18

Page 18 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2026 BHRC | FROM Page 17 why this legislation is so important, as it takes steps to ensure that all residents in Massachusetts are treated equally under state law, and to protect our communities through practical, thoughtful measures. “The passage of the PROTECT Act sends a clear message that Massachusetts will continue to stand for fairness, due process and human dignity,” said Sen. Pavel Payano (D-Lawrence). “No parent should fear taking their child to school, seeking medical care or appearing in court because of fear. As someone who immigrated as a child, I know fi rsthand what it means when a state keeps its promise that if you work hard and contribute to your community, opportunity should never be out of reach. Today, we reaffi rm that Massachusetts remains a place where opportunity is earned through hard work, not denied because of fear.” “I voted ‘No’ because I feel like this bill inappropriately ties the hands of the police offi cers and sheriff s who put themselves in danger every day to keep our communities safe,” said Rep. Joe McKenna (R-Sutton). “Restricting basic communication and with federal authorities and limiting advance notice when violent offenders, including those convicted of serious crimes, are being released back into our neighborhoods is not sound public service strategy and further drives a wedge between states and the Federal Government. Additionally, I am concerned that much of the bill is simply unenforceable as written given the Supremacy clause. Ultimately, I feel that a cooperative and communicative position with ICE is more productive than deepening the mistrust and adversarial relationship we have. Massachusetts families deserve police who can work for public safety, which unfortunately this unworkable law does not do.” “I voted against the PROTECT Act because the bill is prioritizing illegal immigrants in our communities over lawful residents,” said Rep. Kelly Pease (RWestfi eld). (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Jeff Turco Yes BANNING SCHOOL AND PUBLIC LIBRARY BOOKS AND MATERIALS (H 5489) House 156-1, Senate on a voice vote without a roll call, approved and sent to the governor a bill that supporters said would protect people’s access to library materials and guard against politically motivated book bans in Bay State school libraries and public libraries. The bill requires local policies to be developed using nationally recognized library standards and lays out a process around challenges to library materials. The measure also protects librarians and school library professionals from retaliation. Provisions include ensuring that students have free and open access to library books and other school library materials by establishing clear standards for library teachers and other employees to follow as they select school library materials; requiring that school library materials be age-appropriate, serve an educational purpose and be chosen based on a teacher or employee’s professional training— leaving aside any of their own personal, political or doctrinal views that could aff ect whether or not they place the book on the shelf; requiring all school districts, charter schools and local education agencies to adopt their own policies on how to select library materials as long as the policies align with American Library Association standards; guarding against spurious or unfounded challenges to school library books by keeping a book in question on the shelves unless and until a public hearing process has taken place and the appropriate authority has voted to remove it; and protecting school employees and public librarians from professional, civil or criminal penalties based on their selection of library materials. “The bill we send to the governor’s desk today is a bold statement against the dystopian attempts to ban books in our schools and public libraries,” said Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Provincetown), the lead Senate sponsor of the bill. “Massachusetts is not immune from politically motivated attempts at censorship, and violent threats against librarians have brought real harm to our communities. With this legislation, we safeguard everyone’s right to intellectual discovery, while protecting the people who make our libraries and schools such vibrant places of curiosity and possibility.” “Libraries are among the last truly open spaces where every person can discover new ideas, encounter diff erent perspectives and see themselves refl ected in the stories that shape our communities,” said Sen. Jake Oliveira (D-Ludlow). “This legislation protects the freedom to read by ensuring that decisions about library collections are guided by professional expertise, not political pressure or personal ideology. At a time when intellectual freedom is increasingly being challenged, Massachusetts is reaffi rming that access to knowledge, diverse viewpoints and free expression are essential to a healthy democracy.” “[The bill] makes it more diffi cult for school committees to challenge book selections made by librarians, especially regarding LGBT+ type books that are usually so explicit that they cannot be read in public meetings or even on YouTube without being age restricted,” Said Rep. John Gaskey (R-Carver), the only legislator to vote against the measure. “This is not about banning books as they are all available in a multitude of locations, especially the public library. This