SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California’s controversial “condoms in porn” bill was moved off the table and into the suspense file on Monday, after members of the state senate’s Appropriations Committee determined the proposed law may be too expensive to enact and enforce. The committee intends to reconsider the bill after the state’s budget is finalized, possibly as soon as next week.

AB1576, sponsored by Assemblyman Isadore Hall and allegedly drafted by Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, would mandate the use of condoms and other so-called barrier protection on every pornography film set statewide. If it becomes law, AB1576 also would impose a new health-testing protocol and onerous recordkeeping, among other things.

According to the Appropriations Committee, initial implementation of AB1576 could cost the state $125,000 to $150,000. The estimated cost does not incorporate adjustments for lost tax revenue or jobs, nor does it consider the financial burden of potential lawsuits.

“Assemblymember Hall said today that he’s speaking for people without a voice, yet the bill has been overwhelmingly opposed by performers and performers groups,” said Diane Duke, chief executive officer for adult industry trade association Free Speech Coalition. “That he could say that with a straight face after dozens of performers spoke out against him is incredible. It’s not that [performers] don’t have a voice. It’s that he’s not listening.

“The more legislators hear about the bill, the more they don’t like it,” Duke continued. “This bill will have major financial cost for California while doing nothing to improve the safety of performers. And it’s not just performers and producers who are opposed to the bill — it’s [also] HIV and AIDS outreach organizations, sex worker rights organizations, LGBTQ organizations and business organizations.”

Organizations that have voiced opposition to the bill include the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, AIDS Project Los Angeles, Project Inform, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, the Positive Women’s Network, the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, St. James Infirmary, the Erotic Service Providers Union, the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee and Valley Industry and Commerce Association.

Duke said media in the Los Angeles area have indicated opposition to the measure, as well.

“[Los Angeles] Times editor Jim Newton joined the Orange County Register and the LA Daily News in opposition to the bill,” Duke said. “It’s a broad coalition. Just about the only people fighting for [AB1576] are AHF and Hall.”

Hall and AHF repeatedly have dismissed critics of the measure, saying the adult entertainment industry is a primary source of new sexually transmitted infections. Duke and the FSC strenuously object to that argument.

“There has not been a single transmission of HIV on an adult film set in over 10 years, thanks to vigorous adult industry safety protocols,” Duke said. “Yet [AB1576] has used fear and misinformation to take away performers’ control over their bodies and push the industry out of state.”

Newton’s editorial in the Monday’s L.A. Times backed up Duke’s assertion.

“There are plenty of people who would be happy to say goodbye to the porn business in California, but that wouldn’t do anything to stop the spread of AIDS, because AIDS isn’t a crisis of porn,” Newton wrote. “Experts are far more concerned about its growth in minority communities, particularly among African Americans, and continue to grapple with staggering numbers of people exposed to the virus. Nearly 200,000 Californians, roughly 146,000 of whom are gay or bisexual men, have contracted the virus in the years since researchers began tracking its spread.”