In an effort to protect abortion providers from prosecution after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion states are passing a litany of pro-abortion shield laws to thwart criminal charges against abortionists that may be filed out-of-state.
In some instances, protective measures — which often refer to abortion as “protected health care activity” — may be extended to prescribers of chemical abortion and pharmacies that ship the dangerous drugs into states which prohibit abortion. In other cases, these shield laws could limit disciplinary actions from being levied by medical licensing boards against an abortionisist, likely guaranteeing that those who harm or injure women are rarely — if ever — held to account.
California
A bill proposed by State Sen. Nancy Skinner “would not let California extradite doctors who are facing charges in another state for providing abortion medication. It would also shield doctors from having to pay fines. And it would let California doctors sue anyone who tries to stop them from providing abortions,” PBS reported.
According to the bill’s author, “Under SB 345… someone who has traveled to or resides in Texas could contact a California medical provider and be prescribed abortion medication or contraception. Similarly, a California-based pharmacy would be able to ship the medication to Texas, and both the health care provider and the pharmacy would receive protections, as long as they are in California, from criminal and civil actions initiated in Texas. The same would be true in the case of a person in Florida…”
In June 2022, Axios reported, “AB 1666 bars California state courts from hearing legal cases that were filed under other states’ bans and ‘would prohibit the enforcement or satisfaction of a civil judgment received under that law.'”
Additionally, SB 487 “[p]rovides additional safeguards for California abortion providers and other entities and individuals that serve and support abortion patients that reside in states with hostile abortion laws.”
Colorado
Senate Bill 188 would mandate that Colorado not recognize criminal prosecutions initiated in other states for people who receive, provide or assist in access to an abortion… in Colorado. That would explicitly outlaw abortion-related arrests, extraditions, search warrants and court summons or subpoenas,” the Colorado Sun reported earlier this month. “The bill would also bar state employees from participating or assisting in interstate investigations into abortion… and it would prohibit wiretapping related to an investigation of abortion…. Additionally… lawsuits wouldn’t be recognized or enforced by the state under the measure,” the paper added.
Under the proposed law, “Section 15 adds a reproductive health-care services worker to the list of protected persons whose personal information may be withheld from the internet if the protected person believes dissemination of such information poses an imminent and serious threat to the protected person or the safety of the protected person’s immediate family.”
Connecticut
“Connecticut’s law [HB5414] among other things, blocks criminal summonses from other states related to reproductive health care services that are legal in Connecticut while also blocking extradition — unless the person fled from a state requesting them,” reported PBS this past week.
Hawaii
On March 22, “Hawaii’s governor…signed legislation expanding access to abortion and putting into law recent executive orders protecting… providers from prosecution by out-of-state authorities…the new measure codifies into law an an executive order then-Gov. David Ige signed last year to stop other states from sanctioning local doctors and nurses who provide abortion care [t] out-of-state residents temporarily in the islands,” the Associated Press reported.
SB1 “prohibits the issuance of a subpoena in connection with an out-of-state or interstate proceeding relating to reproductive health care services legally performed in the State. Prohibits agencies from providing information or expending resources in the furtherance of out-of-state or interstate investigations or proceedings relating to reproductive health care services. Prohibits the State from taking adverse action based on pregnancy outcomes or for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual with accessing reproductive health care services. Requires the Governor to deny any demand for surrender of a person charged with a crime involving reproductive health care services unless the conduct constitutes a crime in the State or is made under Article IV, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.”
In addition, the law would “clarif[y] under various licensing statutes that the provision or assistance in receipt or provision of certain services related to the human reproductive system cannot form a basis for disciplinary action. Prohibits the enforcement of a judgment or order arising from a foreign penal civil action or other penal law with respect to reproductive health care services.”
Illinois
“Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker in January signed a law protecting abortion providers and out-of-state patients from legal attacks waged by other states,” Reuters reported.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the bill into law on January 13, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights (CFRR).
Maine
An executive order signed by Governor Janet T. Mills last year “prohibits State agencies from cooperating with another state’s investigation into a person, organization, or health care provider for delivering abortion care in Maine” among other things.
Maryland
SB859 “prohibits a judge from requiring a person give testimony or statements in another state regarding a person who sought ‘legally protected health care’ [abortion] in Maryland.” It also “prohibits regulators or insurers from taking adverse or disciplinary actions against a provider” for providing abortion in Maryland. The measure passed the Senate 33-11 WYPR.org reported.
Separately, HB808:
- (1) establishes additional protections for information related to “legally protected health care” when that information is sought by another state;
- (2) prohibits a health occupations board from taking specified disciplinary actions related to the provision of legally protected health care;
- (3) prohibits a medical professional liability insurer from taking “adverse actions” against a practitioner related to the practice of legally protected health care; and
- (4) prohibits specified State entities, agents, and employees from participating in any interstate investigation seeking to impose specified liabilities or sanctions against a person for activity related to legally protected health care (with limited exception).
