HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2622

BYRepresentatives Belcher, Appelwick, Miller, Prince, Vekich, Wang, Brough, Rayburn, Nutley, Locke, Dellwo, R. Fisher, P. King, R. Meyers, Wineberry, Brooks, Crane, Cole, G. Fisher, Scott, Fraser, Grant, Inslee, Braddock, Rust, Haugen, Heavey, Raiter, Prentice, Valle, Jacobsen, Leonard, Phillips, Holland, R. King, Brekke, Nelson and Anderson

Pertaining to interference with health care.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Belcher, Dellwo, Forner, Inslee, P. King, Locke, R. Meyers, H. Myers, Schmidt, Scott, and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (4)

      Signed by Representatives Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Moyer, D. Sommers and Tate.

House Staff:Bill Perry (786-7123)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY FEBRUARY 1, 1990

BACKGROUND:

During the past several years, a number of demonstrations and protests have occurred at health care facilities, particularly facilities that perform abortions.  Some of these demonstrations have led to criminal arrests and prosecutions.  Some have led to civil lawsuits.  In some cases restraining orders have been issued against demonstrators by courts.

A 1986 Washington Supreme Court decision, Bering v. Share, upheld the issuance of a permanent injunction against a group who had demonstrated at a health care center.  The clinic offered a variety of health care services, including abortion.  The injunction prohibited a variety of activities including: (1) picketing, demonstrating or counseling at the center, except at a designated location; (2) threatening, assaulting, intimidating or coercing anyone entering or leaving the center; (3) interfering with ingress or egress at the center or its parking lot; (4) trespassing on the premises; (5) engaging in any unlawful activity directed at the center's doctors or patients; and (6) making specific oral statements.

The supreme court concluded in a six to three opinion that these restrictions on First Amendment rights of speech were justified by the state's compelling interest in assuring reasonable access to health care for its citizens.  The dissenters disagreed with the decision of the majority as to those portions of the injunction that restricted the location of the demonstrations and that prohibited specific oral statements.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Criminal and civil sanctions are imposed for certain activities that interfere with access at a health care facility or that disrupt the normal functioning of the facility.  Prohibited activities include intentional, willful or reckless behavior that results in such interference or disruption.  The prohibited willful or reckless behavior includes physically obstructing the free passage of people and trespassing on the premises.  The prohibited intentional behavior includes anonymously or repeatedly phoning the facility, or threatening facility workers or patients, or allowing the use of a phone under one's control to be used for such phoning or threatening.

A criminal conviction for doing any of these prohibited acts carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $5,000 fine.  Mandatory minimum sentences are provided as well. For a first conviction the minimum sentence is one day in jail and a $250 fine; for a second conviction it is seven days in jail and a $500 fine; and for a third conviction it is 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

In a criminal prosecution, the court is directed to impose conditions on pretrial release of the defendant that will reasonably insure that the defendant will not commit a violation of the act pending trial.

Police officers are given authority to arrest persons without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that they have committed a violation of the act within the previous 24 hours.

A party injured by a violation of the act may bring a civil lawsuit against the violator.  The civil law suit is not dependent upon a criminal conviction or a criminal prosecution going forward.  Punitive damages of $500 per day for an individual plaintiff and $5,000 per day for a plaintiff that is a health care facility, plus costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees are authorized in addition to actual damages.

The prohibitions in the act do not apply to the actions of law enforcement officers, to agents of the owners of a facility, or to collective bargaining representatives, so long as they are acting within the scope of their employment.  The Legislature expresses its intent that the act not cover activity otherwise regulated by state or federal administrative agencies. However, labor disputes or other activities that do result in willful, reckless or intentional interference or obstruction under the act are subject to the criminal and civil penalties of the act.

Courts are directed to take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the privacy of patients or health care providers who are parties or witnesses to proceedings under the act.  In carrying out this directive, the court may issue protective orders and orders prohibiting prejudicial testimony. In civil actions the plaintiff may sue using a false name, if there is good cause to do so.  Criminal justice agencies are directed to release information, including photographs, that would assist a civil litigant, unless the release would jeopardize a criminal investigation.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill contains additional prohibited activity that constitutes willful or reckless interference.  That prohibited activity is making noise that unreasonably disturbs the peace within a health care facility.

The original bill prohibits suspension or deferral of the mandatory minimum criminal penalties except for fines when a defendant is found to be indigent.

The original bill expressly states that the bill does not apply to activities regulated by state or federal agencies.  The substitute changes this provision to a statement of legislative intent, and provides that labor disputes or other activities that interfere with health care facilities are covered by the bill.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Michele Rodosevich and Lisa Stone, Northwest Women's Law Center; Karen Douglass; Harold Clure, Washington State Medical Association.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Sue Liljenberg, Heart to Heart Ministries; Vernon Mailler, Puget Sound Pro Life; Denise Holland and Alex Olsen.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Recent demonstrations at health care clinics have seriously threatened the health and safety of patients seeking a variety of health care.  Current laws are inadequate to prevent the continuance of these activities.  Current remedies are cumbersome and slow and often more expensive than they are worth.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The bill discriminates against one point of view on the abortion issue.  Current criminal and civil remedies are sufficient to deal with the activities complained of.  The bill threatens freedom of speech, and is too vague to give adequate notice to citizens about what conduct is prohibited.