An act to amend Sections 1549.1, 13778.2, and 13778.3 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal law.
AB 1854 expands California’s existing protections for “legally protected health care activities,” which include reproductive and gender-affirming care. The bill broadens current limits on state and local cooperation with out-of-state enforcement efforts so they apply not only when the protected activity occurred in California, but also when the activity occurred outside the state, so long as it is lawful in California. It also bars California officials from assisting in the arrest of a person whom the Governor has declined to surrender to another state.
The bill further creates a more detailed framework for California-based entities that receive civil, criminal, or regulatory inquiries, subpoenas, summonses, or similar demands for information about protected health care activity. Before complying, covered entities would generally need the request to include specified affidavits, notify the Attorney General within seven days, wait 30 days, and make reasonable efforts to notify affected individuals. The bill also allows covered entities to seek declaratory relief in court, authorizes Attorney General enforcement, and establishes civil penalties of $10,000 for a first violation and $15,000 for later violations. It extends similar restrictions to California corporations providing electronic communications services and financial services to the public when out-of-state requests seek customer records tied to protected health care activity.
In state law terms, AB 1854 amends Penal Code Sections 1549.1, 13778.2, and 13778.3. It strengthens California’s public-policy stance against assisting other states in enforcing laws that would penalize protected health care activity, and it adds procedural and enforcement requirements for businesses and public agencies that receive out-of-state legal process. The bill also states that no reimbursement to local agencies is required, while the legislative digest notes that the measure expands the scope of perjury-related declarations and creates a state-mandated local program.
The overall sentiment reflected in the committee votes is supportive, with the bill advancing on majority votes in both policy and appropriations committees. The available vote history shows clear, though not unanimous, support: 7-1 in one committee and 9-3 in another, followed by a 11-2 do-pass recommendation and re-referral to Appropriations. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here shows support without detailed debate.
The main points of contention appear to center on the breadth of the bill’s protections and compliance burdens. The most significant issues are the extension of protections to out-of-state health care activity, the limits on responding to subpoenas and investigations, the mandatory notice and waiting periods, and the new civil penalties for noncompliance. Critics would likely focus on the bill’s impact on interstate enforcement, business compliance obligations, and the expanded affidavit/perjury framework, while supporters would emphasize shielding patients, providers, and assisting entities from out-of-state penalties tied to reproductive and gender-affirming care.
AB 1854 would amend Penal Code Sections 1549.1, 13778.2, and 13778.3 to broaden California’s noncooperation rules for out-of-state enforcement actions involving legally protected health care activity. It would apply those protections regardless of where the patient is located, restrict arrests and information-sharing, require specified affidavits for out-of-state legal process, and impose new notice, waiting-period, and disclosure rules for California-based entities receiving inquiries or subpoenas. The bill also adds Attorney General enforcement authority, civil penalties, and a private right to seek declaratory relief, while extending the rules to California corporations providing electronic communications and financial services.
The bill appears to have generally favorable committee support. It passed policy and fiscal committee votes with comfortable majorities, and the last recorded committee action was a do-pass recommendation with a 11-2 vote before referral to Appropriations. No transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no detailed record of floor or committee debate, but the vote pattern suggests the measure is supported by a majority of committee members while still drawing some opposition.
The main controversy is the bill’s expansion of California’s shield-law style protections beyond in-state conduct to out-of-state health care activity, which could be seen as limiting cooperation with other states’ investigations and subpoenas. Another likely point of contention is the compliance burden on California businesses and public agencies, especially the seven-day Attorney General notice requirement, 30-day waiting period, and potential civil penalties for responding to requests. Opponents may also object to the bill’s extension to financial services and communications providers, while supporters are likely to argue that those restrictions are necessary to protect patients, providers, and related entities from out-of-state enforcement targeting reproductive and gender-affirming care.