Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate subcommittee debates statutory right to contraception and private right of action
Summary
SB 596 would create a statutory right to contraception and allow civil suits against government actors who infringe that right; senators questioned the bill's scope, burden of proof and whether defendants are limited to state or local government.
SB 596 prompted an extended discussion about scope and enforcement after the sponsor presented a substitute Jan. 27 that would codify a right to contraception and provide a civil remedy for government interference.
Sponsor: The bill's sponsor said the measure aims to ensure Virginians' access to contraception by placing the right into statute so that future court shifts would not leave patients or providers without recourse. The sponsor said the statute would create a cause of action when "the state or local law, regulation or policy... effectively limits or delays" access to contraception and would allow affected individuals to sue government actors.
Questions from senators focused on enforcement mechanics. Several members asked whether the bill goes beyond codifying Griswold v. Connecticut by creating a private right of action, and whether defendants would include private providers or only governmental entities. Committee counsel said the enforcement section contemplates governmental actors (state or locality) as potential defendants and that the language could reach someone acting on behalf of a locality.
Senators also pressed about the evidentiary standard in subsection d, which in the substitute uses "clear and convincing evidence" language. The sponsor said the intent is that a government actor attempting to restrict access would need to show the restriction is consistent with widely accepted, evidence-based clinical practice standards (or, in prior drafts, that it is the least restrictive means for safety). The committee discussed whether to replace the least-restrictive test with a clinical-standards test to simplify enforcement.
Public witnesses raised legal and policy concerns. Opponents including faith-based groups and some associations warned the bill's broad definitions could inadvertently allow minors to obtain sterilization or allow nontraditional providers to dispense contraceptives; proponents, including health providers and advocates, argued the bill protects essential care.
Outcome: The sponsor said she will work with counsel and stakeholders to clarify burden and standards; the committee agreed to revisit the bill with a substitute next week.
