Transcript Highlights:

• An act to amend the public health law in relation to providing practical support for access to abortion
• An act to amend the public health law and the civil rights law in relation to prohibiting the making
• An act to amend the public health law in relation to enact in the New York State Abortion Clinical Training
• To amend the public health law in relation to enacting the New York State Abortion Clinical Training
• An act to amend the Public Health Law, the County Law, the Executive Law, and the State Finance Law in

Committee: Senate Health

Summary: The Health Committee met to consider a series of bills, many of them repeat proposals from prior sessions. Early measures included S.11 on disclosure for non-invasive prenatal screening, S.92 allowing redaction of certain physician names from birth certificates, S.135 creating practical support grants for abortion care, S.428A requiring chain restaurants to label high-sodium menu items, S.555 prohibiting visual images of people undergoing medical treatment without consent, and S.1614A establishing presumptive Medicaid eligibility for people leaving incarceration. The committee also advanced S.1438A to create an abortion clinical training program, S.1468 on access to medical records and limiting copy charges to actual cost, S.1619 expanding pharmacists’ authority to order and administer certain tests, and S.1714 banning the use of “excited delirium” as a diagnosis or cause of death. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on S.1633A, which would add protections for sensitive health information and allow patients to restrict disclosure of specified categories of data. One senator argued the bill could hinder care by limiting access to complete records, especially in emergencies, while supporters said the measure was needed to protect patients and providers from legal action by other states or the federal government, particularly in reproductive health cases. Staff clarified that the bill would allow segregation of specific sensitive data rather than locking an entire record. The committee also discussed S.1913, a 340B prescription drug anti-discrimination bill; supporters said it would protect safety-net providers and federally qualified health centers from pharmaceutical company practices, while one senator raised concerns about broad state intervention in a federal program. Additional bills advanced included S.5981 establishing a comprehensive sexual and reproductive health program, S.6178 directing a sickle cell disparity study, S.7457 permitting cremation or natural organic reduction for certain unclaimed decedents, S.7541 moving up reporting timelines for licensed home care services agencies, and S.8257A directing an alternative payment methodology for federally qualified health centers to support fertility care. Most bills were moved by committee vote, generally with some opposition or without recommendation, and were referred to first reading, rules, or finance as appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.
• Good afternoon, Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.
• , including abortion.
• Making abortion care an emergency service that is protected under EMTALA.
• The problem with naming abortion as the only required medical intervention gives abortion disproportionate

Committee: House Health

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on March 25, 2025, with Chair Mia Bonta presiding. The committee heard several bills focused on health access and equity, including AB 73 to create a Black Mental Health Navigator certification, AB 499 to lower the state reimbursement trigger for the Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan, AB 843 to strengthen language access protections in health coverage, AB 257 to pilot a specialty care network using telehealth and virtual services, AB 64 to allow diacritical marks on vital records, AB 315 to expand the Home and Community-Based Alternatives waiver, and AB 40 to clarify that emergency services include reproductive health care, including abortion. Supporters emphasized disparities in care, workforce shortages, cultural and language barriers, and the need to preserve or expand access for Black Californians, farmworkers, people with disabilities, and limited-English-proficient patients. Opposition to AB 40 argued that abortion should not be defined as emergency care and raised concerns about fetal considerations and ER burden. The committee took testimony on each measure, with many bills drawing broad support from advocacy groups, medical organizations, disability rights groups, and affected individuals. AB 257’s author and witnesses said the proposal would use California-based clinicians and improve specialty access in underserved areas; AB 315’s supporters described it as a cost-saving, dignity-preserving program for medically fragile Californians, with more than 5,400 people on a waiting list. AB 64’s witnesses described personal harm caused by the inability to record names accurately on state documents. AB 843 was presented as aligning state law with federal language access rules to protect patients with limited English proficiency. Votes were taken after quorum was established, and the committee advanced the measures, generally on party-line or near-unanimous votes. AB 499, AB 73, AB 843, AB 257, AB 64, AB 315, and the committee rules were all reported out, many to Appropriations, and the consent calendar was also approved. AB 40 was approved despite one no vote from Vice Chair Chen. Several items were initially placed on call and later lifted as members added their votes before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've already got this clearly lined out in law.
• Well, this bill is about abortion, as we can see.
• This doesn't challenge any aspect of constitutional law related to abortion.
• , born alive and just ensures that under our new constitutional law, it's clear to the abortion provider
• This bill came through general laws and passed out unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's an abortion regulation measure.
• has been quite a while, because I was here when they enacted that law.
• .considerations under the previous analysis about abortion being fundamental as well.
• Are there other laws that are like that? I have to get back to you after checking. Right.
• but the exercise of the law now that we have this fundamental right, just to note.

