Senate subcommittee backs shield law to protect in‑state reproductive and gender‑affirming care from out‑of‑state enforcement

The subcommittee reported SB 1098, the Reproductive and Gender‑Affirming Healthcare Protection Act, after testimony from medical providers, legal advocates and patients who said Virginia should shield in‑state providers and patients from out‑of‑state efforts to criminalize lawful care.

Sponsor Senator Hashmi described the bill as a “shield” to prevent other states’ criminal or civil enforcement from using Virginia courts, subpoenas, arrest warrants or law‑enforcement cooperation to reach Virginia providers who deliver reproductive or gender‑affirming care that is legal in the Commonwealth. Supporters told the panel they have seen a rise in legal threats, subpoenas and proposed laws in other states aimed at out‑of‑state providers and people who assist patients seeking care across state lines.

Testimony in favor included clinicians who provide gender‑affirming care and reproductive‑health groups. Jeri Greenspan of the ACLU of Virginia said the measure protects patients and providers from criminalization for delivering care that is legal in Virginia. Planned Parenthood and multiple advocacy groups also supported the bill. Several speakers described cross‑border travel to Virginia for care and said providers should not face intimidation or civil suits arising from other states’ laws.

Opponents, including representatives of faith organizations and others, said the bill could hamper interstate legal cooperation and raise constitutional issues — particularly around extradition and the Full Faith and Credit clauses. Testifying opponents urged the subcommittee to preserve interstate legal obligations and said the bill would create an exceptional legal status for certain providers.

Committee action: The subcommittee voted to report SB 1098 to the full committee. The clerk recorded three yes votes and two no votes. Senators and staff discussed technical drafting questions, including whether the bill’s language covers telehealth or mailed medication across state lines; counsel clarified that the bill, as drafted for the hearing, does not legalize out‑of‑state provision of care but instead limits cooperation with out‑of‑state enforcement seeking to penalize lawful in‑state practice.

Why it matters: Sponsors said the bill protects Virginia’s legal medical practice and patients from extraterritorial enforcement actions; opponents called it constitutionally problematic and said it could impede interstate law enforcement cooperation.

Next steps: The bill was reported to the full committee for additional consideration and potential refinement.