Coalition Letter in Support of H.2554

June 1, 2026
The Honorable Aaron Michlewitz
Chair, House Committee on Ways and Means
State House, Room 243
24 Beacon St.
Boston, MA 02133


Dear Chairman Michlewitz and Committee Members,
We are writing to you in support of H.2554, An Act Relative to Routine Childhood Immunizations, which was recently reported favorably out of the House Committee on Health Care Financing. The aim of H.2554 is to ensure that Massachusetts vaccine recommendations should be based on sound scientific evidence and that its residents should be able to access immunizations and immunization data. The undersigned organizations respectfully request that
the House Committee on Ways and Means report out favorably H.2554, An Act Relative to Routine Childhood Immunizations, which would remove the non-medical exemption from required school vaccines and enhance data collection and sharing to better track immunization
rates.


H.2554 is supported by leading medical, public health, labor, education, and community organizations. Additionally, polling conducted statewide shows that Massachusetts voters and parents overwhelmingly support strong vaccine requirements and strengthening immunization reporting requirements. 70% of Massachusetts voters support H.2554’s passage, with support rising to 72% after respondents considered various arguments for and against the legislation.
Support for H.2554 was broadly consistent among voters from various demographic groups and areas of the state.


Major religious groups agree that immunization is part of society’s moral duty to care for the greater common good. Even religious organizations in traditionally conservative areas take this stance, with some religious private schools setting their own strong vaccine requirements. Recent data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health indicate that use of the non-medical exemption continues to steadily increase. During the 2025-2026 school year, over a thousand kindergartners received non-medical exemptions from at least one vaccine—more than in any previous year. Dozens of schools reported MMR immunization rates low enough to leave them vulnerable to outbreaks.


With measles cases already reported in Massachusetts this year, we must act now to prevent its spread. Eliminating non-medical exemptions is the most effective way to prevent outbreaks and ensure strong immunization rates.


We respectfully ask that the Committee report H.2554 out favorably. Thank you for your leadership and your support of this important legislation.


Sincerely,
Katie Blair, JD, Director
Massachusetts Families for Vaccines
Northe Saunders, President
American Families for Vaccines
Jessica Tang, President
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts
Patti Wukovits and Alicia Stillman, Co-Executive Directors
American Society for Meningitis Prevention
Azhar Majeed, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
Center for Inquiry
Justin Pasquariello, Chief Executive Officer
East Boston Social Centers
Alicia Stillman, Executive Director
Emily Stillman Foundation
Ryan D. Jayne, Senior Policy Counsel
Freedom From Religion Foundation Action Fund
Lisa Lemieux, President
Greater Southeastern Massachusetts Labor Council
Matt Prentice, MPH, Director of Policy
Immune Deficiency Foundation

Patti Wukovits, BSN, RN, AMB-BC, Executive Director
Kimberly Coffey Foundation
Chloe Schwartz, MPH, Director, Maternal & Infant Health Initiative
March of Dimes
David Cohen, Co-Chair
Mass-Care
Manju Mahajan, MD, FAAFP, President
Massachusetts Academy of Family Physicians
Lissette Blondet, EdM, Executive Director
Taylor Rich, MPH, CCHW, Senior Manager of Training
Massachusetts Association of Community Health Workers
William J. Eddy, Executive Director
Massachusetts Association of Early Education & Care
Brenda Anders Pring, MD, FAAP, President
Massachusetts Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics
Lauren Doctoroff, MD, MBA, Governor
Hemal Sampat, MD & Sunny Kung, MD, Co-Chairs, Health and Public Policy Committee
Massachusetts Chapter of the American College of Physicians
Emily Dulong, Vice President, Government Advocacy and Public Policy
Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association
Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, President
Massachusetts Medical Society
Kathresha Cureton, President
Massachusetts PTA
Oami Amarasingham, JD, Deputy Director
Massachusetts Public Health Alliance

Michael Constantine, MD, President
Massachusetts Society of Clinical Oncologists
Max Page, President
Massachusetts Teachers Association
John Lippitt, Ph.D., Leadership Team Member
Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts
Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts
Dan Hoffer, Political and Legislative Director
SEIU Local 509
Laura Packard, Founder
Voices of Health Care Action

MA House Unanimously Passes Data Privacy Bill

On Thursday, the MA House unanimously passed the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, establishing important new data privacy protections.