Summary: The Rules Committee considered House Bill 2074, which the Rules Attorney described as an abortion-related reporting measure tied to Arizona’s 2024 constitutional amendment (Prop. 139) protecting a fundamental right to abortion. He noted that the new constitutional landscape makes the bill’s legality uncertain and that the reporting requirement could be viewed as interfering with that right. Members asked about the misdemeanor penalty and whether other Arizona laws impose reporting requirements on the exercise of a fundamental right. Representative Daniel Santos opposed the bill, arguing it would criminalize doctors, nurses, and volunteers and violate the will of the voters. The committee voted 5-3 to recommend HB 2074 as constitutional and in proper form. The committee then took up a mass motion covering numerous other bills, memorials, and a resolution, all recommended as constitutional and in proper form. The Rules Attorney said the measures were generally in proper form, with one comment on House Bill 2110, which concerns prayer at school board meetings. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed prayer at some governmental meetings, but lower courts are split on whether school board meetings fall under that rule, and he said the sponsor was working with the office on a possible floor amendment to address legal concerns. After no further questions, the committee voted 8-0 to recommend the measures in the mass motion as constitutional and in proper form. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• law.
• law.
• law.
• law.
• </c> in law regardless of who it is the law in law regardless of who it is the law should<05:10:26.600

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 662, which would require public schools to include discussion of abortion procedures and show specified videos in health education classes. The prime sponsor argued the bill would ensure students receive medically accurate, age-appropriate, and nonpolitical information about abortion, saying the topic is important for informed decision-making and should be taught consistently statewide. He said the videos were intended for grades 9-12, that parents could opt out, and that the requirement was meant to supplement, not sway, students’ views. He also acknowledged the bill could be seen as limiting local control over curriculum and said the intent was to prevent the topic from being missed due to scheduling disruptions. Committee members questioned the sponsor about local control, the need for a video mandate, the source of his statistics, whether the bill could be biased or inflammatory, and whether the requirement should apply every year in high school. The sponsor said the videos were only a starting point, could be replaced by others, and were meant to be informational. He also said the bill was not intended to influence students’ decisions about abortion. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives of New Hampshire Right to Life and others who said students should be told the “truth” about abortion and its consequences. They emphasized graphic or emotionally difficult aspects of abortion and argued that young people need this information to make informed choices. Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about prescribing curriculum, eroding local control, and the appropriateness of the material for younger high school students. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association said the bill was overly prescriptive, that health education standards are already set by the State Board of Education, and that the topics in the bill are not part of the current standards. That witness recommended the committee consider retaining the bill for further work or making it less prescriptive. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have abortion in our Constitution. The Constitution overrules any law that we pass.
• So we have abortion in our Constitution. The Constitution overrules any law that we pass.
• law means you should fight back against law enforcement when you don't agree with law enforcement.
• law means you should fight back against law enforcement when you don't agree with law enforcement.
• law means you should fight back against law enforcement when you don't agree with law enforcement.

