Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. We are waiting for a Republican colleague to join us. It is it is a typical courtesy, in the legislature, to wait until we have bipartisan representation on the dais before we start committee hearings. But also, out of respect for everybody else who's already here, we're not gonna wait that long. So, we'll give—why don't we wait two more minutes?

We'll wait until—we'll say three more minutes. Wait till 9:07 before we get started. Or we'll start earlier if a Republican gets here.

Okay. 9:07 it is.

Good morning. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee hearing. I would once again like to welcome assembly members Addis and Hart to the committee and to thank Majority Leader Aguiar Curry for serving on the committee today in the absence of assembly member Bauer Kehan. There are a total of 18 bills on today's agenda, and half of those bills are proposed for consent.

Today's consent items are as follows, AB 1587 by Assemblymember Ta, AB 1760 by Assemblymember Arambula, AB 1767 by myself, AB 1778 by Assemblymember Patterson, AB 1785 by Assemblymember Hoover, AB 1939 by Minority Leader Flora, AB 1965 by Assemblymember Sharp-Collins, AB 2250 by Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, and AB 2256 by Assemblymember Chen.

Before we begin today's agenda, I will remind everyone that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For each of the measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. That was all a mouthful. And with that, we will begin today's hearing. My hope is that we have Assemblymember Nguyen, I think, might be the, the first up. Let's do it.

You've got agenda item number three AB 1758. Ready when you are. They're all rushing over here. So excited for the committee hearing to get started.

Yes. There you go, mister chair. Good morning, mister chair and members. I'm here today to present 1758, this bill updates the annual assessment that sellers of travel pay into the travel consumer restitution fund.

It allows a cap from $35 to $60 per location and allows small adjustments tied to inflation. The current cap hasn't been updated since 1996 and has not kept up with the cost of administering the program. As a result, it has created some strain on the fund over time. This fund is what helps reimburse consumers when a travel business goes out of business or doesn't deliver the service they paid for. So it's important that it remains stable.

This is a straightforward update to keep the program working as intended. Here with me is Jerry Desmond representing the California Coalition of Travel Organizations.

Chair members, Jerry Desmond with CCTO, the California Coalition of Travel Organizations, which is a legislative coalition of national, state, and regional associations of travel agents and tour operators that sponsored the original legislation back in 1994 that was authored by Jackie Speer.

And, we're very proud to be able to say her name and have Stephanie, Assemblymember Stephanie Wynne carry the ball forward with an update this year. We believe the restitution fund has been effective and efficient over the last thirty years.

And it's only recently we became aware of that unless late late if late fees are not considered, it would be the fund would be the operation of the fund would be in the red. And so we think it's time for a modest increase of 35 to 60. And the industry supports, you know, this move going forward so that California consumers who book travel from a California based seller travel can be reimbursed if they don't get what they purchased without a belabored process.

Thank you, so we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I was just texting with now supervisor Spear last night. So it's always fun to to hear her name brought up here in the in the legislature. With that, do we have any additional witnesses who wanna testify in support of the bill? Seeing none, any primary witnesses who wanna testify in opposition to the bill.

This is our first bill this year. I am rusty. I am, like searching in the back of my mind for the process for how we do this. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill, Bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments about the bill. We have a motion.

We don't have a quorum, so we are gonna put that motion in a band. Thank you for not being helpful, doctor Jackson. Seeing no other questions about the bill, settlement member Nguyen, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you, mister chair and members who are rushing to get this out. I'm proud to be the first bill to be able to present this, in this committee. When the time is appropriate, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, assembly member, for this bill and when the time is appropriate, I'll be happy to support it.

And I'd be more than happy to present anybody else's bill while I'm sitting here and waiting.

We might take you up on that. We might take you up, that went faster than than I was hoping but we do have Assembly member Hart, who has a bill, agenda item 17, maybe 2506.

So, we'll move on to your bill. You're jumping way up in the line. I'm gonna take advantage of this pause to send a message to all the assembly staffers who are watching today's hearing, whether your boss is on the committee, whether your boss is able to present in front of the committee, go get your boss. I know it's early. If you gotta drive to their apartment, pick them up, whatever is necessary.

Please go get your boss. If they serve on the Business and Professions Committee, if they have a bill in front of the Business and Professions Committee, and get them to Room 1100 so that we can actually continue with this hearing after Mr. Hart presents this fantastic bill. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much, madam, Mr. Chair, and members. I wanna thank the committee staff for their analysis of this bill, and I'll be accepting the committee's amendments today. Assembly Bill 2506 will allow state licensees to obtain and sell cannabis products cultivated and manufactured by tribal licenses—licensees—with requirements mirroring existing guidelines for interstate cannabis commerce. Since the legalization of adult recreational marijuana use in 2016 with Proposition 64, California has enacted comprehensive regulatory framework to oversee cannabis sales.

Under current law, operators with state cannabis licenses can only conduct commercial cannabis activity with entities that also have state licenses, unless otherwise exempted.

Tribes have, however, been traditionally locked out of operating in this new statewide legal market in any capacity. To sell products off reservation, the state would require tribes to sign partial waivers of sovereign immunity. This would give regulators control to monitor cannabis grows and processing on tribal lands, which has raised sovereignty issues and concerns among tribes. This bill will incorporate tribes into the existing framework for cannabis commerce, recognizing sovereignty, while opening an avenue for increased market access.

This bill also adopts existing strict guidelines for cannabis products, including rigorous standards for public health, testing, packaging, and marketing.

Several states including Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, and Minnesota have already recognized these benefits and adopted similar systems. This bill will promote tribal self sufficiency and economic development while reducing reliance on illegal cannabis sources by broadening the availability of regulated safe cannabis products for retailers in California consumers. Speaking in support of the bill is Jason Gonsalves representing the 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians.

Great, thanks so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jason Gonsalves representing 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians. I learned a long time ago if the chair refers to a bill as fantastic, you abbreviate your comments. But we do wanna thank Assemblymember Hart and your committee for their leadership on this issue. We've been working on the amendments that the Assemblymember adopted or accepted.

And Twenty Nine Palms, it, it, as a tribal government, has made a significant investment in the cannabis space. They sell and—they grow and sell their cannabis product on reservation. They mirror the state's licensing through Metrc, which we had to get DCC approval for Metrc to partner with Twenty Nine Palms. They mirror the state's Tribal Cannabis Commission, the state's Cannabis Commission, and as they have their own tribal cannabis commission, 24-hour surveillance, they're already in the security space with gaming operations.

