Too Close For Comfort, But #BAHLOCKED Again!!! For Realz, Too!!! Condom Mandate Bill AB 1576 Finally Whacked By California Senate For 2014 Year

It may have gone on a bit longer for some people's comfort, but the battle over #AB 1576, Isadore Hall's proposed condom mandate/testing/documentation for porn bill finally ended last Wednesday, when the California State Senate Appropriations Committee tabled the bill without a vote, or even bringing it up.

Last week, after testimonials both for and against the bill, which would have mandated both condom usage and testing for all shoots performed within 14 days, that committee placed the bill "in suspense" without a vote, essentially preparing the bill for ultimate closure.

The main sticking point was more than likely that the bill would have violated the fiscal threshhold limit of $150,000 for costs of enforcement, which is the standard used for rendering a bill fiscally responsible enough. However, the fact that the industry rallied hard, and was able to actually turn some favorite press with some powerful mainstream institutions (including this powerful editorial from the Los Angeles Times), combined with the universal opposition ofporn production companies including Kink.com, and  performers, led admirably by Lorelei Lee, to name just one of many, was as much a factor as any.

Considering the pessimism that existed when AB 1576 was able to pass the California Assembly generally with little discussion or debate, the quick turnaround was indeed surprising, yet most certainly welcomed, in the midst of this bad lawmaking.

Both Assemblyman Hall (who will be term-limited out of his seat after this year, but is comtemplating a run for the Cali Senate), and his backers at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, issued the usual press releases expressing such sorrow that the Senate decided to place "profit" over "worker protection", and AHF announced that they would try again next year with similar legislation.

So...that's one less stumbing block for the LA- and California-based adult entertainment industry to endure. There's still the ongoing court cases over both Measure B (the original referendum which imposed the condom mandate on most of Los Angeles County), as well as the original ordinance passed in the City of Los Angeles. Plus, there is the continuing attempt by CalOSHA, assisted by AHF, to rewrite the workplace codes to impose mandatory "barrier" protection for adult performers, via proposed CCR 5193.1, and expand that nationally through the federal branch of OSHA.

But, at least for now, the threat to porn production in California is significantly less than it was even one week ago. Props to the good guys for winning one, and may this be only the end of the beginning.

More info via TRPWL, XBiz.com, and AVN.

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.

"Curses....BAHLOCKED AGAIN!!!" AB 1576 (AHF/Isadore Hall Sponsored Condom Mandate Bill) Placed "In Suspense" By California Senate Committee (BREAKING STORY)

Well...it seems like it took a bit longer than comfort allowed, but it appears that common sense and reality will prevail again.

The California Senate Appropriations Committee, after hearing testimony on both sides about Assemblyman Isadore Hall's bill (AB 1576) which would have mandated condom usage and testing for all porn shoots in that state, has placed the bill "in suspense", effectively killing it for the session.

Hall was there to testify for the bill, along with both Cameron Bay and Rod Daily, the two principals of last year's HIV scare. Representing the forces against the bill in testimony were performer Lorelei Lee (backed by a petition signed by nearly 650 performers in opposition), and adult attorney Karen Tynan repping the Free Speech Coalition, among other dignitaries.

Obviously, this is a breaking story, and reaction is coming fast and furious. I'll add more details and update this post as events warrant and more information is revealed.

For now, please go over to The Real Porn Wikileaks for Michael Whiteacre's live posting of the hearing, and reactions thereof to the decision to effectively table AB 1576 for the session.

See also XBiz.com's writeup on the hearing here.  XBiz did note that the committee is scheduled to reconvene on August 15 for what could be a final resolution of AB 1576. Four "aye" votes would be needed for passage on to the full California Senate. There was no vote today, because the committee chair made the decision to place the bill "in suspense". 

Porn Panic 2014: The Cali Senate Labor Committee Hearing on #AB1576 -- Part Deux (Now With 50% MORE AHF BS!!)

OK..we continue now with my review of last Wednesday's hearing on Isadore Hall's condom mandate/testing/documentation bill, AB 1576, before the California State Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee. If you want to re-read Part 1 of this essay for background, feel free by all means.

When we last left, the opposition of this joint effort of Izzy Hall and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation had just exited the microphone, but not without doing significant damage to the case for mandatory condoms in porn and weakened testing and forced documentation to the state. In particular, performer Lorelei Lee was especially devastating whole planks of AHF's illogic for justifying shoving condoms and dental dams and PPE down and up perfomers' orfices. Quoting again Mark Kernes' review of the hearing from AVN:

When it became Lee's turn at the rostrum, she noted that she was delivering to the committee "a petition of over 600 performers who have signed to say they have grave concerns with this bill and they strongly oppose it.

"I also have reached out to and spoken with over 100 performers myself, who have expressed their concerns to me," she added. "There can be no doubt that the majority of performers oppose this bill.

"The author of this bill does not speak for performers," she charged. "The sponsors of this bill do not speak for performers. They have not sat down with us. They have dismissed our attempts to give input, and the result is a bill that is shortsighted, that disregards any of our actual labor concerns, and that would mandate testing protocols that are in fact less strict and less rigorous than the ones we now have in place."

Lee also addressed the health privacy concerns: "In addition to jeopardizing our safety, this bill would force us to consent to the sharing of our medical information with the state. Mr. Hall has amended the bill so we no longer share that information with our employers, we share it with the state. This is a dangerous precedent to set, and I do not believe they would ask this of workers in any other industry."

Also there to deflate the AHF balloon of myopia was FSC Chairwoman Diane Duke, who offered a sterling defense of the current PASS screening/testing system, as well as the caveat that the entire exercise would potentially be in vain due to constitutional issues with both the condom mandate and the documentation requirements.

When it became Diane Duke's turn to speak, she emphasized that there had been no on-set HIV transmissions in the adult industry in ten years.

"The speakers who spoke earlier today contracted HIV in their private lives," Duke stated. "We have strict protocols, as Lorelei has mentioned, in the industry already. That has resulted in no on-set transmission of HIV, and that's nationwide we're talking about. Just to put that in perspective, in LA County alone, daily, five cases, new cases of HIV occur every single day. So in LA County, just five a day. Nationwide, none on set in 10 years."
Duke also warned that there is currently a lawsuit in Los Angeles County regarding Measure B, which is "a very similar bill [a law, actually], not as onerous as this bill"—and that portions of it had already been found unconstitutional in federal court.

