California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB46

Introduced
12/3/18  
Introduced
12/3/18  
Refer
3/21/19  
Refer
3/21/19  
Report Pass
3/21/19  
Refer
3/25/19  
Report Pass
4/23/19  
Report Pass
4/23/19  
Engrossed
5/2/19  
Engrossed
5/2/19  
Refer
5/2/19  
Refer
5/2/19  
Refer
5/16/19  
Refer
5/16/19  
Report Pass
6/4/19  
Enrolled
6/18/19  
Enrolled
6/18/19  
Chaptered
6/26/19  
Chaptered
6/26/19  
Passed
6/26/19  

Caption

Individuals with mental illness: change of term.

Impact

The passage of AB 46 would lead to impactful changes in multiple state codes, including the Penal Code, Welfare and Institutions Code, and others. By modifying the terminologies used in legal contexts—ranging from court proceedings to mental health treatment protocols—the bill aims to promote a more humane understanding of mental health issues. This aligns with broader societal shifts towards recognizing the importance of language in reducing stigma against those with mental illnesses.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 46, introduced by Carrillo, aims to amend various provisions of the law that currently utilize derogatory terms related to mental health. Specifically, the bill seeks to replace terms like 'mental disorder' and 'mental defect' with more culturally sensitive language. The intent behind this legislative change is to foster a more respectful and dignified discourse around mental health issues by using terminology that is deemed less stigmatizing for individuals experiencing mental illnesses.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding AB 46 is positive, particularly among mental health advocates and those concerned with social justice. The bill received unanimous support in the legislative process, signifying a collective agreement on the need for a change in how mental health is discussed in legal frameworks. However, it must be noted that some legal experts expressed concerns regarding the practical implications of these changes, particularly in how they might affect existing legal proceedings.

Contention

While the bill is generally well-received, there are notable points of contention regarding its implementation. Critics raised questions about the potential ramifications of altering established legal terminology. There are concerns that changing these terms could lead to confusion or could inadvertently affect the interpretation of laws in judicial settings. Legal professionals emphasize the importance of clarity in legislation and worry that more sensitive language might complicate legal proceedings related to mental health.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1584

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

CA SB1518

Public safety omnibus.

CA SB883

Public Safety Omnibus.

CA SB1187

Competence to stand trial.

CA SB1323

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.