Bill Text: NJ A3428 | 2022-2023 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Repeals P.L.2021, c.375, concerning abortion and other matters.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 3-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2022-03-08 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Health Committee [A3428 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2022-A3428-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Assemblyman RONALD S. DANCER
District 12 (Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean)
SYNOPSIS
Repeals P.L.2021, c.375, concerning abortion and other matters.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning abortion and other matters and repealing P.L.2021, c.375.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. P.L.2021, c.375 (C. , C. , C. , and C. ) is repealed.
2. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT
This bill would repeal P.L.2021, c.375, which codified certain State Supreme Court holdings concerning abortion and other matters. The law expresses the policy that existing and future laws are to be interpreted in a manner that best preserves "the freedom of reproductive choice," which means, among other things, virtually unfettered access to abortion until the moment of birth. In the sponsor's view, P.L.2021, c.375 disingenuously purports to provide that new laws to the contrary are to be deemed invalid, even though no statutory law can prevent the enactment and enforcement of subsequent statutory laws or constitutional amendments.
The law additionally permits the Department of Banking and Insurance, following completion of a study, to require health benefits plans to require coverage for abortion services. However, the sponsor notes that the use of "permissive" rather than mandatory language is belied by other provisions in the law that declare it to be State policy to "advance comprehensive insurance coverage for reproductive care, including primary reproductive health care services, services to terminate a pregnancy, long-acting contraceptives, and long-term supplies of hormonal contraceptives, that enabled the citizens of New Jersey to fully exercise their freedom of reproductive choice..."
P.L.2021, c.375 includes a process to grant an exemption from these coverage mandates only to "religious employers," and the sponsor notes that the law defines the term "religious employer" to mean only nonprofit churches, their integrated auxiliaries and conventions or associations of churches, and the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. This excludes not only the vast majority of nonprofits, but notably, closely-held for-profit corporations, such as a retail store chain that won a United States Supreme Court ruling, on religious freedom grounds, against a federal mandate that the chain provide workers with insurance coverage for abortifacients, which are abortion-inducing drugs.
Additionally, the sponsor notes that the law is so vague in many respects that it is unclear what effect its provisions may have. For instance, the State has had, for decades, "conscience clause" laws allowing medical professionals and others to decline to participate in abortion procedures without consequence. Under P.L.2021, c.375, it is unclear whether these longstanding protections for religious or moral principles against such participation will survive.
P.L.2021, c.375 also provides that its provisions may be enforced under the "New Jersey Civil Rights Act," P.L.2004, c.143 (C.10:6-1 et seq.), or in any other manner provided by law. The sponsor notes that there are unresolved questions about the effects of this vague provision, such as whether it allows lawsuits under the "New Jersey Civil Rights Act" against persons who peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to oppose abortion or who invoke the "conscience clause" laws, or against public officials who propose or enact laws or policies that a litigant argues do not conform with the provisions and the express or implied purposes of P.L.2021, c.375. In the sponsor's view, it is entirely unclear what a court may find to be an "implied purpose" of the law.
Finally, the sponsor notes that the text of the law as proposed was made available for review by the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee and the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and those who wished to provide testimony before the committees, only minutes before the committees began to take testimony on the bill that became P.L.2021, c.375. The text of the bill was only available for three full days - a Friday and the weekend - before the Legislature held final votes on the bill. It is the sponsor's strong belief that the Legislature should be more respectful to the people of the State by taking an appropriate amount of time to review a very significant and controversial proposal, and allowing the public to do the same and comment with more preparation, before enacting the proposal into law.
The repeal of P.L.2021, c.375 will take effect immediately upon the enactment of this bill.
