By Bob Katzen
House 30-129, rejected an amendment that would expand current law which provides privacy protection for people receiving reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care. The amendment would expand current law by also protecting the privacy of the “refusal by any person to obtain reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services or any other preventative medical care on behalf of themselves or their minor children.”
“I supported [the amendment] because the original bill … while vital for safeguarding sensitive medical information, primarily focused its privacy protections on the provision of reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare services,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Mike Soter (R-Bellingham). “To truly ensure equitable and comprehensive medical privacy for all residents in the commonwealth, this amendment extends those same robust protections to individuals who make deeply personal decisions to refuse reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services or any other preventative medical care for themselves or their minor children. This amendment is not about allowing people to refuse this care for their children, it is about addressing the inconsistency where stronger privacy safeguards were offered for some medical information but not for others, solely based on the type of care involved.”
“I opposed this amendment because it undercuts the very protections the bill seeks to amplify and is contrary to our current consent laws for abortions for minors,” said Rep. Adrianne Ramos (D-North Andover). “This amendment creates a proactive right of a parent to refuse a broad spectrum of care for their minor children, without exceptions, which means through age 18. It carves out no language to allow courts to weigh in if the parents are not married or are separated. In essence, it gives one parent the ability to interrupt or prevent even common reproductive care such as birth control and gender-affirming care such as hormones. It was an underhanded attempt by Republicans to take control over the bodily decisions of others and could not be condoned as the privacy protecting amendment it was portrayed to be.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Christine Barber No Rep. Mike Connolly No Rep. Paul Donato No Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven No