TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2019 3:17 P.M.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME

TO ORDER.

RABBI RUBIN WILL OFFER A PRAYER.

RABBI ISRAEL RUBIN: IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

KOHELET, THE WISE KING SOLOMON TEACHES THERE'S A TIME AND THERE IS A

SEASON FOR ALL THINGS UNDER THE SUN. A TIME TO PLANT, A TIME TO UPROOT, A

TIME TO SOW AND A TIME TO HARVEST. IT MAY THUS SEEM STRANGE, EVEN

IRONIC, THAT THE JEWISH CALENDAR SCHEDULES TU BISHVAT, THE NEW YEAR

FOR TREES, IN THE FREEZING DREAD COLD OF WINTER, WHEN TREES AND MEN

SHIVER IN THE COLD, AND THE BARE BRANCHES ARE DRESSED IN WHITE SNOW

INSTEAD OF WEARING THEIR NATURAL FOLIAGE OF LEAVES AND FRUIT. BUT THIS IS

A TIME OF INNER PLANNING AND PREPARATION. AT THIS VERY TIME WE ARE TOLD

THE ARTERIES OF THE TREE DEEP WITHIN BEGIN TO FLOW WITH FRESH SAP,

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

PREPARING TO GROW IN THE MONTHS AHEAD TO SPRING FORTH AND FLOURISH IN

THE SPRING AND SUMMER AND EVENTUALLY YIELD ITS PRECIOUS FRUIT AND

BOUNTY.

THE BIBLE IN DEUTERONOMY TEACHES US FOR MAN IS A

TREE IN THE FIELD. SIMILAR TO THE TREES STANDING OUTSIDE, DISTINGUISHED

MEN AND WOMEN IN THIS HISTORIC CAPITOL ASSEMBLE TO PLAN AHEAD FOR

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THESE VIEWS AND

PERSPECTIVES FLOW THROUGH THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT,

EVENTUALLY PRODUCING THE BUDGET AS THE FRUIT OF THEIR EXTENSIVE DEBATE

AND DISCUSSION.

ALMIGHTY GOD, WE ARE SO THANKFUL WITH GRATITUDE FOR

THE PAST, AND PRAY FOR YOUR BLESSINGS IN THE FUTURE. INSPIRED BY THIS

NEW YEAR FOR TREES, WE PRAY THAT YOU GRANT WISDOM AND

UNDERSTANDING TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THIS IMPORTANT ASSEMBLY.

MAY THE LEGISLATIVE SEEDS SOWN HERE NOW YIELD GOOD FRUIT, ENABLING THE

PEOPLE AND PROGRAMS OF THE GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK TO FLOURISH AND TO

BLOSSOM. AMEN.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: VISITORS ARE INVITED

TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

(WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY LED VISITORS AND

MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)

A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE

JOURNAL OF MONDAY, JANUARY 21ST.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL OF JANUARY 21ST, AND

ASK THAT THE SAME BE APPROVED.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO

ORDERED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, AS YOU

KNOW, YESTERDAY WE CELEBRATED AROUND THE STATE AND AROUND THE

COUNTRY AND, QUITE FRANKLY, AROUND THE WORLD, THE LIFE OF DR. MARTIN

LUTHER KING. AND SO, MY QUOTE FOR TODAY, MR. SPEAKER, COMES FROM

DR. KING. IT READS AS: "WE NEED LEADERS NOT IN LOVE WITH MONEY, BUT

IN LOVE WITH JUSTICE. NOT IN LOVE WITH PUBLICITY, BUT IN LOVE WITH

HUMANITY." THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF THE GREAT DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING.

WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, WE MAY HAVE QUITE A BIT

GOING ON TODAY, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KIND OF LAY OUT OUR

SCHEDULE RIGHT NOW. AND SO, MEMBERS HAVE ON THEIR DESK A MAIN

CALENDAR, AND AFTER A COUPLE OF INTRODUCTIONS AND SOME HOUSEKEEPING,

OUR PRINCIPAL WORK FOR TODAY WILL BE TO TAKE UP THREE WOMEN'S RIGHTS

BILLS: CALENDAR NO. 1 IS THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT BY

ASSEMBLYMEMBER GLICK; CALENDAR NO. 7 IS THE LEGISLATION BY

ASSEMBLYMEMBER JAFFEE DEALING WITH DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYERS ON

EMPLOYEE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS AND CALENDAR NO. 8 IS THE

COMPREHENSIVE CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER CAHILL.

MR. SPEAKER, WE ALSO HAVE A SERIES OF RULE CHANGES

THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE MINORITY AND WE WILL TAKE THOSE UP

IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEALING WITH THE ISSUES OF REPRODUCTIVE -- WOMEN'S

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HEALTH ISSUES.

AND SO, THAT'S THE GENERAL OUTLINE, MR. SPEAKER. AND

IF THERE IS SOME INTRODUCTIONS OR HOUSEKEEPING THAT YOU THINK IS

APPROPRIATE, NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY.

WE HAVE A (SIC) INTRODUCTION BY MS. FAHY.

MS. FAHY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND THANK

YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO DO A VERY SPECIAL WELCOME TODAY TO RABBI

RUBIN, WHO JUST OPENED WITH OUR OPENING PRAYER, AND IN SUCH ELOQUENT

WORDS STARTED US OFF TODAY. AND I -- I HAVE TO SAY, I LOVE THE COMMENTS

THAT THE LEGISLATIVE SEEDS SOWN HERE TODAY, THAT THE GOOD WISHES THAT HE

MENTIONED WILL HOPEFULLY BEAR FRUIT, ESPECIALLY SINCE TODAY IS A VERY

SPECIAL DAY WITH THE TU BISHVAT. AND I'M SORRY IF I'M NOT SAYING IT

RIGHT, RABBI, I'M -- BUT IT IS THE NEW YEAR OF TREES.

RABBI RUBIN, ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF OTHERS, AND

ESPECIALLY A NUMBER OF STUDENTS, YOUNG STUDENTS, ARE HERE TODAY TO JOIN

IN THAT CELEBRATION WITH THIS NEW YEAR OF TREES. IT CELEBRATES THE

REVIVAL OF NATURE AND AN ECOLOGICAL AWARENESS DAY IN ISRAEL. IT'S A VERY

SPECIAL DAY, PARTICULARLY WITH THE -- THE STUDENTS HERE. AND EVERY YEAR

THAT I HAVE BEEN HERE, AND I KNOW MANY YEARS BEFORE THAT, RABBI RUBIN

HAS BEEN UP HERE TO BLESS US WITH HIS KIND AND THOUGHTFUL WORDS, AND

EACH YEAR HE HAS BEEN UP HERE TO ALSO CELEBRATE THE DAY.

I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT NOT ONLY, THOUGH, IS RABBI

RUBIN A RENOWNED SPIRITUAL LEADER IN THE CAPITAL DISTRICT, HE'S REALLY

KNOWN FOR HIS YOUTH OUTREACH AND HIS WORK WITH THE YOUTH, WHICH IS

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

EXEMPLIFIED YET AGAIN TODAY WITH ALL THE YOUNG WOMEN HERE, THAT HE

ALSO MAKES SURE IS -- ARE ALWAYS A PART OF ANY CELEBRATION AND ANY

ACTIVITY.

SO, IF YOU WOULD, MR. SPEAKER, PLEASE GRANT HIM THE

CORDIALITIES OF THE HOUSE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

OF MS. FAHY, MR. WEPRIN, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE

WELCOME YOU HERE TO THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, EXTEND TO YOU THE

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR. HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE WITH US AGAIN NEXT YEAR

AND REMIND US AGAIN OF THE BEGINNING OF SPRING. THANK YOU SO VERY

MUCH.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. SEAWRIGHT FOR AN INTRODUCTION.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

ALLOWING ME THE PRIVILEGE OF THIS INTRODUCTION. TODAY, I'M JOINED BY A

VERY DEAR FRIEND, FORMER BOSS AND MENTOR, THE HONORABLE DR. SARAH

WEDDINGTON, THE DISTINGUISHED ATTORNEY WHO SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED AND

WON ROE V. WADE. FORTY-SIX YEARS AGO TODAY, OUR HIGHEST COURT IN THE

NATION STRUCK DOWN A TEXAS STATUTE BANNING ABORTION IN 1973. DR.

WEDDINGTON, A STATE LEGISLATOR IN THE TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

HIRED AS HER SECRETARY A YOUNG WOMAN NAMED ANN RICHARDS, WHO LATER

BECAME GOVERNOR OF TEXAS. DR. WEDDINGTON WAS THE FIRST GENERAL

COUNSEL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND SERVED AS A SENIOR

ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WHERE SHE

CHOSE THE HONORABLE RUTH BADER GINSBURG TO BE APPOINTED TO THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. SHE HAS SERVED AS -- AS A

DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF GENDER STUDIES AND SEX-BASED

DISCRIMINATION.

DR. WEDDINGTON HAS FACED A LOT OF DISCRIMINATION IN

HER LIFE. WHEN SHE GRADUATED ONE OF ONLY FIVE WOMEN IN HER LAW

SCHOOL CLASS OF 200, NO LAW FIRM WOULD HIRE HER BECAUSE SHE WAS A

WOMAN. WHEN SHE APPLIED FOR A CREDIT CARD IN HER OWN NAME, SHE WAS

TOLD SHE NEEDED HER HUSBAND'S SIGNATURE. SHE ASKED WHY, SINCE SHE

WAS THE ONE EMPLOYED AS A CLERK/TYPIST FOR THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE,

PUTTING HER HUSBAND THROUGH LAW SCHOOL. SO, SHE DECIDED TO RUN FOR A

SEAT IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, AND SHE CHANGED THE CREDIT LAWS.

IN MY CAPACITY AS FORMER CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS OF THE FEMINIST PRESS, WE WERE HONORED TO COMMEMORATE THE

40TH ANNIVERSARY OF ROE V. WADE BY PUBLISHING DR. WEDDINGTON'S

POPULAR MEMOIR, A QUESTION OF CHOICE. THIS POPULAR MEMOIR HAS

BECOME AN ACADEMIC COURSE ADAPTION USED IN UNIVERSITY CLASSES AROUND

THE COUNTRY.

DR. WEDDINGTON WAS HANDED DOWN THE DECISION WHEN

SHE WAS JUST 26 YEARS OLD. SHE ARGUED ROE V. WADE BEFORE THE UNITED

STATES SUPREME COURT AT AGE 24 NOT ONCE, BUT FOR A SECOND TIME FOR

PRESIDENT NIXON'S NEW APPOINTEES TO THE SUPREME COURT. SHE LEARNED

THAT SHE HAD WON THE CASE WHEN A NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER CALLED HER,

IT WAS THE DAY THAT PRESIDENT LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON HAD DIED, AND SHE

THOUGHT THEY WERE CALLING FOR A QUOTE ON LBJ. INSTEAD, THEY INFORMED

HER SHE HAD WON THE CASE 7-2.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

I REMEMBER FONDLY MEETING SARAH WEDDINGTON WHEN

I WAS 19 YEARS OLD. I STILL HAVE THE LETTER SHE WROTE ME OFFERING ME A

JOB IN HER WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE. SHE HELPED FORM MY OUTLOOK ON

WOMEN'S HEALTH AND EQUAL RIGHTS. MR. SPEAKER, IT IS AN HONOR TO HAVE

DR. WEDDINGTON IN THE CHAMBER TODAY. I ASK YOU EXTEND THE

PRIVILEGES, AND WE ALSO HAVE A PROCLAMATION TO PRESENT TO HER. THANK

YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY.

(APPLAUSE)

DR. WEDDINGTON, ON BEHALF OF MS. SEAWRIGHT, THE

SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU HERE TO THE NEW YORK

STATE ASSEMBLY, EXTEND TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR, AND OUR

THANKS FOR YOUR TIRELESS AND ENDLESS STRUGGLE, WHICH WILL END TODAY IN

NEW YORK STATE. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. MCDONOUGH.

MR. MCDONOUGH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I

RISE TODAY FOR A VERY SPECIAL INTRODUCTION. THE YOUNG LADY STANDING --

SITTING NEXT TO ME HERE, CAMPBELL CONARD, IS AN EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT.

NOW, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED. A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, WE

INTRODUCED A BILL ABOUT EDUCATION, AND THE EDUCATION LAW THAT SIMPLY

NOW SAYS THAT ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS MUST REPORT ANY INSTANCES OF ABUSE OR

VIOLENCE. ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THERE'S 3,100,000 STUDENTS IN THE STATE

OF NEW YORK, OF WHICH 490,000 ARE IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS. CAMPBELL IS IN

A PRIVATE SCHOOL, GIRLS' SCHOOL, CHAPIN -- THE CHAPIN SCHOOL IN

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MANHATTAN. SHE SAW THIS BILL, AND IT WAS FINDING ITS WAY THROUGH THE

LEGISLATURE, AND I GOT SOME HELP FROM ASSEMBLYWOMAN -- WHO NOW IS

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER, I DON'T SEE HER HERE TODAY, BUT ANYWAY... AND SHE

STARTED A PETITION, AN ONLINE PETITION TO GET THIS BILL MOVED FORWARD SO

THE GOVERNOR COULD SIGN IT.

AND BECAUSE OF HER EFFORTS UNIQUELY, 12,000

SIGNATURES, 12,000 SIGNATURES SHE GOT ALL OVER TO PRESENT TO THE

GOVERNOR, PLEASE SIGN THIS BILL, AFTER WE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED IN IT THIS

CHAMBER AND IN THE SENATE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS LONG OVERDUE.

NOW, ALL STUDENTS, THOSE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS WELL AS PRIVATE SCHOOLS,

ARE PROTECTED UNDER THIS NEW LAW, WHICH THE GOVERNOR SIGNED ON

DECEMBER 7TH.

SO, I'M HERE TO THANK CAMPBELL FOR THE JOB THAT SHE'S

DONE, AND ASK YOU -- AND HER PARENTS ARE JOINING US, AS PROUD AS THEY

ARE TODAY, FOR THE FIRST TIME -- THEY'RE ALL FIRST TIME HERE VISITING THE

CAPITOL, AND I ASK YOU TO EXTEND THE COURTESIES OF THE HOUSE TO

CAMPBELL AND HER FAMILY.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

(APPLAUSE)

YES, PLEASE.

(APPLAUSE)

ON BEHALF OF MR. MCDONOUGH, THE SPEAKER AND ALL

THE MEMBERS, CAMPBELL, AND YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER, WE WELCOME YOU

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HERE TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK ASSEMBLY. WE EXTEND TO YOU THE

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR HERE IN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, AND COMMEND YOU

ON SUCH TREMENDOUS WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE AND THE WORK THAT YOU'VE

DONE TO PROTECT OTHERS. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. CONTINUE THAT WORK.

WE HOPE TO SEE YOU HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. THANK YOU SO

VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE)

ASSEMBLYMEMBER ROSENTHAL.

MS. ROSENTHAL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I

WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE A VERY IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF MINE, WHO IS

ALSO THE STATE COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE 67TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT,

DEBRA COOPER. DEBRA COOPER IS ON THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE

OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, WHICH IN PREVIOUS ITERATIONS WAS NARAL

PRO-CHOICE. SHE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN PRO-CHOICE ISSUES PROBABLY FOR

HER ENTIRE ADULT LIFE. SHE'S A MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS CENTER

BOARD IN D.C. SHE IS A DEAR FRIEND. SHE'S A GREAT CAMPAIGNER OUT ON

THE STREETS, BUT SHE IS REALLY HERE TO WITNESS THIS HISTORIC DAY IN THE

CAPITOL OF NEW YORK, AND I HOPE THAT YOU CAN WELCOME HER AND GIVE

HER THE CORDIALITIES OF THE HOUSE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

OF MS. ROSENTHAL, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU

HERE TO THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, EXTEND TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF

THE FLOOR, WELCOME YOU ON THIS HISTORIC DAY. WE KNOW YOU TAKE GREAT

PLEASURE AND PRIDE IN THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED, AND THAT

WILL BE DEMONSTRATED TODAY. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

(APPLAUSE)

ASSEMBLYMEMBER SEAWRIGHT.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

ALLOWING ME THE PRIVILEGE FOR THE INTRODUCTION. I -- WE HAVE IN THE

CHAMBER TODAY VERY GOOD FRIENDS FROM MANHATTAN, DR. BARBARA

ROSEN, SHE'S A PSYCHOLOGIST, A LEADER AND AN ACTIVIST, AS WELL AS HER

WIFE, PATRICIA MARTONE, WHO'S AN ACCOMPLISHED TRIAL ATTORNEY. AND I

ASK THAT YOU PLEASE EXTEND TO THEM THE CORDIALITIES OF THE HOUSE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

OF MS. -- MS. SEAWRIGHT, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE

WELCOME YOU BOTH HERE TO THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, EXTEND TO

YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR, AND CERTAINLY OUR JOY FOR HAVING YOU

JOIN US TODAY. WE HOPE YOU WILL COME BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN AND

AGAIN. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE HERE. THANK

YOU.

(APPLAUSE)

MS. SEAWRIGHT FOR ANOTHER INTRODUCTION.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'M

VERY PLEASED TO HAVE MY SON AND MY DAUGHTER, AND MY SON'S GIRLFRIEND,

VISITING THE CHAMBER TODAY. BRADLEY HERSHENSON IS A GRADUATE STUDENT

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBANY, A FORMER INTERN FOR ASSEMBLYMAN BRIAN

KAVANAGH; AND HALEY HERSHENSON IS A STUDENT SENATOR AT SUNY NEW

PALTZ AND IS A PUBLISHED AUTHOR. SHE'S WRITTEN A PAPER PUBLISHED BY

TEEN VOGUE ON LOWERING THE VOTING AGE; AND KATIE MCDERMOTT IS ALSO

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

A UNIVERSITY OF ALBANY GRADUATE STUDENT. AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO

HAVE THEM IN THE CHAMBER AND ASK THAT YOU EXTEND TO THEM THE

COURTESIES OF THE HOUSE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

OF MS. SEAWRIGHT, YOUR MOTHER AND FRIEND, WE WELCOME YOU HERE TO

THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY. WE EXTEND TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE

FLOOR, KNOW THAT YOU ARE PROUD TO SEE MOM DO HER THING. WE HOPE YOU

WILL ENJOY THE REST OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE)

RESOLUTIONS, PAGE 3. THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 40, MS.

PAULIN. LEGISLATION RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR ANDREW M.

CUOMO TO PROCLAIM JANUARY 20-26, 2019 AS CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE

ANESTHETIST (CRNA) WEEK IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL

THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS

ADOPTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE COULD

BEGIN OUR WORK NOW ON PAGE 4 OF THE CALENDAR, BILL NO. 21 BY

MEMBER DEBORAH GLICK.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00021, CALENDAR NO.

1, GLICK, GOTTFRIED, LUPARDO, HEASTIE, PEOPLES-STOKES, JAFFEE, TITUS,

SIMOTAS, L. ROSENTHAL, O'DONNELL, CAHILL, SOLAGES, ABINANTI, ARROYO,

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BARRETT, BARRON, BICHOTTE, BLAKE, BRAUNSTEIN, BRONSON, BUCHWALD,

CARROLL, COOK, CYMBROWITZ, DE LA ROSA, DENDEKKER, DILAN,

DINOWITZ, D' URSO, ENGLEBRIGHT, FAHY, GALE, GANTT, HEVESI, HUNTER,

HYNDMAN, JEAN-PIERRE, JONES, KIM, LAVINE, LIFTON, MAGNARELLI,

MOSLEY, NOLAN, OTIS, PAULIN, PERRY, PHEFFER AMATO, PICHARDO, PRETLOW,

QUART, RODRIGUEZ, ROZIC, SEAWRIGHT, SIMON, STECK, STIRPE, THIELE,

WALLACE, WEINSTEIN, WEPRIN, WILLIAMS, WOERNER, WRIGHT, NIOU, ORTIZ,

FERNANDEZ, GRIFFIN, CRUZ, FRONTUS, JACOBSON, MCMAHON, RAYNOR,

ROMEO, REYES, EPSTEIN, FALL, TAYLOR, ZEBROWSKI. AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO ENACTING THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

ACT AND REVISING EXISTING PROVISIONS OF LAW REGARDING ABORTION; TO

AMEND THE PENAL LAW, THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, THE COUNTY LAW

AND THE JUDICIARY LAW, IN RELATION TO ABORTION; TO REPEAL CERTAIN

PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW RELATING TO ABORTION; TO REPEAL

CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EDUCATION LAW RELATING TO THE SALE OF

CONTRACEPTIVES; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PENAL LAW

RELATING TO ABORTION.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, AN

EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED.

MS. GLICK: CERTAINLY, MR. SPEAKER. MUCH HAS

CHANGED IN OUR WORLD SINCE 1970, BUT NOT NEW YORK'S LAWS REGARDING

ABORTION. ABORTION IS A MEDICAL PROCEDURE AND IT IS LONG OVERDUE THAT

WE TREAT ABORTION IN THAT FASHION. THIS BILL CREATES ARTICLE 25-A OF THE

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW. IT ESTABLISHES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF EVERY

INDIVIDUAL TO DETERMINE THE COURSE OF HER PREGNANCY. IT ENSURES THAT A

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WOMAN'S HEALTH, AS WELL AS HER LIFE, IS FULLY PROTECTED IN NEW YORK

STATE, CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT FEDERAL PROTECTIONS. ADDITIONALLY, IT

ENSURES THAT LICENSED, CERTIFIED AND AUTHORIZED HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS

ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR PRACTICE CAN PROVIDE REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH SERVICES, GUARANTEEING THAT THESE SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN A

TIMELY FASHION.

AND LET ME BE CLEAR: THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE EVERY

HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL. THIS WILL NOT PERMIT DENTISTS, PODIATRISTS,

CHIROPRACTORS OR OTHERS TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. IN ADDITION, USING

THEIR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL JUDGMENT, HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS CAN

PROVIDE ABORTION SERVICES WITHIN 24 WEEKS OF THE START OF A PREGNANCY,

OR WHEN THE FETUS IS NON-VIABLE, OR TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OR LIFE OF THEIR

PATIENT. AND BY PLACING THE PUBLIC HEALTH -- ABORTION INTO THE PUBLIC

HEALTH LAW, WE ALSO REPEAL SECTIONS OF LAW THAT CRIMINALIZED ABORTION

SERVICES.

FOR YEARS, WE'VE HEARD THE NOTION THAT THIS LEGISLATION

IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT NEW YORK WOMEN, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT

FEDERAL EFFORTS CONTINUE TO THREATEN THESE BASIC SERVICES CRUCIAL TO

WOMEN, AND IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF NEW

YORK WOMEN.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.

SHH.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

YIELD?

MS. GLICK: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. GLICK.

WITH YOUR SUPPORT AND PERMISSION, I WANTED TO JUST REVIEW THE MAJOR

COMPONENTS OF THIS LEGISLATION. I THINK OTHERS WILL GO MAYBE IN MORE

DEPTH, BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US IF WE ALL UNDERSTOOD

WHAT THIS BILL DOES OR DOESN'T DO.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, STARTING RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING,

SECTION - I HAVE TO TURN THE PAGE HERE - RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING IT TALKS

ABOUT, IN SECTION 2, ALLOWING NON-SURGICAL ABORTIONS TO BE PERFORMED

BY OTHER THAN PHYSICIANS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE CURRENT LAW REQUIRES

PHYSICIANS TO PERFORM ALL ABORTIONS. AND THIS HAS TWO PARTS, ONE WOULD

BE NON-PHYSICIANS COULD DO IT IF IT WAS A NON-SURGICAL PROCEDURE,

INCLUDING, IF I'M CORRECT, NURSE PRACTITIONERS, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND

MIDWIVES, AS WELL AS PHYSICIANS. AND THEN AFTER 12 WEEKS OR IF -- OR IF

IT INVOLVES A SURGICAL PROCEDURE, IT WOULD BE MORE LIMITED TO

PHYSICIANS AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: IT IS -- IT ALLOWS MIDWIVES, WHO ARE

LICENSED BY THE STATE, AND NURSE PRACTITIONERS, BOTH ACTING WITHIN THEIR

PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY, TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ABORTIONS, WHICH IS TO SAY TO

PROVIDE A PRESCRIPTION FOR RU486 OR A SIMILAR MEDICATION AND TO

FOLLOW -- DO THE FOLLOW-UP CARE. AND THEY DO NOT -- THEY ARE NOT

PERMITTED TO DO SURGICAL ABORTIONS; THAT IS LIMITED TO PHYSICIANS AND

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. GOODELL: AND UNDER CURRENT LAW, ALL

ABORTIONS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE TO BE PERFORMED IN A HOSPITAL. THIS

ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ABORTION MUST BE PERFORMED IN A

HOSPITAL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: THAT LIMITATION WAS VIEWED AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND SO THIS IS -- FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

TO PERFORM ABORTIONS IN APPROPRIATE MEDICAL FACILITIES.

MR. GOODELL: BUT -- SO, NO LONGER WOULD YOU BE

REQUIRED TO BE IN A HOSPITAL, IS THAT CORRECT, FOR ANY ABORTION?

MS. GLICK: YES, THAT IS TRUE, AND AS MANY PEOPLE

CAN ATTEST TO, A GREAT MANY PROCEDURES, INVASIVE PROCEDURES ARE

PERFORMED WITHIN AMBULATORY SETTINGS.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, UNDER CURRENT LAW, AS YOU

KNOW, IF IT'S A -- AN ABORTION AFTER 12 WEEKS, OR A LATER TERM ABORTION,

THE CURRENT LAW REQUIRES TWO PHYSICIANS TO BE PRESENT, I -- AS I

UNDERSTAND IT WITH THE IDEA THAT IF THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE, THAT YOU HAVE

ONE PHYSICIAN WHO CAN ATTEND TO THE BABY, WHILE THE OTHER PHYSICIAN

FOCUSES ON THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. AM I CORRECT THAT THIS BILL

ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO PHYSICIANS?

MS. GLICK: THAT -- THAT IS ACCURATE IN THAT THAT WAS

DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND WE ARE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL

PROTECTIONS.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, OF COURSE, THIS BILL NOT ONLY

ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO PHYSICIANS, IT ACTUALLY ELIMINATES

THE REQUIREMENT FOR ANY PHYSICIAN, CORRECT? I MEAN, IT COULD BE A

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT.

MS. GLICK: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS OPERATE UNDER THEIR

LICENSED SCOPE OF PRACTICE, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A PHYSICIAN.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, UNDER CURRENT LAW, AS I

UNDERSTAND IT, WE HAVE PENAL LAW PROVISIONS THAT DEFINE, AS A

HOMICIDE, THE DEATH OF A (SIC) UNBORN CHILD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE

ABLE TO SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. THIS BILL ELIMINATES THOSE CRIMINAL

PROTECTIONS FOR THE UNBORN CHILD; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: ALL OF OUR CRIMINAL CODE, WHETHER IT IS A

HOMICIDE, MANSLAUGHTER, ASSAULT, RELATES TO ASSAULTS OR MURDER OR

ATTEMPTED MURDER ON A PERSON. AND UNDER OUR CRIMINAL CODE, A

"PERSON" IS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN BORN AND IS ALIVE.

MR. GOODELL: SO, MY QUESTION, JUST SO WE'RE ALL

CLEAR, UNDER CURRENT LAW, IF AN UNBORN CHILD UNDER -- OVER THE AGE OF 24

WEEKS, I GUESS THAT'S A -- IT SAYS, "HAS BEEN PREGNANT FOR MORE THAN 24

WEEKS," UNDER CURRENT LAW THERE IS A SEPARATE CRIMINAL CHARGE IF THAT

UNBORN BODY IS KILLED. THAT SEPARATE CRIMINAL CHARGE IS ELIMINATED BY

THIS BILL, ISN'T IT?

MS. GLICK: NOT ASSAULT, NOT MURDER. THAT IS --

WHAT WE DO HAVE ARE VERY STRICT LAWS FOR ASSAULT ON A PREGNANT WOMAN,

AND SO -- OR ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ALIVE. SO THOSE ASSAULT PENALTIES,

WHETHER IT'S IN THE FIRST DEGREE OR THE SECOND DEGREE, ARE VERY STRINGENT

AND, ACTUALLY, FAR MORE STRICT THAN ANY CHARGE RELATED TO AN ABORTIONAL

ACT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. GOODELL: PERHAPS I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH IN

MY QUESTION, BUT LOOKING ON PAGE 3, LINE 7, 8 AND 9, AM I CORRECT THAT

HOMICIDE WILL NO LONGER INCLUDE AS PART OF ITS DEFINITION, THE DEATH OF

AN UNBORN CHILD WITH WHICH A FEMALE HAS BEEN PREGNANT FOR MORE THAN

24 WEEKS. THAT IS BEING STRICKEN FROM THE PENAL LAW UNDER THAT

SECTION OF THIS BILL, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: THAT IS -- YES, IT IS A GENERAL STATEMENT

THAT ABORTION IN -- IS BEING ELIMINATED IN THE CRIMINAL CODE.

MR. GOODELL: SO, JUST AS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE, A

PREGNANT WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN PREGNANT MORE THAN 24 WEEKS, IF SHE'S

MUGGED AND, AS A RESULT OF THE MUGGING, HER UNBORN CHILD IS KILLED,

UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE MUGGER COULD BE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE.

UNDER THE NEW LAW, IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT, THE MUGGER WOULD ONLY BE

CHARGED FOR THE ASSAULT OF THE WOMAN, COULD NO LONGER BE CHARGED FOR

HOMICIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. HOMICIDE IN THE

CRIMINAL CODE REFERS TO A PERSON, AND A PERSON, UNDER THE CRIMINAL

CODE, IS IDENTIFIED AS SOMEBODY WHO IS BORN AND ALIVE. SO, NO, THAT IS

NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION. BUT, A WOMAN WHO'S PREGNANT AND

SUFFERS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, AND THERE ARE COURT CASES THAT INDICATE

THAT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INCLUDES THE LOSS OF A PREGNANCY, THAT

INDIVIDUAL CAN BE CHARGED WITH VERY SERIOUS CRIMES THAT PROVIDE UP TO

25 YEARS IN JAIL. SO, WE ARE NOT MAKING IT EASIER OR LESS -- WE -- WE DO

NOT -- WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE WOULD BE LESS OF A PENALTY TO

SOMEONE IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE YOU REFER TO.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. GOODELL: BUT IF THE MOTHER IS ATTACKED AND

SURVIVES, BUT HER BABY IS KILLED, IF THIS BILL GOES INTO LAW, NO LONGER CAN

THE ASSAILANT BE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE, CORRECT? COULD BE CHARGED

WITH --

MS. GLICK: NO. YOU ARE NOT --

MR. GOODELL: I UNDERSTAND --

MS. GLICK: YOU ARE NOT CORRECT.

MR. GOODELL: JUST TO BE CLEAR --

MS. GLICK: YOU ARE NOT CORRECT.

MR. GOODELL: -- LET ME JUST FINISH. I UNDERSTAND

THAT ANYONE WHO ASSAULTS THE MOTHER CAN BE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT. I

UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THIS BILL ELIMINATES HOMICIDE AS A CHARGE THAT CAN

BE FILED IF THE UNBORN BABY IS KILLED, AND THE MOTHER IS NOT.

MS. GLICK: THAT IS INACCURATE. THE --

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. SO, THEN UNDER WHAT LAW

CAN A PERSON BE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE FOR KILLING AN UNBORN BABY?

MS. GLICK: CURRENTLY, NO LAW.

MR. GOODELL: WELL, CURRENTLY, IT'S IN THE PENAL

LAW, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEING STRUCK, IT'S SECTION --

MS. GLICK: NO.

MR. GOODELL: -- 125.00, WHICH DEFINES HOMICIDE

AS THE DEATH OF A PERSON --

MS. GLICK: THAT IS A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF

HOMICIDE. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IN THE PENAL CODE, BECAUSE, I REPEAT, IN

THE EXISTING PENAL LAW, WHICH IS LEFT UNCHANGED, IT DEFINES A PERSON.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AND A PERSON, WHEN REFERRING TO THE VICTIM OF A HOMICIDE, MEANS A

HUMAN BEING WHO HAS BEEN BORN AND IS ALIVE.

MR. GOODELL: I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO -- I

GUESS MY QUESTION, THEN, IS WHY DO YOU HAVE, IN YOUR BILL ON PAGE 3,

LINES 7, 8, 9, WHY ARE YOU STRIKING FROM THE DEFINITION OF HOMICIDE THE

DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD WHICH A FEMALE HAS BEEN PREGNANT FOR FOR

MORE THAN 24 WEEKS. WHY ARE YOU STRIKING THAT LANGUAGE IF IT DOESN'T

MEAN THAT YOU NO LONGER WANT THAT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF

HOMICIDE?

MS. GLICK: WE ARE -- THAT IS A GENERAL DESCRIPTION

OF HOMICIDE, AND WE ARE CLEANING UP THE CRIMINAL CODE AND REMOVING

REFERENCES TO ABORTION IN THE CRIMINAL CODE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CRIME,

IT IS A MEDICAL PROCEDURE. NOW, I CAN'T ANSWER TO WHAT THE MEN IN THIS

ROOM DID 100 YEARS AGO, I AM JUST SAYING THAT UNDER TODAY'S CRIMINAL

STATUTE, HOMICIDE RELATES TODAY, CURRENTLY, RELATES TO A PERSON WHO IS

BORN AND ALIVE. AND SO, WE ARE NOT MAKING A DRAMATIC CHANGE, WE ARE

-- BY PLACING ABORTION WHERE IT BELONGS IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, WE

ARE CLEANING UP ANTIQUATED AND IRRELEVANT STATUTES IN THE CRIMINAL

CODE.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, THE CRIMINAL -- OUR CURRENT

CRIMINAL CODE ALSO MAKES IT A CRIME TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ABORTION.

AM I CORRECT THAT YOUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE -- I'M SORRY, THIS PROPOSED

LANGUAGE ELIMINATES AN ILLEGAL ABORTION AS A GROUND FOR A CRIMINAL

CHARGE?

MS. GLICK: WELL, IF SOMEONE TRIED TO DO A -- AN

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ABORTION WHO WAS NOT A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL THAT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER

THEIR SCOPE OF PRACTICE, THEN THEY WOULD BE PRACTICING MEDICINE

WITHOUT A LICENSE AND WOULD BE CHARGED AS SUCH.

MR. GOODELL: AND WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR

PRACTICING WITHOUT A LICENSE?

MS. GLICK: IT'S A CLASS E FELONY.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU.

NOW, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THIS BILL DOESN'T

COVER, I DON'T THINK, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. DOES THIS

BILL REQUIRE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S PERFORMING THE ABORTION TO PROVIDE

THE MOTHER WITH KNOWN RISKS, SIDE EFFECTS, THE IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF

THE WOMAN TO HAVE A FUTURE PREGNANCY? IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR

INFORMED CONSENT BEFORE THE ABORTION PROCEDURE IS CONDUCTED?

