As a nation, we must address the brutal reality and deadly consequences of police violence. We have seen far too many people, particularly Black and brown people, killed by police. We have seen too many families and communities shattered by loss and tragedy. Enough is enough. We must limit when police officers can use deadly force and take someone's life.

Current laws in California fail to protect against unnecessary killings by police officers. Officers here — and in much of the country — can use deadly force regardless of whether it was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. They can kill even when alternatives to deadly force — like issuing a verbal warning, repositioning and calling for backup, or using lower levels of force — are available, safe, and feasible.

It is unacceptable that today in California police officers can legally kill someone even when they don't have to.

Preserving and protecting human life must be the top concern for law enforcement officers, and our laws should likewise reflect that. Unfortunately, that is not the case. According to the California Department of Justice, police officers killed 172 Californians in 2017 alone, and they did so with startling racial disparities. Of the 172 people killed, more than two-thirds were people of color. Of those who were completely unarmed when killed by police, three quarters were people of color.

California police officers are not only killing people of color at disproportionate rates; they are also killing more people than most departments in the country. California police kill people at a rate 37 percent higher than the national per capita average. A 2015 report by the Guardian found that police in Kern County killed more people per capita than in any other county in the U.S.

The course of action is clear. California lawmakers must start by changing the standard for when police can use deadly force.

That's why the ACLU of California affiliates — together with our partner organizations, including those led by people directly impacted by police violence — are supporting AB 392: The California Act to Save Lives. The legislation introduced on Wednesday specifically addresses police violence by updating California’s deadly use-of-force law.

Change California's deadly use of force law.

AB 392 is a common-sense bill that is modeled after best practices already in place in some departments in the U.S. We know these practices work to reduce killings by police. As with these other bills, AB 392 will clarify that police officers can use deadly force only when there are no alternatives that would prevent death or serious bodily injury. Officers' conduct leading up to a shooting will also be considered when determining whether deadly force is justified — not just the moment the officer pulls the trigger.

The California Department of Justice recently released a report recommending that the Sacramento Police Department update its use-of-force guidelines following the shooting death of Stephon Clark in Sacramento. Their guidelines align closely with AB 392. Specifically, they call for Sacramento police to more clearly define when force is authorized, require that officers use de-escalation whenever possible, and mandate that officers exhaust all reasonably available alternatives before using deadly force.

Research shows that officers at agencies with stricter use-of-force policies kill fewer people and are less likely to be killed or seriously injured themselves. After Seattle implemented a new use-of-force policy that contains some of the same key elements that AB 392 does, a study by a federal court monitor showed that the policy significantly reduced mid-level and serious uses of force without any increase in injuries to officers or the crime rate.

There is no reason for California lawmakers to shy away from establishing stricter policies on deadly use of force that can prevent unnecessary shootings, keep officers safe, and ensure public safety. AB 392 is urgently needed because every day that goes by without addressing California's epidemic of police violence is another day that a police officer may violently take another life.

Take action.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued the landmark decision affirming the constitutional right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade, we've seen states pass over one thousand restrictions that make it harder for women to have an abortion. In just the first six months of 2018, 11 states enacted 22 new medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion. A Kentucky lawmaker recently introduced a bill that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected and about half a dozen other states are currently considering bills like it.

While California hasn't faced a groundswell of abortion restrictions, accessing abortion in the nation's largest state can nevertheless be difficult. Case in point: California university students are forced to go off campus to seek abortion care.

It's time to change that.

Once a student has decided to end a pregnancy, they shouldn't be forced to go off campus to see a provider they don't know — when an abortion pill can easily be provided on campus. It might not seem like that big of a deal to some but leaving campus to get health care means taking time away from class, an internship, studying, family commitments, or a job. This creates unnecessary barriers for many students:

• Every month, around 500 students at the University of California and California State University campuses seek the abortion pill at off-site health care facilities.
• Some students have to travel up to four hours to find abortion care.
• Over two-thirds of UC students and one-third of CSU students do not have a car.
• On average, a student seeking abortion in California will have to wait one week for the next available appointment at the facility closest to their campus — and that's assuming they can make it to the appointment.
• More than half of all students in UC and CSU universities are low-income.

These barriers disproportionately harm students of color, low-income students, first-generation college students, and students who are already parents. Many student health centers already offer other reproductive health services, including birth control and STI testing. Yet California has failed to provide access to all the reproductive health services university students need, including the abortion pill.

This situation is unacceptable, but it can be remedied. At a time when abortion rights are under threat throughout the country, California can and must be a leader.

Last year, Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) introduced legislation that would have made the abortion pill available at every public university student health center. Thanks to the leadership of countless California students, the state legislature approved the bill. Unfortunately, then-governor Jerry Brown vetoed it.

But we're not giving up.

Last month, Senator Leyva reintroduced the bill, the College Student Right to Access Act (SB 24), to make sure California supports students' access to abortion care on campus.

We are going all in and working with student leaders, Senator Leyva, and our partners at the Women's Foundation of California/Women's Policy Institute, ACCESS Women's Health Justice, ACT for Women and Girls, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice California, Students United for Reproductive Justice at Berkeley, as well as with medical, reproductive health, and community groups from across the state to make sure the College Student Right to Access Act becomes law.

Join us! Commemorate the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by emailing your state senator and asking them to support SB 24 now.

Support college students' access to abortion care at California's public universities.