AVN's Mark Kernes Chases The #AB1576 "Crapnado"; Survives To Tell The Story

Thanks to Mark Kernes at AVN, we now have a full reading of that hearing last Monday at the California Senate Appropriations Committee on AB1576, Isadore Hall's condom mandate/"testing documentation" bill that had already passed the Cali Assembly last month. And, it was every bit worth its weight, both from the mountain of bullshit spewed by the proponents of the bill and the spirited efforts of the opposition.

For those of you not following, AB1576 was ultimately placed "in suspense" without a vote on passage following spirited testimony at that hearing; which pretty much dooms its passage unless Izzy Hall can convince four committee members to reserrect the bill and pass it before all the "in suspense" bills get dumped next week.

But, that's next week's issue....what took place last Monday, upon further review, deserves a much detailed analysis. Fortunately, Mr. Kernes was there first hand, and he delivers as usual a full accounting of all the hijinks. All references will be to his AVN article, which can be found here.

First...we have to live once again through the virtual Crapnado of Izzy Hall's sorry-ass arguments in favor of his bill...now jacked up to even higher fever pitches of stank.

"AB 1576 is a workplace safety measure that would require employer-paid mandatory STD testing on adult film actors at least every 14 days and documentation that a condom or other personal protective equipment was use in all adult films produced in California," [Hall] began, adding that three policy committees—the Assembly Arts & Entertainment and Appropriations Committees, as well as the Senate Labor Committee—had already had "extensive public debate on this bill" and "received bipartisan support."

Right...."extensive public debate", I suppose, meaning biased hearings where he was able to control the microphone and weed out any real facts; and "received bipartisan support" meaning that his benefactors over at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation were able to grease the wheels of local politicians with some of that $2 million in lobbying funds.

Hall went on to state that "Existing state and federal OSHA laws already require the use of condoms in adult films, period. In fact, existing federal OSHA law requires the use of condoms in adult films produced anywhere in the nation"—which of course begs the question of why AB 1576 is even needed.

 Yeah, really. Never mind that Hall could never produce any law anywhere other than Measure B in Los Angeles County and the ordinance in the city of Los Angeles that specifically mandates condom usage for performers. And, forget about the fact that CalOSHA is currently in the process of revamping their "bloodborne pathogen"/"barrier protection" standards in order to cover adult porn production....something that probably would not be needed if it was already the law. Existing law is currently designed strictly for occupations where direct exposure to bloodborne pathogens or internal body fluids is most likely (re: hospitals, morgues, meat processors, etc.). The CalOSHA rewrite for adult production (proposed as CCR 5193.1) is currently in the preliminary draft stages, with a draft form scheduled for release sometime this fall.

Hall also claimed that the bill has "negligible general fund impact," ignoring the fact that CalOSHA or some other state agency would need to hire several additional inspectors to make sure adult movie and internet content producers are complying with the law. However, Hall sidestepped that fact by claiming that not passing the bill would cost the state even more—over $600,000 per person, he said—for treatment of performers who contracted HIV and other STDs, further claiming that most performers don't have health insurance, even though the Affordable Care Act requires them to obtain it.

This is critical, folks, because the Cali Appropriations Committee has an iron clad threshold of $150,000 for the acceptable cost of enforcing legislation...and AB1576 is in serious danger of reaching or exceeding that threshold, even before the costs of legal action against the state and the costs of hiring enough inspectors to enforce this law. I suppose that Hall thinks that AHF will step in with the funds to hire their own "inspection" force??

On that "$600,000 per person" expense that condoms are supposed to protect the taxpayers of Cali from: you mean, Izzy, that the expense per person of people already striken with HIV/AIDS in your own district isn't nearly as much a financial drain? Especially considering that the actual expense to the state of California for HIV treatment of porn performers is....well...ZERO, since there hasn't been a single case of a straight performer contracting HIV on set since 2004, as compared to the new cases of HIV cropping up every day in LA?? And no, Izzy, contracting HIV off the set through off-the-clock private sex or IV drug needle sharing, or getting infected in a condom only shoot, does not count.

Finally, to the fact that many performers do not have effective health care insurance to cover for tragedies as such? My two word response to that: Single. Payer.

"Many California studios require condoms on the set today, and are still extremely successful and profitable," [Hall] further claimed. "In fact, as recently as May 9 of this year, one adult film director made the switch to condoms and testing after acknowledging that the only reason he didn't require condoms before was because he put profit before worker safety."

Nice try, Izzy...but, WRONG....

That director was Axel Braun, and what Braun actually said was, "Maybe the last one [HIV-positive performer] hit too close to home, since patient zero was booked on my set the day he was diagnosed, or maybe my integrity is becoming more important than my bottom line, but I have finally come to believe that our system is broken, and I’m simply trying to do what I can to fix it on my end.” Braun also adopted a policy of only allowing actors with tests less that one week old, and required that actors be at least 21 years old.

It should also be noted that Braun is also a fervent public opponent of AB1576, and stated that he was only acting for his company, not for others.

Gee...I wonder why Hall didn't also cite Tristan Taormino and Dan Leal, two producers who have also decided to go condom only + tests? Too worked up in spewing his BS??

Next up was Rand Martin representing AHF, with the usual swill:

AIDS Healthcare Foundation's Rand Martin followed Hall, claiming that "The bill does two things: Number one, it requires documentation that protective barriers were used when it was necessary to do so; number two, that an STD test was taken no more than 14 days before a scene was filmed. That is all the bill does." He also claimed that since he had worked with CalOSHA to "align the bill" with the agency's existing regulations, that no additional costs would be incurred—except, of course, for the additional inspectors, which Martin did not mention.

And then the stank really hit the eyewall...

Cameron Bay and her boyfriend Rod Daily also spoke, with the former actress dropping her claim that she had contracted her HIV on an adult set, but claimed today that "Adult producers know ... that they could take advantage of workers like myself. They know the high turnover rate for workers like me and they know that they're breaking the law when they deny a worker like me the cheapest workplace barrier protection in existence, which is a condom. And they do all that because they don't have to pay for the treatment of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. You, the citizens of California, have to pay. While the producers laugh their way to the bank, you're left with the bill: over half a million dollars in medication just for a single HIV infection like myself."

That's kind of interesting, Cam...you mean that you weren't given the option after you bit too hard into Xander Corvus' schlong to wear a condom to finish? In a scene where no one else was infected, and has tested negative since? And, that those "4 cent" condoms really are more effective than stingent testing? And, that the people of California (and by extension, the USA) shouldn't have to pay one red cent to treat HIV+ people? And, how exactly do you "break the law", Ms. Bay, by having bareback sex where no one is infected??? If condoms are that effective, shouldn't they be mandated for everyone engaging in sex, not just people making porn??

Oh, wait..this isn't about prevention; it;s about "mentoring" and selling the beauty of "safer sex". And.....well placed condom ads that could make AHF more $$$$. Never mind....

But while Bay claimed that "AB 1576 insures women like me are protected from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections," her boyfriend Rod Daily began his testimony by saying, "During my time as a performer, I only wore condoms in all of my scenes. Because of these, I was protected from STDs on set." So either Daily didn't contract his disease on an adult set, or the condoms didn't protect him—neither of which argues for the passage of AB 1576.

Or...I guess he must have meant "my time as a gay performer", where condoms are mandatory due to direct potential interaction with HIV+ performers, and the lack of the kind of stringent testing the "straight" porn industry maintains. So, I guess mandating condoms in porn doesn't protect you very well off-the-clock.

The only other proponent of note was Adam Cohen of the UCLA Reproductive Health Interest Group, who has been one of the main colluding groups between CalOSHA and AHF in the condom mandate campaign. Michael Whiteacre has already debunked his nonsense here.

As bad as that portion of the testimony was, it didn't compare to the good that was the opponents' response. To put it bluntly, they were armed, locked, and loaded....and their arguments did much to disenfect the air.

First up, performer Lorelei Lee, who happened to be the third performer in that Cameron Bay/Xander Corvus scene at Kink.com (and whom is also HIV-, and always has been).