MS. GLICK: ALL MEDICAL PROCEDURES FALL UNDER THE

BASIC CODE OF BOTH A PERSON'S LICENSE AND THE ETHICS FOR THEIR

PROFESSION, AND THEY ARE -- THEY PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. THEY DO NOT

PROVIDE SOME STRICT, LEGISLATIVELY-CONSTRUCTED DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE

SIDE EFFECTS, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT A MEDICAL BODY, BUT A

LEGISLATIVE BODY. SO, NORMALLY, IN DISCUSSING ANY PROCEDURE, MEDICAL

PROFESSIONALS PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO A PATIENT THAT IS APPROPRIATE

FOR THE PROCEDURE WHICH THE PATIENT IS RECEIVING.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, AS YOU KNOW, WITH VERY FEW

EXCEPTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, IT TAKES TWO PEOPLE TO CREATE A

BABY, A MALE AND A FEMALE, MOM AND DAD, MOTHER AND FATHER. IS THERE

ANY RIGHTS UNDER YOUR BILL, THIS LANGUAGE, TO THE FATHER, WHETHER IT'S

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

NOTIFICATION TO THE FATHER THAT THE MOTHER WANTS TO TERMINATE THIS BABY'S

LIFE, OR CONSENT NEEDED FROM THE FATHER TO TERMINATE THE BABY, OR ANY

CONSULTATION WITH THE FATHER? ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER UNDER THIS BILL FOR

A FATHER AS IT RELATES TO THEIR UNBORN CHILD?

MS. GLICK: WELL, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE

SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED THAT SPOUSAL APPROVAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,

I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO

CONSENT TO PRESCRIPTIONS FOR VIAGRA.

MR. GOODELL: BUT I THINK, GOING BACK TO THE

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT RULED IT

UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT THE FATHER BE NOTIFIED.

I -- I SEE WE'RE OUT OF TIME. AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY

MUCH FOR WALKING THROUGH THE BILL WITH ME.

MS. GLICK: MY PLEASURE.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.

GLICK?

MS. GLICK: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO -- SO AS NOT TO REPEAT SOME

OF WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH WITH -- WITH MR. GOODELL WITH REGARD TO THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HOMICIDE DEFINITION, I DID WANT TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THE OTHER PENAL

LAW PROVISIONS THAT ARE BEING REPEALED BY THIS, THAT ARE GOING TO BE

IMPACTED BY THIS AND, IN PARTICULAR, ABORTION IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND

ABORTION IN THE SECOND DEGREE. NOW, THOSE ARE BOTH BEING REPEALED AS

PART OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. RA: AND THOSE ARE CRIMES THAT COULD BE USED IN

A SITUATION WHERE A PREGNANT WOMAN IS ASSAULTED, AND HAVE BEEN USED

IN CASES WHEN A PREGNANT WOMAN IS ASSAULTED?

MS. GLICK: ARE YOU STATING A FACT --

MR. RA: WELL, I'M --

MS. GLICK: -- OR ASKING A QUESTION?

MR. RA: WELL, I AM STATING A FACT, ACTUALLY, THEY

HAVE BEEN USED IN THOSE SITUATIONS. SO, I -- I THINK THE QUESTION IS, HOW

CAN WE SAY THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING AWAY PROTECTIONS WHEN THOSE VERY

STATUTES WHICH WE'RE REPEALING HAVE BEEN USED TO PROSECUTE THOSE

CASES?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I WILL SAY TO YOU THAT WE HAVE

STATUTES ON THE BOOKS FOR ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, THE SECOND DEGREE,

WHETHER THERE'S PHYSICAL INJURY OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. THERE ARE

ALSO, AS YOU MAY KNOW, THERE ARE, WHEN A JUDGE IS DEALING WITH A -- A

SENTENCE, THEY WILL LOOK AT WHETHER THERE ARE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

OR AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THERE IS CASE LAW THAT THE LOSS OF A

PREGNANCY DURING AN ASSAULT IS VIEWED AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR AND,

THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO A GREATER PRISON TERM.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. RA: OKAY. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THERE WOULD BE

ONE LESS CRIME THAT COULD BE CHARGED TO THAT INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE

PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; DO YOU NOT AGREE?

MS. GLICK: THERE ARE, OBVIOUSLY, OTHER CRIMES, AND

CRIMES, FRANKLY, WITH GREATER SEVERITY THAT COULD AND WOULD BE CHARGED.

MR. RA: WITH REGARD TO THE MOTHER, IT WOULD -- THERE

WOULD BE NO -- ACTUALLY, LET ME ASK THIS A DIFFERENT WAY.

IF THIS BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW, WOULD THERE BE ANY

PROVISIONS WITHIN NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW THAT PROTECT AN UNBORN

CHILD?

MR. GLICK: WELL, IN THE CASE OF A PREGNANT PERSON,

ALL OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS ARE DIRECTED AT THE PREGNANT PERSON, OR A

NON-PREGNANT PERSON, AND WE HAVE SUFFICIENT STATUTES TO HOLD PEOPLE

ACCOUNTABLE.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO, IS -- IS THAT -- IS THAT A NO?

MS. GLICK: I GAVE MY ANSWER.

MR. RA: I'M SORRY?

MS. GLICK: I GAVE MY ANSWER.

MR. RA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR. RA.

MR. RA: SO, THE LAST FEW TIMES THAT WE'VE DEBATED

THIS BILL I -- YOU KNOW, SPEAKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND I THINK

EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER HAS -- HAS REALLY HEARTFELT AND PASSIONATE

VIEWS ABOUT -- ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I -- AND I DON'T DOUBT THAT. BUT,

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF THESE CRIMINAL -- THESE CRIMINAL LAWS

THAT ARE BEING CHANGED AND MAYBE WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE THAT WE'RE

NOT DIMINISHING, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, BUT THE

BOTTOM LINE IS THERE ARE CRIMINAL SECTIONS THAT ARE USED TO PROSECUTE

THESE CASES. I CITED ONE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS FROM BROOKLYN FROM A

FEW YEARS WHERE -- WHERE A -- AN INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHED FOR MONTHS

HOW TO BEST ASSAULT HIS EX-GIRLFRIEND, ATTACKED HER AND CAUSED THE DEATH

OF THEIR UNBORN CHILD.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S A MUCH MORE RECENT CASE THAT

JUST HAPPENED IN SARATOGA COUNTY JUST THIS PAST DECEMBER, WHERE A

GENTLEMAN -- WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL HIM A GENTLEMAN AT

ALL, BUT HE -- HE WAS CHARGED WITH SECOND DEGREE ABORTION, WHICH IS

BEING REPEALED BY THIS BILL, FOR REPEATEDLY PUNCHING THE ABDOMEN OF A

WOMEN HE KNEW TO BE 26 WEEKS PREGNANT. HIS INTENTIONS WERE TO

HARM THAT UNBORN CHILD.

NOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PROCEDURE ITSELF, WHETHER

IT BELONGS IN THE HEALTH LAW, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, BUT ONE OF THE

BIGGEST TOPICS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE PRESS WITH REGARD TO THIS BILL FOR

YEARS IS THIS DISPUTE AS TO DOES THIS JUST CODIFY ROE V. WADE OR DOES IT

GO BEYOND ROE V. WADE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN THAT DECISION

THAT NECESSITATES OR REQUIRES US TO ENSURE THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL

PROTECTIONS FOR THE UNBORN IN NEW YORK STATE. IN FACT, MANY STATES

HAVE FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS THAT ARE -- THAT ARE FULLY VALID AND

CONSTITUTIONAL. AND WE HAVE HAD CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE LAW THAT

HAVE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO BE CHARGED.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AND I JUST WANT TO READ YOU SOMETHING QUICKLY THAT

SAYS, "WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN

POTENTIAL LIFE, THE COMPELLING POINT IS AT VIABILITY. THIS IS SO BECAUSE

THE FETUS, THEN, PRESUMABLY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MEANINGFUL LIFE

OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB. STATE REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE

AFTER VIABILITY HAS BOTH LOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. IF THE

STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY, IT MAY GO AS SO

FAR TO PRESCRIBE ABORTION DURING THAT PERIOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT'S NECESSARY

TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER."

SO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIFE FOR HEALTH WITH REGARD TO,

YOU KNOW, THE ACT THAT -- THAT A WOMAN GOES TO HER DOCTOR AND HAS

OCCURRED, BUT WHAT I JUST READ, IT'S NOT FROM JUST SOME CONSERVATIVE

JOURNAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S FROM THE TEXT OF THE ROE V. WADE

DECISION. SO, THERE IS NO WAY ONE CAN ARGUE THAT WITH REGARD TO A

PREGNANT WOMAN WHO IS ASSAULTED THAT WE CANNOT HAVE LAWS ON HER --

OUR BOOKS TO PROTECT THAT UNBORN CHILD. THE ARGUMENT CAN'T BE MADE.

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE DECISION THAT -- THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BEING CODIFIED

TODAY.

SO, I -- I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALL NEED TO THINK

ABOUT. IF THIS BILL PASSES AND IS ENACTED INTO LAW, THERE WILL BE ZERO,

ZERO PROTECTIONS OF AN UNBORN CHILD UNTIL THEY FIRST TAKE THEIR FIRST

BREATH OUTSIDE THE WOMB. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT IN A MEDICAL

SETTING, I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN SOMEBODY IS ASSAULTED, WHEN THAT

MOTHER, COMPLETELY AGAINST HER WILL, HAS THAT UNBORN CHILD TAKEN FROM

HER. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALL NEED TO KEEP IN MIND BOTH

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

MR. LALOR.

MR. LALOR: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR A FEW MORE QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.

GLICK?

MS. GLICK: SURE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. LALOR: WE'RE -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN LIFE

BEGINS AND WHEN IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO END IT. DOES THE SPONSOR HAVE A

POSITION ON WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS?

MS. GLICK: IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE BILL WHAT MY

PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE. THIS IS A MATTER OF MEDICAL JUDGMENT. WE, IN

MANY INSTANCES, DEFER TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONS FOR THESE

DETERMINATIONS. SO, THOSE ARE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED AND

EDUCATED IN THE SCIENCES, ET CETERA, AND WHO DEAL WITH THIS ACTUALLY

EVERY DAY. AND SO, WE FOCUS OUR -- THIS IS WHY IT IS IN THE PUBLIC

HEALTH LAW, THAT MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS ACTING WITHIN THE LICENSED AND

LEGAL SCOPE OF PRACTICE MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS

DISTANT FROM THEM SITTING HERE IN THIS CHAMBER.

MR. LALOR: SO, THE MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO INFORMED

YOUR DRAFTING OF THIS BILL, WHEN DO THEY SAY HUMAN LIFE BEGINS?

MS. GLICK: THAT -- THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION THAT

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WE ASKED. WE ASKED --

MR. LALOR: CLEARLY.

MS. GLICK: I'M SORRY?

MR. LALOR: THAT -- THAT -- I SAID CLEARLY IT WASN'T.

MS. GLICK: DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?

MR. LALOR: WHEN WAS -- WHEN IS AN UNBORN CHILD

ENTITLED TO LEGAL PROTECTIONS?

MS. GLICK: WELL, IT IS NOT A -- CONSTITUTIONALLY,

SINCE THAT WAS RAISED BY ANOTHER MEMBER, THE JUSTICE, JUSTICE

BLACKMUN, SAID THAT ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS BASED ON THE

PRESUMPTION OF LAWS AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS POST-NATALLY. SO, THAT IS, I

BELIEVE, THAT ALL OF OUR LAWS ARE BASED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE BORN AND

ALIVE.

MR. LALOR: SO, HOW ABOUT A -- A CHILD WHO IS

PARTIALLY EXTRACTED, HIS OR HER HEAD MAKES IT OUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE

HERE, IS THAT -- IS THAT CHILD OR FETUS ENTITLED TO ANY LEGAL PROTECTIONS?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE

REFERRING TO, BUT THERE WAS A PARTICULAR PROCEDURE THAT HAS BEEN BANNED

AND WAS BANNED IN -- OVER 10 YEARS AGO, AND THAT -- WELL, MEDICAL

PROFESSIONALS INDICATED THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A POLITICAL

ARGUMENT AND NOT A MEDICAL ONE, AND IN SOME INSTANCES THAT PROCEDURE

WAS PROBABLY THE SAFEST TO USE IN A TERMINATION FOR THE WOMAN.

NONETHELESS, THE FEDERAL BAN ON WHAT WAS CALLED "PARTIAL-BIRTH

ABORTION" STILL STANDS TODAY. AND NOTHING HERE IN THIS BILL CHANGES THAT.

MR. LALOR: I KNOW YOU CITED SOME PROVISIONS OF

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THIS BILL THAT ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE THE OLD PROVISIONS WERE RULED

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD A CASE CITATION OR WHETHER THE

COURT THAT GAVE THAT DECISION WAS A COURT THAT HAS BINDING PRECEDENCE

OVER OUR SYSTEM HERE IN NEW YORK. SO, CAN -- CAN YOU GIVE US THE

CASE?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I THINK WE ALL TOOK AN OATH TO

UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, SO I THINK IT DOES APPLY TO THE UNITED --

TO NEW YORK STATE.

MR. LALOR: SURE. BUT ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES ASKED

IF IT WAS ACCURATE TO SAY THAT UNDER THIS LEGISLATION, ABORTIONS AFTER 12

WEEKS OF PREGNANCY WOULD NO LONGER REQUIRE A HOSPITAL SETTING. AND

YOU SAID THAT'S BECAUSE TO DO OTHERWISE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'M

ASKING YOU, WHO SAID IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? WHAT COURT? IS IT A

COURT THAT HAS BINDING PRECEDENCE VALUE OVER THIS STATE?

MS. GLICK: THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES, CITY OF AKRON V. THE AKRON HEALTH CENTER, THAT -- THAT IT PLACES

AN UNDUE BURDEN ON WOMEN SEEKING SERVICES AND DID NOT HAVE ANY

MEDICAL NECESSITY.

MR. LALOR: THANK YOU. SHIFTING TO THE -- THE

PENAL LAW ASPECT OF THIS, I'M GOING TO READ JUST A FEW SENTENCES FROM

AN ARTICLE FROM JUST LAST MONTH RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD IN SARATOGA

COUNTY. A NORTHUMBERLAND MAN WAS ARRESTED SUNDAY FOR ALLEGEDLY

PUNCHING A PREGNANT WOMAN'S ABDOMEN IN AN EFFORT TO KILL HER UNBORN

CHILD, POLICE SAID MONDAY. STEVEN J. MILLER, 39 OF COLEBROOK ROAD

WAS CHARGED WITH SECOND DEGREE ABORTION, A FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AFTER HE REPEATEDLY PUNCHED THE ABDOMEN OF A

WOMAN HE KNOWS WHO WAS 26 WEEKS PREGNANT, ACCORDING TO THE

SARATOGA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. THE SHERIFF SAID MILLER WAS TRYING TO

CAUSE A MISCARRIAGE. SO, MY QUESTION IS THIS: UNDER THE CURRENT STATE

OF LAW, THE AUTHORITIES IN SARATOGA COUNTY LAST MONTH WERE ABLE TO

CHARGE THIS PERPETRATOR, THE PERPETRATOR OF THIS HEINOUS CRIME WITH A

FELONY, SECOND DEGREE ABORTION, WHICH IS A FELONY. IF YOUR LAW WAS IN

PLACE WHEN THIS HAPPENED, WOULD THAT FELONY BE ABLE TO BE CHARGED?

MS. GLICK: WELL, CERTAINLY, ASSAULT IN EITHER THE

SECOND DEGREE OR -- WHICH IS A --

MR. LALOR: NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND

DEGREE ABORTION FELONY. HE WAS CHARGED WITH TWO CRIMES, A

MISDEMEANOR AND A FELONY. THE ONLY FELONY WAS THE SECOND DEGREE

ABORTION.

MS. GLICK: WELL, THAT IS ACTUALLY, IN MY HUMBLE

OPINION, RATHER POOR ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTOR. THE PROSECUTOR

COULD HAVE CHARGED A -- A SECOND --

MR. LALOR: YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THE

PROSECUTOR, BUT NOT WHEN LIFE BEGINS? IS THAT -- IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

MS. GLICK: -- AN ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE AND

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MORE APPROPRIATE CHARGE, IT'S A VIOLENT FELONY,

AND WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SUBJECT TO A GREATER JAIL TIME THAN WHAT

WAS CHARGED BY THE PROSECUTOR. I'M NOT GOING TO OPINE ON WHETHER OR

NOT THE PROSECUTOR WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, BUT THERE IS A -- A

VIOLENT FELONY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED, AND PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BEEN CHARGED INSTEAD OF THAT CRIME.

MR. LALOR: YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO GIVE THE -- THE

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND THE PROSECUTORS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT,

THEY KNOW THE FACTS AND WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVE. THEY BELIEVE THEY

COULD PROVE TWO CRIMES, ONE'S A MISDEMEANOR, ONE'S A FELONY. UNDER

YOUR BILL, THEY COULD NOT CHARGE THAT FELONY, CORRECT? THAT SPECIFIC

FELONY.

MS. GLICK: THEY -- THEY COULDN'T -- THEY COULD NOT

CHARGE THE FELONY THAT THEY CHOSE TO, BUT THEY COULD HAVE AND SHOULD

HAVE CHOSEN A VIOLENT FELONY ASSAULT.

MR. LALOR: THANK YOU. THIS -- THIS BILL THAT WE'RE

DEBATING TODAY, IT PROTECTS ABORTION RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE PREGNANCY IF

IT'S -- IF THE ABORTION IS DONE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER; IS THAT

CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. LALOR: AND HOW DO WE DEFINE IN THIS

LEGISLATION THE "HEALTH OF THE MOTHER?"

MS. GLICK: WE DON'T. YOU DON'T GO TO THE

LEGISLATURE WHEN YOU'RE SICK, YOU GO TO A DOCTOR. SO, WE LEAVE THAT TO

A DOCTOR.

(APPLAUSE)

MR. LALOR: SO, IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY EVEN THE MOST

MINOR HEALTH CONDITIONS WOULD ALLOW FOR A NINE-MONTH ABORTION?

MR. GLICK: MR. LALOR, I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE

RESPECTFUL HERE, BUT LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE CONSTANT ATTEMPT TO SUGGEST

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THAT WOMEN CHOOSE ABORTION LATE IN PREGNANCY ON A WHIM BECAUSE THEY

HAVE A HEADACHE OR A HANGNAIL IS INSULTING TO THE MORAL FIBER OF WOMEN

IN THE STATE.

MR. LALOR: I -- I DIDN'T SUGGEST THAT AT ALL, I JUST

ASKED A QUESTION.

(APPLAUSE)

LET ME MOVE ON.

(APPLAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU. WE DON'T

NEED APPLAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THANK YOU.

MR. LALOR: PRESENTLY, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW SECTION

4164, IT CONTAINS A PROVISION RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF INFANTS WHO ARE

BORN ALIVE. SPECIFICALLY IT SAYS, A VIABLE INFANT BORN ALIVE FOLLOWING AN

ABORTION PERFORMED AFTER 20 WEEKS' GESTATION, "SHALL BE ACCORDED

IMMEDIATE LEGAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK." YOUR BILL

REPEALS THIS, WHY?

MS. GLICK: THAT SECTION OF LAW HAS BEEN HELD

UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL MEDICAL

PERSONNEL, WHICH IS AN UNDUE BURDEN ON PROVIDING THE SERVICES

NEEDED.

MR. LALOR: SO, IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY RIGHT NOW ON

THE BOOKS WE HAVE A LAW THAT SAYS AN ABORTED FETUS THAT SURVIVES THE

ABORTION IS ENTITLED TO NOTHING? NO PROTECTIONS?

MS. GLICK: WELL, THE LINE IS, IF YOU ARE BORN ALIVE,

YOU ARE ALIVE. IF YOU ARE NOT BORN ALIVE, YOU ARE NOT BORN ALIVE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. LALOR: IN A SITUATION WHERE THAT HAPPENS,

WHEN A CHILD IS BORN ALIVE, UNDER THIS BILL, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NO COMMAND IN THE LAW TO TRY TO GIVE AID TO THAT

CHILD WHO'S STRUGGLING FOR BREATH, WHOSE HEART IS BEATING, WHO IS OUT

HERE ON THE EARTH?

MS. GLICK: THAT IS TOTALLY A MATTER OF MEDICAL

JUDGMENT. IF THAT FETUS IS CAPABLE OF SURVIVING, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT

MEDICAL PERSONNEL WOULD DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO TRY TO SAVE

THAT FETUS. BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER OR NOT THE FETUS CAN

SURVIVE OUTSIDE OF THE MOTHER'S WOMB. AND IF A FETUS IS SOMEHOW

DELIVERED AND IS ALIVE, THEN IT BECOMES A PERSON UNDER NEW YORK STATE

LAW AND IS GRANTED ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON, IF IT IS ALIVE.

MR. LALOR: BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MANDATE THAT

THE DOCTOR ACTUALLY TREAT IT. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE DOCTOR?

WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IT ON OUR -- IN OUR STATUTES THE CALL TO ACTUALLY

TREAT THIS CHILD?

MS. GLICK: WELL...

MR. LALOR: AND IF SO, WHY NOT?

MS. GLICK: THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO ENSURE THAT

WE PROVIDE MEDICAL JUDGMENT AND RESPECT THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF

THOSE INVOLVED. AND SO --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAIA, WHY DO

YOU RISE?

MR. RAIA: WILL MS. GLICK JUST YIELD FOR ONE QUICK

QUESTION?

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MS. GLICK: I DON'T HAVE MY -- IT'S NOT ON MY TIME,

MR. --

MR. RAIA: ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION BASED ON WHAT

THEY'RE DISCUSSING.

MR. LALOR: I YIELD.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LALOR HAS THE

FLOOR, YOU HAVE TO ASK HIM TO YIELD.

MR. RAIA: OH, MR. LALOR, WILL YOU --

MR. LALOR: SURE.

MR. RAIA: -- WILL YOU YIELD AND WILL MS. GLICK

YIELD FOR A QUICK QUESTION?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAIA HAS A

QUESTION FOR YOU.

MS. GLICK: SURE.

MR. RAIA: THANK YOU. I -- I JUST -- I WANT TO JUST

ZERO IN ON THE FACT YOU MENTIONED IF -- IF A FETUS IS BORN ALIVE, THEN IT'S

ALIVE. BUT IS IT NOT TRUE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE

DEALING WITH, CURRENTLY THERE NEEDS TO BE TWO DOCTORS PRESENT DURING AN

ABORTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE, ONE TO TEND TO THE MOTHER AND THE

SECOND TO TEND TO POTENTIALLY A LIVE BIRTH OF THE FETUS? BUT NOW WE'RE

ELIMINATING THE TWO DOCTORS AND JUST HAVING ONE, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. RAIA: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YOU MAY CONTINUE,

MR. LALOR.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. LALOR: WILL YOU CONTINUE TO YIELD TO MY

QUESTIONS?

MS. GLICK: I'M SORRY?

MR. LALOR: WILL YOU CONTINUE TO YIELD?

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. LALOR: THANK YOU. DOES THIS BILL EXPAND ROE

V. WADE?

MS. GLICK: NO.

MR. LALOR: DOES ROE V. WADE REQUIRE STATES TO

ALLOW NON-PHYSICIANS TO PERFORM ABORTIONS?

MS. GLICK: WELL, NOT EVERYTHING IN ROE V. WADE

DEALS WITH ALL ASPECTS OF NEW YORK STATE LAW. NEW YORK STATE

LICENSES MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND IT IS THE STATE LAW THAT CONTROLS

WHETHER OR NOT A -- WHAT MEDICAL PROFESSIONS ARE LICENSED. AND SINCE

IN THE LAST 50 YEARS A GREAT MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN HEALTH CARE, AS

MANY OF US HAVE EXPERIENCED. AND SO, IN THE 50 YEARS, NEW YORK

STATE HAS ADDED SEVERAL OTHER LICENSED PROFESSIONALS WHO DEAL WITH

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES. THEY INCLUDE A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT, WHO

OPERATES WITH THE SAME PRACTICE SCOPE AS A PHYSICIAN, BUT OPERATES

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A -- OF A PHYSICIAN; A NURSE PRACTITIONER AND A

LICENSED MIDWIFE. NOW, WE'VE BEEN CLEAR AT THE BEGINNING OF MY

EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE BILL DOES THAT THE PHYSICIAN AND PHYSICIAN

ASSISTANT CAN DO SURGICAL ABORTIONS, WHEREAS THE LICENSED NURSE

PRACTITIONER AND THE LICENSED MIDWIFE CAN DO A MEDICAL ABORTION AND

DO THE FOLLOW-UP CARE NECESSARY.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. LALOR: THANK YOU. DOES YOUR BILL CONTAIN

ANY CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS IF A DOCTOR OR HOSPITAL DOESN'T WANT TO

ENGAGE IN THESE PRACTICES, IS THERE ANYTHING TO PROTECT THEIR

CONSCIENCE? IS THERE ANYTHING TO PROTECT THEM FROM LOSING THEIR

LICENSE OR LOSING FUNDING?

MS. GLICK: WELL, WE DON'T DO THAT IN THIS BILL

BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING LAW THAT PROTECTS THE HOSPITALS IN THAT

REGARD, AND PHYSICIANS INDIVIDUALLY.

MR. LALOR: IS THERE ANY PROVISION IN THIS BILL THAT

WILL ALLOW FOR FUNDING OR REQUIRE COUNSELING FOR WOMEN WHO'VE HAD

ABORTIONS AND THEY REGRET IT AND THEY SEEK COUNSELING -- OR NEED

COUNSELING?

MS. GLICK: NO. THE -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM

EXTENSIVE READING BY THE -- OF THE SURVEYS DONE BY THE GUTTMACHER

INSTITUTE THAT IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY, WOMEN ARE PLEASED THAT THEY HAD

THE CHOICE TO DECIDE WHEN TO BECOME A PARENT OR NOT.

MR. LALOR: ARE YOU SAYING IT'S 100 PERCENT, THAT

NO ONE REGRETS IT?

MS. GLICK: I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

MR. LALOR: SO, IS THERE ANY FUNDING OR ANY SUPPORT

FOR THOSE WHO DO?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LALOR, YOUR TIME

IS UP, IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

MR. DIPIETRO.

MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU. WOULD THE SPONSOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.

GLICK?

MS. GLICK: YES, MR. DIPIETRO.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU. I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER

OF DOCTORS, AND I WON'T GO INTO THE ARGUMENTS OF WHETHER A WOMAN CAN

HAVE AN ABORTION AT BIRTH, BUT THE FACT REMAINS IN THIS BILL, THAT IS A

POSSIBILITY, CORRECT? THERE COULD BE AN ABORTION UP 'TIL BIRTH?

MS. GLICK: IF THE FETUS IS NON-VIABLE OR THE

WOMAN'S HEALTH OR LIFE IS AT RISK UNDER THE JUDGMENT OF THE MEDICAL

PROFESSIONALS, AN ABORTION CAN BE PROVIDED BASED ON THAT JUDGMENT.

MR. DIPIETRO: WELL, LET'S GO TO THE TERM HEALTH

BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED HERE AND IT'S -- IT'S BEEN LEFT OUT BECAUSE

YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. SO, LET'S

JUST SAY THAT THERE IS A HEALTH ISSUE AND A WOMAN WANTS TO HAVE AN

ABORTION, SHE COMES IN, MAYBE SHE'S COMING IN FULLY EXPECTING TO HAVE

A BABY, AND SHE GETS AT THE POINT WHERE SHE'S READY TO HAVE THE BABY

AND THEN SHE DECIDES THERE'S A HEALTH REASON, SHE DOESN'T WANT IT. A

DOCTOR WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE -- AT WHAT POINT, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE

A LAW, CORRECT, IN NEW YORK STATE AGAINST PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, RIGHT?

CORRECT? IS THERE A LAW AGAINST PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION?

MS. GLICK: THERE IS A FEDERAL BAN, YES.

MR. DIPIETRO: YES, OKAY. SO THAT WOULD APPLY TO

NEW YORK STATE?

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MS. GLICK: WELL, IN YOUR QUESTION, YOU SAID THAT IT

-- THE WOMAN DOESN'T WANT -- DOESN'T WANT TO DELIVER.

MR. DIPIETRO: ANY HEALTH REASON, THAT'S RIGHT

BECAUSE THERE'S --

MS. GLICK: NOT ANY HEALTH REASON.

MR. DIPIETRO: OKAY, BUT LET'S --

MS. GLICK: IF IT IS A RISK --

MR. DIPIETRO: YOU DON'T SPECIFY A HEALTH REASON,

MS. GLICK. SO LET'S SAY ANY HEALTH REASON, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF

ARGUMENT.

MS. GLICK: WELL, I DON'T ACCEPT THAT THAT'S A PROPER

PREMISE. THE ISSUE --

MR. DIPIETRO: THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT IT IN THE

BILL IF YOU DON'T HAVE -- IF YOU HAVE ACCEPTANCE (SIC) WHY AREN'T THOSE

ACCEPTANCES (SIC) IN THE BILL?

MS. GLICK: WELL, WE DON'T LIST EVERY POSSIBLE

CONDITION, BECAUSE THERE ARE MYRIAD CONDITIONS. WHEN PEOPLE GO TO

THE DOCTOR, THEY MAY THINK THEY ARE GOING TO THE DOCTOR BECAUSE THEY

ARE TIRED AND THEY THINK THEY JUST NEED SOMETHING TO PICK THEM UP.

AND THEN THEY FIND OUT, WELL, IT COULD BE A HEART PROBLEM, IT COULD BE

LEUKEMIA, IT COULD BE A SERIOUS RESPIRATORY ILLNESS. THAT IS WHY WE SAY

THAT WE LEAVE IT UP TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE DOCTOR WHETHER OR NOT THE

HEALTH CONDITION RISKS IS (SIC) SO RISKY THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A

TERMINATION OF THE PREGNANCY. AND THERE ARE WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD

HEALTH PROBLEMS LATE IN THEIR PREGNANCY, A WANTED PREGNANCY, A DESIRED

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

PREGNANCY, WHO FIND THAT THEIR HEALTH IS SO COMPROMISED THAT THEY

HAVE TO TRAVEL OUT OF NEW YORK STATE TO ANOTHER STATE TO HAVE THEIR

HEALTH SITUATION DEALT WITH WHERE THEY CAN GET AN ABORTION SOMEWHERE

ELSE. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE WOMEN IN THE

STATE OF NEW YORK, THAT THEIR HEALTH OR THEIR LIFE HAS TO BE AT RISK IN THE

STATE OF NEW YORK. THEIR LIFE HAS TO BE AT RISK, NOT THEIR HEALTH. THAT

IS UNACCEPTABLE.

MR. DIPIETRO: I UNDERSTAND. WELL, THAT'S WHY YOU

MUST NOT HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO MY QUESTION BECAUSE I SAID FOR ANY

HEALTH REASON WHICH YOU HAVE DEEMED REASONABLE, AND THEN YOU JUST --

AND I UNDERSTAND YOU WENT OUT ON A LONG DIATRIBE THERE, BUT I SAID, FOR

ANY HEALTH REASON --

MS. GLICK: I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THE WAY I

LIKE.

MR. DIPIETRO: -- ANY HEALTH REASON THAT -- THAT IS

VIABLE, WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED PARTIAL BIRTH? DOES THE FETUS HAVE TO BE

SEEN? LET ME SEEN -- LET ME ASK YOU THAT. DOES THE FETUS HAVE TO BE

SEEN FROM THE WOMB FOR IT TO BE -- FOR A DOCTOR TO PERFORM AND HAVE IT

BE A PARTIAL BIRTH UNDER THIS BILL?

MS. GLICK: FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY

ESTABLISHED THAT PARTIAL BIRTH IS ACTUALLY A POLITICAL TERM, NOT A MEDICAL

ONE --

MR. DIPIETRO: WELL, I'M ASKING YOU --

MS. GLICK: THERE -- I'M SORRY, MR. DIPIETRO --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: LET'S --

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MS. GLICK: -- IF YOU ASK ME, YOU HAVE TO LET ME

ANSWER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, FOR A

MINUTE, PLEASE. WE ASK A QUESTION, WE LET IT BE ANSWERED. YOU ASK A

QUESTION, SHE ANSWERS IT. SO --

MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- DON'T CUT HER OFF IN

THE MIDDLE OF THE EXPLANATION, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE.

MS. GLICK, PROCEED.

MS. GLICK: THERE IS NO MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY CALLED

"PARTIAL BIRTH." THERE IS A POLITICAL SLOGAN. THERE IS A PROCEDURE THAT

WAS DEEMED ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SLOGAN, AND THAT PROCEDURE HAS BEEN

BANNED. SO THERE IS NO -- IT'S -- YOU'RE ASKING ME A QUESTION ABOUT

SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

MR. DIPIETRO: WOW, OKAY. THAT'S A -- THAT'S THE

ANSWER. THEN, UNDER YOUR BILL, FOR A HEALTH REASON, IF THE WATER BREAKS

AND THE -- AND THE -- IT HAS TO BE ABORTED, THAT WOULD NOT BE A PARTIAL

BIRTH, THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY VIOLATION OF LAW FOR A DOCTOR FOR

ANY KIND OF RETRIBUTION OR LEGAL ACTION?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I'M NOT AN OBSTETRICIAN, SO, I'M A

LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS.

MR. DIPIETRO: I'M ASKING --

MS. GLICK: IF A WOMAN IS PREGNANT AND HER WATER

BREAKS, THAT'S USUALLY -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF

THE ONSET OF LABOR.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. DIPIETRO: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. I

HAVE DOCTORS ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, MS. GLICK. THEY WANT TO KNOW

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW UNDER YOUR BILL THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT --

MS. GLICK: I DON'T THINK SO -- I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE

DOCTORS ASKING THE QUESTION.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE'RE --

MR. DIPIETRO: MAY I ANSWER THE QUESTION? MAY I

ANSWER -- MAY I FINISH MY QUESTION? I HAVE DOCTORS ASKING THESE

QUESTIONS BECAUSE UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE ARRESTED

AND LOSE THEIR PRACTICE BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOUR

BILL BEGINS AND ENDS ON THE ABORTION.

MS. GLICK: WELL, LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT WE HAVE

HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND

GYNECOLOGISTS AND THEY UNDERSTAND CLEARLY AND FULLY SUPPORT THE

LEGISLATION.

MR. DIPIETRO: THAT'S NOT SUPREME COURT AND

THAT'S NOT LEGAL -- THAT'S NOT A LEGAL DECLARATION. I'M TALKING ABOUT LEGAL,

AS A DOCTOR WANTS TO MAINTAIN HIS LICENSE AND NOT GET UNDER ARREST AND

LOSE HIS LICENSE. SO, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY -- THIS HAS BEEN

YOUR BILL FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, I'D -- I WOULD THINK SOME OF THESE YOU

WOULD KNOW. SO, A WATER BREAKS, WOULD THAT -- WOULD THAT CONSTITUTE --

HOW ABOUT THE UMBILICAL CORD?

MS. GLICK: WHAT ABOUT IT?

