Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Divestment Weapons topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hundreds testify in favor of bill to divest state pension funds from companies selling weapons to Israel
Summary
Supporters including faith leaders, pensioners, activists and medical professionals urged the Joint Committee on Public Service to report favorably on H.2984, which would require divestment of Commonwealth pension assets from companies providing military equipment to Israel; witnesses cited human rights reports and large casualty counts in Gaza.
More than three hours of testimony on July 16 focused on House Bill 2984, which would direct the state pension fund to divest from companies that sell military equipment to the state of Israel.
Representative Erica Oudahaven, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee she filed the measure out of “a moral calling,” describing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and asserting that public pension investments currently help finance companies “explicitly complicit” in killings. Oudahaven said the bill would divest from any company selling weapons to Israel unless the company publicly announced it would end such sales within 30 days of the bill’s effective date.
Speakers included clergy, retired school staff, physicians, former state employees, pension beneficiaries and students. Testimony cited casualty figures from public sources and human‑rights organizations and repeatedly called for the Commonwealth to stop investing in firms that supply weapons, surveillance or logistics used in the conflict.
Medical witnesses described clinical conditions in Gaza, including attacks on hospitals, shortages of antibiotics and multiple amputations without anesthesia. Dr. Marrette El Hagrassy, a Worcester physician, urged lawmakers that “the Massachusetts state pension plan must divest from companies directly complicit in genocide and war crimes,” naming firms referenced in witness submissions.
Several speakers connected the proposal to prior Massachusetts precedent: divestment laws targeting South Africa during apartheid and more recent actions against Russia were referenced as examples. Timon Wallace of the Warheads to Windmills Coalition cited Chapter 32, Section 23 of Massachusetts General Laws to note existing statutory investment restrictions and urged the committee to update those rules to reflect current human‑rights concerns.
Speakers also highlighted reputational and financial arguments: some witnesses argued divestment would have small portfolio impact while registering a moral stance; others said divestment can reduce legal and financial risks tied to human‑rights exposure. Sam Levine, a young activist, and numerous Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian community speakers framed divestment as both a moral and civic obligation.
No committee vote was taken. Representative Oudahaven and dozens of supporters said they would submit further written documentation; the committee accepted additional written testimony through the published deadline.