And this really is an effort to allow tribes to expand at the approval of DCC into the retail space and curtail the illicit underground market. We think tribes will be a a wonderful partner with the state of California, and we respectfully request your support. Thank you again.

Thank you very much. With that, any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support the bill? Any witness—any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bringing back the colleagues.

Questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember Hart, would you like to close?

When it's appropriate, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. We are one member closer to a quorum, but we are still only at half the way to a quorum. So, hopefully, we'll get there soon. And, and let me, sorry, let me quickly say thank you to the author for accepting committee's amendments as laid out in the bill analysis.

I fully support efforts to allow tribal communities to engage in California's commercial cannabis marketplace that respect both tribal sovereignty, which is terribly important, and ensure all products meet California's health and safety standards, which is also important. The committee amendments would place tribal licensees within the framework that already exists for agreements to engage in cannabis commerce with other states, which I believe is appropriate for the agreements proposed by this bill. Happy to support the bill when the time comes. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

With that, item two, Assemblymember Caloza with AB 1637. If you're ready, we are. Thank you for getting here just in time to save us from an awkward break.

Okay. Good morning, Chair, and members of the committee for the opportunity to present AB 1637 today. Thank you to the committee consultant, staff, and sponsor for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. I would like to accept the committee's proposed amendments on explicitly defining what constitutes a patient note and a more expansive specific list of who should be authorized to modify physician's notes. Trust is the foundation of patient care.

Without it, diagnoses can be questioned, treatment decisions can be compromised, and, ultimately, lives can be put at risk. AB 1637, "Just What the Doctor Ordered Act," protects patients by ensuring that physicians are solely responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their medical records. Our physicians, doctors, and surgeons are the experts. They create diagnoses, treatment plans, and notes that guide patient care, yet under current law, anyone, including administrative staff, contractors, or clinic supervisors, who are not licensed physicians, can alter these records.

This creates confusion, undermines accountability, and threatens patient safety. Accurate medical documentation is foundational to safe and effective patient care, and AB 1637 draws that clear line of responsibility. It ensures that physician authored notes, diagnoses, and treatment plans remain as such, physician authored. It ensures that these critical documents cannot be modified by anyone else other than the authoring physician. We've seen the consequences of failing to protect medical records.

A traveling physician in Kern County working with autistic children had their notes changed by a district supervisor, not the treating physician. These edits were made out of concern for the clinic's reputation, compromising patient care and trust. With the rapid expansion of electronic health records, or EHR systems, the guardrails in which documentation is created, stored, and accessed has become unclear. Though EHRs improve coordination and efficiency, it is also—it also puts patients at risk and creates uncertainty about who is responsible for the information.

AB 1637 fixes that.

With that, testifying in support, of "Just What the Doctor Ordered Act," I have with me today, Dr. Melissa Aguirre, and for technical assistance, Joss Osborne, with the United We're the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, or UAPD.

Great, and you have two minutes each, if you want the two minutes each.

Good morning, distinguished chair and members of the committee. I am Melissa Aguirre, a board certified pediatrician who's been practicing for twenty five years. For the last ten years, I've worked as a physician at the California Department of Education's Diagnostic Center. We provide multidisciplinary evaluations for the state's most vulnerable children struggling at home and in school. The clinical documentation is crucial because in many cases, it ensures children receive essential services, like specific therapy for abuse or subspecialty medical care.

My medical reports are used by families, health care providers, and schools to secure this assistance. These reports serve as my only legal record documenting my evaluation of the child and the justification for the assessment and treatment plan I recommend. My medical license and board certification require that I adhere to a certain standard of care in documenting medical findings. However, these medical findings are being altered or deleted by administrative staff who lack any medical training.

This is happening because the administrative staff at the Department of Education feels that they have the right to alter, restrict, or remove my clinical assessments at will.

When administrators override a physician's findings or omit information from them, it creates three critical risks. The first is patient harm. It prioritizes administrative interests over the mental and physical well-being of children. The second is legal integrity. It jeopardizes the accuracy and integrity of the medical record.

The third is professional liability. It forces physicians to choose between risking their jobs and risking their medical licenses. No doctor should be worried that upholding their ethical requirements may cost them their job. Medical documentation must remain the sole purview of the qualified physician who examines the patient. Therefore, I urge you to vote aye on AB 1637.

Thank you for your time and attention. I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much.

Morning, Mr. Chair. George Osborn for UAPD, in case you have any technical questions.

Thanks so much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Come on up.

Morning, chair and members. George Suarez of the California Medical Association. With the recent amendments, which we really appreciate from the committee and the staff and author, CMA will be moving to a support position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nelvia Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Gary Cooper representing UAPD, a proud cosponsor of the bill, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Monica Miller on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. We met with the sponsors on Friday. We were very pleased with them taking the time as well as the author's office. We wanna thank them for that. We're still processing our position but hope to move to a support position shortly.

But thank you, everyone, and thanks to your committee staff as well.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anybody wants to add on, as a "me too" in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bringing back to colleagues for questions or comments.

Seeing none. Assemblymember Caloza, would you like to close?

Thank you, chair and members. Thank you to Dr. Aguirre and Mr. Osborn for sharing your experiences in elevating the voices of patients across the state. AB 1637 is about trust and making sure that when our physicians document diagnoses and treatment plans, that information is accurate and protected. When physicians can trust that their records will not be altered, patients can trust that their care is safe. And so, I respectfully ask the committee for their aye vote on AB 1637.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, assembly member, for bringing this important bill forward and, and for working with us on the amendments, suggested by the Medical Board and others. And I am happy to support the bill today when we have a quorum, which we will, will hopefully have soon. Hopefully. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Now we need members who have bills in front of the committee. Apparently, some of them are in arts. Doesn't matter to me. I would like them in B&P. So go get your boss and bring them to the committee.

If once we get a quorum, we can establish the quorum, and we can vote on the bills we've already heard. So lots of reasons for members to come to the committee, whether you're on the committee, whether you're presenting a bill in front of the committee. I'm gonna start presenting bills, and I assure you I will do a bad job. Seller member Colosa come back. Okay.

Don't come back. A seller member win, don't leave. We're establishing a new rule that if you leave, you have to go find a colleague to come and replace you. Two two two in two in, one out. Two in, one out. You were. Yeah. That's Yeah. Yeah.

That's that's true.

New World Today. Oh, okay. Chen, there he is. And he's got a bill. Get over there.

Agenda item 16, AB 2477. No. We're not close. For those in the audience who are curious, we need 10 for a quorum. We have six. So not close. Yeah. Go for it, brother.

Thank you to my favorite chair in the legislature. Appreciate your time. I'm here to present AB 2477.

Move the bill. No. Just kidding. We can't do that yet, but I appreciate your compliment.

Thank you for allowing me to present 2477, Mr. Chair, the Small Pest Control Business Relief Act. Current law has created bottlenecks during the licensing process for pest control op applicators. This reduces service capacity and delays onboarding of employees. Our bill would create a limited one time provisional period of up to sixty days where new employees can perform pest control applications under the supervision of a licensed applicator.

To participate in this provisional period, licensee applicants must have already the following, submitted a license application to the structural pest control board, completed eighty hours of inboard training, and submitted fingerprints and background checks with the board.

This provisional period will allow small pest control operators to continue operations while these new employees complete the state licensing process. This program helps small businesses stay operational and provides a bridge to licensure. Here to testify in support of this bill is mister Jim Steed, owner of Neighborly Pest Management, as well as Max Perry, here to help answer any of the technical questions.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you. I'm the very yes. I'm the nervous guy. Sorry. I wanna thank Assemblymember Chen for authoring the bill for us.

My name is Jim Steed, and I am an owner of a small business here in the Sacramento area, Neighborly Pest Management. We have about 35 employees, and I've been in the industry for thirty three years. And, also been a part of our trade association, CAPMA, the California Association of Pest Manage Management. And, we represent about, 70% of the industry and the workers, and we're the folks that you call when you have unwanted guests, you know, in from the hospitals to the schools to the state capital.

We're here to help try and keep them pest free. There are about 50,000 licensed workers in our industry, and about 5% of those change out each year. And there are about 3,500 companies in California that those applicators work for. Interestingly enough, about 3,000 of those have less than five employees, hence the the purpose of this bill. We have worked, very hard with the structural pest control board and all the other interested parties to try to work out the details of this.

And we found that if we can make one small change to the supervision that we can make a big difference to these small companies, this can save a small company 5 to 10, even $15,000 in an onboarding cost for a new person.

And, so we're very excited to have brought you something that we think is, a great fix and, something that will improve, life for small companies, California, and and will work within the framework of our existing regulatory.

Thank you very much.

Hey, chair members. Max Perry on behalf of Arc Strategies, speaking on behalf of CAPMA as well. Nothing to add really to the testimony there. I think it was thorough. Just here to answer any, technical questions if they come.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anyone who wants to add on as Me Too in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments about the bill.

Seeing none, Assemblymember Chen, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. Respectfully ask for aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Sunil member Chen. Before I get started, we wanna confirm you're accepting the amendments.

Absolutely.

Appreciate that. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. As amended, I believe this bill strikes the right balance between allowing new pest control professionals to enter the field in a timely manner while ensuring proper safeguards and adequate training are in place. And, you know, here having been in my tenth year in the assembly, every year around the the height of the heat in the summer, we get some unwanted guests in our in our little townhouse in in in Midtown.

So appreciate the work that you do and and that all of your colleagues do.

And with the amendments, I'm happy to support the bill once we have a quorum. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Assembly member Gibson, good to see you, my friend. You've got agenda item 18 AB 2633, which I know you and I both at the same time yesterday remembered everything about it. And good to see former Senator Gagiani with us.

Assembly member Gibson, good to see you, my friend. You've got agenda item 18 AB 2633, which I know you and I both at the same time yesterday remembered everything about it. And good to see former Senator Gagiani with us.

I know it's your first year here.

Thank you, mister chairman and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill twenty six thirty three, a bill that responds to the proliferation of gold buying events popping up at hotel and events centers, which are frequently hosted by unlicensed out of state vendors. Specifically, this bill would clarify that gold buyers who purchase gold at remote events, must follow the required outline and statue of secondhand dealers.

The California attorney general maintains a list of, excuse me, of stolen goods that must be reported through the pawnbroker secondhand dealer system to combat a resale stolen property. These reports the license requires have helped reduce the traffic of stolen properties to ensure, that legitimate secondhand dealers can assist the enforcement when stolen goods enter the marketplace.

In recent years, they have these stolen properties, coming in in California and these vendors are not following these requirements set in California. These events often operate by unlicensed out of state vendors who travels from locations to locations, purchasing gold, silver, and jewelry, from public because the ambiguity in the state law that allows these vendors to do so. What we are trying to do and attempt is to show that these vendors are not following California's state law.

And by doing so, Assembly Bill 2633 clarify existing law to ensure that individuals and businesses purchasing gold from the public are clarifying that secondhand dealers here in the state of California have license and are one, making sure that those here in California follows our laws but out of state vendors are not following the law. And this is attempt to making sure that one, the law is clear here in the state of California.

Here with me to one, to speak in support of this bill is as you pointed out, our former state Senator, Cathleen Galgiani, as well as immediate past presidents. There you are, Jan, last name?

Schneider.

Jan Schneider is immediate past president of the state's pawnbrokers association who will also provide technical assistance regarding 2633.

Great, thank you, two minutes each. Good to see you.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Just last Friday, one of our pawnbroker members had an armed robbery in his shop. So not only did it harm his business but as you know, it put all of his front-line workers in jeopardy as well. Jan Schneider, who is with me today, had two break-ins, in the last two years alone. And we know that this is not limited to just businesses, but also property crimes where families are victimized.

And individuals in vulnerable communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods and many communities of color, experience higher rates of property crimes in part because they have limited access to security resources and may be more frequently targeted due to perceived vulnerability. And the theft of family hair heirlooms in these high crime areas is particularly painful because the loss isn't just financial. Many times, these families have no ability to recoup the loss that they have had. And in addition, they are usually uninsured or underinsured.

And that's why in 2012, this legislature passed AB 3391 by then Assembly member Richard Pan to implement the CAPS system, which is the secondhand dealers and pawnbroker system, whereby they enter the transaction information their shops are required to report into the statewide database that is searchable by law enforcement.

