California Senate Bill SB487

California 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/14/23
• Refer: 2/22/23
• Refer: 3/20/23
• Report Pass: 3/29/23
• Refer: 3/29/23
• Refer: 4/12/23
• Report Pass: 4/20/23
• Refer: 4/24/23
• Report Pass: 5/18/23
• Engrossed: 5/24/23
• Refer: 6/1/23
• Refer: 6/22/23
• Report Pass: 6/28/23
• Refer: 6/28/23
• Report Pass: 7/11/23
• Refer: 7/11/23
• Report Pass: 9/1/23
• Enrolled: 9/11/23
• Chaptered: 9/27/23
• Passed: 9/27/23

Caption

Abortion: provider protections.

Impact

The passage of SB 487 is expected to have significant implications for state laws regarding healthcare service licensing and insurance practices. By prohibiting health care service plans and insurers from terminating contracts or penalizing providers based on out-of-state judgments related to abortion, the bill aims to create a more supportive environment for abortion services in California. It ensures that providers can continue to operate without fear of repercussions stemming from laws in other states that are contrary to California's stance on reproductive rights.

Summary

Senate Bill 487, introduced by Senator Atkins, focuses on enhancing protections for abortion providers and ensuring they are not penalized based on out-of-state laws that conflict with California's legal framework regarding abortion care. The bill addresses existing laws declaring various out-of-state legal actions against individuals and entities involved in abortion services as contrary to California's public policy. In particular, it extends these protections to include abortion providers, thereby reinforcing their operational rights in the state, regardless of judgments or disciplinary actions taken in other jurisdictions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 487 appears to be generally supportive among legislators aligned with reproductive rights advocacy, viewing the bill as a crucial step in protecting access to abortion and supporting healthcare providers in this field. However, opposition exists from groups advocating for stricter regulations on abortion procedures, who may argue that the bill undermines accountability for providers or promotes practices they view as ethically questionable. The debate reflects deeper societal divisions over abortion rights and healthcare practices in California.

Contention

Notably, the contentious aspect of SB 487 lies in its prohibition of discrimination against providers based on civil judgments and professional actions in other states solely due to their compliance with those states' laws regarding abortion. This could lead to a broader discussion about state versus federal authority regarding personal healthcare decisions and the implications of centralized healthcare legislation versus state mandates. Proponents assert that this is necessary for protecting patient rights, while critics express concern over potential abuses of the system and the erosion of professional standards.