Assembly moves to make End of Life Option Act permanent, removing 2031 sunset

SACRAMENTO — The Assembly Health Committee on July 8 voted to send SB 403, which removes the January 1, 2031 sunset from California’s End of Life Option Act, to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Supporters said state experience since 2016 demonstrates the law operates safely and provides a controlled option for mentally capable, terminally ill adults.

Sponsor Senator Blake Spear said removing the sunset aligns California with other states that do not time‑limit medical aid‑in‑dying laws and relieves patients and families of uncertainty. “There are strict eligibility criteria,” the senator said, summarizing current law: two oral requests, a written request with witnesses, evaluations by two doctors, and notification of alternatives including palliative care.

Multiple witnesses described personal experiences. Bonnie McKegan, a licensed clinical social worker, recounted her mother’s metastatic breast cancer and said her mother “used California's End of Life Option Act” in 2018 to die peacefully. Dr. Catherine Forrest, a family physician who has prescribed aid‑in‑dying medication, described the experience of her late partner Will and said the law “gave him back a sense of control even as everything else was slipping away.” Forrest and other clinicians said state data show the law has been used without documented coercion.

Opposition included the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare, religious ministries and other faith groups that argued on moral and doctrinal grounds against making the option permanent. Their witnesses said they oppose expansion or permanence based on conscience or religious doctrine.

The committee’s roll call sent the bill to the Judiciary Committee. Supporters framed the measure as narrowly removing a sunset while preserving existing safeguards; opponents focused on moral objections and urged continued debate. The bill now moves to Judiciary for further consideration.

Ending: Backers of SB 403 said permanence would give patients and clinicians certainty, while opponents urged continued moral and ethical scrutiny in subsequent committee hearings.