WPC of Tennessee

2012 Final Legislative Session Summary

May 31, 2012

By Deb Lively and Anne Carr

The 2012 legislative wrapped up on May 1, the earliest adjournment date since 1998. We now move on to an interesting election year!

Here is a summary of the final status of high priority bills monitored or lobbied by WPC this year. For issues of particular interest, the legislative website, www.capitol.tn.gov , is a great source of information about committee or floor votes on bills, cosponsors, and even video clips of discussions. Bills that were not approved are now dead as of the end of the session and must be filed anew in 2013, if supporters choose to do so.

The Public Chapters for the bills that were passed are also listed below. The complete text of all PCs may be found at http://tnsos.org/acts/PublicActs.107.php?showall .

Bills that DID NOT pass include:

HB1087/SB1985, which would have required insurance companies that pay for intravenous chemotherapy to also cover oral chemo treatment.

HB3466/SB3169, would have updated the weight standards for child rear-facing car seats. WPC supported both bills.

HJR527 and HJR554 both related to restricting access to “Plan B,” emergency contraception utilized by women within 48 hours of unprotected sex.

SB3182/HB2563, affecting the state’s current “Family Planning Act,” appeared to be an effort to restrict birth control provided by local and county health departments. It sought to change wording in state law about access to birth control by changing the current wording “medically acceptable” to “appropriate.” None of these controversial proposals, opposed by WPC, were ever considered in a committee hearing.

Multiple bills, filed both in 2011 and 2012, seeking mandatory joint custody or “equal time” for divorced parents of minor children did not pass.

 

Bills that DID pass:

 Public Chapter 897 was originally a mandatory joint custody bill but was amended to clarify current law with the support of WPC and the Tennessee Bar Association. It added two additional factors for court consideration when making custody determinations: the likelihood of each parent to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting rights and whether a parent has a history of willfully denying the other parent’s right to parenting time in accordance with a prior court order.

PC 672 is the “Life Defense Act of 2012.” The most worrisome part of the original bill, which may have allowed the names of physicians who perform abortions and their patients to be listed on the state website, was removed. Now the statute includes a requirement that physicians who perform abortions in licensed ambulatory surgical treatment centers (ASTCs) must have hospital admitting privileges in the county in which the clinic is located or in a contiguous county. The admitting privileges requirement was placed only on physicians performing abortions and not on physicians performing a variety of other surgical procedures in ASTCs. Prior law required all ASTCs to have contracts with local hospitals in the event of the need to transport a patient unexpectedly.

 PC 973 revises current provisions governing how LEAs (local education agencies) are required to implement “family life education.” (A WPC concern about a proposed change in when LEAs are required to implement a program was removed from the bill.) The new law is aimed at moving sex education toward more emphasis on abstinence, but, according to family life educators, the simultaneous use of the terms “abstinence-based” and “abstinence-centered” will likely create confusion. Another term in the new law, “gateway sexual activity,” lacks a clear definition and is also of concern to educators. The most significant concern, however, may be the addition of provision allowing parents to sue third-party educators who are asked by an LEA to provide information to students. If a parent has a complaint about any of the content of the information provided, a finding in their favor would result in a $500 fine to the third-party educator. The law also adds language such as, “Exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student’s current or prior sexual experience.”

 PC 1093 creates a process for collecting information when a rape or domestic violence victim seeks medical treatment but objects to revealing his or her identity. It was originated by the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and supported by WPC. TCADSV believes this will encourage victims of domestic violence or sexual assault to seek confidential medical treatment, while also allowing law enforcement and policy-makers to track these crimes.

 Of general interest, PC 1037 allows absentee voting for age 60 and older instead of age 65. This was the only legislation passed that impacted the more restrictive voter ID provisions approved in 2011.

 PC 682 authorizes military member spouses who leave employment due to military reassignment to qualify for unemployment benefits, and payment of the benefits will not adversely affect an employer’s experience rating.

PC 992 attempts to address concerns about cyber-bullying legislation passed in 2011.

PC1079 requires some TANF benefits applicants to pay for drug-testing prior to approval for benefits. The state Department of Human Services will develop rules for “suspicion based” testing, used in some other states, so that all applicants will not have to be tested. According to testimony in committee on this legislation, the testing is expected to cost under $20.

PC 891 sets out a defense to prosecution for prostitution that the person charged was a victim of involuntary labor services, a victim of trafficking for sexual servitude, or a victim as defined under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

PC 616 extends the sunset date for the Tennessee Economic Council on Women for one year to June 30, 2013,