1
TESTIMONYINSUPPORTOF19-H5127,
THEREPRODUCTIVEHEALTHCAREACT,
ANDINOPPOSITIONTO
19-H5125,THEREPRODUCTIVEPRIVACYACT
January29,2019
Goodevening.MynameisLynetteLabingerandIamavolunteer
attorneywiththeACLUofRI.
We have reached a critical juncture in our cultural and legal
landscape. Thestatusquo,inwhichtherightofreproductivechoiceis
preserved by federal decisions starting withRoe v. Wade, is about to
unravel.Toborrowfromanotherculturalandlegalphenomenon,“time’s
up.”
If reproductive choice—as we presently know it—is to be
preservedinRhodeIsland,theGeneralAssemblyneedstoactnowand
passHouse bill H5127, the ReproductiveHealth Care Act,which does
simplythat—codifytheprinciplesofRoev.Wadeandlaterdecisions,and
repealunconstitutionalprovisionsremainingontheRhodeIslandstatute
bookswhichconflictwiththoseprinciples,andnothingmore,orless.
128 Dorrance Street, Suite 400 Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 831-7171 Fax: (401) 831-7175
www.riaclu.org [email protected]
2
IwouldliketowalkyouthroughtheprovisionsofH5127toshow
youhowitdoesthat,andnothingmore,orless.IwillalsoaddressHouse
billH-5125,whichfailstodothat.
Section1ofHouseBill5127istheproactivesectionwhichrecites
theprinciplesofreproductivechoicethatareestablishedbyRoev.Wade
andlatercases—forwhichIwillusetheshorthand“Roeprinciples.”Itis
written indescriptivestatementswhichset forth theRoeprinciples to
preventanyclaimsofambiguityorconfusionaboutwhatismeant.And
whatismeant,asintheRoeprinciples,isthatthedecisionwhetherornot
tocontinueapregnancyto termisdeclaredbyourState torest in the
individualpregnantperson.ItsaysthattheStatecanneverinterferewith
theindividual’sdecisiontocarryapregnancytotermifshesochooses,
andthattheStatecaninterferewiththeindividual’sdecisiontoendthe
pregnancy after viability, except when that decision is necessary to
preserve her life or health. Section 1 includes the definition of fetal
viabilitydescribedinRoeandwhichtheUSSupremeCourtmadeclearis
amedicaldeterminationinPlannedParenthoodv.Danforthin1976.
Section1alsomakesclearthatmakingtheproactiveRoeprinciples
Rhode Island lawwill not alteror restrict the current laws in force in
RhodeIslandwhichconcernorcreatelimitationsonabortion,andwhich
3
do so constitutionally and consistently with theRoe principles. Thus
section1recitesthattheproactiveprovisionsdonotabrogateornegate
statelawswhicharecurrentlyinforceandconformtoRoeprinciplesas
amatterofRhode Island law.Theserestrictions thatarekept inplace
require informed consent before the abortion is performed, require
parentalconsentorajudicialdeterminationbeforeaminor’spregnancy
canbeterminated,preservetherightofmedicalparticipantstodecline
to participate in abortion or sterilization based on religious ormoral
objections, require medical care to an infant born alive during an
abortion, regulate fetal experimentation, and exclude abortions from
statefundedfamilyplanningservices.Theyremaininoperationjustas
theyareoperatingnow.
TherestofH5127isdevotedtoclearingupthestatelawandlaw
books to get rid of unconstitutional provisions that have either been
struckdownorneverenforced,sothatthereisnoambiguityorconfusion
inpassingalawpreservingreproductivechoice.Thussections2through
6 repeal laws still on the books that have previously been declared
unconstitutionalor,inthecaseofthe“quickchild”statute,recognizedas
unconstitutional and unenforceable and never enforced. Section 7
revises the state law preserving the prohibition on state funding of
4
abortionsinhealthinsuranceprovidedtostateemployees,butremoves
5wordswhichrelate tomunicipalemployeesandwhichwasdeclared
unconstitutionalin1986.Section8,whichpreservesprohibitionofstate
funding forabortions forMedicaid recipients, is revised to conform to
federalrequirements.
For those of uswho believe that the status quo does not go far
enough inpreserving andprotecting reproductive choice,H5127does
notgofarenough.Forthosewhobelievethatthestatusquogoestoofar
becauseitdoesnotprotectfetallife,H5127doesnothingtorollthatback.
Inshort,H5127doesnothingnewintermsofthecurrentstateof
reproductivechoice.Whatitdoesdo,ifenacted,ispreservethecurrent
stateofreproductivechoiceasamatterofRhodeIslandlaw,soastono
longerbedependentuponprinciplesoffederalcourtdecisionstoprovide
such protections. Without its passage, reproductive choice in Rhode
Island rests on the next decision of the United States Supreme Court.
Truly,time’sup.