MR. DIPIETRO: WELL, YOU SAID IN YOUR BILL THAT

UNDER THE -- UNDER YOUR -- UNDER YOUR OWN WORDS THAT THIS IS -- THAT LIFE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IS WHEN IT'S OUTSIDE THE WOMB OR SOME SORT OF LIKE THAT, YOU -- YOU'VE

MENTIONED THAT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS: IF A WOMAN GIVES BIRTH, THE --

THE BABY IS STILL ON THE UMBILICAL CORD WHICH MEANS IT'S STILL TETHERED TO

ITS MOTHER AND IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY, UNDER THIS BILL, ALIVE; CAN IT BE

KILLED?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I -- IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE

TAKEN BIOLOGY, BUT I DO THINK THAT MOST BIRTHS OCCUR, AND AT THE POINT

WHEN THE BABY HAS LEFT THE MOTHER, THEY ARE -- THEY ARE -- MAY STILL BE --

THE CORD HAS NOT BEEN CUT, BUT THE BABY MAY BE CRYING. SO, PERHAPS

THERE ARE WOMEN WHO'VE GONE THROUGH NATURAL CHILDBIRTH HERE WHO CAN

BE MORE PRECISE ABOUT THIS, BUT I -- IF THERE IS ANY DOCTOR WHO HAS BEEN

UNCLEAR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AT THAT JUNCTURE THEY ARE PERFORMING A

DELIVERY OR AN ABORTION, THEN I THINK THEY SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE

STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT --

MR. DIPIETRO: I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

MS. GLICK: -- BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

MR. DIPIETRO: WE'VE GOT -- WE'VE GOT SOME LEGAL

RAMIFICATIONS AND THEY JUST WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR UNDER THIS BILL TO

YOUR OWN -- TO YOUR OWN ACKNOWLEDGMENT, THEY DON'T DEFINE ANY

HEALTH REASONS. SO, I THINK IT'S --

MS. GLICK: THAT'S NOT --

MR. DIPIETRO: -- VERY OBVIOUSLY, THE DOCTOR WOULD

WANT SOMETHING SOME OF THESE CLARIFIED SO WHEN HE'S ON THE TABLE

TRYING TO GIVE BIRTH AND SOMETHING COMES UP, ARISES THAT MIGHT BE

SOMETHING THAT YOU DEEM NECESSARY, HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE IT'S

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

NECESSARY.

MR. GLICK: I'M SORRY, MR. DIPIETRO, BUT THE

DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER IS UNDER SERIOUS RISK,

SO SERIOUS THAT THE ALTERNATIVE IN THAT SITUATION IS TO PERFORM AN

ABORTION, THAT IS LEFT TO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. IT IS NOT MY OPINION AND

IT IS NOT YOUR OPINION; IT IS LEFT TO PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE EDUCATED AND

TRAINED TO UNDERSTAND WHEN A MOTHER'S HEALTH, NOT YOU HAVE BRONCHITIS,

BUT HER HEALTH COULD BE SEVERELY IMPACTED. SO, THE INSTANCES THAT YOU

HAVE POSITED ARE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ABSURD.

MR. DIPIETRO: WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THIS

BILL'S ABSURD, MS. GLICK. SO, LET'S GO ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION. LET'S GO

ON TO -- YOU JUST SAID YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT -- I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING -- I

DID NOT BRING UP ONE HEALTH-RELATED ISSUE. YOU DID. I'M NOT SAYING

WHAT IT WAS. I SAID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU SAY THE WOMAN'S

HEALTH IS -- IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE KEEPS OR ABORTS, AND I'M

SAYING, OKAY, ANY ONE OF YOUR DECISIONS. AND SO I'M ASKING THESE ON

BEHALF OF A DOCTOR, OKAY, IF SHE -- IF THERE IS -- IF THERE'S A GREY AREA,

WHICH THIS BILL IS FULL OF GREY AREAS, DON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, WHICH

I'M SURPRISED AFTER SIX YEARS I'VE BEEN DEBATING THIS, NOT ONE OF MY

QUESTIONS HAS BEEN PUT INTO THE BILL, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY. SO, LET'S --

SO -- SO, PLEASE, DON'T -- DON'T -- DON'T FLATTER ME WITH -- WITH

CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE WITH THAT. I'D APPRECIATE IT.

MS. GLICK: OKAY.

MR. DIPIETRO: ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

DIPIETRO.

MR. DIPIETRO: WELL, I'M GOING TO BE COMING BACK,

BUT ON THIS BILL, THERE'S A -- IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S

NO SWEAR WORDS, IT'S PRETTY AMAZING. SO, I KNOW A COUPLE OF HEBREWS

OR PEOPLE THAT SPEAK THE LANGUAGE AND WHEN THEY SWEAR, THEY USE

AMERICAN WORDS. SAME THING IN AFRICA, THERE'S A NUMBER OF -- OF

NATIONS THAT ABORTION IS NOT IN THEIR LANGUAGE. NOT -- NO SLANG, NO

TRIMESTER, FIRST TRIMESTER, NOTHING, IT'S NOT EVEN IN THEIR LANGUAGE, IT'S SO

ABHORRENT TO THEM; YET, WE'RE DEVELOPING IT OVER THERE. AND I JUST THINK

THAT'S A -- WE -- WE KEEP EXPORTING THIS. AND I WANT YOU TO READ YOU

SOMETHING HERE.

MOST OF YOU -- I'LL READ SOMETHING I READ LAST YEAR:

MOST OF YOU ALL RECOGNIZE ME, AND MY REAL NAME IS NORMA MCCORVEY.

OKAY? SHE IS ALSO KNOWN AS JANE ROE, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUPREME

COURT CASE ROE V. WADE WHICH LEGALIZED ABORTION IN AMERICA AND

CHANGED OUR NATION IN AN UNPRECEDENTED WAY. BACK IN 1973, SHE SAYS,

I WAS A VERY CONFUSED 21-YEAR-OLD WITH ONE CHILD AND FACING AN

UNPLANNED PREGNANCY. AT THAT TIME I FOUGHT TO OBTAIN A LEGAL

ABORTION, BUT THE TRUTH BE TOLD, I HAVE THREE DAUGHTERS AND HAVE NEVER

HAD AN ABORTION. HOWEVER, UPON KNOWING GOD, I REALIZE THAT MY CASE,

WHICH LEGALIZED ABORTION ON DEMAND, WAS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE OF MY

LIFE. YOU SEE, ABORTION HAS ELIMINATED 60 MILLION INNOCENT BABIES IN

THE U.S. ALONE SINCE 1973. ABORTION SCARS AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF

POST-ABORTED MOTHERS, FATHERS AND FAMILIES, ALSO. YOU READ ABOUT ME

IN HISTORY BOOKS, BUT NOW I'M DEDICATED TO SPREADING THE TRUTH ABOUT

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

CONSERVING THE DIGNITY OF ALL HUMAN LIFE FROM NATURAL CONCEPTION TO

NATURAL DEATH. THAT IS FROM THE WOMAN WHOSE NAME WAS PUT ON THE

LAWSUIT THAT WE ARE -- ARE DEBATING HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. MELISSA MILLER.

MS. MILLER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU

YIELD?

MS. GLICK: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MS. MILLER: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, IF I MAY. I

KNOW YOU -- YOU SAID NO -- NO DENTISTS, NO PODIATRISTS, OBVIOUSLY. YOU

DID SAY PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS, MIDWIVES, ALL WHO

WOULD OPERATE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A DOCTOR, BUT THE DOCTOR IS NOT

REQUIRED TO BE IN THE ROOM, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: NOT 100 PERCENT, MS. MILLER. UNDER --

OPERATING UNDER THEIR LICENSED SCOPE OF PRACTICE. SO, A PHYSICIAN

ASSISTANT HAS TO BE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A PHYSICIAN. THE NURSE

PRACTITIONERS AND MIDWIVES WOULD NOT BE DOING SURGICAL ABORTIONS, IT

WOULD BE A MEDICAL ABORTION --

MS. MILLER: ONLY A MEDICAL.

MS. GLICK: -- AND THEY WOULD BE OPERATING WITH A

-- UNDER THEIR OWN SCOPE.

MS. MILLER: BUT THEY CAN PERFORM -- NOT -- NOT

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

PERFORM SURGICAL --

MS. GLICK: RIGHT.

MS. MILLER: -- ABORTIONS, ONLY MEDICAL --

MS. GLICK: RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE MEDICAL --

MS. MILLER: OKAY.

MS. GLICK: SO THEY -- THEY CAN WRITE A PRESCRIPTION

AND DO THE FOLLOW-UP CARE THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT.

MS. MILLER: AND NO OTHER TYPE OF DOCTORS, NOT A

FAMILY PRACTITIONER?

MS. GLICK: NO.

MS. MILLER: NO.

MS. GLICK: NO.

MS. MILLER: OKAY. AND THEN AFTER 24 WEEKS, ONLY

SURGEONS CAN PERFORM, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SURGICAL PROCEDURE, SO

THEN NURSE PRACTITIONERS AND MIDWIVES WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO

PERFORM THIS?

MS. GLICK: I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PHARMACEUTICAL

LIMITS ARE, SO I CAN'T DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT. BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT

WOULD NOT BE A MEDICAL ABORTION, BUT A SURGICAL ONE.

MS. MILLER: SO THEN IT WOULD BE --

MS. GLICK: A PHYSICIAN OR A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT.

MS. MILLER: OKAY. AND THEN JUST BACK TO WHAT

SOMEBODY HAD MENTIONED, I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHO AT THIS POINT, WITH

THE NOT HAVING TWO DOCTORS IN THE ROOM IF THERE WERE TO BE A PROCEDURE

WHERE THERE WAS A LIVE BIRTH, AND NOT HAVING -- AT WHAT POINT IS THAT

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

CUTOFF WHERE THERE ARE NOT TWO DOCTORS IN THE ROOM ANYMORE, OR TWO

PRACTITIONERS?

MS. GLICK: THAT HAS NOT BEEN IN PLACE, IT IS -- IT

WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS A CLEANUP, NOT CHANGING WHAT HAS

BEEN THE CASE BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

MS. MILLER: SO THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE?

MS. GLICK: THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS NOT

ENFORCED IT BECAUSE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULING, FOR SOME MANY

YEARS.

MS. MILLER: SO THIS IS JUST A TECHNICAL --

MS. GLICK: YES.

MS. MILLER: -- LANGUAGE IN THERE.

MS. GLICK: YES.

MS. MILLER: I SEE. THANK YOU.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAIA.

MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR JUST YIELD FOR A QUICK COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU

YIELD?

MS. GLICK: CERTAINLY.

MR. RAIA: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK YIELDS.

MR. RAIA: THANK YOU. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF

RHETORIC ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE, AND I GUESS ONE OF MY MAIN CONCERNS IS,

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THAT RHETORIC IS WHAT HAPPENS IN NEW YORK IF

ROE V. WADE IS OVERTURNED. LET ME ASK YOU, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN

UNDER NEW YORK -- IN NEW YORK STATE IF ROE V. WADE WERE

OVERTURNED OR ALL -- MOST OF OUR LAWS WERE DONE PRIOR TO ROE V. WADE,

CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: WELL THEY WERE, AND SO THE HEALTH OF

THE MOTHER IS NOT PROTECTED IN NEW YORK STATE, AND THAT HAS RESULTED IN

MANY INSTANCES WHERE DOCTORS WERE UNCOMFORTABLE. THEY'RE PROTECTED

BY FEDERAL LAW, BUT NOT NECESSARILY STATE LAW, AND IT HAS PLACED A

BURDEN ON WOMEN WHO HAVE TO GO OUT-OF-STATE TO GET HEALTH CARE

BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A HEALTH EXCEPTION IN NEW YORK STATE

CURRENTLY, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO REMEDY.

MR. RAIA: BUT WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT WITH OR

WITHOUT ROE.

MS. GLICK: YES, WE COULD HAVE --

MR. RAIA: OKAY.

MS. GLICK: -- BUT WE DIDN'T 50 YEARS AGO AND THAT'S

WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY TO FIX WHAT --

MR. RAIA: OKAY.

MS. GLICK: -- WHAT WE DIDN'T DO THEN.

MR. RAIA: GETTING BACK TO THE -- THE TWO DOCTORS IN

THE ROOM ASPECT. I NOTICED -- YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS FOUND

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'M NOT SURE THERE WAS ACTUALLY EVER AN AFFIRMATIVE

COURT RULING THAT PRESENTED THAT AS AN UNDUE BURDEN. IT'S ONLY

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF HAVING TWO DOCTORS IN THE ROOM WOULD BE DEEMED --

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

DEEMED AN UNDUE BURDEN. DO YOU KNOW OF A COURT CASE IN WHICH IT

WAS ACTUALLY DECLARED AN UNDUE BURDEN?

MS. GLICK: IT WAS THE AKRON CASE THAT I REFERRED TO

EARLIER.

MR. RAIA: OKAY. I'LL LOOK INTO THAT. YOU KNOW, BUT

THERE IS ACTUALLY VERY GOOD REASON TO HAVE TWO DOCTORS THERE IN CASE --

WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU A SCENARIO. IT'S NOT EVEN A SCENARIO, IT'S ACTUALLY

REAL LIFE. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY ONE OF THE BEST RESEARCH

PEOPLE OUT THERE DEALING WITH HEALTH ISSUES, AND I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE

HE ACTUALLY WORKS FOR ME. HIS WIFE HAD AN EMERGENCY C-SECTION AT 33

WEEKS. THE BABY WAS BORN NOT BREATHING. WOULD THE PARENTS HAVE

HAD A RIGHT TO JUST SAY, OKAY, DON'T REVIVE THAT -- THAT CHILD THAT WAS

BORN NOT BREATHING BECAUSE -- HOLD ON -- BECAUSE THAT CHILD WAS

REVIVED AND IS VERY MUCH ALIVE TODAY. MY CONCERN WOULD BE THIS: IN A

SCENARIO WHERE YOU HAVE ONE DOCTOR DOING AN EMERGENCY C-SECTION IN

WHICH NOW YOU HAVE A MOTHER THAT IS -- IS IN A SURGICAL PROCEDURE, YOU

HAVE A BABY THAT'S JUST BEEN BORN NOT BREATHING, IT'S PRETTY HARD TO DO

BOTH THINGS AT ONCE. SO, WOULD THEY -- SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS,

WOULD THEY HAVE -- WOULD THEY HAVE HAD A RIGHT TO SAY, NO, JUST LEAVE

THE BABY THERE AND DON'T TRY REVIVING IT? BECAUSE IT WASN'T BORN

BREATHING, AND IN YOUR DEFINITION, THE CHILD NEEDS TO BE BORN BREATHING,

CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: NO. THAT -- MR. RAIA, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN

SOMEBODY UNDERGOES A C-SECTION, THAT'S VERY SERIOUS SURGERY.

MR. RAIA: THAT'S RIGHT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MS. GLICK: AND SO THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST ONE

PERSON IN A DELIVERY ROOM WHERE THERE IS A C-SECTION --

MR. RAIA: BUT MAYBE ONLY ONE DOCTOR.

MS. GLICK: THERE ARE OTHER MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS

WHO CAN, IN FACT -- ALL MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS ARE TRAINED IN CPR AND

THE APPROPRIATE --

MR. RAIA: SO AM I, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M QUALIFIED.

MS. GLICK: I'M GLAD YOU THINK THIS IS SO FUNNY, MR.

RAIA, THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF --

MR. RAIA: IT IS VERY SERIOUS --

MS. GLICK: -- AND I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER.

MR. RAIA: -- THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP. VERY

SERIOUS. PLEASE ANSWER. I'M SORRY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: I WILL --

MR. RAIA: I APOLOGIZE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- REMIND YOU.

PLEASE, YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT. THANK YOU.

MS. GLICK: IN AN EMERGENCY C-SECTION, THERE -- IT IS

THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE OBLIGATED TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO

SAVE THE PATIENT AND ONCE THE BABY HAS BEEN DELIVERED, THEY HAVE AN

OBLIGATION TO REVIVE THE BABY.

MR. RAIA: BUT THE BABY WASN'T BORN BREATHING AND

UNDER YOUR DEFINITION --

MS. GLICK: WE HAVE NOT GIVEN A DEFINITION.

MR. RAIA: -- IF IT'S NOT A PERSON UNTIL THEY -- TAKE A

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BREATH, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: NO, I DID NOT --

MR. RAIA: YOU SAID THAT BEFORE.

MS. GLICK: -- SAY THAT. I DID NOT SAY THAT.

MR. RAIA: WE CAN GO BACK IN THE RECORD. AND YOU

USED THE WORDS "BREATH."

(PAUSE)

MS. GLICK: THIS -- I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS RELATES TO

SOMEONE WHO IS SEEKING AN ABORTION VERSUS SOMEONE WHO IS SEEKING

AN EMERGENCY C-SECTION. SO, PERHAPS YOU COULD CLARIFY TO ME WHAT

YOUR POINT IS.

MR. RAIA: I'M ACTUALLY ASKING FOR THE CLARIFICATION

BECAUSE WOULD -- AND IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION, WOULD THOSE PARENTS AT

THAT POINT OF TIME, BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED A BREATH, HAD THE RIGHT TO LET

THAT CHILD JUST STAY ON THE TABLE WITHOUT BEING REVIVED?

MS. GLICK: YOU HAVE --

MR. RAIA: IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION.

MS. GLICK: -- ALREADY INDICATED THAT THIS IS AN

EMERGENCY C-SECTION. A C-SECTION IS AN ATTEMPT TO DELIVER THE CHILD.

TO DELIVER THE CHILD. AND IF THE CHILD IS NOT BREATHING IN AN EMERGENCY

C-SECTION CIRCUMSTANCE, THEN IT IS THE MEDICAL PROFESSION'S OBLIGATION

TO TRY TO REVIVE THAT DELIVERED CHILD.

MR. RAIA: SO, IF A BABY IS BORN AT NINE MONTHS --

WELL, LET'S NOT -- LET'S SAY NOT BORN, BUT IF SOMEBODY WENT TO HAVE AN

ABORTION AT NINE MONTHS FOR THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, WHICH I GET, I

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

UNDERSTAND AND I SUPPORT. BUT, IF DURING THAT ABORTION THAT CHILD WAS

BORN, TECHNICALLY ALIVE, THERE IS -- THEY DON'T HAVE TO TRY AND REVIVE

THEM ANYMORE, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: I WILL REPEAT: YOU'RE EITHER BORN OR

YOU'RE NOT. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MR. RAIA: WELL, THE WAY IT'S ACTUALLY READ IS IT'S -- IT

HAS TO BE BORN BREATHING.

MS. GLICK: THAT'S NOT IN THIS BILL.

MR. RAIA: OH. OKAY.

MS. GLICK: THAT'S PROBABLY CASE LAW, BUT NOT --

MR. RAIA: I GUESS WE'LL AGREE TO DISAGREE. THANK

YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. REILLY.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. REILLY: SO, WE -- WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS,

MY COLLEAGUES WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW AND HOW WE'RE STRIKING

ABORTION FROM THE PENAL LAW. WITH MY EXPERIENCE IN THE POLICE

DEPARTMENT AND WITH ASSAULT AND HARASSMENT -- I WANT TO PUT IT TO YOU

LIKE THIS: LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAVE A MAN AND A WOMAN, THE MAN IS

MARRIED AND HE HAS AN AFFAIR WITH A WOMAN AND SHE GETS PREGNANT. HE

DOESN'T WANT HIS WIFE TO FIND OUT. HE GOES UP TO HER, LIKE THE CASES THAT

WE HEARD MENTIONED BEFORE AND HE REPEATEDLY PUNCHES HER IN THE

STOMACH. WELL, NOW IT CAUSES HER TO MISCARRIAGE, SHE LOST THAT BABY.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BUT SHE DOESN'T RECEIVE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WHERE IT WOULD BE

PROSECUTED AS AN ASSAULT 2, WHICH IS A FELONY. AND THEN WE LOOK AT, IS

IT AN ASSAULT 3, A MISDEMEANOR? WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. BECAUSE WHAT

IF THE INJURY ISN'T THAT SUBSTANTIAL? WE ARE NOW FORCING OUR PROSECTORS

TO LOOK AT HARASSMENT, A VIOLATION. NOT EVEN A MISDEMEANOR.

SO, THE INTENT ON THE BILL, I UNDERSTAND. IT COULD

ACTUALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT REMOVING THE PENAL LAW, BECAUSE

YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE PROSECUTORIAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT NOT ONLY THE

UNBORN CHILD, BUT THE MOTHER. THAT IS A REASON WHY I HAVE TO VOTE NO

FOR THIS BILL. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. FITZPATRICK.

MR. FITZPATRICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU

KNOW, WE'VE DEBATED THIS BILL MANY TIMES AND AS WE FIND OUT TODAY, WE

NO LONG -- WE'RE NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER, WE'RE SPEAKING OR TALKING AT

EACH OTHER AND OVER EACH OTHER. NEITHER SIDE IS HAVING AN IMPACT ON

THE OTHER. AND WE KNEW THIS DAY WOULD COME ON ELECTION DAY THIS

PAST NOVEMBER, THAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD -- WOULD PASS THIS HOUSE AS

WELL AS THE SENATE, AND THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO SIGN IT THIS EVENING.

SO, ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO

PRAY FOR A CHANGE OF HEART BY PEOPLE ON THIS ISSUE. THERE ARE MANY

WAYS TO HELP A YOUNG WOMAN DEAL WITH AN UNPLANNED OR UNINTENDED

PREGNANCY. THERE IS -- LIFE IS A GIFT. ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS PAST SUNDAY, I HAD THE PLEASURE OF WELCOMING MY

NEW GRANDDAUGHTER, LITTLE MAEVE ROSARIO, BORN AT MOUNT SINAI WEST IN

MANHATTAN AT QUARTER TO THREE IN THE MORNING ON SUNDAY. AND, YOU

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

KNOW, SHE WAS LITTLE. FIVE POUNDS, 10 OUNCES; LITTLE BIT OF A THING. BUT

SHE IS GORGEOUS. SHE'S BEAUTIFUL AND SHE HAS A WONDERFUL LIFE TO LOOK

FORWARD TO.

AND IT'S AN OLD EXPRESSION, BABIES BRING THEIR OWN

LUCK. SO ALL OF THOSE UNFORTUNATE CASES WHERE THAT LITTLE CHILD, THEIR LIFE

WAS TAKEN FROM THEM, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THE

LUCK THAT THEIR LIFE WILL BRING. AND TO THE PARENTS OF THOSE CHILDREN,

MANY OF WHOM -- MANY OF WHOM REGRET THE DECISION THEY MADE.

I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR A CHANGE OF HEART

THAT SOME DAY, YOU KNOW, WE NO LONGER HAVE TO -- THAT ABORTION JUST

BECOMES JUST SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. IT REALLY IS TAKING OF A

HUMAN LIFE AND I STILL BELIEVE IT'S WRONG. I BELIEVE IT ALWAYS WILL BE

WRONG. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT. SO, I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS

LEGISLATION AND I'M JUST TO KEEP PRAYING FOR A CHANGE OF HEART.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMON.

MS. SIMON: SO, I -- I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE

BILL. I AM GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO SPEAK UP AND TO SPEAK OUT

ON THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT TODAY AND TO CAST MY VOTE FOR A

WOMAN'S RIGHT TO THE FULL PANOPLY OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE. I

COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR HER STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO WOMEN AND FOR

HAVING THE GUTS AND THE HEART TO SUFFER THE SLINGS AND ARROWS THROWN AT

HER THROUGHOUT THE YEARS AS SHE SHEPHERDED THIS BILL TO ITS PASSAGE

TODAY, WHEN IT WILL FINALLY PASS BOTH HOUSES OF OUR LEGISLATURE.

CODIFYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ROE V. WADE INTO STATE LAWS IS CRITICAL TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF NEW

YORK'S WOMEN AND FAMILIES. PREVIOUSLY, I WORKED WITH DEAF AND

HEARING WOMEN FOR MANY YEARS, COUNSELING AND COACHING THEM

THROUGH THEIR ABORTION PROCEDURES AT A CLINIC IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THE

EXPERIENCE AFFECTED ME DEEPLY AND TAUGHT ME A GREAT DEAL. WHILE I

LEARNED MUCH FROM THE DOCTORS AND NURSES, I LEARNED MOST FROM THE

ONE-ON-ONE COUNSELING OF OVER 1,000 WOMEN OF ALL AGES, RACES AND LIFE

CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO, I COUNSELED WOMEN, INCLUDING MOTHERS OF FIVE

WHOSE DANGEROUSLY HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE MADE THE PILL NO LONGER A

HEALTHY OPTION, BUT WHOSE HUSBANDS REFUSED TO USE CONDOMS; THE

WOMEN WORKING ON CAPITAL HILL WHO WERE PARALYZED WITH FEAR THAT

THEIR BOSSES WOULD FIND OUT; AND THE YOUNG WOMEN WHOSE BRAVERY

INSPIRED ME, INCLUDING ALL THOSE TEENAGERS, MANY FROM SOUTHEAST D.C.

BORN OF VERY DIFFICULT LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHOSE PREGNANCIES WERE

MOST LIKELY THE RESULT OF RAPE OR INCEST, BUT WHO NEVERTHELESS HAD THE

GUTS TO PLACE THEIR TRUST IN MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND SOME WOMAN

THEY'D NEVER SEE AGAIN.

THERE'S ALTOGETHER TOO MUCH MYTH AND MYSTERY AND

SCARE TACTICS PROMOTED TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS DURING

ABORTION PROCEDURES AND WHO UNDERGOES THIS MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

THESE MYTHS WERE ON DISPLAY GRAPHICALLY AND INACCURATELY DURING THE

LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND IN THE HALLS OF OUR CAPITOL THE LAST FEW

WEEKS. OUR CURRENT LAW IS 50 YEARS OLD AND NEEDS UPDATING TO REFLECT

THE PRESENT REALITIES OF MEDICAL CARE, INCLUDING GUARANTEEING A

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MAKE HER OWN PERSONAL HEALTH CARE DECISIONS

THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF HER PREGNANCY, ESPECIALLY WHEN HER HEALTH IS

ENDANGERED, INCLUDING IF COMPLICATIONS ARISE LATER IN PREGNANCY.

CURRENT STATE LAW CONTRADICTS FEDERAL LAW BY NOT ALLOWING FOR ABORTION

CARE AFTER 24 WEEKS WHEN A WOMAN'S HEALTH IS AT RISK OR THE FETUS IS NOT

VIABLE. IT ALSO LEGISLATES ABORTION THROUGH THE PENAL CODE INSTEAD OF

THE HEALTH CODE, WHERE IT BELONGS. ABORTION CARE IS HEALTH CARE.

IN NEW YORK, WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE,

NOT MYTH. TODAY, NEW YORK WILL FINALLY ENSURE THAT THE RHETORIC DOES

NOT SUPPLANT SCIENCE AND THAT NEW YORKERS' RIGHTS TO OBTAIN ABORTION

SERVICES WILL BE FULLY ACCESSIBLE, SAFE AND PROTECTED IN THE HEALTH LAW.

FORTY YEARS AFTER I BEGAN CARING FOR WOMEN

UNDERGOING ABORTION PROCEDURES, I REMAIN APPALLED THAT THIS COUNTRY IS

STILL ARGUING ABOUT A WOMAN'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE, AND TO

CHOOSE SAFELY. SO, TODAY I'M HONORED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL TO

GUARANTEE REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM TO ALL NEW YORKERS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. ASHBY.

MR. ASHBY: ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE --

MR. ASHBY: WHAT ARE WE TELLING EXPECTANT NEW

YORK FAMILIES TODAY? THAT YOUR UNBORN CHILD HAS NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS

IN OUR STATE. THIS IS A POISONOUS MESSAGE FOR EXPECTANT MOTHERS AND

FAMILIES TO CONTEND WITH. IT'S A SAD DAY FOR ALL NEW YORKERS, WHETHER

THEY'RE BORN OR UNBORN. I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALKER.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MS. WALKER: ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MA'AM.

MS. WALKER: I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST DOCUMENT MY

MOST SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL AND ALSO TO THIS

BODY FOR THIS HISTORIC HERSTORIC OCCASION. AS I SAT HERE AND I LISTENED

TO THE DEBATE, IT BROUGHT ME BACK TO OTHER DEBATES THAT WE'VE HAD ON

THIS VERY FLOOR. AT ONE POINT IN TIME, WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT

YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO LOST THEIR LIVES WHILE EITHER IN CUSTODY OF

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, OR DUE TO SOME INTERACTION WITH A LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. AND WHILE THE PERSON WOUND UP BEING DECEASED,

THE QUESTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN, WERE THEY MURDERED? OR, AS WE HAVE

THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT GUN LAWS AND THE PROTECTIONS OF THE

CONSTITUTION OVER GUNS, AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE SAY HOW DIVISIVE

GUNS ARE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF DEATHS THAT OCCUR IN OUR

COMMUNITIES, THE CONSTITUTION ALWAYS GETS CITED AS A REASON FOR WHY

WE NEED MORE GUNS IN OUR STREETS AND IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY TODAY WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE

DON'T DESERVE THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO OUR

MINDS, OUR BODIES AND OURSELVES AS WOMEN. MANY INSTANCES WE'VE

HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, EVEN THE LAST ONE -- THE

LAST TIME IT HIT THE FLOOR. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THE

MOST DANGEROUS PLACE FOR A BLACK CHILD WAS IN HIS MOTHER'S WOMB.

NOT ONLY WAS THAT THE MOST VILE COMMENT THAT I THOUGHT I COULD EVER

HEAR ON THIS TOPIC, IT MADE ME REFLECT ON THE PRIVILEGES THAT I HAVE AS A

PARENT TODAY. BUT I DID HAVE AN EARLY PREGNANCY IN MY LIFETIME THAT

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HAS CAUSED ME TO MAKE THE DECISION IN THE PAST TO HAVE AN ABORTION. IT

WAS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISIONS I THINK I'VE EVER MADE. IT WAS A

SCARY DECISION FOR ME. BUT, QUITE FRANKLY, IT WAS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE

BEST DECISIONS THAT I MADE, AND I'M PROUD TO HAVE HAD THE FREEDOMS BY

WHICH TO MAKE IT. I REMEMBER STORIES OF MY AUNT, WHO WOULD TELL ME

THAT WHEN SHE WANTED TO MAKE DECISIONS AND CHOICES ABOUT HER OWN

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO CLOSETS AND

VERY UNSAFE SCENARIOS BY WHICH TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

AND SO WHILE I RECOGNIZE THAT I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK

TO THAT DATE, I AM PROUD TO BE ABLE TO STAND IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. I

REPRESENT ONE OF THE VERY FIRST FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE CLINICS EVER IN THE

HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE, THE MARGARET SANGER CLINIC. THAT CLINIC

WAS LOCATED IN BROWNSVILLE FOR A SHORT NINE DAYS WHEN MARGARET

SANGER WAS ARRESTED. BUT PRIOR TO HER ARREST, SHE SAW 450 WOMEN IN

THAT CLINIC IN THAT SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. AND THAT WAS IN 1916. SO

WHILE WE ARE HERE MANY YEARS AFTER THAT TIME, I THINK THE CONVERSATION

IS JUST AS JUSTIFIABLE TODAY AS IT WAS ON (SIC) THOSE DAYS IN THE

BROWNSVILLE COMMUNITY, WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO

MAKE THIS DECISION.

I DO AGREE THAT WHILE I LOOK AT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION,

I DON'T FIND THAT THE CRIMINAL AND THE PENAL CODE IS THE PROPER PLACE

FOR US TO TALK ABOUT A MEDICAL CONVERSATION. WE NEED TO HAVE THIS

CONVERSATION WHERE THIS CONVERSATION IS DEFINITELY JUSTIFIABLE.

IT HAS TAKEN US A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS POINT, I KNOW

VERY MANY YEARS PRIOR TO MY ACTUALLY ARRIVING TO THIS BODY. BUT I LOOK

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FORWARD TO TAKING THIS VOTE AND SPEAKING TO WOMEN ALL ACROSS THE STATE

AND ALL ACROSS OUR COUNTRY TO SAY THAT EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE HAS STOOD UP

FOR YOU, NEW YORK STATE STANDS WITH YOU, RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF

CHOICE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR BODIES, OUR SELVES, OUR MINDS AND

WOMEN BEING IN CONTROL OF THOSE DECISIONS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING MEN

MAKING DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO OUR OVARIES, OUR UTERUS AND WHATEVER

DECISIONS WE DECIDE TO MAKE WITH THOSE ORGANS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I SUPPORT THIS BILL AND WILL VOTE

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOTTFRIED.

MR. GOTTFRIED: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU

KNOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID ON THE FLOOR REPEATEDLY THAT

ARE JUST NOT THE CASE, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE MAY GO HOME NOT

ONLY AND REPEAT THEM, BUT MIGHT GO HOME AND BELIEVE THEM AND FEEL

TROUBLED BY IT. THE NOTION THAT SOMEHOW IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW OR

WHEN THIS BILL BECOMES LAW, THERE WILL BE "NO PROTECTION FOR THE FETUS".

WELL, YOU COULD SAY, IS THERE ANY PROTECTION FOR SOMEBODY'S BRAIN, OR

FOR THEIR HEART, OR THEIR BONES? READ THE PENAL LAW FROM BEGINNING TO

END, YOU FIND NO MENTION OF ANY PARTICULAR ORGANS AND, YET, IF YOU

ASSAULT SOMEONE AND DAMAGE ONE OF THOSE ORGANS OR IMPAIR ITS

FUNCTIONING, YOU'RE GUILTY OF A VERY SERIOUS CRIME.

AND SO, DOES THE LAW PROTECT OUR BONES? YES, EVEN

THOUGH THEY'RE NOT MENTIONED. WILL THE LAW CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE

FETUS? YES, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE MENTIONED IN THE PENAL LAW

BECAUSE AN ASSAULT THAT CAUSES THE DESTRUCTION OF A FETUS, OR EVEN INJURY

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

TO A FETUS, IS SUBJECT TO MORE SEVERE PENALTIES WHEN DEFINED AS AN

ASSAULT THAN IF IT'S DEFINED AS AN UNJUSTIFIED ABORTION. SO, THIS BILL IS

NOT REMOVING ANY PROTECTION FOR A FETUS, IT IS PRESERVING THE MUCH

GREATER PROTECTIONS IN THE LAW FOR A FETUS THAN SOME OF THE OPPONENTS OF

THE BILL HAVE BEEN CITED -- HAVE BEEN CITING.

SIMILARLY, THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, IF THE FETUS IS

BORN ALIVE, THIS BILL IS REMOVING ANY PROTECTION. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE.