When de Leon asked for speakers in opposition to the bill, Lorelei Lee stepped forward, bringing with her a petition signed by "over 650 adult performers" opposing the bill, out of the 1,000 to 1,200 active performers in the industry, "so there can be no quesiton that the majority of performers oppose this bill." She also noted that the committee had received letters from members of the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee, the industry's only all-talent group, which also oppose the bill.
"I want to make clear that the author of this bill does not speak for performers," Lee said. "The sponsors of this bill do not speak for performers. They have not worked with us, they have not reached to us, and no one cares more than we do about our health and safety."
"This bill would seriously degrade the health and safety protocols that we already have in place and that we have been working to improve over the last decade," she added. "I want to emphasize that we would not work in this industry if we did not believe that our protocols have kept us safe. Under our current protocols, we have not had a single on-set transmission of HIV in over a decadel. ... Performers who have tested positive in the last decade have done so after an exposure in their private lives and our mandatory test-and-stop protocols have prevented any on-set transmissions from occurring."
She also expressed concern about performers' medical information being shared with CalOSHA, noting that "Forced consent is not consent. This is a privacy violation and we do not consent to it."
She observed that "legislative condom mandates do not lead to more condom use in adult films," noting that after Measure B was passed, many productions moved out of the jurisdiction, "taking thousands of California jobs with them," including not only performers but the myriad technicians that work behind the scenes. She also noted that many productions that can't afford to move have gone underground.
"When our jobs become illegal, our employers have even less accountability, and both the stigmas and the on-set dangers that we face rise exponentially," she concluded. "Our voice and our concerns should be more important than bills that a politician is simply trying to pass a bill."

Next up...adult industry attorney Karen Tynan:

Attorney Karen Tynan next took the microphone, claiming that, "Let me be clear: AB 1576 is costly to the state, far beyond the suspense threshhold. It undermines efforts to implement a complete and effective worker safety plan." She added that the industry had spent years working with medical professionals and experts to devise the industry's current testing protocols, which she said are "more comprehensive than AB 1576, and we have the support of the workers, the performers themselves."
She reminded the committee that CalOSHA is working on its own set of regulations, and called AB 1576 "an assault on that process."
"We believe this bill will also cost money with the California Department of Public Health," she stated. "The recommendations will require the development of a list of recommended HIV tests and it's impossible to believe that this will not require additional costs to the state. This would have to be a public and inclusive process so that the Department of Public Health can understand the nuances of this industry and could listen to performers and primary care physicians," noting that such costs would require Public Health to "divert resources from more pressing matters."
She concluded by noting that six Bay Area production companies had already moved to Nevada, as well as a "San Fernando-based adult film company with $30 million in revenue transferred their entire operations out of state."

And, as if that wasn't enough to convince the legislators, a new witness emerged with a decisive new argument against the bill:

The final speaker in opposition to the bill was a new one: Aaron Fox of the Los Angeles LGBT Center, who noted that his organization was one of the ones that had sent an opposition letter to the committee last week, with the other two being Project Inform of San Francisco and AIDS Project Los Angeles (which de Leon made sure to note was a different organization from the bill's sponsor, AIDS Healthcare Foundation).

"Mandatory state-mandated HIV testing has never been something that this legislature has been in favor of except one time in its history, which was in 1996, when a boxer tested positive for HIV and the legislature passed a law that professional boxers and martial artists must be tested for HIV before they can compete in the ring," he stated. "We believe that any way of expanding state-mandated HIV testing violates privacy rights, stigmatizes people with HIV and is not something that's in congruence with all of the HIV testing laws in California that not only require consent but also require people to have the right to decline an HIV test. There's nothing in this legislation that allows people the right to decline an HIV test and that has been something the California legislature has always supported throughout its history."

Keep in mind that the protocols used by PASS are enforced through peer pressure and the honor system of production companies not hiring performers who test positive for HIV or other STI's, not through any government intervention. Since AB1576 would require documentation for testing for HIV or condom usage by a public board, it would effectively violate both antidiscrimination laws against HIV+ persons in employment, AND direct consent for mandatory HIV testing. If that segment is rendered unconstitutional by a later court action, and all that remains is the condom requirement, then the risks to performers would be elevated to a magnitude, since there would be no effective means in which a performer could know if her on-screen partner was infected prior to that scene. And, if the condom broke....

The backup support was there in droves as well, too:

At that point, de Leon called for those in the audience who oppose the bill to step forward and state their opposition—and more than 30 did, including performers Anna Cherry, Mia Coleman, Veruca James (who's also the recently elected treasurer of APAC), Jiz Lee, Mick Blue, Anikka Albrite, Aiden Starr, Ariel X, Lea Lexis, Maitresse Madeline, Owen Gray and Mickey Mod, as well as FSC CEO Diane Duke and Michael Chate of MindGeek.

Based on all that, you'd think that Izzy Hall would reel in the rhetoric in his final push for his bill before the committee. You would be wrong.

None of the committee members had questions or comments, but de Leon gave Hall the last word, though, and he didn't disappoint.
"I know this is not a sexy bill," he began. "We're talking about protecting the lives of those without a voice," apparently ignoring the "voice" of the 650-plus petitions presented to the committee earlier.

"These individuals who have come forward today deserve a badge of honor for the courage that they have to come back and forth to Sacramento for the last several months testifying in front of members of the legislature both on Senate and the Assembly side, talking about how they were impacted on their places of employment," he stated, apparently referring to Bay and Daily rather than the dozens of other performers who have attended those same hearings, "where they contracted a disease that will affect their lives for the rest of their lives," Hall added, implying that Bay and Daily contracted their HIV on-set, which implication has been shown to be untrue.
"For the record, Mr. Chair, this bill does not mandate testing," Hall lied. "This bill mandates documentation of testing, and there is a big difference. This bill does not mandate testing; this bill mandates the documentation of testing, and the question as I close is, Mr. Chair and members, is how many lives must be taken for profit? How many people must come up here each and every week or every other week and talk about how their lives and families' lives and many others are drastically impacted by going to work, performing a job, not receiving a reasonable level of protection afforded other employees, and as a result, now their lives have been turned upside down, their families and all of their associates?"
The answer to that question appears to be just Cameron Bay and Rod Daily, neither of whom caught their HIV on an adult set, while more than 650 other performers signed petitions and wrote letters against the bill's passage.

So, to review and condense Isadore Hall's case: Two performers with questionable histories are more truthful than over 650 performers with solid records of protecting themselves without his or AHF's help; we absolutely must save those performers who can't save themselves with protections from HIV and STI's, and only 4-cent condoms are the proven means to do that; only an organization with well over $250 million in revenue is capable of fighting against the Evil Porn Profiteers who infect their "employees" with impunity, then go on to infect the general population; and, requiring documentation of testing is not the same as actually requiring testing...even though if you don't test, you get punished just the same. Hurry up and pass this bill before our opportunity to make money off condom placement ads goes past.....errrrrrr, before another performer gets killed by AIDS!!

I guess that we will all see by next week, if not by August 15th, whether his lunacy and AHF's money tree are able to overcome actual logic and truth. At least, for this year.

Mike South: Proudly Spreading Ignorance About STI Testing In Porn Since 2003 (Pwnage By Sharon Mitchell And AIM, via AVN)

It's one thing to be deliberately obtuse and out-to-lunch about something as important as a person's health. It's another thing entirely to maintain that ignorance for an extended time.

You all know by now of the exposure to bright sunlight of the recent travails of Mike South, part-time porn producer/director/webminister, and full time gadfly/critic of the LA porn industry and its testing system for STI's.

Michael Whiteacre of The Real Porn Wikileaks has been running a series over there revealing South as a grand hypocrite who mocks LA producers for not forcing condoms down their perfomers throats and not universally testing them for every single infective threat, while he relies on oral swab tests, no condoms, and his own "common sense"/ESP/Spider-Man senses/boner blood as his own screenage against STI's and HIV.

As it turns out, though, South's "expertese" in HIV testing goes a long way back...like even before the initial Darren James/Lara Roxx outbreak hit in 2004. And, the need for real experts to correct his errors go back just as far, too.

The following is a repost of an article that was posted to AVN.com back in June of 2003, where AIM Medical Foundation director Sharon Mitchell responds point-for-point to some comments Mike South made at his blog the weekend before. South was responding to a viewer/reader asking questions about the testing regime used back then; and apparently, the answers he gave didn't quite tell the whole story.

You will note, of course, that the PCR-DNA test that was the gold standard back then has now been itself upended by the Aptima test, which further cuts the latency period down from 14-30 days to 6-10 days. Also, the "protease inhibitors" that used to cloak HIV+ readings for viral load or antibody tests do not affect DNA-based tests or Aptima; and neither do the more recent "retroviral" drugs now used today as treatment for HIV+ people. Other than those caveats, what was said then is as much true today.

