It was a frustrating week for our process
of lawmaking, as several items barreled ahead without taking testimony – or after
limiting the voices of people who wanted to testify.
***
Guns
I do not believe any part of our
constitution stands immutable when one part is in conflict with another. I will
(and have) voted for restrictions on gun rights that maintain a constitutional balance
and are likely to actually achieve their aims. Proposals before the legislature
have rarely ever met that test, and the new one before us this past week did
not either.
The core of the bill before was a proposal
for $250 fine for carrying a gun into a hospital. Someone with ill intent will
not be stopped by the threat of a $250 fine; those without ill intent will be
stopped by existing signs that weapons are not allowed. If they ignore them, under
current law they can be charged with trespass, which carries a 3-month jail
term. So it was hard to see the value of this, but it came to us from the
Senate and our House committee took full testimony on it.
However, the House also tacked on were several
other pieces. One was a clarification that judges may order guns to be removed
when issuing an emergency relief from abuse order. We passed this in the House
last year, and I voted for it. We have an identified problem in Vermont
regarding domestic violence and firearms and I believe this could have an
impact. That bill is in the Senate, which has not acted on it, so the House committee
added it to this Senate bill to try to press the Senate on it, by using the
bill the Senate wants. (Not an unusual tactic in House-Senate relationships.)
The second add-on was a change to the
length of time a buyer has to wait for a background check. When background
checks became a requirement under the national reporting system, the three-day
limit was a means to maintain pressure on the federal government to keep the
system working efficiency. Most return from the federal computers in minutes.
On fairly rare occasions, it takes longer than three days – so the person gets
the gun without a completed check. That has been a focus of concern. About 20
states have extended the three-day limit, but not all as long as 30 days, which
this bill proposes. There was little testimony demonstrating a need for a
30-day long delay in Vermont and it was not vetted under the standards that are
the norm for passing legislation.
What concerned me the most was the third
addition. It would create state law permitting health care providers, including
mental health professionals, to breach patient-client confidentiality and alert
the police if there is a “good faith” belief that the person owns or might buy
a weapon to harm someone, and disclosure could lessen the danger. The purpose
would be for the officer to seek an emergency order to remove any guns from the
person.
Here’s the problem: if someone is
struggling with destructive thoughts but knows their counsellor might turn them
in to the police, are they still going to share that struggle to get help with
resolving it? Will they even seek out someone to help them at all, if they know
there is no assurance that it will not result in a breach of confidentiality? Current
law permits (requires) disclosure if there is a specific and direct threat
against another person. This change would make it very broad and permissive,
with a potentially chilling effect on seeking help that would be to the greater
detriment of public safety.
The committee took no testimony at all on
this issue. That’s downright reckless. I spoke against it and supported a
motion to send the bill to the Health Care Committee for review – Rep. Ken
Goslant shared the concern and joined in the effort – but it was defeated on a 90-55
roll call vote. We both voted against this conglomerate bill.
***
Listening on Abortion
More barreling forward without listening
came in last week’s public hearing on the proposal 5 constitutional amendment
regarding abortion, where the committee’s leadership structured the hearing in
a way that it limited alternative voices. In an effort at balance, the
longstanding, established process for hearings on contentious differences is to
have two signup sheets – a pro and a con – outside the hearing room, available
a few hours in advance. A time limit for speaking is based upon the anticipated
number of those coming to testify. Speakers are called on in the order they
signed up but alternating between pro and con. If more of one side has signed
up, the remainder are then heard until the end of the hearing.
This time, the leadership chose to limit
the list to the first 70 people to signup, regardless of which position they
listed. There was a Zoom versus in-person option to speak, but either one required
advance signup online. By Monday morning – 2 ½ days before the Wednesday
evening hearing – the cap was met, and the signup link was removed. There was
no way to know how many were turned away or what positions they held. The
hearing lasted well under two hours.
The Human Services Committee then voted
the proposal out of committee the next morning.
***
More on Abortion
I’ve been receiving emails from
constituents on both sides of the proposed constitutional amendment, and I recognize
the passion abortion issues arouse. Polls show that a majority in our state
support the balancing that was involved in the Roe v Wade decision, which
identifies a constitutional right in the privacy interest of women as being
particularly compelling in the earlier months of a pregnancy while also recognizing
a legitimate state interest in the emerging life in the womb by the time of the
third trimester.
The proposed Vermont constitutional
amendment instead proposes one radical extreme, barring any state intervention
at any time during a pregnancy up until birth. It also uses an undefined term –
“reproductive autonomy” – which allows for multiple future unforeseeable court
interpretations. Abortion is never directly referenced in the language.
On a personal level, I have always
supported individual rights to control their reproductive decisions: the right
to choose whether to reproduce and create offspring. Once that biological
reproduction has already occurred because conception has occurred, however, I
do not think that the issue of ending that life is an unfettered individual
right. Constitutional rights cut both ways, and even if attached to its mother’s
body, that life has rights of its own.
I will be voting no when proposal 5 comes
to the floor on Thursday. Ultimately, the voters of our state will make the
decision on this amendment in November.
***
Health Care
Under the Affordable Care Act, the state
has limited times when the benefits covered in plans on the Health Exchange can
be revised, under strict criteria. Our committee heard this week that two
benefits that people have lobbied for could be added: hearing aids and
fertility treatments. The Green Mountain Care Board will make the call on these
changes, including how generous the benefit may be, weighed against the level
of premium increases. Reminder: decisions such as these only affect the 15% of
our insurance products that individuals and small employers buy on the Exchange.
States are not permitted to dictate the benefits covered by large employers,
Medicaid or Medicare.
On the federal level, the new “No
Surprises Act” is a mandate on all private insurance and providers. These
consumer protections address situations where you might receive a much higher
bill even though you cannot control the fact (or even know) that you received
out-of-network care. It also will require that providers give advance estimates
for medical procedures, including about your payment share. This is complicated
because it involves both the provider and your specific insurance plan, so it won’t
come into effect until some technology improvements are in place. It’s a good
example of the push and pull that effect health care costs. These are consumer
protections that have been needed for a long time. However, they will add yet
more paperwork (more costs) to an already burdened system.
A piece of good news affects a small
number of Vermonters in a very big way: The federal administration appears to
finally be moving towards a fix of the so-called “family glitch” under the ACA,
with relief as soon as next plan year. This is a collision point among rules
that causes certain families to face completely unaffordable employer
insurance, yet still be deemed ineligible to buy from the Health Exchange and
receive subsidies or tax credits.
Speaking of subsidies… the huge added
relief currently in effect due to the pandemic remains available on the Health Exchange
to many people who were not previously income eligible. Hundreds of Vermonters
are continuing to buy their individual plans through a private insurer and are
missing out on these subsidies and credits. There is no limit or “open
enrollment” time for changing these plans onto the Health Exchange. If you
don’t know whether you can benefit, you can easily check by filling out the
form at info.healthconnect.vermont.gov/compare-plans/plan-comparison-tool
You
should check! You might save hundreds of dollars! Do I sound like one of those
scam commercials? Well, this time it’s no scam.
***
Please contact me or Ken at any time with
comments or input at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. It
is an honor to represent you.
No comments:
Post a Comment