AB 1854
CFC OpposesLegally protected health care activities
CFC Says
CFC opposes AB 1854.
This bill deals with crimes related to interfering with abortion rights in California, though the specific details of what actions it would make illegal or how it would be enforced have not yet been released.
Currently at 2nd Committee, having cleared 3 stages. Hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
Legislative Progress
CFC's Position Letter
April 13, 2026
The Honorable Maggy Krell
California State Assembly, District 6
1021 O Street, Suite 5630
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Krell:
On behalf of tens of thousands of constituents, allied organizations, and more than 2,000 churches across California, California Family Council strongly opposes AB 1854.
AB 1854 dramatically expands California's existing legal shield for abortion providers and for those performing sex-rejecting procedures on minors, extending protections not only to activities performed within California, but to those performed in other states entirely.1 Current law already bars California law enforcement from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into activities deemed "legally protected health care." This bill goes further: it prohibits any California-based person or entity from complying with a civil, criminal, or regulatory subpoena related to these activities unless strict conditions are met, including a sworn affidavit, notification to the Attorney General within seven days, and a mandatory thirty-day waiting period. Violations carry civil penalties of $10,000 for a first offense and $15,000 for each subsequent offense, enforced by the Attorney General. This is not a shield law. It is a sword, punishing Californians and California businesses for complying with lawful legal process from other jurisdictions.
AB 1854 Puts California-Based Organizations in an Impossible Legal Position
Any California-headquartered organization, including faith-based nonprofits, counseling ministries, and employers, that receives a lawful subpoena from another state touching on a "legally protected health care activity" is required by this bill to refuse compliance or face substantial financial penalties. This creates a direct and irreconcilable conflict of laws, forcing Californians to choose between violating California law and violating another state's lawful legal process. No person or organization should face government-imposed fines for cooperating with a legitimate investigation. This provision alone warrants defeat of the bill.
The bill also weaponizes the Governor's extradition authority. If the Governor declines to surrender an individual in connection with these activities, no state or local law enforcement officer may participate in that person's arrest. California is effectively granting a class of providers unilateral immunity from accountability in any jurisdiction.
The Bill Shields Sex-Rejecting Procedures Despite Clear Evidence of Harm
AB 1854's definition of "legally protected health care activity" encompasses sterilizing hormone therapies and mutilating surgeries performed on minors under the banner of gender transition. A recently published study from Finland provides serious empirical grounds for concern about these interventions.2 This nationwide study of over 2,000 adolescents found that psychiatric morbidity among youth referred for gender identity services was dramatically higher than their peers both before and after medical intervention. Notably, mental health challenges did not improve following medical gender reassignment; instead, psychiatric morbidity remained elevated or increased over time.
This finding directly contradicts the common claim that these interventions resolve underlying distress. Instead, it suggests that vulnerable young people require comprehensive psychological care, not irreversible medicalization.
Rather than allowing other states' legal systems to investigate and hold accountable those who perform these irreversible procedures on children, this bill would require California to obstruct those investigations. Parents in other states who are fighting to protect their children from permanent harm will find California standing in their way. Legislation designed to shield providers of sex-rejecting procedures from legal scrutiny, at precisely the moment that peer-reviewed research is raising alarms about their safety, is not sound health policy. It is a legislative firewall protecting an industry from accountability.
The constitutional concerns are equally serious. By extending California's protections to activities occurring outside its borders, AB 1854 raises direct conflicts with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and foundational principles of cooperative federalism. Imposing civil penalties on individuals for complying with lawful legal process from sister states raises fundamental due process concerns. If California can declare that its policy preferences override another state's criminal laws, even when the activity in question occurred on that other state's soil, then interstate comity is effectively finished.
The trajectory of this legislation is unmistakable. Beginning with AB 1666 in 2022, continuing through Proposition 1 and SB 107, and now escalating with AB 1854, Sacramento has pursued a systematic strategy of transforming California into a national sanctuary for abortion and sex-rejecting procedures, insulating providers from accountability at every turn and pushing that insulation further with each session.1 AB 1854 is the next and most aggressive step in that escalation.
For these reasons, California Family Council respectfully opposes AB 1854. We urge you to reject this bill and instead advance policies that protect children, respect the lawful authority of every state, and hold providers accountable for the harm they cause.
Respectfully,
Greg Burt
Vice President
California Family Council
References
1 California State Legislature, "AB 1854 — Legally Protected Health Care Activities," Bill Text and Version History, 2025-2026 Session. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1854&cversion=20250AB185498AMD
2 Finnish Study on Sex-Rejecting Procedures, Research on Harms of Gender-Affirming Care, 2025. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RIJjgzbdIlk_qfBynsyFJS0EWdlmcdvO/view?usp=sharing
Official Description
Existing law prohibits 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 a legally protected health care activity, as defined, or for obtaining a legally protected health care activity, if the legally protected health care activity is lawful in this state. Existing law prohibits 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 legally protected health care activity. Existing law prohibits specified persons, including a judicial officer, a court employee, or 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 a legally protected health care activity in this state, or an individual obtaining a legally protected health care activity in this state, if the legally protected health care activity is lawful in this state. This bill would make those provisions apply regardless of the patient’s location. Existing law authorizes the Governor to surrender, on demand of the executive authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in the other state with committing an act in this state, or in a 3rd state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand. This bill would additionally prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or participating in the arrest of any person who the Governor has declined to surrender. Existing law requires any out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, or other legal process to include an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that the discovery request is not in connection with an out-of-state proceeding relating to a legally protected health care activity, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a California corporation that provides electronic communication services or remote computing services to the general public from complying with an out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, other legal process, or request by a law enforcement agent or entity seeking 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, unless the out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, other legal process, or request from law enforcement includes the affidavit or declaration described above. This bill would extend those provisions to also apply to a California corporation that provides financial services, as defined, to the general public. By expanding the situations in which a declaration under penalty of perjury is required, this bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to commence an action to enforce these provisions, as specified, and would authorize the court to assess a statutory penalty of $10,000 for a first violation, and $15,000 for a 2nd or subsequent violation, against any person or entity found to have intentionally, knowingly, willingly, or recklessly complied with or provided information in response to an inquiry, investigation, subpoena, or summons regarding legally protected health care activity in violation of these provisions. 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.