In dockets, indices and other records, further providing for enforcement of foreign judgments.
Summary
SB 882 amends Pennsylvania’s foreign-judgment enforcement law in Title 42 to create a specific exception for judgments tied to reproductive health care services. Under current law, a foreign judgment filed with a court of common pleas is treated like a Pennsylvania judgment, becomes a lien when filed, and may be enforced, reopened, vacated, or stayed using the same procedures as a local judgment. This bill preserves that general framework but adds a new rule that Pennsylvania courts may not enforce or satisfy a foreign judgment against a judgment creditor when the underlying matter involves the provision or delivery of reproductive health care services.
The bill defines “reproductive health care services” broadly to include medical, surgical, counseling, and referral services related to the human reproductive system, including pregnancy-related care, contraception, and abortion-related services, whether provided in a hospital, clinic, physician’s office, or other medical facility. The practical effect is to limit the use of Pennsylvania courts to collect or give effect to out-of-state judgments arising from disputes over those services, while leaving the rest of the foreign-judgment enforcement statute intact.
Impact
SB 882 would amend 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306 to carve out reproductive health care-related judgments from Pennsylvania’s foreign judgment enforcement process. Courts of common pleas would retain authority to file and enforce foreign judgments generally, but they would be barred from enforcing or satisfying judgments connected to reproductive health care services. This would affect judgment creditors seeking to domesticate out-of-state civil judgments in Pennsylvania and would provide a statutory shield for providers and others involved in reproductive health care from certain out-of-state legal actions.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or roll-call sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be a policy response intended to protect access to reproductive health care and limit the reach of out-of-state judgments in that area. The sponsor list suggests support from senators aligned with reproductive rights protections, but the available record does not show formal committee or floor sentiment.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely whether Pennsylvania should refuse to enforce foreign judgments involving reproductive health care services. Supporters would view the bill as protecting patients, providers, and referral networks from out-of-state legal pressure, especially in the context of abortion and contraception. Opponents may argue that the bill creates a special exception to the full faith and credit treatment of foreign judgments, potentially undermines interstate comity, and could shield conduct that another state has lawfully adjudicated. The bill’s broad definition of reproductive health care services may also be a point of dispute because it covers counseling and referrals as well as direct medical treatment.
In dockets, indices and other records, providing for limited access to eviction information; and requiring the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts to process records.
An Act to amend and reenact §§ 8.01-251, 16.1-69.55, and 16.1-94.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to limitations on enforcement of judgments; docketing of general district court judgments in the circuit court.
In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in recovery of possession, further providing for hearing, judgment, writ of possession and payment of rent by tenant; and making editorial changes.
In wiretapping and electronic surveillance, further providing for definitions; and, in recordings by law enforcement officers, further providing for definitions.