Reproductive Health Care Act hits RI Senate committee
The Rhode Island Senate Committee on Judiciary is considering the Reproductive Health Care Act, also known as Senate Bill 274. The bill would explicitly legalize the right to abortion in Rhode Island, offering an additional protection in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Roe...
The Rhode Island Senate Committee on Judiciary is considering the Reproductive Health Care Act, also known as Senate Bill 274. The bill would explicitly legalize the right to abortion in Rhode Island, offering an additional protection in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade in the future. In conjunction with this bill, SB 660 is being considered. It would repeal the spousal notification requirement prior to an abortion.
More than 150 people showed up to the State House on Tuesday night to give testimony at the hearing, both in support and in opposition to the bills. Among those who spoke was Jamie Budnick, a volunteer with the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women. Budnick spoke in favor of the bills, saying that the issues have felt more pressing since the presidential election last November.
“We really can’t count on the protections of Roe v. Wade anymore,” Budnick said. “We don’t feel safe under this volatile and unpredictable administration, so we want to know that whatever happens at the federal level, our reproductive rights of choice remain the law of the land here in Rhode Island.”
Budnick, along with others who spoke, emphasized that the bills should make it past the committee and onto the floor so that the entire legislature has the opportunity to vote on them.
La-Brina Almeida, a Rhode Island College student from Providence, said that the Reproductive Health Care act is an opportunity for state leaders to empower women.
“It’s their opportunity today to say they support women making their own decisions, taking a step back and really allowing that to be a personal decision,” Almeida said.
People in opposition to the bills cited no need for preemptive legislation, along with moral and religious reasons.