, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE A
WITNESS ISSUE TIMING ISSUES SO
WE'LL DO 13 13 24 1ST. WHAT
RECALL INAUDIBLE. THE SPORTS
ANALOGY IS APPRECIATED, MR
BRYANT. ABSOLUTELY. YOU. MAY YOU
MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MAYBE 13 24 IS A
NATURAL CONTINUATION OF A BILL
THAT WE DID. LAST YEAR. MAYBE 16
86. 16 86 ACTUALLY CHANGE SOME
OF THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON
A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. SINCE
THE EIGHTIES, WE HAVE BEEN
CHARGING PARENTS BEFORE THE
CHILDREN'S TIME IN FOSTER CARE.
ESSENTIALLY THEY WERE PAYING
CHILD SUPPORT TO THE COUNTIES.
FOR NOW, HAVING THEIR CHILDREN
IT WAS CRIPPLING AND PUNISHING
POVERTY. UM EXTENDING THE TIME
IN WHICH FAMILIES WERE PREVENTED
FROM BEING REUNIFIED AND
EXTENDED THE TIME THAT CHILDREN
WERE IN FOSTER CARE AND AVERAGE
OF SEVEN YEARS. IT WAS COST AND
EFFECTIVE FOR EVERY DOLLAR. WE
TRIED TO GET BACK. WE ONLY GOT
27 CENTS BACK. WE ENDED THAT
PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA LAST YEAR
, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
CHANGED THE RULES AND ENDED THAT
PRACTICE. NATURALLY THE PROBLEM
, AND THE REASON FOR THIS BILL
IS THERE ARE STILL COUNTLESS
FAMILIES OUT THERE WHO ARE WHO
ARE HOLDING THIS DEBT OVER THEM
, AND I THINK THE STATE HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO DISCHARGE THIS
DEBT. NOW THAT WE'VE CHANGED THE
RULES, PAYMENTS CAN RANGE AS
HIGH AS $1000 A MONTH. IF YOU
MISS A PAYMENT, YOU'RE HIT WITH
A UM IT FEE BY THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
PIECE OF POLICY. IT'LL FIX A
PROBLEM THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING
WITH SINCE THE EIGHTIES, AND
IT'LL SET A NATIONAL STANDARD
FOR HOW TO STOP PUNISHING
POVERTY IN THE CHILD WELFARE
SYSTEM AND GIVE FAMILIES A
CHANCE TO THRIVE WITH ME TODAY,
JOINING AND TESTIMONY ARE
CHRISTIAN POWER, VICE PRESIDENT,
POLICY AND ADVOCACY AT THE
ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS,
AND CATHERINE A'HEARN, AN
IMPACTED PARENT. GOOD MORNING.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MAIENSCHEIN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M KRISTIN
POWER AT THE ALLIANCE FOR
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. THE ALLIANCE
FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IS A PROUD
COSPONSOR OF A B 13 24, WHICH
WOULD MAKE COMPLETE CALIFORNIA'S
COMMITMENT TO ENDING THE
DAMAGING AND INEFFICIENT
PRACTICE OF CHARGING PARENTS FOR
THEIR TIME AND FOR THEIR CHILD'S
TIME IN FOSTER CARE, THE
ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
CO SPONSORED LAST YEAR, THEY
BEAT 16 86, WHICH NARROWED THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH COUNTIES
RECOUPED FOSTER CARE. COSTS FROM
PARENTS. AROUND THE SAME TIME,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED
CLEAR GUIDANCE, ENCOURAGING
STATES TO REFORM THEIR POLICIES
TO ENSURE THAT FAMILY
REUNIFICATION STABILITY, NOT
DEBT COLLECTION REMAIN THE FOCUS
OF OUR CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM.
FEDERAL AND STATE REFORMS ARE
VERY EXCITING, BUT THEY ARE ONLY
PROSPECTIVE. BASED ON THE DATA.
WE HAVE NEARLY 40,000 PARENTS
HAVE DEBT REFERRED BY THE CHILD
WELFARE SYSTEM, LIKE ANY OTHER
TYPE OF DEBT. THIS RESULTS IN
DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION,
WAGE GARNISHMENT, WITHHOLDING OF
DISABILITY AND VETERAN BENEFITS
AND MORE FAMILIES WHOSE CHILDREN
HAVE RETURNED HOME CONTINUE TO
BE SADDLED WITH THIS DEBT. THAT
COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF
FUTURE SYSTEMS INVOLVEMENT. AND
EVEN FOR THOSE FAMILIES WHOSE
CHILDREN LIKE MANY OF OUR
CLIENTS NOW HAVE A PERMANENT
HOME WITH ANOTHER CAREGIVER,
THOSE CHILDREN AND THEIR
CAREGIVER AND NEVER SEE A DIME
OF THAT DEBT THAT WAS COLLECTED.