I will simply reprint the article in its entirity; the original can be found by clicking the title.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's At Risk For HIV — And How Do You Know? Mitchell Answers South

Over the weekend, Mike South, a producer/director in the adult video business and Internet columnist, answered a question from a reader who asked him to explain the differences between the RT-PCR/PCR-DNA test(s) and the ELISA test. Since AVN is in the process of preparing a series of articles on healthcare within the adult industry, we asked AIM Healthcare Foundation executive director Sharon Mitchell to comment on South's answer to his correspondent's questions. What follows are South's answer, broken into its component parts, and Mitchell's comments on each part, with some amplification questions from AVN Senior Editor Mark Kernes: 
 
Mike South: The Viral load tests measure the amount of virus in a blood sample by one of two methods. The first, the PCR is a process by which the RNA is chemically treated to cause it to replicate itself, the idea is to induce replication to a high level, then measure that level knowing that the replication factor is a constant. This is called an indirect test because it indirectly measures the amount of RNA in the sample. 
 
Sharon Mitchell: That's a PCR-RNA test. 
 
South: The second called bDNA, this is a direct measurement of the RNA. The sample is treated to induce the RNA to lumenesce [sic] or "glow" the amount of light given off indicates how much virus is present. 
 
Mitchell: That's a branch DNA test, which is a form of an RNA test. It's still a viral load test. We do neither the bDNA nor the RT-RNA. We do PCR-DNA. 
 
Mark Kernes: When Mike South says, "RT-PCR," that's incomplete? It has to say either RT-PCR-DNA or RT-PCR-RNA?
 
Mitchell: That's correct, and we do the PCR-DNA, not the PCR-RNA.
 
South: The problem with these tests is that they are only accurate to about forty parts per million, below that point the virus is undetectable. Someone who has HIV and has been on protease inhibitor drugs can fall well below this level and the tests determine them to be HIV Negative which they clearly are not. They are also most certainly still capable of passing on the virus to someone else. 
 
Mitchell: That's all correct, bearing in mind that "forty parts per million" is equivalent of 400 copies per milliliter [see below], but it refers to the PCR-RNA test. 
 
South: The ELISA test tests for antibodies to the virus to be present in your system, even though you may show no signs of illness 95% of all people will develope [sic] antibodies to HIV within 3 weeks of exposure.
 
Mitchell: No, no. In fact, some people can go without developing antibodies for six weeks to six months, and while six weeks may be great for the general population, it's not good for people having multiple partners in porn. And remember, we are using monitoring. We're not looking for a one guy/one time diagnosis here; we're looking for monitoring based on every 30 days by PCR-DNA — not RNA, not viral loads. That's why USA Referral [a testing referral service] is not a good facility for that very reason. 
 
Kernes: So the first time someone came into you, if you gave them an ELISA test and it showed negative, they could actually have been HIV positive for up to six months and you would not necessarily be able to see it on the ELISA test? 
 
Mitchell: Yes. That's why we don't use the ELISA test. 
 
South: This "window period" is in reality no worse than that of the PCR tests, and may even prove better in some cases. 
 
Kernes: He's talking about the PCR-RNA test, apparently.
 
Mitchell: Right, I know, and this is all relevant to PCR-RNA, but we don't do PCR-RNA. We can't afford to wait for the window periods of an ELISA or RNA. 
 
Kernes: So an ELISA test and a PCR-RNA are really about the same in the sense — 
 
Mitchell: No. One's an antibody test and one's a viral load test; they're two entirely different things, but they're not effective for this population when dealing with monitoring. 
 
Kernes: So if someone had HIV and was not taking protease inhibitors, and got an ELISA test and a PCR-RNA, which one would be likely to detect the virus first? 
 
Mitchell: Well, it depends. Now, remember, HIV is going to surge in the first 18-30 days, so if you're catching it early, HIV-RNA is going to show a sky-high viral load. But if we're not catching it early, there'll be some viral load and it will be relatively over 400 copies per milliliter, and that could occur any time, at any point. But usually when I've done the RNA tests, I've done them very early because I've done them as a confirmatory after ELISA, Western Blot and then RNA, after a positive PCR-DNA. 
 
Kernes: So they're confirmatory tests for you?


Mitchell: For us, yeah. 

Kernes: And even then, the tests may not confirm because depending on a variety of circumstances — how long the person has been positive; whether or not they're taking protease inhibitors — the only one that will actually show that they have the virus is the PCR-DNA. 

Mitchell: Correct. In this case [see below], the RNA will mask the virus because they still have HIV but they're undetected, and the patient can still transmit the virus at least 15 percent of the time. Therefore, the one that we depend upon in case someone is trying to hide the fact that they have HIV is PCR-DNA, because it will always show the virus is detected. 

South: I am surprised that AIM would not offer the ELISA test if you requested it, specially since it is the ONLY HIV test that is recognized by either the CDC or the AIDS Foundation as a valid HIV Screen. 

Kernes: Why would you give the PCR-DNA in preference to the ELISA test or the PCR-RNA test? 

Mitchell: Because of the window period. It's not three weeks; it can be minimum six weeks to as long as six months, and that's most of the time. Young, healthy people, for the antibody to mature, could take a lot longer than your average Joe, and we're dealing with young, healthy people between the ages of 18 and 25. And also remember, we're monitoring for the HIV disease every 30 days. That's key here. It's a monitoring system.

Kernes: Is the ELISA test the only test that's recognized by the CDC or the AIDS Foundation as a valid HIV screen? 

Mitchell: I don't know.

South: PCR and bDNA testing are emphatically stated as NOT to be used as an HIV screen. 

Mitchell: That may very well be, but again, they're dealing with average, everyday people, everyday tests for the general population. We are dealing with adult entertainers for pornography and this is a system that has kept HIV successfully out of porn since the inception of this Foundation in 1998. 

South: Some companies and performers have been mislead [sic] by AIM so make sure that the person you are going to work with knows that you have not been tested by AIM, but have tests from a certified independent [sic] lab. I only accept an ELISA test but some in porn valley [sic] may only accept a PCR test, until they have been educated to the facts. 

Mitchell: He's got the wrong facts. PCR-DNA is the one that will always show the virus. PCR-RNA is the one that hides the virus. I've got the proof right here. 

[Note: To support her statements, Mitchell produced two tests given to the same HIV-positive individual who is currently taking protease inhibitors, the standard treatment for HIV: A PCR-RNA test, which indicates that the individual is "Within Range Result" with "Fewer than 400 copies/ml" of the virus, which would indicate to a physician who had no idea of the person's actual HIV status that the person was HIV negative; and a PCR-DNA test, which indicates that the person is "Outside of Reference Range" and is "Positive" for HIV.]

Kernes: So if someone in porn attempted to work with just an ELISA test or just a PCR-RNA, what would be your advice to their partner or to the company that's employing them? 

Mitchell: Do not do it. To a performer, I'd say you're putting yourself at risk because these two types of methods, ELISA and PCR-RNA, are hiding HIV at its earliest, and you may be working with someone that just has gotten HIV — it's not going to show up on either of those tests — or you may be working with someone that's HIV positive that's on medications and is not showing up on this RNA test, that can still transmit the virus 15 percent of the time. PCR-DNA test always will show up, and that's why we did this experiment here with Kevin. 

Kernes: And on the PCR-DNA, the virus can show up within seven days?

Mitchell: No. Let's say minimum 14, to 30. We've seen it at 14 days.

Kernes: But it will definitely show itself by 30 days? 

Mitchell: Absolutely.

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

As Part 1 of this update showed, mid week was not a particurlarly good week for those wanting to impose condoms involuntarily on porn shoots. On Friday, it got far, far worse.

You will remember that last June or so, the California Assembly decided to table on suspension AB 332, Isadore Hall's original attempt to impose the condom mandate throughout the state of California by tying porn shoots to the emerging CalOSHA standards for barrier protections for "bloodborne pathenogens". The bill had originally passed through one Assembly subcommittee, but got stalled in the Appropriations Committee due to its financial impact.

Assemblyman Hall's response to that was to attempt some legislative trickeration by tying the conditions of AB332 to an totally unrelated bill that had passed the California State Senate, SB 640, which had originally dealt with regulation of cigarettes and tobacco products.

Mark Kernes over at AVN had posted last July 27th an essay chroniclizing all the dirty deeds done by Hall in his attempt to reserrect his condom mandate bill.

But what would any good horror story be these days without a nod to zombies? So less than a month after AB 332's demise, lo and behold, it was brought back to life (more or less) as AB 640!

 Actually, those first amendments of June 20 appear to be sort of placeholders for the full bill that was to come with the next set of amendments. Rather, the June 20 amendments, besides defining "adult film," mere stated that "(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the protection of workers in the adult film industry is the responsibility of multiple layers of government; and (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a city, county, or city and county may adopt and enforce a local ordinance that protects against the exposure of workers to blood or other potentially infectious materials during the filming or production of an adult film."