Summary: The House opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior journal, and several recognitions and guest introductions, including Arizona medical, dental hygiene, hearing-access, and Taekwondo Day visitors. Members also observed a moment of silence for two Arizona Department of Public Safety personnel killed in a helicopter crash while responding to an active shooter incident in Flagstaff. The chamber then moved through committee reports, first and second readings, and multiple Committee of the Whole calendars. On the first and second calendars, the House advanced a series of bills with mostly unanimous or near-unanimous committee-of-the-whole votes, including HB 2075, HB 2120, HB 2155, HB 2328, H.R. 2004, HB 2051, HB 2072, HB 2178, HB 2203, and HB 2395. Several of these measures dealt with health and education topics, including Medicaid lactation services and lactation consultant certification, while HB 2203 was described as an education efficiency bill reducing duplicative reporting requirements. HB 2043 drew the most debate, with supporters calling it a cleanup measure to allow felony-murder charges involving unborn children and opponents warning it was an anti-abortion/personhood bill with broader implications for contraception, IVF, and other care; it still received a do-pass recommendation. On the third calendar, the House considered HB 2010, HB 2043, HB 2108, HB 2135, and HB 2310. HB 2108, described by supporters as a pro-law-enforcement bill addressing fleeing or eluding police, drew concerns about broad criminal definitions and potential overreach, but advanced. HB 2310, on independent contractor status, and HB 2135, with a floor amendment, also advanced. The chamber then took up third readings: HB 2008, concerning school libraries and public funding for library associations, passed 33-25; H.R. 2004, a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of Attorney General Kris Mayes’s public statements, also passed 33-25 after extensive partisan debate and several points of order. The House then adopted the Committee of the Whole reports, referred passed measures for engrossing, and adjourned until Monday, February 9, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• to comply with your law.
• certain abortions are permitted under West Virginia law so if somebody tries not in your home not in
• It says illegal abortion. We're not changing the abortion code.
• I want to point out that in our current abortion law we make it clear in 16-2R that a woman cannot be
• laws.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then took up House Bill 4852, a strike-and-insert bill revising West Virginia’s food additive restrictions. Counsel explained that it moved the existing additive list into a new code section, kept the 2028 effective date, added exceptions for dietary supplements, alcoholic liquor, non-intoxicating beer, and small sellers under $5,000 per month, and created civil penalties for knowing violations. Testimony split between industry witnesses, who argued the bill and last year’s law would raise costs, burden interstate commerce, and conflict with federal regulation, and advocates who said the law is already prompting companies to reformulate and that the bill clarifies vague language tied to a federal injunction. Several amendments were offered to tie the law to FDA action or exempt soda, pepperoni rolls, frozen confections, and snack foods; some were adopted and others failed. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment as amended and reported HB 4852 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee next considered House Bill 5484, which creates felony offenses for interfering with a victim’s access to medical treatment or forensic care related to a sexual offense, or for forcing a victim of a sexual offense who becomes pregnant to have an illegal abortion, along with a conspiracy offense. Counsel said the strike-and-insert added clarifying language and definitions. Members raised concerns that the conspiracy language could be read to include the victim herself, and the bill sponsor said the intent was to target traffickers and abusers who keep victims from medical care and force abortions outside medical facilities. An amendment was adopted clarifying that nothing in the subsection imposes criminal liability on the victim of the sexual offense. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment, reported HB 5484 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation, and adopted a title amendment. The final bill discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 4468, which narrows confidentiality protections for victims in criminal complaints by limiting redaction to names and addresses, while still allowing disclosure to other governmental entities and permitting victims to request redaction of addresses from appellate decisions after July 1, 2026. Counsel said the bill would replace broader existing confidentiality language and remove provisions allowing disclosure upon a showing of justice or by subpoena. Members questioned whether the change would weaken victim privacy protections, noting that identifying information can include much more than names and addresses. The committee then began hearing testimony from a county prosecutor on the bill, but the excerpt ends before any vote or final action on HB 4468.

Transcript Highlights:

• Importantly, this bill also protects veterans under current law.
• And I wanted to underscore: treated equally under existing law.
• This will ensure that veterans who cannot receive abortion care or abortion counseling through the VA
• Under this new policy, the VA can only provide abortion in life-threatening circumstances.
• care or even abortion counseling.

