AB 1576 Clears California Assembly: Time To Hit The Panic Button Now??

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

AB1576's Rediscovery Of Testing: A Move Forward Or A Trap Door??

Of all of the developments involving Isadore Hall's recent bill, AB1576, to force condoms and other "barrier protections" in all porn shoots, the most interesting is their evolution involving performer testing.

In the past, the party line expressed by Hall and his mentors at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation was that testing, especially the testing regime currently used by the industry, was an utter failure that did nothing to protect the performers from STI's, including HIV, and that mandatory condom usage was the only tried and true solution.

However, with this latest effort, it seems that Hall and AHF have warmed up to the notion of mandatory testing, to the point that his current effort now includes a requirement that performers prove that they were tested no less than 14 days prior to shooting a scene, along with proof of using "barrier" protection.

Seems like Hall and AHF is reaching out to FSCPASS and meeting them halfway, right??

Not so fast. The car might look new, but a check under the hood for the actual details support a different, less altruistic agenda.

Keep in mind that the 14 day testing protocol is voluntary for porn studios. Most, due to cost considerations, can't afford a 14-day test, and instead go for 28 or 30 day cleared tests to allow their performers to shoot, along with varying degrees of condom protection. Some are condom only (such as Wicked and VIVID), and some are more optional, leaving that choice to the performer or producer.

AB1576, however, would force studios to undergo and pay for mandatory 14 day tests on nearly all of the standard STI's (HIV, Hepatitis A/B/C, HPV, chlamydia, gonnorhea, and syphilis), as well as require they use condoms, dental dams, and all other forms of barrier protection. Sure, Hall and AHF say that they only would require condoms; but they rely on the emerging CalOSHA standards for "bloodborne/sexually transmitted pathogen" protection, which does require the use of "personal protection equipment" as a form of "barrier protection". The CalOSHA standards would also forbid any proximity of sexually oriented body fluids to unwrapped "sensitive areas" such as the mouth, genitals, or anus..which would forbid facials, body shots above the navel and below the knee, and even perhaps oral sex without "protection".

The record keeping requirement that producers and studios keep and make accessible to health officials personal medical records of all performers depicting their test results and the degree of protection used in their scenes is already enough of a constitutional and personal privacy nightmare.

But that's not even the worst part of the proposal. The real devil in the details is in the type of testing for HIV that AB1576 would require, and how that could potentially backfire in a catastropic way.

Remember that the PASS standards use the most current and accurate HIV tests available at a cost....namely, the Aptima test, which is capable of catching the HIV virus within 6-10 days of initial infection. It has become the gold standard of rapid testing for screening out cases of acute HIV infection, a point that is vital with preventing the spread of the virus to other performers.

Problem is, though, Aptima is NOT the standard that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention or AHF uses for their HIV tests. They prefer to use the old and true ELISA antibody tests for initial screening, backed by viral load testing such as PCR-RNA or Western Blot for confirmation of a positive.

The problem with that is that antibody and antigen testing for HIV is notorious for not catching acute HIV cases, and have nearly a 60-90 day latency period where the virus can remain undetected. Now, no one doubts the accuracy of antibody testing for detecting HIV antibodies; but when you are trying to isolate acute cases before they spread to others, especially when it comes to shooting sex scenes that can go on for hours on end, having to wait 60-90 days for a positive or negative confirmation of getting infected isn't just a nightmare for the performer awaiting his fate; it's money out of his wallet.

Not to mention, the required moratoriums that force general work stoppages while testing of first- and second-generation screen partners of any potential infectee can cause serious impacts on performers and studios alike. I know of a model who was burned by the two back-to-back moratoriums while attempting to travel from Florida to California to shoot scenes; she now draws the line at performing only with condoms. (Out of respect for her privacy, I will not name her.)

The trap door, though, is this: AB1576 does not require performers or producers to get the latest and best testing for HIV, it simply states that they be tested under the guidelines set forth by CalOSHA and the CDC...guidelines that assume testing through ELISA-based assays.

Do you see the ultimate result here?? Studios not wealthy enough to afford the 14-day testing regime (i.e., those not owned by MindGeek) and overwhelmed by the requirement of full documentation of their testing regimens, would be the most likely to cave in to AHF's demands for mandatory condoms as a "fall back" in compliance with the potential law...and they would also be the most likely to cut corners for profits by offering their performers fly-by-night testing scams. Like, for instance, the quick and free OraSure OraQuick HIV swab tests made so famous by Mike South in his latest escapades.

Or, a fledgling porn producer could simply borrow some of South's mythical powers of reasoning and interviewing to clear a performer for shooting scenes, without all that need for actual testing.

Or...scared performers could just pull a Mr. Marcus and fake their tests in order to continue to shoot films and make money, because condoms would save them. Except, that they break, and they don't protect against all STI's.

