Porn Stars In California Won't Have To Wear Condoms Thanks To The Failure Of Prop 60

Free condoms are seen outside the Benning Stoddert Recreation Center on May 24, 2013 in Washington. AIDS Healthcare Foundation staff and volunteers handed out free condoms and provided a free HIV test as a part of the Condom Nation Big Rig Tour which has the goal of distributing 50 million condoms through out the United States. AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
Source: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

As the old saying goes: No glove, no love. California voters don't agree, however, as the state voted to reject Proposition 60 on Nov. 8, according to the SF Gate. The ballot provision stated that porn stars in California by law must wear condoms when filming scenes with anal or vaginal penetration. Additionally, producers would have to provide STI screenings, workplace related medical exams, and STI vaccinations. Golden State voters opposed the measure by a margin of 54-46 percent, according to the Washington Examiner.

While at first blush, the law proposed law seemed pretty straightforward, in fact it was the source of a lot of controversy leading up to Tuesday’s vote. Looking at the list of supporters, organizations like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses, and the California Academy of Preventative Medicine all seem like good, reasonable endorsements.

But then you look at those who were opposed to the measure: the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, not to mention the California Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties.

The main argument against the proposition had to do with its poor legal wording, which opponents claimed allowed for a tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits, empowering California citizens to sue film producers if they thought a condom wasn’t being used — even though the law doesn’t require condoms to be visible.

[Embed]

There are other arguments against the proposition that have more to do with the way California’s ballot measure system is used to implement laws. In the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial opposing the measure, they made the case that “workplace safety is better done by regulation and statutes worked out after hearings and study, and can be adapted to address problems as well as best practices that emerge.”

The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, in its 2016 voter guide, articulated another gripe opponents have with the proposition: “Prop 60 specifies that citizens would be able to file lawsuits against producers if they believe condoms weren’t used in the making of a particular film. This process would expose real names, addresses, and other contact information of adult performers—which could be dangerous.”

As lopsided as the opposition is against the law, the financial underwriting of the two campaigns has been just the reverse: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored the legislation, has donated the entirety of the Yes on 60’s nearly $5 million funds. Meanwhile, despite having many more endorsements, No on 60’s donations have topped out just over $500,000.

[Embed]

Voters were clearly persuaded by the idea of reducing litigiousness within the state, adult film performers in California will continue to use their own discretion.

Image: Bustle/Allison Gore

Must Reads