14

Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2020 A message from Bob Katzen, Publisher of Beacon Hill Roll Call: Join me Sunday nights between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. as we jump in my time capsule and go back to the simpler days of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s for my talk show “The Bob Katzen Baby Boomer and Gen X Fun and Nostalgia Show.” My fi rst guest in 2021 will be Jordan Rich, beloved WBZ Boston radio personality, national voice-over artist, mobile disc jockey, emcee, philanthropist, all-around good guy and a mensch, to boot—on Sunday, January 3 at 7 p.m. Jordan, also well-known for his support and work on behalf of many charities, will talk about his new book “ON AIR: My 50Year Love Aff air with Radio.” Jordan currently hosts a podcast at www.jordanrich.com and is co-owner with Ken Carberry of Chart Productions, an iconic Boston-based audiovideo production company. His book is available on Amazon. All proceeds from the sales of the book benefi t Boston Children’s Hospital—one of Jordan’s favorite charities. There are many ways you can listen to the show from anywhere in the world: • If you have a smart speaker, simply say, “Play WMEX on RADIO.COM” • Download the free RADIO.COM app on your phone or tablet • Listen online at: www.radio. com/1510wmex/listen • Tune into 1510 AM if you still have an AM radio • Visit us at www.bobkatzenshow. com THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of December 21-25. POLICE CHANGES (S 2963) House 107-50, Senate 31-9, approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a new version of a bill making major changes in the state’s policing system. The House and Senate adopted some of Gov. Baker’s amendments including scaling back a moratorium on the use of facial recognition software by law enforcement and limiting the infl uence of a civilianled commission over police training. A key provision creates an independent, civilian-led commission with the power to investigate police misconduct and to certify, restrict, revoke or suspend certifi cation for police offi cers and maintain a publicly available database of decertifi ed offi cers. Other provisions include banning the use of chokeholds; limiting the use of deadly force; requiring police offi cers who witness another offi - cer using force beyond what is necessary or reasonable to intervene; and limiting no-knock police warrants in instances where children or people over 65 are present. “Today’s Senate proposal refl ects the amendments that the governor made to the bill two weeks ago,” said Baker’s communications director Lizzy Guyton. “After discussing the governor’s amendments with the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, the administration believes this package addresses the issues identifi ed by the governor’s amendments and he looks forward to signing this version.” Sen. Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont) noted the original bill was a full ban of facial recognition techniques. “This [new version] is a partial ban, or a limit, a regulation of them, and a study to explore the need for full regulation. It’s a pretty balanced thing. It’s not what everybody wants, but it’s the kind of compromise that hopefully people can recognize is forward motion.” Massachusetts Black and Latino Caucus Chair Rep. Carlos González (D-Springfi eld) and Judiciary House Chair Rep. Claire Cronin (D-Easton) did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on the bill. When the original conference committee version of the bill was approved on December 1, the leaders of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police said in a letter that the legislation leaves police “disregarded, dismissed and disrespected.” “The fi nal compromise legislation is a fi nal attack on police offi cers by lawmakers on Beacon Hill,” the letter read. “It is 129 pages crowded with punitive measures, layers and layers of new bureaucracy and the abridgment of basic due process rights of police. It was delivered with almost zero notice and zero time for our leadership, our legal team and our members to process it before debate and votes were scheduled.” The coalition still has major problems with the new version. “Our efforts, and those of other police organizations, made an impact in important areas, such as preserving qualifi ed immunity for most police offi cers and ensuring that police training will continue to be overseen by qualifi ed public safety personnel,” read the latest letter from the Massachusetts Coalition of Police to its 4,000 plus members. “Unfortunately, the legislative process around police reform was mostly opaque, as opposed to transparent. It almost completely excluded law enforcement, even though police offi cers and their families will be directly impacted more than anyone else in the commonwealth. And fi nally, the conference committee report completely ignored the historic consensus that had been achieved between law enforcement and the Black and Latino caucus.” “We look forward to being part of future commissions into the procurement and use of body cameras, a statewide cadet program, and impacts of emergency hospitalization,” continued the letter. “However, a lack of proper examination and study into a number of crucial portions of this bill will result in collateral damage that will have a negative impact on many of our communities.