Committee: Senate Military and Veterans Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• These definitions and requirements are essentially already in federal law.
• So in states where abortion bans or severe restrictions on abortion have come into play, we have seen
• And the treatment in those circumstances was an abortion.
• And the treatment in those circumstances was an abortion.
• And abortion is not even an issue in that case.

Committee: House House Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• So laws don't change that.
• There are other states that have this law and also have the abortion restrictions that we have.
• Our law is different. Amongst those 43 states, there are differences with their laws.
• Our law is different.
• It has no companionship in the sense of the law under tort law.

Summary: The committee first heard HB 133, which would lower the minimum age to purchase a long gun from 21 to 18. The sponsor said the bill restores the rights of law-abiding 18-year-olds. Public testimony was sharply divided, with supporters from Gun Owners of America and Florida Carry arguing that adults 18 and older should have equal Second Amendment rights and that current law is inconsistent with other adult responsibilities, while opponents, including gun violence prevention advocates, students, parents, and Parkland-related speakers, said the bill would reverse a post-Parkland safety measure and increase risks of suicide, accidental shootings, and school violence. Several members debated the bill, with opponents emphasizing Parkland, the Florida State shooting, and public polling showing broad opposition; supporters stressed parental responsibility, mental health, and constitutional rights. HB 133 was then reported favorably on a roll call vote of 13 yeas, with several members voting no. The committee then took up CS/HB 289, which would revise Florida’s wrongful death law to allow parents to recover damages for the death of an unborn child. The sponsor said the bill is intended to let grieving parents seek civil remedies, and members questioned how it would apply in situations involving surrogacy, rape, ectopic pregnancy, medical care, and damages calculations. The sponsor said the bill would not allow suits against the mother, would not apply to lawful non-negligent medical care, and would be handled through ordinary wrongful death damage proof before a jury. Public testimony was again split: supporters from pro-life and faith groups said the bill recognizes unborn children and aligns Florida with many other states, while opponents from civil liberties, reproductive rights, and advocacy groups warned it could be used to target abortion providers, helpers, and even families or businesses in miscarriage-related cases, and could be weaponized by abusive partners. The transcript ends during testimony on HB 289, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• government from funding abortions directly.
• We are not funding abortion.
• , this funding is not for abortion care.
• Federal government does not cover abortion care.
• Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• Virginia Law School and a master's degree in environmental law from Pace University.
• But let me ask you this as an attorney: doesn't federal law preempt state law?
• Not every federal law preempts state laws. It could be. ...unconstitutional.
• Yeah, to enforce the law. In what regards?
• My job is, Senator, to enforce the laws.

Committee: Senate Finance Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• government from funding abortions directly.
• We are not funding abortion.
• , this funding is not for abortion care.
• Federal government does not cover abortion care.
• Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 106, an early-action budget bill providing $90 million one-time General Fund to support reproductive health providers affected by the federal H.R. 1 prohibition on Medicaid funding. Department of Finance staff explained that the money would be administered as grants through the Department of Health Care Access and Information because affected providers can no longer bill Medi-Cal during the federal restriction, which lasts through July 4, 2026. Members also discussed why the amount increased from an earlier $60 million estimate, with Finance saying the figure was updated based on additional claims data and provider information. The committee debate focused heavily on the policy implications of the funding. Supporters argued the bill is an emergency response to a targeted federal attack on Planned Parenthood and related family planning services, emphasizing that the funding would backfill non-abortion services such as cancer screenings, contraception, STI testing, mammograms, and prenatal care. Opponents questioned the use of General Fund dollars, the grant structure versus loans for other distressed providers, the Public Records Act exemption, and the bill’s priority compared with rural hospitals, developmental services, public safety, and other budget needs. Finance clarified that the federal funds at issue do not pay for abortion services and that the grant program would be open to eligible providers meeting criteria set by the department. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support from Planned Parenthood affiliates, Essential Access Health, Western Center on Law and Poverty, the California Medical Association, family physicians, OBGYN groups, and others, while some commenters used the opportunity to raise unrelated budget concerns such as Medi-Cal dental cuts, IHSS, and CalHome funding. After discussion, the committee approved AB 106 on a 12-4 vote and reported it out. The chair also noted that a later hearing would examine broader H.R. 1 impacts in more detail.

