19

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – Friday, April 5, 2019 Page 19 THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local legislators’ votes on roll calls from the week March 25-29. $8 MILLION FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROVIDERS (H3638) House 140-14, Senate 335, approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a bill to provide up to $8 million for family planning providers. The Trump administration recently announced it would no longer direct federal funds which support family planning services for low-income residents, toward any clinic that provides, refers or offers counseling on abortions. The $8 million would be used to replace whatever funding Massachusetts clinics lose under the new Trump rule which also faces a legal challenge from 21 states, including Massachusetts, but will go into effect in May if it is not blocked in court. “Once again, where Washington falls short, we in the commonwealth are ready and willing to step up and fill the needed gap,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chair Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston). “We cannot allow people’s health care to be put at risk because of the narrow-minded politics of the Trump administration. Today, we are taking the first step to put a stop to this.” Michlewitz noted that an estimated 75,000 Massachusetts residents, most of whom earn less than $30,000 a year, would be impacted by the cut in federal funding. “This action by the House is nothing but a giveaway of our tax dollars to the abortion business,” said Chanel Prunier, executive director of the Renew Massachusetts Coalition which opposes the funding. “The CEO of Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts makes over $250,000 annually, and they spend millions each year on political advocacy and campaign efforts. So why are our taxes making up for their funding shortfall?” (A “Yes” vote is for the $8 million. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle Yes Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes BAN CONVERSION THERAPY FOR ANYONE UNDER 18 (S 2187) Senate 34-0, approved a bill that would prohibit psychiatrists, psychologists and other health care providers from attempting to change the sexual orientaBUYER1 Gurung, Soniya Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen tion, gender identity or gender expression of anyone under 18. Conversion therapy exposes the person to a stimulus while simultaneously subjecting him or her to some form of discomfort. The therapy is primarily used to try to convert gays and lesbians to be straight. The House has approved its own version of the bill and the Senate version now goes to the House for consideration. Both branches approved a similar bill last year but it never made it to Gov. Baker’s desk. “If a conversion therapy bill gets to my desk and we don’t see any other issues with it, it’s something we’d be inclined to support,” Baker said recently. Mental health experts and LGBTQ groups charge that the practice is scientifically unproven and unsound and can trigger depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts in these youngsters subjected to it. “We have a responsibility to ensure a safe and supportive environment for all young people,” said Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), the Senate sponsor of the bill. “Seeking to force a child to change one’s identity or orientation at such a vulnerable point in their young lives inflicts significant harm and is no less than child abuse.” Shortly after the vote, the Human Rights Campaign tweeted, “Victory: the Massachusetts Senate just voted to protect #LGBTQ youth from the dangerous and debunked practice of so-called ‘conversion therapy.’” “This [is] an appalling assault on parental rights in the commonwealth,” said the president of the Massachusetts Family Institute Andrew Beckwith who opposes the ban. “[Some] legislators apparently believe that parents should not be able to get gender-confused children any treatment, even counseling, that might help them avoid cross-sex hormone injections, sterility or ‘transition’ surgery.” Five senators voted “present” BUYER2 rather than for or against the bill. “We want to be clear that we do not support conversion therapy or any other type of coercive therapy that purports to change a person’s sexuality or gender identity,” said Sen. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth). “If there were evidence of these practices taking place in Massachusetts, we would wholeheartedly support banning them. However, we have serious concerns about the way this legislation infringes on the constitutional rights of licensed professionals to provide mental health counseling and talk therapy using the knowledge, judgment and expertise that they have acquired through years of study and practice. The vague wording of the legislation provides too much room for interpretation in an area that requires caution and precision from government intervention. By voting ‘present’ we hoped to register our concerns while making it clear that these types of coercive therapies have no place in the commonwealth.” (A “Yes” vote is for the ban). Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THERAPY BAN (S 2187) Senate 6-32, rejected a proposal asking the Supreme Judicial Court to advise the Senate on whether the therapy ban is constitutional. The court would be asked if the bill violates the provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by violating the right of free speech of professional counselors; the constitutional rights of parents; or the constitutional or statutory rights of privacy or patient confidentiality. Supporters of asking the court about the constitutionality of the therapy ban said they support the conversion therapy ban but are concerned that the ban is likely to be challenged. They believe the Senate should get an opinion before the challenge in order to ensure the bill doesn’t get delayed. “We are confident that the pending bill is constitutional,” said Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem) who opposed getting the court’s opinion. “It relies on well-established authority of the state to regulate professional conduct.” (A “Yes” vote is for getting a court opinion. A “No” vote is against getting it). Sen. Sal DiDomenico No REMOVE CAP ON WELFARE BENEFITS FOR KIDS (S 2186) Senate 37-1, approved a bill that repeals the current law that denies an additional $100 per month in welfare benefits to children conceived while—or soon after—the family began receiving welfare benefits or, if they had received family welfare benefits in the past. The law was adopted in 1995 as part of a welfare reform package that was aimed at discouraging families already receiving public support from having more children. The House has approved its own version of the bill and the Senate version now goes to the House for consideration. Supporters of the repeal said that there are some 8,700 children who currently fall under the cap in the Bay State. These families are barred from receiving an additional $100 a month to help support that child. They said there are no facts to back up the charge that families are having more children in order to get the additional $100. “I have heard countless personal accounts from many families who are hurt by this cap on kids,” said Sen. Sal DiDomenico (DEverett), the Senate sponsor of the proposal. “Because their benefits are so low, parents with ‘capped’ children struggle to meet their families’ basic needs. For instance, they often can’t pay for enough diapers to keep their child clean, dry and healthy. And they are forced to make painful choices about which necessities they can afford. We know that it’s time to take action to repeal this outdated, ineffective and unjust policy, and show that we value all children equally, regardless of the circumstances of their birth." “I think it's unfair to ask the constituents back home to pay for a benefit for others that they don’t get themselves,” said Sen. Don Humason (R-Westfield), the only opponent of the bill. He said the Legislature should have a big heart and take care of people but noted he also needs to listen to his constituents who tell him they are having a difficult time making ends meet and are limiting the number of children they have. He said his constituents tell him they are not eligible for any welfare benefits but are forced to pay these benefits for others who decide to have more children. (A “Yes” vote is for removing the cap. A “No” vote is against removing it). Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK'S SESSION? Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature's job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session. During the week of March 25-29, the House met for a total of eight hours and 54 minutes while the Senate met for a total of four hours and 33 minutes. Mon., March 25 House 11:05 a.m. to 1:44 p.m. Senate 11:10 a.m. to 11:22 a.m. Tues., March 26 No House session No Senate session Wed., March 27 House 11:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. No Senate session Thurs., March 28 House 11:00 a.m. to 2:16 p.m. Fri., March 29 No House session Senate 12:01 p.m. to 4:22 p.m. No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com REAL ESTATE TRANSAC TIONS SELLER1 SELLER2 Dajci, Tony Stour, Abdellah Heilbron, Avery A Nakkorti, Mohammed Occhiolini, Sandra Duong, Yu L ADDRESS 103 Kinsman St 48 Tappan St 9 Park Ter CITY Everett Everett Everett DATE 14.03.2019 19.03.2019 18.03.2019 PRICE $760 000,00 $425 000,00 $525 000,00

20 Publizr Home