 Big whoop there: Measure B had already passed and was in the middle of a protracted lawsuit by June 20, so it was only with the July 3 amendments that AB 640 was made into essentially an AB 332 clone.

For example, passage of AB 640 was now deemed "urgent" and therefore "to take effect immediately." Also, according to the Legislative Counsel's Digest, which is prepared for every bill that comes before the legislature, it would require a two-thirds vote for passage, and for some reason would not need to be voted on in either the Appropriations nor Fiscal Committees, possibly because it was claimed not to involve a "state-mandated local program."

Even so, the July 3 amendments amounted to only a single paragraph at the end of the bill: "This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to protect workers in the adult film industry from an imminent threat to public health as soon as possible, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately."

You will remember that originally Hall's bill, if passed into law, would not take effect until January 2015, at the latest...but now he was attempting to mine popular antiporn opposition.......errrrrrrr, AHF propaganda efforts, to have the bill passed to take effect immediately. I guess those condom dollars he would be getting from AHF just couldn't wait.

Funny thing happened, though....as Kernes reports, on August 27th, Hall tweaked his new toy once again. It's just a coinkydynk that the Cameron Bay/Rod Daily brohaha happened to break out just after that date, isn't it?? And, note also the relationship with the Measure B ruling which also took place that week.

As of August 27, pretty much all the language that had previously been in AB 640 was gone, to be replaced by the exact language of AB 332 as of its last amendments on April 17, only this time, the Legislative Counsel's Digest states that it will only need a simple majority to pass, that it must be vetted by the Fiscal Committee (but not Appropriations), and that it will involve one or more "state-mandated local programs." Once again, it states that, "An employer shall maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and any potentially infectious materials, in accordance with Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations," and once again, those controls could include, but are not limited to, simulated sex, condoms "and other protective barriers whenever acts of vaginal or anal intercourse are filmed," and bloodborne pathogen plans and training to implement them, all in accordance with Title 8 Section 5193 of the Health Code.

If the rumors are correct, and AHF is both vetting (if not outright composing) the language of AB 640 and providing inducements to Assemblymember Hall, who is in his third and final term in office, to introduce the revised bill, the August 27 amendments may represent AHF's fear that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will, unlike Judge Pregerson, take the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry seriously and drop AHF from the Vivid lawsuit—and therefore, AHF may see AB 640 as its last chance to force the adult industry to use condoms, dental dams, goggles, face shields and, yes, hazmat suits in its productions.

For a while earlier this week, it sure seemed as if AHF and Hall would get their moment in the sun, as panic induced by the three confirmed infections (and Weinstein's assertions, still unverified, of a fourth infected performer which was unfortunately artificially inflated by an inexcusible byline lede from XBiz.com) seemed to undermine support for the existing regime of testing. By Thursday, some self-identified "experts" were sooo certain that AB 640 would practically fly through the California Assembly in its final day like George Patton's Third Army through southern France during the Normandy campaign. (Screenshot courtesy of Michael Whiteacre via his @MrWhiteacre TL)

Alas..even the best laid plans of a Numerberg rally come crashing down to earth in pieces.

XBiz and TRPWL laid out the ultimate scoreboard yesterday.

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Assembly, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Assembly’s, as well as the Senate’s, terms despite the fact that it wasn’t on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

But in the end, AB 640 was stuck in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

Much of the evening in the Assembly floor session was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Assembly’s session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/california-porn-condom-bill-ab-640-dead-session/#sthash.ZhHLrGyH.dpuf

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Assembly, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Assembly’s, as well as the Senate’s, terms despite the fact that it wasn’t on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

But in the end, AB 640 was stuck in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

Much of the evening in the Assembly floor session was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Assembly’s session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/california-porn-condom-bill-ab-640-dead-session/#sthash.ZhHLrGyH.dpuf

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Assembly, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Assembly’s, as well as the Senate’s, terms despite the fact that it wasn’t on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

But in the end, AB 640 was stuck in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

Much of the evening in the Assembly floor session was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Assembly’s session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/california-porn-condom-bill-ab-640-dead-session/#sthash.ZhHLrGyH.dpuf

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Senate, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Legislature's term despite the fact that it wasn't on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

Much of the evening in  the Legislature was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Legislature's session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

 Since Assemblyman Hall is limited to 3 terms in office, next year will be his last chance to pull the weight for AHF....that is, if they don't go the route of the antigay forces and attempt to push the condom mandate statewide as an initiative, just like the anti-gay marriage proposed Proposition 8. Otherwise, it seems that sanity has proven to be an effective counterforce to insanity, and performer's choice is preserved for at least 2013.

2257 Regulations Mostly Upheld By Federal Court Ruling, Save For Private Home Inspections: The Aftermath

I can't say that this wasn't really unexpected, given the political and social climate.

US District Court Judge Michael Baylson issued his long awaited ruling yesterday regarding US Statute Code 2257 and 2257A, the regulations which required performers of sexually explicit media to provide manditory age verification and other information to law enforcement for federal inspectors on request.

Essentially, the law was upheld on all conditions except for one: inspections at private residences of performers without prior notice were held to be unconstitutional abridgments of the Fourth Amendment. The remainder of the regs, however, were upheld and found to be justified on the basic of "public safety" overwhelming any "right of privacy".

Basically, Judge Baylson took the position that fighting child porn and preventing underage children from being "exploited" outweighs any invasion of privacy that the regulations had on legal adult performers. In short, the ends justify the means.

I won't go into the heart of the decision here, since both X-Biz.com and AVN have their own excellent analysis (and pay particular attention to Mark Kernes' righteous critique of Baylson's ruling over at AVN), but there is a dangerous precedent being established here regarding regulation of sexual speech.

If Baylson's ruling is upheld on appeal, this would give censorship forces a new weapon to use against companies which offer their media outlets for legally protected adult sexual content. I can already see Gail Dines, Dawn Hawkins, and the anti- "sex trafficking" lobby licking their chops at the thought of using the threat of 2257 inspections to drive porn producers and performers into bankruptcy or drive them out through death by paperwork asphyxiation.

Not to mention, the ease of personal and private information about performer's real identities being accessible to potential stalkers and blackmailers (remember the original Porn Wikileaks scam got most their information they used to gaybait and slander performers through 2257 documents), and the requirement that even "secondary producers" (such as adult webmasters trading videos and pictures for their paid sites) must have such information available upon request or face random raids from the Feds or face possible sanctions or even jail terms for "child porn" production.

And if you think that even your free blog can't be potentially affected by this..well, think again, because given the decision yesterday by Tumblr to modify their policies regarding sexually explicit content to be more in line with the consensus (porn can stay, as long as it is hidden deep in the lower basement beyond reach and not searchable, and marked with a scarlet letter "X" for easy recognition and stigma), it's not a long shot to say that the major media companies could easily go further and simply erase all sexual content further down the road. 2257 can easily be used by the Feds as a wedge to force Yahoo or Google to impose sexual censorship without actually pulling a site or a blog; simply requiring a blogger to have the necessary papers for that porn pic (s)he uploaded to her blog would be more than enough.

Bottom line here: that in 2013 a performer such as Kylie Ireland or Nina Hartley or Vicky Vette must provide paperwork everytime they upload a video to their pay sites verifying that they are not under 18, and that they must prove that they don't perform with underage performers every single time they take a picture or film a scene...even though there are already laws against child porn and sexual abuse of children in the first place??  Seems like the adult media industry could learn some lessons from the Black community about assumed guilt and collective punishment...and permanent stigma.

How The SCOTUS Prop 8 Repeal May Have Kneecapped AHF's Measure B Defense

 Updated: Scroll to bottom for latest.

Even this late in the eveniing, you can still feel the joy and relief in the air in California as gay/lesbian/bi folk and those who love them celebrate the US Supreme Court's dual rulings yesterday capping the federally passed Defense of Marriage Act and Cali's Proposition 8 -- both of which defined non-straights out of the benefits of marriage.

The DOMA ruling was straight forward and highly divided, with Anthony Kennedy allied with the four liberal Justices (Elana Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Steven Breyer) uniting in holding the 1994 bill as an unconstitutional abridgment of equal protection; while the four more right-wing Justices (Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas) strongly dissented (and in Scalia's case, dripping with venom) using the old "states rights and democracy) arguments.