And they this is done to ensure that all information is in available to law enforcement agencies to enable them to track and recover stolen items and the pawnbrokers are extremely proud of the efforts that they've gone through in order to assist in this partnership to curtail the sale of stolen items. And in addition, those who are licensed are required to collect fingerprints from those who are selling these items.

So if you're someone that's wanting to sell something that you know you've stolen, you're walking away from a pawnshop and you're going to one of these gold events. This bill takes a targeted practical approach that aims to shut down the avenues that allow stolen goods to be quickly converted into cash.

And with me today, I have former statewide president Jan Schneider, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, you have two minutes.

Thank you, chair Berman and members of the committee. As, Senator Galgiani mentioned, the California pawnbrokers are very proud of our efforts to help in the curtailment of dissemination of stolen property. We were instrumental in providing the funding for the California Department of Justice CAPS database and we also were very much involved with input in the implementation and the construction of that database. Any customer that does a transaction in a licensed store must give a fingerprint.

They must have valid ID, which is is stated in statute what IDs are considered valid. And that all that information is stored in our systems for law enforcement should they have a hit on an item that we have reported through the CAPS database. We upload on a daily basis every transaction that goes through our stores.

On the other hand, these gold buyers that come into town I won't ask you to raise your hands if you got an ad today in your mail because you probably got three for the gold fair that's gonna take place at the hotel near you this weekend. They do not take ID.

If they do, all they do is do it to make the customers feel like they're doing something. Many of us pawnbrokers on our board have actually gone to these events to see how they operate. Most of them don't even ask for ID. If they do, they don't they don't report. They pay cash.

It's instant. There's no paperwork. There's no contract. There's no thumbprint and those items disappear and are melted many times by that night or they're taken out of state.

So another effect is a loss of sales tax to this state because when we buy items that we can resell, they go into our inventory after a proper hold period, which gives law enforcement the opportunity to check for stolen merchandise. And when they're sold, we pay sales tax to the state of California. So there are so many repercussions to the ambiguities in the law that, 2633 attempts to address.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any 'Me Too' add-ons in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments.

We are one member oh, please, Assembly member Hart.

I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill, and the testimony was so compelling to understand the history of how the secondhand dealers have really stepped up to to fill this gap and to create a system that really protects people, who are potential victims of crime. And this obvious problem deserves a solution and this is a great step in that direction. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Hart. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none, Assemblymember Gibson, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Again, I wanna thank my witnesses both for being here in support of Assembly Bill 2633. This is a simple fix to a big problem. Again, out of state vendors are not obeying our requirements, they're misinterpretation in terms of the law.

We wanna close this loophole. We want these out of state vendors to not take advantage of the law and follow the law, and this is a step in the right direction. I respectfully ask for that aye vote at the proper time that you, reach a quorum. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assembly member Gibson. Thank you so much, Senator Gagliani. Thanks for the the testimony and when the time is right, I'll be happy to support the bill. Thanks so much.

We are three away from a quorum. It feels like it's within reach. It's like I can almost, almost but yet so far. At the progress we've been going this morning, we'll have a quorum by lunch. We also are out of presenters.

What's that? I know whoever hasn't shown up yet is gonna buy lunch. Ward, Assembly Member Hoover, Majority Leader Aguirre Curry, Assembly Member Patterson. If you or any of your staff are watching, we would love your presence. You are missed.

You are missed in the hearing and if you are missed for much longer, you will miss the opportunity to present your bill.

I'm not leaving.

Thank you for not leaving. It's well, you knew it was going to happen eventually and you told me that ten minutes ago. I was told that a certain colleague was on his way, I was told that again ten minutes later.

I don't know where that colleague is coming from. Good to see you, mister Ahrens. Nope. Don't have it yet.

You're good. This colleague does live like relatively near to the capital, so maybe they were told that like when they left their house, they were on their way to the hearing.

No doxing in BNP. That's a public safety thing.

What's the address?

Still no presenters. Mister Ahrens, would you like to go present a bill? Your choice, my friend.

I don't want to present a bill, but I-

good answer.

I wanna thank you so much for your leadership.

It's it's an honor to have you on the committee, sir. I'll present a bill. You know? Are any committee are any staff in the room with the folders to hand to their boss when they get here? Because you're gonna hand it to me.

The chair has a support recommendation for the bill for the record. I appreciate you. He's- I don't mean to out him, but he's the one who's on his way.

So what's that? it's 9:45. Actually, according to that thing, it's 9:50 but according to my phone, it's 9:45. We will well, let let's give him two minutes.

And if he doesn't show up in two minutes, then the son of Richard will present the bill. It's a good one, It's a good one. I'm an eye. I am not gonna grill you.

I can't make any promises for my colleagues to my right, but we're ready. I know this is the first bill hearing of the year. I think my colleagues have forgotten, I run an efficient hearing. We try to get things done.

Alright. Assembly member Chen, I think you're gonna get saved by the bell my friend. It is the colleagues who live kinda closest to the capital who are all not here, just confirming this.

So now Robert Patterson knows we're in the swing space, not in the-, we have a private member security entrance. I don't mean to give up security secrets for the place, but there's a separate place that members go to, and it is-, I'll go get his car if he can come in.

Why are they protesting?

this is how rumors start. This is how rumors start, but I don't know what they are protesting. The most talked about assembly member in all , you look very comfortable with your cup of coffee.

Yeah. You should don't drive with an open cup of coffee. That's dangerous. You need a Contigo. No.

Not trying to do an ad for Contigo. You need a mug. Mandates. I'm gonna introduce a bill, the mandate that you can't drive with an open cup of coffee. Assembly member Patterson, assembly member AB2141.

Ready when you are, sir.

Well, thank you, mister chair and members. Thank you for your patience. I apologize. Dad duty this week.

I get it now.

Which is

I get it now.

Yes. Yes. You do. And that's great news.

It was fun to see your kids yesterday.

Yes. Yeah. Yes. That they're they're fun. Anyways, good morning, and thank you again for your patience.

Here to present AB 2141 sponsored by the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding. AB 2141 aims to streamline disciplinary proceedings for licensed pharmacists in California by allowing the State Board of Pharmacy to enter into stipulated settlements and disciplinary orders with licensees before the formal filing of an agency pleading. Believe it or not, prior to this job, I actually worked in a regulated industry, and it was always Kinda frustrating when there were, you know, issues would come up.

