CCI "Talking Points" on HB 6205

CCI “Talking Points” on HB 6205: This legislation seeks to create a “fundamental right” to abortion and deny the state or any political subdivision the right to any common sense regulation of access to abortion. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed a state’s right to regulate access to abortion.

Section 15 of the legislation states that notwithstanding any other current law (Healthcare Right of Conscience Act and Parental Notification of Abortion Act) neither the state nor any political subdivision may “interfere” with access to abortion.

• The proponents of this legislation obviously believe Health Care Rights of Conscience and Parental Notification can and will be construed as “interference.”
• The enactment of this legislation will lead to a cause of action against the state and the Health Care Right of Conscience and Parental Notification Acts.

Section 40 does not alleviate the conflict created between this section and the Parental Notification of Abortion Act.

Section 20 requires that any individual eligible for “state medical assistance” receive assistance for reproductive healthcare. Any lack of such assistance will be construed as “interference” prohibited by Section 11.

• This section demands public funds be used to procure abortions through Medicaid, other state medical assistance programs and state health insurance plans.
• In addition to abortion, this section will require the state to pay for other “reproductive healthcare”—including contraception, in vitro fertilization, fertility treatments, etc.—for those eligible for Medicaid or any other state health insurance program or plan.
• How will the state pay for this with a $12.5 billion budget deficit?

Section 25 affords medical professionals unprecedented liability protections in performing abortions. Why should a medical professional “not be liable for civil damages or subject to criminal penalty relating to a pregnancy termination” if the law otherwise calls for it?

Section 30 mandates public school districts to offer comprehensive sex education. Current law allows local school districts to decide when and how to offer sex education. Local control would be undermined by this new mandate.

Section 35 requires the Act and subsequent rules be “liberally construed.” Our interpretation is not too broad; in fact, it is probably not broad enough.

Section 55 amends the Comprehensive Health Education Program statute to delete all references to teaching abstinence “until marriage.” This statute applies to public and private schools. How can the General Assembly demand religious schools teach subjects contrary to moral teachings?