HOWEVER A FETUS BECOMES ALIVE, WHETHER IT IS AS A RESULT OF AN ABORTION

THAT -- OR AN ATTEMPTED ABORTION THAT DID NOT ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE

AND THE FETUS WAS BORN ALIVE, OR -- OR IN A DELIVERY, WHERE A FETUS IS

BORN ALIVE, INSTANTLY THERE IS A WHOLE PANOPLY OF LEGAL, AND EVEN --

WELL, CERTAINLY MEDICAL, AND EVEN CRIMINAL, OBLIGATIONS THAT -- THAT

IMMEDIATELY APPLY THAT PROTECT WHAT IS, IN THAT INSTANT, A PERSON. IT

MIGHT NOT BE BREATHING AT FIRST. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE BREATHING TO

BE ALIVE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SUCH A THING CALLED RESUSCITATION. A

FETUS THAT IS BORN ALIVE IS TODAY PROTECTED BY LAWS THAT NEVER USE THE

WORD ABORTION AND IS TODAY -- AND WILL BE PROTECTED IF THIS BILL BECOME

-- WHEN THIS BILL BECOMES A LAW.

I JUST WANT TO SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ROLE OF NURSE

PRACTITIONERS. A NURSE -- EXACTLY WHAT SERVICES, CLINICAL SERVICES A

NURSE PRACTITIONER MAY PERFORM, DEPEND ON THE SPECIALTY IN WHICH HE

OR SHE IS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. AS I

UNDERSTAND IT, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE TODAY ANY SURGICAL PROCEDURES THAT

NURSE PRACTITIONERS PERFORM, BUT IN THEORY, STATE EDUCATION COULD --

COULD RECOGNIZE SUCH A NURSE PRACTITIONER SPECIALTY, AND REQUIRE AN

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF TRAINING.

FINALLY, WE ARE HERE TODAY AT A -- AT AN EXTRAORDINARY

MOMENT IN A MOVEMENT THAT -- THAT I'VE BEEN AWARE OF HAS BEEN

FUNCTIONING -- WORKING FOR OVER 50 YEARS. ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN GOING ON

LONG BEFORE MY EARLIEST EXPERIENCES WITH IT. IT'S A MOVEMENT THAT HAS

BEEN CREATED AND SUSTAINED AND ENABLED US TO REACH THIS DAY BY AN

ARMY OF EXTRAORDINARILY DEDICATED AND -- AND TALENTED AND HUMANE

ADVOCATES. AND WE WOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING THIS BILL TODAY WERE IT NOT

FOR THAT EXTRAORDINARY MOVEMENT.

AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY IS, I JUST WANT TO

CONGRATULATE AND THANK THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL, DEBORAH GLICK, WHO, AS

AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS A LEGISLATOR HAS BEEN ONE OF THE GREAT LEADERS OF

THAT ARMY AND HAS NOT ONLY TODAY, BUT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, GIVEN A

-- A REALLY STERLING EXPLANATION IN DEFENSE OF THIS LEGISLATION, AND

GENERATIONS OF WOMEN AND MEN IN NEW YORK WILL OWE HER A DEEP DEBT

OF GRATITUDE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.

GLICK, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED.

MS. BICHOTTE.

MS. BICHOTTE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I -- ON

THE BILL. I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR REINTRODUCING THIS BILL YEAR

AFTER YEAR, NOT GIVING UP, THIS BILL CALLED THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT,

AND SPEARHEADING TO GUARANTEE REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS FOR WOMEN

EVERYWHERE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

I'M PROUD THAT I WILL VOTE TODAY TO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF

WOMEN IN THE STATE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN

BODIES AND THEIR OWN HEALTH. THOSE DECISIONS MAY INCLUDE ACCESS TO

CONTRACEPTIVES AND/OR TERMINATING A PREGNANCY. THIS BILL WOULD ALSO

ALLOW ABORTIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY LICENSED HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS

IN A PARTICULAR SCOPE IN A VERY SAFE MANNER. LASTLY, AND VERY

IMPORTANT, THIS BILL WOULD MAKE A REPEAL ON THE CRIMINAL CODE WHICH

INCLUDES ABORTION AS A CRIMINAL ACT.

SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS COUNTRY, IT HAS BEEN A

STRUGGLE OF WOMEN TO GAIN THEIR RIGHT TO AGENCY THAT IS DUE TO THEM.

WHEN I WAS PREGNANT, I WAS ABOUT TO GIVE BIRTH AT FIVE-AND-A-HALF

MONTHS. AND THEY ASKED -- AND THE DOCTORS ASKED ME, DO I WANT TO

ABORT MY CHILD? I TOLD THEM NO, AND I HAD MY SON AND MY SON WAS

BORN ALIVE. ALTHOUGH MY SON DIDN'T MAKE IT PAST TWO HOURS, AT THE END

OF THE DAY, IT WAS MY CHOICE. IT WAS MY CHOICE OF WHAT I WANTED TO DO.

WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THIS BILL, IT'S ABOUT CHOICE, WHETHER YOU CHOOSE

TO KEEP THE FETUS, OR WHETHER YOU CHOOSE TO ABORT. IT'S STILL A WOMAN'S

CHOICE.

TODAY'S IS THE 46TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LANDMARK CASE

ROE V. WADE, WHICH MADE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ENACT PATERNALISTIC

LEGISLATION CONCERNING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE CONTRACEPTION. WITH

THAT IN MIND, I SUPPORT THIS BILL THAT WILL CODIFY NEW YORK LAW TO

PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN A WOMAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I WILL -- AND I HOPE MY

COLLEAGUES WILL VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BYRNE.

MR. BYRNE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME SHORT QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU

YIELD?

MS. GLICK: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK YIELDS.

MR. BYRNE: THANK YOU, MS. GLICK, HOPEFULLY THIS

WON'T TAKE TOO MUCH TIME. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ASKED

AND ANSWERED ALREADY, AND WHILE WE MAY RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE ON

SOME OF THE CONTENTS WITHIN THIS BILL, I -- I'LL TRY TO DRILL DOWN TO MY --

MY QUESTION. IT'S BEEN STATED A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW, I THINK THE

FEDERAL BAN ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION FROM BACK IN 2003, YOU MAY NOT

AGREE WITH THE TERMINOLOGY, BUT COULD YOU RUN THROUGH WHAT THAT

PROCEDURE WAS YOU REFERENCED BEFORE, COULD YOU RUN THROUGH THAT ONE

MORE TIME?

MS. GLICK: THAT WAS -- IS REFERRED TO IN MEDICAL

TERMS AS AN "INTACT DILATION AND EXTRACTION."

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. CAN YOU GO INTO DETAIL A LITTLE

BIT MORE THAN THAT, OR NO?

MS. GLICK: NO. I'M NOT A (SIC) OBSTETRICIAN.

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY

EARLIER THAT IT WAS THE SAFEST PROCEDURE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I

GOT THAT RIGHT.

MS. GLICK: NO. WHAT I SAID, TO CORRECT THE RECORD,

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WAS THAT IN SOME INSTANCES WHEN THE BAN WAS PROPOSED, MEDICAL

PROFESSIONALS OPPOSED IT BECAUSE IN SOME INSTANCES THEY FELT IT WAS THE

SAFEST PROCEDURE TO PROTECT THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE WOMAN.

MR. BYRNE: THE MOTHER, OKAY. NOW, THAT'S

CURRENT FEDERAL LAW, THAT BAN IS STILL IN EXISTENCE TODAY, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: CORRECT.

MR. BYRNE: CORRECT. AND I HEARD THIS BEFORE FROM

SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO ALSO,

THAT OUR CURRENT LAWS OR STATE LAWS CONTRADICT FEDERAL LAW; IS THAT

ACCURATE? THAT THIS IS YOUR INTERPRETATION TO CODIFY THE FEDERAL

ROE V. WADE?

MS. GLICK: WELL, NEW YORK STATE LAW PROTECTS

ONLY THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, NOT HER HEALTH; ROE V. WADE PROTECTS BOTH

HER HEALTH AND LIFE. AND SO, THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1973

AND PRESUMABLY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS HAVE HAD 46 YEARS TO DETERMINE

WHAT THAT MEANS.

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. I KNOW I HAVE

HEARD FROM OUR COLLEAGUES THIS AFTERNOON THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE

THE STATE LAW NOT CONTRADICT FEDERAL LAW. HAS THERE HAVE BEEN ANY

THOUGHT TO AMEND THE LEGISLATION TO INCLUDE THE FEDERAL BAN IN THIS

STATUTE. SO SHOULD, IF ROE V. WADE EVER GETS CHANGED, THAT'S, IN PART --

PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS LEGISLATION, CORRECT? WHAT ABOUT IF THAT

FEDERAL BAN EVER CHANGES --

MS. GLICK: THE FEDERAL BAN IS SEPARATE FROM.

MR. BYRNE: SO, HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT TO -- TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AMEND IT AND INCLUDE A BAN TO MIRROR THE FEDERAL BAN HERE AT THE STATE

LEVEL?

MS. GLICK: NO.

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. ONE OTHER QUESTION, TOO. WELL,

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING REQUIRED FOR LEGISLATION. I KNOW

SOMETIMES COLLEAGUES PUT UP A REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION GOES FOR ITS

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SOLICITS PUBLIC FEEDBACK. I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS AND DECADES AND IT'S VERY CONTROVERSIAL

WITHIN OUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS. WE ALL KNOW PEOPLE, I THINK, ON BOTH

SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INPUT OR ATTEMPT TO CONDUCT A

PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS -- ON THIS LEGISLATION?

MS. GLICK: WELL, HAVING DEBATED THIS ABOUT EIGHT

OR 10 TIMES, I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR ALL

OF THE QUESTIONS THAT -- AND ANSWERS RATHER THOROUGHLY.

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. SO THAT ANSWER IS NO, NO PUBLIC

HEARING IN ADDITION TO -- TO THE DEBATES.

MS. GLICK: OH, I CAN -- I THINK -- I THINK THE DEBATE

ON THE FLOOR IS A VERY DRAMATIC PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. BUT NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY,

PEOPLE FROM OUR DISTRICTS AREN'T GIVING TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS AND

ANSWERS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

MS. GLICK: (NO RESPONSE.)

MR. BYRNE: OKAY. ANYWAY -- AGAIN -- MY -- THANK

YOU, MS. GLICK, I APPRECIATE IT. AND, MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. BYRNE: I WASN'T REALLY PREPARED OR PLANNING TO

SPEAK ON THIS BILL THIS AFTERNOON. THIS MIGHT BE THE LAST TIME WE VOTE

ON THIS AND I KNOW WHILE SOME PEOPLE MAY BE CELEBRATING THAT, I

CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I FEEL IN MY HEART, BUT ALSO I

FIND IT INTERESTING BECAUSE JUST LAST WEEK I VOTED AND SUPPORTED A

PACKAGE OF LEGISLATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE MEASURES, BECAUSE I BELIEVE

EVERY HUMAN LIFE HAS VALUE REGARDLESS OF WHAT MAY MAKE US DIFFERENT,

AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE CHILD IN THE WOMB. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY

DESERVE ANY LESS PROTECTIONS THAN ANYONE ELSE. SO, I WILL BE VOTING IN

THE NEGATIVE, MR. SPEAKER. AND THANK YOU, MS. GLICK, AND THANK YOU

TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR LISTENING AND YOUR ATTENTION.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. DAVILA.

MS. DAVILA: ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL.

MS. DAVILA: FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS, I'VE BEEN

COMING BACK AND FORTH TO ALBANY DREADING, DREADING COMING UP WITH

THIS TOPIC, ONLY BECAUSE THE -- THE MOMENTS THAT THE WOMEN HERE HAD TO

GET UP TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, SOMETIMES IT WAS REALLY EGREGIOUS. WE

WERE EVEN ACCUSED AS WOMEN OF COLOR TO PERFORMING GENOCIDE AND THAT

IS STRONG. WHEN YOU ACCUSE SOMEONE OF GENOCIDE, THAT'S A STRONG

WORD. I'M JUST -- I JUST FEEL EXTREMELY PRIVILEGED TODAY TO BE ABLE TO

STAND HERE AND SAY THAT FINALLY, FINALLY WE'RE GOING TO BE PASSING THIS

BILL.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS AND NO ONE DURING

THE WEEK THAT WE HONOR DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING'S LEGACY SHOULD DENY

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ANYONE A RIGHT BASED ON GENDER. THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING MORE

FUNDAMENTAL TO WOMEN'S EQUALITY THAN A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CONTROL HER

OWN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. WE DON'T NEED LAWYERS DECIDING THE MERITS

OF SOUND MEDICAL DECISIONS. THIS BILL ENSURES THAT THE HEALTH OF THE

PREGNANT PERSON IS A FACTOR IN DECIDING THE COURSE OF TREATMENT. SO, IF

YOU WALK THROUGH ALL OF THE NEW YORK CITY HOSPITALS THAT PERFORM

THESE MEDICAL PROCEDURES, I ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL FIND A NUMEROUS

AMOUNT OF WOMEN COMING FROM OTHER STATES BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING

DEPRIVED OF THIS RIGHT. SO TODAY, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

MS. LINDA ROSENTHAL.

MS. ROSENTHAL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

IN 1970, WHEN NEW YORK'S ABORTION LAW BECAME LAW

THREE YEARS -- LET ME BEGIN AGAIN, I'M SORRY. IN 1970, WHEN NEW

YORK'S ABORTION BILL BECAME LAW THREE YEARS BEFORE ROE WAS DECIDED,

THE BILL'S FUTURE HUNG IN THE BALANCE BECAUSE IT WAS SHY THE VOTES

NEEDED FOR PASSAGE BY ONE VOTE. AT THE LAST MINUTE AS THE CLERK WAS

POISED TO READ THE FINAL VOTE COUNT AND ANNOUNCE THE BILL HAD FAILED, A

TEARFUL UPSTATE DEMOCRAT, GEORGE MICHAELS OF AUBURN, NEW YORK

STOOD TO CHANGE HIS VOTE. HE ROSE, CHOKING BACK TEARS AND SAID, I

KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, THAT I AM TERMINATING MY POLITICAL CAREER, BUT I

CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SIT HERE AND ALLOW MY VOTE TO BE THE ONE

THAT DEFEATS THIS BILL. I ASK THAT MY VOTE BE CHANGED FROM NO TO YES.

CHAOS ENSUED, BUT MICHAEL'S VOTE WAS ENOUGH TO PUSH THE BILL OVER THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FINISH LINE AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE FOR CONSIDERATION AND IT BECAME

LAW IN NEW YORK STATE. ASSEMBLYMEMBER MICHAELS DID GO ON TO LOSE

HIS NEXT ELECTION, BUT HE DID THE RIGHT THING FOR HIMSELF AND FOR HIS

FAMILY, AS HE SAID LATER ON.

HIS ACTION WAS HEROIC THEN AND, OVER THE YEARS, WE

HAVE FOUGHT TO PASS THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT AND SO MANY BRAVE

ADVOCATES HAVE TAKEN ACTION TO SEE THAT THIS BILL WOULD BECOME LAW.

LIKE THE CHRISTENSEN FAMILY WHO HAVE BRAVELY SHARED THEIR STORY TO

PROVIDE TANGIBLE PROOF OF WHY THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT IS NEEDED

IN NEW YORK STATE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, EACH ONE OF US WILL

EXPERIENCE A HANDFUL OF DEFINING MOMENTS, MOMENTS WHEN WE ARE

CALLED UPON TO TAKE COURAGEOUS ACTIONS, MOMENTS THAT SHAPE WHO WE

ARE AND SHAPE OTHERS. TODAY IS ONE OF THOSE DAYS AND THIS IS ONE OF

THOSE MOMENTS, ALTHOUGH GIVEN THE IMMENSE POPULARITY OF ENACTING

THIS BILL INTO LAW, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S CAREER WILL SUFFER.

AFTER HAVING VOTED PERSONALLY TO PASS THE

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT MANY, MANY TIMES IN MAYBE 10, 11 YEARS, I

AM PROUD ONCE AGAIN TO SUPPORT ITS PASSAGE INTO LAW. ABORTION HAS

ALWAYS BEEN A LIGHTNING ROD ISSUE, BUT THE ANTI-ABORTION EXTREMISTS ARE

EMBOLDENED BY A NEW ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON THEY VIEW AS

SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR CAUSE. THESE EXTREMISTS HAVE WEAPONIZED THEIR

OPPOSITION TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE AND WOMEN'S HEALTH AND ARE

NOW ENGAGING IN AN ALL-OUT ASSAULT ON A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE HERE

IN THE UNITED STATES AND ACROSS THE WORLD. FROM EFFORTS TO DEFUND

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND MAR ITS REPUTATION, TO EFFORTS TO PLACE ONEROUS

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AND COSTLY RESTRICTIONS ON TERMINATION SERVICES THAT DO NOT MAKE THE

PROCEDURE SAFER, TO PERSONHOOD AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED

IN SOME STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, TO THE GAG RULE AND THE OUTSOURCING

OF ANTI-ABORTION SENTIMENT ACROSS THE WORLD. THESE EXTREME IDEOLOGS

WILL STOP AT NOTHING ON THEIR PATH TO ENDANGER THE LIVES OF COUNTLESS

WOMEN AND CHILDREN BY MAKING ABORTION ILLEGAL AND REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTHCARE SERVICES HARDER TO OBTAIN.

FOR YEARS, WE WERE CONFIDENT THAT ROE AND THE CASES

THAT FOLLOWED AND STRENGTHENED IT WOULD NEVER BE OVERTURNED, BUT WE

NOW SEE THE FOLLY OF OUR WAYS BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION IN

WASHINGTON IS STACKING THE FEDERAL BENCH AND THE SUPREME COURT WITH

JUSTICES WHO HAVE SWORN TO TURN BACK WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

NEW YORK'S WOMEN HAVE ALWAYS LED THE WAY FROM THE DAYS OF SENECA

FALLS TO TODAY. AND TODAY, WE IN NEW YORK ARE VOTING TO ENSHRINE

WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE IN LAW AND GUARANTEE IT AGAINST

IDEOLOGICAL ATTACK.

I WANT TO THANK THE INDEFATIGABLE DEBORAH GLICK WHO

HAS SPONSORED THIS BILL SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND THE COUNTLESS

ADVOCATES WHOSE WORK HAS MADE THIS DAY POSSIBLE. I PROUDLY CAST MY

VOTE FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. NO MATTER

WHAT YOUR OPINION MIGHT BE ON PREGNANCIES AND ABORTION IN AN EARLY

STAGE, I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG TO ALLOW FOR A

FULL-TERM, HEALTHY, VIABLE BABY TO BE KILLED IN UTERO FOR SOME UNDEFINED

HEALTH REASON. WORSE, THAT NO PROVISIONS ARE INCLUDED IN ORDER TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACCOUNT FOR IF THAT BABY IS BORN ALIVE. I'LL BE VOTING NO AND I ABSOLUTELY

IMPLORE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS ASSEMBLY TO VOTE LIKEWISE. IF EVERY

SOCIETY IS GAUGED BY HOW IT TAKES CARE OF THOSE WHO ARE MOST

VULNERABLE AND MOST IN NEED, THEN YOU MUST VOTE NO ON THIS BILL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

MR. EPSTEIN.

MR. EPSTEIN: ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. EPSTEIN: I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS REALLY IMPORTANT MOMENT AND MY

COLLEAGUES FOR STANDING HERE, AND THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL FOR HER

LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AROUND

WHAT WE'RE DOING TO WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND THE CONCERNS

THAT PEOPLE RAISE AROUND THE FETUS, BUT I JUST WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE

WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WE ARE IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE'RE SO DIVISIVE

THAT PEOPLE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THEIR OWN BODIES.

SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE DISAGREEMENTS AROUND WHAT REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH IS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A WOMAN AND A DECISION

BETWEEN HER AND HER HEALTH CARE PROVIDER IS WHAT'S CRITICAL.

NOW, SOME PEOPLE MAY DISAGREE SAYING THIS IS ABOUT

LIFE, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT YOUR VIEWS AND YOUR

PHILOSOPHIES VERSUS SOMEONE ELSE'S. AND TODAY, WE'RE STANDING HERE IN

A HISTORIC MOMENT REALIZING THAT WE STAND WITH WOMEN AND THEIR ABILITY

TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT THEIR OWN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. THANK YOU FOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BEING HERE. THANK YOU FOR THE SENATE BEING HERE. THIS IS A MOMENT

THAT WE SHOULD REMEMBER, AS THE STATE OF NEW YORK TAKES LEADERSHIP

ON SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE. I'M PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF THIS BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

MS. REYES.

MS. REYES: I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL

FOR HER LEADERSHIP AND CONVICTION IN DEFENDING THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

OF WOMEN. I RISE NOT JUST AS A WOMAN AND AS A MOTHER WHO HAS

BENEFITTED FROM THE ACCESS -- FROM ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE,

BUT I RISE AS A REGISTERED NURSE AND A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL. I AM

TROUBLED BY THE INSINUATIONS THAT DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS ARE

DIVORCE OF THE MORAL AND ETHICAL BURDENS OF THEIR PRACTICE. THERE IS NO

SUCH THING AS ABORTION-ON-DEMAND. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT

LATE-TERM ABORTIONS ARE RARE. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MEDICAL

CONDITIONS THAT NECESSITATE TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BECAUSE OF THE

HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, THESE ARE NUMEROUS AND PATIENT-SPECIFIC.

WOMEN'S BODIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE OF HEALTH

ARE SO INDIVIDUALIZED THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE AND INTRUSIVE TO

LEGISLATE. WE SEE WOMEN WITH PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS WHO

BECOME PREGNANT AND HAVE COMPLICATIONS SO SEVERE THAT IT POSSESSES A

THREAT TO THEIR LIVES. IN MY PRACTICE AS AN ONCOLOGY NURSE, I HAVE CARED

FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE RECEIVED A DIAGNOSIS WHILE PREGNANT AND HAVE

STOOD BY THEIR SIDE WHILE THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY CONTINUE

THEIR PREGNANCY OR SEEK TREATMENT SO THEY CAN BE ALIVE TO SEE THAT

CHILD.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF

MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS OTHER THAN DOCTORS. A NURSE PRACTITIONER IS AT

MINIMUM A MASTER-TRAINED NURSE. MANY POSSES A DOCTORATE AND, IN

MANY CASES, HAVE MORE CLINICAL EXPERIENCE THAN RESIDENT DOCTORS IN

THEIR FIRST, SECOND, THIRD OR FOURTH YEAR OF RESIDENCY. NURSE MIDWIVES

ARE ADVANCED PRACTICED NURSES WITH A SPECIALTY IN WOMEN'S

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. THEY LITERALLY DELIVER BABIES ALIVE AND NOT, EVERY

DAY OF THEIR PRACTICE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PHYSICIAN

ASSISTANTS AND NURSE PRACTITIONERS PERFORM AND ASSIST IN SURGICAL

PROCEDURES EVERY DAY, AS WELL.

THIS IS ABOUT INCREASING ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

CARE. CURRENTLY, EARLY-TERM ABORTIONS ARE AMBULATORY PROCEDURES AND

ADJUSTING THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE IS PARAMOUNT IN ENSURING WOMEN IN

EVERY CORNER OF OUR STATE CAN ACCESS SAFE, COMPREHENSIVE REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH AND I WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. RICHARDSON.

MS. RICHARDSON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU

KNOW, THERE'S A SAYING THAT GOES THAT ANYTHING THAT'S WORTH HAVING

DOESN'T COME EASY AND WHAT TRUE, LET ME TELL YOU, WE HAVE BEEN

FIGHTING IN THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR SUCH A LONG TIME TO PASS THE

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE ACT. I'M SO PROUD OF THE SPONSOR OF THIS

LEGISLATION. PEOPLE DON'T THAT BEHIND THE SCENES AS LEGISLATORS WHEN WE

TAKE A STAND FOR AN ISSUE, UNFORTUNATELY WE ENDURE A LOT OF BACKLASH AT

TIMES, AND THE SPONSOR HAS STOOD STRONG FOR DECADES FIGHTING FOR

WOMEN'S RIGHT. AND AS A WOMAN, AS A MOTHER, I STAND HERE FOR ALL NEW

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

YORKERS ACROSS THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO SAY THAT IT IS OUR BODIES, IT IS

OUR CHOICE, IT IS OUR VOICE, IT IS OUR RIGHT AND WITH THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION, WE ARE OPENING UP THE DOORS FOR ACCESS FOR HEALTH CARE AND

WE SAY TO ALL THE WOMEN, AND I WANT TO SAY TO ALL THE ADVOCATES, THIS IS

YOUR DAY, THIS IS YOUR TIME, THIS IS YOUR MOMENT. YOU GUYS HAVE STOOD

ON TOP OF US -- WELL, ON TOP OF US, BUT BESIDE US. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE

PUSHED US TO ENSURE THAT THIS ISSUE STAYS AT THE FOREFRONT OF OUR

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. SO, I'M SO HAPPY TO BE IN THIS CHAMBER AT THIS

MOMENT OF TIME TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SEAWRIGHT.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, ON THE

BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MA'AM.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: ON BEHALF OF THE WOMEN AND

FAMILIES IN MY DISTRICT ON THE UPPER EAST SIDE, YORKVILLE AND

ROOSEVELT ISLAND AND ACROSS THIS GREAT STATE, I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS

CRITICALLY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE

FREEDOM. I COMMEND THE BILL'S SPONSOR, CHAIRWOMAN DEBORAH GLICK,

AND SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER WHO'S IN THE CHAMBER, FOR BEING THE SPONSORS

TIME AND TIME AGAIN OF THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.

"ADVANCING THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IS THE GREAT

UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE 21ST CENTURY," SAID HILLARY CLINTON. ABOUT

10 PERCENT OF NEW YORK'S WOMEN LIVE IN A COUNTY WITHOUT AN ABORTION

PROVIDER ACCORDING TO A RESEARCH GROUP THAT SUPPORTS CHOICE. NEW

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

YORK STATE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST STATES TO PROVIDE WOMEN WITH THE RIGHT.

IN 1970, NEW YORK PASSED THE MOST PERMISSIVE ABORTION LAW IN

AMERICA, ONE THAT DEFINED THE STATE AS THE COUNTRY'S ABORTION REFUGE

AND WHERE WOMEN SOUGHT RELIEF.

SO, MANY YEARS AFTER THE JOURNEY FOR REPRODUCTIVE

FREEDOM STARTED, TODAY WE WILL SEE THIS BILL THROUGH TO REALITY IN NEW

YORK STATE. ON THIS HISTORIC DAY, NEW YORK STATE WILL ONCE AGAIN BE A

LEADER IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BY CODIFYING ROE V. WADE, ENSURING

REGARDLESS OF WHAT OCCURS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT WOMEN WILL

CONTINUE TO SEE NEW YORK STATE AS A BEACON WHERE THEY CAN SAFELY

MAKE CHOICES. TODAY, I'M HONORED TO CAST MY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. ARROYO.

MRS. ARROYO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

ALLOWING ME TO RAISE MY VOICE IN THIS BILL. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BILL WILL

COVER ONLY THE STATE OF NEW YORK. BUT WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT EACH

OTHER AS A WOMAN. I HAVE SIX GRAND -- GRANDCHILDS (SIC) THAT ARE

WOMEN. I HAVE FOUR GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN THAT ARE WOMEN, AND I HAVE

FOUR GIRLS OF MY OWN. IN THE NAME OF ALL OF THEM, I THANK GOD THAT

GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN TO

CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH HER BODY, WITH WHOM AND HOW. I'M

VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. DIPIETRO FOR A

SECOND.

MR. DIPIETRO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

TODAY, AS I HAVE IN YEARS PAST, TO ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE

AGAINST THIS UNGODLY LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY AND

DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE. THERE IS NO MORE DEBATE. NO MORE DEBATE OVER

LIFE IN THE WOMB. AS TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR

THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIVES, TO FEIGN IGNORANCE

ABOUT HUMAN LIFE IN THE WOMB. NO LONGER CAN THEY CLAIM THAT LIFE IS

JUST A RANDOM COLLECTION OF CELLS. WITH NEW 3D AND 4D ULTRASOUNDS, IT

BECOMES A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH THAT THIS IS A HUMAN BEING. UNDER THE

LIGHT OF THE ULTRASOUND, THE TRUTH IS REVEALED. THIS IS LIFE. THIS IS WHY I

SPONSOR LEGISLATION EACH YEAR THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ULTRASOUND BE DONE

BEFORE AN ABORTION CAN TAKE PLACE. WHAT'S THE HARM IN THAT? EVERY

PIECE OF INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE WOMAN MAKING

THESE DECISIONS. IT'S CALLED "CHOICE". GIVE HER ALL THE TOOLS SHE NEEDS.

THEY SHOULD SEE THE HUMAN LIFE THAT HANGS IN THE BALANCE OF THEIR

DECISION.

STUDIES HAVE SHOWN 70 PERCENT, 70 PERCENT OF

MOTHERS WHO SEE THE ULTRASOUND CHOOSE TO KEEP THE BABY. WHY

WOULDN'T WE WANT THEM TO SEE AN ULTRASOUND? DID YOU KNOW THAT 80,

80 PERCENT OF FATHERS WHEN THEY SEE AN ULTRASOUND WANT TO KEEP THE

BABY. THAT'S RIGHT. A BABY. DO YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF

DEATH IS WHEN THE HEART STOPS BEATING. WOULDN'T IT BE COMMONSENSE,

THEN, THAT LIFE BEGINS WHEN THE HEART'S BEATING? THERE IS NO

COMMONSENSE IN THIS LAW.

I ASK, WHY DOES THE MAJORITY REFUSE TO PUT THE

SONOGRAM BILL UP FOR A VOTE? IT'S CLEAR. IT'S AN ADDED TOOL FOR CHOICE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WHAT IS THE HARM IN LETTING A PREGNANT MOTHER SEE A SONOGRAM?

INSTEAD OF EMPOWERING WOMEN FOR ALL THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO MAKE

A DECISION, THE PRO-ABORTION CROWD SEEKS THE COMFORT OF THE DARK

SHADOWS, LIKE RATS SCURRYING TO HOLES IN THE WALL WHEN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH

SHINES ON THEM. IT'S EASIER TO MOCK MY LEGISLATION TO SAVE LIVES THAN IT

IS TO CHANGE THE CULTURE OF DEATH THAT SURROUNDS THE ABORTION INDUSTRY.

I'M TOUGH ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT, FOR WHAT I GO THROUGH IS NOTHING

COMPARED TO BEING CHOPPED UP AND DISMEMBERED BY FORCEPS AND THEN

PIECES OF THE EYES, THE FINGERS, THE LEGS, THE MOUTH, HEAD, TOES AND ALL

THE OTHER BODY PARTS VACUUMED UP AND OUT INTO THE GARBAGE.

FOR SOMETHING TO BE A CHOICE, THERE HAS TO BE MULTIPLE

OPTIONS PRESENT AND THE PERSON MAKING THE DECISION SHOULD HAVE ALL

AVAILABLE INFORMATION, NOT JUST SOME. THIS SHOULDN'T BE A CONTROVERSIAL

OPINION OR A CONTROVERSIAL BILL. BUT THE PRO-DEATH CROWD AND MEMBERS

OF THIS ASSEMBLY REFUSE TO ALLOW WOMEN ANY HELP. THEY REFUSE TO

ALLOW WOMEN A CHOICE TO SEE A SONOGRAM. THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW

WOMEN A CHOICE TO SEEK COUNSELING. IN MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH,

WHICH THIS IS, ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEFORE A DECISION IS

RENDERED. MAKE NO MISTAKE. THIS IS A DECISION BETWEEN LIFE AND

DEATH. THIS IS A CHOICE BETWEEN KILLING AND LIVING. IT'S SCIENTIFIC. IT'S

PROVEN. THERE'S NO DOUBT. THERE'S NO ARGUMENT. THE ONLY WAY A

PROCEDURE IS AS BRUTAL AND DISFIGURING AS ABORTION CAN CONTINUE TO EXIST

IS THROUGH THE IGNORANCE OF THOSE INVOLVED. COLD, CALCULATED MEDICAL

TERMS THAT WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD HERE TODAY HAVE FOSTERED AN

ENVIRONMENT THAT ENDANGERS HUMAN LIFE. TO THIS DAY, A HUMAN BEING

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IN THE WOMB HAS NEVER TRANSFORMED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. IT DOESN'T

BECOME A TURTLE. IT DOESN'T BEING A PLANT. YOU ENDED A HUMAN LIFE. AS

OTHER STATES ARE MOVING TO PROTECT LIFE, NEW YORK DOUBLES DOWN ON

ENDING IT.

IF WE WERE TO FIND THE SMALLEST CELL ON MARS WITH

LIVING MATERIAL, IT WOULD BE CELEBRATED. IT WOULD BE CELEBRATED AND

PRESERVED. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HERE ON EARTH, WE DEBATE HOW LATE UP

TO WHEN THE BABY IS BEING PULLED OUT OF THE WOMB IT IS -- IS IT

ACCEPTABLE TO MURDER A HUMAN LIFE. I AM NO LONGER MINCING WORDS.

THE ENDING OF A HUMAN LIFE IS MURDER. BACK IN THE DAY OF KING AHAZ,

HE SACRIFICED HIS SONS AND OTHER CHILDREN BY THROWING THEM INTO THE FIRE

AS WORSHIP TO PAGAN GODS. EVEN TODAY, THE PROCESS HASN'T ABATED. THE

SACRIFICE OF CHILDREN TO THE HARSH GODS OF CONVENIENCE, ECONOMY AND

WHIM CONTINUES IN STERILE MEDICAL FACILITIES IN NUMBERS THAT WOULD

ASTOUND AND EMBARRASS KING AHAZ.

IT IS WRITTEN VERY CLEARLY: TRULY, CHILDREN ARE A GIFT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BABY. THE BOND BETWEEN THE MOTHER AND HER BABY

IS TRULY REMARKABLE. WHILE IN THE WOMB, BABIES BEGIN LEARNING

LANGUAGE FROM THEIR MOTHERS. THEY ALSO LEARN TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENT

WORDS. THIS IS WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THE WOMB THEY CAN RECOGNIZE

LANGUAGE. AFTER BIRTH, THEY WILL STILL REMEMBER SOME OF THESE WORDS,

EVEN BEING ABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEIR MOTHER TONGUE AND OTHER

LANGUAGES. LET ME REPEAT THAT. THEY WILL STILL REMEMBER THESE WORDS

EVEN BEING ABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MOTHER TONGUE AND ANOTHER

LANGUAGE - THAT'S INCREDIBLE - WHILE IN THE WOMB. BABIES MAY ALSO

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

RESPOND TO THEIR MOTHER'S TOUCH BY DISPLAYING MORE MOVEMENTS AS A

WAY OF COMMUNICATION. DID YOU KNOW WHEN THE MOTHER'S HEART, WHEN

THE MOTHER'S HEART IS INJURED, STEM CELLS FROM THE FETUS, FROM THE BABY,

MIGRATE TO THE INJURED SITE AND REPAIR THE DAMAGE WHEN A MOTHER'S

HEART IS HURT. MALE BABIES IN THE WOMB LEAVE TRACES OF THEIR DNA ON

THE MOTHER'S BRAIN WHICH PROTECTS THE MOTHER FROM ALZHEIMER'S

DISEASE.

