You are here
DRLC/CLRC CA Legislation and Regulatory Advocacy
California Legislation Supported by DRLC in 2012
- AB 1000 - Oral Chemotherapy Costs: AB 1000 would have required insurance companies to provide oral chemotherapy at the same cost as traditional intravenous chemotherapy where both are available. Currently, oral chemotherapy can be prohibitively expensive which disproportionately affects low-wage workers who cannot afford to take time off work for intravenous chemotherapy or for persons living in rural areas who have no access to reliable transportation for multiple intravenous chemotherapy appointments.
- AB 1775 - Wage Garnishment: CLRC sent a letter of support on behalf of itself and other cancer community members for AB 1775 which raised the wage garnishment floor to 40 times the California minimum wage from 30 times the federal minimum wage. CLRC’s letter outlined just how this issue touches people with cancer who often experience significant debt as a result of the cancer diagnosis. AB 1775 passed.
- AB 2039 - Family and Medical Leave: CLRC supported AB 2039 which would have added other eligible family members for paid family leave. As many adults undergoing cancer treatment do not have a spouse or domestic partner who can care for them, this would have allowed them to receive care from siblings, parents, or specified others without the caretaker having to risk his or her job.
- SB 255 - Health Care Coverage: Breast Cancer: CLRC supported this bill which ensures that patients undergoing partial mastectomies and lumpectomies would have the length of post-operational stay determined by their physician, not their insurance company. The bill also insured the coverage of prosthetic devices for reconstructive surgery following a partial mastectomy or lumpectomy. The bill passed.
- SB 1088 - Pupils Readmission: DRLC supported SB 1088 which helps ensure that children who have had contact with the juvenile justice system are able to timely reenroll in school. SB 1088 passed.
- AB 1909 – Foster Children: Placement: Suspension and Expulsion: Notifications: DRLC supported AB 1909, which will ensure that school districts provide notification to a county child welfare designee and the foster child’s court-appointed attorney when he or she is facing expulsion or is being subject to a manifestation determination hearing.
- AB 2043 – Appeals: Representative Actions: DRLC opposed AB 2043 which would have allowed for interlocutory appeals in class actions after class certification. This would have slowed even further the ability to obtain class-wide relief, thus making class actions even more onerous and less effective.
- AB 2145 - School Discipline: Ensuring Appropriate Date Reporting on School Discipline at the State Level: DRLC supported AB 2145 which would have ensured that key discipline indicators are annually reported and made available in an understandable way to policymakers, parents and community members so that they can have access to accurate data related to school discipline.
- AB 2241 – Juvenile Justice – “Transitioning Youth for Success”: DRLC supported AB 2241 which would have ensured that federal “Neglected or Delinquent” funds allocated to school districts by the California Department of Education are used to provide programs and services focusing on the special transition needs of students who are or have been confined to a juvenile detention facility.
- AB 2242 – Reducing Out-of-School Suspensions: DRLC supported AB 2242 which would have addressed the overuse of out-of-school suspensions for minor and subjectively imposed offenses by limiting suspensions for “willful defiance” to in-school suspensions. AB 2242 was vetoed by the Governor.
- AB 2537 – Student Discipline: Zero Tolerance Policies: DRLC supported AB 2537, which makes the existing mandatory requirements for immediate suspension, expulsion, and notification permissive, thereby returning discretion to school districts, except in instances where federal law requires otherwise. It also provides that the decision to expel a pupil for authorized offenses be based on both a finding that other means of correction are not feasible or have not changed the student’s behavior and that the pupil will cause a continuing danger to the physical safety of students and staff. AB 2537 passed.
- SB 9 – The Fair Sentencing for Youth Act: DRLC supported SB 9 which provides a process whereby an offender under 18 years of age at the time of committing an offense for which he or she was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole can submit a petition for recall and resentencing to the sentencing court and the prosecuting agency after serving a substantial amount of time in prison, and demonstrating remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation. SB 9 passed.
- SB 1235 – Reducing Excessive Suspensions: DRLC supported SB 1235 which would have replaced excessive suspensions with research based approaches such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in the schools in California that have the greatest difficulty creating a positive school climate and addressing negative student behavior, namely schools that suspend 25% or more of their students or of any numerically significant racial or ethnic subgroup.
- SB 1186: DRLC opposed SB 1186 which adds procedural and legal barriers to the enforcement of the rights of people with disabilities with regards to accessibility enforcement. DRLC also opposed the exclusion of the California Commission on Disability Access (CCDA) to assist in the thoughtful research and analysis of compliance with state laws and regulations governing disability access. Among the procedural barriers is the 30 day notice requirement that DRLC believes to be a substantial infringement on the civil rights of people with disabilities.
California Regulations Supported by DRLC in 2012