The confusing issue of LA and it’s mandatory condoms in porn initiative #HIV #AIDS
Leave it to the AIDS Health Foundation and Michael Weinstein to use their condoms-in-porn-or-else stance to make things confusing (while, of course keeping their name out there). Ready? Set? Go!
The AHF has been rallying for mandatory condoms in porn now (rather than, say I don’t know…using their resources to help people with HIV/AIDS) and there’s just no getting them or Weinstein to take their teeth out of that bone. They mounted a signature gathering, got plenty of people to sign on the line, and they want it proposed to the voters.
(With me so far? Good)
I’ve weighed in on this plenty, and I’ll even do it again. As an HIV advocate (and a fan of porn), you can’t force people to wear a condom. There’s no way to do it, and the best defense against new infections is education. I also watch plenty of porn, and despite plenty of people wailing that I’m subsidizing an industry that’s infecting people as well as subliminally getting them to play bareback I’ve never made a stupid decision when it comes to sex. Nor am I about to.
But, I digress. Back to our story.
Despite getting all the signatures, the LA city attorney’s office is having none of this. They say the law would be unconstitutional, the ability to enforce any said law rides with the state, and there you go. It shouldn’t be on the ballot:
An initiative by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation proposes to put the matter of mandatory condoms in the adult video industry to you, the voter. It collected enough signatures (70,901 of them) and turned them in, but now the L.A. City Attorney’s office is going to court to prevent the measure from being placed on the ballot.
In the this week’s L.A. Superior Court filing, the office argues that …
… the foundation doesn’t have the right to put something on the ballot that would “preempt” the rarely enforced state law that already requires condoms.
The city also argues that the state legislature, via Cal-OSHA, has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and that all such workplace enforcement should remain with them. The filing calls the initiative “illegal” and “unconstitutional” and says it would waste taxpayer money to put it on the June 2012 ballot.
So, if you believe the city attorney, the law would be legally worthless.
That brings you up to today, where the LA city council just thumbed their noses at not only the initiative, cut the city’s lawyers as well by passing a law requiring condoms on set:
The L.A. City Council today said that yes, porn stars must wear condoms when performing within city limits.
The 11-1 vote means that a costly ballot initiative asking you, the voter, to approve just such a rule can be avoided.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation organized that initiative and today sounded triumphant:
In an historic move, during today’s City Council meeting, the Los Angeles City Council adopted the proposed ordinance, ‘City of Los Angeles Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry Act,’ a ballot initiative that has recently qualified to be placed on the June 5, 2012 election …
The group noted that the City Council’s approval seems to defy a move by City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to block the initiative in court.
Confused? So, it would seem that condoms are now mandatory, and there’s not enough city resources to make sure the apparently unconstitutional law is enforced anyway.
I also have a flash for the city of LA, as well as the AHF and Michael Weinstein: it probably would have been a good idea to talk to performers as to what they think about the issues as well as what they need to be successful in their jobs. Most of the performers I know and have spoken to are:
a. smart as hell. Lots of them are smarter than me.
b. fully educated on HIV/AIDS, and get tested plenty. The universal problem I’m hearing lately is that the AIM testing center was closed, and the so-called replacement center for performers to test is not only way out of the way, they are notoriously inept in posting results to the users accounts online.
c. understand that performing in a condomless movie is a choice they are making. There’s no gun to anyone’s head when the lights go on. I know people on both sides of this issue: I know performers who only perform in movies with condoms and those who do not. I, for one, respect them both equally. Grabbing the condoms doesn’t make one a saint, and working on a bareback movie set doesn’t make you a sinner either.
If this law ever does make it past all it’s hurdles, the studios that fly without them are either going to leave California entirely (putting people out of work), or go underground completely (putting people at risk).
And this helps performers how exactly…?
Related posts:
- L.A. seeks to mandate condoms in every porn movie. Yeah, good luck with that. #HIV #AIDS OK, first the article. Then my .02 cents below it....
- Vatican finally ok’s condoms to prevent HIV #HIV #AIDS But you’re still gonna go to hell if you use...
- Condoms for Kids (they're for sale, right now) Condoms for 12 year old boys were going on sale...
- Most teens use condoms, most adults don’t bother #HIV #AIDS The results of a huge study that conclude that teens...
- Obama condoms, and other stories #HIV #AIDS Man, oh man - talk about a perfect tool for...
