PROVIDENCE − Do doctors in Rhode Island need a "shield law" to protect them from the long arm of anti-abortion and anti-transgender laws in other states?
A long list of medical professionals and advocates say they do and the R.I. Senate is poised to vote on Thursday on legislation (S2262) prohibiting any interference in Rhode Island with an individual's access to transgender and reproductive health care services.
The 19-page bill is aimed at protecting doctors here from enforcement actions stemming from "hostile litigation" by "foreign jurisdictions" for providing what is legally protected health care in Rhode Island.
A parade of medical professional urged lawmakers in both the House and Senate to pass the shield law, reminding them of how little credence some of their predecessors gave the looming reversal of the landmark abortion-rights ruling − Roe v. Wade − until it happened. By then, R.I. lawmakers had enshrined abortion rights in state law.
"This legislation is a logical next step," Steve Brown, director of the R.I. chapter of the ACLU, told lawmakers. "It isalso a step that a number of other states have quickly taken in recognition of the dangers facing health care providers even in states that legally protect these medical services."
More: What hundreds of pages of records reveal about nursing home resident-on-resident violence
Many of the doctors who testified in person − or in writing − spelled out what they routinely do that could be in jeopardy.
Dr. Beth Cronin, the head of the Division of General Obstetrics and Gynecology at Women & Infants Hospital, ran down the list, "which includes prescribing contraception, care for patients having miscarriages, gender affirmingsurgeries, prenatal care, abortions, treatment of sexually transmitted infection, care for patients with pelvic pain..."
As a result of out-of-state laws banning access, "we have colleagues around the country who can no longer provide safe, evidence-based health care to their patients," she said. R.I's health care providers "deserve to be able to provide unrestricted, evidence-based health care without fear of legal repercussions."
Her words were echoed by many, including Dr. Andrey V. Dolinko, who is described in the letter as a reproductive endocrinology & infertility specialist and educator who provides "full fertility care options for all individuals who come through my office doors, including transgender and gender diverse [folks], without fear of being prosecuted."
"It is also imperative that I be able to provide safe care for patients with non-viable pregnancies such as ectopicpregnancies that may have a heartbeat but are not in a location where they can continue to grow safely," she wrote.
A common theme in the letters: More than 20 states have enacted bans "which exert extraordinary control over people’s lives and even impose civil and criminal penalties on providers... These bans have the potential to cross state lines and impact providers here.
"This common-sense legislation brings Rhode Island in line with 11 states, including neighboring Massachusetts and Connecticut," they say of the bill sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chair Dawn Euer. (A matching bill in the House has not, to date, been scheduled for a vote.)
One of the few letters of opposition came from a writer who identified herself as "Carol L DeFeciani, Taxpaying Citizen of Providence, Rhode Island and Concerned Human about Child Abuse."
Among her stated reasons for opposing the proposed shield law: it would "make it harder for people who are harmed by medical procedures to receive justice," She specifically referred to people who embarked on "gender transition, only to stop or reverse the process, discovering that gender affirming treatments did not solve their problems, and often made them worse."
More: 'A complete failure': The plight of 2 teens lays bare the absence of mental health care for girls
"Contrary to much popular press, concerns about medical malpractice in the field of gender medicine are not a right-wing bogeyman. Many progressives, and especially many within the gay and lesbian community, of which I am a member, see what’s happening with alarm," she wrote.
"Also contrary to mainstream press coverage, the science of transgender care is far from settled," she wrote.
In the subject line of her own emailed letter of opposition, Erin Everitt wrote: "Do Not Shield Doctors/Professionals Who Harm Children" -
"As a child I was insistent, persistent, and consistent that I was a boy," she wrote. "If I had been medically transitioned, I wouldn't have gotten the help I needed to work through my self-hatred and shame. I never would have realized ... that my transgender identity was a result of the sexual assault not because I was born in the wrong body.''
"Why is the Senate not addressing issues that would 'improve' the quality of life for the majority of RI taxpayers instead of adding to our [financial] burden?" asked Patricia Trafford, writing from a R.I. Republican Conservative Caucus email address.
Opposition letters also came in from a handful of out-of-state doctors, including Dr. Michelle Cretella, who has described herself here and in other states as "a pediatrician consultant to attorneys representing detransitioners in litigation against the gender-affirming doctors who devastated their lives by transitioning them as teens."
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Do RI doctors need protection from out of state anti-abortion, anti-transgender laws?
Most Popular
Comments / 0