"The enforcement provision of that has been found unconstitutional," she noted. "The narrow issue of condoms has gone on appeal. The oral arguments were in March, so we're expecting a decision handed down by the end of the year. So this bill may be pushed through and may be found unconstitutional before it is even able to make it to law, so I really urge everyone not to create a law that may be found unconstitutional."

That last paragraph was in relation to the ruling by federal district judge Michael Pregreson which upheld most of the provisions of Measure B, the condom mandate ordinance passed in 2012 by voters  in Los Angeles County, while striking down provisions dealing with enforcement and collection of fees from porn production companies and due process procedures. That ruling is currently under appeal in the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, both on the constitutional grounds that the mandate violates First Amendment rights of free expression by imposing a content-based restriction on legal speech, and on the ground that AHF has no legal standing to defend the law because they are a third party not bound to enforce the ruling.

After that, there were brief statements of testimony from other opponents, raging from performers Jizz Lee, Amber Chase, Veruca James, and Chanel Preston of APAC; to reps from the St. James Infirmary in San Francisco, to reps from the porn syndicate MindGeek, among others.

Then, the Q&A from the committee members got going....and it turned out to be eye opening. First...

It was then the committee members' turn to ask questions, and Sen. Holly Mitchell, who voiced support for the bill, asked if passage of the bill would affect any plans that CalOSHA has to revamp its health code to include regulation of the adult industry. AHF's Martin said it wouldn't affect it at all, and noted that it was AHF which had brought the lack of condom use in the adult industry to CalOSHA's attention in the first place. Martin also noted, in response to one of Sen. Mitchell's questions, that "You all just approved a restoration of 26 employment slots at CalOSHA for investigation purposes, because one of the problems during the recession is that they cut and cut and cut, and were not able to enforce the law as vigorously as they would like. That will now change now that you've been able to restore that money for them," referring to a budget bill.

Of course, that was no surprise, considering that CalOSHA had been colluding with AHF from the get-go on attempting to rationalize the condom mandate, and that one of the big issues that afflicted Measure B was that the funds for enforcement would come directly out of the permit fees imposed on the "pornographers". That issue wouldn't exist with 1576 because the enforcement would be entirely on CalOSHA's dime, with money probably appropriated to them from general revenue. (Though, I'm sure that AHF will be more than willing to chip in with all that grant money they get from the state as well.)

In addition, that "revamp" of the health code to bring adult porn producers into compliance (and ultimately, be enforced nationwide through the Federal branch of OSHA) would effectively impose not only condoms and "barrier protection", but also effectively outlaw nearly every bit of current porn fashion in the name of "STI protection". No anal or vaginal penetration AT ALL unwrapped. No facials. No spooge shots in the vicinity of the butthole or vagina, or anywhere from the neck up or between the belly and the knee. No double anals or double vaginals, and possibly even no "double penetrations" (ass and pussy simultaneously) or "airtight" scenes (mouth, ass, and pussy simultaneously). No ass-to-mouth scenes, either. There was thought of allowing unwrapped oral sex scenes, provided that the perfomers therein subject themselves to doctor's approval and a regimen of Hepatitis C/HPV vaccinations prior to clearance, but that has not so far made it into the draft proposed regs. Effectively, the only allowed acts of "closure" would be internal ejaculation into a condom anywhere, or "nutting off" on approved parts of the body.

Next up, this highly illuminating response by AHF legal counsel Rand Martin to an inquiry by Sen. Mark Leno on the potential constitutional issues. Naturally, Martin simply blew that off in a whiff.

Sen. Mark Leno, who gave an impassioned statement at the end of the hearing about why he opposed the bill, asked Martin to comment on the constitutional issues raised by the Vivid lawsuit against Measure B, but Martin downplayed the possible effects of a ruling in that case.

"The issue of First Amendment protections under Measure B is now before the Ninth Circuit, and we have no idea when it will be decided," Martin said. "So we acknowledge that this is not done in terms of the court's ruling. However we don't believe that the issue of First Amendment is ultimately going to prevail. We appreciate the trial court's decision in that regard and [it] echoed our concerns. I would also point out that ultimately, again, this bill is about documentation and not about the underlying condom requirement, so I suppose in one scenario, that in the future, the court could throw out the condom requirement, that could ultimately have an impact on the regulation of it, which is what this bill is, is about the regulation of that requirement. Obviously, it would not be enforced at that point. However, we don't want to hold off on moving forward with this important documentation requirement on the off-chance that a court, a higher court will ultimately decide that there are certain First Amendment protections that are not being afforded under Measure B, and Measure B, of course, is what's being enforced."

Of course, the documentation requirements have their own constitutional issues, including that federal law called HIPPA, on top of the free expression/content-based speech restriction issues. But, if this bill is not about mandating condoms, why is AHF, who has built their organization squarely on the condom mandate for the past 5 years, so readily backing it?? It's not as if they even have their own brand of condoms to pitch to people for the goal of making lots of money off condom ads....errrrrr, spreading the word about "safer sex", right??

Then there is that little thing about the "FIVE!!! KNOWN!!! HIV!!! INFECTIONS!!! IN!!! PORN!!!!1111ONEHUNDREDELEVEN111!!!!" meme that turned out not to be so accurate...so much so that the Sacramento Business Journal had to print a retraction from the LA County DPH rebuking Hall's claim. When Leno inquired Martin about that bit, the response by the latter was classic....in blowing the roof off the entire Bullshit Mountain built around the condom mandate.

What was of particular interest was Martin's response when Leno brought up the fact that after the last Assembly hearing on the bill, the Sacramento Business Journal was required to print a retraction of its previous statement that there had been some HIV transmission within the industry on film sets.

