Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shield Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers expanding shield law to cover agents and require businesses to notify AG on certain subpoenas
Summary
Senate Bill 56-32 would clarify the shield law that protects people involved with protected health care services, add agents to the law’s coverage, and require Washington businesses to notify the Attorney General if a subpoena lacking a required attestation arrives.
Senate Bill 56-32, a modest expansion and clarification of Washington’s 2023 shield law for protected health care services, was the subject of a public hearing before the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on March 21.
Matt Sterling, committee staff, summarized the bill: “Senate bill 56 32 relates to the shield law and protected health care services.” He explained that the 2023 law limits courts’ and law enforcement’s ability to issue or enforce subpoenas, warrants and other legal process related to the provision or receipt of protected health care services; the statute covers reproductive health care services and gender-affirming treatment and prohibits cooperation by state or local agencies to enforce another state’s laws that criminalize those services.
The bill would require Washington businesses that provide electronic communications services to notify the Attorney General’s Office if they receive subpoenas or other legal process that lack the attestation required by current law. Senator Hansen, the prime sponsor, said the bill “is a modest expansion of the shield law” that clarifies who counts as an “agent” and ensures the Attorney General is made aware when subpoenas are defective so the office can “take action.”
Adam Eitman and Nick Field, legislative staff for the Attorney General’s Office, testified in support. Eitman told the committee that the attestation requirement “essentially serves as a red flag” and that by requiring businesses to alert the AGO when attestation is missing, the office can investigate and help safeguard protected health information.
Clinical and community witnesses described practical risks if the shield law’s scope remained unclear. Mo West, a registered nurse and donor to reproductive-health providers, testified SB 56-32 “protects both the privacy and safety of people seeking abortion and gender affirming care in Washington as well as those who assist them.” Chris Smith, a full-spectrum doula, said the bill “recognizes the full community network that is involved in helping someone access abortion care” and argued that clarification would protect doulas, midwives and others who assist patients. Dr. Crystal Beal, a family medicine physician who specializes in transgender care, said threats from other states have already reached providers and families and that “Your vote on SB 5 6 3 2 will save lives.”
The bill also would extend restrictions on cooperation with out-of-state investigations to include agents of public officers and employees and would add a statutory definition of “assistance” as “any action to help, aid or support the provision or receipt of protected healthcare services,” according to the staff briefing.
No committee vote on SB 56-32 was recorded in the transcript portion provided. Sponsors and AGO staff emphasized that the bill is intended to provide clarity and an enforcement path when Washington entities receive legal process potentially aimed at enforcing another state’s prohibitions.
Ending: Supporters focused on privacy and safety for patients and helpers; the Attorney General’s Office endorsed the notification requirement so it can assess and, if appropriate, respond to subpoenas that may seek protected information.
