There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.
Ban conversion therapy for anyone under 18 (H 140)
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 8-1 against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ children under 18 in Colorado. The court sided with a therapist who argued that the law violates the First Amendment and sent it back to a lower court for review.
Conversion therapy is primarily used to try to convert gays and lesbians to be straight. LGBTQ groups and some mental health experts charge that the practice is scientifically unproven and can trigger depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.
Massachusetts is one of several states that currently ban or restrict conversion therapy. The Supreme Court’s decision to send the case back down to the lower court to make a determination regarding the future of Colorado’s law doesn’t change the laws of Massachusetts or any other state.
On March 13, 2019, the House, 149-8 and then 148-8, approved a bill that prohibits psychiatrists, psychologists and other health care providers from attempting to change the sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of anyone under 18. On March 28, 2019, the Senate, 34-0, approved a different version of the bill. A few days later, the House and Senate agreed on a final version and approved it on a voice vote without a roll call. Former Gov. Charlie Baker signed that final version of the bill into law on April 8, 2019.
“I’m incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Gov. Maura Healey. “So-called conversion therapy is dangerous, discredited and has been shown to cause real harm to young people. That’s why Massachusetts banned this practice on a bipartisan basis in 2019, and it was signed into law by a Republican governor. That’s who we are as a state. We are reviewing the impact of this decision, but our commitment is unchanged. In Massachusetts, we will always stand up for LGBTQ+ young people and their families, and make sure they are safe, healthy and able to be who they are.”
“[The] decision not only undermines efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth but also disregards years of scientific research showing that conversion therapy can have a devastating impact on the mental, emotional and physical health of young people,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “We are reviewing the court’s decision, and I will continue using every tool available to stand firmly against any attempt to legitimize practices that put our young people at risk.”
“The Supreme Court made clear that counseling conversations are protected speech, and the government cannot favor one viewpoint over another,” said a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center. “We are hopeful this decision will open the door to challenging similar laws in Massachusetts and restoring the freedom of counselors to speak honestly with those they serve.”
There were two roll calls on the bill in the House. Two representatives changed their votes on the second roll call.
Rep. Susannah Whipps, I-Athol, was first recorded as voting “no” and then was recorded as voting “yes” on the second roll call. Whipps told Beacon Hill Roll Call, “During the 2019 roll call, my vote was incorrectly recorded. I immediately notified the clerk and speaker and requested a correction. A second roll call was taken to reflect my actual position, and I voted against conversion therapy. That reflects my position then and now.”
Rep. Nick Boldyga, R-Southwick, was first recorded as voting “yes” and then was recorded as voting “no” on the second roll call. Boldyga did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to explain why he was recorded as voting differently on the two roll calls.
A “yes” vote is for the bill banning conversion therapy. A “no” vote is against the bill banning conversion therapy and supports allowing the therapy. There was only one roll call in the Senate while the House held two roll calls.
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — Was not yet elected
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — No/Yes
- Sen. Jo Comerford — Yes
- Sen. Paul Mark — Yes
Also up on Beacon Hill
Legal age to buy tobacco, alcohol and other adult-use products (H 5271)
The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to a bill that would provide that any state law that establishes a minimum age for the purchase of a product or service, or for participation in an activity, supersedes and preempts any rule, regulation, ordinance or bylaw of a local city or town. The law would apply to products including tobacco products, nicotine delivery systems, alcoholic beverages and gambling.
Supporters say that some cities and towns have implemented local age restrictions on these sales that are stricter and conflict with state law. They argued that this patchwork of local laws is confusing and unfair, and said the state should have the power to make these local laws null and void while ensuring that any state law supersedes a local law on sales.
Stephen Helfer, co-founder of Cambridge Citizens for Smokers’ Rights, said he applauds this proposal and supports that state law supersede any hodgepodge of local regulations.
“Retailers with multiple locations are hurt by the zealousness of some municipalities who wish to erode adult choice,” Helfer continued. “Adults are infantilized by health zealots who think they know what everybody should do. Isn’t this the state where individual liberty was born?”
Opponents say that local cities and towns should retain the right that allows them to determine the age required to purchase these products. They argued that local law should supersede any state law.
A related proposal (S 1568) heard by the Public Health Committee last July would eventually end the sale of all nicotine and tobacco products in Massachusetts. The proposal does not take away the right to purchase nicotine and tobacco products from anyone who is already legally able to do so. Instead, the measure would prohibit people under 21 who are not currently old enough to legally purchase nicotine and tobacco products from ever being lawfully able to buy these products in Massachusetts.
The legislation was shipped off to a study committee last December. Most bills that go to a study committee are rarely actually studied and are essentially defeated. It is simply a way to kill a proposal without holding a vote on the bill itself.
Protecting vulnerable adults from financial exploitation (H 5300)
The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to a bill that would create a law to address the financial exploitation of persons with disabilities and adults ages 60 and older. The bill defines financial exploitation as “the wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding or use of money, assets or property of an eligible adult.”
“In a state like Massachusetts, where our aging population is growing rapidly, safeguarding vulnerable adults isn’t optional, it’s a responsibility,” said sponsor Rep. Paul McMurtry, D-Dedham. “This bill strikes the right balance between protection, privacy and professional judgment.”
Municipal light plants (H 2566)
Municipal light plants, which are local publicly owned utilities, are trying to run broadband internet in their communities. To do that, they need to attach fiber-optic cables to existing utility poles, which are usually owned by private utility companies like electric or telecom companies. Instead of building new expensive poles, the municipal light plant rents space on these existing poles and pays the utility company a fee that is set by the state.
A bill, given initial approval by the House, on a voice vote without a roll call, would prohibit utility companies from compelling municipal light plants to incur unreasonable direct or indirect costs, such as requiring them to produce a surety bond (a type of financial guarantee) that exceeds the fees previously established by the state.
Supporters said the bill, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Saunders, D-Belchertown, would prohibit utility companies from charging light plants a costly and unnecessary fee, beyond the fee for the rental of the space on the poles that utilities are currently allowed to impose on small municipal broadband providers. The surety bonds, supporters also note, function less as a real safeguard and more as an added expense that ultimately drives up costs for customers.