Transcript Highlights:

• Words matter, especially in medicine, law, and grief.
• Words matter, especially in medicine, law, and grief.
• ' and 'missed abortion.'
• Was it an abortion? No. Not according to the CDC.
• Well, we need it because it is the law.

Committees: Senate Health & Welfare , Senate Health and Welfare

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 13 with a quorum present and approved the prior meeting minutes. The committee first heard HB 971, which would equalize Medicaid reimbursement rates between independent clinics and hospital-owned rural health clinics; supporters said independent clinics are disadvantaged by a large payment disparity, and the bill was reported favorable without objection. The committee also recognized visiting Alpha Phi Alpha members and other guests during personal privilege remarks. Members then considered HB 414, which would bar hiring certain health care workers and direct support professionals with serious disqualifying convictions from other states and address background-check issues for therapeutic group homes. After adopting three amendment sets, the bill was reported as amended. HB 740, creating an independent review process for Medicaid behavioral health claim disputes in the coordinated system of care, was amended to clarify applicability and CSOC definitions and then reported as amended. HB 288, which would place the term “miscarriage” alongside “spontaneous abortion” in medical documentation, drew emotional testimony from affected parents and advocates; the committee reported it favorable. The committee also advanced several more bills: HB 405, updating the name of the national acupuncture certifying body, was reported favorable; HB 786, prohibiting extrapolation in certain managed-care claims recoupments, was reported favorable; HB 1095, allowing alternative backup power sources for nursing homes, was reported favorable; HB 403, raising the cottage food gross-sales cap, was amended from $50,000 to $150,000 and then reported favorable; HB 930, modernizing cosmetic-product regulation and creating a small-producer exemption, was reported favorable; HB 557, defining long-term pharmacies for policy purposes, was reported favorable; HB 779, on expedited partner therapy for sexually transmitted diseases, was reported favorable; HB 915, setting utilization-management timelines and standards, was reported favorable; HB 546, expanding criteria for peace officers to take someone into protective custody during a mental health crisis, was reported favorable; HB 796, creating a chiropractic preceptorship program, was reported favorable; and HB 933, authorizing commemorative birth certificates, was reported favorable. The final major item was HB 1041, a “no-mandate” bill barring discrimination based on medical intervention status. The sponsor and Surgeon General said it was aimed at healthy, asymptomatic individuals and not at public health quarantine powers, but Senator Boudreaux objected to exemptions for schools and hospitals and offered an amendment to restore broader coverage. That amendment failed on a roll-call vote, and the bill remained under discussion as the transcript ended, with no final committee disposition shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other parts of the law?
• The problem is that any determination of the lawfulness of abortion care will only be after a civil lawsuit
• A practitioner of the law and as someone who took an oath to practice the law and uphold the law, it
• is a perversion of the law.
• Husband drove the wife to an abortion clinic. Abortion clinic and then sued her two years later.

Bills: HJR 99 , HB 1399 , HB 1400 , HB 1094 , HB 365 , HB 1109 , HB 647 , HCR 35 , SB 14 , HB 12 , HB 1522 , HB 422 , HB 675 , HB 204 , HB 748 , HB 912 , HJR 99 , HB 1399 , HB 1400 , HB 1094 , HB 365 , HB 1109 , HB 647 , HCR 35 , HCR 123 , HCR 124 , HR 57 , HR 87 , HR 111 , HR 228 , HR 230 , HR 322 , HR 624 , HR 625 , HR 626 , HR 627 , HR 628 , HR 630 , HR 631 , HR 634 , HR 635 , HR 636 , HR 637 , HR 638 , HR 639 , HR 640 , HR 645 , HR 646 , HR 648 , HR 649 , HR 651 , HR 652 , HR 653 , HR 654 , HR 664 , HR 665 , HR 668 , HR 675 , HR 676 , HR 678 , HR 679 , HR 680 , HR 683 , HR 686 , HR 688 , HR 689 , HR 694 , HR 695 , HR 697 , HR 698 , HR 699 , HR 472 , HR 622 , HR 632 , HR 633 , HR 643 , HR 655 , HR 657 , HR 660 , HR 661 , HR 662 , HR 663 , HR 667 , HR 670 , HR 674 , HR 681 , HR 682 , HR 696

