Senate President Steve Sweeney, who was defeated in the November 2021 election and Senator Loretta Weinberg who will not be returning to the Senate due to retirement, pulled a last minute, heavy-handed maneuver to get their radical abortion bill passed in the lame duck session before they both left office.  They introduced bill S49/A6260 which was not available until late Thursday afternoon (January 6, 2022).      NJRTL and many other pro-life groups and individuals were finally able to testify  against the bill after waiting 7  hours in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.    The Senate Health Committee also took up the bill and both Committees voted it out of committee along party lines.   

The bill was scheduled for a Vote in both Houses on Monday, January 10, 2022, the last day of the legislative session.  

To see how your legislators voted, see below.  

Assembly Roll Call Vote: 45 Yes, 24 No, 9 Abstentions, 2 Not Voting  VIEW

Senate Roll Call Vote: 23 Yes, 15 No, 1 Abstention, 2 Not Voting VIEW

The bill has many of the same provisions contained in the original Reproductive Freedom Act.

Here is an analysis of the bill:

Summary of S49/A6260

Title of bill:  Codifies Constitutional Right to Freedom of Choice

Contrary to its name, this Act is not a codification of abortion but a robust expansion of abortion.   There are many unintended consequences with this bill and it is written so poorly that it is open to interpretation.  

Language in the bill says, “The Legislature is committed to ensuring that no barriers to reproductive freedom exist in the State.”

The bill cites the Right to Choose v Byrne Decision and Planned Parenthood v. Farmer case and states that the right to reproductive choice is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 1, paragraph 1 of the NJ Constitution and is independent of the U.S. Constitution. They assert that this “right” exceeds the protections under the U.S. Constitution.  In short, it seeks to add a new statute under Title 10:7-1 et seq. under the Civil Rights Statute and allows a Civil Rights Lawsuit to be filed if any of the provisions of the law are impeded or interfered with. It should be noted that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or State Constitution does this so-called right exist.  These were interpretations  made by our activist Supreme Court. 

Section 1d takes a very narrow, negative ideological view of pregnancy and motherhood that implies that women need abortion in order to be successful. It should be noted that these were the antiquated, patriarchal arguments made in the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade decision.

The Act  “explicitly guarantee to every  individual present in the state, including but not limited to, an individual who is under state control or supervision to have the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, which includes the right to contraception, the right to terminate a pregnancy, and the right to carry a pregnancy to term;” Because of the broad wording in this bill and the fact that there are no gestational limits anywhere in the bill, this new statute will allow abortionon demand at any point in pregnancy, even if the baby is viable or full term. This will apply to any individual who is present in the state, including non-residents, as well as those who are incarcerated and minor girls in custody or other government programs controlled by the state.   

The Act will invalidate any local or State laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, policies, etc. that are currently in effect or those enacted in the future that don’t conform to the provisions and express or implied purpose of this act.   This language seeks to prevent the passage of any new pro-life laws like parental notification, bans on late-term abortion, and even those upheld as constitutionally valid by the U.S. Supreme Court.  At risk under this protocol is NJ’s 1974 conscience clause protection law that allows health care to workers who are opposed to abortion to refuse to perform them.  An amendment should be added to specifically exempt the 1974 law if that was not the intention. 

The Act leaves the door open for a future bill to allow abortion coverage to be mandated in all health insurance plans by authorizing a study by the Dept of Banking and Insurance to adopt through regulation policies to provide such coverage.  It includes an exclusion for a religious employer as long as they provide notice to covered persons and prospective covered persons and seek permission from the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance.  The Act excludes religious employers from an exemption for abortion coverage for the State Health Benefits Commission and the School Employee’s Health Benefits Commission.   It is likely that this future regulation will include coverage for abortion and 12-month hormonal contraceptives with no co-pays, no deductibles or co-insurance, which was language contained in the original Reproductive Freedom Act (S3030/A4848).