IwouldliketoclosemyremarksbyaddressingH5125.Itisclear
thatthedraftersofH5125startedwithSection1oftheRHCA,H5127,in
modellingtheproactivereproductivechoiceprotectionsembodiedinthe
Roe principles. But peppered throughout H5125 are qualifiers and
5
modifiers which can only be understood to create ambiguity and
uncertainty as to whether those protections are real or can be
undermined elsewhere in H5125 or other laws. Thus, the initial
provisioninH5127designedtocodifyRoeprinciplesisrevisedinH5125
tostartwiththequalifier“exceptwhererestrictedbyfederallaw...”What
doesthatmean?Federallaw,becauseoftheSupremacyClauseoftheUS
Constitution,alwaystrumpsinconsistentstatelawwherethefederallaw
has the right to legislate on a subject. That iswhy theRoe principles
providereproductivechoiceprotectionsrightnow.
Butwhat ifRoe isoverturnedandfederal lawnolongerprotects
reproductive choice? Does that constitute a “federal law restriction”
within themeaningofH5125? Youcanbet that thoseopposedtoany
reproductivechoiceprotectionswillarguethatitdoesandthatisexactly
whatwasmeantbyincludingthatproviso,sinceotherwiseitwouldbe
viewedassuperfluous,andourRhodeIslandSupremeCourthasmany
timescautionedthatinterpretationsofstatelawshouldgivemeaningto
every word appearing in the statute. If those words are truly
unnecessary—and they are if preserving reproductive choice is the
goal—thenitisdangeroustoaddthem.
6
This is also true of language in H5125 adding after the words
“evidence-basedmedicallyrecognizedstandards”thequalifier“thatare
incompliancewithallapplicablefederalandstatelaw.”“Evidence-based
medicine” refers to science, not law. The addition of those words is
dangerous. They are not superfluous—they are designed to alter the
meaningof theprotectionsandtransformthemfromonesbasedupon
medicinetoonesthatpermitmeddlingbythestate,orstatebureaucrats.
House Bill 5125 does not preserve the current status of
reproductivechoiceinRhodeIsland.Inadditiontothequalifierslisted
above, H5125 fails to repeal the state’s Partial Birth Abortion statute,
whichwasdeclaredunconstitutionalin1999andonappealin2001after
the US Supreme Court ruled a substantially identical law
unconstitutional.Leavingitonthebooks,especiallywhilerecitingthat
evidence-basedmethods of abortionmay be restricted by “applicable
statelaw,”leavesawide-openloopholeinapost-Roeworldthatthemost
common form of pre-viability second trimester abortion procedure,
dilationandevacuation,nottheso-calledpartialbirthabortion—could
beviewedasoutlawedor“non-compliant.”Ifthegoalistopreservethe
currentstateofreproductiverights,andnotincreaseordiminishthem—
7
thenH5125failstodothatbyfailingtorepealtheState’sunconstitutional
partialbirthabortionstatute.
HouseBill5125doesnot repeal theunconstitutionalandnever-
enforced“quickchild”statute,butinsteadproposestoaddanewcriminal
prohibitionagainstfetalhomicide.Itcontainsadefinitionof“quickchild”
whichseemssimilartothedefinitionofviability,butitisnotthesame
andcreates instantambiguityandconfusionbyhaving twocompeting
definitions in the samebill. It alsohasnothing to dowithpreserving
reproductive choice and should not be tacked onto a bill to preserve
those rights. It contains no protections for the pregnant person or
medical personnel who, with consent, are performing a termination,
leavingthepossibilitythatthequickchildprovisionwouldbeusedasa
backdoorway to restrict reproductive choice, to intimidatewomenor
criminalizetheirbehaviorduringpregnancy,ortocreateastatusfora
fetusasaperson.
HouseBill5127, in contrast, repeals theoriginalprovision in its
entirety.
Finally, H5125, in Section 8, would expand the identity of
individuals who can give consent to a minor’s abortion to include
grandparentsandadultsiblingsbeyondparents,alegalguardian,orthe
8
courts.Inindividualcases,thismaybeagoodthing,butitalsocancreate
mischief and unintended incursions into the parent-child relationship
thatthejudicialbypassrouteofthecurrentlawaddresses.IftheGeneral
Assembly is willing to consider expansions in reproductive choice
protections,suchascontainedintheminor-parentalconsentprovisionof
H5125, there are a number of additional protections thatwe also can
envision. But in drafting H5127, the RHCA, the sponsors carefully
restricteditsprovisionstocreateastatelawwhichmakestheprinciples
ofRoeamatteroflawinRhodeIsland,nomoreandnoless.H5125does
notfollowthatpathandisnotasuitable“alternative”toH5127.
IlookforwardtotheCommittee’sfavorableconsiderationofHouse
bill5127,andIwouldbepleasedtoansweranyquestionsthatyoumay
have.