Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of July 14 to July 18.

Reproductive and transgender care protections (H 4271)

The House, 130-29, approved legislation, dubbed by sponsors as the Shield Act, that supporters say would strengthen health care protections. The bill is designed to fortify protections for people seeking and providing reproductive and transgender care. The Senate has already approved a different version of the proposal and a House-Senate conference committee will eventually hammer out a compromise version.

The measure would prohibit state agencies, employees and law enforcement from cooperating with investigations by other states or by the federal government into reproductive or gender-affirming health care that is legally protected in Massachusetts. It also would restrict businesses that manage electronic health records from sharing patient data connected to these services.

Other provisions empower the Department of Public Health to remove drugs prescribed in connection with reproductive or gender-affirming health care from the prescription monitoring program; prohibit the state’s Center for Health Information and Analysis and the Health Connector from providing information to other entities, states or the federal government regarding legally protected health care activities in Massachusetts; forbid entities that work with these agencies from using data collected to target patients or providers; protect attorneys licensed in Massachusetts from removal or discipline for advising or representing clients on the topics of reproductive or transgender health care services; and forbid insurance companies from discriminating against or penalizing nonprofits that offer reproductive and gender-affirming health care services.

“As the Trump administration and Republicans across the country continue to target individuals for exercising their right to make their own health care decisions in consultation with their doctor, this legislation is representative of the House’s commitment to preserving that fundamental right,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy. “The Shield Act builds on the commonwealth’s proud history of preserving and expanding access to reproductive and gender-affirming care by establishing new safeguards around patient data and by protecting health care professionals who provide that vital care.”

“When patients and doctors engage in legal health care activities here in Massachusetts, they will have the peace of mind that their personal information will remain private and that their constitutional rights remain protected rights,” said Rep. Michael Day, D-Stoneham, House chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. “Massachusetts will always protect and preserve the constitutional and civil rights of our people to make their own health care decisions, especially in the face of political crusades of the federal government and the misguided efforts of other states seeking to interfere with those decisions made here.”

“Those who voted in favor of [the bill] have not only encouraged Massachusetts physicians to break abortion laws in other states but have approved protecting their illegal activities as well,” said Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which opposed the measure. “Going forward, Massachusetts abortionists who prescribe mifepristone to women in areas where it is outlawed have more ways to hide their crimes and conceal their identities. The bill goes far beyond protecting unethical doctors, though. It all but assures the inability to hold accountable those physicians whose actions result in serious injuries to women who consume the abortion pill without any medical oversight. We look forward to the likely federal response in the coming weeks.”

“No Massachusetts resident, through the administration of so-called telehealth abortions or through the shipment of mifepristone to other states, has the right to impede the laws of those states,” said bill opponent Catholic Action League Executive Director C.J. Doyle. “By prohibiting Massachusetts law enforcement from cooperating with federal and out-of-state authorities, and by authorizing Massachusetts residents and officials to ignore subpoenas, refuse to execute warrants and reject records requests, this legislation essentially immunizes Bay State residents from the consequences of breaking the laws of other states.”

A “Yes” vote is for the bill.

Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes

Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes

Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes

Expand privacy protection (H 4271)

The House, 30-129, rejected an amendment that would expand current law that provides privacy protection for people receiving reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care. The amendment would expand current law by also protecting the privacy of the “refusal by any person to obtain reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services or any other preventative medical care on behalf of themselves or their minor children.”

“I supported [the amendment] because the original bill … while vital for safeguarding sensitive medical information, primarily focused its privacy protections on the provision of reproductive and gender-affirming health care services,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Mike Soter, R-Bellingham. “To truly ensure equitable and comprehensive medical privacy for all residents in the commonwealth, this amendment extends those same robust protections to individuals who make deeply personal decisions to refuse reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services or any other preventative medical care for themselves or their minor children. This amendment is not about allowing people to refuse this care for their children; it is about addressing the inconsistency where stronger privacy safeguards were offered for some medical information but not for others, solely based on the type of care involved.”

“I opposed this amendment because it undercuts the very protections the bill seeks to amplify and is contrary to our current consent laws for abortions for minors,” said Rep. Adrianne Ramos, D-North Andover. “This amendment creates a proactive right of a parent to refuse a broad spectrum of care for their minor children, without exceptions, which means through age 18. It carves out no language to allow courts to weigh in if the parents are not married or are separated. In essence, it gives one parent the ability to interrupt or prevent even common reproductive care such as birth control and gender-affirming care such as hormones. It was an underhanded attempt by Republicans to take control over the bodily decisions of others and could not be condoned as the privacy-protecting amendment it was portrayed to be.”