"There has been a misunderstanding," Martin said, "and I'm sure we—and the opposition is just as guilty about perpetuating this: The bottom line is, because of California HIV privacy laws, it is impossible without a county public health investigation to actually determine where a transmission occurred. We have tried to be very careful to not say that HIV transmission occurred; we have said that HIV cases have happened within the adult performer community in a very short period of time last year, but we have not said that they happened on the set. The opposition has said, and they said it today, that it did not happen on set. They don't know any better than we do whether it happened on set or not. The bottom line is, because it could happen, and we believe that it has, that doesn't mean it's right or it's accurate, but we believe it has, it's important to make sure that protection is available."

As previously noted, the industry does indeed know, because of its testing procedures, that transmission did not occur on set, and AHF has previously at least strongly implied that it had, and one might suspect that Martin's backpedaling here might have something to do with Peter Acworth's recent threat of bringing a cease-and-desist order against AHF for strongly implying that on-set transmissions did occur.

In the faraway magical Bullshit Mountain occupied and ran by AHF and Izzy Hall, facts that deviate from the party faith simply flow off their backs like....you know...crap through geese. "We don't know if it occured or not, and they don't really know either, but we BELIEVE people are DYING of AIDS because of them slutty pornsters not wrapping up with OUR brand of condoms, and Goddessdammit, we need to DO SOMETHING NOW before our gravy train runs out....ahhhh, I mean...before another performer gets infected and DIES!!!!!!" Also, I'd say that Cameron Bay's  and Rod Daily's (and Derrick Burts') paychecks from AHF are essentially cashed with the assertion that the idea that HIV was indeed spread on that Kink.com set is more than just a "strong implication"....whatever the actual evidential facts may be.

The discussion then turned to the porn performer surveys cited by Izzy Hall and AHF at the beginning to justify the condom mandate: the 2010 survey done by UCLA and CalOSHA, and the more recent 2013 survey done by UCLA, which were both used by AHF to allege that porn performers were up to their asses in STI's. The 2010 study had already been dissected and debunked by Lawrence Mayer (his pdf here); the later study has been effectively woodsheded both by Mark Kernes and this blog right heya. When Mark Leno attempted to call out these surveys for their lack of correlation and causation, this merriment ensued:

Martin, however, went on to tout two studies of STDs in the adult industry, one which was published in 2012 (and debunked here) and the other done just one year ago, which AHF touted at a press conference just two weeks ago, and which was much discussed on AVN.com. However, when Leno asked the proponents to respond as to whether those studies indicated correlation or causation, Martin asked Dr. Paula Tavrow of UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health to speak to it—and she dodged the question.

"Two studies were conducted," she said. "One in 2012 was conducted over—in a single clinic over a five-month period that ended I think in August, 2010, and in that study, we found that there was a 28 percent prevalence of chlamydia or gonorrhea among adult film workers, and then there was a second study that was just completed a year ago, in June, 2013, of two clinics and that found that the rate just of gonorrhea and chlamydia was 28 percent among that community of adult film workers."

Actually, for the record, the first study, authored by Dr. Robert Kim-Farley and Dr. Peter Kerndt (he being the one who gleefully backed the condom mandate as a means of forced mentoring of the public on "safer sex"), only quotes "up to one fourth" of porn performers as having contracted either gonorrhea or chlamydia, and then later rounds off those quotes to "between 15 and 25 percent". Not quite 28 percent there.  And, for those of you who missed that blockbusting infographic that AHF blew out when they released the findings of the second "survey", their percentage of performers stricken with either gonorrhea of chlamydia came out to 23.7 percent, rounded up to 24%...off again by four percentage points.

But who cares about such namby-pamby things about facts and controls when there's DEADLY VIRUSES floating around???

But when Leno reiterated that his question was whether the studies showed that adult film performing caused the infections, or simply that they found infections but could not state a cause, Tavrow admitted, "None of these studies can determine how someone acquired a disease," but later added, "The fact that, as Senator Hall was just mentioning, that it's ten times higher among the performers than it is among a comparable LA County population of 20 to 29 year olds does suggest to us that it was due to their work."

Yeah, that's right. Ten times higher. As compared to what control group that you call "comparable"? The ones that test as often as porn performers? You know, like the prison population, where condoms are few and far between? How many "civilians" don't even know they have STI's until they go to a clinic and test themselves when they become sick? Oh..and what about the rate of STI infection inflated by the high impact of HIV/STI's on the gay male community and the gay male porn industry, where condoms are far more the rule than testing, and seromatching is done to attempt to prevent cross-infection...and gay performers and civilians still succumb to the virus every year?? Are you saying, Ms. Tavrow, that only porn performers, not the public at large, engage in "high-risk" sexual acts that leave them more vulnerable to infections? What about other factors like sharing dirty needles during drug use or non-wrapped anal sex leading to tearing and bleeding, which opens up the real risk of blood-to-blood transmission of STI's?

Both Lorelei Lee and Diane Duke were ready for that nonsense, though.

This "suggestion" was refuted soundly by Lorelei Lee, who stated, "The UCLA studies that were mentioned, one factor in those studies is that they were looking at performers who went to West Oak Urgent Care clinic. This is not a testing facility; this is someplace where performers go when they know they have an STI, so if you were to test performers from that clinic, you would get a 100 percent result of performers who have an STI. I have seen what's been published of the study. I have not seen any peer review of the study. I also have not seen it compared to a comparable population. I do not believe that that has happened. I do not believe that there is a comparable population who tests as often as we do, for example."

"I need to point out it is not a published study," Duke added. "It has not been published. There is a poster out about the results, and it was presented at a conference, but it is not a published study. They used two facilities. One was a test facility that was a PASS testing facility; the other was a treatment facility, so it would be like, as Lorelei said, like going to an oncologist's office and saying everybody's got cancer. When you go to a treatment facility, you're going to be surveying people who are being treated, so that's why that is problematic."

The fact that even with all those cooked-up facts, created out of the the thin whiff of raw sewage, they still could find only 25% of adult performers in LA County suffering from either chlamydia or gonnorhea, speaks well about the discipline of the overwhelming majority of adult performers in playing safely, and the effectiveness of the screening system in place. The fact that even with 5 confirmed HIV infections within the last 3 years in the "straight" porn community, none of them have been found to have been caused by on-set action, and -- most importantly -- no other performers have been found to have been infected as a result of any of these acts -- speaks even louder about the effectiveness of the PASS system (and even the system ultimately refined by AIM before AHF targeted them for destruction as part of the condom mandate crusade. (And I won't even mention the inconvenient fact that two of those infections came from gay male condom-only sets. Oh, wait...I just did!!)

