Assembly committee considers bill allowing reproductive-health providers to petition for fictitious public addresses amid safety concerns

Assemblymember Erica Roth introduced Assembly Bill 235 to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on March 26, proposing to extend existing fictitious-address protections to reproductive-healthcare providers, employees and volunteers, as well as their spouses, domestic partners and minor children.

"Our reproductive health care providers ensure women and families are able to access life saving health care in this state," Roth said in opening remarks. Lindsey Harmon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada, and other supporters testified that providers and staff face rising harassment, doxxing and threats since the 2022 Dobbs decision and that the bill would let providers petition to hide personal addresses from county recorders, assessors, the secretary of state and the DMV.

Harmon told the committee that data-mining firms and public-records requests are being used to obtain providers' home addresses and make them available to people seeking to harass or harm those workers; she argued the change would protect providers "in their homes where they should feel most safe." Several medical associations, reproductive-rights groups, professional societies and victim-services organizations testified in support, including the Nevada State Medical Association, Planned Parenthood, the Nevada Women's Lobby, the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, and ACOG-affiliated groups. Dr. Toby Frescholtz, an obstetrician-gynecologist, said harassment risks can affect availability of broader primary and maternity care: "We should learn from our nearby states ... Their provider shortage is due in some part to hostile reproductive health legislation, which has only driven providers away." (Dr. Frescholtz's written testimony cited access and workforce concerns.)

Opponents told the committee the bill is overly narrow and would create unequal protections. Several speakers asked for parity for other groups they said face threats, including crisis pregnancy centers, religious leaders and pro-life activists. Nevada Right to Life and other opponents argued the bill could shield providers from accountability and impede public access to information about providers. The Nevada Republican Party's legislative director, Joshua Skaggs, testified the party opposed the bill on fairness grounds and raised concerns about gender-affirming care for minors. Multiple callers and in-person opponents asked whether the bill would protect anti-abortion healthcare practitioners; sponsor Roth and later committee counsel clarified the bill's text and intent.

Legal counsel Sarah Dilapp told the committee that statutory mechanisms already provide alternative addresses in certain contexts. She cited NRS 41.093 and explained that an alternative address on a driver's license "prohibits the release of their personal information, except as otherwise provided" in specific NRS sections (she cited NRS 239.0115 and a DMV-release provision). Committee members asked technical questions about whether fictitious addresses are alternate physical addresses (for example, a PO box or another mailing address) and whether the change would affect legal process; Roth and staff said they would provide follow-up legal detail, and Roth said she would supply answers about the DMV/address form used in practice.

The hearing drew extensive public comment on both sides. Supporters emphasized worker safety and rising threats; opponents emphasized equal protection, transparency, patient safety and the potential for the provision to be used to hide wrongdoing. The sponsor said the bill is viewpoint neutral and would apply to any licensed provider of reproductive health care as defined in statute; she invited providers at crisis pregnancy centers who meet licensing criteria to petition under the same rules.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on AB235 after testimony and legal counsel's clarifications; sponsors offered to provide technical follow-up on address implementation and DMV processes before any work-session action.