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Rep. RoseLee Vincent Sen. Joseph Boncore Ye s Ye s Ye s BAKER VETOES BILL TO INCREASE ABORTION ACCESS (H 5179) House 107-50, Senate on a voice vote without a roll call vote, approved the bill that would allow abortions after 24 weeks in the case of lethal fetal anomalies and lower the age from 18 to 16 at which a minor can choose to have an abortion without parental or judicial consent. The House and Senate sent the bill back to Gov. Baker after they rejected several of his proposed amendments including raising the age of consent back to 18. This time, Baker vetoed the entire bill. The House and Senate are poised to override the bill—they have suffi - cient support in each branch to do so. “I strongly support a woman’s right to access reproductive health care, and many provisions of this bill,” said Baker in a letter that accompanied his veto. ”I support, for example, the provision that would enable a woman to access an abortion where the child would not survive after birth, and the modifi cations to the judicial bypass process that make it more accessible to minors who are unable to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian. I also support the changes that eliminate many outdated requirements and the 24-hour waiting period.” “However, I cannot support the sections of this proposal that expand the availability of later-term abortions and permit minors age 16 and 17 to get an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian,” continued Baker. “I again urge the Legislature to enact the compromise version … [that I proposed] that would affi rmatively protect a woman’s right to access an abortion but would restore the existing framework around lateterm abortions and parental consent.” “Gov. Baker’s veto of this legislation demonstrates a callous and dangerous disregard for the health and wellbeing of the people of the commonwealth,” read a statement from the ROE Act Coalition which includes the ACLU of Massachusetts, NARAL ProChoice Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. “With this veto, the governor has made plain that he has no problem imposing medically unnecessary barriers that delay and deny care and forcing families to fl y across the country to get compassionate care. Our abortion laws are broken, and with two recent actions against equitable abortion access, Gov. Baker is upholding our broken system.” “These provisions are supported by large majorities in both chambers, and we respectfully call on the Legislature to override the governor’s veto,” continued the statement. “Unlike Gov. Baker, legislators understand that merely affi rming the abstract right to safe, legal abortion is not enough; we must protect and improve abortion access so every person can get the care they need. It is up to the Legislature to once again lead where Gov. Baker has failed.” “House Speaker DeLeo is spending his Christmas Eve tripling down on abortion extremism, promising that he will fi ght for young girls to have abortions and babies born alive can be left to die,” said Massachusetts Family Institute President Andrew Beckwith. “Santa is going to run out of coal fi lling his stocking.” “Gov. Baker was correct to veto this amendment,” said Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle. “The entire rationale for it was bogus.» “Nothing President Donald Trump’s appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court may do regarding Roe v. Wade will have any impact on the 1981 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Moe v. Hanley, which established a right to abortion under the Massachusetts Constitution,» Doyle continued. «This measure was always about agitprop, fundraising and muscle fl exing by Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, who have successfully exploited and monetized liberal paranoia about Donald Trump and the Supreme Court.” (A «Yes» vote is for the bill expanding abortion. A “No” vote is against it. The Senate did not hold a roll call on the bill last week. The senators’ votes listed are from November 18 when the Senate fi rst approved the measure by a 33-7 vote.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Rep. RoseLee Vincent Sen. Joseph Boncore Ye s N o Ye s HEALTH CARE AND TELEHEALTH (S 2984) House 157-0, Senate 40-0, approved and sent to Gov. Baker, a conference committee report of a bill that sponsors say will increase access to health care, protect patients and enhance quality care. The bill requires behavioral health treatment delivered via telehealth to be permanently reimbursed by insurers at the same rate as in-person services. A similar reimbursement structure will also be implemented for primary care and chronic disease management services delivered via telehealth for two years. All other telehealth care services will be reimbursed at the same rate as in-person services for the duration of the COVID-19 state of emergency, and 90 days after its expiration. It also eliminates “surprise billing,” the much-criticized practice of charging unsuspecting patients who received health care services outside of their insurance plan’s network for costs that insurers