Asm. Sharon Quirk-Silva

Existing law prohibits any person from selling, leasing, or transferring any firearm unless the person is licensed as a firearms dealer, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain requirements and prohibitions for licensed firearms dealers. A violation of any of these requirements or prohibitions is grounds for forfeiture of a firearms dealer's license. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "machinegun" to mean, among other definitions, any weapon that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This bill would, on and after July 1, 2026, prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define "machinegun-convertible pistol" as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and "pistol converter" as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine, a 2nd violation punishable by a fine that may result in a suspension or revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists maintained by the Department of Justice, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer's license and removal from certain centralized lists. Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun, except as authorized. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a felony. This bill would expand the above definition of "machinegun" to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter. Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect mechanism. For any pistol listed on the roster on January 1, 2026, that was not subject to the above-described requirements to be on the list because it was submitted for testing before specified dates, that is thereafter only modified to change the design features that brought the pistol within the definition of a machinegun-convertible pistol, and that is submitted to an independent certified laboratory for testing pursuant to the above-described testing provisions before January 1, 2027, this bill would authorize that pistol to be submitted for testing and added to the roster without meeting those requirements. This bill would make these provisions severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1263 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1263 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By creating a new crime and expanding the application of an existing crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a county's or city's governing body to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law. This bill, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, would require a county or city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website, if the county or city prescribes residential building permit fees. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. This bill would remove the above-described requirement for a county or city to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans when the building department takes more than 30 days to complete the plan check. Until January 1, 2036, the bill would instead, upon an application for a residential building permit being deemed complete, as provided, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which the city or county will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. The bill would authorize an applicant to retain a private professional provider, as defined, to perform the plan check, if the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days or the city or county has not determined the completed application is compliant within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. The bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. The bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit or notify the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency received the application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time periods. Existing law requires the local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal a finding that the application for a postentitlement phase permit is incomplete or noncompliant, as provided. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would deem the local agency to be in compliance with the above-described requirements governing applications for postentitlement phase permits as those requirements pertain to the residential building permit. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, the bill would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any residential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the planning agency of the county or city, after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, to submit an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1 of each year that includes, among other things, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. This bill, beginning April, 1, 2027, and until January 1, 2036, would require a city or county to include in the above-described annual report the number of residential building permits reviewed by the city or county, the number reviewed by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions, as described above, and the number of full-time equivalent staff members directly involved in the processing of residential building permits, as provided. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013, requires a public employee who is convicted of any state or federal felony for conduct arising out of, or in the performance of, the public employee's official duties in pursuit of the office or appointment, or in connection with obtaining salary, disability retirement, service retirement, or other benefits, to forfeit all accrued rights and benefits in any public retirement system from the earliest date of the commission of the felony to the date of conviction, and prohibits the public employee from accruing further benefits in that public retirement system. Existing law defines "public employee" for purposes of these provisions to mean an officer, including one who is elected or appointed, or an employee of a public employer. Existing law also requires an elected public officer, who takes public office, or is reelected to public office, on or after January 1, 2006, and who is convicted during or after holding office of any felony involving accepting or giving, or offering to give, any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes arising directly out of their official duties as an elected public officer, to forfeit all rights and benefits under, and membership in, any public retirement system in which they are a member, effective on the date of final conviction, as provided. This bill would require a public employer that is investigating a public employee for misconduct arising out of or in the performance of, the public employee's official duties in pursuit of the office or appointment, or in connection with obtaining salary, disability retirement, service retirement, or other benefits, to continue the investigation even if the public employee retires while under investigation, if the investigation indicates that the public employee may have committed a crime. The bill would require a public employer, if the investigation indicates that the public employee may have committed a crime, to refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency, and would then authorize the public employer to close the investigation. Under the bill, if the public employee is convicted of a felony for any conduct described above, the public employee would forfeit all accrued rights and benefits in any public retirement system pursuant to the provisions governing forfeiture described above. By imposing new duties on public employers who are local governmental entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish standards for the issuance and renewal of credentials, certificates, and permits. Existing law establishes minimum requirements for a professional services credential with a specialization in pupil personnel services and authorizes the holder of that credential to perform, at all grades levels, the pupil personnel service approved by the commission as designated on the credential, which may include, among other areas of service, school counseling and child welfare and attendance services, as provided. Existing law authorizes the commission to approve a program of professional preparation offered by a local educational agency for a services credential with a specialization in pupil personnel services in the area of child welfare and attendance services if the program meets specified requirements, as provided. This bill would, instead, authorize the commission to approve a program of professional preparation offered by a local educational agency for a services credential with a specialization in pupil personnel services in any area of service if the program meets those specified requirements. The bill would require a local educational agency's program of professional preparation for a services credential with a specialization in pupil personnel services in any area other than the area of child welfare and attendance services to be in partnership with a regionally accredited institution of higher education. The bill would require the commission to issue a preliminary professional services credential with a specialization in pupil personnel services to an out-of-state prepared applicant who satisfies alternative specified requirements and would provide that the credential is valid for a period of 2 years and is eligible for renewal for a period of no more than 2 years, as specified.

Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission, or the governing board of a local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative, to require an energy supplier, defined as an electrical corporation, local publicly owned electric utility, electric service provider, community choice aggregator, or electrical cooperative, administering a decarbonization upgrade program or initiative, to record, no later than 30 days after funding a decarbonization upgrade, a notice of decarbonization charge, as defined, with the county recorder of the county where the property subject to the decarbonization charge is located, as specified. Existing law requires, among other things, an energy supplier, within 30 days of full cost recovery of the outstanding charges related to the recorded notice of decarbonization charge, to record a notice of the full cost recovery and removal of the decarbonization charge with the county recorder of the county where the property subject to the decarbonization charge is located. This bill would add gas corporations to the definition of "energy supplier" for purposes of the above-described provisions and make conforming changes. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because a violation of a commission action implementing the above provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 requires the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer a statewide program to license manufacturers, distributers, and retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products. The act requires a retailer to have in place and maintain a license to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. The act requires a $265 fee to be submitted with the application for the license. Existing law requires every retailer to file an application for renewal of the license accompanied by a $265 fee per retail location. This bill would make conforming changes to the provisions describing the application process for the license described above and recast that license as a retailer license. The bill would require each application for a retailer license filed on or after July 1, 2026, to be accompanied by a fee of $450 per retail location. The bill would increase the fee for renewal of a retailer license to $450 for renewal applications filed on or after July 1, 2026. The bill would authorize the department to adjust application and renewal fees applicable after July 1, 2026, to an amount not exceeding $600 per retail location to maintain the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund at a level that is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the department to administer the act. The act requires a retailer who sells tobacco products that are exempt from taxation under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law to pay a fee of $265 for the issuance or renewal of a license. This bill would recast that license as a retailer license and make other conforming changes. The bill would require each application for a retailer license filed on or after July 1, 2026, to be accompanied by a fee of $450 per retail location. The bill would increase the fee for renewal of a retailer license to $450 for renewal applications filed on or after July 1, 2026. The bill would authorize the department to adjust application and renewal fees applicable after July 1, 2026, to an amount not exceeding $600 per retail location to maintain the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund at a level that is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the department to administer the act. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst, on or before December 1, 2027, and again on or before December 1, 2029, to prepare and submit reports to the Legislature on the tobacco retailer enforcement landscape, including enforcement of California's flavor, youth access, taxation, and licensing laws. The bill would require specified state agencies to cooperate with the Legislative Analyst in the preparation and production of the report. The bill would repeal those reporting requirements on January 1, 2034. Chapter 849 of the Statutes of 2024 (AB 3218) revised the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 by, among other things, authorizing the department or a law enforcement agency to seize illegal flavored tobacco products or tobacco product flavor enhancers that a wholesaler or retailer possesses, stores, owns, or sold, as specified. Existing law further requires the department to impose on the wholesaler or retailer a specified civil penalty per individual package of flavored tobacco product or tobacco product flavor enhancer. Existing law defines "package" for purposes of the penalty provision applicable to retailers. This bill would define "flavored tobacco product" and "tobacco product flavor enhancer" for these purposes and would add the same definition of "package" for purposes of the penalty provision applicable to wholesalers. Chapter 462 of the Statutes of 2024 (SB 1230) , among other things, added a provision to the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 similar to the above-described provision relating to the seizure of a retailer's products added by AB 3218. Specifically, SB 1230 authorizes the department to seize illegal flavored tobacco products or tobacco product flavor enhancers if the department discovers that a retailer sells, offers for sale, or possesses with the intent to sell or offer for sale, those products, and deems the seized products as forfeited. This bill would repeal the above-described provision added by SB 1230. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(1) Existing law authorizes a person who has suffered harassment, as defined, to seek a temporary restraining order and an order prohibiting harassment. Existing law prohibits a filing fee for, and a fee for the service of process by a sheriff or marshal of, a protective or restraining order if the order is based upon stalking, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a petition prohibiting harassment and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on the petition for a protective order, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. As of January 1, 2027, the bill would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders. The bill would make a conforming change. (2) Existing law requires a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to permit the petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, and prohibits a filing fee for an application, responsive pleading, or an order to show cause that seeks to obtain, modify, or enforce a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Existing law requires the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court or court facility. Existing law authorizes a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. Existing law requires the superior court of each county to develop local rules and instructions for remote appearances and requires them to be posted on the court's internet website. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to accept electronic filings at no charge to the petitioner, and would prohibit a superior court from charging a fee for a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. (3) Existing law authorizes an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse to seek a protective order and prohibits a filing fee for a petition, response, or paper seeking the reissuance, modification, or enforcement of a protective order. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for protective orders for elder or dependent adults to permit those petitions and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, at no charge to the petitioner. As of that date, the bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party, representative of the county adult protective services agency, or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on a petition for a protective order for an elder or dependent adult, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders for elder or dependent adults. As of that date, the bill also would require information regarding electronic filing and access to the court's self-help center to be prominently displayed on each superior court's home page, and require each self-help center to maintain and make available information related to elder abuse restraining orders. Existing law, upon the filing of a petition for protective orders for an elder or dependent adult, requires the respondent to be personally served with a copy of the petition, notice of the hearing or order to show cause, temporary restraining order, if any, and any declarations in support of the petition, at least five days before the hearing. This bill, as of January 1, 2027, would authorize a court to permit an alternative method of service, as specified, if at the time of a hearing with respect to an order issued based on an ex parte temporary protective order, the court determines that, after diligent effort, the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service, and that there is reason to believe that the restrained party is evading service or cannot be located.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts from its requirements various projects, including, but not limited to, housing projects that meet certain requirements and activities and approvals related to certain prison facilities. This bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA any activity or approval necessary for the completion of the Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery in the County of Orange if specified conditions are met. To the extent that a local agency would be required to determine whether an activity or approval qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal this provision on January 1, 2030. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Gypsum Canyon Veterans Cemetery in the County of Orange. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Independent Living Program (ILP) , that, among its purposes, provides training in daily living skills, budgeting, locating and maintaining housing, and career planning for foster youth up to 21 years of age. Existing federal law authorizes a state, under certain circumstances, to expand eligibility for the ILP to former foster youth who have not attained 23 years of age. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, with the approval of the federal government, to amend the foster care state plan to permit all eligible children to be served by the ILP up to 21 years of age. The Personal Income Tax Law allows a refundable foster youth tax credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, to a qualified taxpayer in a specified amount multiplied by the earned income tax credit adjustment factor, as provided. This bill, the Foster Outreach and Support for Tax Education Readiness (FOSTER) Act, would require, by no later than July 30, 2026, the department to issue guidance to county welfare departments and juvenile probation departments with information to support best practices for nonminor dependents to file state and federal income tax returns and to access the foster youth tax credit. The bill would require the guidance to be updated as needed and reissued no less than every 2 years. The bill would specify the information to be included in the guidance issued, including, but not limited to, the eligibility requirements for the foster youth tax credit and the maximum credit available, outreach strategies to increase awareness among nonminor dependents and former foster youth about the foster youth tax credit, and resources from the Internal Revenue Service website for identifying local Volunteer Income Tax Assistance providers. The bill would require county welfare departments and juvenile probation departments to annually send by mail to every nonminor dependent information about filing state and federal income tax returns and, among other things, the foster youth tax credit and information about local Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites, as specified. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments and juvenile probation departments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1) The California Constitution provides for the fundamental rights of privacy and to choose to have an abortion. Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, prohibits the state from denying or interfering with a pregnant person's right to choose or obtain an abortion before the viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. Existing law prohibits conditions or restrictions from being imposed on abortion access for incarcerated persons and committed juveniles. Existing laws requiring parental consent for abortion and making assisting in or advertising abortion a crime have been held to be unconstitutional. This bill would repeal those unconstitutional provisions and delete obsolete references to criminal abortion penalties. The bill would make technical changes to provisions authorizing abortion for incarcerated and committed persons. (2) Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for labeling requirements of drugs and devices. The Pharmacy Law requires a pharmacist to dispense a prescription in a container that is correctly labeled with specified information, including the name of