ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
STATEMENT TO
[First Reprint]
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR
SENATE, No. 2260
with committee amendments
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DATED: JUNE 8, 2026
The Assembly Appropriations Committee reports favorably and with committee amendments Senate Bill No. 2260 (1R) SCS.
As amended, this bill establishes certain protections for individuals engaging in reproductive health care activity, as well as certain protections for professionals who provide reproductive health care activity.
Crime: Interference with
Reproductive Health Care Services
The bill creates the new crime of “interference with reproductive health care services.” A person is guilty of the crime if the person purposely or knowingly:
(1) inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury on another person, with the purpose to unlawfully restrict another’s access to or receipt or provision of reproductive health care services or to intimidate the person from becoming or remaining a patient, provider, volunteer, or assistant of reproductive health care activity, if the conduct would cause a reasonable person to be intimidated;
(2) physically obstructs any person seeking to enter into or exit from a health care services facility, with the purpose to unlawfully restrict another’s access to or receipt or provision of reproductive health care activity or to intimidate the person from becoming or remaining a patient, provider, volunteer, or assistant of reproductive health care activity, if the conduct would cause a reasonable person to be intimidated;
(3) intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person or entity: because that person or entity is a reproductive health care services patient, provider, volunteer, or assistant; or in order to intimidate a person or entity, or a class of persons or entities, from becoming or remaining a patient, provider, volunteer, or assistant of reproductive health care services; or
(4) damages, defaces, or destroys the property of a person, entity, or facility, or attempts to do so, because the person, entity, or facility provides, volunteers, assists with, or receives reproductive health care services.
Interference with reproductive health care services is a crime of the fourth degree, except that it is a crime of the third degree if the victim suffers bodily injury, and a crime of the second degree if the victim suffers significant bodily injury or serious bodily injury.
A crime of the fourth degree is punishable by up to 18 months imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. A crime of the third degree is punishable by three to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. A crime of the second degree is punishable by five to ten years imprisonment, a fine of up to $150,000, or both.
Civil Action: Interference
with Reproductive Health Care Services
As amended, the bill also authorizes a civil action against a person who: (1) unlawfully interferes with another person’s reproductive health care services; or, (2) causes a reasonable person to suffer damage to the person’s business or personal reputation, financial harm, or pain and suffering, mental anguish, or emotional harm on the basis that the person, entity, or facility provides, volunteers, assists with, or receives reproductive health care services.
Under the bill, a court may award:
(1) injunctive relief;
(2) compensatory damages in an amount not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $1,000 for each violation;
(3) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law;
(4) reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs; and
(5) any other preliminary and equitable relief the court determines to be appropriate.
Under the bill, the Attorney General may bring a civil action to enjoin a violation of the law, for compensatory damages, and for the assessment of a civil penalty against each person who violates the law. The civil penalty imposed on each actor will be up to, but will not exceed, $10,000 for a first violation, and $25,000 for any subsequent violation.
Applicability of Laws of Other States
The bill establishes that a law that authorizes a person or government entity to bring a prosecution, civil action, or any other legal action to deter, prevent, sanction, or punish any person engaging, aiding, or assisting in providing or prescribing any reproductive health care activity is against the public policy of this State. Further, such laws are prohibited from being applied to any matter, case, or controversy heard in a State court or in an administrative tribunal of this State.
These prohibitions apply to reproductive health care activity within the State, and reproductive health care activity in accordance with State law including, but not limited to State law governing telemedicine and telehealth services.
The prohibitions do not apply to an action founded in tort, contract, or statute under the laws of this State, or under the similar laws of another state. The prohibitions also do not apply to an alleged act of malpractice or negligence by a person in the person’s profession or occupation.
Protection of Patient Information
P.L.2022, c.51 provided for certain protections with respect to the disclosure of patient information relating to reproductive health care activity, as well as protecting access to health care, medical services, and procedures related to an abortion for persons who come to this State from jurisdictions in which these actions are illegal. The bill updates P.L.2022, c.51 to replace references to “reproductive health care services” with “reproductive health care activity,” as that term is defined in the bill.
As amended, under the bill, P.L.2022, c.51 provides that, in any civil action or other proceeding, a medical provider or other covered entity, as described under federal law concerning medical privacy and security, is barred from disclosing certain communications or information, unless the patient or patient’s conservator, guardian, or other authorized legal representative explicitly consented in writing to the disclosure. Those communications or information include:
(1) any communication made to the covered entity, or any information obtained by the covered entity from a patient or the conservator, guardian, or other authorized legal representative of a patient relating to reproductive health care activity; or
(2) any information obtained by personal examination of a patient relating to reproductive health care activity.
Additionally, under the bill, P.L.2022, c.51 provides that a public entity or employee, appointee, officer, official or any other person acting on behalf of a public entity is prohibited from providing any information, or expending or using time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources, in furtherance of any interstate or, to the extent permitted by federal law, federal investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or entity for reproductive health care activity.
Extradition
Under current law, N.J.S.A.2A:160-14.1 prevents extradition as it relates to “reproductive health care activity.” This bill updates N.J.S.A.2A:160-14.1 to prevent a person from being extradited to another state under certain circumstances related to “reproductive health care activity,” as that term is defined under the bill.
Protections for Persons who Provide Reproductive Health Care Services
With regard to a person who provides, receives, seeks, provides or seeks a referral for, or responds to an inquiry about, reproductive health care activity, or assists, advises, aids, abets, facilitates, solicits, or conspires with any person or entity that provides, receives, seeks, or responds to, an inquiry about reproductive health care activity, the bill prohibits:
· a State or local law enforcement agency or officer from arresting or participating in the arrest of the person, unless the person has committed an offense or other violation of the laws of this State that would subject the person to an arrest.
· a State court, judicial officer, court employee or clerk, or authorized attorney from issuing a subpoena pursuant to the laws of another state, in connection with a proceeding in another state, or, to the extent permitted by federal law, in connection with a proceeding initiated by the federal government regarding the person, unless the subpoena is related to a legal proceeding for which the person would be subject to a subpoena under the laws of this State and pursuant to the Rules of Court.
· a State court, judicial officer, court employee or clerk, or authorized attorney from issuing a search warrant to search for or seize any property in connection with a proceeding in another state, or, to the extent permitted by federal law, in connection with a proceeding initiated by the federal government regarding the person, unless the warrant is related to a legal proceeding for which the person would be subject to a warrant pursuant to the laws of this State.
· a State court, judicial officer, court employee or clerk, or authorized attorney from issuing an ex parte order for wiretapping to obtain any wire, or any oral or electronic communication in connection with a legal proceeding in another state, or, to the extent permitted by federal law, in connection with a proceeding initiated by the federal government regarding the person, unless the person would be subject to an order for wiretapping under the laws of this State;
· a person licensed pursuant to the “Private Detective Act of 1939,” or the “Bounty Hunter Licensing Act,” from participating in the location or apprehension of the person.
These provisions apply to reproductive health care activity within the State, and reproductive health care activity in accordance with State law including, but not limited to State law governing telemedicine and telehealth services.
As amended and reported by the committee, Senate Bill
No. 2260 (1R) SCS is identical to Assembly Bill No. A2218 ACS, which was also
amended and reported by the committee on this date.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS:
The committee amended the bill to provide civil penalties, rather than criminal penalties, when a person, causes a reasonable person to suffer damage to the person’s business or personal reputation, financial harm, or pain and suffering, mental anguish, or emotional harm on the basis that the person, entity, or facility provides, volunteers, assists with, or receives reproductive health care services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) concludes that this bill will result in an indeterminate annual increase in State and local expenditures and State revenues. The OLS lacks sufficient information to quantify the fiscal impact, as it is not possible to estimate the number of crimes likely to be prosecuted under the provisions of this bill.