A “No” vote is against the amendment.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes

Debt collection (S 2537)

The Senate, 39-0, approved and sent to the House a bill that supporters said would protect consumers and keep people from being pushed into financial ruin if they are sued for financial debt. They said the new law would make debt collection practices fairer, protect wages and make clear that no person can be imprisoned for unpaid consumer debt.

Provisions include expanding the amount of an individual’s paycheck that is shielded from wage garnishment; establishing a five-year statute of limitations on debt collection; and reducing from 12% to 3% the maximum interest rate that can be imposed on judgments on consumer debt.

“Those caught in the grip of a debt cycle know all too well the often-predatory practices used by debt collectors, and the crippling reality of staring down a ballooning debt that seems insurmountable,” said Sen. Paul Feeney, D-Foxborough, chair of the Committee on Financial Services. “While the Debt Collection Fairness Act will not eliminate debt or an obligation to pay, the bill does provide a lifeline and opportunity for hope for those caught in the deepest depths of this spiral so that families have some room to breathe, to move forward and break this debilitating cycle.”

“President Trump is dismantling federal government agencies dedicated to protecting consumers,” said sponsor Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Marlborough. “Here in Massachusetts, I am proud that the state Senate is voting on my bill — the Debt Collection Fairness Act — to provide protections from the predatory practices of debt collectors for working class families.”

The bill was approved by the Senate in the 2023-2024 session but died in the House Ways and Means Committee and never reached the House floor for debate and a vote.

A “Yes” vote is for the bill.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes

Sen. Paul Mark — Yes

Child custody cases (S 2550)

The Senate, 39-0, approved and sent to the House a bill that would align Massachusetts with the other 49 states by adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

Supporters said the bill addresses longstanding issues under current Massachusetts law, which uniquely relinquishes jurisdiction over custody orders once the custodial parent has lived out of state for six months. They noted the legislation reflects years of work and collaboration with legal experts and domestic violence advocates, and has broad support from the state’s family law community.

“I filed this bill to align Massachusetts with every other state in the nation,” said sponsor Sen. Cindy Creem, D-Newton. “The current law places an undue burden on non-custodial parents by forcing them to travel out of state for custody proceedings and opens the door to forum shopping and unnecessary multi-state litigation. By adopting the UCCJEA, we bring clarity, consistency and fairness to our custody laws, just like every other state has already done.”

“Every day, our members who practice family law witness the real and lasting harm caused by the commonwealth being the only state that has not joined the UCCJEA,” said Boston Bar Association President Matthew V.P. McTygue. “This bill is about protecting children, stabilizing families and ensuring that survivors of domestic violence are not forced to relitigate custody across state lines. Without this law, a custody order from a Massachusetts judge can be cast aside after a parent moves to a new state. That’s unacceptable, and this legislation will finally fix it.”

The legislation was approved by the Senate in the 2023-2024 session but died in the House Ways and Means Committee and never reached the House floor for debate and a vote.

A “Yes” vote is for the bill.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes

Sen. Paul Mark — Yes

Also up on Beacon HillTax on enclosed shopping malls with vacancies (H 3240)

The Revenue Committee held a hearing on legislation that would allow cities and towns to implement a local option tax on owners of enclosed shopping malls that have less than 67% occupancy in their retail spaces for a continuous period of at least nine months and that fail to convert a proportion of the property to other specified uses, to be determined by the city or town, for lease or sale. The measure also allows the city or town to determine the amount of any new tax.

“This legislation grants municipalities the freedom to use tax incentives to push commercial landlords toward reinvestment and renewal of their rental properties by finding new tenants or converting to other uses the municipality deems desirable, such as housing, civic spaces or mixed-use developments based on their community’s needs and planning objectives,” said sponsor Rep. Adam Scanlon, D-North Attleborough. “This bill would provide another tool to our cities and towns to address excessively vacant properties that otherwise would continue to go unused and therefore lead to non-maintenance and deterioration.”

Scanlon continued, “Throughout Massachusetts, numerous traditional shopping malls are facing prolonged decline due to various consumer and economic trends. Vacant stores and underused commercial properties lead to decreased property values in the vicinity, strain municipal services and diminish once-bustling centers of local economic activity. When mall owners permit these vacancies to continue without reinvestment or redevelopment efforts, the surrounding communities suffer through lost tax revenue and neighborhood stagnation.”

