RI doctors could be prosecuted for providing care banned in other states. This law would protect them.

Rhode Island lawmakers are weighing a so-called "shield law" to protect doctors who provide reproductive health care or transgender health care for out-of-state patients.

Eleven Democrat-led states, including neighboring Massachusetts and Connecticut, have passed similar laws in response to restrictions on abortion and gender-affirming care in Republican-led states.

The laws anticipate a scenario where health care providers could face lawsuits or criminal charges for performing abortions on patients who have traveled from states where the procedure is illegal – or providing telemedicine for transgender youth who legally can't be treated by doctors in their home state.

"This is not hypothetical," Michael Miglori of the Rhode Island Medical Society said at a Tuesday hearing of the House Judiciary committee. "There are already two suits in Rhode Island naming individuals here."

What the bills would do

H 7577, introduced by Rep. John Edwards, D-Tiverton, and S 2262, introduced by Sen. Dawn Euer, D-Newport, would apply to doctors and other health care professionals who are licensed and physically present in Rhode Island, provided that they're complying with local regulations and standards.

Known as the Health Care Provider Shield Act, the wide-ranging companion bills deem providing transgender or reproductive health care services to be a legally protected activity "regardless of the patient’s location or whether the health care provider is licensed in the state where the patient is located at the time the service is rendered."

More: RI's health care system is 'in critical condition.' This bill package aims to stop the bleeding.

The Health Care Provider Shield Act would offer the following protections for providers who, as a result of that protected activity, face "hostile litigation" or criminal sanctions from other states:

• Health care providers couldn't be arrested and extradited, or forced to give testimony or hand over documents in civil cases. Local courts would not "give any force or effect" to judgments lodged against them.

• Providers would not face professional discipline in Rhode Island on the basis of criminal, civil or disciplinary actions taken against them in other states. Insurance companies and health care facilities also could not penalize them.

• Law-enforcement agencies and other public bodies could not "provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation."

• Local courts could not issue warrants "for the interception of any communication or conversation for the purpose of investigating or recovering evidence."

• Businesses based or incorporated in Rhode Island would be banned from providing records or information in response to a subpoena, warrant or court order.

The bill does not include explicit protections of providers who send abortion pills to patients in states where abortion is heavily restricted or illegal. Some states, such as Massachusetts, have passed telemedicine shield laws that specifically address prescribing across state lines.

Physicians, Department of Health support bill

The Health Care Provider Shield Act has support from the Rhode Island Department of Health and a long list of groups including the American Medical Society, the Rhode Island Medical Society, Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, ACLU of Rhode Island, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and Rhode Island Kids Count.

Numerous physicians testified on Tuesday that without shield legislation, Rhode Island faces the risk of having more doctors relocate out of state – making the shortage of care providers even worse.

"Retention of medical providers in this state is challenging enough," Miglori said. He told the committee that the two individuals who have been named in out-of-state lawsuits were "specifically targeted because of their expertise" – namely, the fact that they took part in creating national standards for transgender health care.

Interim health department director Utpala Bandy said in written testimony that the bill would "improve patient access to reproductive and transgender health care by legally protecting these services under state law and should increase the likelihood that reproductive and transgender health care providers will want to be licensed to provide such services in Rhode Island."

There was virtually no testimony opposing the bill, with the exception of comments submitted by Stacey Capizzano of Providence, who wrote, "Any law that is attempted to pass on a state level in order to protect it from litigation, is a GIANT red flag! Why not all health care? There need to be checks & balances in order to actually be fair to all."

Supporters of the bill categorized it as a way to protect the privacy of Rhode Islanders, in addition to those seeking medical care in the state. Katharina De Klerk, a family medicine doctor, said that it would benefit part-time residents such as college students and snowbirds, as well as people who often travel for their jobs.

In written testimony, James L. Madara of the American Medical Society said that physicians are facing a "complex and often inconsistent web of state laws," which raises significant concerns.

"Much is still unknown about how other states can seek to enforce laws that criminalize medical care and whether the provision of legal medical care in one state can expose a physician to civil, criminal or professional liability in another state where such care is prohibited," he wrote.

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI could adopt shield laws for transgender, reproductive health care