According to one pro-abortion group, “These bills will protect patients’ medical records when accessing legally protected health care in Maryland, and would shield clinicians throughout the state from prosecution, loss of license or malpractice insurance, and from subpoenas of their medical records for providing abortions that are legal in the state of Maryland to patients traveling to the state for care.”
Minnesota
H.F. 366, dubbed the ‘Reproductive Freedom Defense Act,’ passed by a 68-62 margin, according to CBS News.
“If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the bill would prevent state courts or officials from complying with extraditions, arrests or subpoenas related to reproductive health care that a person receives in Minnesota,” MPRNews.org reported March 20th. “It would also allow a person facing an abortion-related case against them in another state to countersue for the costs, damages and attorney’s fees associated with defending the case,” the media outlet added.
“This bill doesn’t just make Minnesota a haven for those who perform illegal abortions elsewhere,” Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser stated in the group’s release.
“It would also shield anyone here in Minnesota who prescribes dangerous telemedicine abortions to places where unborn children are protected by law. That means Minnesota could become an exporter of risky and illegal abortion drugs. This is bad news for mothers and their children everywhere,” she added.
New Mexico
Senate Bill 13, a proposal to shield abortion providers in New Mexico from out-of-state investigations, passed the state House (38-30) and is on the way to Governor Lujan Grisham who is expected to sign it, according to a March 17 report published by the Albuquerque Journal.
“Under the bill, public agencies would be prohibited from releasing information or otherwise cooperating with civil or criminal investigations launched from outside the state into medical providers who engage in ‘protected health care activity’ in New Mexico, such as abortion or gender-affirming care,” the Journal wrote. “A person harmed by a violation of the law could file a lawsuit seeking damages of at least $10,000 per violation,” the media outlet added.
“For breaking the rules laid out in the bill, people or organizations could file action in court, with penalties of $10,000 per violation or appropriate relief, if it’s greater. The state attorney general or local district attorneys could also take people or entities that violate this bill to court, with possible civil penalties,” SourceNM.com claimed.
New York
In January, the New York State Senate passed S1066A which “Provides certain legal protections for reproductive health service providers who provide legally protected health activities including protection from extradition, arrest and legal proceedings in other states relating to such services; restricts the use of evidence relating to the involvement of a party in providing legally protected health activity to persons located out-of-state.” According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, the bill would also “protect abortion providers who use telemedicine to provide abortion pills, as well as their patients.”
In June of 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a legislation package aimed at shielding in-state and out-of-state abortion patients and providers from legal liability. According to a press release issued by the Governor’s Office, “Legislation S.9077A/A.10372A aims to provide certain legal protections for abortion service providers, those who assist someone else in obtaining an abortion, or individuals who self-manage an abortion. This bill provides those protections by creating a statutory exception for the extradition of abortion-related offenses, prohibiting courts from cooperating with out-of-state civil and criminal cases that stem from abortions that took place legally within their borders, and providing judicial protections by prohibiting law enforcement from cooperating with anti-abortion states’ investigations regarding abortions that look place legally.”
Vermont
House Bill 89 would, according to the Vermont Daily Chronicle, “Prohibit a court from issuing a summons when a prosecution is pending in another state concerning legally protected health care activity or where a grand jury investigation concerning legally protected health care activity has commenced or is about to commence for a criminal violation of a law of the other state unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution or investigation would also constitute an offense if occurring entirely in Vermont.”
According to text of S37, the Senate version which recently passed, “This bill would also prohibit a health care provider from being subject to professional disciplinary action for providing or assisting in the provision of legally protected health care services and would establish a new unfair and deceptive act regarding pregnancy centers.”
Washington
This past Tuesday, 1/24, our Medical Director Dr. Anuj Khattar testified in strong support of three bills that protect providers and patients' rights to access abortion and gender-affirming care — My Health My Data, Protecting Provider Licensing, and the Shield Law. (2/3)
— Cedar River Clinics (@CedarRClinics) January 27, 2023
House Bill 1469, which recently passed the house would, according to the Washington State Journal, prohibit “state and local agencies from cooperating with any entity for the purpose of enforcing another state’s law that asserts civil or criminal liability related to protected health care services.” It also bars electronic communication services, foreign subpoenas, and “prohibits summoning a Washington witness to testify at a prosecution or grand jury investigation in another state if it involves the provision of protected healthcare services.”
Women will likely to be the ones to suffer as states which have abysmal records regarding care for women in abortion ( here, here, here, here, here, here, here) focus on protecting abortion providers. And, while multiple states claim the ability to protect abortion providers from civil action brought about in a state court, attorney Mike Seibel, General Counsel for Sandia Resolution Company, which collects debt in all fifty states, claimed that prohibitions on the ability to collect a civil judgement is unconstitutional because “the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize judicial proceedings from other states.”
For additional reading, click here.
