By Bob Katzen
House 130-29, approved legislation, dubbed by sponsors as the Shield Act, that supporters say would strengthen health care protections in the Bay State. The bill is designed to fortify protections for people seeking and providing reproductive and transgender care. The Senate has already approved a different version of the proposal and a House-Senate conference committee will eventually hammer out a compromise version of the measure.
The measure would prohibit state agencies, employees and law enforcement from cooperating with investigations by other states or the federal government, into reproductive or gender affirming health care that is legally protected in Massachusetts. It also would restrict businesses that manage electronic health records from sharing patient data connected to these services.
Other provisions empower the Department of Public Health to remove drugs prescribed in connection with reproductive or gender affirming health care from the prescription monitoring program; prohibit the state’s Center for Health Information and Analysis and the Health Connector from providing information to other entities, states or the federal government regarding legally protected health care activities in Massachusetts; forbid entities working with these agencies from using data collected to target patients or providers; protect attorneys licensed in Massachusetts from removal or discipline for advising or representing clients on the topics of reproductive or transgender health care services; and forbid insurance companies from discriminating against or penalizing nonprofits who offer reproductive and gender affirming health care services.
“As the Trump Administration and Republicans across the country continue to target individuals for exercising their right to make their own health care decisions in consultation with their doctor, this legislation is representative of the House’s commitment to preserving that fundamental right,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “The Shield Act builds on the commonwealth’s proud history of preserving and expanding access to reproductive and gender-affirming care by establishing new safeguards around patient data and by protecting health care professionals who provide that vital care.”
“When patients and doctors engage in legal healthcare activities here in Massachusetts, they will have the peace of mind that their personal information will remain private and that their constitutional rights remain protected rights,” said Rep. Michael Day (D-Stoneham), House Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. “Massachusetts will always protect and preserve the constitutional and civil rights of our people to make their own healthcare decisions, especially in the face of political crusades of the federal government and the misguided efforts of other states seeking to interfere with those decisions made here.”
“Those who voted in favor of [the bill] have not only encouraged Massachusetts physicians to break abortion laws in other states but have approved protecting their illegal activities as well,” said Myrna Maloney Flynn President of Mass Citizens for Life which opposed the measure. “Going forward, Massachusetts abortionists who prescribe mifepristone to women in areas where it is outlawed have more ways to hide their crimes and conceal their identities. The bill goes far beyond protecting unethical doctors though. It all but assures the inability to hold accountable those physicians whose actions result in serious injuries to women who consume the abortion pill without any medical oversight. We look forward to the likely federal response in the coming weeks.”
“No Massachusetts resident, through the administration of so-called telehealth abortions or through the shipment of mifepristone to other states, has the right to impede the laws of those states,” said bill opponent Catholic Action League Executive Director C.J. Doyle. “By prohibiting Massachusetts law enforcement from cooperating with federal and out of state authorities, and by authorizing Massachusetts residents and officials to ignore subpoenas, refuse to execute warrants and reject records requests, this legislation essentially immunizes Bay State residents from the consequences of breaking the laws of other states.
Doyle continued, “It represents a repudiation of both the letter and the spirit of the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the U.S. Constitution. This divisive and supremacist measure, aimed at nullifying laws which Bay State legislators find objectionable, creates a dangerous precedent and establishes a slippery slope. Do other states then retaliate by refusing to extradite criminals to Massachusetts? Do states, with differing positions on abortion and gender dysphoria end up imposing sanctions and boycotts upon one another?”
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote Is against it.)
Rep. Christine Barber Yes Rep. Mike Connolly Yes Rep. Paul Donato Yes Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven Yes