EXCUSE ME. 13 24 WIVES, THE
STATE SLATE CLEAN AND REQUIRE
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES BY 2025
TO ASCENDANCY IS ENFORCEMENT. OF
PRIOR ORDERS AND CANCEL ALL
ARREARS OWED TO THE STATE AND
ANY ACCRUED INTEREST. THIS WOULD
APPLY ONLY TO DEBT ACCRUED AS A
RESULT OF A CHILD WELFARE AGENCY
REFERRAL, NOT ANY OTHER TYPE OF
CHILD SUPPORT DEBT. THANK YOU.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. HELLO GOOD MORNING. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KATHERINE
MAHORN. UM. THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME HERE, SO LET'S SEE I'M A
PARENT OF A SEVEN YEAR OLD
DAUGHTER, AND I AM A SURVIVOR OF
CALIFORNIA, CPS AND CHILD
SUPPORT SYSTEMS. MY CHILD WAS
REMOVED FROM ME IN 2019 AND NOT
RETURNED. UM, UNTIL RECENTLY. UM
I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS OF MY
DAUGHTER'S FOSTER CARE. UM I
LOSE SLEEP TO THIS DAY KNOWING,
UM, THAT THEY COULD STILL COME
AFTER ME FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS. UM MY INCOME NOW
BARELY COVERS THE COST OF FOOD
AND SHELTER THAN MY DAUGHTER AND
I AM NEED TO SURVIVE. UM IF THEY
REALLY DO COME AFTER ME, I WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO BE HEARD TODAY. I
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
AFFORD GAS OR CHILDCARE. UM. YOU
KNOW, SOLITARY AS MINISTER BRIAN
MENTIONED SOME PARENTS ARE BEING
ORDERED TO PAY 500 TO 2000 OR 2
500 TO 1000 MONTH IN FOSTER CARE
DEBT THAT IS NEARLY HALF OF MY
MONTHLY INCOME. I LOSE MY
HOUSING DO THE TO THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTE IMPLICATIONS AND MY
DAUGHTER AND I WOULD END UP IN A
SHELTER EATING INSTANT SOUP
EVERY NIGHT FOR DINNER. UM. IN
WHAT WORLD IS THAT HAVE THE BEST
CHILD'S INTERESTS AT HEART? UM
YOU KNOW, I CAN COPE AND I AM
COPING. BUT MANY OF THE PARENTS
I WENT THROUGH THE PROGRAM WITH
OR EVEN MORE VULNERABLE THAN I
HAVE HEARD HORROR STORIES FROM
SIMILAR PARENTS AND OTHER
COUNTIES WERE CPS IS EVEN MORE
AGGRESSIVE INCOMING AFTER
PARENTS FOR FOSTER CARE MONEY
MANY OF THE PARENTS AND THE
DEPENDENCY SYSTEM ARE THERE
SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE COULDN'T
EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THE
STRESSORS IN OUR LIVES. LET'S
TALK TO YOU. OKAY OKAY. BETTER
WAYS OF COPING AND HAPPILY, SOME
OF US SUCCEEDED IN GETTING OUR
CHILDREN BACK. BUT BY PUTTING
THE TREMENDOUS PRESSURE OF
CRUSHING DEBT ON US AFTER WE
REUNITED, INCREASES THE CHANCE
CHANCES OF PARENTS FAILING
AGAIN. PLEASE HELP US. UM VOTE
YES, ON A B 132 THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTAMENT, BUT WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND ANY FURTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TO CRAMER
MATTER ON BEHALF OF A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
BROOKE HUGHLEY ON BEHALF OF LOS
ANGELES. DEPENDENCY LAWYERS
PROUD CO SPONSOR. KEVIN THURBER
. I WAS ACTUALLY CATS ATTORNEY.