refuse to pay. Other provisions would allow registered nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists and psychiatric nurse mental health specialists who meet specifi c education and training standards to practice independently; recognize pharmacists as health care providers, enabling them to integrate more fully into coordinated care teams; allow Massachusetts optometrists to treat glaucoma; and ensure that critical services related to treatment of COVID-19 would be covered by insurance carriers, including MassHealth, at no cost to consumers. “[We are] pleased the House and Senate conference committee fi nalized a health care bill that takes important steps to protect consumers and ensure access to health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” said Amy Rosenthal, Executive Director of Health Care For All. “We commend legislative leaders for making progress on important policies that are critical to the health and health care of millions of Massachusetts residents, and we thank the conferees for their work during a very challenging time.” “This conference committee report embraces the best of both the Senate and House bills to create comprehensive and necessary healthcare reforms,” said Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington), Senate chair of the Committee on Health Care Financing. “While there is still more to do to improve patient outcomes and access to care, this bill takes a meaningful step forward by ensuring that the commonwealth’s healthcare system can continue to meet the needs of patients during this unprecedented time, and long after the COVID-19 pandemic has ended.” «The conference report continues to advance our goal of transforming mental health care access and delivery in Massachusetts,» said Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Truro), House chair of the Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery. «This legislation will do so much good, but particularly it will expand mental health care access for rural residents, people of color, working families, and young people.” Lora Pellegrini, President of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans (MAHP) said the group is a strong supporter of ensuring telehealth services for the members and the employers it serves. “Telehealth has been an important tool to ensure members have continued access to provider services during closures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In order for telehealth to truly deliver on its promise of increased access to high-quality care at lower costs, it is imperative that market-based negotiations set the reimbursement rate and any extension of mandated rates of payment be timelimited. We applaud the conference committee for ensuring that some telehealth services can be negotiated after the current state of emergency, but we are concerned that it will require health plans to reimburse for other services at the same rate as inperson visits for two years.” “While we are pleased with other provisions in the bill, such as the increased Medicaid payment rates for community hospitals, MAHP is disappointed that the fi nal conference agreement did not address the welldocumented and growing concern of surprise billing in a comprehensive way,” continued Pellegrini. “Congress passed legislation which may result in higher premiums for employers and consumers, making it more important than ever that the Massachusetts Legislature establish a policy for out of network providers that is fair, but does not provide an excessive rate of payment. We look forward to working with the House and Senate on this important issue in the next session.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Rep. RoseLee Vincent Sen. Joseph Boncore Ye s Ye s Ye s COVID SPENDING WEBSITE (H 5187) House 31-126, Senate 4-35, rejected Gov. Baker’s amendment to a bill requiring the state to create a searchable website that will show how the state spends the federal funds it receives to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baker’s amendment made several changes including deleting a section that requires the site to be updated on a weekly basis and replacing it with a requirement it be updated on a “regular” basis. “I am supportive of the intent of this section and the Offi ce of Administration and Finance is currently developing such a website,” said Baker in a letter attached to his amendment. “However, some of the requirements included in the section are unable to be implemented or are administratively burdensome, such as a requirement that the website be updated weekly. Additionally, I am recommending that the February 1, 2021 deadline to implement this section be extended until March 30, 2021 in order ensure that the site is fully operative.” Opponents of the amendment said a weekly update is important, so people know where these millions of dollars are being spent. They said requiring a “regular” report is too vague and doesn’t mean anything. READERS: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY WHAT A YES AND NO VOTE MEAN. (In the House, a «Yes» vote is for Baker’s amendment. A «No» vote is against Baker’s amendment.) (In the Senate, the vote was on a motion to REJECT Baker’s amendment. Therefore, a «Yes» vote is BEACON | SEE Page 15

15 Publizr Home