Diane Duke also addressed yet another of Izzy Hall's wack memes: the alleged failure of industry moratoriums to prevent the spread of diseases.

Duke also described how moratoriums work in the adult industry, pointing out that they're not done casually, but upon doctors' recommendations. She also seemed to take umbrage with Hall's earlier statement that, "While these moratoriums sound good to the press, they were unenforced and largely ignored by the industry."

Now, during the syphilis scare and dual moratoria of 2013, there were some real grumblings from porn agents and some models/performers about why they had to suffer the loss of income while waiting for nearly a month without pay; and there was one attempt by a porn production company -- namely, Dan Leal's Immoral Productions -- to break the second moratorium and shoot product (with condoms, of course) which ultimately blew up in Leal's grill after performers blasted him back. Also, remember the controversy during the syphilis scare from some performers (Lisa Ann leading the opposition) to being forced to take a syphilis vaccine when not afflicted due to medical complications and the lack of an effective testing regimen for syphilis back then? In any case, the fact that everyone was ultimately cleared confirmed that the moratoriums did do their jobs, though not without some economic pain to those having to pay bills in the internim.

If AHF had their way, of course, there would be no need for moratoria to begin with, because condoms would save both the world and the industry from all those bad STI's, allowing everyone, even those with full blown HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, or even HPV, to gambol around and fuck freely. Either that, or softcore simulated porn would come in and save the day....I guess.

As to the other meme that "Condoms are already the LAW, HO-MAAAAYYY!!!" ...

Leno also asked the bill's opponents to comment on whether condoms were actually already required in adult film work?

"Regulation 5193 does not contain the word 'condom'," attorney Karen Tynan noted. "We have trial dates set on this issue on July 9, 10, 15 and 22-24 for two different companies, where ALJs [administrative law judges] employed by the state will be making determinations about the exposure control plan, but it's important to remember that that regulation, which was written in 1994 for healthcare industries, created exposure control plans that require testing that meets the standard of 5193, which says you either eliminate or minimize the hazard. We believe we eliminate or minimize the hazard with that exposure control plan through the testing."

 It should be noted that AHF has already won one case where they insist that condoms are the only true means of protection: the Treasure Island Media ruling where an ALJ upheld an earlier ruling (yet reduced the fine by two-thirds); that ruling is currently under appeal.

All of this was rendered a moot point, when both Senators Mitchell and Committee Chair Ben Huesco both declared in favor of the bill's passage, both citing the need for protection. Mitchell, though, did gently rap AHF for not addressing the plight of HIV+ Black women, whom she called "the hidden face of HIV". Considering that there is no AHF clinic in Izzy Hall's district in Compton, in spite of nearly five new cases of HIV every day, that probably would fall on deaf ears.

And speaking of Izzy Hall....the reverend closed his sales pitch for 1576 with an extra special and heretofor hidden punch to the groin of the industry...using Mr. Marcus' allegedly syphilis infected dick.

"I would just like to say, we had a witness here today, Cameron Bay, who very clearly stated that she tested negative and still had HIV while performing on the set, and you saw articles with Mr. Marcus in Los Angeles who was found guilty of infecting and exposing to a female to syphilis on the set and was fined $130,000 just this week and also served jail time," Hall lied. "She's really a person, she's present and she's telling you what happened. Mr. Marcus is a real person. The LA Times didn't just make up a story. It's the reality of what happens, and it's time that we start putting worker safety in front of profit in California."

Of course, it probably wouldn't even register in Hall's brain that if Cameron Bay was indeed infected on that Kink.com set, it probably was because of her own off-the-set sexual activity (or that of her boyfriend); or that Marcus not only did not infect anyone with syphilis (not even the accuser, Lilith Lavey, went that far as to say she was infected, only that he, through cloaking his positive test for syphilis in the face of unemployment, exposed her needlessly to the possibility of infection), but probably couldn't even have infected her because he had undergone the full treatment for the infection and was thusly unable to infect anyone. Even the jail time served was for a parole violation from a previous offense totally unrelated. (Also...condoms would not have prevented the spread of syphilis in areas not protectable by "barriers".) The LA Times may not have the ability to make up stories, but Isadore Hall, thanks to his benefactors at AHF, sure has perfected that art to a crossed T and a dotted I. And a great big L-I-E.

There was one bright moment for the opponents of 1576, though: Senator Leno declared his opposition to the bill in some of the most powerful and succinct tones possible, and it gives at least some hope if this bill ever reaches the full Senate.

"Some of the concerns that have been raised with regard to protecting the privacy of these actors, apparently overwhelming—I know it's anecdotal—opposition to the bill by those who work in the industry, concerns with regard to mandatory HIV testing, all leave me a little uncertain as to whether this is the right way to go," Leno said. "I would imagine with regard to Mr. Marcus, and I don't know why he wasn't fined more than he was, though someone of his ilk very likely could do what he did again even with this bill as law, and as a gay man who has experienced the HIV epidemic in San Francisco over the past 30, 35 years now, lost my own life partner to it, very close...  Those that I worked with in the community for the past three decades, the organizations that started it in the early '80s and are still foundation stones of our HIV/AIDS community in San Francisco, are not in support of this bill. They've remained publicly silent, though I've had some conversations with any numbers of them—I'll leave the names of the organizations out, but they're both treatment and prevention advocates for treatment groups and they have reservations about this—privacy, mandatory HIV testing, things that they have been on the frontlines for the past many years, so for those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill today."

 Alas, he was alone in his opposition, as Senators Mitchell, Huesco, and ultimately Padilla following a brief break, voted to move AB 1576 forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee. It could face hearing there as early as this coming week. After that, on to the full Senate, and then, if it passes that without amendments to be reconciled with the Assembly, on to Governor Jerry Brown's desk for signature or veto.

As always, we'll keep you updated on its progress or lack therof.