IT DOESN'T END HERE. ANTIBODIES TRAVEL FROM THE

MOTHER TO HER BABY THROUGH THE PLACENTA. BREASTFEEDING BOOSTS THE

BABY'S IMMUNE SYSTEM BEFORE AND AFTER BIRTH AND PROTECTS THE BABY

FROM DEADLY BACTERIA AND VIRUSES. AFTER THE BABY IS BORN, BREAST MILK

IS CUSTOMIZED ACCORDING TO THE SEX OF THE BABY. MOTHERS PRODUCE

DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL RECIPES FOR SONS AND DAUGHTERS. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

IN 25 DAYS -- A WOMAN GETS PREGNANT, IN 25 DAYS THE HEART CHAMBER

DEVELOPS. IN 32 DAYS, THAT'S ONE WEEK LATER, 32 DAYS, ONE MONTH, ARMS

AND HANDS BEGIN DEVELOPING. THIRTY-SIX DAYS, FOUR DAYS LATER, 36 DAYS

BEGINS THE VERTEBRAE'S DEVELOPMENT. THE FIRST FIVE WEEKS ARE THE MOST

RAPID DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CHILD'S LIFE IN THE WOMB. THIS IS FIVE WEEKS.

IT IS NOT A BLOB OF TISSUE. IT'S A BABY. AT SIX WEEKS, BRAINWAVES ARE

DETECTABLE. AT 45 DAYS, THE HEART IS BEATING TWICE AS FAST AS THE

MOTHER'S. YES, THAT'S A HUMAN HEART, NOT AN ANIMAL HEART. IT'S NOT A

BLOB OF TISSUE. IT'S A HEART. IT'S BEATING TWICE AS FAST AS THE MOTHER'S;

IT'S ALIVE AND WELL. AT SEVEN WEEKS, SEVEN WEEKS, 49 DAYS, EYELIDS,

TOES FORM. THE NOSE IS DISTINCT AND THE BABY IS KICKING AND SWIMMING.

THAT IS JUST THE FIRST 49 DAYS. YOU CAN STILL RECEIVE AN ABORTION FOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ANOTHER 127 DAYS, BUT LET ME REPEAT THAT, NOW YOU CAN RECEIVE IT FOR

MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS. AT WEEK EIGHT, EIGHT WEEKS, TWO MONTHS,

EVERY ORGAN IS IN PLACE. BONES BEGIN TO REPLACE CARTILAGE AND

FINGERPRINTS FORM; FINGERPRINTS, DNA. WEEK 11, ALL THE ORGANS ARE

FUNCTIONING AND THE BABY CAN GRASP OBJECTS PLACED IN ITS HANDS; NOT

EVEN THREE MONTHS, THE BABY CAN GRASP SOMETHING. AT WEEK 12, THE

BABY HAS ALL THE BODY PARTS CAPABLE OF FEELING PAIN. WE KNOW THAT

NOW. WE DID NOT KNOW THAT IN 1973. TWELVE WEEKS, THREE MONTHS,

THE BABY CAN FEEL PAIN. NERVES, SPINAL CORD, THALAMUS, THE VOCAL CORDS

ARE COMPLETE AND THE BABY CAN SUCK ITS THUMB. BY THE END OF THE

FOURTH MONTH, THIS UNMISTAKABLY HUMAN LIFE IS EIGHT TO 10 INCHES IN

LENGTH. THE HEART IS PUMPING 25 QUARTS OF BLOOD A DAY AND IT WEIGHS

ALMOST A POUND. TWENTY-FIVE QUARTS OF BLOOD A DAY. IS THERE ANYONE

WHO CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY IT IS NOT A HUMAN LIFE?

AT WEEK 18, THE BABY WILL BEGIN TO HEAR. AT WEEK 19,

THE BABY CAN ROUTINELY BE SAVED. AT 19 WEEKS YOU CAN SAVE THAT BABY.

NO NEED FOR ABORTION. AT 20 WEEKS, THIS CHILD FEELS PAIN AND FEELS

EVERY AGONIZING PART OF THE ABORTION PROCESS. I HAVE SUBMITTED A BILL

THAT ALL ABORTIONS MUST STOP AT 20 WEEKS. I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER GOING TO

SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN HERE, CORRECT? CORRECT. AT 21 WEEKS, THAT'S NOT

EVEN, WHAT'S THAT, FOUR MONTHS, FIVE MONTHS, THE BABY CAN SWALLOW. AT

WEEK 23, THE BABY WILL DEVELOP TASTE BUDS. IT CAN TASTE WHAT THE

MOTHER EATS. AT WEEK 24, THE BABY IS GROWING REAL HAIR. ALL OF THIS

DEVELOPMENT OCCURS DURING THE PERIOD WHERE AN ABORTION IS STILL AN

OPTION. HOW IS THIS FAIR TO LIFE?

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

DURING MONTHS SEVEN THROUGH NINE, THE BABY IS USING

FOUR OF THEIR FIVE SENSES; VISION, HEARING, TASTE AND TOUCH. THEY KNOW

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING AND SLEEPING. THEY CAN RELATE TO THE

MOTHER'S MOOD AND THE HEART BEGINS PUMPING 300 QUARTS OF BLOOD A

DAY. SOMEONE WANT TO TELL ME THAT'S NOT LIFE? I HOPE NONE OF YOU HAVE

EATEN RECENTLY, BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF ABORTIONS ARE HANDLED IN A

MANNER SO GRUESOME IT IS UNFITTING TO THE WORLD'S LONE SUPERPOWER, LET

ALONE THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THROUGH THE FIRST 100, 110 DAYS, TWICE

THE TIME IT TOOK THIS CHILD TO GAIN RETINAS AND NOSE AND FINGERS IT CAN BE

TERMINATED VIA VACUUM ASPIRATION. THIS CAN BE DONE MANUALLY OR

ELECTRONICALLY. A TUBE IS INSERTED INTO THE WOMB AND AN ELECTRIC PUMP

OR MANUAL PUMP CREATES SUCH A SUCTION THAT THE BABY IS SUCKED FROM

THE WOMB AND KILLED. A BABY THAT HAS JUST DEVELOPED EYELIDS AND LEGS

AND IS UNMISTAKABLY HUMAN HAS BEEN SUCKED INTO A VACUUM LIKE DUST

ON THE LIVING ROOM CARPET. THIS IS PREFERRED, THOUGH, BY PLANNED

PARENTHOOD BECAUSE THEY HAVE A WAY OF KEEPING THE ORGANS.

SECOND MOST COMMON FORM OF SURGICAL ABORTION IS THE

CURETTAGE METHOD IN WHICH AN INSTRUMENT IS INSERTED INTO THE WOMB

AND SCRAPES THE WALLS OF THE UTERUS OF ANY TRACE OF HUMAN LIFE. IT'S THE

SAME TYPE OF INSTRUMENT USED BY THE DENTIST TO CLEAN TARTAR OFF YOUR

TEETH. THE INSTRUMENT IS CALLED A CURETTE. A NEW LIFE IS REMOVED FROM

A WOMAN IN THE SAME MANNER THAT TARTAR IS SCRAPED FROM YOUR TEETH.

OUR INNATE HUMAN INSTINCT OF SELF-PRESERVATION DOES NOT BEGIN OUTSIDE

THE WOMB. DURING THESE HORRIFIC PROCEDURES, BECAUSE WE KNOW NOW

BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY, THE BABY WILL ACTUALLY TURN AWAY, IT'LL TURN AWAY

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FROM THE MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS. THEY TRY TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM BEING

RIPPED APART. THEY TRY TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM BEING VACUUMED UP

LIKE COMMON TRASH AND DEBRIS. THEY WANT TO LIVE AND, YET, THEY'VE

BEEN SENT TO DEATH.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE ESTIMATES THE NUMBER OF

HUMAN LIVES ENDED BY ABORTION HERE TO BE 60 MILLION SINCE THE

ROE V. WADE DECISION, AN UNFATHOMABLE NUMBER OF HUMAN LIVES.

INSTEAD OF ENDING THIS INFANTICIDE, WE FOCUS OUR LIFE-SAVING EFFORTS ON

THINGS LIKE STRIPPING AMERICANS OF OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IT

WOULD SAVE MORE HUMAN LIVES BY EMPLOYING AN ULTRASOUND THAN IT

WOULD BY ANY SAFE STORAGE BILL. JEREMIAH 1:5 SAYS, "BEFORE I FORMED

YOU IN THE WOMB, I KNEW YOU. BEFORE YOU WERE BORN, YOU WERE SET

APART." I KNOW MOST OF YOU ARE NOT OF FAITH. I KNOW SOME OF YOU

FOLLOW THE GOD'S RELIGIONS. BUT I'M ALWAYS ASKED, AND FOR THOSE WHO

ARE CURIOUS, THERE IS A PASSAGE THAT STICKS OUT IN MY MIND. IT USES THE

WORLD "WOE". A VERY STRONG AND POWERFUL WORD, A VERY BAD WORD USED

BY GOD. IT SAYS, IF ANYONE CAUSES ONE OF THESE LITTLE ONES, THOSE WHO

BELIEVE IN ME TO STUMBLE, IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THEM TO HAVE A LARGE

MILLSTONE HUNG AROUND THEIR NECK AND TO BE DROWNED IN THE DEPTHS OF

THE SEA. WOE TO THE WORLD BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO

STUMBLE, SUCH THINGS MUST COME, BUT WOE TO THE PERSON THROUGH WHOM

THEY COME.

WE CANNOT AND MUST NOT ALLOW FOR THIS INFANTICIDE TO

CONTINUE. EVERY CHILD DESERVES A CHANCE AT LIFE. A CHANCE TO IMPROVE

THEIR WELL-BEING. A CHANCE TO BE PART OF OUR WORLD JUST LIKE ALL OF US.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

LET'S COME TOGETHER AND END THIS INJUSTICE. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK JESUS

CHRIST, MY LORD AND SAVIOR, FOR OPENING MY EYES. I WILL BE VOTING IN

THE NEGATIVE AND ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO DO, ALSO. THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BARRON.

MR. BARRON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I DON'T

WANT ANY WOMAN IN THIS PLACE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD.

THERE'S ALWAYS A VERY DRAMATIC PRESENTATION TO HAVE YOU GO THROUGH A

GUILT TRIP. BUT THE SAME PEOPLE THAT MAKE THESE DRAMATIC PRESENTATIONS

AFTER THE BABY IS BORN, WE CAN'T GET THEM TO VOTE FOR THINGS THAT HELP

OUR CHILDREN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

(APPLAUSE)

AFTER THE BABY IS BORN --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PLEASE.

MR. BARRON: -- AFTER THE BABY IS BORN, WE CAN'T GET

CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION TO KEEP OUR BABIES OUT OF JAIL. AFTER THE

BABY IS BORN, WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE HEALTH CARE THAT OUR FAMILIES NEED.

WE CANNOT GET FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER THAT OUR FAMILY NEEDS. WE

CANNOT CURB CORPORATIONS FROM EXPLOITING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE

THEY'RE PROTECTED BY THESE SAME PEOPLE THAT LOVE HUMAN LIFE SO MUCH.

(APPLAUSE)

THIS IS A MAJOR, MAJOR CONTRADICTION. AND DON'T LET

THEM WHIP GOD ON YOU, BECAUSE I READ A PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE WHERE

THE GOD SAID, GO INTO THE PROMISED LAND AND KILL EVERYBODY. THE

WOMEN, THE CHILDREN, KILL EVERYBODY. GOD SAID THAT, TOO. SO WHEN

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THEY TAKE PIECES OUT OF THE BIBLE TO MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTY FOR EXERCISING

YOUR RIGHT, IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO DETERMINE. NO MAN, NO MATTER HOW

DESCRIPTIVE THEY MAKE THE ABORTION SOUND, NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO TELL A

WOMAN WHAT TO DO WITH HER BODY.

(APPLAUSE)

NO MAN HAS THAT RIGHT. NOT EVEN A SELF-RIGHTEOUS

CHRISTIAN MAN HAS A RIGHT TO DO THAT.

SO LET ME JUST SAY TO YOU THAT I SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I

SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT. AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO ALL THOSE PRO-LIFE

PEOPLE, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THEIR PRO-LIFE POSITIONS ON LIFE AFTER

WE'RE BORN, AFTER WE'RE BORN AND WE'RE TRYING TO EXTEND LIFE SO THAT WE

CAN GET INTO LIFE EXPECTANCY, SO WE CAN LIVE LONG LIVES WITH BETTER

HOUSING. AND WHEN THE POLICE MURDER US AFTER WE GET OUT OF THE

WOMB, I WANT TO SEE THEM STAND UP AND PUT THEM MURDEROUS COPS TO

JAIL FOR KILLING LIFE AFTER BIRTH. AND IF YOU CAN'T DO IT THEN, THEN I DON'T

WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW BECAUSE THAT'S HYPOCRISY. WITH THAT, I VOTE

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

(APPLAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MANKTELOW.

MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. MANKTELOW: I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS

HERE TODAY AND I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. I KNOW OF TWO

WOMEN THAT DECIDED NOT TO ABORT THEIR CHILDREN. I SEE THESE WOMEN

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

EACH AND EVERY SINGLE DAY AND, BY THE WAY, I'VE NEVER MET THEM IN

PERSON. THESE TWO WOMEN HAD THE TENACITY TO GO AHEAD AND GO

THROUGH WITH THIS AND GIVE BIRTH TO TWO BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, A YOUNG GIRL

AND A YOUNG BOY. WHY I GET TO SEE THOSE TWO WOMEN EVERY SINGLE DAY,

THAT YOUNG BOY AND THAT YOUNG GIRL ARE MY CHILDREN. I WAS ABLE TO

ADOPT THOSE TWO CHILDREN AND AS WE'VE TALKED MANY, MANY TIMES AND IN

THE FIRST SESSION AS A NEWBIE, ONE OF THE WORDS THAT WAS SAID ON THIS

FLOOR IN THIS SESSION WAS "FAMILY FIRST." BECAUSE OF THESE TWO WOMEN,

THEY WERE ABLE TO GIVE ME AND MY WIFE A FAMILY, AND I AM TRULY

THANKFUL FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO RAISE THOSE TWO

CHILDREN. AND THE OLDEST ONE NOW HAS TWO CHILDREN, WHICH ARE MY

GRANDCHILDREN.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF OPTIONS OUT THERE. THERE ARE

THINGS THAT HAPPEN, BUT WE ADOPT A LOT OF KIDS IN THIS COUNTRY AND IF WE

COULD JUST HELP THESE INDIVIDUALS GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE COULD GIVE

THESE CHILDREN UP FOR ADOPTION, WE COULD -- WE COULD TACKLE SOME OF

THESE ISSUES. AND THAT OPTION'S OUT THERE, AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE

US PURSUE THAT.

AND, LASTLY, AS I KNOW, I'M NOT A WOMAN, BUT I AM A

FATHER OF FIVE AND THIS IS WHAT I CAN SAY. AS A CHRISTIAN GUY, I DO

BELIEVE IN DEATH -- OR LIFE AFTER DEATH, BUT I DO BELIEVE THIS, AS WELL. IF

YOU TOOK MY FIVE CHILDREN, TWO ADOPTED, THREE THROUGH A SECOND

MARRIAGE, IF YOU PUT THOSE FIVE CHILDREN UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SAID,

MR. MANKTELOW, IF YOU CAN DO ANYTHING TO SAVE THEM, IT'S YOUR LIFE OR

THEM, I WOULD ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS GIVE MY LIFE FIRST BECAUSE THOSE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FIVE CHILDREN NEEDED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GROW AND BECOME

AMERICANS AND BECOME NEW YORKERS. JUST AS I TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND

THIS COUNTRY, I TOOK AN OATH AS A FATHER TO DEFEND MY FIVE CHILDREN AND I

WILL ALWAYS DO THAT. AND I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE

SO MANY OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE OTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I

APPLAUD YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE HERE TODAY, BUT PLEASE, PLEASE

JUST THINK ABOUT THE VOTE. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL FOR A

SECOND.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. GOODELL: IN 1970, THREE YEARS BEFORE

ROE V. WADE, OUR STATE AUTHORIZED ABORTIONS. EARLIER TODAY ON THE

FLOOR OF THIS ASSEMBLY, WE INTRODUCED THE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED

"ROE" AND SHE RECEIVED A GREAT APPLAUSE FROM MANY MEMBERS. WE DID

NOT INTRODUCE TODAY ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY "ROE", PERHAPS

BECAUSE SINCE THAT LANDMARK CASE, SHE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE STRONGEST

ADVOCATES FOR PRO-LIFE.

TODAY, WE'RE NOT ASKED TO CODIFY ROE V. WADE, EVEN

THOUGH THAT'S WHAT THE PRESS HAS SAID. THAT'S NOT THE BILL WE'RE VOTING

ON. WE DON'T VOTE ON CONCEPTS, DO WE? WE VOTE ON LANGUAGE. WE ALL

KNOW, EVERYONE OF US IN THIS CHAMBER KNOW THAT IN NEW YORK UNDER

CURRENT LAW, THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON ANY ABORTION. YOU CAN GET IT ON

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

DEMAND AT ANY TIME FOR THE FIRST TWO TRIMESTERS, NO RESTRICTIONS. FROM

2012 TO '14, IT'S THE LATEST DATA I PULLED UP FROM THE NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THERE WERE 285,000 ABORTIONS IN NEW YORK

STATE. THERE WERE 400 ABORTIONS FOR EVERY 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS.

AVAILABILITY OF ABORTION IN NEW YORK STATE IS NOT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON

TODAY.

SO, WHAT DOES THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE DO IN THIS BILL?

SECTION 2, IT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A PHYSICIAN TO BE AT AN ABORTION.

NO MATTER WHAT STAGE, YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICIAN. IT CAN

BE DONE, EVEN A LATE-TERM ABORTION, BY A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT. SECTION 2

NO LONGER LIMITS ABORTIONS TO WHERE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AT RISK.

NOW IT CAN BE DONE IF SOMEONE, NAMELY THE MOTHER, SAYS HER HEALTH IS

AT RISK, BUT THIS BILL DOES NOT GIVE ANY GUIDANCE AT ALL ABOUT WHAT THAT

MEANS, DOES IT? YOU ALL HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF YOU. IT DOESN'T SAY

SERIOUS HEALTH RISK, ATYPICAL, UNUSUAL; NO RESTRICTION AT ALL. SECTION 3

ELIMINATES THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ABORTION BE PERFORMED IN A

HOSPITAL, EVEN A LATE-TERM ABORTION JUST BEFORE THE BABY WOULD

OTHERWISE BE BORN. UNDER THIS LANGUAGE, IT COULD BE DONE IN AN

OUTPATIENT CLINIC OR A STOREFRONT. SECTION 3 ALSO, AS WE DISCUSSED,

ELIMINATED THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE TWO PHYSICIANS FOR A LATE-TERM

ABORTION. A LATE-TERM ABORTION IS WHEN THE BABY IS FULLY FORMED, HAS A

HEARTBEAT AND CAN LIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. NO LONGER ARE WE ASKING FOR

PROTECTION FOR THE WOMAN AND THE CHILD WHO IS ALREADY FULLY FORMED.

SECTIONS 5 AND 6 ELIMINATE ANY CRIMINAL PROTECTION FOR

THE UNBORN CHILD, NOT JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF ABORTION, BUT IN ANY

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

CONTEXT. UNDER CURRENT LAW, "HOMICIDE" IS DEFINED AS THE KILLING OF AN

UNBORN CHILD AFTER THE FIRST 24 WEEKS. AN UNJUSTIFIED KILLING OF AN

UNBORN CHILD IS DEFINED AS HOMICIDE. WE TAKE THAT OUT OF THE LAW WITH

THIS BILL. A PREGNANT MOTHER WHO IS ATTACKED AND MUGGED AND HER

CHILD IS KILLED, SURE THERE'S A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR ATTACKING THE MOM,

BUT NOT FOR KILLING THE CHILD. NO CRIMINAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE UNBORN

CHILD. JUST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, SECTION 11 OF THIS BILL, BY THE WAY,

ELIMINATES THE AUTHORITY OF A CORONER TO INVESTIGATE A SUSPECTED

CRIMINAL ABORTION. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. WE ARE, BY LAW,

ELIMINATING THE AUTHORITY OF A CORONER TO INVESTIGATE THE DEATH OF AN

UNBORN CHILD.

MOST OF US HERE CAME HERE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF DOING

OUR UTMOST BEST TO REPRESENT EVERYONE, RIGHT? AND WE KNOW THERE'S A

SPECIAL OBLIGATION ON US TO REPRESENT THOSE WHO ARE NOT POWERFUL, WHO

AREN'T WEALTHY, WHO ARE DOWNTRODDEN, RIGHT? WE HAVE THAT SPECIAL

OBLIGATION TO STAND UP FOR THE WEAK AND THE FRAIL AND THOSE WHO

OTHERWISE HAVE NO VOICE. AND, MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, THAT

INCLUDES THOSE WHO ARE NOT YET BORN THAT ARE FULLY FORMED, FULLY FORMED

IN THE WOMB. WE WILL BE JUDGED ON HOW WE TREAT THOSE WHO DON'T

HAVE A VOICE.

NOW, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. WHEN WE EXPAND

THE AVAILABILITY OF LATE-TERM ABORTIONS THAT INVOLVES KILLING THE BABY,

STOPPING THE HEARTBEAT, DISMEMBERING THE BABY AND REMOVING IT FROM

THE WOMB; DO WE WANT TO ALLOW MORE OF THAT TO HAPPEN IN NEW YORK?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SEAWRIGHT, WHY

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

DO YOU RISE?

MS. SEAWRIGHT: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MR.

GOODELL?

MR. GOODELL: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL YIELDS.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: MR. GOODELL, YOU MENTIONED THE

PLAINTIFF IN ROE V. WADE. HER NAME WAS NORMA MCCORVEY AND I'D

LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY SHE MADE WHEN SHE

SWITCHED HER POSITION AND THE LUCRATIVE DEALS THAT SHE -- AND THE

CONTRACTS THAT SHE SIGNED?

MR. GOODELL: I DO NOT.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU.

MR. GOODELL: NOR DO I -- NOR DO I THINK IT'S

RELEVANT BECAUSE I THINK WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY.

WE ARE ELIMINATING CRIMINAL PROTECTIONS. WE ARE AMENDING THE PENAL

LAW. WE'RE ELIMINATING THE SAFETY PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE AND WE'RE

EXPANDING THE AVAILABILITY OF ABORTIONS AFTER THE BABY HAS FULLY FORMED

AND CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS A VERY, VERY

SERIOUS ISSUE AND I URGE EACH OF US, MYSELF INCLUDED, TO REACH INTO OUR

CONSCIENCE AND MAKE SURE WE ARE COMFORTABLE IN OUR HEART, SOUL AND

MIND THAT THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES.

(APPLAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LAVINE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. LAVINE: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

IT'S BEEN SAID THAT THIS MAY BE THE LAST TIME THAT WE

EVER VOTE ON THIS SUBJECT. WELL, I THOUGHT WE STOPPED VOTING ON THIS

SUBJECT IN 1970 IN NEW YORK STATE, AND I THOUGHT WE STOPPED

LEGISLATING THIS AFTER ROE IN 1973, BUT THAT'S APPARENTLY NOT THE CASE.

AND PERHAPS THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE TO COME TO

THE CONCLUSION THAT AS SOON AS WE ATTAIN ANY HUMAN RIGHT, WE HAVE TO

CONTINUE TO DEFEND IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SO I DOUBT VERY

MUCH THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME WE DISCUSS THIS. AFTER ALL, WE'VE HEARD

THIS AFTERNOON PEOPLE ADVANCING THEIR OWN BILLS TO STOP A WOMAN'S

RIGHT TO AN ABORTION, AS IF LAWS HAVE EVER, EVER HAD THAT SORT OF DESIRED

EFFECT EXCEPT ON THE WEAK, EXCEPT ON THE POOR, EXCEPT ON THOSE WHO

ARE NOT ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR MONETARY POWER TO TRAVEL TO WHERE AN

ABORTION WAS AVAILABLE, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS.

NOW, I AM MARRIED TO SOMEONE WHO'S A VERY PROUD

PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOLUNTEER, AND I WORRY ABOUT HER SAFETY AND THE

SAFETY OF EVERY OTHER PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOLUNTEER AND PEOPLE WHO

WORK AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I WORRY HAS

BEEN DEMONSTRATED HERE PERFECTLY. THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT A WOMAN'S

RIGHT TO AN ABORTION WORK WITHIN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK. THEY

WORK. THEY DEDICATE THEMSELVES TO SOMETHING THAT IS PERFECTLY

PROTECTED BY OUR LAWS. THEY ARE NOT RATS. THEY ARE NOT PRO-DEATH.

THEY ARE NOT KILLERS. THEY ARE NOT MURDERERS. AND PLANNED

PARENTHOOD DOES NOT KEEP ORGANS. BUT THE SORT OF LANGUAGE, THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HYPER-RELIGIOSITY OF THE LANGUAGE THAT IS -- THAT IS USED SERVES ONLY TO

ENABLE THOSE UNSTABLE PEOPLE WHO WILL COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE TO

COMMIT THOSE ACTS OF VIOLENCE. AND, TO ME, THAT IS NOT ANYTHING

RELIGIOUS. TO ME, THE UTILIZATION OF THAT LANGUAGE IS NOTHING LESS THAN

BLASPHEMY AND I CONDEMN IT AND IT SHOULD BE CONDEMNED.

SO RUTH BADER GINSBURG HAD THIS TO SAY - EXCUSE ME -

IN HER CONFIRMATION HEARING BACK IN 1993. "IT IS ESSENTIAL TO WOMEN'S

EQUALITY WITH MAN THAT SHE BE THE DECISIONMAKER, THAT HER CHOICE BE

CONTROLLING. IF YOU IMPOSE RESTRAINTS THAT IMPEDE HER CHOICE, YOU ARE

DISADVANTAGING HER BECAUSE OF HER SEX." SO, I AM GOING TO BE VERY,

VERY PLEASED TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL AND I WANT TO THANK, AS WELL, THE

SPONSORS BOTH HERE AND IN THE SENATE. AND I WANT TO SIMPLY SAY THAT

ONLY SECOND-CLASS STATES HAVE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS AND, TODAY, WE IN

THE SENATE AND WE IN THE ASSEMBLY DEMONSTRATE VERY CLEARLY THAT NEW

YORK STATE IS NO SECOND-CLASS STATE. I WILL BE VERY HONORED TO VOTE IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK TO CLOSE.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS IS A

HISTORIC DAY, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT THINK OF THE WOMEN

WHO HAVE DIED THROUGH ILLEGAL AND BOTCHED ABORTIONS, WOMEN WHO LOST

THE ABILITY TO CONCEIVE AFTER A BOTCHED ABORTION. THAT IS THE REALITY

WHEN ABORTION IS ILLEGAL AND IN STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHERE THERE

ARE ATTEMPTS TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK, THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DENY

WOMEN NOT JUST THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, BUT PERHAPS THE RIGHT TO CONCEIVE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

CHILDREN WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO.

I HAVE SUPPORTED A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE SINCE

BEFORE 1970, BECAUSE I WAS IN COLLEGE BEFORE 1970 AND I SAW

UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES RESULT IN WOMEN BEING DISAPPEARED BY THEIR

FAMILIES WHO FELT SHAME. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, WEALTHY WOMEN COULD

GET ON A PLANE, GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THEY WERE FINE. THEY COULD

GET A LEGAL SAFE ABORTION ELSEWHERE. BUT IF YOU WERE YOUNG, IF YOU

WERE POOR OR JUST MIDDLE-CLASS AND UNCERTAIN OF HOW TO PROCEED, YOU

WOUND UP RISKING YOUR LIFE, YOUR LIFE, BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT PREPARED

TO BE A PARENT.

THAT IS REALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, ENSURING THAT

GOING FORWARD, NEW YORK WOMEN WILL HAVE BETTER ACCESS TO GOOD

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE, THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO

MAKE A CHOICE WHEN THEIR HEALTH IS AT RISK. THE NOTION THAT WOMEN

WILLY-NILLY MAKE A DECISION LATE IN A WANTED PREGNANCY, THEY CHANGE

THEIR MINDS IS THE KIND OF NONSENSE THAT IS PROMULGATED BY OTHERS WHO

SIMPLY OPPOSE ABORTION IN ALL INSTANCES. WOMEN DO NOT MAKE THOSE

DECISIONS LATE IN A PREGNANCY FOR NO GOOD REASON. THEY DO IT BECAUSE

THEY MAKE A DECISION THAT THE FETUS IS NON-VIABLE. WOMEN IN NEW

YORK STATE WILL NO LONGER BE FORCED TO CARRY TO TERM A NON-VIABLE FETUS.

SOME WOMEN ARE FORCED TO GO OUT-OF-STATE TO HAVE A PROCEDURE THAT

SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THEM IN THEIR OWN STATE AND NOW THEY WILL BE

ABLE TO. THIS IS ABOUT ENSURING BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES AND IF MY

COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN HAVING

PROPER SUPPORT AND COUNSELING, THEY HAVE THAT NOW THROUGH

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ORGANIZATIONS LIKE PLANNED PARENTHOOD THAT OFFER WOMEN OPTIONS.

THIS IS A VERY PERSONAL DECISION, WHETHER OR NOT TO

BECOME A PARENT. AND IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO SUGGEST THAT WOMEN

SHOULD BE VESSELS SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN BE PARENTS. THERE ARE LOTS

OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, LOTS OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE NO HOMES. WE --

IF THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE CONCERNED AND WANTED TO TAKE CHILDREN

INTO THEIR HOMES, THERE ARE PLENTY OF CHILDREN WAITING FOR A FOREVER

FAMILY. YOUNG WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED INTO AN UNWANTED,

UNINTENDED PREGNANCY AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, YES, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO,

BUT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS TO BEAR THE BURDEN IS THE WOMAN. AND SO,

THIS IS ABOUT MAKING THOSE DECISIONS. AND THOSE WHO HAVE RELIGIOUS

CONCERNS, THEY HAVE A CHOICE. THEY ARE SIMPLY SEEKING TO DENY OTHER

PEOPLE THEIR CHOICE.

SO, I AM PROUD TO HAVE SPONSORED THIS BILL FOR 10 OR

12 YEARS. IT IS BEYOND EXCITING AND REWARDING TO KNOW THAT GOING

FORWARD, THE WOMEN OF NEW YORK STATE WILL HAVE THEIR RIGHTS

PROTECTED REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. I THANK

YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND I WILL BE PROUDLY VOTING IN FAVOR.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD

THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: COLLEAGUES --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THIS

IS OUR FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY.

(LAUGHTER)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WELL, ACTUALLY IT'S THE

FIRST VOTE OF THE EVENING, BUT...

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: AND KNOW THAT WE STILL

HAVE WORK YET TO BE DONE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YOU'RE WELCOME.

MR. RIVERA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. RIVERA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TODAY

IN THE NAME OF JESSICA LETORA RIVERA, WHO HAS GIVEN ME THREE

WONDERFUL GRANDDAUGHTERS. I RISE IN THE NAME OF JEAN CARLO, THE SON OF

MY DAUGHTER, NAOMI RIVERA, WHO HAS GIVEN ME A GREAT-GRANDDAUGHTER.

TO MY RIGHT, ALSO -- ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE, WHO IS PROBABLY SOMEWHERE

IN THIS BUILDING WATCHING THIS DEBATE, BUT TO MY RIGHT I HAVE MY

CHIEF-OF-STAFF, JASMIN CLAVASQUIN. WHEN SHE CAME TO ME TO HIRE NEW

WORKERS, I SAID TO HER, YOU KNOW BEST, YOU MAKE THE CHOICE. SHE HAS

GIVEN ME A TOTAL OF FOUR GREAT WORKERS IN MY OFFICE, ALL WOMEN. I DON'T

STAND IN HER WAY, IT'S HER CHOICE.

SO, ON BEHALF -- AS I RISE HERE, I SAY ALL WOMEN HAVE A

RIGHT. IT'S YOUR RIGHT. IT'S NOT MY RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO. IT'S YOUR

RIGHT. SO HAVING SAID THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST TIME WE

HAVE TO GET UP ON THIS FLOOR AND CONTINUE THIS TYPE OF DEBATE. I HOPE

THAT THE OTHER SIDE AND THE SECOND FLOOR, I AM SURE THEY'RE WAITING FOR

HOW WE END THIS DEBATE TODAY AND I'M SURE THEY'RE RUSHING TO PUT A

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FINAL END TO ALL THIS. SO, ON BEHALF OF ALL THE WOMEN, I VOTE YES FOR

THEIR RIGHTS. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RIVERA IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. ORTIZ.

MR. ORTIZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR ALLOWING

ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK PLANNED

PARENTHOOD. WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED IN 1994, THEY REACHED OUT TO ME

AND JUST TO MY DISTRICT TO, JUST TO GO TO ATLANTIC AVENUE, AND ON NEVINS

STREET, WE USED TO HAVE A PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOCATED IN BETWEEN

NEVINS STREET CLOSE TO ATLANTIC AVENUE. AND THEY OPENED THE DOOR TO

ME TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE ISSUES AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEMS THEY

WERE FACING. AND I WOULD SAY TO THEM THAT I'M VERY PROUD TODAY TO

HAVE YOU THEN AND TO HAVE YOU TODAY AND FOR WELCOMING ME TO BE PART

OF YOUR FAMILY.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS VERY CRITICAL, VERY IMPORTANT, AS

A WOMAN HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS ABOUT HER

OWN BODY AND THE COURSE OF PREGNANCY. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE DID

DRACONIAN PUBLIC POLICY THAT ARE COMING FROM WASHINGTON AND TRYING

TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS UNACCEPTABLE. I THINK IT'S VERY

IMPORTANT THAT WE, AS WE ARE HERE MAKING A HISTORICAL MOMENT, NOT JUST

THE BILL PASSING THE SENATE, BUT NOW PASSING IN THE ASSEMBLY, I WOULD

LIKE TO SAY TO ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING MY THREE

DAUGHTERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE BY THEMSELVES. MAY GOD BLESS

YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MR.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER MCDONALD: MR. ORTIZ IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MRS. BARRETT.

MRS. BARRETT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. FIRST, I

WANT TO CONGRATULATE AND THANK THE SPONSOR. SHE PERSISTED AND WE ARE

GRATEFUL THAT SHE PERSISTED. IN 1982, I JOINED THE BOARD OF PLANNED

PARENTHOOD OF NEW YORK CITY AS A YOUNG PROFESSIONAL WOMAN AND I

COULDN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT AT THAT POINT THAN MAKING

CHOICES ABOUT MY OWN BODY, AS ALL WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO. SO,

36 YEARS LATER, I'M THRILLED TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. MY OWN CHILDREN

ARE THE AGES THAT I WAS AT THAT TIME AND I NOW KNOW THAT MY DAUGHTER

WILL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES AND PROTECTION THAT MY SON

HAS, AND THERE'S NOTHING MORE THAT A MOTHER COULD WANT. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER MCDONALD: MRS. BARRETT IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, I RECEIVED MANY CALLS TO MY OFFICE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH PRO-LIFE AND PRO-CHOICE SAYING THAT THEY ARE

OPPOSED TO THIS LEGISLATION. I THINK WE NEED TO BE HONEST WITH THE

PUBLIC AND SAY THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT SIMPLY CODIFY ROE V. WADE. THE

ROE DECISION SAYS A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO ABORTION UNTIL FETAL VIABILITY.

