Board takes positions on several bills — supports AB260, AB836, AB876 and AB1400; opposes AB985

The California Board of Registered Nursing reviewed a slate of health‑sector bills May 29 and took formal positions after committee discussion and public comment.

Votes and actions recorded at the meeting (roll‑call votes): - AB260 (reproductive health protections, sponsor: Assemblymember Aguiar‑Curry): Board voted to support. The bill would repeal certain criminal provisions and add Business and Professions Code sections (discussed at the meeting as sections 687 and 850.3) shielding healing‑arts providers from civil/criminal discipline solely for prescribing or furnishing FDA‑approved abortion medication except in narrow public‑safety circumstances. The bill would also delete a clause from Business & Professions Code section 2761 that had allowed discipline for aiding or abetting an unlawful abortion; board made a motion to support AB260 and approved it by roll call. - AB836 (Midwifery Workforce Training Act): Board voted to support. The bill would direct the state health workforce agency (HCAI) to fund and commission a study identifying opportunities and barriers for building midwifery education capacity statewide to improve access to maternity and reproductive services. - AB876 (Nurse Anesthetist Scope of Practice clarification): Board voted to support. The bill clarifies statutory language around Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) practice and includes a reference to the California Society of Anesthesiologists v. Brown case in a declaratory clause. The board’s prior approval of similar clarifying language and testimony from CRNA representatives were part of the record; the board approved support after discussion. - AB985 (Anesthesiologist Assistant Practice Act): Board voted to oppose. The bill would create a licensed title “Anesthesiologist Assistant” under a new statutory pathway requiring specialized education and national certification and would locate the new practitioner under the supervision of an anesthesiologist. Board members expressed concern the bill is incomplete, raises implementation and licensure questions, and could muddy scope boundaries for CRNAs; the board voted to oppose. - AB1400 (Community College BSN pilot): Board voted to support. The bill would enable a pilot allowing select California community colleges to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) program; proponents argued it would expand affordable access and pipeline capacity.

Discussion highlights and public comment: - AB876: CRNA advocates and legal counsel explained the bill is intended to codify and clarify long‑standing practice and remove confusion that has led to survey and enforcement actions in some facilities. Speakers urged support to protect patient access in rural and underserved counties where CRNAs are sole anesthesia providers. - AB985: Board members and CRNA opponents argued the bill lacks a comprehensive licensure/regulatory framework (no state educational programs, unclear oversight/board owner) and could create workforce and patient‑safety issues. The board’s opposition motion passed after public comment from CRNA representatives and others. - AB1400: Community college leaders and educators provided public comment supporting the pilot to expand BSN access in geographically isolated and lower‑income communities.

Board counsel noted fiscal analyses from committee reports where available; several agencies described anticipated minor or absorbable administrative impacts and the bills’ budgets where relevant.

What the board did not do: The board did not attempt to rewrite any bill language; it recorded support or opposition and will communicate positions to legislative staff and the sponsoring members’ offices as appropriate.

Documents and references: During the session counsel cited Business and Professions Code provisions and relevant appellate authority (CSA v Brown) in the AB876 discussion. The board requested staff coordinate with the committee and legislative liaisons on next steps.