Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules Genetic Counselors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs rejection of genetic counselors' anti‑discrimination language
Summary
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted to send House Concurrent Resolution 14 to the Senate floor recommending rejection of an administrative rule section that incorporated a Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics anti‑discrimination statement.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted to send House Concurrent Resolution 14 to the Senate floor with a “due pass” recommendation, endorsing the committee’s prior rejection of a portion of an administrative rule that had incorporated a Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics anti‑discrimination statement.
Committee Vice Chair Senator Van Orden told members the resolution concerns a section of the administrative rules that referenced the Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics. “If you remember, we had in our administrative rules, we had a rule that was incorporated by Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics. And we chose to reject that section,” Van Orden said during the panel’s discussion.
The resolution drew opposition from Senator Wintrow, who described the language under review as an anti‑discrimination clause and said rejecting it was inappropriate. “I don’t think it’s, you know, too much to ask that we would be sure that we’re not discriminating against people based on race, national origin, gender identity, ****** orientation, etcetera,” Wintrow said. Wintrow asked to be recorded as opposing the committee recommendation.
Senator Lenny moved to send HCR 14 to the floor with a due pass recommendation; the motion was seconded by Senator Keiser. After debate the committee voted to advance the resolution with the recommendation that the Senate concur with the rejection of the administrative rule language. The chair returned the gavel to the committee chair and the panel proceeded to its next agenda item.
Why it matters: the committee’s action asks the full Senate to concur in rejecting part of an administrative rule that had incorporated professional‑code language for genetic counselors. Supporters framed the move as a rules‑and‑statute consistency decision; opponents said the particular clause at issue functioned as an ordinary anti‑discrimination statement and should be retained.
No statutory change took effect at the committee level; the action sends the concurrent resolution to the full Senate for consideration.