Prohibit age discrimination in public schools (H 662)

A bill heard by the Education Committee would prohibit any person admitted to any public school from being discriminated against, based on age, in obtaining the advantages, privileges and courses of study in that school.

“[My bill] would help strengthen the Massachusetts school system,” said sponsor Rep. Kelly Pease, R-Westfield. “This bill would allow students to be placed at the grade level that matches their ability to learn and not by artificial age requirements. By allowing students to meet their full potential, it would keep children from being bored and remain engaged in the learning process.”

Junior Operator’s License Fund (S 2415)

A bill that would establish a Junior Operator’s License Fund to provide financial assistance to students from disadvantaged backgrounds who cannot afford to pay for driving education courses was heard by the Transportation Committee. The fund, which would be managed by the Registry of Motor vehicles, would be supported financially through various sources, including grants and public and private gifts. Eligibility for assistance will be based on participation in programs such as free or reduced lunch, MassHealth, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the Residential Assistance for Families in Transition program (RAFT).

The measure would also allow junior operators to travel with passengers under 18 after 90 days — replacing current law that allows it after six months.

“The cost of driver’s education programs in Massachusetts is high, which can disenfranchise low- to moderate-income families who may need a licensed teenager in the home to transport family members, and teenagers themselves who may require a license to get to and from work, school or activities,” said sponsor Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem.

Drink spiking (S 293)

The Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure held a hearing on a proposal that would require establishments that serve alcohol to be consumed on the premises to, upon request, provide a lid with a customer’s drink. The measure also requires the establishment to post a notice, in a prominent and conspicuous location, informing patrons that lids are available.

“Drink spiking continues to be an alarming risk for people going out, especially as drugs are increasingly easy to administer undetected and many victims are often unable to remember what happened to them until hours later, if at all,” said sponsor Sen. John Velis, D-Westfield. “It is imperative that we do all we can to prevent these terrible incidents, and ensuring that establishments are providing drink covers and making patrons aware is an important step in the right direction.”

Suspend licenses of rental brokers who discriminate (S 245)

Another bill heard by the Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure would streamline the process of suspending the license of a rental broker who was determined by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) or the Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons to have engaged in discriminatory rental practices. The measure would also mandate fair housing training for real estate brokers and salespeople.

“Housing discrimination remains a painful reality in Massachusetts, particularly for Black renters and families who rely on housing vouchers,” said sponsor Sen. Adam Gomez, D-Springfield. “Despite existing laws, the protections we’ve promised too often fall short in practice. [This bill] is about changing that. This legislation creates real accountability by ensuring that discrimination has consequences, and it strengthens the systems meant to uphold fairness in our housing market. Everyone deserves a fair chance at a safe, stable home — and this bill moves us closer to making that a reality.”

Ban smoking in vehicles with children (H 2443)

The Public Health Committee held a hearing on a measure that would prohibit smoking in any motor vehicle in which there is a child who is required to be in a child passenger restraint. Under Massachusetts law, children must use a restraint until they are at least 8 years old or at least 57 inches tall. The measure imposes a $100 fine on drivers who violate the smoking ban.

The proposal also prohibits a police officer from searching a vehicle, its contents, the driver or a passenger solely because of a violation of this law. It also prohibits the violation from being used as evidence of contributory negligence by the driver in any civil action and requires officers, for 90 days after the new law is in effect, to give only a warning and not a citation to a driver who violates this law.

Supporters say that second-hand smoke causes respiratory problems, ear infections and mental health disorders, including depression. They note it can also make a child’s asthma worse. They argue that the only effective way to fully protect non-smokers from harm is to eliminate smoking in enclosed spaces, including homes, worksites, public spaces and vehicles.

“I filed this because we need to protect young children who are the most vulnerable to second-hand smoke,” said sponsor Rep. Jim Hawkins, D-Attleboro. “It’s interesting that in the middle schools I have visited that students have chosen this for their civics projects. Even though I have not gotten it through in previous sessions, I think it’s important, so I will keep pushing it.”

Ban new for-profit hospitals (S 1526)

Another measure before the Public Health Committee would prohibit any new for-profit acute-care hospitals from being established or licensed in Massachusetts.

“I filed legislation to ban for-profit hospitals because of the innumerable harms to public health caused by Steward Health Care,” said sponsor Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Marlborough. “The profit motive has no place in a health care system that truly serves patients.”