THAT WAS AFFIRMED LATER ON BY CASEY DECISION AND THAT FURTHER STATED

THAT VIABILITY OCCURS 24 WEEKS. THIS IS ALREADY PROTECTED BY NEW YORK

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

STATE LAW WITH NO RESTRICTION AT ALL.

WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS EXPANDS ABORTION UP TO BIRTH IN

THE THIRD TRIMESTER, WHICH ROUGHLY TWO-THIRDS OF NEW YORKERS OPPOSE.

ROE ALSO INDICATES A PHYSICIAN LICENSED BY THE STATE SHOULD PERFORM

THE ABORTION, YET, THIS BILL REMOVES THAT REQUIREMENT AND ALLOWS

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS AND MIDWIVES TO PERFORM THE

ABORTIONS. BUT PERHAPS MOST HORRIFIC IS THAT THIS BILL AMENDS SECTION

125 OF THE PENAL LAW WHICH DEFINES "HOMICIDE". THE CURRENT LAW

READS, "HOMICIDE MEANS CONDUCT WHICH CAUSES THE DEATH OF A PERSON

OR AN UNBORN CHILD WITH WHICH A FEMALE HAS BEEN PREGNANT FOR MORE

THAN 24 WEEKS". WE'RE REMOVING THAT UNBORN CHILD FROM THE PENAL

LAW AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, WE ALL REMEMBER THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE

WHERE HE KILLED HIS WIFE LACI, RIGHT, THAT WAS IN 2004. WELL, HE WAS

CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND SECOND DEGREE

MURDER. THAT SECOND DEGREE MURDER CHARGE AND CONVICTION WOULD NOT

STAND IN NEW YORK STATE.

BUT THERE ARE NEW YORKERS WHO ARE ALSO AFFECTED BY

THIS. THERE WAS A WOMAN, MIA JONES OF BROOKLYN. SHE WAS SEVEN

MONTHS PREGNANT WHEN SHE WAS PUNCHED AND KICKED BY THE

FATHER-TO-BE IN 2014, CAUSING A MISCARRIAGE. LIV ABREU, FROM THE

BRONX, WHO WAS ACTUALLY AT THE CAPITOL TODAY, LOST HER BABY IN A

VICIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTACK THIS PAST MAY, ALSO LOSING HER BABY.

AND LAST YEAR IN SARATOGA COUNTY, A WOMAN WHO WAS 26 WEEKS

PREGNANT WAS --

ACTING SPEAKER MCDONALD: MS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MALLIOTAKIS, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: -- WAS ASSAULTED AND CAUSED

HER TO MISCARRY. BEING ASSAULTED AND LOSING YOUR BABY IS NOT A

WOMAN'S CHOICE. I VOTE NO AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.

ACTING SPEAKER MCDONALD: MS. MALLIOTAKIS

IN THE NEGATIVE.

MR. BUCHWALD.

MR. BUCHWALD: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. PUT SIMPLY, ON BEHALF OF THE WOMEN IN MY LIFE, ON

BEHALF OF WOMEN ACROSS NEW YORK STATE, AND ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE IN

THE EMPIRE STATE THAT BELIEVES THAT WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE DECISIONS

SHOULD BE BETWEEN THEM, THEIR DOCTORS AND THOSE THEY CHOOSE TO

CONSULT, AND AS A CO-SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION I AM PLEASED TO SAY THIS

IS THE FINAL TIME I'LL BE VOTING FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT BECAUSE

TODAY IT BECOMES LAW. MR. SPEAKER, I VOTE YES.

ACTING SPEAKER MCDONALD: MR. BUCHWALD

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. SIMOTAS.

MS. SIMOTAS: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I RISE TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HER DOGGED

DETERMINATION AND CONSISTENT COMMITMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT IS FINALLY ENSHRINED IN NEW YORK STATE LAW.

THIS BILL IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT EQUALITY. WOMEN

SHOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES ABOUT THEIR BODIES

AND THEIR HEALTH. MEN DO. WHY DO WE WANT TO RESTRICT THIS RIGHT TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WOMEN? IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT WE REMOVE ANTIQUATED RESTRICTIONS FROM

OUR LAWS TO ENSURE WOMEN IN NEW YORK NEVER AGAIN HAVE TO SUFFER THE

INDIGNITY OF BEING FORCED TO TRAVEL OUT-OF-STATE TO RECEIVE MEDICALLY

NECESSARY CARE. BEYOND THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS, SECURING

ACCESS TO SAFE, LEGAL ABORTION CARE IS CRUCIAL TOWARDS THE STATE'S

PROGRESS TOWARDS SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY.

IN THIS CRITICAL MOMENT IN THE FIGHT FOR GENDER EQUALITY

ACROSS OUR NATION, PASSING THIS LEGISLATION MAKES A POWERFUL STATEMENT.

WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE RHA, NEW YORK RECOGNIZES WOMEN AS FULL

CITIZENS WITH AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND THE

FREEDOM TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT EVERY AREA OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT

UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE. AGAIN, I THANK THE SPONSOR AND ALL MY

COLLEAGUES. I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMOTAS IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. OTIS.

MR. OTIS: IT'S SOMEWHAT IRONIC THAT I'M HERE TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FORTY-NINE YEARS AFTER THIS HOUSE AND THE SENATE

GAVE THE -- WOMEN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE IN NEW YORK STATE AND 46 YEARS

AFTER THE SUPREME COURT GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, ALL OVER THE

COUNTRY AND HERE IN ALBANY TODAY WE'RE HAVING TO EXPLAIN WHY WOMEN

SHOULD BE IN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN MEDICAL DECISIONS. TRULY

UNBELIEVABLE. BUT WE'RE HERE AND WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING IN NEW

YORK STATE. ACROSS THE COUNTRY, OTHER STATES ARE TRYING TO GO IN THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WRONG DIRECTION AND THE SUPREME COURT IS TRYING TO GO IN THE WRONG

DIRECTION.

IN WASHINGTON AND IN CONGRESS THERE'S A GROUP CALLED

THE FREEDOM CAUCUS; THEY'VE DUBBED THEMSELVES THAT. BUT IT SEEMS

THAT ON A SERIES OF ISSUES, THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

THAT AMERICANS KNOW, THEY ARE INTERESTED IN FREEDOM FOR THEM TO TELL

OTHERS WHAT TO DO. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT AND THAT'S NOT

WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. NEW YORK CAN AGAIN BE PROUD THAT WE ARE

STANDING UP FOR WOMEN AND WE'RE STANDING UP FOR, WITH THE OTHER

PIECES OF LEGISLATION WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH TODAY, PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO

MAKE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS REGARDING HEALTH CARE WITHOUT THE

INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF COURTS, WITHOUT

THE INTERFERENCE OF EMPLOYERS OR ANYBODY ELSE. THAT'S THE WAY IT

SHOULD BE. THANK YOU. I VOTE AYE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. OTIS IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. BLAKE.

MR. BLAKE: ON THIS 46TH ANNIVERSARY OF

ROE V. WADE, WE SAY ONCE AGAIN THAT WOMEN KNOW WHAT IS BEST TO DO

WITH THEIR OWN BODIES. FIRST, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE SPONSOR FOR HER

CONTINUAL LEADERSHIP AND ALL THAT SHE HAS SAID AND DONE TO STEP UP AND

STAND UP FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. TO ALL WOMEN, WE SAY TO YOU THANK YOU

FOR BEING "SHEROES", EACH AND EVERY DAY. THANK YOU TO PLANNED

PARENTHOOD, IN PARTICULAR, WHO MY MOTHER CREDITS FOR GIVING HER AN

OPPORTUNITY FOR CARE IN JAMAICA.

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IT IS AMAZING TO ME THAT MEN, WE CONTINUE TO TRY AND

TELL A WOMAN WHAT IS BEST FOR HER BODY. IT IS ALWAYS AMAZING TO ME

ALSO AS A PERSON OF FAITH THAT WE SEEM TO PICK AND CHOOSE SCRIPTURE TO

VALIDATE OUR FAITH, BECAUSE I NEVER HEAR MEN USE SCRIPTURE TO TALK ABOUT

HOW KING HEROD TRIED TO GO AFTER YOUNG BABIES, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A

WOMAN, THEY WANT TO TELL THEM WHAT'S BEST AT THAT TIME. HAVE THE SAME

PASSION WHEN YOU ASK ABOUT WHO SHALL BE JUDGED WHEN IT COMES TO

SERVING THE LEAST OF THESE. DO YOU HAVE THAT SAME PASSION WHEN

CHILDREN ARE BEING SEPARATED? DID YOU HAVE THAT SAME PASSION WHEN A

CHILD DID NOT HAVE FOOD TO EAT? DID YOU HAVE THAT SAME PASSION WHEN

A CHILD DID NOT HAVE A BOOKBAG?

SO, I ASK YOU TODAY TO REMIND OURSELVES THAT AT THE

END OF THE DAY, WE SHOULD LISTEN TO OUR WOMEN BECAUSE WOMEN KNOW

BEST TO DO WITH THEIR BODY, NOT US AT ANY TIME; THAT YOU CAN BE A MAN

AND A FEMINIST AT THE SAME TIME; THAT SINCE THE LORD GAVE US FREE WILL,

SO SHALL WE SUPPORT THE FREE WILL OF WOMEN. SO, FOR WOMEN IN NEW

YORK AND WOMEN ACROSS OUR COUNTRY, COME TO YOU AND SAY YOU HAVE

MARCHED, YOU HAVE STOOD UP AND YOU HAVE VOTED AND YOU HAVE MADE

YOUR VOICES HEARD AND THAT IS WHY I AM PROUD TO STAND AND VOTE IN

SUPPORT IN PASSING THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT ON TODAY. THANK YOU,

MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BLAKE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. FERNANDEZ.

MS. FERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AND ADDITIONAL AND GRAND THANKS TO

THE SPONSOR FOR CONTINUALLY FIGHTING FOR THIS AND FOR YOUR TENACITY

TOWARDS IT. THE FULL PASSAGE OF THE WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS HAS

BEEN LONG OVERDUE IN THIS STATE -- IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND, AS A

RESULT, WOMEN HAVE BEEN FORCED TO GO THROUGH UNNECESSARY AND

DANGEROUS MEANS JUST TO HAVE THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, AND THAT IS WHAT

THIS BILL IS ABOUT. IT IS ABOUT THE WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT HAPPENS

TO HER BODY.

NEW YORK IS MEANT TO BE A PROGRESSIVE BEACON OF

HOPE, YET WE HAVE DENIED WOMEN THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. BUT

THAT ENDS TODAY HAPPILY. THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION TO

INTERFERE -- OR IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION TO INTERFERE IN THE

CHOICE A PERSON MAKES WITH THEIR BODY. I'M HAPPY THAT THIS YEAR WE

WILL CODIFY THE RIGHT TO ENSURE THAT NO MORE WOMEN AND GIRLS HAVE TO

BE DENIED THAT CHOICE. AND WITH THAT, AS YOU SEE, I VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FERNANDEZ IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. FAHY.

MS. FAHY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FOR ME, THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT IS ABOUT AN

UPDATE TO A LAW FROM NOW NEARLY 50 YEARS AGO AND IT IS, FOR ME, ABOUT

DECRIMINALIZING ABORTION. IT IS ABOUT GETTING A LAW THAT HAD BEEN IN THE

CRIMINAL CODE INTO THE PUBLIC HEALTH CODE TO TREAT IT AS A PUBLIC

HEALTH ISSUE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS BE DONE NOW BECAUSE OF

100

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WHAT WE ARE SEEING WITH ROLLBACKS ON A WHOLE HOST OF FRONTS FROM THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT IN THE END, THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY, FOR ME, A

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AND A WOMEN'S RIGHTS ISSUE AND ABOUT PROTECTING

THAT RIGHT TO ACCESS SERVICES SAFELY AND PRIVATELY.

SO MUCH OF THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. I'M JUST

OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER STORIES AND ARTICLES ABOUT BACK ALLEY

ABORTIONS, PARTICULARLY FROM MY DAYS IN CHICAGO, AND IT DEEPLY

INFLUENCED ME. THESE ARE NOT -- ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS THESE

ARE NOT EASY ISSUES FOR ME AT ALL, BUT, QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE NOT EASY

ISSUES FOR MOST WOMEN I KNOW, OR VIRTUALLY ANY WOMAN. THEY'RE VERY

DEEPLY HELD PERSONAL AND DIFFICULT ISSUES AND DIFFICULT DECISIONS. I DO

COMMEND THE ADVOCATES FOR THEIR MANY YEARS OF WORK ON BEHALF OF

WOMEN AND THIS RIGHT TO CHOOSE, THIS RIGHT TO CHOOSE SAFELY AND

PRIVATELY, AND I COMMEND THE SPONSORS. AND WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I

VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. FAHY IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. SEAWRIGHT.

MS. SEAWRIGHT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

ALLOWING ME TO STAND AND EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANT TO COMMEND

SPEAKER HEASTIE FOR ALLOWING THIS LEGISLATION TO COME TO THE FLOOR SO

QUICKLY THE SECOND WEEK OF SESSION, AND TO CHAIRWOMAN DEBORAH

GLICK FOR HER LEADERSHIP YEAR AFTER YEAR ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, AS WELL

AS ALL THE ADVOCATES FOR STANDING UP TODAY ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. IT'S

YOUR BODY, YOUR CHOICE. I'M HONORED TO CAST MY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

101

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ON THIS HISTORIC DAY, THE 46TH ANNIVERSARY OF ROE V. WADE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SEAWRIGHT IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. MCMAHON.

MS. MCMAHON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR

ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE

SPONSOR FOR HER ENDURING EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE RHA OVER THE YEARS.

ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION WE KNOW IS LONG OVERDUE. I WISH TO CAST

MY VOTE TODAY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN HONOR OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVED

AND PRACTICED IN MY DISTRICT. UNTIL HER RECENT RETIREMENT, ILENE ALT WAS

AN OB-GYN NURSE PRACTITIONER AND LONGTIME ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN'S

HEALTH AND REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE IN WESTERN NEW YORK. WE STAND ON

THE SHOULDERS OF WOMEN LIKE ILENE WHO HAVE FOUGHT TIRELESSLY TO

DEFEND OUR RIGHTS. AND TODAY, I ALSO REMEMBER DR. BARNETT SLEPIAN.

HE WAS A DEDICATED PHYSICIAN IN WESTERN NEW YORK WHO WAS

MURDERED IN HIS HOME BY A SNIPER'S BULLET ON THE EVENING OF OCTOBER

23, 1998. HE WAS KILLED SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO

PROVIDE SAFE AND LEGAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES TO HIS PATIENTS AT A

TIME WHEN OTHER PRACTITIONERS WOULD NOT DO SO.

TODAY, WE TAKE A MAJOR STEP FORWARD TO PROTECT THE

RIGHTS OF THE WOMEN OF NEW YORK. WITH A SUPREME COURT MAJORITY

THAT IS DETERMINED TO OVERTURN THE PROTECTIONS OF ROE V. WADE, WE

MUST UPDATE OUR LAWS TO ENSURE THAT ALL WOMEN CONTINUE TO BE

PROTECTED IN NEW YORK. I CAST AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE IN ILENE ALT'S HONOR

AND IN BARNETT SLEPIAN'S MEMORY, AND WITH CONVICTION THAT THE RIGHT TO

102

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED FOR ALL WOMEN. THANK YOU,

MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU. MS.

MCMAHON IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. GLICK.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WANT

TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES. I WANT TO THANK THE ADVOCATES. THIS HAS TAKEN

A VERY LONG TIME. AND I WANT TO THANK THE NEW YORK STATE COALITION

AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHICH STOOD IN SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION

AND WHO MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAID, IN PART, "IN THE HORRIBLE

CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL ASSAULTS A WOMAN AND SHE LOSES A

PREGNANCY, THE INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT."

THIS BILL DOES NOT ALLOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PERPETRATORS TO GO FREE AS

SOME HAVE ERRONEOUSLY IMPLIED.

THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN. THIS IS ABOUT YOUNG WOMEN,

POOR WOMEN, WOMEN WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION WHEN TO

BECOME A PARENT OR NOT AND I HOPE THAT AS WE GO FORWARD, THOSE WHO

HAVE OPPOSED THIS MEASURE WILL JOIN US IN SUPPORTING MEASURES THAT

PROVIDE ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES SO THAT WE CAN AVOID UNINTENDED

PREGNANCIES. I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

103

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

(APPLAUSE)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, THANK YOU

FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUIET THE CHAMBERS DOWN JUST FOR A FEW MINUTES.

CLEARLY, WE ARE ALL EXCITED. THERE ARE SOME THINGS TO BE EXCITED ABOUT.

BUT, MR. SPEAKER, IF I COULD ASK THAT WE WOULD TAKE A 20 MINUTE RECESS

AND REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE BACK IN 20

MINUTES. WE STILL HAVE YET TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT DEAL WITH

WOMEN'S HEALTH ISSUES, AS WELL AS SOME PROPOSED RULES CHANGES.

SO, IF WE CAN TAKE A 20 MINUTE RECESS. APPARENTLY,

THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON ON THE SECOND FLOOR THAT SOME PEOPLE WANT

TO ATTEND. HOPEFULLY, FOLKS WILL COME BACK IN 20 MINUTES AND MR.

CAHILL WILL BE ON AND READY. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL STAND

IN RECESS FOR 20 MINUTES.

(WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD IN RECESS.)

* * * * *

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER AND

COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN US PULLING OUR SESSION BACK

TO ORDER. WE ARE NOW ON CALENDAR NO. 6, PAGE 5. MY APOLOGIES, MR.

SPEAKER. WE'RE ACTUALLY ON CALENDAR NO. 8. IT'S A CAHILL BILL, NO.

585-A, MR. CAHILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00585-A, CALENDAR

NO. 8, CAHILL, SEAWRIGHT, HEASTIE, L. ROSENTHAL, GLICK, JAFFEE,

104

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SIMOTAS, GOTTFRIED, BARRON, BLAKE, BARRETT, MAGNARELLI, BRONSON,

LAVINE, CARROLL, GALEF, OTIS, SIMON, HYNDMAN, RAMOS, D'URSO,

PEOPLES-STOKES, PICHARDO, ORTIZ, WOERNER, BURKE, CRUZ, FALL, FRONTUS,

GRIFFIN, JACOBSON, MCMAHON, RAYNOR, ROMEO, REYES, SAYEGH, DE LA

ROSA, PERRY, D. ROSENTHAL. AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW AND

THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE

POLICIES TO INCLUDE COVERAGE OF ALL FDA-APPROVED CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS,

DEVICES, AND PRODUCTS, AS WELL AS VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION PROCEDURES,

CONTRACEPTIVE EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, AND RELATED FOLLOW UP SERVICES

AND PROHIBITING A HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY FROM IMPOSING ANY

COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS OR DELAYS WITH RESPECT

TO THIS COVERAGE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MR.

CAHILL, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED.

AN EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED, MR. CAHILL.

MR. CAHILL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL IS

CALLED THE COMPREHENSIVE CONTRACEPTIVE CARE ACT. WE HAVE

CONSIDERED IT IN THIS HOUSE THREE TIMES PREVIOUSLY AND IT DOES THE

FOLLOWING: IT WILL MATCH UP STATE LAW WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN THE REALM OF CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE. THE

FEDERAL AFFORDABLE CARE ACT REQUIRES CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE IN A

VARIETY OF DIFFERENT AREAS WITHOUT ANY COINSURANCE CHARGES. A SURVEY

THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINED

THAT IT WAS BEING UNEVENLY ADMINISTERED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES

105

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACROSS NEW YORK STATE AND, AS A CONSEQUENCE, THIS LAW WAS -- THIS BILL

WAS WRITTEN. WE HAVE MODIFIED IT EVER SO SLIGHTLY - EXCUSE ME -

COMPARED TO VERSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS HOUSE IN YEARS

PAST, BUT IT REMAINS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AND PRINCIPALLY THE SAME AS

HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GARBARINO.

MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MR.

CAHILL?

MR. CAHILL: WITH GREAT PLEASURE, THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GARBARINO: MR. CAHILL, YOU MENTIONED THAT

WE PASSED THIS BILL SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES

THIS YEAR. CAN YOU GO OVER SOME OF THE CHANGES FOR THIS BILL?

MR. CAHILL: YES, I WILL, MR. GARBARINO, AS SOON AS

I FIND THEM. THEY'RE LARGELY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THE FIRST CHANGE IS

THAT THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT HAD BEEN PUT IN THERE

WITH WHAT WE BELIEVE NOW TO BE AN OVERABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND IS

NO LONGER NECESSARY. WE REMOVED THE SECTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING

NON-PATIENT SPECIFIC REGIMEN ORDERS WITH REGARD TO EMERGENCY

CONTRACEPTION. THE PROPOSAL NOW WOULD BE THAT EMERGENCY

CONTRACEPTION WOULD BE ADMINISTERED FOR THOSE WHO PAY FOR THEIR

HEALTH INSURANCE IN A WAY SIMILAR TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT UNDER

MEDICAID, AS IT IS DONE THERE; IT'S BEEN WORKING JUST FINE. AND WE

106

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ADDED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE DFS TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS VIA

REGULATION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR NON-FORMULARY CONTRACEPTIVES TO BE

COVERED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PHYSICIAN.

THOSE ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AND, AS YOU CAN

SEE, THEY ARE ALMOST VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND NOT PARTICULARLY

SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'VE CONSIDERED IN THE PAST.

MR. GARBARINO: THERE WAS A -- I BELIEVE IN THE

PAST THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT ALLOWED A SCOPE OF PRACTICE TO BE

EXPANDED. I BELIEVE -- HAS THAT BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THIS?

MR. CAHILL: THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT OF A PREVIOUS

VERSION OF THIS.

MR. GARBARINO: IT HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT PREVIOUS,

SO THERE'S NO EXPANSION OF SCOPE OF PRACTICE IN HERE?

MR. CAHILL: THERE IS NOT.

MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS

JUST CODIFIES IN NEW YORK WHAT CURRENT FEDERAL LAW IS. CAN YOU GO

OVER WHAT TYPES OF CONTRACEPTIVES ARE COVERED UNDER CURRENT FEDERAL

LAW?

MR. CAHILL: WELL, THERE ARE, I BELIEVE, A TOTAL OF 18

CATEGORIES. I WILL FIND THE EXACT CATEGORIES AND GO OVER THEM WITH YOU,

IT WOULD BE MY PLEASURE.

(PAUSE)

SO, THESE ARE THE FDA APPROVED CONTRACEPTIVE --

CONTRACEPTION METHODS, THERE ARE 18 IDENTIFIED FOR WOMEN UNDER THE

FDA GUIDELINES, AND THE METHODS ARE STERILIZATION SURGERY FOR WOMEN,

107

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SURGICAL IMPLANTATION FOR WOMEN, IUD COPPER, IUD WITH PROGESTERONE,

IMPLANTABLE ROD SHOT INJECTION, ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE COMBINED PILLS, ORAL

CONTRACEPTIVE EXTENDED CONTINUOUS-USE COMBINED PILLS, ORAL

CONTRACEPTIVES PROGESTERONE-ONLY, A PATCH, VAGINAL CONTRACEPTIVE RING,

DIAPHRAGM, SPONGE, CERVICAL CAP, FEMALE CONDOM, SPERMICIDE,

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION PLAN B AND EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, A

DIFFERENT MEDICATION THAT APPARENTLY IS KNOWN AS ELLA.

MR. GARBARINO: YOU JUST READ OFF ALL THE FEMALE

CONTRACEPTIVES. THIS BILL MANDATES THAT ALL FDA-APPROVED

CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS, DEVICES AND OTHER PRODUCTS BE COVERED WITH NO

COST-SHARING. THE GOVERNOR JUST PUT OUT IN HIS BUDGET LANGUAGE THAT

THIS DID NOT INCLUDE CONDOMS BECAUSE CONDOMS AREN'T AN

FDA-APPROVED DEVICE. IS THE INTENT OF THIS BILL, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T

SPEAK DIRECTLY TO IT, TO NOT INCLUDE CONDOMS?

MR. CAHILL: IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS BILL TO NOT

SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE CONDOMS, BUT IF YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE LANGUAGE

OF THE BILL, WE HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED ANYTHING. BUT I WOULD

JUST DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT -- THAT HEALTH SERVICES -- HEALTH

RESOURCES AND SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY

EXCLUDES MALE REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AS THE PREVENTATIVE MEASURE, AND

SECTION 2713(A)(4) OF THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DEFINES THE

PREVENTATIVE CARE TO INCLUDE CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS FOR WOMEN ONLY.

SO, BY DEFINITION, MALE CONDOMS ARE NOT A PART OF THE COVERED AREAS

UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

MR. GARBARINO: AND I -- I READ THAT REGULATION

108

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AND I NOTICED THE FOOTNOTE AND SAW, BUT I WAS JUST -- THIS BILL DOESN'T

SPECIFICALLY MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT -- IT JUST SAYS FDA-APPROVED AND

SO I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT CONDOMS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE --

MR. CAHILL: CONSIDER IT CONFIRMED.

MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS

BILL ALSO SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT -- IT SPECIFICALLY COVERS VOLUNTARY

STERILIZATION PROCEDURES. DOES THAT INCLUDE VASECTOMIES FOR MALES,

MALE STERILIZATION VOLUNTARY PROCEDURES?

MR. CAHILL: MR. GARBARINO, MR. SPEAKER, THE

COVERAGE FOR MALE STERILIZATION PROCEDURES IS DERIVED FROM A DIFFERENT

SECTION OF THE LAW AND THAT IS UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, EVERY

STATE IS REQUIRED TO DESIGNATE WHAT IS CALLED AN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PLAN.

IN NEW YORK STATE, IT'S THE -- IT'S THE OXFORD SMALL GROUP PLAN. AND

WITHIN THE OXFORD SMALL GROUP PLAN, THERE IS A BENEFIT FOR

VASECTOMIES. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, IT IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF

INSURANCE COMPANIES IN NEW YORK STATE TO COVER IT, BUT IT IS NOT

SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE FEDERAL LAW AND IT IS THE ONE AREA THAT WE

ADDED. BUT WE'VE ADDED IT BECAUSE IT IS FEDERALLY MANDATED THAT IT BE

ADDED THROUGH THAT CIRCUITOUS ROUTE OF THE ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS

PLAN.

MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, NOW

LIKE YOU SAID, MEDICAID AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THEY HAVE

CERTAIN COVERAGES ALREADY, BUT THOSE ARE ALL PRESCRIPTION COVERAGES.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE INCLUDING NON-PRESCRIPTION, OVER-THE-COUNTER

MEDICATION. IS THERE A PROCESS SET UP IN THIS BILL FOR HOW THE INSURANCE

109

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IS GOING TO COVER THAT -- THE OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS? RIGHT NOW FOR

PRESCRIPTIONS YOU GO TO THE PHARMACIST, THEY FILL IT AND THERE'S NO COST

SHARING. IF A FEMALE GOES AND BUYS SPERMICIDE OR A SPONGE, IS THERE A

WAY FOR HER TO -- DOES SHE HAVE TO TAKE THAT TO THE PHARMACIST? WHAT'S

-- WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR HER SO THERE'S NO COST SHARING ON HER PART?

MR. CAHILL: THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT

FOR COMMERCIAL INSURANCE IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT HAS WORKED

SUCCESSFULLY UNDER OUR MEDICAID PROGRAM WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL WILL GO

INTO THE PHARMACY, MAKE THE PURCHASE AND THERE WILL BE NO CHARGE AND

THE PHARMACY WILL BILL THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THAT WOULD GO FOR

EC, THAT WOULD GO FOR THE SPONGE THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED A FEW TIMES,

AND OTHER METHODS, AS WELL.

MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE

HOPING TO GET IT DONE THROUGH THE PHARMACY, NOT SOME OTHER PLACE?

MR. CAHILL: CORRECT.

MR. GARBARINO: OKAY, WONDERFUL. ALSO

INCLUDED IN THIS BILL IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO

COVER UP TO A 12-MONTH'S SUPPLY. IT DOESN'T REALLY MENTION WHO

DETERMINES WHAT A 12-MONTH SUPPLY OF SPERMICIDE OR A SPONGE IS; IS

THERE SOMETHING SET UP FOR THAT?

MR. CAHILL: WELL, GENERALLY SPEAKING, A 12-MONTH

SUPPLY IS SOMETHING THAT A DOCTOR WOULD DETERMINE WITH A PATIENT AND I

THINK THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT REFERS TO ORAL CONTRACEPTIONS NOT EC,

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 12-MONTH SUPPLY OF EC, JUST AS

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 12-MONTH SUPPLY OF CERTAIN OTHER FORMS OF

110

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BIRTH CONTROL, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE USED ON A PER-INCIDENT BASIS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT A 12-MONTH SUPPLY, THERE'S A CLINICAL REASON AND A

GOOD REASON WHY WE ARE SAYING THAT IF A DOCTOR SAYS A 12-MONTH SUPPLY

IS A GOOD IDEA, IT SHOULD NOT BE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO SECOND

GUESS IT.

A NUMBER OF STUDIES HAVE POINTED OUT THAT -- THAT

WOMEN WHO ARE ON A 12-MONTH ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE REGIMEN HAVE

SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RATES OF UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES THAN THOSE WHO

TAKE A PILL SPORADICALLY OR TAKE IT FOR A LESSER PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN

HAVE TO GO SEEK HAVING IT RENEWED. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT NOTHING IN

THIS LEGISLATION WOULD PREVENT A DOCTOR FROM SAYING, NO, WE JUST WANT

YOU TO SEE THROUGH THIS FOR THREE MONTHS AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND

TAKE ANOTHER LOOK. THERE'S ALSO NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT WOULD PREVENT

A PATIENT FROM DECIDING BECAUSE, IN CONSULTATION WITH THEIR MEDICAL

PROFESSIONAL, THAT A ONE-MONTH SUPPLY 12 TIMES IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY

TO GO.

MR. GARBARINO: AND I AGREE, BUT MY MAIN

CONCERN WAS FOR THE OVER-THE-COUNTER MEDICATION OR DEVICES, WHO

DETERMINES THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE 12-MONTH SUPPLY LIST,

BUT I...

MR. CAHILL: YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW FROM

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND OTHERWISE, A 12-MONTH SUPPLY COULD BE

ANYTHING. YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE PARTICULARLY SEXUALLY ACTIVE, A

12-MONTH SUPPLY MAY BE A LOT. IF YOU ARE PARTICULARLY SEXUALLY

INACTIVE, IT MAY BE A LOT LESS. BUT, THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF A 12-MONTH

111

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SUPPLY THERE SO, THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE PARTICULAR

PRODUCTS OR PROCEDURES OR WHATEVER.

MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU, MR. CAHILL. AS TO

THAT 12-MONTH SUPPLY, NOW WHAT HAPPENS IF -- IF THE INSURED GETS A

12-MONTH SUPPLY FILLED OF WHATEVER DEVICE OR PILL PRESCRIPTION OR

NON-PRESCRIPTION, WHAT HAPPENS IF TWO MONTHS IN THEY LOSE THAT -- THEY

LOSE THAT SUPPLY, THEY MISPLACE THE PILLS THEY -- THE HOUSE IS FLOODED,

SOMETHING HAPPENS.

MR. CAHILL: SURE, YEAH. THE SAME THING THAT

WOULD HAPPEN IF IT WAS ANY OTHER PRESCRIPTION, IT BECOMES THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PATIENT OF THE SUBSCRIBER TO THE PLAN. THE PLAN

DOESN'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO KEEP REPLACING IT IF THE PATIENT LOSES IT FOR

GOOD OR BAD REASON.

MR. GARBARINO: THANK YOU. I WANT TO MOVE ON

TO COST NOW. THERE'S A LOT MORE BEING COVERED NOW THAN MOST -- THAN

PREVIOUSLY UNDER THESE PLANS AND WHAT'S THE ANTICIPATED COSTS TO -- FOR

THIS BILL?

MR. CAHILL: IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU PHRASE IT THE

WAY YOU DID, MR. GARBARINO, AND MR. SPEAKER. THERE ARE NOT MORE

CONTRACEPTIVES BEING INCLUDED HERE. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE

CONTRACEPTIVES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED OF PLANS ALL ALONG. AND WHEN

PLANS SUBMITTED THEIR RATE REQUESTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL

SERVICES, PRESUMABLY THEY COVERED ALL OF THEIR MANDATORY BENEFITS. SO,

PRESUMABLY, YOU AND I HAVE BEEN PAYING FOR THIS BENEFIT THAT HAS BEEN

UNEVENLY ADMINISTERED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OVER THE YEARS SO --

112

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SO THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITIONAL COST FOR -- FOR THE CLARIFICATION OF

THIS BENEFIT.

LET ME ADD ONE MORE THING ABOUT THIS, HOWEVER;

CLEARLY, AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE. AND IF THIS

PREVENTS AN UNWANTED OR AN UNEXPECTED OR AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY,

THAT CAN INURE TO THE GREAT BENEFIT OF, AMONG OTHER PEOPLE, THE

INSURANCE COMPANY. THEY COULD SAVE A LOT OF MONEY. SO, WE BELIEVE

IT TO BE AT A MINIMUM, REVENUE NEUTRAL.

MR. GARBARINO: OKAY. AND I -- I -- I UNDERSTAND

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, 'CAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN CATEGORIES THAT ARE -- THAT

ARE COVERED AND -- BUT THE DIFFERENCE I THINK NOW IS, YOU KNOW, THE

INSURANCE COMPANIES ONLY HAD TO COVER AT NO COST ONE ITEM COMPARED

TO NOW THEY HAVE TO COVER ALL, SO THEY CAN CHOOSE --

MR. CAHILL: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COST-SHARING

COMPONENT.

MR. GARBARINO: YES.

MR. CAHILL: OKAY. SO THE COST-SHARING

COMPONENT IS VERY INTERESTING. COST-SHARING COMPONENT IS SOMETHING

THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SAID IS ALWAYS UP TO THE STATES AND IT IS

NOT CONSIDERED AN EXPANSION OF BENEFITS WHEN A STATE DECIDES TO NOT

ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW AN INSURANCE COMPANY TO IMPOSE COST-SHARING.

MR. GARBARINO: SO YOU -- YOU BELIEVE THAT AT --

AT THE -- AT THE WORST, IT'S GOING TO BE REVENUE NEUTRAL.

MR. CAHILL: I THINK AT THE WORST IT'S GOING TO BE

REVENUE NEUTRAL. AND UNDERSTAND, TOO, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE COST OF

113

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MANY OF THESE PRESCRIPTIONS AND MANY OF THESE METHODS ARE RELATIVELY

SMALL, THEY STILL PROVIDE A BLOCK TO ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WHO MAYBE ARE OF

LIMITED MEANS. SO, BY ELIMINATING THAT BARRIER, PEOPLE WILL BE MAKING

THEIR DECISION BASED UPON THEIR FAMILY PLANNING NEEDS, BASED UPON

THEIR HEALTH NEEDS, AS OPPOSED TO BASED UPON WHETHER THEY WILL PICK

THIS OVER SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY NEED IN THEIR LIFE THAT THEY CAN'T

AFFORD EITHER.

