Reproductive rights.
Summary
(1) Existing law authorizes a judge to enter an ex parte order authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Existing law also authorizes a peace officer to apply for, and a magistrate to issue, an order, or extension of an order, authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device. This bill would prohibit the issuance of an ex parte order authorizing interception of wire or other electronic communication or an order, or extension of an order, authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device for the purpose of investigating or recovering evidence of a prohibited violation. The bill would define "prohibited violation" for this purpose as a violation of a law that creates liability for, or arising out of, either providing, facilitating, or obtaining an abortion or intending or attempting to provide, facilitate, or obtain an abortion that is lawful under California law. Existing law provides for the issuance of a search warrant upon specified grounds. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a search warrant for any item or items that pertain to an investigation into a prohibited violation. Existing law requires a California corporation that provides electronic communication services or remote computing services to the general public to comply with a warrant issued by another state to produce records that would reveal the identity of the customers using those services, data stored by, or on behalf of, the customer, the customer's usage of those services, the recipient or destination of communications sent to or from those customers, or the content of those communications as if that warrant had been issued by a California court. This bill would require an out-of-state warrant for the records listed above to include an attestation that the evidence sought is not related to an investigation into, or enforcement of, a prohibited violation. The bill would prohibit the production of records by a California corporation when the corporation knows or should know that the warrant relates to an investigation into, or enforcement of, a prohibited violation. (2) Existing law includes a declaration of the Legislature that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive decisions, including the fundamental right to choose to bear a child or obtain an abortion. Existing law prohibits the state from denying or interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, as defined, or when necessary to protect her life or health. Existing law, the Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act, requires the Attorney General to carry out certain functions relating to anti-reproductive-rights crimes in consultation with, among others, subject matter experts. Existing law requires all law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for responding to anti-reproductive-rights calls by January 1, 2023. This bill would prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or knowingly participating in the arrest of any person for performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion or for obtaining an abortion, if the abortion is lawful in this state. The bill would prohibit a state or local public agency from cooperating with or providing information to an individual or agency from another state or a federal law enforcement agency, as specified, regarding a lawful abortion. The bill would prohibit specified persons, including a judicial officer, court employee, an authorized attorney, among others, from issuing a subpoena in connection with a proceeding in another state regarding an individual performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion in this state, or an individual obtaining an abortion in this state, if the abortion is lawful in this state. The bill would not prohibit the investigation of criminal activity that may involve an abortion, provided that no information relating to any medical procedure performed on a specific individual may be shared with an agency or individual from another state for the purpose of enforcing another state's abortion law. (3) Existing law requires superior court judges in each county to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a uniform countywide schedule of bail for all bailable offenses, as specified. Existing law requires a bail schedule to contain a list of the offenses and amounts of bail applicable for each, as well as a general clause for designated amounts of bail for all offenses not specifically listed in the schedule. This bill would require a uniform countywide schedule of bail to set $0 bail for an individual who has been arrested in connection with a proceeding in another state regarding and individual performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion in this state, or an individual obtaining an abortion in this state, if the abortion is protected, as specified. Existing law requires the Governor to recognize a demand for extradition of a person if the demand meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a magistrate, upon the filing of a verified complaint, to issue a warrant directed to any peace officer commanding the officer to apprehend an individual in this state who is convicted, or has violated the terms of bail, probation, or parole, or who is charged with a crime, in another state and who is believed to be in this state. This bill would require, within 24 hours of the filing of a verified complaint, the filing agency to electronically transmit to the Attorney General a complete copy of the verified complaint, the out-of-state indictment, information, complaint, or judgment, out-of-state warrant, and the affidavit upon which the out-of-state warrant was issued. (4) Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, determines how governmental entities may access information on electronic devices and from electronic communication service providers, as defined. This bill would prohibit a California corporation or a corporation whose principal executive offices are located in California that provides electronic communication services from providing records, information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a warrant, court order, subpoena, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, or other legal process issued by, or pursuant to, the procedures of another state or a political subdivision thereof that relates to an investigation into, or enforcement of, a prohibited violation. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to commence a civil action to compel compliance with the above provisions, but would only impose civil liability if the corporation knew or should have known that the warrant, court order, subpoena, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, or other legal process relates to an investigation into or enforcement of a prohibited violation. (5) The bill would state that its provisions are severable. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2021
Committee Review
Aug 2022
Assembly Passage
Jun 2021
Senate Passage
Aug 2022
Signed into Law
Sep 2022
Introduced Feb 19, 2021
Signed Sep 27, 2022
Floor votes · Senate Aug 30, 2022 · Assembly Jun 1, 2021
How they voted
29–7
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 37
Aug 30, 2022
D
Democratic29
100% Yea
R
Republican8
87% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
42
Key actions
14
Committee
11
Amendments
13
Sep 27, 2022
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 31, 2022
Lower · Passed
Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 62. Noes 15.).
lower
Aug 30, 2022
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Aug 30, 2022
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 31. Noes 8.).
upper
Aug 25, 2022
Upper · Passed
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
upper
Aug 22, 2022
Upper · Passed
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
upper
Aug 11, 2022
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
upper
Aug 11, 2022
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (August 11).
upper
Aug 2, 2022
Committee
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
upper
Jun 29, 2022
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 21, 2022
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 16, 2022
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 16, 2022
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c).
upper
Jun 13, 2022
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
upper
Jul 15, 2021
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be ordered to second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to Consent Calendar.
upper
Jul 6, 2021
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (July 6). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 28, 2021
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
Jun 16, 2021
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
Jun 1, 2021
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1723.)
lower
May 24, 2021
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
lower
May 20, 2021
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 20).
lower
May 12, 2021
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 29, 2021
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 28, 2021
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 27, 2021
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (April 22).
lower
Mar 4, 2021
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
Feb 20, 2021
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
lower
Feb 19, 2021
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 20 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
DDemocratic
Co
Akilah Weber Pierson
DDemocratic
Co
Anna Caballero
DDemocratic
Co
Blanca Rubio
DDemocratic
Co
Buffy Wicks
DDemocratic
Co
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
DDemocratic
Co
Chris Holden
DDemocratic
Co
Cottie Petrie-Norris
DDemocratic
Co
Cristina Garcia
DDemocratic
Co
Jacqui Irwin
DDemocratic
Co
Jesse Gabriel
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1242
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1242. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline