Vermont Digger | Jody Woos: What is a shield law and why do we need it now?

Vermont needs a shield law now to protect our health care workers who are providing reproductive care services via telemedicine to people in states where abortion is restricted or banned.

We are a national public health emergency RIGHT NOW.

Half of U.S. states have restricted, are moving toward, or have already banned abortion. Millions of women and others who become pregnant have already lost access to essential reproductive health care. The consequences are increased hardship and trauma, damaged health, and increased rates of serious illness and death. 

The impacts will especially hit the working class and people of color. 

We read every day about the tragic dilemmas facing medical providers in abortion-restricted states. How do you define emergencies and conditions that might result in a pregnant person’s death? What determines whether a person’s condition threatens their life enough to justify an abortion under the new laws?

Dr. Alison Haddock, an emergency physician in Houston and chair of the board of the American College of Emergency Physicians, quoted in The New York Times, states, “We’re no longer basing our judgment on the clinical needs of the woman; we’re basing it on what we understand the legal situation to be.”

The biggest thing that we can do in Vermont to respond to this emergency is to convince Gov. Scott to sign an executive order shield law that would protect Vermonters providing reproductive care via telemedicine. States hostile to abortion have made it clear that they want to prohibit abortion entirely, both inside and outside of their borders. A Vermont shield law protects abortion health care workers here, where abortion is protected and accessible, from civil and criminal consequences stemming from abortion care provided to an out-of-state resident. 

Our telehealth professionals could serve people where bans and restrictions have been enacted, providing safe and effective reproductive care. We have willing providers, but they need legal protections.

There are two important precedents to this demand for a shield law.

First, as part of the Covid-19 state of emergency, Gov. Phil Scott issued Executive Order 1-20 on March 13, 2020. Item 15 of the order says, “Relevant rules governing medical services shall be suspended to the extent necessary to permit such personnel to provide … telemedicine to facilitate treatment of patients in place.” This allowed people coming into Vermont due to Covid-19 to continue being served by their home-state health care providers. 

The shield law we are advocating is the reverse of this, allowing Vermont health care providers to provide services to people living out of Vermont, in particular where reproductive health care is now restricted.

Gov. Scott has demonstrated a willingness to issue executive orders. Recent ones include Executive Order 03-22, establishing a search and rescue council (March 22, 2022), Executive Order 02-22, expressing solidarity with Ukraine (March 3, 2022), and Executive Order 08-21, creating the Vermont Interagency Afterschool Youth Task Force. A shield law must be his next executive order!

The second precedent: On July 29, 2022, Massachusetts’ emergency shield law was passed by its legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, the entire process taking less than three months. The law includes: 1) protection of health professionals’ licenses for providing legally permitted health care in Massachusetts to patients in other states; 2) protection against criminal and civil penalties; 3) noncooperation with punitive legal expeditions launched by anti-abortion prosecutors in other states; 4) nondiscrimination of malpractice insurance carriers toward abortion and reproductive health services provided by health professionals; 5) similar legal and licensing protections to pharmacies and other institutions involved in providing abortion and reproductive health services; and 6) privacy guarantees to protect medical records from subpoenas. 

“Today Massachusetts has made it indisputably clear: Our commonwealth will stand up to hostile attacks on lifesaving and life-affirming health care," said Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now.

Let us say the same thing about Vermont — that we stand up to, and direct our actions against, the hostility and cruelty of other states.

The bottom line: We need a shield law now, initially through executive order by Gov. Scott and affirmed by the Legislature during the next session. Our law must match the standard set by Massachusetts and include all of its provisions. Anything less would leave our providers vulnerable.

Vermont must position itself as a beacon of reproductive justice by voting for the Reproductive Liberty Amendment to protect the rights of women and people who can become pregnant and by enacting a shield law to defend abortion doctors providing services to people in states with bans.