And really, the only resolution between the agency and the, the licensee was, an accusation which always asks for revocation of the license. And then, ultimately, they would enter into some kind of stipulated settlement, you know, for, fixing the issue.

Right? And so what this bill is trying to solve is that for one particular industry, which is really important. But, you know, don't know if you agree with me, mister chair, but we should probably consider that on a more broad basis, I think. So, but with this bill, we are solving one important issue with the with the pharmacist and compounding. And so so I'm pleased to be able to do that today.

With me, I have our witness, which is Marie Cottman, to speak in support of A B2141, and I will turn it over to her.

Great. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair Berman and the committee. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of AB 2141. I'm Marie Cottman, pharmacist and former owner of Pacific Compounding Pharmacy in Stockton. I've served thousands of patients over twenty years, and I have a very big passion for pharmacy, especially compounding pharmacy.

Throughout my career, patient safety and regulatory compliance were always top priorities. I've actively participated in the board of pharmacy rule making process, and I've invested heavily in training facilities and procedures to meet evolving standards. However, as a pharmacist in charge, I was responsible for everything that happened in the pharmacy. Over time, the regulatory environment became increasingly difficult to navigate, especially when rules could be interpreted differently, and there was no structured opportunity to resolve those differences early.

I lived with the fear that the board inspector would interpret a rule differently than me and move directly toward formal enforcement without an opportunity for clarity or to correct.

As someone committed to getting it right, that risk was overwhelming. I saw ethical colleagues drawn into costly legal processes despite acting in good faith, and I ultimately sold my practice to avoid that possibility. AB 2141 offers a practical solution by creating an interim step. Before referral to the AG, it promotes transparency, consistency, and objectivity. It allows for early communication and corrective action while fully preserving the board's authority to take formal discipline when necessary.

Other states, including New York, Washington, Oregon, and Illinois already use similar processes to resolve cases more efficiently and maintain accountability. This approach strengthens collaboration between licensees and regulators. It focuses enforcement resources where they are most needed and helps preserve patient access to compounded medications. If something were in place, I might be speaking to you as an owner instead of a former owner. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2141.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses, who wanna add on in support of the bill? Come on up.

Thank you. Mister chair and members, Monica Miller on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments about the bill. Mister Patterson, before you got here, colleagues promised a grilling, but I don't it is not manifesting itself.

So Assemblymember Patterson, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Well, I'm I guess I guess it was good. I walked in late then, tired everybody out. But, you know, last year, the Board of Pharmacy promulgated new regulations on compounding, which, you know, I actually sent a letter on and I think, you know, can be problematic for the compounders moving forward.

You know, the difference is we're one of the few states just for people who may or may not know that aren't gonna have access to a lot of medications that 49 other states can have. And while the regulations were well intended, the end result is is people getting compounded medicines from out of state. I mean, that's just the reality.

But because of those, I am concerned about additional accusations put onto the compounded pharmacies that are based here in California, and we'd want them to resolve the issues rather than a formal accusation and and and going through the entire process that ultimately results in a stipulated settlement anyways or in this, I'm I'm sorry to say, you know, case where somebody had to sell their business as a result. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I wanna thank the author for, authoring the bill and and for the conversations we've had about it.

Yes. Thank you.

And, I think on a philosophical level definitely agree with you in this instance, and I think on a philosophical level agree that, you know, the goal should be folks resolving any issues that come up, you know, and we want people to stay in business in California. And so when the time is right, we are close to a quorum. And as soon as we get it, I'm sure we'll have a motion in a second, and I'll be happy to support the bill. Thanks so much. Great.

Thank you, mister chair.

Appreciate it. I see a son of a Hoover came in very, very stealthily. Wasn't with the fanfare that some others have we didn't we didn't clap. We didn't but I appreciate you being here. AB 1933, agenda item number nine.

Thank you, mister chair. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1933. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments to correct the drafting error. AB 1933 is simple. It makes clarifying technical changes to California's Professional Land Surveyors Act to promote greater reliability and consistency in the land surveying review process.

With me today to speak in support is Adam Quinones on behalf of the California Land Surveyors Association.

Great. You got two minutes.

Thank you, mister chair. Adam

Just hit the little button.

There we go. Adam Quinones, California Advocates, on behalf of the California Land Surveyors Association. I wanna start by first thanking Assemblymember Hoover for carrying this, very technical bill. The bill does two things. First, in section one of the bill, it clarifies, that a county surveyor, when they have changes to a record of survey, they are they would be required to, return that record of survey to the licensed land surveyor whose license number is affixed to that that record of surveyor.

Right now, the language, in statute is a little ambiguous and simply says the person. So we're clarifying existing law there. Section two of the bill also clarifies that a county, surveyor has the authority to check corner records for the accuracy of tagged monuments. They have this authority right now under existing law for records of survey. This simply clarifies that they also have it for corner records.

Very technical bill. We would ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna, add on in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, anyone who wants to add on as a me too in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments.

Seeing none. Senator Hoover, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for bringing this measure forward and for your continued work supporting our professional land surveyors. And with the amendment, I'm happy to support the bill when we have a quorum, which we are so close to. If you Wanna Kick off any of your colleagues on the end and get appointed to the committee, we'd love to have you. But assuming that's not possible, we'll get to when we can. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Okay. We are down to two. It's like the championship game last night. Down to the final two.

We didn't start with 64 or really 68, but we started with 18. Some reward. Majority leader, Aguiar Curry. We would love to see you in committee. We have nine people here.

How many people do we have on the committee? 19 or 18? 19. There are 10 members who serve on the committee who are not in the committee, and we just need one. We just need 10% of the absent members to show up and make me really happy.

But I sit here sad. Jesus Christ. I count on my colleague from Santa Cruz to to, you know, bolster me up, but not this morning. Not this morning. Yeah.

I appreciate it. Vice versa. We all benefit when I'm happy. Exactly. Alright, team.

Two more presenters. One more member of the committee.

Two more presenters. One more member of the committee.

So we've reached the public shaming section of the hearing. Let's go through the committee membership and see who's not here. This is fine.

We're missing vice chair Johnson. Assembly member Addis, thank you for being here. Assembly member Aarons, thank you for being here. We are missing assembly member Alanis. At least he texted to say that he will get here when he can, but it won't be soon.

