By Guy Page
A bill shielding abortion and transgender medical services providers from many forms of legal opposition was introduced today into the Vermont House of Representatives.
H-89 was co-sponsored by 113 members of the 150-member Vermont House of Representatives. No Republicans sponsored the bill, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Gov. Scott said at his press conference today he is generally in support of the bill, although he has not yet perused the details.
H89 would:
- Define legally protected health care activity to include reproductive health care services and gender-affirming health care;
- Exempt cases involving tortious interference with legally protected health care activity from the SLAPP statute;
- Prohibit civil arrest of a person for purposes of abusive litigation concerning legally protected health care activity;
- Establish a new cause of action regarding tortious interference with legally protected health care activity;
- Prohibit a court from ordering a person to give testimony or a statement or produce documents or other things for use in connection with abusive litigation involving legally protected health care activity;
- Prohibit a public agency from cooperating in an interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or entity for obtaining or providing legally protected health care;
- Establish a misdemeanor crime for using force or threat of force or physical obstruction to interfere with someone obtaining or providing legally protected health care; prohibit the extradition of a nonfugitive person in connection with abusive litigation in another jurisdiction;
- 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; and
- Expand eligibility to the Address Confidentiality Program to a person providing, assisting another person in obtaining, or obtaining for themselves reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services.
Categories: Legislation
Can someone define “abusive litigation” in this context please? Seems draconian.
It seems that some of this would go beyond what would be Constitutional.
No one under 21 should be able to choose gender altering anything with or especially without parental consent.
“Gender affirming healthcare”: another phrase for Body Mutilation Surgery
Sorry folks, Proposal 5 has been added to the constitution of Vermont and all of these procedures will be protected – it was always the plan.
Everyone involved is protected except, the poor souls being literally and figuratively, ripped apart.
And you didn’t see this coming?
Look what happens when democrats are unrestrained…. they are the enemies of the world
“Define legally protected health care activity to include reproductive health care services and gender-affirming health care; “
I totally support gender affirming health care… sir, you have testes, you’re a man…ma’am you have a uterus, you’re a woman. There, just affirmed your gender, you’re welcome.
HA!! Hilarious
Why not have these protections for all professions, or service providers?
Appears the Legislature and Governor are creating shield laws to protect the State, educators, medical professionals, et al from any liability or culpability. If someone find themselves having serious health conditions after being coerced into a medical procedure or afflicted with mental health issues, there will be no recourse for the injured party. The lawsuits are being filed now, so the State is circling the legislative wagons to protect themselves and their co-conspirators of crimes against humanity, mainly children.
Spot on, Melissa. Where have we seen the shielding of medical service providers from legal recourse before?
I give you the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) classification afforded to Merck, Pfizer, Moderna, all hospitals and medical personnel involved with the experimental and questionably effective Covid vaccines. Even in the face of myocarditis issues, these vaccines are being foisted upon the age group with the least risk – those 50 years-of-age and younger. The very same group now with increasing risk of various side-effects.
Even worse – Emergency Use Authorization has already given political cover to the public-school monopoly. In the ongoing debate over parental judgement, a Brattleboro school was recently protected from having given a youngster the vaccine without parental permission – this in an environment that previously required permission to administer so much as an aspirin. The judge (another useful idiot) dismissed the parent’s lawsuit, not because the school acted legally, but because the unlawful act (failing to get parental permission) involved the experimental vaccine, to wit, the EUA shielding provision protected the school and its staff too.
No wonder the public-schools are requiring vaccinations. It will result in carte blanch protection from any malfeasance they perpetrate on students, including transgender consultation, CRT, and other political ideologies that are repugnant to many parents.
Now, our legislators are voting to shield themselves from recourse for any law they pass that harms someone.
C. S. Lewis was right. ‘It would, indeed, be better to live under robber barons than under these omnipotent moral busybodies…’.
Why is H89 focused on protecting pro choice/abortion operations when the FBI has determined that pro-life centers are targeted by 70% of attacks! See article. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pro-life-centers-targeted-70-abortion-related-violent-threats-dobbs-decision-fbi
Give ’em an inch and they take a mile. Looking sideways is going to be considered a crime before you know it; except for fact: God is watching.