Porn Panic 2014 Update: AB 1576 Passes First California Senate Committee Test, But Not Without Fun And Frivolity (And More AHF BS)

First, the bad news: It's beginning to look more and more like Isadore Hall's bill for mandatory condoms and "barrier protection" and testing and verification, House Bill #AB1576, may stand a chance of passing after all, following its initial clearance throug the California State Senate's Labor and Industrial Relations Committee.

It still has to go through the Appropriations Committee and then pass the full Cali Senate before reaching Governor Jerry Brown's desk for his possible signature; but considering the money the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has to lobby legislators, and the apparent total dismissal of the concerns of porn performers and producers against the bill due to the latest sex panics, it's a lot closer to passage than could ever be conceived even a month ago.

I wish that I could be less pessimistic about the outcome, but from what I saw and heard about the Labor Committee hearing on the bill that took place on Wednesday, it's not looking so good. Not even the articulate arguments of performer Lorelei Lee or Free Speech Coalition CEO Diane Duke could outdo the razzle-dazzle, presto-changeo, minstrel show clown act that Izzy Hall and AHF brought to the committee. This wasn't just a doubling down of propaganda and bullshit; this was a raising of two magnitudes of the usual AHF talking points, driven to new heights of hot, runny stinky garbage.

I'm using Mark Kernes' review of the committee hearing over at AVN as my template for commentary, since that's all we have right now.

First off, Izzy Hall kicked off the comedy act with his usual bait-and-switch.

For example, the first words out of Assemblymember Isadore Hall III's mouth as he attempted to explain the bill to the committee were, "AB 1576 is a workplace safety measure that would require employer-paid mandatory STD testing of adult film actors at least every 14 days, and use of a condom or other protective equipment in all adult films produced in California." Indeed, Hall wasn't the only one who's changed direction and called this primarily a mandatory testing bill rather than a mandatory "condom or other protective equipment" bill—and it should be noted that Hall referred to "other protective equipment" at least three times during the hour-long session.

This is particularly hilarious because previously Hall and his AHF cronies have effectively denied repeatedly that any part of this bill, or any of the proposed changes in "bloodborne pathogen"/"sexually transmitable bodily fluid" regulations by CalOSHA, would involve anything other than mandated condoms. Not face shields or goggles or dental dams or any other form of personal protective equipment required for industrial use...only condoms would be required. Riiiiiight. Never mind that the proposed CalOSHA regulations would not only force "barrier protection" for anal/oral sex, but would also ban even external ejaculation over any areas (face, vaginal, anal) where the possibility of "transmission" could occur, as well as any internal ejaculation in the vagina or booty not wrapped up.

Also...the newly formed respect for testing flies in the face of previous testimonials by AHF President Michael Weinstein stating that testing by itself is a fundamental failure and that with condoms, testing becomes a moot point. The previous attempts at mandating condoms did not even mention testing at all.

Hall also declared, "In 2013 alone, there were up to five documented cases of HIV transmission of adult film actors," even though, as activist/performer Lorelei Lee and Free Speech Coalition CEO Diane Duke later noted, it has been proven that such transmissions did not take place on any adult movie set.

Yeah, five cases. Of which, three were confirmed cases of HIV caught by the PASS system (Cameron Bay, "Performer #3", and an unnamed gay male condom-only performer); the other was Rod Daily (Cam Bay's boyfriend, who managed to skip the PASS system right when he got infected and became, like Bay, AHF's paid missionary for the condom mandate); and the fifth turned out to be a false positive. Not to mention, no other performer who worked with Bay or Daily in any straight shoot turned up HIV+ either during or since they (Bay/Daily/P#3) tested positive for HIV.

Hall also claimed, as he did before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "For all the talk that the industry will flee to Nevada, Nevada is already clear on its regulation of sex work. Sex work is not legal in Las Vegas. The counties that do allow sex work, condom use is mandatory, period. This is in addition to the fact that only two states in the U.S. allow for the legal production of adult film; that's California and New Hampshire. The adult industry's home is and will be in California. The fact is that the industry isn't going anywhere, and frankly, I don't them to go anywhere but in California, where they employ thousands of Californians, generating millions of dollars in tax revenues."
Doesn't matter that adult film acting is not considered "sex work" under either California or Nevada law, and that as Duke later noted, "A $30 million company from the Valley moved out of state earlier this year, and is happily working in Las Vegas, where they have welcomed us with open arms. They want the jobs, they want the ancillary jobs that come with this industry."

 The general gist of Hall's rant here is that the adult industry needs Cali more than Cali needs them, and that if they know what's good for them, they will just knuckle under and accept the condom mandate like good little menschs. Problem is, brothels aren't the only place to film porn; people can still use their smartphones and PC's/laptops to produce porn at home and bypass the regs, and porn can be made outside of even the US. Also..in Nevada brothels, condom usage is imposed on the clients of brothel prostitutes, not the prostitutes themselves. Plus, the opposite of "legally protected through legal precedent" is NOT "illegal"; there simply hasn't been a case like the Freeman case that has been tried as a template to determine the legality of porn as free speech expression.

Next up in the Clown Show was AHF legal counsel Rand Martin with a variation of the same-old same-old.

Rand Martin of AIDS Healthcare Foundation apparently sought to derail some of the opponents' arguments by claiming that condoms are already mandatory in California under CalOSHA regulations (even though nowhere in those regulations does the word "condom" appear); that the testing protocols in the bill are superior to those currently used by the industry (except that the bill mandates the CDC-recommended antibody test for HIV while the industry uses the far-more-accurate PCR-RNA test); and that performers' medical information won't be exposed to employers or government employees (although the bill clearly states that employers are required to certify that "the employee consented to disclosing to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health that the employee was the subject of a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) test," and how would they know that without some sort of access ot the test results themselves?

Yeah...."superior". Because a 24 hour swab using an ELISA antibody test that has a 3-6 month latency period is far superior to the Aptima test with a 6-10 day latency period, backed up by Western Blot and three Elisa analyses tests, right? And, condoms never tear or break, of course. And....lots and lots and lots of lube.

