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 info@riaclu.org

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.