Protecting menstrual data
Virginia’s failure to shield private health information was a mistake
Gov. Glenn Youngkin insists that his determination to limit abortion services in Virginia wouldn’t extend to laws that imprison women for seeking reproductive care. But it’s now clear that he’s willing to intrude upon women’s privacy in order to punish abortion providers, a very troubling development.
What other conclusion can be drawn from his administration’s opposition to a bill that sought to shield menstrual data from search warrants? That information, among the most personal and private health data, should be protected and the bill’s defeat last week is an embarrassment to the commonwealth — and to the governor.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court in June issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, effectively overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case, concerns about the future of abortion services have permeated the national conversation.
While some states protect reproductive care in their constitutions or through legislation, others had so-called “trigger laws” that effectively banned access to abortion once the court overturned the 50-yearold Roe decision. And in both, the push to modify laws — either to preserve access or further limit it — has dominated the debate in statehouses.
Virginia is one of two states in a unique predicament. Only the commonwealth and New Mexico have laws that allow for abortion services but no protection for those services in their state constitutions. That means the future of those services — and the ability of women to decide their course of care — is in limbo.
Following the Dobbs decision the governor called for Virginia lawmakers to support a ban on abortion 15 weeks after conception, vowing to “happily and gleefully” sign such a bill “in order to protect life.”
But with Democrats holding a slim majority in the state Senate, one expanded by the Jan. 17 election of Virginia Beach Democrat Aaron Rouse to fill the vacancy created by Republican Jen Kiggans’ election to the U.S. House, the prospects of such a bill reaching the governor’s desk were nonexistent.
For their part, Senate Democrats proposed a measure that would put to voters a constitutional amendment to protect abortion in Virginia, but the Courts of Justice subcommittee in the Republican-led House rejected it Feb. 17. It is fair to question why the urgency for such a measure was absent when Democrats controlled both chambers and Democrat Ralph Northam was governor.
However, a bill that would have shielded menstrual data from search warrants should have been an easy compromise for lawmakers to reach. That personal information deserves more robust protection than under current law, and the demise of the Roe precedent makes securing it a priority.
The Senate understood this and passed the bill on a 31-9 vote, with 18 Republicans
in support. But when it came before the Courts of Justice subcommittee, the GOP-led panel rejected it following the direction of Youngkin’s deputy secretary of public safety and homeland security, Maggie Cleary.
Cleary said her opposition wasn’t specific to the menstrual data but to the narrowing of search warrants. But if there is any health information that should be protected, certainly in this environment, it was this. The Senate clearly understood that.
Millions of women — by some estimates, up to one-third — use apps to track their menstrual cycles. The possibility that such information could be used for criminal prosecution should be abhorrent to Virginians, regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion.
The governor insists he does not want to prosecute women for their reproductive decisions, but his opposition to this bill suggests he’s not against using their personal health data to prosecute others. And it’s undeniable that he put his thumb on the scales when he dispatched an administrative official to stand against a reasonable protection of privacy.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Barbara Favola, D-Arlington, says she plans to reintroduce the bill next year. Let’s hope there’s more common sense — and trust for Virginia women — in Richmond when she does.