And this nonsense that the documentation of adherence to testing and condom usage won't fall into government (or AHF) hands for misuse or abuse? Why require such things to begin with if you don't want "government employees" to have such information? And, once that info is gathered, what's to prevent it from being sold and channeled to private sources for either blackmail or propaganda or spamming purposes? Remember, it was 2257 info that was used to out Desi Foxx and for the original Porn Wikileaks (D****y L**g's version, NOT the modernized current version run by Sean Tompkins). Is there anything preventing, say, a Gail Dines or Shelley Lubben peep from attempting a FOIA action to reveal the medical records (and real names) of a performer whom is documented under this bill, and using it for nefarious means?

Martin also claimed performers shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions about whether to use condoms (and, one assumes, the "other protective equipment") themselves much as, "We don't let construction workers decide whether they're going to wear hardhats. We do not let welders decide whether they're going to wear goggles. We do not let doctors and nurses decide whether they're going to wear gloves in the operating room." But as Lorelei Lee pointed out later, in discussing vaginal chafing, or "condom rash" as it's called, which can cause micro-tears in the vagina which in turn cause an "increased risk of STI's," "Construction workers are not often harmed by their hardhats."

Of course, wearing hardhats at construction sites and goggles during welding and gloves during surgeries to protect against injury is a bit different from engaging in sex for long periods of time. People have been doing that for millenia without acquiring any STI's at all. In fact, the overwhelming majority of performers have been free and clear of disease and infection for themselves....mostly thanks to their own discipline in selection of on-screen partners and their own personal care in protecting themselves, and also thanks to the PASS screening system that AHF and Izzy Hall want to simply obliterate, all their bloviating aside.

But, that was only a prelude to the pathos of their chief victim/witness, Ms. Cameron Bay herself. And she executed her role perfectly, even adding an extra dose of conspiracy never before heard of.

"I was an adult performer last year between May and August," she stated to the committee. "July 31 was my last shoot. I got a job working for Kink.com as an adult—which is an adult film studio in San Francisco, and I was tested for STDs and I was available for work. When I got there, there was up to about 75 extras on set and none of them were tested. During filming, the main performer I worked with had cut his penis and then was bleeding. They stopped shooting the scene to clean up the blood. I wanted to use a replacement, and there was a replacement there on set, but they chose not to because they could not pay the performer, so in turn, I had to continue working with the injured performer and we did not use a condom. They did not have an effective exposure control plan and I had to carry on the scene without any protection at all. If I had asked for a condom, another performer could have replaced me or would have replaced me. I would not have been paid and I would have had to pay my fee to my agent, which means I would have been out of pocket close to $400 out of a payment that I never would have received."

Now, there is plenty of sympathy and empathy in me for Ms. Bay, who is indeed going through the crucible of a life-changing drama which will affect her for the rest of her life. Problem is, her story has more than a few, shall we say, issues with stated facts. Like: the known fact that it was her who bit into and ultimately bloodied Xander Corvis' penis, causing the stoppage. Or, the known and proven fact that neither he nor any other hetero performer (other than Bay and Rod Daily) who did that Kink.com shoot has tested positive for HIV either then or since. Or, also, the testimonial from other sources at that shoot who specifically stated that when the performance was halted, Bay was given the options of continuing the shoot both with and without a condom, or even having boyfriend Daily step in to finish the shoot, but chose to continue on as before, thinking that she would be OK.

Cam Bay's revelation that she would be removed if she didn't finish the shoot without the condom is a new charge that she never pushed in her previous testimonials...and it would violate Kink.com's protocols in their basic Model Rights, which explicitly states that once a performer is under contract and performs in their scenes, they are entitled to full pay even if they bail out of a scene due to any concern of injury.

But that wasn't the only bomb Cam dropped at that hearing:

Somewhat chilling was Bay's statement, "I could have continued working that whole week that I found out I was HIV positive, because my test said that I was still good to go in the PASS system. I still had a checkmark next to my name stating that I was cleared to work, and I could have infected a lot of people because I was in my most infectious state at that time. I followed the adult film industry's self-regulations and I stand here before you today HIV-positive."

Aside from Bay's repeated implication that she contracted her HIV on set, her statement taken at face value would suggest that she was not tested by an industry testing service because she would then have been mareked as "unavailable" in the PASS system. However, no matter where the test would have been taken, an HIV-positive result would have prevented her from working. [Emphasis added by me.] What she likely meant to communicate, though, was that there was a period of time (she characterizes it as a week) during which she was positive with the virus but had not yet been detected via a test, and it is her contention that she could have worked that week and unknowingly exposed others.*

Remember that Bay's positive HIV test was confirmed on August 21th using the PASS system; and her last clean test was on July 27th, also using PASS. Also remember that the minute a test shows "reactive", a performer immediately goes off the clear list database and is informed and referred for followup testing. The infamous Kink.com shoot was done on August 31st, four days after Bay was cleared for shooting. The Aptima test can detect traces of the HIV virus in a person's RNA basically within the first 6 to 10 days of serotransmission. That would mean that if Bay was initially tested on or around August 14th - 17th, the latest that the test would be able to find transmission would be August 4th. Also, based on the 14-day testing schedule enforced by PASS, Bay would have to have been retested no later than August 14th. It may be that Bay used a private doctor that was not part of the PASS system for her initial diagnosis before it was verified on the 21st, but there was no indication of that publically by her or anyone else....other than a series of suggestive tweets she posted to her Twitter account on September 3rd.

Now, it is functionally true that with 14-day testing, there is a small window where an infected performer could possibly work without his/her infection being detected until the next series of tests, thusly threatening other performers. However, the counter to that is that most reputable porn production companies insist on 2-3 day old clean tests in addition to clearance from the PASS database prior to hiring someone for shooting, and some performers require even stronger standards than that before they shoot scenes. Between that and the exercise of off-the-clock discipline and selectivity in sexual partners/sexual acts, this greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of infection; and the cases where all infections since the Darren James episode of 2004 have been found to be off set with no other performers striken verifies that fact.