UM AND I'M, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA
DEPENDENCY ATTORNEYS FOR
PARENTS. J COLE, KENYA, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES IN SUPPORT. THE
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT, SAYING
NON WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
SAYING NINE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, MS
REYES CONGRATULATIONS ON GETTING
YOUR DAUGHTER BACK. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A
GREAT BILL. I THINK THAT YOUR
FIRST BILL SET THE TONE. WHEN
THAT WAS PASSED AND SIGNED BY
THE GOVERNOR, AND I THINK THIS
TAKES A STEP FURTHER TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE PRIOR INJUSTICES
ARE TAKEN CARE OF. GLAD TO
SUPPORT OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEEING NONE. WE HAVE EMOTION IN
A SECOND. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST
HUMAN SERVICES. MR BRIAN MAY
CONCLUDE. I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE TODAY AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE IN
BEING HERE. IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE
THAT WE EVER CHARGED PARENTS FOR
THE TIME THAT THEIR CHILDREN
WERE IN FOSTER CARE. YOU DON'T
LOSE CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN
BECAUSE YOU AREN'T STRUGGLING TO
THRIVE IN A IN A STATE THAT ARE
IN A COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T ALLOW
FOR EVERYONE TO ALWAYS THRIVE.
UM IT'S A LOT OF WORK TO REGAIN
CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN.
FAMILIES WHO HAVE THESE FEES
WERE IN FOSTER CARE AND AVERAGE
OF SEVEN MONTHS LONGER. WE
CHANGE THAT FOR THE COUNTRY HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. NOW WE NEED TO DO
THE RIGHT THING AND CLEAR THIS
DEBT DEFICIT OR OTHERWISE, IN
THIS POLICY FRAMEWORK SETS UP,
UH, THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL
ALLOW FOR THIS TO NEVER BE THE
CASE IN CALIFORNIA AGAIN.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A
SECOND AS CLERK. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I,
SALLY. CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DIXON DIXON. NO, HANEY. HANEY I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I PACHECO
PACHECO, I POP IN MY REYES.
RAISE I RIVAS SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
NO MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
NEXT OUR FINAL ITEM A B 9 54. MR
BRYANT. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A
THEME HERE TODAY, MR CHAIR. I
WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE
MEMBERS AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO
COME BEFORE YOU TODAY. UM AT
THIS MOMENT, I RISE TO PRESENT A
B 9 54. IT'S A BILL THAT WILL
CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS TO STOP
PUNISHING POVERTY IN THE CHILD
WELFARE SYSTEM. FIRST I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
ALL OF THE INCREDIBLE AND
THOUGHTFUL WORK. THAT YOU DO ON
THIS BILL AND OTHER BILLS. I'M
HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT STRENGTHEN IMPLEMENTATION
MECHANISMS IN THIS BILL. THE
AMENDMENTS MADE CLEAR THAT THE
COURTS NEED TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE
PARENTS' ABILITY TO PAY FOR A
COURT ORDERED SERVICE UPON THEIR
INITIAL INTAKE HEARING AND THAT
UPON SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS THE
PARENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE NON
COMPLIANT WITH THE COURT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO
COMPLETE THE SERVICES TODAY WHEN
A CHILD IS REMOVED FROM A
PARENT'S CARE. THE COURT MAY
ORDER THE PARENT TO COMPLETE A
VARIETY OF PROGRAMS TO ASSIST
AND REHABILITATION BEFORE THEY
ARE REUNITED WITH THEIR CHILD.
HOWEVER PARENTS OFTEN HAVE TO
BEAR THE COSTS OF THESE COURT
MANDATED PROGRAMS, WHICH CAN RUN
FOR 52 WEEKS AND COST CAN BE
WELL BEYOND THE MEANS OF
IMPACTED PARENTS OF THIRD OF
WHOM HAVE AN ANNUAL INCOME OF
LESS THAN $10,000. CURRENTLY,
FAMILIES ARE BEING SEPARATED OR
KEPT SEPARATED SIMPLY AND SOLELY
BASED ON THE PARENTS' INABILITY
TO PAY FOR THESE COURT ORDERED
SERVICES. IN FACT, MANY OF THESE
PARENTS COMPLETE THE COURT
ORDERED SERVICE BUT CAN'T PROVE
THAT COMPLETION BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T PAY FOR THEM. THERE ARE
EXAMPLES AND MODELS ALL ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. IN FACT, MOST OF
CALIFORNIA FINDS WAYS COUNTIES
INDIVIDUALLY WORKED TO PROVIDE
DIFFERENT KINDS OF FEE, WAIVERS
AND WAYS TO MITIGATE THIS, BUT
WE SHOULD HAVE A STATEWIDE
POLICY THAT PREVENTS FAMILIES
FROM BEING AND CONTINUING TO BE
SEPARATED SOLELY BECAUSE THE
PARENTS COULDN'T PAY OR SHOW
PROOF OF PAYMENT AND COMPLETION
OF THEIR REUNIFICATION PROGRAM.