Thusly, AHF and Izzy Hall create a wonderful illusion of safety, that covers up a free fire zone for performers. The big studios who will more than likely keep 14-day mandatory testing, but also be forced to include condoms, will survive as usual...though some will probably react by moving their businesses out of California altogether and taking their chances going underground in a less protected venue. The condom companies will get free placement and unwilling users, and will drown in the cash of respectability for "making safer sex hot". The medicos will fulfill their promise of using porn performers as unwitting guniea pigs for "safer sex". And, the communitarians will have one more piece of government regulation as a means of "behavior modification" and controlling a suspect population.

Whether this will actually do anything to reduce the pandemic of HIV or other STI's in the general population, or merely force performers into much less safe venues to fulfill their craft, or simply force them to quit and take their chances with less sexy exploitation, remains to be seen. Needless to say, considering how the current "sex trafficking" scare is now being used to suppress and slander sex workers and their clients, I have my doubts.

Sorry, Assemblyman Hall and Mr. Weinstein, but I'd much rather that performers themselves have the choice of how best to protect themselves, not be the unwilling and forced participants in a shell game.

AB1576, like all the other condom mandate bills before it, needs to be defeated. Like, yesterday.

HIV Porn Scare Update #2: Proposed Condom Mandate Bill AB640 Follows AB332 Down File 86 For 2013 Cali Assembly Session

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

More AB 332 Blowback: Could There Be A Statewide Initiative On The Horizon??

Well...after the California Assembly's Appropriations Committee decided to put the statewide condom mandate bill, AB 332, on temporary ice via "suspense", you got the typical reactions from both sides of the condom debate.

First, this from the Free Speech Coalition, via their director, Diane Duke:

“We are grateful that lawmakers have chosen the best interest of California’s taxpayers and the adult industry over AB 332’s misguided legislation,” Free Speech Coalition (FSC) CEO Diane Duke said. “The adult industry creates a tremendous amount of revenue and jobs for California. We have effective, successful standards in place to protect performers. This ridiculous bill was a solution without a problem.”

 What also gives opponents of the condom mandate some encouragement is the reason Appropriations Committee Chairman Mike Gatto gave for tabling AB 332 (from here, via here):

“Passing a bill, of questionable First Amendment validity, that would certainly subject the state to expensive lawsuits, would simply cost too much for California right now,” he said in a statement.

Needless to say, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Isadore Hall III, the Assemblyman who sponsored AB 332, have a radically different spin....errrrr, perspective on the bill's future prospects.  And, they are not too happy with Assemblyman Gatto, either. First, here's Assemblyman Hall's brief response, as quoted to the Rock Hill, CA, HeraldOnline website (and reposted by Lydia Lee at her blog):

“No vote was taken today on AB 332 and the bill is not dead. In a two year legislative session, there is plenty of time for this important public health measure to move forward. At this point, one thing is clear. Assemblymember Mike Gatto has put porn profits above the need to protect workers in California. He gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘money shot’.”

Of course, the reason why no vote was taken was because originally at the first Appropriations Committee hearing Hall himself had requested that the bill be pulled, and then Gatto acted to put the bill under "suspense"....and Hall didn't challenge it because he probably realized he didn't have the votes to override Gatto's decision.

But, oh, that was secondary to the reaction from Mike Weinstein of AHF....and he added a thinly veiled threat to take the battle to the next level. From AHF's official statement:

“We are still in the early rounds of the fight for protection of porn performers. You don't win every round. We won't stop. There are still 3 months in this legislative year, which is more than enough time to successfully provide statewide protections for adult film workers,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “Access to clean needles for drug users took more than a decade to enact. Since it is apparent that a powerful politician like Assemblyman Mike Gatto favors pornographers over performers we may in the end need to take this issue directly to California voters. We have no doubt that they would overwhelmingly approve condoms in porn the way that L.A. County voters did.”

Forget for a minute the Big Lie of AHF claiming to represent "protection of porn performers" (especially in the face of almost universal opposition from the overwhelming majority of active performers). It's the threat of a public statewide referendum (a la Proposition 8) that should get people's attention. Obviously, they really do think that they own enough of California that they can browbeat the Cali Assembly into submission like they did the City of Los Angeles, who most recently modified their own condom mandate to follow the tougher edicts of Measure B, the Los Angeles County based condom mandate that passed via referendum last year.

Notice also the strained comparison Weinstein makes to the clean needles exchange program...which, if I recall correctly, was an initiative of ACT-UP in the 1980's-1990's in the face of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Considering AHF's long history of opposing harm prevention and self-cure remedies and measures such as this due to wanting more "behavior modification" strategies, it seems a stretch for them to take such huge credit for enabling drug addiction.

Unless, of course, the real idea is to allow HIV+ performers (read that to mean HIV+ gay male performers such as Derrick Burts) to escape the testing regime and use mandatory condoms and the antidiscrimination laws in Cali as a blanket of employment protection for crossover gay men who might be HIV+?? Between that and the megabucks of proper condom placement and NGO funding, could that be the real initiative behind AHF wanting to blow up the existing testing/screening regime that hetero adult porn has survived on?

