{"id":287731,"date":"2023-04-02T15:33:50","date_gmt":"2023-04-02T20:33:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=287731"},"modified":"2023-04-05T22:36:31","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T03:36:31","slug":"pro-abortion-shield-laws-prosecution-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-shield-laws-prosecution-states\/","title":{"rendered":"Pro-abortion shield laws protect abortion providers from prosecution in multiple states"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In an effort to protect abortion providers from prosecution after the overturning of Roe v. Wade<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n

In some instances, protective measures \u2014 which often refer to abortion as “protected health care activity” \u2014 may be extended to prescribers of chemical abortion and pharmacies that ship the dangerous drugs into states which prohibit abortion.\u00a0In other cases, these shield laws could limit disciplinary actions from being levied by medical licensing boards against an abortionisist, likely guaranteeing<\/a> that those who harm or injure women<\/a>\u00a0are rarely \u2014 if ever \u2014 held to account.<\/p>\n

California<\/strong><\/p>\n

A bill proposed by\u00a0State 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<\/a>\u00a0reported.<\/p>\n

According to the bill’s author<\/a>, “Under SB 345<\/a>… 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…”<\/p>\n

In June 2022, Axios reported<\/a>, “AB 1666<\/a>\u00a0bars California state courts from hearing legal cases<\/a> that were filed under other states’ bans and ‘would prohibit the enforcement or satisfaction of a civil judgment received under that law.'”<\/p>\n

Additionally,\u00a0SB 487<\/a> “[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.”<\/p>\n

\"Walgreens<\/a><\/p>\n

Colorado<\/strong>
\nSenate Bill 188<\/a>\u00a0would 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<\/a> 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….\u00a0Additionally… lawsuits wouldn\u2019t be recognized or enforced by the state under the measure,” the paper added.<\/p>\n

Under the proposed law<\/a>, “Section 15<\/b>\u00a0adds 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.”<\/p>\n

Connecticut<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Connecticut\u2019s law [HB5414<\/a>] among other things, blocks criminal summonses from other states related to reproductive health care services that are legal in Connecticut while also blocking extradition \u2014 unless the person fled from a state requesting them,” reported<\/a> PBS this past week.<\/p>\n

Hawaii<\/strong><\/p>\n

On March 22, “Hawaii\u2019s governor…signed legislation<\/a> expanding access to abortion and putting into law recent executive orders protecting<\/a>… providers from prosecution by out-of-state authorities…the new measure codifies into law an\u00a0an executive order then-Gov. David Ige signed last year<\/a>\u00a0to 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

SB1<\/a>\u00a0“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.”<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

Illinois<\/strong><\/p>\n

“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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the bill into law<\/a> on January 13, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights (CFRR)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Maine<\/strong><\/p>\n

An executive order<\/a> signed by Governor Janet T. Mills last year “prohibits State agencies from cooperating with another state\u2019s investigation into a person, organization, or health care provider for delivering abortion care in Maine” among other things.<\/p>\n

Maryland<\/strong><\/p>\n

SB859<\/a>\u00a0“prohibits a judge from requiring a person give testimony or statements in another state regarding a person who sought \u2018legally protected health care\u2019 [abortion]\u00a0 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\u00a0WYPR.org<\/a>\u00a0reported.<\/p>\n

Separately,\u00a0HB808<\/a>:<\/p>\n