The bill establishes a new crime of “interference with reproductive health care services.” If the number of prosecutions were to increase under the new crime, the following agencies would experience a caseload increase: i) the Department of Law and Public Safety would provide guidance and other information related to the prosecution of the cases; ii) county prosecutors would have to prosecute additional cases; iii) the Judiciary would have to adjudicate additional complaints and monitor additional probationers; iv) the Office of the Public Defender would have to represent additional low-income criminal defendants; v) the Department of Corrections would have to house and care for additional offenders; and vi) the State Parole Board would have to supervise the return to society of additional offenders.
The OLS notes that the State may receive indeterminate revenues from the fines imposed on individuals convicted of the new crime; however, the State’s ability to collect fines has historically been limited.
The OLS finds that, as a result of new civil actions related to interference with reproductive health care services that may be initiated by the Attorney General or a county or municipal prosecutor under the bill, the Judiciary may also incur an indeterminate increase in annual operating expenditures, as additional resources will likely have to be allocated to any increase in civil caseload. The OLS anticipates collections from court fees, and potentially penalties, to grow in tandem with the caseload.
MINORITY STATEMENT
By Assemblymen Auth, McClellan, Myhre, and Webber
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, New Jersey Democrats have advanced several unnecessary laws addressing abortion access and legal protections creating fear and confusion amongst the public.
This legislation continues that effort while extending similar civil and criminal protections to those who provide or receive purported healthcare services. However, across the country and around the world, there is growing concern regarding the long-term effects of puberty blockers, hormones, and other irreversible medical interventions performed on minors. Several European nations have reevaluated these treatments and adopted stricter safeguards in response to evolving medical evidence and ongoing uncertainty. New Jersey should not move in the opposite direction by expanding legal protections until more comprehensive medical research establishes their long-term safety and efficacy, and potential consequences for children.
Although amendments removed certain provisions that directly impacted protestors’ free speech rights, the bill still imposes criminal penalties on individuals engaged in constitutionally protected expression. Government should never criminalize or chill lawful speech and protest simply because elected officials disagree with the views being expressed.
The breadth of the bill’s provisions raises serious concerns regarding their potential impact on constitutionally protected speech, advocacy, and public protest activities.
Provisions imposing liability for alleged harm to reputation, emotional distress, mental anguish, or similar subjective injuries are constitutionally suspect. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that speech cannot be restricted simply because it is offensive, upsetting, or emotionally distressing. Allowing civil or criminal penalties based on emotional harm risks undermining these fundamental constitutional protections.
We also believe the bill’s provisions prohibiting professional licensing boards from disciplining licensees based on their involvement in reproductive or transgender healthcare effectively substitutes legislative judgment for the expertise of professional regulatory bodies charged with maintaining standards of care, ethical conduct, and patient safety. Licensing boards exist precisely because medical oversight requires specialized knowledge that legislators do not possess. Restricting their authority could prevent them from taking actions necessary to preserve sound medical practice and protect the public.
Additionally, the bill prohibits State agencies from cooperating with certain out-of-State enforcement actions, which runs directly counter to principles articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court that abortion policy should be determined by the individual states. By obstructing lawful actions undertaken by other states pursuant to their own laws, New Jersey risks undermining long-standing principles of interstate cooperation and comity. Such a precedent could encourage other states to selectively disregard or obstruct laws with which they disagree, further eroding respect for the law.
Furthermore, such a provision substantially increases the risk that noncustodial adults could transport minors into New Jersey to obtain abortions or transgender medical treatments against the express wishes of a custodial parent or legal guardian. This raises significant concerns regarding parental rights, family autonomy, and the ability of parents to make important medical decisions on behalf of their children.
The bill may also create opportunities for bad actors to exploit vulnerable children. Human trafficking victims are often isolated from their families and controlled by individuals who make decisions on their behalf. Policies that reduce safeguards or discourage verifications of parental or custodial authority could make it more difficult to identify trafficking victims and intervene in situations involving coercion, exploitation, or abuse.
For these reasons, including its constitutional deficiencies, its infringement on free speech rights, its restriction of professional oversight, its interference with interstate cooperation, and its expansion of legal protections for controversial medical interventions involving minors, we oppose this bill.