It should also be known that female-to-male HIV transmission outside of direct blood-to-blood contact is very rare in real life, let alone in the porn industry. The only possible scenarios even plausible would be that either: 1) Cam Bay (or more likely Rod Daily) was already infected by the time they did that Kink.com shoot, but somehow miraculously managed not to infect Xander Corvus....although given the short time frame between her last clean test and that shoot, that would be a statistical impossibility; or 2) Cam Bay was infected off the clock either right at the time of or soon after that shoot, most likely either by her boyfriend Rod Daily or through some other extracurricular activity she or he had. That would put to serious question whether her current "I am a victim" testimony (and that of Daily as well) is simply bending her (and his) experiences to fit the template of the condom mandate talking points in exchange AHF paying for her treatment (and, allegedly, other perks and goodies).

The rest of the pro-1576 testimony was anticlimatic, with nine persons speaking in favor....but one of those people raises some intrigue.

After the testimony by Hall, Martin and Bay, nine people registered their support for the bill, including one Sofia Delgado, who said she was HIV-positive and also implied that she had contracted it on a set—even though she has appeared in a grand total of two adult movies, both all-girl, and two solo scenes for SexuallyBroken.com.

My initial impresion upon reading this was that this could potentially be "Performer #3", the female performer that was confirmed on September 3rd to be HIV+; however, according to the expose done by TRPWL, that performer had done a boy-girl scene prior to the calamity of testing positive. However, there is that perfomer in 2012 that was a confirmed positive test using the original APHSS (the predecessor to PASS) system. Unfortunately, Mr. Kernes gives no followup info about whether Ms. Delgado tested using PASS/APHSS, or whether her claims of getting infected with HIV on set can even be verified.  Then again, AHF isn't known for their vetting of their advocates, as Derrick Burts can clearly attest.

 After that, the opposition, in the form of Lorelei Lee and Diane Duke, backed by a written petition signed by nearly 600 other performers and the physical testimony of 20 others, got their chance to shine. For reasons of space and out of respect for Mark Kernes' excellent journalism, I'll simply refer you to his article for the testimonials.

The next series of fireworks came with the questions from the committee members...and the answers were as awe inspiring as ever....in the same way a multi-train wreck is awe inspiring. I'll get to that in Part 2 of this essay, anon.

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

Well....what previously was thought to be impossible just happened this week.

Isadore Hall's bill (AB 1576) mandating condoms on all porn shoots, along with 14-day testing and requirements for performers and producers to document their testing and usage and make such documents available on request to government officials, cleared both the California Assembly Appropriations Committee last week, and then was passed by the full Assembly last Wednesday.

In both cases, the vote count was the minimum required for passage (4-1 in the Appropriations Committee; 41-15 in the full Assembly).

The key this time around was that Izzy Hall did a full court press in backing his bill in the Assembly, with the full assistance of AIDS Healthcare Foundation grease money and the pathos of testimony from their paid victims Cameron Bay and Rod Daily, which managed to swiing around even prior opponents of Hall's condom mandate bills. Even Mike Gallo, the Appropriations Committee chairman who basically killed Hall's efforts last year by claiming Constitutional issues and the costs of enforcement, flipped over to AHF's side, along with nearly every Democrat in the Assembly. Other Democrats who may have opposed the bill on principle simply decided to abstain, probably fearing the backlash of AHF money or the apparent fear of being perceived as being against condoms or young "victims" of the "porn industry".

So, now, it's onward to the Senate, where new battles will have to be fought..but the bill that everyone feared is now much closer to Governor Jerry Brown's desk than anyone would have anticipated.

Although the ultimate fate of the bill is still unclear, since even if it passes and Gov Moonbeam affixes his signature, it could face years of legal challenges, the fact that this bill passed the Cali Assembly in spite of the aggressive campaigning of groups like the Free Speech Coalition and the organization of hundreds of performers united to defend their right of determination for STI testing, raises some pretty deep questions about the strategy put forth by opponents of AB 1576. 

Essentially, the main focus of the lead groups of the opposition, namely, the FSC and the website Kink.com, was that the current system of testing and screening for HIV and other STI's was more than adequate, that mandating condoms would threaten porn production's profits since viewers prefered bareback sex and would not buy condomized porn, and that the laws would drive porn production -- described as a key profit making industry -- out of California and into less protected venues. In effect, the emphasis was towards a classic conservative/libertarian argument against excessive government intervention in business and personal life.

The extent to which that strategy worked was that almost all of the votes in the Assembly against the bill were from that small group of Republicans (Democrats have a supermajority in that body), including even such antiporn conservatives as Tom Donnelly. Problem was, that argument simply didn't fly with the majority of Democrats, and especially not with Black and Latino Democrats, who view libertarian conservative arguments in general as mere defenses of corporate greed and privilege, and who were moved by Bay's eloquent tearful pantomine of being a "victim" of the "porn industry" that simply "abandoned" her at her greatest moment of need. Never mind Bay's own history of deception and even bullying, combined with questions about exactly how she and her boyfriend Daily really did get infected with HIV, and the nature of how she might have been compensated by AHF in exchange for grafting her story to fit their campaign (as earlier "victim" Derrick Burts was compensated as well). All of that was washed away by the flood of the "Condoms would have saved everyone from certain death; and if you oppose this, you are risking people's lives...and besides, it's only a freakin' condom!!!" meme.

 I've been one who has gently and respectfully questioned the conservative approach previously during the Measure B campaign; but a slightly less gentle critique comes from BPPA contributor Ernest Greene, whom has been on the front lines of the condom mandate campaign as both a producer and a board member of the Adult Industry Medical Foundation, one of the main casulties of the condom mandate campaign. On Wednesday, in a comment over at The Real Porn Wikileaks, Ernest restated his concerns about the strategy; his comment deserves reprinting in its entirity.

I will say this again. The wrong arguments were made from the beginning and they’re still being made.

When you talk about lost jobs and the so-called “anti-business” climate in the same breath as expressing your concern for performer health an[d] confidence in the existing system of safeguards you sound about as credible as the Koch brother[s] talking about “clean coal.”

The good arguments were always about performer safety, which this measure compromises, performer choice, which this measure destroys, and performer confidentiality, which this measure endangers.

