House approves bill banning interference with access to health-care facilities after hours of debate over free-speech and civil remedies

The Hawaii House of Representatives on final reading approved House Bill 1961, a measure that makes it a petty misdemeanor to interfere with another person's access to or the normal functioning of a health-care facility and creates a civil right of action for aggrieved parties.

Supporters argued the law is intended to protect patients and health-care workers. "No person should be forced to endure harassment, intimidation, threats, or physical obstruction when seeking or providing medical care," Representative Takayama said in urging passage. Representative Ichiyama, a supporter, said the bill aims to "find the balance between people who are exercising their free speech rights as well as the patients who are seeking needed health care," and stressed the bill's purpose clause "is not intended to affect any rights under federal or state law on peaceful expressive conduct, including labor demonstrations or exercising the right to strike." She also cited testimony from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii that hospitals and clinics must be places where patients can safely enter and receive care.

Opponents said existing federal and state laws already protect clinic access and warned the new measure would have chilling consequences. "This bill is absolutely not necessary," Representative Garcia said, citing the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and several Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes referenced during debate. Representative Euamoto objected that the bill's use of a "reckless" mens rea standard and mandatory minimum penalties could strip judicial discretion and chill protected speech: "There are three areas of concern — the potential chilling effects on free speech, the inclusion of a reckless conduct standard, and the imposition of mandatory minimums," Euamoto said. He and other opponents also criticized a civil-remedy provision that, as read during debate, would allow an aggrieved party to prevail "without alleging or proving actual damages." Opponents warned employer or hospital groups could use the civil remedy to pursue suits that would deter labor demonstrations and community protests.

The bill as debated authorizes criminal penalties described on the floor as a petty misdemeanor; speakers said a first-time offense carries a fine of no less than $250 and a minimum 24-hour jail term, and that the bill also creates civil remedies for aggrieved parties. Supporters said those penalties and civil enforcement are necessary to ensure safe access to medical services.

Lawmakers recorded a number of 'no' votes on the final-reading measures (the Clerk read specific names tied to several bills). The Clerk announced the measures before the body had passed final reading; the Chair declared the listed bills passed on final reading.

The House debate highlighted a narrow but sharp split: members who emphasized protecting patients and health-care operations, and those who warned the statute's wording—particularly civil remedies and mens rea—could produce unintended consequences for free expression and labor activity. The measure passed final reading and will proceed according to legislative rules for enactment.