MR. GARBARINO: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUST ONE

LAST QUESTION. DOES THIS BILL -- DOES THIS BILL APPLY TO SELF-INSURED

PLANS?

MR. CAHILL: NO. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO SELF-INSURED

PLANS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER SELF-INSURED PLANS, THE

ERISA PLANS; HOWEVER, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE ACA APPLIES TO

ERISA PLANS AND THE ACA REQUIRES THIS SO, IN EFFECT, THEY ARE ALSO

UNDER THE SAME FEDERAL MANDATE THAT WE ARE. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE

DON'T HAVE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER THOSE PLANS. SO, THE -- THE SHORT

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS THIS BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO SELF-INSURED

PLANS. THE HONEST ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, WHICH IS A LITTLE LONGER

THAN THE SHORT ANSWER, IS THOSE PLANS ARE EQUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE

THESE BENEFITS.

MR. GARBARINO: ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY

FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CAHILL.

MR. CAHILL: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD

114

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MR.

CAHILL?

MR. CAHILL: YES, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. CAHILL. UNDER

CURRENT LAW AS I UNDERSTAND, IT EACH INSURANCE COMPANY HAS TO COVER AT

LEAST ONE CONTRACEPTIVE AMONGST A CLASS OF CONTRACEPTIVES, AND THERE'S

SIX CLASSES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MR. CAHILL: THERE ARE ACTUALLY THE 18 CLASSES THAT

I ENUMERATED AND THE FEDERAL LAW IS THAT EACH ONE OF -- EACH ONE OF

THOSE CATEGORIES MUST BE COVERED.

MR. GOODELL: I BELIEVE IT'S ONE HORMONAL DRUG?

THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAN SELECT OUT OF THAT GROUP WHICH ONE IS

COVERED; ONE BARRIER, CAN SELECT AMONGST THOSE GROUPS. THAT'S MY

UNDERSTANDING.

MR. CAHILL: THERE IS -- THERE IS ONE OTHER

TECHNICAL CHANGE THAT WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO WORK ON IN THIS BILL AND I'M

NOT GOING TO KID YOU. WE MAY BE BACK WITH A CHAPTER TO FINISH

WORKING ON IT, BUT THAT IS IN THE AREA OF EQUIVALENCIES. AND WHERE

THERE ARE EQUIVALENCIES THAT A DOCTOR PRESCRIBES, WE WILL REQUIRE

COVERAGE OF THAT UNLESS IT CAN BE DETERMINED THAT THERE'S AN AVAILABILITY

ISSUE.

MR. GOODELL: WHEN YOU REFER TO EQUIVALENCY,

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BRAND NAME OR GENERIC IN A

115

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SENSE?

MR. CAHILL: PRIMARILY THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE.

MR. GOODELL: NOW UNDER THE CURRENT LAW, AM I

CORRECT THAT NON-PRESCRIPTIVE PLAN B DAY-AFTER CONTRACEPTIVE IS NOT

COVERED UNDER CURRENT LAW?

MR. CAHILL: IT IS COVERED UNDER OUR MEDICAID LAW

RIGHT NOW. NOT SPECIFICALLY UNDER COMMERCIAL INSURANCE.

MR. GOODELL: AND SO, THAT'S ONE AREA WHERE WE'RE

DEALING WITH AN EXPANSION OF COVERAGE OVER-THE-COUNTER AND MY

INDICATIONS ARE THAT THAT RUNS ABOUT $50 PER TREATMENT OR PER DOSE; IS

THAT CORRECT?

MR. CAHILL: I THINK YOUR -- YOUR NUMBERS MIGHT BE

RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH IT, BUT

IF I CAN FIND THAT LIST, I DO THINK IT IS ON THE FEDERAL LIST.

(PAUSE)

MR. GOODELL, INDEED IT IS ON THE -- TWO DIFFERENT

CATEGORIES OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION ARE INCLUDED ON THE FDA

APPROVED METHODS OF COVERAGE AREAS.

MR. GOODELL: RIGHT, BUT UNDER CURRENT LAW IT

WOULD ONLY COVER THOSE THAT REQUIRE A PRESCRIPTION, CORRECT?

MR. CAHILL: IF THE DOCTOR WRITES A PRESCRIPTION

UNDER CURRENT LAW THEY WOULD BE COVERED. UNDER OUR BILL, WE'VE

ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. CAHILL.

ON THE BILL.

116

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.

GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS AN

EXPANSION OF WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. CURRENTLY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING

THAT FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES, A, THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES COVER A SINGLE

METHOD WITHIN ONE OF SIX CATEGORIES. SO, HORMONAL THERAPY, FOR

EXAMPLE, ONE OF SIX APPROACHES, AT LEAST ONE MUST BE COVERED. BARRIER,

SAME CONCEPT. THIS EXPANDS IT SO THAT ALL 18 OF FDA-APPROVED

CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR FREE. AND, OF COURSE, I ALWAYS

APPRECIATE IT WHEN SOMEONE TELLS ME SOMETHING IS FREE BECAUSE THE

OLDER I GET, THE MORE I REALIZE THAT NOTHING'S REALLY FREE. SOMEONE ELSE

IS PAYING.

AND SO, WHO PAYS WHEN WE EXPAND COVERAGE? AND

THE ANSWER IS EVERY ONE WHO HAS INSURANCE WILL PAY A HIGHER PREMIUM

SO THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN HAVE FREE CONTRACEPTIVES. IT MEANS THOSE ON

FIXED INCOME, SENIOR CITIZENS, THOSE WHO ARE NOT EXCHANGED IN SEXUAL

RELATIONSHIPS, ALL OF THEM WILL PAY MORE, ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS WILL

PAY MORE SO SOMEONE ELSE GETS FREE CONTRACEPTIVES. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT

OF AN UNUSUAL CONCEPT UNDER INSURANCE BECAUSE NORMALLY MOST OF US

THINK ABOUT INSURANCE AS COVERING FACTORS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL;

ACCIDENTS, ILLNESS, OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT

INSURANCE IN OTHER CONTEXT, YOU BUY INSURANCE FOR YOUR HOUSE, IT MIGHT

COVER A FIRE, ACCIDENTAL FIRE OR LOSS. IT DOESN'T COVER YOU, BY THE WAY, IF

YOU LIGHT YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE YOURSELF. YOU CAN BUY LIFE INSURANCE, BUT

IT DOESN'T COVER YOU IF YOU COMMIT SUICIDE. BY THE WAY, YOU WOULDN'T

117

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BE AROUND TO COLLECT ANYWAY, BUT IF YOU WERE, IT WOULDN'T COVER YOU.

YOU CAN BUY CAR INSURANCE TO PROTECT YOU IN THE EVENT YOUR CAR'S IN AN

ACCIDENT, BUT IT DOESN'T COVER YOU IF YOU ENTER YOUR CAR IN A DEMOLITION

DERBY OR INTENTIONALLY CAUSE AN INJURY.

SO, UNDER THE GUISE OF INSURANCE WE'RE PROVIDING

COVERAGE NOT FOR AN ACCIDENT OR AN ILLNESS, NOT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S

OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL, BUT WE'RE RAISING THE PREMIUM FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO

COVER AN ACT THAT'S INTENTIONAL AND WOULD NOT NORMALLY FALL WITHIN THE

CONCEPT OF INSURANCE.

ONE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT: THIS BILL ONLY

EXCLUDES COVERAGE FROM RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHO FOCUS ON ONE

FAITH, WHO HIRE PEOPLE FROM ONE FAITH AND WHO SERVE PRIMARILY PEOPLE

OF ONE FAITH. AND THAT EXCEPTION THAT'S IN THE CURRENT LAW IS UNCHANGED

BY THIS DOES NOT MEET CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. WHAT THE

CONSTITUTION HAS SAID UNDER THE HOBBY LOB -- THE SUPREME COURT HAS

SAID THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY UNDER HOBBY LOBBY, A CLOSELY HOLD PRIVATE

-- CLOSELY HELD PRIVATE CORPORATION CAN BE EXCUSED FROM PAYING FOR

CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE THAT VIOLATES THE RELIGIOUS TENANTS OF THE

OWNERS OF THAT CORPORATION. LIKEWISE, BY THE WAY, UNDER HOBBY

LOBBY AND ITS PRODIGY, A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION THAT'S HERE TO SERVE

OTHERS, NOT JUST ITS OWN FAITHFUL, BUT OTHERS IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION NOT

INCLUDED IN THIS LAW.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE

CURRENT SYSTEM, WHICH DOES PROVIDE COVERAGE, WITHOUT EXPANDING THIS

COVERAGE AND INCREASING COSTS FOR ALL THOSE WHO DON'T NEED, USE OR

118

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WANT THESE CONTRACEPTIVES OR WHO HAVE RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS AGAINST IT.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER AND, AGAIN, THANK YOU, MR. CAHILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. CAHILL TO CLOSE.

MR. CAHILL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AND I WANT

TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR -- FOR ENDURING THIS DEBATE YEAR AFTER YEAR.

AND I PARTICULARLY WANT TO THANK MR. GARBARINO AND MR. GOODELL FOR

THEIR -- FOR THEIR IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING ASKED. WE DO NOT

AGREE ON SOME BASIC FACTS, HOWEVER. THERE ARE 18 CATEGORIES UNDER

CURRENT FDA GUIDELINES, NOT SIX. WE ARE MAKING NO CHANGES

WHATSOEVER TO -- TO THE RELIGIOUS LAWS THAT PROTECT INSTITUTIONS FROM

HAVING THE OBLIGATION OF PROVIDING INSURANCE AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS

OBJECTIONS. WE MAKE NO EXPANSION OF THAT.

THE COVERAGE UNDER THIS LAW IS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND

PURPOSES, PREVENTATIVE COVERAGE. IF YOU TAKE THE WORD "CONTRACEPTION"

OUT AND JUST LOOK AT IT AS PREVENTATIVE COVERAGE, IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE ALL

THE OTHER PREVENTATIVE COVERAGES THAT WERE PROVIDED UNDER THE ACA

FOR WHICH THERE IS NO COINSURANCE CHARGE. SO, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN

SAID THAT THIS IS COVERAGE FOR A VOLUNTARY ACT, IT'S COVERAGE FOR

SOMETHING THAT ONLY A SECTOR OF SOCIETY PARTICIPATES IN AND EVERYBODY

HAS TO PAY FOR IT, THAT IS OF THE VERY NATURE OF INSURANCE. WE ARE

SOCIALIZING THE COSTS OF COVERAGE OVER ALL OF US. WE DON'T ALL HAVE CAR

ACCIDENTS, BUT WE STILL PAY FOR CAR INSURANCE. WE DON'T ALL OVEREAT AND

WE'RE NOT ALL OBESE, BUT WE STILL PAY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEART

CONDITIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE. WE DON'T ALL GET PREGNANT, BUT SOME OF US

DO AND WE PAY FOR THE COVERAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO GET PREGNANT AND HAVE

119

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BABIES.

WE COVER A LOT OF THINGS WITH INSURANCE THAT DON'T

HAVE ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO EACH ONE OF US. THAT IS, IN FACT, THE NATURE

OF IT. WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE, HOWEVER, IS NOT EXPANDING ONE BIT OF

THAT COVERAGE. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE INSTEAD IS RECOGNIZING THAT THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED A RULE, A LAW THAT WAS NOT ADHERED TO BY OUR

INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THIS STATE AND ALL WE ARE DOING HERE TODAY IS

MAKING IT CLEAR TO THOSE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT, INDEED, THEY WILL

HAVE TO ABIDE AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM A CLEAR PATH TO DO SO, AND

ONE THAT IS PERMANENT UNDER STATUTE. SO WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I

WITHDRAW MY REQUEST.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD

THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TO

THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HIS YEARS OF WORK ON THIS MEASURE AND FOR HIS

COMMITMENT TO ENSURING GREATER ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES FOR WOMEN.

IF YOU DON'T -- IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, YOU CAN'T GET IT. SO, THIS IS A VERY

IMPORTANT MEASURE AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE VOTING NO, THIS IS ONE WAY TO

ENSURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO HAVE AN ABORTION BECAUSE OF

AN UNINTENDED PREGNANCY. SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE

SUPPORTING ACROSS THE BOARD. I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND HAPPILY VOTE

120

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

(APPLAUSE)

THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00584, CALENDAR NO.

7, JAFFEE, HEASTIE, DINOWITZ, COOK, GALEF, GOTTFRIED, CAHILL, FAHY,

TITUS, MOSLEY, ZEBROWSKI, PICHARDO, SIMON, STECK, SIMOTAS, ARROYO,

JOYNER, AUBRY, SEAWRIGHT, ABINANTI, PAULIN, L. ROSENTHAL, HUNTER,

BICHOTTE, JEAN-PIERRE, HYNDMAN, DE LA ROSA, BLAKE, D'URSO, CARROLL,

BRONSON, OTIS, BURKE, CRUZ, FALL, FRONTUS, GRIFFIN, JACOBSON,

MCMAHON, RAYNOR, ROMEO, REYES, SAYEGH, EPSTEIN, LAVINE, TAYLOR,

THIELE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOR LAW, IN RELATION TO DISCRIMINATION

BASED ON AN EMPLOYEE'S OR A DEPENDENT'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISION

MAKING.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.

JAFFEE, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. AN EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED, MS. JAFFEE.

SHH. PLEASE, MEMBERS.

MS. JAFFEE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS

LEGISLATION IS ABOUT SIMPLE FAIRNESS. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO EXPERIENCE

DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE OR RISK LOSING THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF

121

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THEIR PRIVATE AND PERSONAL HEALTH DECISIONS. THIS LEGISLATION WOULD

AFFORD IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN THE STATE OF

NEW YORK BY ENSURING THAT EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE ABLE

TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INCLUDING ACCESSING

CARE RELATED TO PREGNANCY, FAMILY PLANNING OR ANY OTHER REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH SERVICE WHILE ENCOUNTERING DISCRIMINATION OR FACING RETALIATORY

PERSONAL ACTION IN THE HANDS OF THEIR EMPLOYER.

THIS BILL WOULD ALSO PROHIBIT AN EMPLOYER FROM

ACCESSING AN EMPLOYEE'S PERSONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS WITHOUT THE EMPLOYEE'S INFORMED WRITTEN

CONSENT. IN ADDITION, EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION

AGAINST ANY EMPLOYER ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED THESE RIGHTS. NEW YORK

HAS A LONG HISTORY OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM DISCRIMINATION IN THE

WORKPLACE. DECISIONS ABOUT PREGNANCY, USING CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER

PERSONAL HEALTH MATTERS SHOULD ALSO BE PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW. THANK

YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.

JAFFEE?

MS. JAFFEE: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. JAFFEE.

122

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL WAS TO ELIMINATE

DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYERS BASED ON AN EMPLOYEE'S REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH DECISIONS. IS THAT DISCRIMINATION OCCURRING TODAY IN NEW YORK?

MS. JAFFEE: YES.

MR. GOODELL: AND WHERE IS THAT DISCRIMINATION

OCCURRING? CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES?

MS. JAFFEE: WELL, THERE ARE MANY EMPLOYERS AND

WE HAVE -- I HAVE DEFINITELY -- THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

WHERE THE EMPLOYERS HAVE FOUND INFORMATION ABOUT PERSONAL, YOU

KNOW, DECISIONS, ABOUT CONTRACEPTION OR CERTAIN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

CARE AND THEN THEY ATTACK AND THEY FILE OR THEY PUNISH THEIR WORKERS,

AND IT HAPPENS IN A VARIETY OF PLACES.

MR. GOODELL: AND DO YOU HAVE ANY STUDIES THAT

DOCUMENT THAT?

MS. JAFFEE: YEAH, COULD YOU REPEAT IT?

MR. GOODELL: SURE. DO YOU HAVE ANY STUDIES

DOCUMENTING THE NATURE OR EXTENT OF ANY DISCRIMINATION THAT'S

OCCURRING NOW?

MS. JAFFEE: YES. THERE ARE -- WELL, THERE ARE AND I

HAVE THEM -- I HAVE THEM LISTED HERE. THEY -- WE HAVE ILLINOIS,

MICHIGAN, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE ALL

INTRODUCED SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN THE LAST FEW YEARS TO PROHIBIT

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS.

IN NEW YORK CITY, ACTUALLY, RECENTLY PASSED THEIR OWN BOSS BILL TO

INCLUDE SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS AS A PROTECTED STATUS

123

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.

MR. GOODELL: SO MY QUESTION IS YOU MENTIONED

THAT NEW YORK CITY ALREADY HAS SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON A CITY LEVEL AND

I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT'S WORKING REASONABLY WELL IN THE CITY. SO, IS IT

YOUR POSITION THEN THAT THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES TO UPSTATE?

MS. JAFFEE: YEAH, IT WOULD APPLY TO THE STATE. IT

WOULD BE THE WHOLE STATE.

MR. GOODELL: AND DO YOU HAVE ANY STUDIES FOR

UPSTATE NEW YORK THAT DOCUMENT ANY DISCRIMINATION THAT'S OCCURRING

NOW WITH EMPLOYERS BASED ON EMPLOYEE'S HEALTH CARE REPRODUCTIVE

DECISIONS?

MS. JAFFEE: WELL, YOU KNOW THIS -- THIS -- WILL --

WILL CERTAINLY MAKE CLEAR THAT IN NEW YORK STATE, THIS WILL PROTECT THE

ABILITY OF CITIZENS TO MAKE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS WITHOUT THE

FEAR OF GETTING FIRED OR DEMOTED OR FACING OTHER REPERCUSSIONS IN THE

WORKPLACE AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S SO ESSENTIAL. IT'S NOT

AN INSURANCE BILL AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE

CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE FROM EMPLOYEES, BUT -- BUT IT DOES, YOU KNOW,

PROVIDE THAT FREEDOM FOR EMPLOYEES TO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO MAKE THEIR

OWN PERSONAL DECISIONS WITHOUT BEING PUNISHED OR, YOU KNOW, REALLY

PUSHED ASIDE.

MR. GOODELL: IN THE BILL LANGUAGE, AND I HAVE

READ IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY EXCEPTIONS FOR ANY EMPLOYERS; IS THAT

CORRECT? THERE'S NO EXCEPTIONS UNDER THIS BILL LANGUAGE?

MS. JAFFEE: YES. THERE REALLY AREN'T -- THERE ARE NO

124

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

EXCEPTIONS. THE LEGISLATION APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYERS AND DOES NOT

CONTAIN ANY MENTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S

MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION MAY BE USED AS A DEFENSE IN COURT, BUT IT'S NOT A

JURISDICTIONAL BAR FOR BEING -- FOR BRINGING A DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

AGAINST AN EMPLOYER.

MR. GOODELL: SO LET ME JUST GIVE YOU SOME

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE, FOR EXAMPLE,

THAT WOULD PREVENT A FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM PREVENTING A (SIC)

EIGHT-MONTH PREGNANT FIREFIGHTER FROM BEING ON ACTIVE DUTY? IN OTHER

WORDS, MOVING HER FROM ACTIVE DUTY TO MAYBE LIGHT DUTY? IS THAT A

DISCRIMINATORY ACTION THAT WOULD BE BANNED BY THIS --

MS. JAFFEE: WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT -- THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT?

MR. GOODELL: CERTAINLY. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER

OF OCCUPATIONS WHERE AN EMPLOYER, IT SEEMS TO ME, RIGHTFULLY WANTS TO

RESTRICT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PREGNANT WOMEN. AND AN

EXAMPLE MIGHT BE A FIREFIGHTER, A WOMAN FIREFIGHTER WHO'S EIGHT

MONTHS PREGNANT. WOULD IT BE A VIOLATION UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THIS

BILL FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE THAT WOMAN OFF FROM ACTIVE DUTY

AND REQUIRE HER TO EITHER BE ON LIGHT DUTY OR ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE?

MS. JAFFEE: WELL, YES. WELL, NO; ACTUALLY, THERE --

THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DISCRIMINATION PIECES HERE AND THAT -- THAT

GOES IN A MUCH DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND THIS IS -- THIS IS THE WAY THE

EMPLOYERS PRACTICE THEIR -- THEIR DISCRIMINATION.

MR. GOODELL: SO IS IT YOUR VIEW THEN THAT AN

125

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

EMPLOYER WHO HAS A PREGNANT WOMAN AND WHO WON'T LET HER WORK ON

HIGH VOLTAGE LINES ANYMORE OR WON'T LET HER WORK AS A FIREFIGHTER

ANYMORE OR WON'T LET HER WORK AS A POLICE OFFICER ANYMORE, THOSE

EMPLOYERS WOULD NOT BE VIOLATING THIS LAW? IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS

LAW THAT WOULD EXEMPT THEM?

MS. JAFFEE: WOULD YOU FIRE -- WOULD YOU FIRE A

FIREFIGHTER, A MALE FIREFIGHTER WHO IMPREGNATES -- IMPREGNATED A SINGLE

WOMAN?

MR. GOODELL: NO. I'M JUST REFERRING -- BECAUSE

THIS DEALS WITH THE REPRODUCTIVE DECISION.

MS. JAFFEE: SO WHY WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT A

WOMAN SHOULD BE FIRED FOR HER --

MR. GOODELL: NORMALLY, I ASK QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL

TRY TO ANSWER YOURS ANYWAY. THIS BILL PURPORTS TO BAN DISCRIMINATION

BASED ON A PERSON'S DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A CHILD, CORRECT?

MS. JAFFEE: YES.

MR. GOODELL: AND SO IF A WOMAN FIREFIGHTER

WANTS TO HAVE A CHILD AND, GOD BLESS HER, I SUPPORT HER, BUT I ALSO

SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO SAY THAT IF AT SOME POINT

DURING THE PREGNANCY, IT'S NO LONGER SAFE FOR YOU BE ON TOP OF A LADDER

OR RUNNING UPSTAIRS OR DEALING WITH VERY PHYSICALLY DEMANDING

CHALLENGES, CORRECT?

MS. JAFFEE: WELL --

MR. GOODELL: IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE WITHIN THE

SAFETY --

126

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MS. JAFFEE: BUT THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF

THIS LAW.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO

GET AT.

MS. JAFFEE: THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS.

MR. GOODELL: SO THAT'S EXCLUDED? THAT TYPE OF

SITUATION IS EXCLUDED?

MS. JAFFEE: THERE ARE DIFFERENT -- THERE ARE

DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF LAW THAT DEAL WITH PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION.

THAT ISN'T GERMANE TO THIS BILL.

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS

ORGANIZATIONS? FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A RELIGIOUS

ORGANIZATION THAT PRACTICES ABSTINENCE OR -- OR PRACTICES SEXUAL

RELATIONS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE FROWNS IF THEIR ETHICS TEACHERS

BECOME PREGNANT OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. WOULD THAT -- WOULD THE

LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL PREVENT THEM FROM ENFORCING THEIR RELIGIOUS

PRECEPTS?

MS. JAFFEE: NO. THIS LEGISLATION APPLIES TO ALL

EMPLOYERS AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY MENTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. AND,

YOU KNOW, THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION MAY BE USED

AS A DEFENSE, AS I NOTED EARLIER, IN COURT, BUT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR

FOR BRINGING A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT AGAINST AN EMPLOYER. AND THE

COURT WOULD THEN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYEE IS CONSIDERED

A MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION THAT IS BEING

ACCUSED OF THIS -- OF THIS KIND OF A DISCRIMINATION.

127

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. GOODELL: NOW I SEE THE BILL LANGUAGE STATES

THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE SUES THEIR EMPLOYER AND WINS, THE EMPLOYEE IS

ENTITLED TO DAMAGES, OBVIOUSLY, BUT ALSO ATTORNEYS' FEES AND OTHER

RELATED EXPENSES. IF THAT EMPLOYEE SUES THE EMPLOYER AND THE

EMPLOYER WINS, IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THEIR

LEGAL FEES OR OTHER EXPENSES?

MS. JAFFEE: THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD

BE DETERMINED BY -- BY THE COURTS IF THERE WAS THAT KIND OF

DETERMINATION.

MR. GOODELL: IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF

THIS BILL THAT SAYS EITHER PARTY THAT WINS IS ENTITLED TO BE TREATED THE

SAME WAY OR IS IT JUST ONE-SIDED?

MS. JAFFEE: AS I NOTED THAT EARLIER, THAT THE

EMPLOYEE CAN BRING THIS TO COURT AND THEN THE COURT WOULD DETERMINE

WHAT -- WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE AND WHAT THE DECISION --

MR. GOODELL: BUT THERE'S NO LANGUAGE IN YOUR BILL

THAT ALLOWS -- THAT STATES AN EMPLOYER WOULD BE REIMBURSED LEGAL FEES IF

THE EMPLOYER WINS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. JAFFEE: THE COURT WOULD DETERMINE WHAT THE

RESPONSE -- WHAT -- WHAT WOULD NEED -- NEEDED TO BE RESPONDED.

MR. GOODELL: I APOLOGIZE - IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE

- FOR NOT BEING CLEAR -- IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL THAT STATES AN

EMPLOYER WOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THEIR EXPENSES IF THE EMPLOYER

WINS?

MS. JAFFEE: NOT WITHIN THE CONTEXT, NO.

128

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MR. GOODELL: OKAY. NOW, AS YOU KNOW, MANY

EMPLOYEES IN NEW YORK STATE ARE AT-WILL EMPLOYEES, CORRECT? I MEAN,

THEY CAN BE LET GO FOR NO REASON AT ALL. IF ONE OF THOSE AT-WILL

EMPLOYEES MAKES A COMPLAINT, DOES THAT THEN CONVERT THEM INTO A

FOR-CAUSE EMPLOYEE THAT CAN ONLY BE FIRED FOR CAUSE?

MS. JAFFEE: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE?

MR. GOODELL: CERTAINLY.

MS. JAFFEE: I'M HAVING TROUBLE...

MR. GOODELL: MOST EMPLOYEES -- MOST

EMPLOYEES IN NEW YORK STATE ARE AT-WILL EMPLOYEES. DOES THIS BILL

CONVERT THEM INTO EMPLOYEES THAT CAN ONLY BE LAID OFF FOR-CAUSE IF THE

EMPLOYEE MAKES A COMPLAINT?

MS. JAFFEE: THIS IS -- THE ROLE OF THIS LEGISLATION IS

TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES, NOT TO ALLOW THAT KIND OF ACTION.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. JAFFEE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.

GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I SUPPORT

THE GENERAL CONCEPT THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S REPRODUCTIVE DECISIONS OVERALL

IN GENERAL ARE NONE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER. SO IF AN

EMPLOYEE WANTS TO HAVE CHILDREN, IT'S A GIFT FROM GOD AND I HOPE THAT

GOD WILL BLESS THEM. AND IF AN EMPLOYEE WANTS TO TAKE CONTRACEPTIVES

AND NOT HAVE A CHILD, THAT'S THEIR CALL. IT'S A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. IT'S

129

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR SPOUSE OR THEIR PARTNER. AND GOD BLESS THEM.

AND IF THEY WANT TO PRACTICE ABSTINENCE AND NOT HAVE ANY SEXUAL

RELATIONS, THAT'S THEIR CALL, NOT UP TO THE EMPLOYER. AND THAT BELIEF

APPLIES TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYMENT SITUATIONS.

SO FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYMENT SITUATIONS, I

AGREE WITH THE SPONSOR. IT'S NOT THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS. BUT AS WITH

OTHER BILLS THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH TODAY AND WE'LL DEAL WITH IN THE FUTURE,

WE JUST DON'T VOTE ON GENERAL CONCEPTS. WE VOTE ON ACTUAL LANGUAGE.

AND THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT CAREFULLY DRAFTED. WHY? BECAUSE WE ALL

KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE. WE KNOW WE DON'T

WANT A VERY PREGNANT WOMAN - BY VERY PREGNANT I MEAN IN THE LAST

STAGES OF HER PREGNANCY - WE DON'T WANT A VERY PREGNANT FIREFIGHTER

FIGHTING FIRES FOR HER OWN SAFETY AND FOR THE SAFETY OF HER UNBORN CHILD

AND FOR OUR SAFETY. WE DON'T WANT THAT SITUATION, DO WE? NOR A

POLICEWOMAN.

AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY RELIGIOUS

ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT HOW THEIR VIEW OF MORALITY IS IN

TERMS OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, PARTICULARLY THOSE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. DOES THIS LANGUAGE HAVE ANY EXCEPTION

FOR A CHURCH? IF A NUN BECOMES PREGNANT, CAN THE CHURCH FIRE THE NUN?

A NUN, THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO EXCEPTION FOR ANY CHURCH. AND WHAT

IF THE CHURCH IS PRACTICING ABSTINENCE AND THEY DISCOVER THAT THE PERSON

WHO IS TEACHING THAT CLASS IS VIOLATING THE VERY THINGS THAT THAT CHURCH

STANDS FOR.

THERE'S ONE OTHER ASPECT ON THIS BILL THAT'S VERY

130

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

TROUBLING. IT'S VERY ONE-SIDED. IF THE EMPLOYEE SUES AND WINS, THE

EMPLOYEE GETS LEGAL FEES, THEY GET PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THEY GET

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THE EMPLOYER WINS? NOW,

SOME PEOPLE HERE HAVE THE CONCEPT THAT ALL EMPLOYERS ARE RICH AND

WEALTHY. I WISH THAT WAS THE CASE BECAUSE I WAS A SMALL BUSINESS

OPERATOR FOR MANY YEARS. I STILL HAVE A SMALL FIRM. IF I GET SUED, IT'S MY

POCKET TO SPAN THE DEFENSE AND IF THAT LAWSUIT IS WRONG, IT'S FALSE,

THERE'S NO BASIS FOR IT, WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS APPLY TO BOTH

SIDES, SHOULDN'T WE? EITHER YOU DON'T GET YOUR LEGAL FEES OR WHOEVER

WINS GETS THEIR LEGAL FEES; IT SHOULD BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

AND THERE'S AN UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCE IN THAT THIS

LEGISLATION INADVERTENTLY CONVERTS AT-WILL EMPLOYEES TO FOR-CAUSE

EMPLOYEES SIMPLY BY HAVING THE EMPLOYEE MAKE A COMPLAINT. IF THE

EMPLOYEE MAKES IT -- LET'S SAY YOUR ORGANIZATION IS DOWNSIZING BECAUSE

OF BUSINESS CONCERNS. AND YOU'RE AFRAID OF LOSING YOUR JOB, PICK UP THE

PHONE AND SAY I'M BEING LAID OFF BECAUSE MY REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

RIGHTS, BOOM, YOU TRIGGER THIS PROVISION. THEY HAVE TO ESTABLISH NOW

AFFIRMATIVELY THAT'S NOT THE REASON.

SO WHILE I APPRECIATE THE SPONSOR'S OVERALL CONCERN

AND I AGREE WITH IT FOR MANY EMPLOYERS, THIS LANGUAGE GOES TOO BROADLY

AND TOO FAR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER AND, AGAIN, THANK YOU

MS. JAFFEE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD

131

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. JAFFEE TO EXPLAIN LETTER VOTE.

MS. JAFFEE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, THE

ARGUMENT FOR THIS LEGISLATION IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE, BASICALLY. EMPLOYERS

SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS TO DISCRIMINATE

AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYEES. OVER THE YEARS, VARIOUS FEDERAL AND STATE

LAWS HAVE BEEN ENACTED WITH THE COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS

AGAINST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION. HOWEVER, EMPLOYEES ARE STILL

VULNERABLE TO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

DECISIONS, AND THIS HAPPENS QUITE FREQUENTLY, UNFORTUNATELY. WHEN

EMPLOYERS ARE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE IN THE WORKPLACE BECAUSE THEY

DISAGREE WITH AN EMPLOYEE'S OR THEIR DEPENDENTS PRIVATE REPRODUCTIVE

HEALTH DECISION, THEIR ACTIONS NOT ONLY CREATE AN UNFAIR AND

INTIMIDATING WORK ENVIRONMENT, BUT THEY ALSO JEOPARDIZE THE OVERALL

HEALTH, SAFETY AND LIVELIHOODS OF WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES. WOMEN,

NOT THEIR BOSSES, SHOULD GET TO DECIDE WHEN, WHETHER AND HOW THEY

START A FAMILY. INDIVIDUALS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE RISK OF

BEING FIRED, GETTING DEMOTED OR FACING THREATS AND RETALIATION AT THE

HANDS OF THEIR EMPLOYER SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO USE BIRTH

CONTROL OR ACCESS OTHER REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES. NO EMPLOYEE IN

THE STATE OF NEW YORK SHOULD EVER BE DISCRIMINATED OR RETALIATED

AGAINST BY THEIR EMPLOYER FOR THESE PERSONAL AND PRIVATE DECISIONS

REGARDING THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH.

ON THIS REMARKABLE DAY, THIS BILL, THE BOSS BILL, WILL

132

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HELP TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHTS OFFERED TO WOMEN AFFORDED TO WOMEN BY

LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT AND THE

COMPREHENSIVE CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE ACT WILL BE PROTECTED FROM

UNWELCOME INTERFERENCE BY EMPLOYERS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO

SPONSOR THIS LEGISLATION IN THE ASSEMBLY OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND

I'M PROUD TO BE A PART OF THIS HISTORIC MOMENT AS WE MOVE TO PROTECT

WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CHOICES AND THEIR FAMILIES IN NEW YORK

STATE. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. JAFFEE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. O'DONNELL.

MR. O'DONNELL: WELL, I THOUGHT IT MUST BE JUNE

BECAUSE I HAVE TO STAND UP AT 8:00 AND MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION

ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. NUNS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE NEVER

EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE MEMBERS OF ORDERS AND THEY LIVE COLLECTIVELY. I

KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT BECAUSE MY STEPMOTHER WAS A NUN BEFORE SHE

MARRIED MY FATHER AND PUT THE SOUND OF MUSIC IN A WHOLE NEW

PERSPECTIVE.

(LAUGHTER)

BUT -- BUT TO STAND HERE ON THE FLOOR AND ACT AS IF NUNS

CAN BE FIRED FOR GETTING PREGNANT IS WRONG. I BELIEVE ALL ORDERS OF NUNS

ARE NOT PERMITTED TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS AND I IMAGINE THERE ARE

PROBABLY SANCTIONS INVOLVED, BUT GETTING FIRED AS AN EMPLOYEE BY THE

EMPLOYER, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, IS ACTUALLY FACTUALLY INACCURATE. I'LL BE

VOTING YES.

133

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMON.

MS. SIMON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN

MY VOTE. THE BOSS BILL IS ABOUT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON REPRODUCTIVE

FREEDOM AND THIS BILL ENSURES THAT NEW YORK WILL PROTECT WORKERS'

ABILITIES TO MAKE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS WITHOUT THE FEAR OF

GETTING FIRED OR OTHER REPERCUSSIONS. I COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR HER

WORK ON THIS BILL AND HER COMMITMENT TO THIS ISSUE FOR SO LONG.