So that's not super helpful. Assembly member Banes, thank you for being here. Assembly member Bauer Kahan is not here. She's being replaced by assembly member Aguiar Curry who's also not here. Assembly member Khlosa was here and now is not.

Assembly member Chen, appreciate your presence. Assembly member El Hawari. Wait. But we got alright. You saved some of your colleagues from more public shaming.

Thank you for coming back. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank thank you for being here. We have a quorum. Can I get a motion in a second on the consent calendar? Got a motion. Got a second. Thank you very much, madam secretary. Please call the vote on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

That the consent calendar is out. We'll leave it open for absent colleagues. Can we get a motion in a second on AB 1637 agenda item number two? Colosa, I got a motion in a second.

[Roll Call]

That bill is not will leave it open for absent colleagues? Can I get a motion in a second for agenda item number three, AB 1758 win? Got a motion in a second and I think a third.

[Roll Call]

So the we'll hold that bill open, for absent colleagues. And I see that we have Natalia Garcia who is here to present AB 1775. This is on behalf of Assemblymember Ward. This is my first time having this happen in ten years. It's fun.

It's fun. You're gonna do great. You're gonna do great. It's a good bill. So ready when you are. Take your time. Make sure to hit the little button. You got it.

Thank you so much, sir. Good morning, chair members. Natalia Garcia, staffer for Assemblymember Ward. Apologies. On his behalf, he's currently chairing his committee.

I wanna make sure, your committee can run effectively and smoothly. So, I'm here to present AB 1775 on his behalf, which ensures that California steps up to support veterans who are harmed by discriminatory federal policy. On 01/27/2025, president Donald Trump issued executive order fourteen one eighty three, creating a policy even worse than don't ask, don't tell by forcing transgender service members out of the military. Not because of misconduct or performance, but because of who they are.

There's no credible evidence that transgender service members undermine readiness, cohesion, or effectiveness.

They have served honorably across every branch of the armed forces and have met the same standards as their peers. The separation process under this order has been described by service members as chaotic and destabilizing with inconsistent guidance, administrative backlogs, and in some cases, as little as twenty four hours notice before pay and benefits are cut off. California is now absorbing the consequences of this federal action.

Many impacted service members already live here or are returning home with significant concentrations across the state, particularly in my member's home region of San Diego. Without state intervention, these veterans face real risks of unemployment, housing instability, and long term economic hardship.

AB 1775 ensures California steps up when the Federal Government fails our service members. Speaking to the provision that falls under this committee's jurisdiction, AB 1775 expands eligibility for expedited state professional licensing to include veterans discharged solely because of the executive order, helping them transition into civilian careers without necessary unnecessary bureaucratic delay. California has long led the nation in protecting veterans and advancing equality, and this bill reinforces both commitments by helping prevent avoidable homelessness, unemployment, and instability among veterans who served honorably.

AB 1775 is cosponsored by Equality California, Minority Veterans of America, Out and National Security, Sparta Pride, and Transgender Military Hub, organizations that work directly with LGBTQ plus service members and veterans. While California cannot control federal executive actions, we can ensure that those who served our country are not pushed into unemployment, housing instability, or long term hardship because of discriminatory federal policy.

At its core, AB 1775 is about dignity, fairness, and stability. When service members raise their right hand to defend our country, California must ensure we do not abandon them when federal policy turns its back on them. With me to speak in support of AB 1775 on behalf of two, of our bill cosponsors are Ben Kibler with Sparta Pride and Sunny Kim with Transgender Military Hub.

Got a motion and a second. You have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is sergeant first class Sunny Kim. I am an e seven in the United States Army. My father and his father are veterans of the US Army and Korean Army respectively. I joined during the global war on terrorism when I was 17, and I have served honorably and faithfully since.

I was in the top 10% of my basic training class. I was the distinguished honor graduate of my advanced individual training and also in the top 10% of my advanced leadership course. I have served my country across three continents, forged partnerships with the foreign allies, trained and led the soldiers placed in my care, and been entrusted with the responsibility of coaching soldiers from across the army through one of the most realistic and austere combat training exercises The United States has to offer.

Despite my abilities, achievements, and continued commitment, I'm being involuntarily separated from service due to a policy that states that I'm in conflict with, and I quote, a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle because I am transgender. While I have some level of financial recompense for my time in service to aid in my sudden transition to civilian life, many of my fellow service members affected by this policy do not have the require or do not meet the requirements.

They're being ousted with less leadership experience, less expertise in their fields, less prospects for jobs, and no financial backstop to avoid the threat of homelessness as they attempt to restart their lives. AB 7075 is not a financial sinkhole. It is an investment in veterans for California's fiscal future. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your service.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Ben Kibler. I'm a senior chief operations specialist in the United States Navy with nearly fifteen years of active duty service. My family has served in every major conflict since the American Revolution. Last year, I was selected for a commission as a limited duty officer, a milestone representing the top tier of my community.

Two days later, a Pentagon memo under executive order fourteen one eighty three started my separation, not for misconduct and not for poor poor performance. For the past year, my family has lived in limbo. My wife left her career for a duty station move that was canceled. I couldn't pursue civilian work without a confirmed separation date, and transition programs that are normally afforded to separating service members were not afforded to those in our situation.

For more than a year, we've lived in uncertainty, unable to plan, unsure of what comes next, and carrying the constant stress of not knowing where we'll be or how we'll support ourselves.

When employers see fifteen years of service in a recent commission, they ask one question, why are you leaving? There is no neutral answer to that question. The truth forces me out under circumstances beyond my control, and silence gives others the power to shape the narrative of my career. Three weeks ago, we finally got a separation date, May 5, and now we're scrambling to find jobs, secure housing, and relocate all on an expedited clock. AB 1775 addresses exactly the situation.

It helps veterans separated under circumstances beyond their control access to expedited licensure, housing support, and other essential services. It gives families like mine a chance to regain stability when everything else has been upended. I am extremely extremely proud of my service to this country, and I hope this committee will be proud to serve our community in return. Thank you.

Thank you, and and thank you for your service. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Good morning, chair and members. Natalia with Greenberg Traorek on behalf of Equality California, a proud post author of AB 1775 in strong support of this item. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.

Thank you.

Jenna Townend on behalf of the commission on the status of women and girls, and we are in support.