The emphasis should always have been on the high quality of the existing safeguards and the unmatched record of success they’ve produced over a period of years, the right of performers as consenting adults to make their own decisions in this most intimate of matters and the First Amendment implications of compelled speech, which are far broader than anything having to do with porn. If the government can compel you to deliver one kind of message with the artistic product you create there is nothing to stop them from preventing you from delivering a different message through your work.

These were winning issues and we should have stuck with them. Every dollar-based objection to this measure was just ammunition for those who consider all porn producers no better than pimps and all performers to be trafficked, intimidated victims who stick up for their bosses out of fear.

The other track we should have taken was a more vigorous examination of the sponsors of this legislation and there vested interests in the outcome. AHF is in the condom trade. Isadore Hall, whose own district has staggering levels of HIV infection and not a single AHF clinic, is clearly in it for the money and some good investigative journalism could have exposed the corrupt connection between this hack and Weinstein’s organization, which in its arrogant stupidity actually demanded an invoice from Tim Tritch, AIM’s former lab messenger, for the money it paid him to act as an infiltrator and informer for AHF’s successful campaign to destroy AIM. These guys are dirtier than the bottom of a city bus and for a business that people think of as pretty tough we let them tap-dance all over us with no consequences.

The reality of politics is that you have to have a strong position you know how to defend that will play for the electorate you need to reach and the will to throw a good scare into those who make a profession out of fucking with you.

Did we have any of that? I saw some signs of it here and there, but our side campaigned mainly as a bunch of greedy whiners and that is not a good look.

In the end, I doubt this legislation will pass because it’s too woolly for most elected officials to handle. And even if it does it will eventually be litigated out of existence because it’s patently unconstitutional. But how much money, time and energy will be wasted, and how many people endangered, before all that comes to pass?

If this industry, which has fought off the federal government for decades, can’t shut down a loud-mouthed charity pimp and a sleazy crooked politician from a district with traditionally low voter turnouts, it’s lost its mojo very seriously and needs to get it back and soon.

 This should NOT be read in any way as disapproval of the commitment and/or intellegence of those who invested their time, money, and hearts into opposition to the condom mandate campaign; only of the political strategy of using conservative appeals to a predominately liberal/progressive body of government.

My own personal additional critique is about the lack of recruiting perfomers of color who would have counterbalanced the explicit attempt by AHF and Assemblyman Hall to win Black and Latina/Latino voters over through naked appeals against "privileged Whites" whom allegedly put their own privileges and pleasures above protecting less able performers. While no one doubts the integrity or the progressive instincts of those performers who did and still do speak their truths in opposition to AB 1576, the fact still remains that they remain mostly White; there was little, if any, representation or outreach to performers of color. No doubt, the backlash to the Mr. Marcus syphilis scare played a role in alienating Black performers to the anti-1576 campaign, but the main factor might have been that most performers are only tangently connected to the LA porn scene, mostly either shooting scenes in other venues such as Las Vegas or Miami, or relying more on camshows and paid website memberships for their main source of income.

The combination of the Mr. Marcus scare and the dual moratoriums of September-October 2013 has shaken the cores of performers' confidence such that many have questioned the viability and ability of the PASS testing system. One performer based in Florida (unamed to protect her privacy) had her potential plans for flying to LA to shoot content shattered by the double moratoriums; she responded by going strictly condom only. There was also the attempted coup by Immoral Productions head Dan Leal to break the second moratorium, which went down in flames after a virulent response from the porn diaspora.

The fracuses of last year has also strengthened the hand of long time critics of the FSC and the PASS system, such as gadfly producer Mike South and former producer/convicted felon Rob Black, whom both have given tacit support to efforts to break the FSC/PASS system in favor of the condom mandate. Though, South has been exposed as of late to be a gross hypocrite and a charlatan in terms of HIV testing for his own productions; and Black has subsequentially turned against his former ally (though still attacking FSC as irrelevant and counterproductive, Black has turned against the condom mandate and AB 1576). There is also a rump group of performers who do favor pushing mandatory condoms as a way of eliminating competition from bareback performers and forcing the major production companies to hire more condom-only performers, as well as those who want to bridge the breach for "crossover" performers whom also perform in the gay side of the industry, where HIV is far more prevalent and condom usage and seromatching is the preferred method rather than screening out through testing.

Nevertheless, even with all that, the opposition to this latest attempt to mandate condoms has been elevated to new heights due to the new approach of the proponents of adding mandatory14-day testing using Center For Disease Control guidelines for full-range STI tests (HIV-Hepatitis A/B/C-Gonnorhea-Syphilis-Chlamydia-HPV), the substitution of "personal protection devices" (meaning gloves, aprons, goggles and even face shields) in addition to condoms; and the requirement under threat of criminal felony charges that production companies make detailed information about testing and "protective barrier" use for all performers available to health officials (and the broader public) upon request.

While the new testing requirements may seem like a major concession of AHF to the current PASS testing regime; in reality, due to the CDC/AHF standards for HIV testing being less rigid and using more outdated testing unsuitable for porn production (that is, using 30-60 day latency antigen or antibody tests rather than the 6-10 day latency DNA-based Aptima test assay), the new testing rules, even if combined with mandated condom usage, would potentially weaken, perhaps even significantly, the level of protection from HIV for performers.  The imposition of both paperwork and costs on producers for performer testing could also be a major negative impact, forcing producers to cut corners to save their profits or simply risk arrest by going underground.

Add that to the fact that distinctly antiporn groups who would rather see the industry and its talent jailed, neutered, or even killed, have decided to give tacit support to this bill, under the goal of, as antiporn "feminist" Gail Dines spurted at a recent antiporn summit, "[tying] them down, piece by piece, with legislation".   Even self-acclaimed ex-porn performer turned Christian fundamentalist minister Shelley Lubben and her dearly fraudulent Pink Cross Foundation has gotten into the act, in spite of her being essentially pushed to the side initially by AHF due to her right-wing Christian act not meshing with AHF's dominant meme of "protecting gays".

Such is the climate that this bill promotes as it now goes through the California State Senate. If there ever was a time for the industry to rally up and protect their rights, and for those of us who support them to add our loud voices, now would be the time.

Click here to go to the Stop AB1576 website for more info.