By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, a controversial measure that would create the new crime of “interference with reproductive health services or exercise of religion” has cleared the House of Representatives and now heads to the Senate for consideration.
Under House Substitute 1 for House Bill No. 272, the crime would apply to any individual or group using force, threat of force, or obstruction, to “intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with another” seeking abortion services or taking part in religious activities at a place of worship. Additionally, any group or individual employing the same methods “to persuade any person with respect to…reproductive health services” or those intentionally damaging the property of an abortion clinic or place of worship could face charges.
First-time violators would face a class A misdemeanor, but subsequent convictions would be class G felonies. Crimes under the proposal resulting in injury or death would be prosecuted as class D and B felonies, respectively.
The measure would also allow those aggrieved by conduct prohibited by the bill to file lawsuits against the alleged perpetrators and receive awards of up to $5,000.
The state Attorney General could also file lawsuits against alleged violators, with Superior Court judges authorized to issue temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctions, compensatory damages, and civil penalties ranging up to $25,000.
The bill passed the House 23 to 12, with all the affirmative votes coming from Democratic members. Supporters claim the legislation would not prohibit picketing and other peaceful demonstrations protected under the state and federal constitutions.
However, House Republicans questioned the need for the proposal, noting the actions it seeks to criminalize are already crimes. During the debate, several Minority Caucus members noted that the meanings of some key terms in the bill were not defined in the legislation, nor were they explicitly linked to definitions elsewhere in the code. Some expressed concerns that this ambiguity, combined with the multiple criminal and civil penalties contained in the measure, could have a chilling effect on free speech and expression.
The bill now heads to a Senate committee for consideration.