Thank you. Any, primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Anyone who wants to add on as a Me Too in opposition to the bill? Open it up to colleagues for any questions or comments. Is someone over Pellerin, please?

Oh, thank you. You did a great job presenting the bill, and I'm really outraged to hear how you've been treated by the Federal Government. And I just wanna thank you so much for your service to our country, and I would be honored to be added as a co author. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Addis.

I was gonna say the same. Thank you so much. We held a, hearing last night in the health budget subcommittee. You saw, and a number of people came and spoke about this, very same issue and the hardship that people are facing, due to attacks from the Federal Government. And so just wanna say thank you for your abundance of courage and your service and would also be honored to be added as a co author and great very good job. Very good job.

Any additional comments or questions from colleagues? With that, would you like the chance to close?

Yeah. Thank you so much again, chair and members. Happy to, relay that to the assembly member as well. And, I'm sure he would be happy to add you all as co authors. But thank you so much. Just on behalf of assembly member Chris Ward, respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Natalia, and thank you to your boss, assembly member Ward, for bringing this bill forward. And thank you to the bill supporters for your continued activism and and for your, witness testimony, your very powerful witness testimony today. The actions taken by president Trump and his Department of Defense to cruelly demean and disrespect our brave transgender service members are not only morally repugnant, those actions make our country less safe.

Anything California can do to acknowledge the sacrifices of our veterans, including those from within our transgender community, is something I fully support, and I strongly recommend, an Aye vote on this bill today. Do we have did we we got a motion in a second.

Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 1775 Ward, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Johnson? Addis? Aye. Addis, aye.

Arons?

Aye.

Arons, aye. Alanis? Baines? Baines, aye. Aguiar Curry?

Aye. Kaloza? Kaloza, aye. Chen? Chen, aye.

El Hawari? Hadwick? Haney? Hart? Aye.

Hart, Aye. Irwin. Irwin, Aye. Jackson. Aye.

Jackson, Aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, Aye. Macedo.

Quinn Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, Aye.

That bill is out. Typical politician to come in to get all the credit and not do and not do the hard work. Your staff did a wonderful job. It's the best staff in the building. Thank you, mister chairman.

Thank you all.

Is there anything enough said. Congratulations. The bill is out. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

So with that, we've got one last bill. But let's go back to going through the the the the bills to get folks to do motions in seconds. We can we can start at the beginning. That's fine. So let's take it from the top.

For new our colleagues who who've recently arrived, we're gonna start with agenda item number two, eighty sixteen thirty seven, close it.

[Roll Call]

That that bill is still on call? Can I get a motion a second and a second for AB 1933? Got a motion in a second. Madam secretary, please call the vote. This is agenda item number nine.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Next up, agenda item number 13, AB 2141. Can I get a motion in a second? Got a motion in a second. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent colleagues. Can I get a motion and a second for assembly member or for AB 2477 Chen? Agenda item 16, got a motion, got a second. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Okay. The motion is second for agenda item 17 AB2506Hart. Got a motion in a second. Thank you. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Can I get a motion second on agenda item 18 AB 2633 Gibson? Got a motion with a second. Thank you. Madam secretary, please call a vote.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out, and we've got permission for Assemblymember Pellerin to present. We do. We do. Congratulations. Okay.

AB 1973, which is agenda item 12. Thank you. Thank you, Assembly member Pellerin. You got this. You got this.

We've got a motion in a second. Take your time.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. In the years since the Dobbs decision, California has led the nation in protecting reproductive freedom. But even with those protections, gaps in access to care still remain. The reality is simple.

We already have a workforce that is trained, qualified, and ready to provide this care, but they are restricted in their ability to do so. Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse, Midwives, and Physician Assistants also known as Advanced Practice Clinicians or APC's receive extensive education and training. They are already safely providing a range of Reproductive Health Care Services in California today. They've demonstrated their competency and training, but state law has not kept up.

Current law puts outdated limits on what these providers can do regardless of their training or their patients' needs.

These restrictions mean patients are turned away or forced to wait longer for care. And for patients, delays have real consequences, longer travel, more time off work, higher costs, and even missing the window to receive care altogether. AB 1973 is about fixing these issues. It updates state law to allow APCs to practice to the full extent of their training and proven competency. This bill does not lower standards.

Licensing and training requirements remain in place. It is simply a common sense update, one that allows the state to fully use a skilled workforce that patients trust. At a time when access to health care is under pressure nationwide, we should be removing barriers, not maintaining outdated ones. AB 1973 ensures patients get timely care for providers who are already trained, competent and serving their communities.

And with me today is Dr. Kelly Pfeifer, a Family Physician and Abortion Care provider and Alyssa Shearer, a Woman's Health nurse practitioner.

Thank you so much, members of the committee. I've worked as an abortion provider for over 25 years in multiple roles at Planned Parenthoods and independent clinics. And abortion care is common and safe, and ABC's have been trained in providing this care for over a decade. Research shows that APCs can provide high quality abortion care to patients with equivalent safety, competency, and patient satisfaction as their physician counterparts. APCs are a critical part of California's network.

I've trained dozens of APCs over the years, and I found them without exception to be conscientious, knowledgeable, skilled, thorough, and kind. In fact, in the clinics that I run-in other states, APCs routinely receive rave patient reviews for their attention to detail and their ability to take time to listen.

I have trained clinicians in procedural abortions as for as long as I've been a doctor, and what I can tell you is that the what matters most in training is not the letters behind your name but attention to detail, willingness to follow best practice and evidence, repetition and respect for patients. And when I attend national conferences, I meet APCs in other states who routinely do procedural abortions as proposed in this bill and I'm always shocked that California is so behind the times.

So the current restrictions create artificial limits, and they, these are not based in science. And I really encourage you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alyssa Shearer. I have been a Nurse practitioner and an Abortion provider for, I actually just did the math, 12 years. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill AB 1973. I live in Turlock, committee Alanis, nice to see you. Where I serve my community through a independent women's health clinic where I provide family planning, abortion, and general prenatal care.

I felt called to act in a community where there's an obvious need for reproductive health care and services. Parts of the South Central Valley, as you may or may not know, have very high mortal and infant mortality rates and pregnancy related complications. The region has significantly fewer physicians per capita than the state average. You guys should see the Sutter ads to try and get providers to come there.

Because of the lack of providers, many residents have to travel long distances for prenatal care, labor and delivery services, or specialized reproductive care like abortions.

