Committee advances bill to shield pregnancy resource centers from discrimination and lawsuits
Loading...
Summary
A House committee on oversight advanced HB 31,94 after debate over staffing rules, medical roles for ultrasounds and a statutory damages scheme; sponsors say the law would prevent costly lawsuits, critics say it risks creating hiring carve-outs and expansive private causes of action.
Representative Cross White Haider moved House Bill 31,94, saying the measure "prevents pregnancy centers from being singled out for discrimination" and would create a uniform state policy to avoid protracted lawsuits. "We had one of the other states that this came in for eight years where there was a lawsuit and ultimately they were successful but they had to spend all those years defending themselves," the sponsor said.
The bill would clarify what pregnancy resource centers may do, require that ultrasounds be read by physicians, and include staffing provisions that allow centers to prioritize employees who share the center's mission. Representative Rowe pressed the sponsor to confirm that "it was the MDs, DOs" who read ultrasounds and not technicians; the sponsor confirmed physicians would read and consult with patients. Representative Rowe and others emphasized that physicians, not technicians, should make diagnostic determinations.
Opponents questioned whether the staffing language carved out an exception from ordinary fair-employment duties. Representative Ranson asked whether section 2(a)(10) could permit a center to "interfere with . . . staffing or hiring decisions by requiring it to interview, hire, or continue to employ any person who does not affirm the center's mission statement," and said the provision risked legal exposure. The sponsor replied the intent is not to expand scope but to make expectations clear so centers are not repeatedly sued.
Members also discussed the bill's private-rights and damages language. Representative Ranson noted the proposed damages (including trebled damages, specified statutory sums and attorney fees) could be "a pretty big stick" and asked whether the committee had examples of similar litigation in-state; the sponsor said the measure was preemptive to avoid years of litigation and accompanying legal costs.
The committee debated whether the measure conflicted with municipal actions or existing state law; the sponsor said the bill is intended to preempt local measures that would otherwise impose added obligations. Representative Heffner asked for more clarity about what would trigger legislative standing in section 5; the sponsor described a generic example of the legislature acting when other remedies are insufficient. Representative Marty flagged a mismatch between the bill text and its analysis summary and urged corrections to the bill summary.
The committee voted 10 yeas and 2 nays to report HB 31,94 as a do-pass. The bill will proceed with committee amendments and with questions about the staffing provisions and damage remedies still unresolved.