The Prop (H)8 ruling, wasn't so straight forward; rather than risk issuing a grand edict on the legal validity of laws opposing same-sex marriages, the SCOTUS instead decided to punt the issue for now, merely upholding the lower appelate court decision that the defenders of Prop (H)8 had lost their legal standing to take the case to the federal level when the state of California declined to defend the law. It was officials with the antigay group Campaign for California Families and right wing Cali Assemblyman Dennis Hollingsworth which had carried on the defense of the law before the US Ninth Appelate Circuit and then the SCOTUS. (Similarly with DOMA, when the Obama/Holder Department of Justice decided not to pursue a defense of that law, Congressional Republicans under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner paid their own lawyers for that law's defense.)

But, what does that have anything to do with Measure B, the attempt in Los Angeles County to impose condoms onto porn shoots??

As Mark Kernes of AVN recently noted, pretty damn much.

You see, there is currently another lawsuit ongoing in Los Angeles to invalidate the recently passed initiative, in which the plantiffs (VIVID Entertainment, performer Kayden Kross, and producer/director Logan Pierce) are suing the LA County officials who would enforce Measure B for an injunction against enforcement of the recently passed initiative. The original defendants in this lawsuit are the officials of LA County, but the presiding judge in this case, Dean D. Pregerson, did allow the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), who have been the principal boosters of the condom mandate, to enter themselves in the lawsuit litigation process as a party in defense of Measure B.

Problem is for AHF, though....like the groups defending Prop (H)8, their status in defending the law is greatly undermined under Federal protocols that only those suffering direct harm can file claims for relief to the process. To quote directly from Mark Kernes' AVN article on the entire matter posted yesterday:

When the Ninth Circuit, which had asked Hollingsworth not to appeal his and the Campaign's loss, certified the essential question in the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it is required to do, it asked, "Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so."

In other words, did Hollingsworth and Campaign for California Families have standing to bring the case in the first place, since none of them were personally affected by the legality of same-sex marriage.

"What the Supreme Court has basically held is that regardless of a state supreme court thinks a party has standing in its state courts, the federal courts are still bound by Article III, and unless a party has actual Article III standing, it has no standing to pursue an action," First Amendment attorney Allan Gelbard analyzed. "How this applies to AHF is because, under the Article III cases that have come down so far, the proponent of a statute, once it becomes law, no longer has standing in Article III courts to defend or protect that law. That now has to be done by the Executive or someone appointed by the state to defend that interest. AHF hasn't been, so it appears that AHF will be out of court on this matter."

Chief Justice Roberts said nearly that exact thought in the Hollingsworth decision.

"Article III of the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual 'Cases' or 'Controversies'," Roberts wrote. "One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. This requires the litigant to prove that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. In other words, for a federal court to have authority under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm. 'The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to meet Art. III's requirements.' The doctrine of standing, we recently explained, 'serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches'." [Citations omitted here and below]

Now, considering the humongeous bank that AHF has poured into their condom mandate initiatives, starting with the city of Los Angeles' condom law, then Measure B countywide, and now with the proposed statewide initiative of HB 332, you can clearly say that they are indeed a very involved party in defending Measure B. But, interest (and principal) is not the issue here; the folks filing the lawsuit are the ones who are claiming direct injury due to the passage of the condom mandate; and it is the county and city, since they are the ones who will have to enforce this law if it holds up, who will bear the responsibility for any resulting injury. Outside parties can file and have filed what are called a centori briefs supporting one side or another of a legal preceding, but they are still quite limited in directly intervening in the matters at hand..especially in a Federal court. I'm sure that state and local courts are more tolerant on this question.

It's also becoming more apparent that LA County is becoming more and more reticent to handle the hot potato of enforcing the condom mandate and the other henious byproducts of Measure B; preferring to allow Cal-OSHA to handle most of the dirty work. Obviously, that position isn't going too well with AHF, which is why they are going all out to break off the city of Los Angeles from the LA County Health system and form their own department. But even the city of LA isn't immune, because they recently tweaked their own condom mandate ordinance to copy the language and intent of Measure B...thusly putting them into the fire if the county law is rendered unconstitutional.

All this means that next week could get pretty interesting, as attorneys repping the porn folks attempt to use the SCOTUS rulings as a wedge to force Judge Pregerson to reverse his initial decision and remove AHF as a "party in good standing" in their suit. Again, quoting Kernes:

Hence, attorney Paul Cambria, on behalf of Vivid and the other plaintiffs, will be moving to have AHF disqualified as a party to the case.

"This is exactly what we had suggested was going to happen and should happen," Cambria told AVN, referring to his and the other plaintiffs' attorneys arguments at the hearing before U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson. "It's an important decision because special interest groups with a lot of money shouldn't be able to take over a government role. They have no fiduciary duty, they have no ethical duty to the Constitution. It doesn't make sense to give them standing, and the Supreme Court has recognized that. It's not like the county legislature or a county attorney or an attorney general; those individuals have sworn to uphold the Constitution. They have a fiduciary duty to the citizenry, and if something is unconstitutional or should be narrowly interpreted, they have a fiduciary and ethical duty to do so, whereas special interest groups like AHF have no such fiduciary or ethical obligations."

The Supreme Court made exactly that point in upholding the Ninth Circuit's overturning of Prop 8.

"The only individuals who sought to appeal that order were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court," Roberts wrote. "But the District Court had not ordered them to do or refrain from doing anything. To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a 'personal and individual way.' He must possess a 'direct stake in the outcome' of the case. Here, however, petitioners had no 'direct stake' in the outcome of their appeal. Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law."

And that describes AHF's "interests" to a "T."

"We're going to renew our motion to have AHF disqualified," Cambria stated. "They clearly have no standing. The Supreme Court's ruling is on all fours without any possibility of distinguishing it. They have no standing. They shouldn't be heard. They should not be able to submit papers. They should be out. It's up to the county now to handle this matter. My anticipation is that when we show up on Monday [for the scheduled hearing on a Preliminary Injunction against Measure B], we'll ask the court to anticipate that motion and obviously recognize that they [AHF] have no standing based on that case, and seek some guidance from the court as to how we handle it from there."

What that could easily mean is that the case will go forward for a little while, as LA County decides whether it wants to defend the clearly-unconstitutional Measure on its own, or will simply allow the plaintiffs to be victorious through a renewed Summary Judgment motion.

The grand irony of all this is that had the SCOTUS decided to take the more aggressive route and use their Prop (H)8 ruling to invalidate other anti-samesex marriage laws in other states, the "due standing" doctrine would have been no issue, and AHF probably would have a firmer ground to stand on. Of course, they still probably would have lost anyway based on the "equal protection" clause due to discrimination against performers who don't want condoms mandated on them...but at least they would have been able to make their case.

So, Chief Justice John Roberts' reticence in going nuclear (same thing that enabled him to defend the Affordable Care Act last year) might have saved the porn industry in California from a nuke.


UPDATE:  Adult legal analyst and attorney Allan Gelbard jusst issued his own statement reinforcing the dominant position that the Prop (H)8 decision by the SCOTUS knocks AHF out of the Measure B suit. Quoting him from XBiz.com yesterday:

The AHF, in its arguments for intervenor status, contended that counsel for Los Angeles County won't make any arguments made by the proposed intervenors because it won't defend the constitutionality of Measure B.

But today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Hollingsworth vs. Perry, which dismisses a case relative to California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, could be key in the possibility of tossing the AHF from the Measure B case.

The U.S. Supreme Court today held in Hollingsworth vs. Perry, 5-4, that opponents of gay marriage behind California's 2008 Proposition 8 effort did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial years earlier.

"The court [in the Measure B case] granted AHF's intervention motion based on the Hollingsworth vs. Perry (Proposition 8) 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that as a proponent of an initiative, they had standing," industry attorney Allan Gelbard told XBIZ.

"The Supreme Court ruled this morning that was incorrect when it held that the proponents of Proposition 8 lacked Article III standing in federal court and vacated the 9th Circuit opinion," Gelbard said. 

Pregerson wrote in the April ruling that the AHF had significant protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation that was sufficient to support intervention.

The AHF, in its arguments for intervenor status, maintained that the county concedes that the group was a necessary party to litigate the constitutionality of Measure B because "no other party to the case will."

Among its affirmative defenses, the AHF said that it had reserved "the right to have proponents of Measure B intervene and defend the constitutionality of Measure B in light of the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban decision."

Like I said....Monday's shaking out to be an interesting day.

UPDATE #2 (6-27-13):  I guess they couldn't even wait until Monday; the plantiffs in the Measure B suit filed their motion this morning to have AHF disqualified as a party to their suit  AVN has attached a link to the transcript of their original article.

