Revamped AB1576 Porn ‘Protective Equipment’ Bill Adds Medical Record-Keeping

Mar 28, 2014
AB1576
0 0
Revamped AB1576 adds mandatory medical record-keeping

AHF and its assemblypuppet Isadore Hall take another stab at writing legislation with their latest revision of AB1576.

This is another poorly written attempt to pull the adult entertainment industry into a record-keeping nightmare in addition to the requirements for universal condoms AND testing.

AHF's Michael Weinstein with Assemblyperson Isadore Hall

Now AHF / Hall have removed the word “condom” and replaced it with “personal protective equipment*” to try to use the Cal/OSHA lingo.

Even without the word ‘condom’, the equipment referred to is definitely condoms, dental dams, and latex gloves.

Legislative Counsel Digest Introduction Excerpt:

This bill would additionally require an adult film employer’s injury prevention program to include a log of information for all scenes produced or purchased, including, but not limited to, documentation that each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, a protective barrier personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens and each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections according to specified recommendations not less more than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse and that the employer paid for the test. Because a violation of the act would be a crime under certain circumstances, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.

Here’s the pertinent section:

(i) (1) An adult film employer’s injury prevention program shall include a log of information for all scenes produced or purchased, including, but not limited to, documentation that:

(A) Each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, a condom or other protective barrier personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This paragraph shall not be construed to require that the condom or other protective barrier personal protective equipment be visible to the consumer in the finished film.

(B) Each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections, including, but not limited to, HIV, according to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the State Department of Public Health current at the time the testing takes place, not less more than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse and that the employer paid for the test.

(2) For the purposes of this subdivision, “adult film” means any commercial film, video, multimedia, or other recorded representation during the production of which performers actually engage in sexual intercourse, including oral, vaginal, or anal penetration.

 

Just for a moment, focus on the record keeping requirement:

A producer would be required to keep a log of each scene that includes:  the performers, their STI test results, the intercourse that occurred in the scene, and information regarding the “personal protective equipment” used in the scene.  Further, a producer or purveyor of adult content would also need to keep the same log for all content purchase NO MATTER WHERE IT COMES FROM.  If we have a California production company that purchases content created in Florida or France, that company would be required to keep the same log.

This requirement would force producers to retain and control medical records of performers for decades.   Maybe AHF wants production companies to be shackled with maintaining medical records for thousands of performers, but producers should never want production companies to be mandated to maintain medical records for performers.  Yes, test results are medical records.

This makes me wonder ….. was AHF not getting the traction they wanted in Sacramento so they decided to tone down the “condom” talk?  Did Cal/OSHA ask AHF and Hall to change the language to “personal protective equipment” to be more in line with the current regulations?  We’ll know more on April 2nd in Sacramento.…

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Spread the love
Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] This bill would additionally require an adult film employer’s injury prevention program to include a log of information for all scenes produced or purchased, including, but not limited to, documentation that each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, a protective barrier personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens and each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections according to specified recommendations not less more than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in vaginal… Read more »

trackback
Revamped AB1576 ‘Protective Equipment’ Bill Adds Medical Record-Keeping | The Rob Black Website
6 years ago

[…] Revamped AB1576 ‘Protective Equipment’ Bill Adds Medical Record-Keeping […]

Anthony Kennerson
6 years ago

So now, this bill becomes a souped-up 2257 reg, yet for medical records rather than personal information. Problem is, wouldn’t it run afowl of HIPPA due to its requirement of keeping private medical information?? Plus, it’s an invitation for pretty much the same foul trickery that killed AIM. I can just see some of AIM’s flunkies getting their hot hands on the personal medical information of performers, and then blackmailing them to perform in questionable scenes with other perfomers who will be able to slip the noose of the PASS testing regimen, because AHF/CalOSHA deems that condoms/dental dams/PPE or fly-by-night… Read more »

Ernest Greene
Ernest Greene
6 years ago

Um … those would be AHF flunkies I think. Not only is AIM gone, thanks to AHF, but we couldn’t have afforded flunkies even if we had wanted them. But this thing is clearly a huge overreach that definitely crosses HIPPA lines. For that matter, mandatory testing and reporting also raise anti-discrimination issues. This last add-on may just sink the whole bill, which could be the intention if it was all just for show and no one really intended to enact it, as I’ve suspected all along. I’d be very surprised if this thing even made it to a floor… Read more »

Anthony Kennerson
6 years ago
Reply to  Ernest Greene

Yeah…I meant “AHF” flunkies. Thanks for catching that, Ernest.

trackback

[…] As reported previously on TRPWL, the bill represents another attempt to pull the adult entertainment industry into a record-keeping nightmare in addition to the requirem…. […]

trackback

[…] the first time, AB1576 would establish criminal penalties for not using a condom in an adult film, require producers to keep a log of a performer’s sexual activities, and force performers to waive their right to medical […]

trackback

[…] criminal penalties for not using a condom or “other barriers” in an adult film, require producers to keep a log of a performer’s sexual activities, and force performers to waive their right to medical privacy. The bill would also have […]

TrafficHolder.com - Buy & Sell Adult Traffic
8
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x