Legislators vote to reject gov’s abortion changes
THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senator’s votes on roll calls from the week of Dec. 14-18.
Gov. Baker’s abortion amendments
The House, 49-107, and Senate, 8-32, rejected Gov. Charlie Baker’s amendments to a section of the state budget approved by the House and Senate that changes some of the abortion laws in the state. The section lowers the age from the current 18 to 16 at which a minor can choose to have an abortion without parental or judicial consent. Baker’s amendment would bring the age back to 18.
Baker’s amendments also would have changed language in another section related to abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Legislature’s bill would permit abortions after 24 weeks “if it is necessary, in the best medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the patient’s physical or mental health.”
The governor proposed changing the condition to “if a continuation of the pregnancy will impose, in the best medical judgment of the physician, a substantial risk to the patient’s physical or mental health.”
“(The bill) affirmatively establishes in Massachusetts law a woman’s right to access an abortion,” Baker said in his letter to the Legislature that accompanied the veto. “It also ensures that a woman can access an abortion in cases where the child will not survive after birth. These are important changes to protect a women’s reproductive rights and autonomy in the commonwealth, and I support them. However, I cannot support the other ways that this section expands the availability of lateterm abortions and permits minors age 16 and 17 to get an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian.”
“One month ago, we stood in this chamber and took action to protect access to safe and legal abortion care for women in the commonwealth,” said Rep. Claire Cronin, D-easton, the House chair of the Judiciary Committee. “The governor’s amendments threatens this significant progress as it would reinstate barriers and curtail protections contained in the conference committee report.”
“Nine days before Christmas, 107 legislators voted to expand late term abortions, let 16- and 17year-old girls get abortions without their parents even knowing and allow abortionists to refuse care to babies born alive. This is mind-numbingly evil.”
“Gov. Baker’s proposed amendments would have completely undermined lawmakers’ efforts to protect and expand abortion access by pushing life-saving abortion care later in pregnancy out of reach and by fully maintaining our state’s racist and discriminatory, anti-choice barriers for vulnerable young people,” read a statement from The ROE Act Coalition which includes the ACLU of Massachusetts, NARAL Prochoice Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts.
(A “Yes” vote is for Gov. Baker’s amendments. A “No” vote is against his amendments.)
Rep. James Arciero, No; Rep. Kimberly Ferguson, Yes; Rep. Colleen Garry, Yes; Rep. Thomas Golden, No; Rep. Kenneth Gordon, No; Rep. Sheila Harrington, Yes; Rep. Stephan Hay, No; Rep. Natalie Higgins, No; Rep. Marc Lombardo, Yes; Rep. Rady Mom, No; Rep. David Nangle, Yes; Rep. Harold Naughton, No; Rep. Tram Nguyen, No; Rep. David Robertson, Yes; Rep. Dan Sena, No; Rep. Jonathan Zlotnik, No; Sen. Michael Barrett, No; Sen. James Eldridge, No; Sen. Barry Finegold, No; Sen. Cindy Friedman, No; Sen. Anne Gobi, No; Sen. Edward Kennedy, No; Sen. Bruce Tarr, Yes; Sen. Dean Tran, Yes
Doctor must use lifesaving equipment
The House, 34-120, rejected an amendment to a section of the state budget approved by the House and Senate that would require the facility where a post 24week abortion is performed to maintain life-supporting equipment “to enable the physician performing the abortion to take appropriate steps, in keeping with good medical practice and consistent with the procedure being used, to preserve the life and health of a live birth and the patient.”
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-billerica, and supported by Rep. Alyson Sullivan, R-abington, would require the facility to maintain lifesupporting equipment but also mandate that the doctor use the equipment to preserve the life and health of a live birth baby and the patient.
“In Massachusetts, we require health care be given to terrorists who are injured, like the Marathon Bomber,” Lombardo told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “We certainly should continue to require that physicians give health care to innocent babies when born. It’s shocking that Beacon Hill has become so radical that the left now supports removing the health care requirement for babies born alive surviving an abortion. It’s barbaric and it’s infanticide.”
“The Lombardo amendment is based on false claims, dangerous myths and lies,” said Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-choice Massachusetts. “It has absolutely nothing to do with how abortion care actually works. The goal of their amendment is obvious — to shame women seeking abortion care, foster mistrust of physicians who provide compassionate care and put abortion care out of reach all in an attempt to control women and pregnant people’s bodies. The House overwhelmingly defeated the amendment because they know it is irresponsible and shameful to ignore science and spread medically inaccurate information.”