AB332. It Be Officially DEAD. (At Least For This Year.)

Well....the industry and true performer choice just dodged a nuke for this legislative year.

The California Assembly's Appropriations Committee just decided to table Isadore Hall's bill, AB 332, which would have mandated condoms and other "barrier protections" for all porn productions statewide; effectively killing it for the legislative session this year. (Today was the final day for bills introduced to be considered for this year's session.)

Needless to say, it probably isn't a happy camp over at AIDS Healthcare Foundation today.

On the other hand, the Free Speech Coalition, which has been roundly pilloried by some as being so uneffective, actually gets to boast a victory. Here's their press release issued on the heels of AB 332's defeat, via XBiz.com:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Assembly Appropriations Committee voted today to stop Assembly Bill 332 from moving forward, the FSC reported.

AB 332 would have mandated barrier protection use in adult film productions in California.
  
“We are grateful that lawmakers have chosen the best interest of California’s taxpayers and the adult industry over AB 332’s misguided legislation,” 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.

Duke called the bill “a solution without a problem” and told XBIZ that the FSC would have been able to block the legislation from becoming law should it have moved on to the senate. According to Duke, legislators recognized the flaws in the bill and decided to oppose it.

“We support choice for performers, as well as the successful testing system that has been in place since 1998, which have resulted in no on-set transmissions of HIV in nine years, nationwide,” Duke said. “It is encouraging to see that legislators recognize the hard work that the adult industry has done to safeguard performers and that our hard work will not be lost to an unnecessary bureaucracy created from unnecessary legislation.”

Terry Schanz, the press secretary for Assemblyman Isadore Hall, who introduced the bill in February, told XBIZ that AB 332 is not dead and no vote was taken on it today. He added that in a two-year legislative process, there is "plenty of time" for the bill 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," Schanz said. "He gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘money shot’."

FSC has spearheaded opposition to AB 332, Measure B and continues to oppose legislation that threatens the adult industry. FSC also upholds industry-appropriate self-regulation that includes STD testing for performers.

Mike Gatto, for those who might not recognize his name, is the head of the Appropriations Committee.

Ernest Greene had called it in the comments earlier.

Funny, I had a feeling this would happen, much as it did with the Leslie bill back in 2004. Grandstanding measures that obligate the state to spend undetermined amounts of taxpayer money for no reasonable return have a way of expiring in committee. This one could get out to a floor vote if AHF can figure out some kind of backhanded maneuver to short-circuit the process, but I suspect that will prove a bridge to far even for them.

Sacramento plays by its own rules and has its own influential constituents to please. I doubt Michael Weinstein is on their radar as anything but a minor nuisance. He can try bullying these guys and undoubtedly will, but I don't expect them to be terribly impressed.

I'm not counting any chickens yet, but AB 332 seems pretty likely to fall off the legislative calendar.

On the other hand, there are these words of caution from AVN's Mark Kernes:

Yes, the existing bill is dead, since today was the last day that action could be taken on bills that had already been introduced, and since no action—that is, no up or down vote—was taken today, the bill is effectively dead. But as some have pointed out, AIDS Healthcare Foundation is heavily invested in forcing adult performers to wear "barrier protections" during sex scenes, regardless of the fact that they are tested regularly for STDs and generally in good health—and AHF is unlikely to let a little thing like a bill being prevented from moving forward by the California Assembly stop them. So expect the same or similar bill to be introduced during the next legislative session, because they know they've got money to burn for things like this, and the publicity surrounding such issues gets them loads of donations, while the adult industry continues to struggle from the ongoing recession. So rest assured, this fight isn't over.

 But at least, that will be one less battle to worry about this year for the adult entertainment industry. And perhaps, maybe we will see the implosion of Measure B as well??

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

Scroll to bottom for updated information.

Well...funny how things turn on a dime.

Last week, it seemed that AB332 was on a smooth path to victory once it passed the California Assembly's Health and Labor Subcommittee.

After today, when it was scheduled to face the more powerful Appropriations Committee?  Not so much.

AB 332 Stalls in Appropriations Committee

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Assembly Bill 332 stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday after the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall (D-Compton), waived the opportunity to speak about the legislation.

Karen Tynan, the attorney representing adult industry opposition to AB 332 was not able to deliver her statement regarding the potential economic repercussions of the bill, as well as its intrusion into Cal/OSHA’s affairs.

“My testimony was meant to explain and emphasize the incredible waste of taxpayer money that will result if AB 332 is enacted,” Tynan said. “Cal/OSHA has a process where they have stakeholder meetings and attempt to create feasible regulations. We are still in that process with the draft regulations pending revisions. AB 332 demands that the state legislature throw out all that work and start over with the AHF plan.”

“Committee members with adult entertainment businesses in their districts should be reminded that these businesses create jobs, pay taxes, and should have a voice in this process,” Tynan added.

Other industry performers and professionals attended the hearing, including Peter Acworth, Kink.com founder and Free Speech Coalition board member. Acworth was not able to deliver the testimony he prepared.

“We got here at 5:30 a.m. and spent most of the day,” Acworth said. “But we’re happy the bill has been put in suspension. I hope this is the end of the bill. I remain a strong advocate for performer testing and the APHSS.org database system.”

Representatives from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation were not present at the meeting, the FSC reported on its blog.

AB 332 was introduced by Hall in February and mirrors Measure B, which makes condoms mandatory for porn shoots in Los Angeles County.

Apparently, the main stumbling block was, strangely enough, money....as in, the potential costs to the state for enforcing AB332's condom mandate statewide. Quoting Mark Kernes of AVN:

The fact that the bill was not heard today means that it goes "on suspense," meaning that the Appropriations Committee can take it up at a later date, which according to an Appropriations Committee employee will likely be May 24.

"The committee takes up bills on suspense after it has heard all the other bills on the agenda," he explained.

However, if the bill is not taken up on that date, it is unclear whether it can be held over for the following year's legislative session.

"Clearly, [AB 332 sponsor Isadore] Hall didn't have the votes today, because the bill would cost the state at least $150,000," Tynan assessed, "so bills with that much of a fiscal impact, if they're not considered right away, go on suspense, and it's my impression that the bill has lost momentum, I understand."

And where did that $150,000 figure come from?

"That's the figure the Appropriations Committee had," Tynan stated. "That's the figure that the Appropriations Committee evaluated that the bill would cost—a minimum of what the bill would cost the state."

Indeed; for a government agency or an outside contractor to put together a task force and then attempt to track down adult filming locations everywhere in the state would likely cost far more than $150,000. 

By comparison, Los Angeles County Health Department head Dr. Jonathan Fielding has estimated that just to set up such a task force within his own department and hire investigators to enforce compliance with LA County Measure B would cost, for the first two years of operation, more than $580,000, though some of that cost would supposedly be offset by the cost of the public health permits adult producers would be required to buy.

Given California's revenue troubles, that would probably raise too much of a red flag for even those supportive of Hall's bill....so he basically punted for now.

So, the next date to mark down will be May 24th, when all of the "on suspense"/"suspension" bills are taken up by the Appropriations Committee. I'm guessing that AHF and Hall are already on the phones, lobbying their forces.

If the bill is not passed on to the full Assembly by then, it's essentially dead for this year, and probably for the next fiscal year as well. Still, not a good idea to let guards down, since AHF's money still has some juice in Sacramento. Updates as warranted, of course.

UPDATE:

Seems like the BAH-LOCK dropped on AB 332 may be a bit more permanent than I even expected. This was just posted at TheSword.com, a gay porn blog (Caution: Link NSFW; bolded emphasis added by me):

Kink.com CEO Peter Acworth joined other San Francisco studio reps and performers along with attorney Karen Tynan in Sacramento today to testify against AB 332, but it turns out they didn’t need to. The bill to mandate condoms in California porn has failed.

After passing the Labor Committee last month, the bill was put before the Appropriations Committee today where it was soundly rejected (committee members having recognized there is no state money to fund it). In fact, the committee didn’t even hold a formal vote on AB 332 since its sponsor, committee member Isadore Hall, likely knew there wouldn’t be enough votes for it to pass.

“Hall didn’t have the votes,” attorney Karen Tynan tells The Sword. “So, there was no vote, and the bill is now considered ‘on suspense,’ or in other words, in limbo. None of our San Francisco contingents needed to testify against the bill, and no one from (sponsor) AHF even showed up to testify in favor of the bill, probably because they knew they didn’t have the votes.”

While the statewide bill to force porn studios to use condoms in their productions is now considered dead, this doesn’t solve the ongoing drama between porn studios and LA County over AHF’s other condom law, Measure B, which mandates condom use in porn shot in Los Angeles.

