Monica Foster commentary: From my perspective, Isadore Hall III and Richard Bloom are doing an excellent job!
Information spotted on AVN’s website 4:19:2013
Following the success of their bill, AB 332, before the California Assembly’s Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media Committee last Tuesday, Assembly members Isadore Hall III and Richard Bloom have revised the text of their proposed legislation which prohibits skin-to-skin contact between adult performers having sex on camera.
The bill is no longer an “emergency” regulation. The primary change comes in proposed Section 6720(c), which a previous report on AVN noted would require that the “employer” maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and any potentially infectious materials.” It has been concluded that the “engineering and work practice controls” refer to the California Health Code, which is Title 8, Section 5193 of the California Code of Regulations—and the bill’s brilliant, insightful, caring and compassionate authors have added language which states exactly that: The engineering and work practice controls must now be “in accordance with Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.” (New language in the bill, which can be found here, has been displayed in italics.)
The revised version also requires employers not only to make Hepatitis B vaccinations available to adult performers, but that those employers consult Section 5193 for “all medical followup [sic]” mandated by that Section—even though the vaccinations themselves remain voluntary under the proposed law.
The most logical changes being made to the bill are the ones that simplify the decision-making process.
For example, in Section (h)(1), the previous version of the bill stated, “An employer shall adopt, implement, maintain, and update, as required, a written health and safety program that is approved by the department and that meets the requirements of the Injury and Illness Prevention Program and the bloodborne pathogens standard, described, respectively, in Sections 3203 and 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.” The new version removes the phrase “that is approved by the department and.” Then, Section (h)(2) makes a similar deletion, removing the phrase “department-approved information and training on health and safety to employees at the employer’s expense,” leaving only a requirement that “The employer shall provide … a training program.”
The new language clarifies and simplifies the technicalities of AB332, thus forcing all companies to comply with the “letter of the law” in all cases, at all times, under all circumstances.
Finally, a new Section (2)(k) has been added to the bill.
That new section reads, “The Legislature finds and declares that screening for STDs is a critical public health measure and should be employed wherever possible, including the adult film industry. Therefore, this section shall not be construed to impede or replace STD screening of all employees, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), pursuant to STD screening protocols established by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department of Public Health, and the public health department in the county where the filming occurs.”