Legislation

Noting that all patients should be treated in a non-discriminatory manner by medical professionals, we supported legislation which will prohibit the denial of appropriate medical care to individuals based on various irrelevant characteristics.

We raised concerns about this legislation, which would require that every “youth camp” staff member “obtain a criminal record check” and that each camp maintain “an adequate and competent staff of good character and reputation.”

Opposed by the ACLU, this legislation would allow Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRN) to attest to a patient’s mental health condition and participate in certifying patients for mandated outpatient treatment, an action which is presently something that only doctors can do.

As a matter of making police interactions for individuals with cognitive and communication-related disabilities safer and respectful of their unique needs, we supported legislation that will require training of police officers in responding to individuals with disabilities.

In the interest of proactively and preemptively restricting the use of new technology which could harm communities, we testified in favor of legislation which would have generally barred the use of “robot dogs” by law enforcement.

We supported legislation that would have made individual employee-supervisors, and not just the company employing them, subject to personal liability for their own acts of discrimination.

We opposed the legislation because its breadth and statutory coverage potentially interfered with the free speech rights of employers and, just as importantly, the rights of other employees to be free of a hostile work environment.

We opposed this resolution which would have called for a federal constitutional convention with the goal of passing constitutional amendments that would “impose restraints on the federal government.”

We strongly supported legislation sponsored by the Lieutenant Governor which would limit the circumstances under which housing providers can demand information about a tenant’s past criminal history, and would further restrict the scope of the information that can be considered.