Tynan and reps from San Francisco-based studios plan to continue their outreach to California legislators about the potential financial impact of AB 332—on both the industry and the state economy—to ensure that similar bills aren’t brought to committee in the future.

Keep in mind, however, that AB 332 was thought to have been killed by the Health and Labor Subcommittee earlier when the first vote there didn't get enough votes to pass...but that was reversed later that day when some abstainers switched their votes in favor of the bill to pass on. Never underestimate the power of AHF's bank.

Though, if The Sword's account is verified, the industry may have dodged another nuke. At least, for now.

 

Finally, An Organization For The Good Guys/Gals To Protect Adult Choice: APC4C Emerges To Fight Measure B And AB 332

The fact that this probably should have been formed, like, three years ago, doesn't lessen the importance of it being formed right now. It was and is way, way, waaaaaay past time that porn performers coalesce and stand up for their rights and defend themselves against the Weinsteins and Lubbens and Dineses of the world who would infantalize them for their own profits.

Best to simply repost the full XBiz.com article and let you read for yourself.

And, yes, that would be THIS Lydia Lee.

APC4C Formed to Combat AB 332, Measure B

Former adult actress Lydia Lee and the FSC’s Diane Duke and Joanne Cachapero have formed the Adult Performers Coalition For Choice (APC4C), an outreach organization dedicated to toppling Measure B and barring the passage of AB 332.

“FSC does a lot on its own, but they are constantly wrapped up in [litigation over federal record-keeping law] 2257 and other pursuits far more specific to the legal side of things,” Lee told XBIZ. “They don't always have the time to reach out to every specific group. Having spent some time with these two great ladies ... it became our understanding that performers should have a coalition of their own.”

The trio has been working on the project since the last AB 332 hearing on April 24, inspired by the performer turnout there and at previous legal battlegrounds concerning AB 332 and Measure B, Lee said.

She added that, as a result of the draconian language of bill AB 332 “that references dental dams and hazmat suits,” industry talent is leaving Los Angeles County to pursue opportunities elsewhere, explaining that APC4C will work to reverse this trend by giving a voice to performers who have been “systematically ignored.”

APC4C released its first official post yesterday that included the backing of major industry players, including Alana Evans, Amber Lynn, Jessica Drake, Kylie Ireland, Nina Hartley, Steven St. Croix, Tanya Tate and Tasha Reign.

“The simple fact is that no one speaks for the intelligent, responsible community of performers that I’ve known since I entered the industry 15 years ago,” Lee said. “APC4C represents the voices of performers who are tired of being disrespected and spoken for by people who don’t even view them as a species above caged animals that get thrown a treat for performing a trick on camera. I’m proud to stand up against harassment and insults with the people I care about.”

The coalition’s immediate goal is twofold: to attract members to sign up online and to fax Assembly members to urge them to oppose AB 332, Lee said.

In the future, APC4C plans to organize lobbying efforts and fundraisers.

According to Lee, antiporn activism and its propaganda are nothing new, and she has been watching its battle against the industry for years.

“I remember Diane Duke having to bully her way into a UCLA panel discussion in November 2010 when industry people weren’t invited to add their invaluable input to the conversation,” Lee said. “Just two weeks ago I was at the AB 332 hearing while someone from UCLA was counseling a group of students in a corner of the waiting area, comparing porn performers to animals in mainstream films.”

Lee said APC4C will work to abolish such stereotypes and insert performers’ input into legal discussions concerning the industry.

And no better timing, either, since AB 332 is scheduled for it's next legislative hearing with the California Assembly's Appropriation Committee today. This would be the last stop before the bill goes before the full Assembly.

Oh, for those who think that the former Julie Meadows isn't fully committed to this battle? Read this interview at her blog she did with AVN's Mark Kernes. Then, watch this YouTube video interview with performer Melissa Monet. Then, surf the rest of her blog.

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.

"Wherever They Go, We Will Follow Them": AHF Takes Condom Mandate Statewide; Then Goes Off On Los Angeles County

Never let it be said that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation rests on their laurels.

You would think that they'd be content with the major victory of passing Measure B in Los Angeles County last November.  But noooooo, getting the glass of water 3/4ths of the way full just isn't enough for Michael Weinstein; he won't rest until he owns the whole well, the glass, and the treatment plant.

Last week, AHF dropped the first boot by announcing that they had found a California Assemblyman -- namely, Isadore Hall III (D- Compton) - to execute the next phase of their plan for world condom domination: a bill (titled Assembly Bill 332) which would extend the mandate for condoms for all porn shoots to cover the entire state, rather than just local jurisdictions such as the City of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County.

Basically, the bill would do its damage by mandating that certain "engineering and work controls" be used by porn performers in the shooting of sex scenes, including mandatory condoms for all anal and vaginal scenes; mandatory Hepatitis B vaccines and other testing paid for directly by producers and performers, and it would require, similar to the 2257 regulations regarding verification of performer age, a detailed "Custodian of Records" certification to be made available to state officials.

Aside from the invasive regulatory impact of the proposed bill, there is also the fact that the proposal is almost a mirror image of the proposed Cal-OSHA regulations on "bloodborne pathogen" protection..which, as you recall, would even require performers to don gloves, goggles, and other forms of "barrier protection" to prevent exposure to internal fluids...the kind of protections usually imposed on medical professionals doing surgery or other types of exposure to blood or other internal fluids. (The proposed Cal-OSHA standard, though, does also require "barrier protection" for oral sex as well..though there was an exception to that that was proposed that would mandate a Hepatitis B vaccination and verification for each incidence of oral sex as a substitute for wrapping up.)

Also fascinating is that this proposed bill would apply equally to gay porn as to the "staight" porn industry..which would mean a major turnaround for Weinstein, whom has mostly focused his crusade on straight porn (even as he has profited from selling bareback porn out of AHF's thrift stores.

Reaction from the porn world, natually, has been swift and furious. Here's Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition (full statement here):

“Tragically, this law – if passed – will not only waste taxpayer dollars and compromise the effective performer health protocols already in place, but also compromise funding for critical HIV programs by diverting program funds to create an unnecessary condom-police bureaucracy,” Duke said. “Additionally, this regulation would force an industry vital to the San Fernando Valley and to California’s economy out of the area.”

The proposed bill, which has been tagged as AB-332, follows the passage of the Los Angeles “Safer Sex” Ordinance for Adult Production, which mandates barrier protection for adult productions shot in L.A. County. The new legislation is being sponsored by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D – Compton), who held a Valentine’s Day press conference to announce that he will introduce the bill to California lawmakers.

“While other legislators are focused on gun safety, improving our schools and reducing crime, Assembly Member Hall has chosen to use his taxpayer funded salary and staff to focus on adult films,” Duke added. “We look forward to Assembly Member Hall visiting with adult film stars in the coming weeks to learn more about the exhaustive safety precautions already used by the industry.”

See also comments from Mark Kernes from AVN and Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals at PVV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But even that was only the second most brazen act performed by AHF. The real kicker took place yesterday, when AHF dropped their second boot and decided to get their revenge on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health for not being vigilante enough to impose the condom mandate.

Their idea: simply break the ciity of Los Angeles away from LACDPH and establish their own health care district, through a new proposed public ordinance.

Seems like the current LACDPH director Jonathan Fielding isn't too hot on implementing Measure B as quickly as Weinstein would like...which was more than obvious when Immoral Productions head "Porno Dan" Neal -- accompanied by his lawyer, Michael "Pornlaw" Fattorosi -- went to purchase one of these newfangled permits. Mark Kernes explores the deets of the ensuing comedy:

"To get the permit, you have to go to their office, which is in Commerce, just off the 5 freeway," Fattorosi said. "The application has to be submitted in person, and it has to be submitted with proof of identity. Once you apply and you fill out the application, it looks from the application that you have six months in which to secure your bloodborne pathogen training as well your bloodborne exposure plan for your company. Now, it gives you a place to list your directors and everyone else that would be covered by this application, so for instance, if you have a company and you have four, five, six, seven directors, they give you two pages to put those names on. When you're shooting, one of those people has to be on the shoot, okay, because they have the training necessary. Now, you can have other people shooting for you as long as one of those people that's listed on the application is present for the shoot."

The Public Health License/Permit Application form, Fattorosi said, "acts as your conditional permit until the regs are promulgated and they really understand what's going on. The idea I got was that even the Department of Health has to figure all this out, and what they're going to do. The reason you fill this out is because this goes to the Treasurer of the City of Los Angeles, who then approves the permit and sends a bill to the actual applicant—the studio, the production company—and then when you pay the bill is when they send you your full permit. They're estimating anywhere between three to six months before that even happens."