the prescriber and the name address of the pharmacy. A violation of the Pharmacy Law is a misdemeanor. This bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations to include or exclude mifepristone and other medication abortion drugs from the requirements of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, but would exclude the drugs from those requirements if the drugs are no longer approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , as specified. The bill would authorize a pharmacist to dispense mifepristone or other drug used for medication abortion without the name of the patient, the name of the prescriber, or the name and address of the pharmacy, subject to specified requirements. The bill would require the pharmacist to maintain a log, as specified, that is not open to inspection by law enforcement without a subpoena, and would prohibit the disclosure of the information to an individual or entity from another state. The bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing action against a pharmacist for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in specified other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs, and would prohibit the California State Board of Pharmacy from denying an application for licensure or taking disciplinary action against an applicant or licensee for engaging in certain acts relating to mifepristone or other medical abortion drugs. By expanding the scope of a crime under the Pharmacy Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law establishes various healing arts boards in the Department of Consumer Affairs that license and regulate various healing arts licensees. This bill would prohibit subjecting a healing arts practitioner who is authorized to prescribe, furnish, order, or administer dangerous drugs to civil, criminal, disciplinary, or other administrative action for prescribing, furnishing, ordering, or administering mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA or that varies from an approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under federal law, as specified. The bill would state that the laws of another state or federal actions that interfere with the authority of a healing arts practitioner to take specified actions relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs are against the public policy of this state. The bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing actions against an applicant or licensee for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs. (4) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of clinics and health facilities by the State Department of Public Health. This bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing action against a licensed clinic or health facility for transporting or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs that are lawful in California. The bill would prohibit the department from denying an application for licensure or taking disciplinary action against an applicant or licensee for engaging in certain acts relating to mifepristone or other medical abortion drugs. (5) Existing law prohibits a health care provider from knowingly disclosing, transmitting, transferring, sharing or granting access to identifiable medical information related to an individual seeking, obtaining, providing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion that is lawful under the laws of this state, as specified and subject to specified exclusions. Existing law exempts a health care provider from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions for failing to comply this prohibition before January 31, 2026, if the health care provider is working diligently and in good faith to comply with the prohibition. This bill would exempt a health care provider from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions for an additional year, until January 31, 2027. (6) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of disability and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law prohibits a health care service plan contract or a group or individual disability insurance policy or certificate that covers prescription drugs from limiting or excluding coverage of a drug on the basis that the drug is prescribed for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA. Existing law prohibits a contract between a health care service plan or health insurer and a health care services provider from containing any term that would result in termination or nonrenewal of the contract or otherwise penalize the provider based on a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or another professional disciplinary action in another state if the judgment, conviction, or professional disciplinary action is solely based on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive care that would be lawful if provided in California. Existing law also prohibits a health care service plan or health insurer from discriminating against a licensed provider solely on the basis of a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or another professional disciplinary action in another state if the judgment, conviction, or professional disciplinary action is solely based on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive care that would be lawful if provided in California. This bill would prohibit a health care service plan contract or a group or individual health insurance policy or certificate that covers prescription drugs from limiting or excluding coverage for brand name or generic mifepristone solely on the basis that the drug is prescribed for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA or that varies from an approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, except if the state deems it necessary to address an imminent health or safety concern. The bill would require those contracts and policies to include coverage for brand name or generic mifepristone, even if it has not been approved by the FDA if specified requirements are met, except if the state deems it necessary to address an imminent health or safety concern. The bill would prohibit a plan or insurer from contracting with a health care services provider to terminate or nonrenew the contract or otherwise penalize the provider, or from discriminating against a licensed provider, for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs that are lawful in California. Because a violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 1503 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1503 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (8) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (9) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.