NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Beam |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
509 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Health Care Obstruction Act |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Fiscal Narrative |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Responses Received From
Offices of the District Attorney
Office of the Attorney General
Corrections Department
Department of Health
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 509 creates
a new act, the Health Care Obstruction Act.
This act makes it a crime to interfere with, obstruct, physically
contact, follow, harass, etc. any
individual seeking or rendering reproductive health care services.
A person guilty of
violating the Health Care Obstruction Act is guilty of a misdemeanor. The act provides for both criminal and civil
penalties.
Finally, the act
expressly provides that no provision shall be construed or interpreted to limit
the right of a person to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the
Significant Issues
I. This
area of law has spawned a great deal of litigation. The debate is the balance between the
constitutional right to free speech in the First Amendment of the Bill of
Rights and a women’s constitutional right to privacy and her constitutional
right to choose to have an abortion as found in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.
113 (1973).
HB 509 raises the issue of how to balance current state and federal court decisions and legislative initiatives to protect women lacking access to reproductive health services and laws that either create a “buffer zone” around abortion clinics, or criminalize the act of obstructing a health care facility providing reproductive health care services.
This constitutional issue has not been clearly decided by the United States Supreme Court.
The most pertinent case law is as follows:
1.
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc.,
512 U.S. 753 (1994). The court allowed
the enforcement of buffer zones outside of abortion clinics as long as they
burdened no more speech than necessary to promote the legitimate government
interests, and those which did burden more speech than necessary were ruled
unconstitutional.
2.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of
3.
Hill v.
4.
McGuire v. Reilly,
260 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2001).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in
II.
Seemingly, the
way in which HB 509 is written, it should stand strong against a constitutional
challenge. The focus is not on the right
of protesters to speak/shout their beliefs and march with signs. The focus is on prohibiting conduct that is
already criminal, conduct that constitutes assault, battery, stalking,
etc. The Constitution does not grant the
right to, with hostile intentions, physically touch another person. In fact, everyone, including those seeking to
undertake an action many disagree with, has a right to life and liberty ----
which would seemingly inherently equate to the right to be free of such hostile,
criminal contact.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct
fiscal implications for the state. However,
there will likely be secondary costs, such as litigating the constitutionality
and resolution of charges brought against those who violate the act. These costs will fall primarily to the courts
and district attorneys.
SJM/ls