THIS BILL WOULD PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL'S EMPLOYMENT

STATUS WHEN THE EMPLOYEE'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS DO NOT MATCH

THOSE THE BOSS DEEMS ACCEPTABLE. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CHOICES ARE

PERSONAL, PRIVATE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS AND THERE IS NO PLACE FOR A BOSS

TO INTERFERE IN THESE DECISIONS. THIS MAY ENTAIL A WORKER ACCESSING

BIRTH CONTROL, AN LGBT COUPLE ADOPTING, A PERSON HAVING A CHILD

OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, USING IN VITRO FERTILIZATION OR HAVING A VASECTOMY.

AND THESE ARE ALL PRIVATE DECISIONS AND WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE

THESE DECISIONS FREE FROM FEAR OF RETALIATION BY THEIR BOSS BECAUSE THEIR

BOSS HOLDS OTHER VIEWS. WORKERS SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON THEIR WORK

PERFORMANCE AND NOT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DECISIONS.

I WANT TO THANK ALL THE ADVOCATES FOR THEIR WORK ON

THIS BILL. I'M VERY PLEASED TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMON IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

134

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

(APPLAUSE)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER. IT'S BEEN QUITE A DAY. I THINK THIS IS THE NEW NORM. FOR AS

THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, WE ACTUALLY START EARLY AND WORK LATE.

BUT THERE ARE STILL YET SOME THINGS TO DO, MR. SPEAKER. THEY (SIC) ARE

15 PROPOSED RULE CHANGES FROM THE MINORITY. I, BECAUSE WE HAVE

BEEN HERE SO LONG, MR. SPEAKER, I DON'T CHOOSE TO TRY AND SPEAK ON

EVERY PIECE OF THEIR PROPOSALS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SUBMIT, BUT I

WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MAKE MEMBERS AWARE THAT IN MANY CASES,

THE EFFORT HERE IS TO CHANGE THE MAJORITY RULE TO MINORITY RULE. AND I

THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS POSITION AS CHANGING RULES

MANY TIMES IN OUR PAST. IF WE THINK FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT

KIND OF STARTED IN 1975 WHEN THIS HOUSE ACTUALLY CHANGED, IN TERMS OF

ITS PARTY AFFILIATION. AND THEN IN 2005, WHEN WE USED TO BE ABLE TO

VOTE IN OUR OFFICE FROM THE LOB, AND IN 2007 WHEN A LOT OF THINGS

CHANGED. AND, CERTAINLY, MR. SPEAKER, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR

CURRENT SPEAKER, MR. HEASTIE, MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED. MANY OF

OUR RULES HAVE CHANGED TO MAKE IT MORE TRANSPARENT, MORE AVAILABLE TO

BOTH OUR CONSTITUENCIES, AS WELL AS OUR FAMILIES AND STAFF THAT ARE

WATCHING THESE PROCEEDINGS.

SO, MR. SPEAKER, I APPRECIATE AND HONOR THE FACT THAT

OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE THESE 15

AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO OUR RULES, 13

OF WHICH WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED DOWN; WE WILL HAVE 15 OF THEM

135

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

BEFORE US TODAY. I WOULD ASK MY MEMBERS TO PLEASE STAY WITH US AS WE

GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HEAR THEIR COMMENTS,

BUT, MR. SPEAKER, I -- I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE GIVE ALL DUE

CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT OUR RULES ARE IN A FAIRLY DECENT SHAPE,

THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE MR. -- SPEAKER HEASTIE HAS BEEN OUR SPEAKER.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING IN THE FUTURE WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ON

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TO CRAFT SOME NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS

THAT ARE TRULY BIPARTISAN, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.

WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, IF WE CAN HAVE COMMENTS, I'M

SURE, FROM MR. GOODELL AND WE CAN BEGIN WITH RULE --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- CHANGE NUMBER ONE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE WOULD

CERTAINLY --

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE WANT TO GIVE MR.

GOODELL EQUAL TIME, BUT ONLY EQUAL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.

SPEAKER. AND THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS, MAJORITY LEADER.

I -- AS YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR THE BEST IDEAS,

RIGHT? AND WHEN WE HAVE AN OPEN MIND AND A THOUGHTFUL APPROACH,

WE OFTEN SEE THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL VERY FINE PROPOSED RULES -- RULE

AMENDMENTS. AND WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR BIPARTISAN SUPPORT ON ALL

136

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

OF THEM. SOME OF WHICH YOU MAY, PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY, HOPEFULLY

PUBLICLY, ALSO REJOICE. OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE YOUR ABILITY, FOR

EXAMPLE, TO GET A BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY FOR A VOTE, MORE

TRANSPARENCY IN OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS, IMPLEMENTING THE NORMAL

AND CUSTOMARY RULES OF MATHEMATICS AND CALCULATING PERCENTAGES. ALL

OF THESE GREAT IDEAS ARE EMBODIED IN THESE RULES AND I LOOK FORWARD TO

YOUR STRONG AND ENTHUSIASTIC BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, AND THANK YOU TO MY

COLLEAGUES.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR.

GOODELL. AND WE SHALL START.

MR. STEC FOR THE FIRST OF THESE SPECTACULAR

RECOMMENDATIONS.

(LAUGHTER/APPLAUSE)

MR. STEC: I LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE, MR. SPEAKER. HAPPY

NEW YEAR.

I OFFER THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE

OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: PROCEED, MR. STEC.

MR. STEC: THANK YOU. THIS RESOLUTION WOULD

REQUIRE THAT A STANDING COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED FROM CONSIDERATION OF

A BILL OR RESOLUTION WHEN THE SAME MEASURE IS SUPPORTED BY AT LEAST SIX

-- 76 MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY. THIS PROPOSAL MIRRORS ONE ADVANCED

BY THE BIPARTISAN PROBLEM SOLVERS CAUCUS IN THEIR REPORT ENTITLED,

BREAK THE GRIDLOCK, WHICH WAS RECENTLY AGREED TO BY SPEAKER PELOSI.

137

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WHEN A BILL OR RESOLUTION HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE

MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE, A MOTION TO DISCHARGE SHALL BE IN ORDER. SINCE

THE MOTION ITSELF REQUIRES A MAJORITY TO PASS, IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT IF

WE GET 76 SPONSORS AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE, IT SHOULD GO

STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VOTE. HOLDING AN UP OR

DOWN VOTE HELPS ENSURE ALL GOOD IDEAS SUPPORTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE

HOUSE RECEIVES A CHANCE.

I URGE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS NONPARTISAN

RESOLUTION SO WE CAN INCREASE MEMBER INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING

WHAT BILLS SHOULD MAKE IT TO THE FLOOR, AND EXPAND TIMELY AND EASY

ONLINE ACCESS TO ALL FLOOR VOTES.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 25, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 7 OF RULE IV OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES IN RELATION TO COMMITTEES.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. HAWLEY.

MR. HAWLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

138

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

MR. HAWLEY: BRIEFLY EXPLAINING, WE HAVE ALL READ

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ONE MINUTE. LET THE

CLERK READ, AND THEN YOU'LL EXPLAIN IT.

MR. HAWLEY: GOOD.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: OKAY? GOOD.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 27 (SIC),

MR. KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 7 OF RULE III OF THE

RULE -- OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES IN RELATION TO THE READING OF BILLS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AND NOW, MR.

HAWLEY.

MR. HAWLEY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WE'VE ALL

READ THE EDITORIALS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE WITH THE LEGISLATURE

DEBATING AND VOTING ON CONTROVERSIAL AND COMPLEX BILLS IN THE MIDDLE

OF THE NIGHT. THE CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES OF THIS STATE ALSO SHARE THE

VERY SAME AND REAL CONCERNS. THE MESSAGE OF NECESSITY LEAVES THE

LEGISLATURE WITH INSUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND PROPERLY CONSIDER

SUCH LEGISLATION, AND THE PUBLIC WITH INSUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND

COMMENT.

THESE ARE FAIR CRITICISMS. WE SHOULD NOT ABUSE THE

MESSAGE OF NECESSITY PROCESS, WHICH CIRCUMVENTS THE AGING PROCESS

FOR LEGISLATION. MESSAGES OF NECESSITY SHOULD BE USED AND APPROVED

BY THIS BODY ONLY WHETHER THE FACTS NECESSITATE IMMEDIATE ACTION,

WHICH SHOULD BE FEW AND FAR APART. TRANSPARENCY IN THE LIGHT OF DAY

139

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FOR ALL OUR CITIZENS SHOULD BE OUR PRIMARY GOAL AS REPRESENTATIVES.

WHILE THE RULES CURRENTLY PROVIDE THAT MESSAGES OF

NECESSITY MUST BE APPROVED BY MAJORITY VOTE IN THE RULES COMMITTEE,

WE BELIEVE THESE EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES SHOULD ONLY BE TAKEN WHEN

APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE. THE

PUBLIC, THE MEDIA AND EACH OF US DESERVE NO LESS. AGAIN, LET US TAKE A

STEP TOWARD GREATER TRANSPARENCY BY ENSURING THAT WE ONLY USE OR

ACCEPT THE MESSAGE OF NECESSITY PROCESS WHEN ABSOLUTELY WARRANTED,

AND THAT WE DON'T UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO REVIEW

AND GIVE US THEIR INPUT BEFORE LEGISLATION IS VOTED ON. I URGE YOUR

CONSIDERATION OF THIS RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. CROUCH.

MR. CROUCH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 27, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION OF RULE IV OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES IN RELATION TO STANDING COMMITTEES.

140

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. CROUCH.

MR. CROUCH: YES, MR. SPEAKER. THIS AMENDMENT

APPLIES THE MATHEMATIC PRINCIPLES WE USE IN OUR EVERYDAY ASPECT OF

OUR LIVES, AND -- TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE

ASSEMBLY. THESE -- THERE ARE CURRENTLY A 150 MEMBERS OF THE STATE

ASSEMBLY, WITH 43 MEMBERS IN THE MINORITY. THE MAJORITY REPRESENTS

71.3 PERCENT. THIS RESOLUTION AMENDS THE CURRENT RULE THAT PROVIDES

FOR "ALL FRACTIONAL MEMBERS ARE CREDITED TO THE MAJORITY," TO PROVIDE

THAT ALL -- FRACTIONAL MEMBERS OF ONE-HALF OR GREATER BE CREDITED TO THE

MAJORITY.

THIS AMENDMENT MERELY APPLIES TO THE BASIC -- APPLIES

THE BASIC MATH RULE OF ROUNDING UP TAUGHT IN EVERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

MATH CLASS IN THIS STATE. WE DO NOT SEEK AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, WE JUST

BELIEVE THAT NEARLY SIX MILLION NEW YORKERS REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS

OF THE MINORITY CONFERENCE SHOULD ALSO BE REPRESENTED FAIRLY ON

COMMITTEES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. PALUMBO.

MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER

THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN

141

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

IT, PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 28, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 5 OF RULE III OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALUMBO TO

EXPLAIN.

MR. PALUMBO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

PROCEDURE IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. THE

LEGISLATURE USES RESOLUTIONS TO MAKE DECLARATIONS, STATE POLICIES AND

RENDER DECISIONS. LEGISLATORS SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO VOTE ON

RESOLUTIONS IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AFFORDED AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW AND

RESEARCH.

THIS RESOLUTION WOULD AMEND OUR EXISTING RULE

REQUIRING THAT BEFORE THE HOUSE CAN VOTE ON A RESOLUTION, COPIES OF THE

RESOLUTION MUST BE PLACED ON EACH MEMBER'S DESK AT LEAST THREE DAYS

PRIOR TO SUCH VOTE. THIS RESOLUTION SEEKS TO MAKE A SIMPLE YET VERY

IMPORTANT CHANGE TO OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. CURRENTLY, WE REQUIRE THAT

NO BILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE THIRD READING UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN --

SHALL HAVE BEEN ON THE CALENDAR ON TWO LEGISLATIVE DAYS, BUT WE HAVE

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT FOR RESOLUTIONS. THE THREE-DAY REQUIREMENT WILL

ALLOW ALL MEMBERS TO BE FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF ANY

RESOLUTION PLACED BEFORE THE HOUSE, ENABLING INFORMED VOTES ON THE

SAME TO -- TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS OF THIS STATE.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

142

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

ON THE RESOLUTION, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. JOHNS.

MR. JOHNS: YES, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 29, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RULE V OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO ENSURING THAT EACH MEMBER IS ENTITLED

TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF LEGISLATION DISCHARGED FROM

COMMITTEE AND BROUGHT TO A VOTE DURING EACH TWO-YEAR TERM.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. JOHNS TO EXPLAIN

THE RESOLUTION.

MR. JOHNS: MR. SPEAKER, WE VOTE FOR A LOT OF BILLS

DOWN HERE AND WE LABEL THEM AS ONE FORM OF EQUALITY OR ANOTHER.

WHAT I'M PROPOSING HERE IS LEGISLATIVE EQUALITY. AND WHAT THIS BILL, OR

WHAT THIS RULE CHANGE SUGGESTS IS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS CHAMBER,

DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, MAJORITY OR MINORITY MEMBER WOULD BE

ALLOWED TO BRING ONE BILL TO THE FLOOR EVERY TWO YEARS. THAT ISN'T REALLY

EQUALITY, BUT IT'S THE LEAST THAT YOU CAN ASK FOR. YOU CAN'T HAVE LESS

THAN ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION EVERY TWO YEARS.

143

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AND, AS THE MAJORITY LEADER SAYS, THESE BILLS COULD

STILL GO THROUGH COMMITTEE. THEY COULD BE VOTED UP OR DOWN IN

COMMITTEE, BUT WE KNOW THE BILLS COME OUT OF COMMITTEE AND NEVER

COME UP TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. SO, WHETHER THE BILL PASSES COMMITTEE

OR NOT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION, STATEWIDE

SIGNIFICANCE, TO THE FLOOR FOR A DEBATE, A DISCUSSION, AN UP OR DOWN

VOTE. THE PUBLIC BACK HOME ASK ME WHY DON'T WE VOTE ON TERM LIMITS,

TWO-YEAR BUDGET CYCLES, UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE; IT WOULD SAVE $150

MILLION A YEAR. GET RID OF GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS. HAVE REFERENDUM

BILLS. NONE OF THESE COME UP FOR A VOTE. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT IT. IF WE

HAD LEGISLATIVE EQUALITY, WE COULD BE BRINGING THESE BILLS FORWARD, GET

OURSELVES ON RECORD, PASS GOOD REFORM LEGISLATION AND FORCE THE SENATE

TO TAKE UP THE BILLS AND HAVE THEM BE ACCOUNTABLE, AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 30, MR.

144

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING RULE V OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES,

IN RELATION TO THE LIMITING TIME OF THE NUMBER OF TERMS OF THE MINORITY

LEADER OF THE ASSEMBLY OR THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE ASSEMBLY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RA TO EXPLAIN

HIS...

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I -- I ALWAYS GET

WORRIED ABOUT OFFERING THIS ONE, THAT I'M BEING SET UP IN SOME WAY,

BUT...

IN ORDER TO BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC, IT'S -- IT IS IMPORTANT

THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AND PERMIT A FRESH FLOW OF

IDEAS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS. IN SHORT,

STAGNATION LIMITS PROGRESS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO LIMIT

THE TIME A MEMBER MAY SERVE AS MAJORITY LEADER OF THE ASSEMBLY OR

MINORITY LEADER OF THE ASSEMBLY TO FOUR CONSECUTIVE TWO-YEAR TERMS.

CHANGING LEADERSHIP PERIODICALLY WOULD HELP PROVIDE FRESH

PERSPECTIVE AND LIMIT THE ABSOLUTE POWER PERCEIVED -- PERCEIVED FROM

LONG TENURES OF HOLDING THE SAME LEADERSHIP POSITION.

(SPEAKER HEASTIE TAKES A SEAT BY MR. RA.)

(LAUGHTER)

MR. GOODELL HAS THE ONE THAT APPLIES TO SPEAKER, MR.

SPEAKER. THIS IS JUST -- - THIS IS JUST FOR MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADER.

SPEAKER HEASTIE: ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE BACK.

(LAUGHTER)

MR. RA: SO, I -- WITH THE GREAT WORK THAT OUR -- OUR

NEW MAJORITY LEADER IS DOING, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THAT, AND,

145

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

CERTAINLY, LEADER KOLB, THIS IS A -- A MEASURE THAT EXISTS IN THE RULES OF

-- OF OUR STATE SENATE AND, IN FACT, WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS

RAISED WITH THE NEW MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WITH SPEAKER PELOSI. AND THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE THINGS SHE ACTUALLY

AGREED TO IN ORDER TO GET SOME OF THE VOTES THAT SHE WAS STRUGGLING TO

GET FOR SPEAKER, WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF TERM LIMIT FOR

LEADERSHIP GOING INTO THE FUTURE.

THIS IS -- THIS IS A MEASURE DESIGNED, LIKE I SAID, TO --

TO KEEP FRESH IDEAS AND FRESH LEADERSHIP COMING FORWARD, AND I URGE

OUR MEMBERS TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. BYRNE.

MR. BYRNE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. 31, MR. KOLB.

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RULE IV OF THE ASSEMBLY

RULES, IN RELATION TO COMMITTEE AGENDAS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BYRNE --

MR. BYRNE: THANK YOU --

146

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- PROCEED.

MR. BYRNE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THIS

RESOLUTION WILL REQUIRE THAT NO BILL CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE

COMMITTEE AGENDA ONCE VOTING ON THE BILL HAS STARTED. IT WOULD ALSO

REQUIRE COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE RANKING MINORITY

MEMBER. THE COMMITTEE PROCESS IS A VITAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE

ASSEMBLY. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PLAY AN INTEGRAL ROLE BY REVIEWING,

DEBATING AND VOTING ON BILLS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES.

HOWEVER, THIS IMPORTANT COMMITTEE WORK IS

SOMETIMES OBSTRUCTED WHEN A VOTE DOES NOT GO ON AS PLANNED. IN CASES

WHEN A VOTE DOES NOT GO AS INTENDED, THE CHAIR CAN PULL THE BILL FROM

THE AGENDA INSTEAD OF RECORDING THE VOTE AS IT HAPPENED. THE DEBATE

AND THE VOTE ON THE BILL ARE THEREBY ERASED FROM EXISTENCE. ONLY THOSE

WHO WATCH THE COMMITTEE MEETING KNOW WHAT HAPPENS, THERE IS NO

PUBLIC RECORD AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PUBLIC WILL NEVER KNOW HOW ITS

REPRESENTATIVES VOTED ON AN IMPORTANT BILL IN COMMITTEE.

IN 2016, THIS HOUSE TOOK AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS

TRANSPARENCY BY REFORMING THE ASSEMBLY RULES TO REQUIRE THAT

COMMITTEE VOTES BE POSTED ELECTRONICALLY. NOW, I URGE THIS HOUSE TO

TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND REQUIRE THAT ALL COMMITTEE VOTES BE RECORDED,

REGARDLESS IF THE OUTCOME IS DIFFERENT THAN WAS INTENDED.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR. ON

THE RESOLUTION, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

147

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. NORRIS.

MR. NORRIS: MR. SPEAKER, I OFFER THE FOLLOWING

RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 32, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBDIVISION (C) OF SECTION 1 OF

RULE I OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO SUBSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE

MEMBERS, AND AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RULE IV OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES,

IN RELATION TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. NORRIS TO

EXPLAIN.

MR. NORRIS: THIS RESOLUTION WOULD PROHIBIT THE

SPEAKER FROM SUBSTITUTING A MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR

FROM PERMITTING A SUBSTITUTION UNLESS 24-HOUR NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

GAIN EXPERTISE OVER LAWS AND TOPICS THAT ARE REGULARLY CONSIDERED BY

THE COMMITTEE. THAT IS WHY THE COMMITTEE PROCESS IS AN INTEGRAL STEP

SO THAT THE BILLS ARE VETTED BY MEMBERS WITH KNOWLEDGE AND

EXPERIENCE BEFORE THEY MAKE IT TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR FOR A VOTE.

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF EACH

COMMITTEE INTACT. MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED AT THE VERY LAST

MINUTE TO ENSURE A VOTE GOES A CERTAIN WAY OR TO PROTECT A MEMBER

148

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FROM HAVING TO TAKE A DIFFICULT VOTE.

IN 2016, WE AMENDED THE RULES TO REQUIRE COMMITTEE

MEETINGS TO BE TELEVISED, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THAT

HAPPEN SOON. NEXT, WE SHOULD TAKE ANOTHER STEP TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY

AND REQUIRE THAT 24-HOUR NOTICE IS GIVEN FOR ANY COMMITTEE

SUBSTITUTION SO THAT THERE ARE NO SURPRISES AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

ON THE RESOLUTION, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 33, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 3 OF

RULE III OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO PROCESSING OF

MULTI-SPONSORSHIP FORMS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALSH ON THE

RESOLUTION.

MS. WALSH: YES, THANK YOU. THIS RESOLUTION

WOULD REQUIRE THAT ALL MULTI-SPONSORSHIP FORMS SIGNED BY THE

149

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

INTRODUCER AND THE MULTI-SPONSOR MUST BE PROCESSED BY THE INDEX

CLERK WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUBMISSION. THE ASSEMBLY RULES

PERMIT ANY NUMBER OF ASSEMBLYMEMBERS TO SIGN ON AS MULTI-SPONSORS

OF A BILL. THE RULES ALSO STATE THAT THE INTRODUCER RETAINS EXCLUSIVE

CONTROL OF A BILL AT ALL TIMES. THEREFORE, WHEN AN INTRODUCER SIGNS A

MULTI-SPONSORSHIP FORM, THE INTENT IS CLEAR: THE INTRODUCER HAS GIVEN

HIS OR HER PERMISSION FOR THE MEMBER TO SIGN ONTO THE BILL. THEREFORE,

ONCE THE RECEIVE -- ONCE RECEIVED, THE INDEX CLERK SHOULD PROCESS THE

MULTI-SPONSORSHIP FORM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

CURRENTLY, THE ASSEMBLY RULES DO NOT PROVIDE A

TIMEFRAME, THOUGH, FOR THE -- FOR THE ASSEMBLY INDEX CLERK TO PROCESS

MULTI-SPONSORSHIP FORMS. I URGE YOU TO JOIN ME IN ADOPTING THIS

RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN SET A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME FOR

MULTI-SPONSORSHIP IN THE ASSEMBLY RULES.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? THE CLERK WILL ANNOUNCE

THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. MORINELLO.

MR. MORINELLO: MR. SPEAKER, I OFFER THE

FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

150

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 34.

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 4 OF RULE IV OF THE ASSEMBLY

RULES, IN RELATION TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MORINELLO TO

EXPLAIN THE RESOLUTION.

MR. MORINELLO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. IN

THIS TIME OF MUCH NEEDED REFORM, WE MUST PROVIDE THE PUBLIC GREATER

ACCESS TO OUR COMMITTEE PROCESS AND, FRANKLY, BRING ABOUT THE

MEANINGFUL REFORM DESIRED BY ALL NEW YORKERS WHO SUPPORT THE CAUSE

OF GOOD GOVERNMENT AND ENHANCED TRANSPARENCY WHILE INCREASING

RESPECT FOR THIS HOUSE AND ALL WHO SERVE IN IT. THAT STARTS WITH THE

PUBLIC FULLY VETTING LEGISLATION ON A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE A COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING UPON A PETITION SIGNED BY

ONE-THIRD OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. NEITHER CONFERENCE HAS

AN ABSOLUTE MONOPOLY ON GOOD IDEAS AND WE ALL BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC

HEARINGS ON CONTROVERSIAL OR COMPLEX LEGISLATION OR ISSUES. THIS

AMENDMENT WOULD EMPOWER COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO CALL FOR PUBLIC

HEARINGS SHOULD THEY FEEL THAT ADDITIONAL INPUT IS NEEDED OR THE PUBLIC

GENERALLY WANTS TO BE HEARD ON IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE MATTERS, WHILE

PRESERVING THE UNDERSTANDING THAT MAJORITY RULES. THE BEST INPUT WE,

AS LEGISLATORS, RECEIVE IS FROM THE CONSTITUENTS WE REPRESENT. BY

BRINGING GREATER OPENNESS TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THROUGH PUBLIC

HEARINGS, WE WOULD BE GIVING EVERY SINGLE NEW YORKER AN OPPORTUNITY

TO HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD.

151

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

ON THE RESOLUTION, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. MONTESANO.

MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I

OFFER THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY

EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 35, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 9 OF RULE V OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO STAFF, MATERIALS AND OTHER PERQUISITES.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MONTESANO TO

EXPLAIN THE RESOLUTION.

MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU. THIS RESOLUTION

WOULD AMEND OUR EXISTING RULE REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL ALLOTMENT OF

STAFF AND OTHER RESOURCES PROVIDED TO MEMBERS IN THE MAJORITY AND

MINORITY COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE AND TASK FORCE LEADERSHIP

POSITIONS. SPECIFICALLY, THIS RESOLUTION WOULD ENSURE RANKING

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES OR MEMBERS IN MINORITY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

HAVE SUFFICIENT STAFF AND RESOURCES NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE ACTIVITY

OF THAT COMMITTEE OR POSITION.

152

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, THE RANKING

MEMBER OF THE CODES COMMITTEE WOULD RECEIVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR STAFF

AND OTHER PREREQUISITES THAT IS 61.1 PERCENT OF THE ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE

PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE CHAIR. WHILE RANKING MEMBERS OF

COMMITTEES DO NOT SHARE ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMITTEE

CHAIRS THEY DO, IN FACT, HAVE SIMILAR RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY MUST HAVE

SUFFICIENT STAFF AND RESOURCES TO REVIEW ALL BILLS THAT ARE REFERRED TO

THEIR COMMITTEE AND PERFORM THE SAME FAIR-MINDED ANALYSIS AND

THOROUGH OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS AS THE MAJORITY CHAIR.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF ALLOCATING RESOURCES IS UNJUST

AND DISPROPORTIONATE. IT PUNISHES NOT JUST OUR MEMBERS, BUT ALSO THE

CONSTITUENTS THEY SERVE. SIMPLY STATED, THERE NEEDS TO BE A FAIR

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR ASSEMBLYMEMBERS TO FULFILL THEIR OFFICIAL

DUTIES.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

ON THE RESOLUTION, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I OFFER

THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN

IT.

153

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 36, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING --

(SPEAKER HEASTIE ENTERS CHAMBER FLOOR.)

(LAUGHTER)

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING RULE I OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES IN RELATION TO A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL TO

EXPLAIN THE RESOLUTION.

(SPEAKER HEASTIE TAKES A SEAT BESIDE MR. GOODELL.)

(LAUGHTER)

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

(ADDRESSING SPEAKER HEASTIE) THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

(LAUGHTER)

WE CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM.

(LAUGHTER)

THIS RULE CHANGE WOULD PROVIDE FOR AN EIGHT-YEAR

TERM OF OFFICE FOR THE SPEAKER. NOW, WE ALL KNOW HOW HARD THE

SPEAKER WORKS.

(LAUGHTER)

IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY DEMANDING JOB.

(LAUGHTER)

IT'S MUCH LIKE THE CEO OF A LARGE CORPORATION.

(LAUGHTER)

154

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW TAXING AND DIFFICULT AND

DRAINING THIS JOB CAN BE. CHANGING THE SPEAKER PERIODICALLY GIVES THE

SPEAKER A BREAK FROM THESE DEMANDING RESPONSIBILITIES.

(LAUGHTER)

AND ENABLES ONE OF THE REST OF US, PRESUMABLY A

REPUBLICAN --

(LAUGHTER)

-- TO STEP FORWARD AND SHARE THOSE AWESOME

RESPONSIBILITIES. AND FOR THAT REASON, MR. SPEAKER, MR. SPEAKER AND

MY COLLEAGUES, I URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS HUMANITARIAN RESOLUTION.

(LAUGHTER)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? IT'S A LONELY WORLD, MR.

GOODELL.

(LAUGHTER)

ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. RAIA.

MR. RAIA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. IN THREE MORE

HOURS, THIS PROSPECTIVE RULES CHANGE WOULD MEAN A WHOLE LOT MORE TO

US, BUT IN MY 17 YEARS SERVING IN THIS AUGUST BODY, MANY OF OUR FINEST

MOMENTS -- FINEST PIECES OF LEGISLATION WE'VE BEEN -- WE'VE PASSED,

155

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

HAVE BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. THAT'S NOT BEEN ONE OF OUR FINEST

MOMENTS. PASSING LEGISLATION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEANS THE

PUBLIC DOESN'T GET A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING. THAT'S PARTIAL

BECAUSE THIS HOUSE HAS CHOSEN TO CONDUCT MANY OF ITS KEY LEGISLATIVE

VOTES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. CERTAINLY, THERE'S NO SUNSHINE IN THAT.

WITH THIS -- YOU KNOW, I SCREWED UP.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: YES, YOU DID.

MR. RAIA: MR. SPEAKER, I OFFER THE FOLLOWING

RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT.

(LAUGHTER)

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 37, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RULE II OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO HOURS IN SESSION.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RAIA, FROM

WHERE YOU STOPPED.

MR. RAIA: ABSOLUTELY. YOU SEE --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. RAIA: -- BUT THIS IS WHY THOSE REALLY LONG NIGHTS

ARE NOT GOOD FOR ANY OF US, BECAUSE WE GET A LITTLE TIRED AND

TONGUE-TIED.

THAT BEING SAID, TODAY, I PROPOSE ANOTHER GOOD

GOVERNMENT REFORM DESIGNED TO MAKE THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY A

MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIVE PART OF STATE GOVERNMENT. THIS

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2 OF RULE II WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF

156

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

MEMBERS NEEDED TO OVERRIDE THE RULES CONTROLLING THE HOURS IN SESSION

FROM A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO TWO-THIRDS OF MEMBERS ELECTED TO THE

ASSEMBLY. THE PEOPLE'S WORK SHOULD AND WOULD BE DONE IN THE LIGHT

OF DAY, NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. GOOD GOVERNMENT WATCHDOG

GROUPS AND TAXPAYERS HAVE SPOKEN LOUD AND CLEAR, ALL-NIGHT SESSIONS

DO NOT SERVE THE CONSTITUENTS, OR US, IN THIS GREAT STATE.

LATE NIGHT SESSIONS REDUCE OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY,

ACCOUNTABILITY AND ARE A GLARING IMPEDIMENT TO CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT OF

THEIR LEGISLATURE. TODAY, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO SHOW REAL LEADERSHIP

AND BUILD UPON OUR PREVIOUS SUCCESSES. BY JOINING ME IN VOTING FOR

THIS WONDERFUL RESOLUTION, WE WILL HONOR THE VOICES OF ALL THE VOTERS,

STRENGTHEN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND TAKE BACK THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE

AND GET A GOOD NIGHT'S SLEEP ONCE AND FOR ALL.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MR. BRABENEC.

MR. BRABENEC: TOP OF THE EVENING, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: TOP OF THE EVENING TO

YOU, MR. BRABENEC.

MR. BRABENEC: I OFFER THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION

157

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 38, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING RULE IV OF THE ASSEMBLY

RULES, IN RELATION TO THE TERM OF A COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BRABENEC TO

EXPLAIN THE RESOLUTION.

MR. BRABENEC: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES ARE TASKED WITH AN IMPORTANT ROLE OF VETTING ALL

LEGISLATION PRIOR TO IT REACHING THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE BY THE ENTIRE

MEMBERSHIP. THE LEGISLATURE AND THE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK STATE

WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY A MORE OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND

SOLUTIONS IN ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS

TO LIMIT THE TIME A MEMBER MAY SERVE AS A COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN FOR A

PARTICULAR COMMITTEE TO EIGHT YEARS. CHANGING COMMITTEE CHAIRS

PERIODICALLY WOULD HELP TO INSPIRE FRESH PERSPECTIVES FROM COMMITTEES

AND ALLOW MORE MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN AN IMPORTANT

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN'S ROLE.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR.

BRABENEC.

ON THE RESOLUTION, THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

158

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I

OFFER TO FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY

EXPLAIN IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 39, MR.

KOLB. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RULE IV OF THE

ASSEMBLY RULES, IN RELATION TO BROADCAST OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. MALLIOTAKIS TO

EXPLAIN THE RESOLUTION.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. FOR

YEARS, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE ASSEMBLY MINORITY CONFERENCE HAD

OFFERED A RESOLUTION THAT REQUIRED THAT ALL OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS BE

RECORDED AND BROAD -- BROADCAST LIVE ON THE ASSEMBLY WEBSITE. AFTER

BEING REJECTED NUMEROUS YEARS IN A ROW, WE FINALLY DID PASS THAT RULES

CHANGE ON MARCH 21ST, 2016 IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER, WHICH WAS A GREAT

STEP; HOWEVER, HERE WE ARE MORE THAN TWO SESSIONS LATER, AND WE HAVE

NOT YET IMPLEMENTED THAT COMPONENT OF THIS. AND WE LIVE IN AN ERA

WHERE EVERYTHING IS CURRENTLY RECORDED, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF VIDEOS

POSTED ON THE INTERNET, MANY OF WHICH ARE RECORDED BY CELLPHONE AND

UPLOADED WITHIN SECONDS. AND I'M SURE OUR COLLEAGUE, JOSE RIVERA,

WILL VOLUNTEER FOR US. YOU CAN WATCH COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF THE NEW

YORK STATE SENATE CURRENTLY; HOWEVER, YOU'RE STILL NOT ABLE TO WATCH

YOUR ELECTED ASSEMBLYMEMBERS VOTE IN COMMITTEE.

159

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

SO, NEW YORKERS HAVE A RIGHT TO WITNESS THESE

PROCEEDINGS AND FOR TRANSPARENCY, WE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDING

AND BROADCAST OF OUR STANDING COMMITTEES BEGIN BY APRIL 1ST, 2019.

AND THAT WOULD -- THAT'S WHAT THIS RESOLUTION WOULD DO. AND I ASK THAT

IT BE GIVEN YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTED SO THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE

TO DO THIS NEXT YEAR AND WE COULD LEAVE EARLY AND EAT. THANKS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION,

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS LOST.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, DO WE

HAVE ANY MORE RESOLUTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE NUMEROUS

FINE RESOLUTIONS, WE WILL TAKE THEM UP IN ONE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE

RESOLUTIONS SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTIONS ARE

ADOPTED.

(WHEREUPON, ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NOS. 41-46 WERE

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I NOW MOVE THAT THE

ASSEMBLY STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL 11:30 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY THE

23RD, TOMORROW BEING A SESSION DAY.

160

NYS ASSEMBLY JANUARY 22, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE ASSEMBLY

STANDS ADJOURNED.

(WHEREUPON, AT 8:49 P.M., THE ASSEMBLY STOOD

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23RD AT 11:30 A.M., WEDNESDAY

BEING A SESSION DAY.)

161