House Bill 4012 Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Bill on Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Gets Public Hearing in House

Updated: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 3:44 p.m.

The House of Delegates held a public hearing Monday on a bill that would remove abortion from a list of Medicaid services.

The House Judiciary Committee heard comments on House Bill 4012, which would eliminate taxpayer funding for medically necessary abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger.

Opponents argued the bill is unconstitutional. The West Virginia Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 1993, saying that it was discriminatory against low-income women.

Supporters of the bill cited various religious reasons and argued the cost should not be on the burden of taxpayers.

Roughly four times as many people spoke in opposition to the bill as those who spoke in support.

According to the state Department of Health and Human Resources, 1,560 Medicaid-funded abortions were performed in West Virginia during fiscal year 2017 — coming in at a cost of nearly $330,000. Data from 2013 show 502 cases at a cost of nearly $280,000.

House Judiciary Chairman John Shott noted at the end of the hearing that the bill is likely to appear on his committee’s agenda by the end of this week.

Senate Joint Resolution 12, declaring that nothing in the state Constitution protects the right to an abortion or requires the funding of the procedure, unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a voice vote Monday afternoon. The measure now heads to the Senate floor.

If adopted by a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Legislature, SJR 12 would go to a vote of the general public to ratify it as a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

As Senate Committee Takes Up RFRA, Some Senators Unsure of Vote

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee took up the West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act for the first time Friday evening, more than two weeks after the House of Delegates approved the legislation.

As anticipated by some members of the body, the committee began considering a strike and insert amendment, replacing the House version of the bill with new provisions, but before the proposed changes were even handed to lawmakers, some members of the chamber were unsure of how they would vote on the final version.

“I probably would not be able to vote for it the way it stands now, ” Republican Sen. Chris Walters said of the bill Friday morning. “I don’t think that the Christian thing to do is to discriminate in the name of God and, the way the bill is written right now, I’ve got concerns that may be what it can do.”

House Bill 4012 creates a judicial standard for lawsuits brought against the state when a person claims his or her religious freedoms have been violated. Judges will be required to measure the sincerity of that belief when deciding cases.

Those opposed to the bill, though, worry it will allow for discrimination in the state.

“I don’t think there’s anything in there that causes discrimination,” Democratic Sen. Art Kirkendoll said of the House version early Friday. Kirkendoll supports the RFRA bill saying he represents an extremely religious region of the state and his constituents heavily favor the law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee took up a new version of the bill Friday evening, but before seeing the changes, Kirkendoll said he’d prefer to see the bill stay the same.

Walters on the other hand wanted to see amendments that specifically state the law cannot be used to discriminate, like a similar law in Texas, or protections for municipalities that enact non-discrimination ordinances.

The Republican majority has largely backed the measure, but the party has only a two vote lead in the chamber. The bill is expected to be up for a vote next week.

House Committee Tweaks, Passes Religious Freedom Bill

In the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning, members took up House Bill 4012, the West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In its introduced version, this bill would ensure that, in all cases where state action substantially burdens the practice of a person’s religion, judges would be directed to apply strict scrutiny in court procedures. The bill also provides a claim or defense to the person who felt they were wronged.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee took up a committee substitute of the bill that proposed some changes.

“The committee substitute basically intends to…put into law, the test that courts would apply in determining whether or not a person’s interest has been substantially burdened by an action of the state government,” noted House Judiciary Chairman, Delegate John Shott of Mercer County, “some agency of the state government, and it’s sort of a balancing test…the court has to weigh various factors in order to determine whether the action of the state agency or the state government is appropriate, or whether it violates the person’s rights under our state constitution.”

Those in opposition to this bill feel it would create a license to discriminate.

However, supporters say by having a standard or a system in place for court’s to follow; it would determine whether a claim stemmed from a sincere religious belief or not.

After hours of debate, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 16 to 9. It now moves to the House floor for its consideration.