November 6, 2007
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have
reviewed the proposed initiative entitled the “Freedom Against
Sterilization Act” (A.G. File No. 07‑0063). This measure amends the
State Constitution to prohibit governmental entities (state, county,
city, or other) from enacting or enforcing any law that coerces or
mandates the temporary or permanent sexual sterilization of any human or
animal.
Background
Sterilization. Sexual sterilization
generally refers to a temporary measure or permanent procedure to stop
fertility in either males or females.
Human Sterilization Laws. Under
existing state law, a person found guilty of certain sexual offenses
against persons less than 13 years of age shall, upon parole, undergo
chemical sterilization. A review found no local California ordinances
relating to human sterilization.
Animal Control and Sterilization Laws.
Under current state law, local government animal shelters and their
contractors are required to provide stray animals with necessary and
prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter, and to treat the animals
humanely. Local governments are also responsible for enforcing animal
control laws. Furthermore, under existing state law:
·
Animal shelters are generally prohibited from adopting out
animals, including dogs and cats, that are not spayed or neutered unless
the owner agrees in writing to spay or neuter the animal within 30 days
of the agreement and a veterinarian certifies that the animal is too
sick or injured to be altered. Additionally, some local governments
generally require owners to spay or neuter their dogs or cats.
·
Local governments are authorized to issue a dog and a cat
license for a fee. All local governments that have a license requirement
are required by state law to charge half the fee for spayed and
neutered dogs. These revenues are used to support local government
animal control activities.
·
Female cattle possessing certain characteristics must bear
evidence of a specific vaccination unless the animal has been spayed.
·
The state Department of Public Health is required to track
and respond to reports of animal bites and diseases transmitted from
animals to humans.
Proposal
This measure amends the Constitution to prohibit
all governmental entities in the state of California from enacting or
enforcing any law that would coerce by any means or financial penalty or
mandate the permanent or temporary sexual sterilization of any human or
animal. (Animal owners could continue to voluntarily sterilize their
animals.) This measure also prohibits the enactment of any laws or
ordinances that would abridge the amendment described above.
Fiscal Effect
Fiscal Effects Related to Humans.
This measure avoids potential future state costs associated with the
chemical castration of certain prisoners upon their parole. These costs
are estimated to be minimal (potentially a few tens of thousands of
dollars annually), because the number of prisoners that this statute
applies to is small and few of them are scheduled to be paroled within
the next few years.
Fiscal Effects Related to Animals.
Because this measure prohibits government entities from enacting or
enforcing laws requiring sterilization as a means of animal population
control, the state would likely experience an unknown increase in the
statewide number of dogs and cats. This increase would likely result in
unknown, but probably minor, local and state costs to track and respond
to increased reports of animal bites and diseases transmitted from
animals to humans.
Additionally, in the short term, this measure
would result in savings to local governments because of the elimination
of spay and neuter enforcement and surgery costs. However, in the long
term, there would probably be an increase in the dog and cat population
and, as a result, there would be an unknown but potentially significant
increase in the costs to operate shelters and provide animal control
services.
Furthermore, this measure would also likely
result in an unknown but potentially significant loss of local animal
control revenue, because jurisdictions will no longer be able to charge
a higher license or adoption fee for unaltered animals than for animals
that are spayed or neutered. However, local governments could partially
or fully offset this loss of revenue by increasing fees for all animals.
Summary
This measure would have the following significant
fiscal effects:
·
Short-term savings to local governments because of the
elimination of spay and neuter enforcement and surgery costs, offset in
the long-term by unknown, but potentially significant, increased costs
to operate shelters and provide animal control services to an increased
dog and cat population.
·
Unknown, but potentially significant loss of local
government animal control revenue, because jurisdictions will no longer
be able to charge a higher license or adoption fee for unaltered animals
than for animals that are spayed or neutered.
·
Potential avoidance of state costs of a few tens of
thousands of dollars annually associated with the prohibition of
chemical castration of certain prisoners upon their parole.
Return to Initiatives and Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page