Gov. Jay Inslee and state Democratic lawmakers revealed details Friday about a push to enact a “shield law” that would protect abortion patients and providers from out-of-state legal action, and announced two more bills in the works designed to ensure to reproductive health care access.
One would indemnify Washington-based corporations helping employees in other states get abortions. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks have said they will cover abortion-related travel expenses for employees based in locations where a legal provider is unavailable.
Another bill would block hospital and health care organization mergers that would limit services such as abortion. Because of consolidations, 35 percent of Washington hospital beds are in Catholic-affiliated facilities, according to the Washington State Hospital Association. Many such providers restrict services that end pregnancies, as well as other forms of reproductive health care.
“We are going to do everything humanly possible to make sure Washington state is always a pro-choice state,” Inslee said at a news conference in a Federal Way church, adding that he intended to keep out the “tentacles” of anti-abortion, “dictatorial” politicians.
The announcements came just one week after the governor and lawmakers said they would push for a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion access, among other measures.
The timing also dovetails with the run-up to the Nov. 8 midterm elections, and Washington State Republican Party Chair Caleb Heimlich accused Inslee of using Friday’s news conference and similar previous, taxpayer-funded events to try to scare people into voting for Democrats.
“They didn’t hold this press conference after the election,” Heimlich said. “They could have easily done that. But they chose to hold it 11 days before Election Day while ballots are in people’s hands.”
Heimlich also said he viewed measures like a constitutional amendment as redundant because the right to an abortion is “settled law” in Washington state.
Some U.S. Supreme Court justices said the same of national law before voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. And various congressional candidates in Washington and elsewhere support a federal abortion ban, which would affect this state. Washington legislative candidates from both parties have also made abortion a campaign talking point.
In a recent WA Poll sponsored by The Seattle Times and partners, 26 percent of likely voters said abortion was the most important issue to them, making it the most popular pick.
The bills outlined Friday are still in draft form, and their sponsors talked mainly in broad brushstrokes.
Rep. Drew Hansen, a Democrat from Bainbridge Island, offered the most details in talking about his intention for a “shield law,” which he said would prevent people in other states from using Washington courts to issue subpoenas and warrants meant to enforce anti-abortion laws.
Out-of-state criminal charges and civil lawsuits have been a huge concern among abortion rights advocates in light of laws, like one in Idaho, that deem the procedure a felony or, as in Texas, allow citizens to sue anyone who helps a pregnant person get an abortion.
Hansen’s bill would also allow Washingtonians to countersue in court here. All a person would need is a judgment from an out-of-state court to get a parallel judgment for the same amount from the person who filed the initial lawsuit, Hansen said in an interview after the news conference.
Together, the bill’s provisions would render anti-abortion laws and judgments “unenforceable, unprosecutable and uncollectable,” Hansen said.
Rep. Drew Stokesbary, an Auburn Republican and lawyer, questioned whether blocking warrants and subpoenas emanating from elsewhere would violate a U.S. constitutional provision requiring states to honor each others’ laws.
Hansen, also an attorney, said he has run his bill’s concept past several law professors and none raised constitutional issues.
Regardless, Stokesbary said of the bill, “I’m not sure that’s the right policy direction.” Referring to the countersuits in particular, he said, “I don’t think incentivizing people to utilize the judicial system as a weapon against their ideological foes is a good idea” — even if the bill is used as a defensive weapon against people doing just that.
Heimlich, the state Republican Party chair, concedes that Democrats are likely to remain in control of the Legislature after the election and these abortion bills have a good chance of passing.
Rep. Tarra Simmons, a Bremerton Democrat, noted, however, that she submitted the bill about health care organization mergers last year and it failed.
The hospital industry opposed the bill, saying mergers were necessary for financial reasons, Simmons recalled.
“There are a number of hospitals in our state that are in financial trouble and are at risk of closure; finding a partner or affiliating with another system is a way to ensure they can stay afloat,” Cassie Sauer, president and CEO of the Washington State Hospital Association, said in an email, talking generally about hospital mergers.
Remaining to be seen is whether such considerations remain paramount in the frenzy of political and legal activity launched by the end of Roe v. Wade.