“I am saddened and disappointed in the results of yesterday’s House debate regarding the required care and treatment of a child born alive during an abortion,” Sullivan said. “The language as written and passed by the House, is ambiguous on its face, subject to broad interpretation, and fails to describe clear and objective criteria for what needs and should be done, to preserve the life of the baby.”
“(Our amendment) would make it crystal clear, that not only do facilities that perform abortions need to have lifesaving equipment in the room during an abortion but importantly, that equipment and other medically necessary intervention must be used to preserve the life of a live birth,” continued Sullivan. “Our amendment, if passed, would have ensured every live birth be afforded the dignity and the right to life, including those babies that are born during an abortion by requiring the medical team to use life saving measures.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment requiring use of the equipment. A “No” vote is against requiring it.)
Rep. James Arciero, No; Rep. Kimberly Ferguson, Yes; Rep. Colleen Garry, Yes; Rep. Thomas Golden, No; Rep. Kenneth Gordon, No; Rep. Sheila Harrington, Yes; Rep. Stephan Hay, No; Rep. Natalie Higgins, No; Rep. Marc Lombardo, Yes; Rep. Rady Mom, No; Rep. David Nangle, No; Rep. Harold Naughton, No; Rep. Tram Nguyen, No; Rep. David Robertson, No; Rep. Dan Sena, No; Rep. Jonathan Zlotnik, No
Also up on Beacon Hill
The “Speaker buzz” turns out to be true — The buzz at the Statehouse last week was that House Speaker Bob Deleo, D-winthrop, now in his 12th year as speaker, would soon resign from the House and take a job at Northeastern University. On Wednesday, the report was denied by Deleo’s office.
“The speaker has had no such talks with, much less does he have any agreement with, Northeastern University,” Deleo’s spokeswoman Catherine Williams told the State House News Service in a one-sentence statement.
Two days later on Friday, Deleo filed a letter with House Clerk Steve James. “I write to disclose that I intend to begin negotiating prospective employment opportunities with Northeastern University,” read the letter. “As of today, I have not personally had any discussion with anyone from Northeastern University relative to any possible employment opportunities.”
The letter continued, “On December 16, 2020, I requested that my personal legal counsel contact the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission to discuss my status and to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Law. Although based on my current status, a disclosure is not required, I have nevertheless elected to disclose my intention to begin negotiating prospective employment opportunities with Northeastern University out of an abundance of caution.”
Part 2 of the buzz was that if Deleo does get the job at Northeastern and resigns, his second-in-command, House Majority Leader Ron Mariano, Dquincy, who has been at Deleo’s side since he became speaker, would run for speaker. That also turned out to be true. “If Speaker Deleo resigns, I will be a candidate for Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives,” Mariano said on Friday. “I believe I have earned the trust and confidence of my colleagues and that I have gained their support to lead the House forward.”
In the meantime, 5-term incumbent Rep. Russell Holmes, D-boston, the past leader of the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, announced his definite plans to run for speaker if Deleo resigns. Holmes has criticized Deleo for years including the time he told Beacon Hill Roll Call that “the speaker is like a shepherd leading a flock of sheep.”
“I’m running because of the many conversations that I have had with members of how the power and influence in this building is concentrated in just a few people,” Holmes said in a letter to his colleagues. “I’m running because you have all worked very hard to get here and our constituents expect us to be at the forefront for change in this country. We can’t deliver to our fullest potential until we are all respected as equals and we do not operate and make decisions out of fear and thoughts of retribution. I will be reaching out over this weekend. Please feel free to call me on my cell … or let me know the best number to reach you.”
The remaining buzz, not yet proven, is that Mariano already has the necessary votes to be elected speaker. He has been quietly working behind the scenes to secure votes of his Democratic colleagues for months in case the speakership opened up.
Sexual misconduct on college campuses — The Senate approved and sent to the House a bill that would require public and private institutions of higher education in the state to conduct high-quality campus sexual misconduct climate surveys at least once every four years and annually report survey results on its website.
Provisions include requiring colleges and universities to adopt policies on sexual misconduct involving students and employees and publish the policies on their website; requiring these schools to adopt memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement agencies to establish respective roles and responsibilities for each party related to the prevention and response to on-campus and off-campus sexual misconduct; requiring schools to provide campus safety and sexual misconduct data and outreach information in an accessible format on its website and contact information for resources available to reporting students and employees; and requiring all colleges and universities to provide free access to a sexual assault crisis service center either on-campus or off-campus by entering into and maintaining a memorandum of understanding with a community-based sexual assault crisis center and a community-based domestic violence program.
Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beacon hillrollcall.com.