Transcript Highlights:

• government from funding abortions directly.
• We are not funding abortion.
• , this funding is not for abortion care. ...abortion, this funding is not for abortion care.
• Federal government does not cover abortion care.
• Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 106, an early-action budget bill providing $90 million one-time General Fund to support reproductive health providers affected by the federal H.R. 1 Medicaid funding prohibition. Department of Finance staff explained that the money would be administered as grants by the Department of Health Care Access and Information because affected providers can no longer bill Medi-Cal during the federal restriction, which runs through July 4, 2026. The Legislative Analyst’s Office had no additional comments. Members also discussed related budget context, including the broader estimated loss to California providers, the use of grant funding rather than loans, and provisions exempting some contract and records information from public disclosure. Committee debate focused on whether the funding was an appropriate priority amid other budget pressures. Supporters argued the bill is an emergency response to a targeted federal attack on Planned Parenthood and other family planning providers, emphasizing that the clinics provide broader primary care services such as cancer screenings, STI testing, contraception, and prenatal care, and that the funding is not for abortion services because federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used for abortion. Opponents questioned the size of the appropriation, the use of General Fund dollars, the transparency exemptions, and why similar aid was not being directed to rural hospitals, disability services, Proposition 36, or other budget needs. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support from reproductive health, medical, and health equity organizations, with some unrelated comments urging funding for dental care, disability services, housing, and county health systems. After public comment, the committee voted on AB 106 and passed it on a 12-4 vote. The bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• He hopes to attend law school after that.
• He hopes to attend law school after that.
• 2405 DCS information, 248 nursing board expungement, 2410 artificial intelligence, 404 of course abortion-aborting
• reporting requirements, 2526 abortion medication, 2527 telemedic abortion prohibition, 2528 fertility
• notarized, 2653 abortion repealed, 2657 law enforcement agencies, 2660 health boards, 2665 manslaughter

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> 0.26 it says um notwithstanding any laws 0.26 it says um notwithstanding any laws to<00:07:22.759
• , promote abortion, or refer people.
• It doesn't say that the organization cannot talk about abortion or advise about abortion.
• </c> written right now it's an anti-abortion written right now it's an anti-abortion bill<00:46:52.400
• </c><00:48:59.559><c> it</c> abortion or advise about abortion it abortion or advise about abortion it

Bills: HF25 , HF1 , HF428

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:

• The problem is that any determination of lawfulness of abortion care will only be after a civil lawsuit
• The problem is that any determination of lawfulness of an abortion care will only be. problem is that
• any determination of lawfulness of an abortion care will only be after a civil lawsuit for damages has
• uphold the law, it's the perversion of the law.
• It's about the law.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the pledge, quorum call, and several recognitions, including guests for Education and Sharing Day, law enforcement officer of the day Detective Miata Anderson, and later FAMU Day at the Capitol and other visiting groups. The chamber adopted the special order report and then moved through a series of budget-related bills and conforming measures, with debate focused largely on recurring funding, environmental programs, housing, insurance reserves, and tax policy. Members approved HB 5011/SB 2506, which conform environmental resource funding to the proposed budget by shifting Seminole Gaming Compact-related dollars from recurring to nonrecurring funding; supporters said this preserves annual legislative review, while opponents warned it would reduce funding for the Resilient Florida program, wildlife corridor protection, invasive species removal, and other conservation efforts. The House then passed HB 5013, reducing state-funded property reinsurance reserves by lowering the RAP program and repealing FORA funding, and HB 5501, which redirects documentary stamp tax revenues from housing and transportation trust funds to general revenue; Democrats argued the housing changes would reduce affordable housing support, while Republicans said the move was needed to control recurring spending. The chamber also passed HB 5015 on state group insurance, HB 5201 on Florida PALM accounting conforming changes, HB 5203 on Capitol Center tenancy and utilities control, and HB 5009 creating a Florida Accountability Office and revising audit and budgeting functions. The most extended debate came on HB 7031, which permanently reduces the state sales tax rate from 6% to 5.25% and also lowers several related tax rates. Supporters described it as broad-based, immediate tax relief for Floridians, while opponents said property tax relief would be more targeted and that sales tax cuts also benefit tourists and out-of-state visitors. The bill passed 112-0. The House then took up the main budget bill, HB 501, and subcommittee chairs outlined the proposed $112.9 billion budget, including education, health care, transportation, agriculture and natural resources, higher education, state administration, justice, and IT spending. Members began questioning the pre-K-12 budget on school funding, vouchers, proration, mental health and safety allocations, and inflation, with the discussion continuing beyond the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Words matter, especially in medicine, law, and grief.
• and missed abortion.
• Was it an abortion? No. Not according to the CDC.
• Well, we need it because it is the law.
• It makes Louisiana's laws compliant with the new federal laws that recently went into effect.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 13 and approved the minutes from the prior week before taking up a series of House bills, many of them with testimony from sponsors, agency officials, and stakeholders. Early action included HB 971, which would direct LDH to equalize Medicaid reimbursement rates between independent rural health clinics and hospital-owned rural health clinics; the sponsor described a significant payment disparity and the committee reported the bill favorably. The committee also deferred HB 1030 and HB 796 until the following week before moving to other items on the agenda. Several bills dealing with Medicaid and provider regulation were advanced. HB 414, as amended, closes a loophole so health care providers cannot hire unlicensed workers with certain serious out-of-state convictions; amendments addressed effective dates, FBI background-check issues for therapeutic group homes, and delays for direct support professional applicants caused by minor record issues. HB 740, as amended, creates an independent review process for Medicaid claims disputes in the coordinated system of care for behavioral health providers, with amendments clarifying applicability dates and program definitions. HB 786, which prohibits extrapolation in managed care claims recoupments and requires recovery to be based on actual overpayments or underpayments, was also reported favorably. HB 915 set timelines and accountability standards for prior authorization and utilization management in Medicaid managed care and was reported favorably after testimony about delays in care. The committee also heard and passed several bills affecting health professions and facilities. HB 405 simply updates the name of the national acupuncture certification body. HB 1095 allows nursing homes to use alternative power sources while keeping existing generator and fuel requirements. HB 557 defines long-term care pharmacies for policy purposes. HB 779 authorizes expedited partner therapy prescriptions for certain sexually transmitted diseases. HB 933 creates an optional commemorative birth certificate, with part of the fee going to the Office of Women’s Health. HB 796, carried by another representative for the author, establishes a chiropractic preceptorship program with on-site supervision requirements and was reported favorably after questions about student training and patient safety. The committee also heard emotionally charged testimony on HB 288, which would place the term “miscarriage” alongside “spontaneous abortion” in medical documentation and patient communication. Several witnesses described the distress caused by current coding language, and supporters said the change would make records more compassionate and understandable; the bill was reported favorably. HB 403 increased the cottage food gross-sales cap, and after testimony from small producers and the committee’s discussion of other states’ higher limits, an amendment raised the cap to $150,000 before the bill was reported favorably. HB 930 modernizes cosmetic-product regulation and creates a small home-based producer exemption under a wholesale-sales threshold; it was also reported favorably. Finally, HB 1041, a no-mandate bill restricting discrimination based on medical intervention status, prompted extended debate over exemptions for schools, hospitals, and other entities, with one amendment failing on a roll-call vote and the discussion continuing over the scope of the bill and federal funding concerns.