is about protecting youth from explicit material, regardless of the topic.” A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Jeff Turco Yes ABORTION (H 5595) House 119-35, Senate on a voice vote without a roll call, approved and sent to Gov. Healey legislation that would loosen restrictions on abortions that can be performed after 24 weeks of gestation. The bill removes existing requirements that limit abortions at 24 weeks of pregnancy or later to four specifi c medical circumstances, and instead allows licensed physicians and providers to rely on their best medical judgment when caring for patients. Supporters said that under current law, the four specifi c categories do not account for the full spectrum of medical conditions encountered by women and their doctors: protecting the patient’s life or physical or mental health, or cases involving a lethal fetal anomaly or a grave fetal diagnosis. “No family should have to leave Massachusetts to receive the vital medical care their own doctors recommend, especially in the most heartbreaking moments of a pregnancy,” said Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem). “With this vote, the Senate makes clear that these deeply personal decisions belong to patients and the physicians who know them best.” “As the Trump Administration ramps up attacks on reproductive care and abortion access nationwide, Massachusetts must continue closing gaps in care so that women have full autonomy over the care they need, when and where they need it,” said Sen. Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester). “[The bill] ensures Massachusetts patients do not have to leave the commonwealth to get the care they need, and empowers physicians to support their patients throughout their pregnancies.” “Throughout relentless attacks on reproductive rights, Massachusetts has prioritized the fundamental rights and health care of its residents,” said Rep. Christine Barber (D-Somerville), House sponsor of the bill. “This bill continues that work. It ensures access to care by empowering physicians to use their professional judgment to make decisions in the best interest of their patients. Pregnancy is complex, and this bill eliminates barriers and guarantees medical expertise as the standard of care. It comes down to a simple, but powerful conviction: decisions about abortion care must remain between a patient and their provider. No one else. With today’s vote, we show our commitment to protecting the rights of our residents of the commonwealth.” Opponents said the legislation allows elective abortions up to birth based solely on a physician’s professional judgment. They said it eliminates the current requirement that complex late-term abortions be performed in a hospital setting, thus allowing abortions on healthy mothers and healthy infants at a stage when unborn children can feel pain and may be able to survive outside the womb. “Late-term abortions present a number of signifi cant risks to women, which is why the procedures have long been performed in hospitals,” said Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. “There is one reason why proabortion activists want to remove hospitals from abortion policy, and it has nothing to do with women’s care or safety. Not one legislator who voted for this has been brave enough to acknowledge the truth, the inconvenient fact that this bill allows heinous dismemberment abortions on perfectly healthy and viable babies. It is accepted science that an unborn baby’s nervous system is developed enough at 24 weeks of pregnancy so that the baby can feel pain. By passing this bill, Massachusetts lawmakers have decided that an abortionist can crush the skull of any infant then tear that baby apart, limb by limb.” “This bill, pushed by radical pro-abortion activist groups like Planned Parenthood, is a dangerous attempt to remove virtually all remaining protections in the commonwealth for unborn babies,” said the Massachusetts Family Institute in a press release. “It allows abortion past 24 weeks with no requirement of medical justifi cation, meaning abortions could be performed at full term, just days before natural birth, for any reason or no reason at all.” The release continued, “In addition, current law requires lateterm abortions to be performed in a hospital — recognition that a procedure this serious, at this stage of pregnancy, demands a hospital’s resources and safeguards. This bill eliminates that requirement. A late-term abortion could legally be performed anywhere a provider chooses, with none of the protections a hospital setting is meant to guarantee. This is not healthcare — this is a direct attack on the dignity of life.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Jeff Turco No PROTECT THE PRESS WITH A SHIELD LAW (S 3200) Senate 40-0, approved an amendment creating the Press Shield Law that would prohibit government bodies from compelling journalists to reveal their sources, except in certain limited circumstances and only with clear and convincing evidence that the source disclosure is necessary and there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure. “As Trump and his Administration accelerate and intensify their attacks on journalism and sources are increasingly afraid to speak up, the Massachusetts Senate takes an historic stand to strengthen our free press and fortify our democracy,” said sponsor Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham). “The need

19 Publizr Home