Now, imagine what would happen in such a regime where testing is thrown out and condoms (and other such forms of "barrier protection" as face shields, gloves, goggles, and PPE) are totally relied on as the principal means of "protection"...and an infected performer just so happens to shoot a scene where his partner has no means of knowing whether he is clean or infected. Now...imagine what happens if the condom happens to break, or the performer, in his state of arousal, decides to remove it before the scene.

Yup....you got it. And that's before we get to the STI's that condoms don't provide protections against.

Now, Hall and Weinstein has been more than coy about their positions on testing; on the one hand, they say that they are not against testing at all, as long as condoms are still mandated; yet, their stated policy has been that condoms would render testing unnecessary; and that testing is simply a failure of will by the "pornographers" who put their evil profits above the "protection" of the performers. Not to mention, the proposed standards for testing and "barrier protection" for "bloodborne pathogens" that is currently being proposed by Cal-OSHA, the statewide agency for workplace protection, specifically ignore testing for STI's, preferring condoms and other forms of "barrier protection" as their main, if not exclusive, form of protection.

And remember, folks....this isn't just for big time porn production studios. If you own a pay website or a webcam, and have live sex on screen or online, you are or will be or potentially could be affected by this bill....just as you will ultimately be by Measure B if you live in Los Angeles County.

And...what passes California will probably be imposed nationwide, too. To remind you of Mike Weinstein's solemn oath: "Wherever they go, we will follow."

Shooting some pennies to APC4C.com and StopCondomLaws.com would be a good idea indeed. Supporting your favorite porn performers who speak out against AB 332 and Measure B would be even better.

AB332 Gets The BAHLOCK Dropped On It By California Assembly Appropriations Committee; Placed "In Suspension" Until Further Notice (Updated)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Panic Rolls On: AB 332 Clears Another California Assembly Committee

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

On AB 332, Courage Vests, And The Potential Growth Of Haz-Mat/PPE Fetish Porn

If it wasn't so serious to threaten a legal industry, it would be hilarious.

Last week, the California Assembly's Labor and Employment Committee debated and ultimately sent to the full Assembly AB 332, the attempt to extend the reach of the mandate for porn performers to wear condoms and other forms of "barrier protections" against STI's to the whole state, rather than just the city of Los Angeles (via statue) or jurisdictions of Los Angeles County (thanks to Measure B).

The discussion was pretty intense, with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation represented not only by bill sponsor Isadore Hall, but also by representatives from AHF who testified for the bill; while on the other side, porn performers, producers, and the Free Speech Coalition making the case that the mandate was overbroad, overreaching, and counterproductive to protecting performers.

In the end, though, the bill was sent to the full Assembly on a 5-1 vote, punctuated by a, shall we say, passionate closing speech by Assemblyman Hall in which he channeled all his verbal skills -- accented by probably the ever fattening wallet from AHF contributions -- to motivate the committee to "put on their courage vests" and move this bill on.

That's right, Clones, you heard it correct:  "courage vests".

Because, as you know, it takes genuine courage for an esteemed person like Isadore Hall to pocket all that AHF money to become their new shill and promoter for subsidized condom ad placement on free porn stes....not to mention all the kickbacks he'll be getting for securing AHF's gravy train of NGO funding.

And, what tremendous sac it takes for Mr. Hall to get out in front of the most important issue of our time, especially when "lesser" issues like the continuing HIV/STI pandemic in the broader African American and Latino community can be pushed aside and dismissed for the glory of forcing adult performers to wrap up. Because, as you well know, young impressionable folk only learn about proper sex education and harm prevention from watching porn, not from outreach from medical professionals or proper sex education in schools. Forcing 25-30 year old adult performers to wear rubbers is far more important here than actually distributing condoms and other protective propylactics to the broader public..or, even better, actually seeking cures or vaccines that could potentially prevent STI's from spreading. But, that wouldn't be quite as good for the business of imposing morality, now wouldn't it??

But, maybe this isn't just about exploiting a moral sex panic to destroy a legal industry, or simply special interest groups getting paid off the forced labor of others. Maybe there is something more primal going on with this push for infantilizing porn performers.

Like, you know....Haz-Mat porn fetishes??

Work with me on this one...how do we know that the real reason why Mike Weinstein and his crew are so obsessed with this legislation isn't that they all have secret fetishes for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)?? I mean, there are fetishes much more freakier than nutting off on those green aprons, goggles, and face shields, but what's to say that Hall, Weinstein, and company are actually sexual visionaries sensing a potential new and hawt sexual subgenre to mine for instant cash? I can see it now: the instantaneous signage of AB 332 into law combined with the release of the first "safe sex" classic epic, Fifty Shades of Green: Love In The HazMat Room. 

 But, all sarcastic smack aside, folks....the fact remains that AB 322 is a false solution in search of a misplaced problem, and it's passage will not only drive a legal industry underground and threaten the health of actual people; it will also codify an ill-place assumption that scapegoating a minority of performers will somehow help the majority. And, you don't need a "courage vest" to understand that.


See also Lydia Lee's (fka Julie Meadows') outstanding post here, and Mark Kernes' post at AVN here.