THIS BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION AND
ENJOY SUPPORT FROM MULTIPLE
LEGAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
JOINING ME TO TESTIFY. AND
SUPPORT. ARE. NOT ONLY
PASSIONATE. NATALIE BOSH IN AND
SHE SHOULD PATEL, ATTORNEY WITH
THE LOS ANGELES PENDENCY LAWYERS
AND A SOCIAL WORKER INVESTIGATOR
. THANK YOU FIRST WITNESS. YES.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
NATALIE BASTION AND I AM A
SOCIAL WORKER INVESTIGATOR AT
THE LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY
LAWYERS. WE ARE THE LARGEST
FAMILY DEFENSE ORGANIZATION OF
OUR KIND IN THIS NATION, AND WE
REPRESENT NEARLY 20,000 PARENTS
AND THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. WE
ARE HONORED TO SPONSOR ASSEMBLY
BILL 954 TODAY TO ENSURE A
PARENT'S FINANCIAL ABILITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN COURT ORDERED
PROGRAMS. PARENTS PARTICIPATION
AND SERVICES INCREASES THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR A SAFE AND
SUCCESSFUL REUNIFICATION. BUT
CURRENTLY THE MAJORITY OF
PARENTS AND OUR SYSTEM CANNOT
AFFORD THAT. THIS SITUATION IS
DIRE AND EXISTING POLICY IS NOT
ENOUGH. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF OUR
PARENTS WERE STRUGGLING TO MAKE
ENDS MEET AND HAD TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN DINNER AND A PARENTING
PROGRAM. THERE ARE ALSO PARENTS
LIVING IN THEIR CARS AND
HOMELESS SHELTERS WHO ARE
COLLECTING AND RECYCLING CANS IN
AN EFFORT TO EARN MORE MONEY.
COURT ORDERED CLASSES COST
ANYWHERE FROM $15 TO $45 A
SESSION AND THE CORE OFTEN
REQUIRES BETWEEN 12 AND 52
SESSIONS. COURT ORDERS LIKE
INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING CAN COST
ANYWHERE FROM $35 TO $150 A
SESSION DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR
NOT THE PARENT HAS INSURANCE,
LACK OF FUNDS. LIMITS OF PARENTS
CAPACITY TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDERS, WHICH PREVENTS CHILDREN
FROM UNITING WITH THEIR PARENTS.
DELAYED REUNIFICATION
TRAUMATIZES CHILDREN INCREASES
COSTS OF FOSTER CARE AND FURTHER
FURTHERS FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL
STRESS ON FAMILIES. WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE 16500.1
SUBDIVISION A STATES IT IS THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO USE
THE STRENGTH OF FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES TO SERVE THE NEEDS
OF CHILDREN AND TO ENCOURAGE
SPEEDY REUNIFICATION OF FAMILIES
WHEN IT COULD BE SAFELY
ACCOMPLISHED. ULTIMATELY WE ARE
PAYING MORE MONEY TO KEEP THESE
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE RATHER
THAN RETURNING THEM BACK HOME.
FOR THESE REASONS. LOS ANGELES
DEPENDENCY LAWYERS STRONGLY
SUPPORTS A B 954. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND ALL MEMORIES. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
. MY NAME IS SHIPSHAPE PATEL,
AND I'M GONNA ATTORNEY FOR THE
LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY LAWYERS.
WE ARE HONORED TODAY TO SPONSOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BRIAN'S A V 9
54 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT
POVERTY STOPS BEING A BARRIER TO
A PARENT'S PARTICIPATION IN
COURT ORDERED PROGRAMS. CHILDREN
ARE KEPT FROM THEIR PARENTS CARE
BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF
PARENTS LACK FUNDS TO PAY FOR
THE COURT ORDER SERVICES THAT
THEY MUST COMPLETE. I CAN SAFELY
SAY THAT 95% OF MY CLIENTS ARE
IMPOVERISHED AND HAVE
SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTY PAYING
FOR THEIR PROGRAMS. OFTEN
OFTENTIMES MY CLIENTS HAVE TO
CHOOSE BETWEEN PAYING FOR RENT
OR PAYING FOR THEIR CLASSES.
