Mass. Legislature strikes deal on ‘shield bill' to protect providers of abortion, gender-affirming care
Detractors say the bill would shield providers from accountability, while backers say
it would further solidify Massachusetts' place as a haven for those seeking medical care that has come under attack by the Trump administration and Republican officials in other states.
Advertisement
Under the bill, doctors could use the title of their practice instead of their name on prescription orders. That would protect individual providers from being targeted by opponents of the mail-order medications, supporters said.
The Massachusetts bill is the first tangible legislative effort Beacon Hill has made to respond as the
Advertisement
Massachusetts is one of
protections for telehealth providers who prescribe medication to patients in other states that may criminalize the practice.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
.
Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
a few seconds ago
- Axios
SEPTA faces final countdown to avoid service cuts
SEPTA has one week to fill its $213 million budget shortfall and avoid massive cutbacks — a reality the transit agency is facing without a once-reliable plan B. Why it matters: The impending service cuts will impact commuters and students returning to schools later this month, and they could interrupt the city's planning for big-ticket events in 2026. The big picture: Pennsylvania's divided government is weeks late in hammering out a budget deal. Amid the biggest sticking points: state transportation funding, including the money SEPTA needs to avert its doomsday service cuts. While Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and the Democratic-controlled House have backed more SEPTA funding, the Republican–controlled Senate has balked at the proposal and called for more agency oversight. Threat level: SEPTA faces an Aug. 14 deadline to get state funding to shore up its budget gap, agency officials said Wednesday. Barring that, a 20% reduction in service across rail, buses and trolleys will begin Aug. 24. What they're saying: SEPTA general manager Scott Sauer said during a Wednesday news conference that the deadline is necessary to schedule service changes across the system, set staff assignments and prepare vehicles. "Time is of the essence," he said. Sauer warned that even if state funding arrives after Aug. 14, SEPTA will need at least 10 days to restore full service. Meanwhile, it appears unlikely that Shapiro can count on an alternate plan to fund SEPTA, as he did last year. Flashback: In 2024, after SEPTA failed to secure more funding in the state budget and faced service cuts, Shapiro directed the transfer of $153 million in federal highway funding to the agency in a maneuver known as " flexing." Shapiro didn't need state lawmakers to sign off on the transfer. But the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), then under former President Joe Biden, had to review and sign off on the transfer. The intrigue: Now without a fellow Democrat in the White House, Shapiro could face a chillier reception to such a request — especially considering Shapiro and President Trump have sparred in the past. SEPTA has not heard of flexing federal funding for the agency being an option so far, agency spokesperson Andrew Busch tells Axios. FHWA spokesperson Angela Gates declined to discuss hypothetical flexing requests. But Gates noted that the federal agency has approved four requests from the state this year for flexing federal funding, but declined to identify them. A spokesperson for Shapiro declined to comment. The spokesperson referred Axios to Shapiro's previous comments in which the governor said budget negotiations were making slow progress. The bottom line: It's likely state budget or bust for SEPTA.
Miami Herald
a few seconds ago
- Miami Herald
You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules
The rules for the popular Diversity Visa Lottery — which allows thousands of people each year to legally immigrate to the United States and apply for a green card — could soon change under a new proposal from the U.S. Department of State. The proposed measures, published Tuesday in the Federal Register, are aligned with several immigration and national security policies reinstated under the Trump administration. Officially known as the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program, the initiative is now under review to improve 'vetting and combatting fraud.' The Department of State's proposal would increase screening for applicants to the program, whose immigrant visas are granted through a computerized lottery. The agency is seeking to require DV applicants to submit 'valid, unexpired passport information and a scanned copy of the passport biographic page and signature page uploaded with their electronic entry form.' Another change would involve replacing the term 'gender' with 'sex,' in compliance with Executive Order 14168, as well as using 'date of birth' instead of 'age' in an effort to improve 'the accuracy of information collected and maintained by the Department throughout the immigrant visa process.' The DV Program is administered by the Department of State and benefits countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.: specifically, nationals of countries from which fewer than 50,000 people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past five years. According to official data, millions of applicants submit their DV entries every year through an online registration form. The Department of State says the proposed requirements would strengthen the security framework against fraud in the DV application and adjudication process. 'Requiring passport information with the DV entry would make it substantially more difficult for unauthorized third parties to submit entries on behalf of individuals with partial information,' the rule states. 'This requirement would also enable the Department to more effectively and efficiently confirm the identities of entrants. The Department also anticipates that this requirement would reduce the number of fraudulent marriages that occur within the DV Program.' Early identification of potential fraud would reduce the need to dedicate 'significant resources' to resolving inconsistencies between the DV entry and the visa application, and to 'determine whether the explanation provided by the applicant is credible or whether the entry was fraudulent.' Each year, 55,000 Diversity Visas are made available to those who meet eligibility criteria and qualify under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and State Department regulations. The proposal includes amending certain visa application forms to require 'a passport number or unique identification number associated with the applicant's valid, unexpired passport; the name on the passport; the country or authority that issued the passport; and the expiration date of the passport.' Additionally, DV applicants would be required to submit a scanned image of the passport's biographic and signature pages. This would, according to the proposal, 'significantly enhance' the department's ability to verify applicants' identities — part of the response to Trump's Executive Order 14161, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, issued on January 20, 2025. With access to a scanned passport image, the department 'seeks to reduce the likelihood of a falsified passport number' and enable adjudicators 'to compare the spelling of the principal entrant's name in the native alphabet on the passport with the spelling of the entrant's name in English as provided on the entry form.' Under the new rules, some applicants would need to obtain a valid passport at the time of submitting their DV entry, rather than after being selected for an interview at a consular office or embassy. The proposed rule is open to public comment for 44 days and is scheduled to close on September 19, 2025.
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
