Some RI Lawmakers Ask Why Reproductive Privacy Bill Doesn't Cover All Health Data

The bill offering limited protection "that comes before you today is one more brick in the wall to protect Rhode Islanders as they access that health care that they are due if they need it," said Rep. Jason Knight (D), a sponsor. It aims "to protect Rhode Islanders and their data from ... immoral and unethical and most likely unconstitutional attempts by other states to gain access to that data as they go about their business of persecuting women and trans folks."

H-5857, titled Reproductive Freedom and Gender Affirming Care Health Data Privacy Act, protects consumer health data, which in this bill is "gender-affirming care information [and] reproductive or sexual health information," Knight said.

Some committee members questioned why the legislation doesn't protect all health data. "If we're interested in protecting everybody's privacy, why not do this for every medical procedure?" said Rep. David Place (R). "So we're not just pigeonholing two protected classes of procedures."

Knight responded, "Because Texas, Idaho, Missouri ... have not made open-heart surgery a crime." Knight said. "In today's America, these two areas are the ones that are under attack, and we are here to protect Rhode Island voters and look out for their interests."

Place retorted, "I just think [the legislation] should be broader. [It] should bring in [all health-related data], regardless of the logic behind it. Protecting privacy is protecting privacy."

"If we're going to say we're worried about all medical data, all medical problems, we should be worrying about them all," he added.

Said Knight, "What I am worried about ... is the targeting of women primarily, and trans folks primarily, who attempt to exercise their rights to obtain health care for their reproductive and sexual health care and their gender-affirming care by folks who have decided that they're going to go after these people for the immutable qualities that make up their body."

Rep. Marie Hopkins (R) echoed Pace's sentiments. "Are you opposed to an expansion?" she asked Knight. "The protection of consumer data is a huge issue right now ... there's a million applications for the protection of health data. While I recognize your objective and intentions here, are you opposed to expanding data protections to others?"

Cody Venske, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who testified in support of the bill and helped Knight in answering committee questions, said Hopkins' concern "merits consideration" but is not the main goal now. "This bill takes a more targeted approach to address what I think are the most salient health data privacy harms, although I do agree with" Place and Hopkins "that health data is sensitive and does merit protections generally."

Rep. Jennifer Stewart (D) agreed. "While I think it might be a great idea to expand broader health data protections, I don't see why that ought to hold up moving forward in this area of concern," she said.

"This bill is largely motivated by the attacks that we have seen on reproductive health care as well as gender-affirming care following the repeal of Roe v. Wade through Jackson v. Women's Health Organization," Venske said. "The goal here is not to duplicate the coverage of data that's already regulated under federal law, and seeks instead to address the unregulated data market of apps and entities that are using our information and make predictions about our healthcare."

Planned Parenthood of Southern New England and the Coalition for Reproductive Freedom also testified in support of the bill. The committee held H-5857 for further study, meaning it can return to it later.