MANY OF MY CLIENTS WOULD BE IN
FULL COMPLIANCE IF THEY COULD
SIMPLY AFFORD THE PROGRAMS. THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE AS
IT STANDS DOES NOT PROVIDE A
MECHANISM TO ENSURE FUNDING FOR
PARENTS, ALTHOUGH COUNTY
AGENCIES CAN USE EXISTING STATE
AND FEDERAL FUNDS TO ASSIST
FAMILIES WITH THEIR SERVICES,
SOME COUNTIES ELECT NOT TO, FOR
EXAMPLE, L A COUNTY, WHICH HAS
CALIFORNIA'S LARGEST POPULATION
OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE DOES
NOT DISTRIBUTE THEIR RESOURCES
TOWARDS PARENTS PROGRAMS. THIS
BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE PAYMENT OF
FUNDS TO THE PARENTS, BUT IT
DOES ENSURE THAT APPEARANCE
ABILITY INABILITY TO PAY FOR A
PROGRAM IS NOT USED AS A BASIS
TO FIND THEM NONCOMPLIANT. IT
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE COURT TO
OVERLOOK COMPLETE NON COMPLIANCE
AND LACK OF EFFORT BUT RATHER
SUPPORT THE PARENTS WHO ARE
ACTIVELY TRYING TO COMPLETE
THEIR CASE PLANS AND GREEN IF I
WITH THEIR CHILD, IT ENCOURAGES
COUNTIES TO USE EXISTING FUNDS
TO ASSIST WILLING PARENTS. THE
PURPOSE OF 89 54 IS TO SUPPORT
AND ENABLE PARENTS TO PAY FOR
COURT ORDER SERVICES IN ORDER TO
COMPLETE PROGRAMS NECESSARY. TO
REUNIFY WITH THEIR CHILDREN AND
TO CREATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR
THE CHILDREN. LOS ANGELES
DEPENDENCY LAWYERS STRONGLY
SUPPORTS 89 54. THANK YOU, MR MR
. CHAIR AND MEMBER. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
KRISTIN POWER WITH THE ALLIANCE
FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS AND
SUPPORT. REBECA GONZALEZ
NATIONALIST ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER AND SUPPORT. AND MOLLY
SHANE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT SEEN NONE.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SEEING
NONE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE MOTION FROM MR
CHOLERA. 2ND 2ND FROM MR HANEY.
MR BROWN, YOU MAKE CLOTHES.
THANK YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, AS MOST
OF YOU KNOW, I GREW UP IN A
FAMILY DID IT FOSTER CARE FOR
TWO DECADES AND HUNDREDS OF
FOSTER SIBLINGS? I WAS ADOPTED
AS A CHILD. THE FACT THAT
FAMILIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY
TRYING TO COMPLETE REUNIFICATION
PROGRAMS ARE BEING DENIED THAT
REUNIFICATION SOLELY BECAUSE
THEY COULDN'T PAY FOR A PORTION
OF THEIR REUNIFICATION PROGRAM
IS WRONG. ALL OF THE DATA SHOWS
THAT WHEN WE KEEP FAMILIES
TOGETHER, AND WE DO OUR BEST
EFFORT TO KEEP FAMILIES
TOGETHER, IT'S BETTER OUTCOMES,
NOT JUST FOR THE FAMILY, BUT FOR
THE CHILD. SPECIFICALLY THIS IS
ONE OF THOSE BILLS THAT HIS
CHILD CENTERED IS A POVERTY
ALLEVIATION BILL AND IT IS
FAMILY CENTERED. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THE
MOTION. Dð PASSES AMENDED HUMAN
SERVICES AS A CLERK TO CALL THE
ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE, SLE. CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DIXON. HANEY CHOLERA, CHOLERA I
, PACHECO PACHECO, I POP IN A
RAISED BY RIVAS SANCHEZ. THANK
YOU. EMOTION PASSES, WE WILL DO
ADD ONS RIGHT NOW. UM SO IF YOU
NEED FIRST IS THAT CONSENT
AGENDA, ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL. CALL RA ON
CONSENT. CALL RIGHT? ITEM NUMBER
ONE A. B 67 MURATSUCHI. CHOLERA,
ALRIGHT. ITEM NUMBER TWO A. B 70
RODRIGUEZ. CHOLERA. CHOLERA,
AYE. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN A. B 5 49
WILSON DICKSON. DIXON NO CHOLERA
. CHOLERA I ITEM NUMBER 11 89 57
WILSON. DIXON. DIXON. NO. THANK
YOU. ALL VERY MUCH MEETING IS
ADJOURNED. GREAT JOB TEAM. THANK
YOU.