At the same time, access to midwifery care and early pregnancy services are limited across large portions of the region, and I'm really honored to provide this care in my community there. I know firsthand how restrictions to abortion care impact pregnant people and how delays necessary in humane care. I started my career in Ohio where as a patient and a provider, I was forced to carry a wanted but non viable pregnancy for four weeks because of restrictive abortion laws in Ohio.

My pregnancy was no longer growing, but I was unable to get the care that I needed when I needed it because there was still cardiac activity or a heartbeat. The procedure for early pregnancy loss and abortion is the same.

And in the end, my care was delayed for an agonizing four weeks, and I had to get two physicians to sign off that there was no cardiac activity before I could get an abortion. So I knew that this pregnancy was not going to result in a child, and I had to carry it for four weeks with this knowledge because abortion had a restriction. Moving to Turlock, I'm so grateful for the protections and freedoms that California has for both patients and providers.

I have a Master's Degree in Nursing, a Doctorate in Nursing practice, and I have over 15 years providing reproductive and women's healthcare, and more than 12 as a certified nurse practitioner. I'm trained in both medication and procedural abortion care, and I'm really passionate about providing compassionate, evidence based, patient centered care.

I was surprised to learn when I got here that California law restricted my ability to care for pregnant patients who miscarry or terminate early in pregnancy. This means I have to turn patients away who are even just a few days past a gestational cutoff imposed by a law, rather than science, even though I'm available, able to care for these patients and competent clinically.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Thanks.

AB 1973 updates California laws to better align with my education, training, clinical competence, skills, and experience. I know how it feels when care is delayed, and AB 1973 would improve preparedness in the face of ongoing threats to abortion by increasing capacity in California. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support? Folks wanna add on in support of the bill.

Good morning. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning. Martin Radasovich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California, co-sponsor as well. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association, co-sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Kathy Mossberg on behalf of Essential Access Health, co-sponsor as well and strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. Alena Chavez with Teach Training and Early Abortions for Comprehensive Health Care, also a co-sponsor and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair member. It's Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kimberly Robinson with Black Women for Wellness Action Project, also a co-sponsor and in strong support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You've got two minutes.

Ready when you are.

Hello, chair and members. My name is Leandra Wells. I'm with the California Family Council. I'm here today in opposition to AB 1973, which would allow medical personnel without surgical training to perform second and third trimester abortions or the killing of a human being and shield out of state providers from from professional discipline. So why is this bill being pushed?

The reality is there are not enough physicians willing to perform abortions. By lowering medical standards, this bill allows a two full two fold outcome, increasing the number of abortions and profits for California's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, who has given over $1,500,000 to California politicians, namely governor Newsom. Second and third trimester abortions dramatically elevate maternal risks. Research shows the risk of maternal death rises by about thirty eight percent for each week past eight weeks of gestation.

While the overall death rate is roughly zero point seven per 100,000 procedures, it increases to six point seven per one hundred thousand for late term abortions, nearly 10 times higher.

The risk continues to climb as gestation progresses. Authorizing non physicians to perform these high risk procedures puts California women in harm's way. At fourteen weeks pregnant, my baby boy was already fully formed. He had arms and legs and he loved to somersault and suck his thumb. This is the stage of development we are talking about.

Babies can feel pain as early as ten to fourteen weeks yet, AB 1973 expands procedures like DNE, which involves dismembering the unborn child. This is the primary method for late term abortions. Other methods like induction abortions also carry serious risks including uterine rupture and hemorrhage. Additionally, while every other doctor is held to professional standards, AB 1973 blocks discipline for providers penalized in other states. No other field of medicine is given that kind of immunity.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote for AB 1973. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill?

Hello. I'm a Tweener, Angela Hill California Medical Association. We strongly support access to abortion care. I just wanna note for the, committee that we are in conversations, with the author's office and are just seeking to address some amendments related to continuity of care. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Bringing it back to colleagues for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Ahrens.

Thank you. I just wanna thank the author and thank the the member from Santa Cruz for presenting on her behalf. And just wanted to, before we vote, point out the disturbing inaccuracy of the opposition.

You know, we can disagree on policy, but no one's in entitled to their own facts and how deeply disturbing some of the comments were attacking Planned Parenthood, attacking, you know, basic health care and dignity, in a time and in a and in a country, where women are losing access to basic health services.

And and the fact that we have a Federal Government who is taking away and attacking these basic services, you're not preventing abortion, you're preventing and and putting at risk safety of of women in this country.

And it's, really, disturbing and appalling to hear. There's nothing there was nothing respectful about that opposition because they're making up their own facts. And so I'm proud to support this bill, and I think we need to start correcting the record when we hear inaccurate statements like that. Thank you, mister Chair.

Thank you. Any additional comments from colleagues on the committee? Seeing none, Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

On behalf of assembly member, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And just wanna confirm that on behalf of the majority leader, are you accepting the amendments?

Yes. Yes.

The right answer.

The right answer.

Yes. We are.

Thank you. Could also add, I would love to be added as a co-author as well.

Absolutely. We'll make sure that the majority leader gets that message. Thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin, for presenting the bill. Thank you, majority leader, Aguiar-Curry, for bringing this forward. I fully support increasing access to abortion care, particularly with the horrifying conversations on this topic nationally and in other states.

With the accepted amendments and the commitment to work with stakeholders on the clarifications for care coordination, I'm more than happy to support the bill today. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 1973, Aguiar-Curry, the motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Health. Berman?

Berman, aye. Johnson? Addis?

Aye.

Aye.

Addis, aye. Ahrens?

Aye.

Arons, aye. Alanis? Alanis not voting.

Bains?

Bains, aye. Aguiar-Curry? Caloza?

Aye.

Caloza, aye, Chen? Chen, no. Elhawary? Hadwick?

No.

Hadwick, no. Haney?

Aye.

Haney, aye.

Hart?

Aye

Hart, aye. Irwin?

Aye.

Erwin, aye. Jackson?

Aye.

Jackson, aye. Lowenthal?

Lowenthal, aye. Macedo? Quinn? Pellerin?

Aye

Aye.

Pellerin, Aye.

That bill is out. Thank you very much. We will take a minute to catch our breath, and then we will start from the top, perhaps the members.

[Roll Call]

Hearing's adjourned. Thanks, everyone.