Requesting The Attorney General To Investigate Whether Crisis Pregnancy Centers Operating In The State Are Complying With Patient Privacy Regulations.
Summary
H.R. 138 is a House Resolution that asks the Hawaii Attorney General to investigate whether crisis pregnancy centers operating in the state are complying with patient privacy regulations. The resolution frames the request in the context of Hawaii’s privacy and reproductive-rights history, citing the state’s legalization of abortion, later protections for reproductive health care, and concerns raised by recent studies and reporting about how crisis pregnancy centers collect, describe, and use patient information.
The resolution does not itself change substantive law or create new penalties. Instead, it directs the Attorney General to review compliance issues and to report findings and recommendations, including any proposed legislation, to the Legislature before the 2026 Regular Session. It also calls for copies of the resolution to be sent to the Governor and Attorney General, making it a formal legislative request for executive-branch review and possible future policy action.
Impact
Because this is a resolution rather than a bill, it has no direct effect on state statutes, licensing rules, or enforcement standards. Its practical impact is to prompt an investigation into whether crisis pregnancy centers are handling patient data in a way that complies with existing privacy laws and regulations, including any applicable health-information protections. The resolution could lead to a report, administrative scrutiny, or later legislation if the Attorney General identifies gaps in current law or enforcement.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of reproductive privacy and skeptical of crisis pregnancy centers’ practices. The measure is built around concerns that these centers may present themselves as medical providers while collecting sensitive personal information and potentially using misleading health-related claims. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so the available context shows the bill’s sponsor-side framing but not any recorded opposition or bipartisan support.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether crisis pregnancy centers should be treated as a privacy-enforcement concern and whether the state should scrutinize organizations that are generally associated with anti-abortion advocacy. Supporters of the resolution emphasize patient privacy, informed consent, and the risk that centers may collect data under the appearance of medical services. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the resolution targets constitutionally protected speech or religiously affiliated nonprofits, or that existing privacy laws are sufficient without a special investigation.
Same As
Requesting The Attorney General To Investigate Whether Crisis Pregnancy Centers Operating In The State Are Complying With Patient Privacy Regulations.
Enacting the pregnancy center autonomy and rights of expression act to protect the ability of private pregnancy centers to provide life-affirming care.