But here's where it gets, as the dearly departed Cajun humorist Justin Wilson would say, "reeeeeeeal good" (Bolded emphasis added by me):

However, Fattorosi also reported that the Health Department has not yet hired any additional personnel to enforce the new law.

"They have a staff that's going to do this," he reported. "They haven't hired anybody else at this point. Right now they've got several inspectors on staff who'll cover it and they'll have people that will cover it, but they are starting to make sure that people are getting their conditional health permits, because the way this came up is, FilmLA refused to renew a film permit for Dan Leal, for Immoral, until this was taken care of. Now that he's got his conditional permit, FilmLA will go back and issue him his shooting permit."

What's perhaps most interesting about the inspections, the first of which may be a year or more in the future, is that the investigation managers told Fattorosi that, "They will not be reviewing scenes; they will not be sitting around watching porn. They made it very clear to us, they've made it very clear to their boss that they have no interest in watching porn as part of their job.  They made it clear that they're not going to be watching the sex scenes."

One might then legitimately wonder how the health inspectors will determine whether any particular production is in compliance with the condom/barrier protection mandate, but according to Fattorosi, the health inspectors don't see enforcement as part of their job.

"They really don't have police power," Fattorosi said. "They don't have the ability to come in, arrest people; they can't close your set. All they can do is cite you. Just like if they walk into a restaurant and they found something unhealthy or unsanitary in the restaurant, unless it's an immediate huge public health risk, they don't have police powers so they can't shut down someone's set. One of the two people I talked to indicated they would have to have a conference with County Counsel as well as meeting with the City Attorney's office, County Attorney's office, and decide, and that's when they would issue any fines or anything like that. But she made it abundantly clear that this is a learning process, not only for the industry but also for them, that they're trying to find their way; they're not really sure about how to do any of this, and it's all new ground for them, so they want to work with the producers, the producers that are willing to step up and do this; it's not going to be a matter of, they're going to come in and the first violation, they're going to fine you. They're going to give you chances to correct the thing before they take any kind of remedial action against the studio."

Certainly, that "hands off" scenario, if it is actually Health Department policy, will meet strong opposition from, among others, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which gathered the petitions to put Measure B on the ballot in the first place, and has consistently pushed the lie that adult performers are in imminent danger from many STDs including HIV while having sex. And it's unclear how, if a health inspector visited an adult movie set and saw that the performers weren't using condoms and other barrier protections, the inspector could give the studio "chances to correct the thing," especially if they don't think that watching sex scenes being shot is part of their job. Would they require the company to reshoot the scene with the condoms and rubber gloves and face shields?

"While we were there, we went into the bloodborne pathogen plan, what's required, and what they're looking at is what's required by the language of the law," Fattorosi reported. "They didn't want to get into all of that because they weren't lawyers; they didn't want to have a legal debate about what's required or what is not required. What they were basically looking at was, we were there to go over the application procedure and how to get the ball rolling. As far as how this is all going to play out, they still don't really know.

"Their attitude is, they're not in the business of trying to hunt down and root out people who violate the law," he added. "That's not their goal, that's not their purpose, that's not what they're going to do. The two people I talked to seemed sincere in regards to their willingness to work with producers. They understand or they're beginning to understand the difficulties of porn producers and studios to deal with this particular law, so they're not—at least the two people I talked to, they're not interested in trying to shut people down. They're not trying to shut studios down, they're not trying to shut porn production down; that's not their goal. Only health inspectors will be asking for the health permits. It doesn't appear that the police will have anything to do with the health inspection or the health permits. The police will deal with the FilmLA permits, and the Department of Health will deal with the Department of Health permits."

In other words, there will be NO "Condom Nazis" invading porn shoots and frogwalking performers to jail or to court for not wrapping up....at least, not for now.

And, that's probably what motivated Weinstein to perfect this instant coup against LACDPH...though he does attempt to cloak this act in the name of tackling "bureaucracy" and "streamlining" health care closer to the public.

Or...it may be simply that LACDPH is starting to get hep to AHF's gravytrainning and money laundering schemes. Quoteh Mr. Kernes once again:

One can only wonder how much money, promises of support and/or other perks AHF promised to Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) to convince him to sponsor Assembly Bill (AB) 332, a measure that would require hazmat suits during sex scenes shot anywhere in the state!

Of course, there is another possible reason why AHF wants the city to form its own health department: Back on August 16, 2012, L.A. County Auditor-Controller Wendy L. Wantanabe issued a report to the County Board of Supervisors charging that AHF overbilled the County Health Department's Division of HIV and STD Programs (DHSP) by $1,731,175 for providing services and medications to STD-infected patients who didn't qualify for county funds, and also billed DHSP more than $21,000 for "unallowable earthquake and flood insurance costs" and other "unsupported expenditures," all in violation of its contracts with the county. AHF has filed a lawsuit against the county, claiming that the county falsified its audit findings.

Perhaps it was that investigative work by Wantanabe's office that led Weinstein, in AHF's press release advocating for a city health department, to charge that LACDPH suffered from a "lack of professional leadership and accountability" that "has led to rampant cronyism and a repeated refusal to adhere to standing state and federal laws." (Needless to say, the press release was short on any information that might let the public know just what "rampant cronyism" was allegedly taking place at LACDPH, and which "standing state and federal laws" it was failing to adhere to—but it wouldn't be much of a stretch to suggest that AHF might be talking about the state health code, which already mandates that condoms, rubber gloves, face shields and even hazmat suits be used during sex scenes.)

As one might expect, AHF's alleged overbilling caused the county to retaliate against AHF, according to the press release AHF disseminated regarding its lawsuit against the county—but if the city had its own health department, perhaps staffed by AHF supporters like Dr. Peter Kerndt and Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, Weinstein could easily assume that taxpayer dollars could once again flow into AHF's coffers!

And then there is this:

So with AHF having been involved in so much political activity over the past three-plus years, beginning with its petition to CalOSHA to change the state health code to mandate condom use during sex scenes, to its pro bono (free) representation of Diana "Desi Foxx" Grandmason in her lawsuit against AIM, to its city and county ballot measure petitions, to its advocacy of AB 332, and now to its impending campaign to force the city to form its own incredibly duplicative and expensive health department, one has to wonder how this tax-exempt organization has managed not to have its exemption pulled by the Internal Revenue Service?

See, the federal tax statute in question, 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), states in pertinent part that it exempts from taxation "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h))." Now, there's no question that AHF has not only carried on propaganda but has clearly attempted to influence legislation. But the question then becomes, has it also violated the terms of subsection (h) by either "mak[ing] lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year," or "mak[ing] grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year"?

We aren't privy to AHF's tax returns, so we have no idea what its annual "lobbying ceiling" or "grassroots ceiling" amounts are, but considering how much time and effort—and money—AHF has put into creating, filing and defending its CalOSHA petition, creating, gathering signatures for, promoting and filing its city and county mandatory barrier protection (so-called "condom") measures, its current and future support of Assemblymember Hall's AB 332 bill, and its creation, impending signature-gathering, promotion and defense of its city health department bill, we have to wonder if it's not the IRS that is suffering from a "lack of professional leadership and accountability"?

Paging Lydia Lee...

These two events make two things obvious:

1) Michael Weinstein doesn't give a tinkers Goddess DAMN about protecting performers from STI's or even about treating AIDS; it's all about getting condom ads on porn for instant strategic placement and $$$$. And, about running porn completely out of California (and even nationwide) if he doesn't get his wish of an all condomized industry.  And, about lining AHF's pockets with government largeese.

2) Sad to say, but Weinstein has been able to use progressive people of color as a foil for his condom campaigns (Isadore Hall is, after all, Black and a Dem represantative), and the ease to which his proposals could pass in the California Assembly (where Dems have a supermajority and Proposition 35, which criminalizes "sex trafficking" to the point of potentially affecting porn performers as well, has passed) does raise the issue of how easy it is for such paternalistic proposals to pass. All I will say on that is that the industry absolutely, even while they fight these laws in the courts, needs to confront the basic fact that they need to win over the majority of Black and Latino voters, rather than merely dismiss them as "stupid" and rely on old tired "libertarian" arguments about "big government" abuse. I still say that that's how Measure B got passed in the first place, and unless some things change really quick, the adult sexual media industry will find itself in a bind that no move to Vegas or South Florida or even Budapest will loosen.

There's a reason I titled this post with Weinstein's blast, people....take heed and react and defend your rights.