In particular, the bill would do the following:

  • Ban the sale of precise geolocation data, which is critical to prevent stalking or surveillance of individuals seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care, domestic violence survivors, workers, activists, and more. 
  • Require that personal data collection must be proportionate to providing requested services, and data must be protected and deleted when no longer necessary or required by law 
  • Establish rights for individuals over their online data, such as the right to access their personal information, the right to correct inaccurate information, the right to opt out of certain processes such as targeted advertising, the right to transport personal data, and the right to delete certain information.
  • Specify that sensitive data cannot be sold or shared without a user’s affirmative consent. Sensitive data includes information such as biometric or genetic information, precise geolocation data, health and wellness information, reproductive and sexual health data, data of a minor under 18, government-issued identifiers, and data that reveals an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, national origin or citizenship or immigration status, religious beliefs, sex life, sexual orientation, status as transgender or non-binary, union membership, status as a military service member or veteran, and status as a victim of a crime.
  • Prohibit targeted advertising to minors 
  • Enable the AG to enforce the law but also establishes a private right of action (“If someone violates your rights, you can sue them”) to enable consumers to hold the largest data holders accountable for any violations

The MA Senate passed a similar data privacy bill in September, and the two will negotiate a final version of the bill.

The House’s bill is stronger than the Senate’s in some ways (such as the creation of a private right of action), but weaker in other ways (the Senate bill contained an outright ban on the sale of sensitive data and stronger language limiting how much data companies can collect).

During the floor debate on the bill, we had supported the following amendments:

  • #3 to reiterate that use of employer owned devices is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, filed be Rep. Field
  • #7 to restrict employer ability to disclose employee data without express employee consent, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #8 to limit the transfer of employee data outside of operationally necessary reasons, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #10 to ban surveillance pricing for groceries, filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #13 to strengthen the definition of “affirmative consent,” filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #16 to fix the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Decker
  • #21 to strengthen the private right of action, filed by Rep. Cataldo
  • #33 to clarify the definition of “transfer,” filed by Rep. Rogers
  • #36 to protect LGBTQ youth data, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #38 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Kilcoyne
  • #40 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Owens

Rather than considering each amendment in turn, the House created a single consolidated amendment that contained pieces of several amendments. It strengthened the data minimization language in the House Ways & Means bill draft, and it also ensured that the right of parents over their children’s online data would not include data related to LGBTQ identity.

TODAY: Tell Your State Rep: Pass a Strong Data Privacy Bill

The Massachusetts House of Representatives will be voting TODAY, on a data privacy bill.

Your precise location data – showing which doctor’s office you visited last month, which NO KINGS rallies you’ve attended, and when and where you drop your kids off every day – is currently for sale on the open market. The shadowy collection and processing of your data by Big Tech and data brokers consistently exposes your private life to bad actors, including Trump’s ICE — just one of many buyers of our precise geolocation data.

Over the past year, civil liberties advocates have been pushing for a robust data privacy bill that does three things:

  1. Data minimization: Organizations should only be able to collect, use, and retain the minimum amount of personal information necessary to fulfill a specific, authorized purpose (Lay terms: If it’s not essential, you can’t collect it, and you certainly keep it.)
  2. Ban on the sale of sensitive data: This includes location data, but also health data, data on immigration status, data on gender identity and sexual orientation, biometric data, etc.
  3. Private right of action: If your rights are violated, you should be able to sue.

The House bill contains some major wins, but also some clear areas for improvement.

What’s good in the bill: strong protections to ban the sale of location data; private right of action

What needs improvement: data minimization language; protections for sensitive data other than location data

Can you write to your state rep today about the importance of passing a strong bill? Read on for what that means.

Here’s what a strong bill looks like.

Join us in supporting the following amendments backed by our allies in the civil liberties, civil rights, and labor advocacy community:

  • #3 to reiterate that use of employer owned devices is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, filed be Rep. Field
  • #7 to restrict employer ability to disclose employee data without express employee consent, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #8 to limit the transfer of employee data outside of operationally necessary reasons, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #10 to ban surveillance pricing for groceries, filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #13 to strengthen the definition of “affirmative consent,” filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #16 to fix the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Decker
  • #21 to strengthen the private right of action, filed by Rep. Cataldo
  • #33 to clarify the definition of “transfer,” filed by Rep. Rogers
  • #36 to protect LGBTQ youth data, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #38 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Kilcoyne
  • #40 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Owens

Join us in opposing the following amendments:

  • #11, which weakens privacy notification, filed by Rep. Phillips
  • #15, which creates a wholesale exemption to the bill for banks and financial institutions, filed by Rep. Chris Markey
  • #17, which creates a wholesale exemption for insurers, filed by Rep. Biele
  • #18, which eliminates the PRA, filed by Rep. Biele
  • #19, which creates an exemption to the LSA for “mobility” data, filed by Rep. Kilcoyne
  • #20, which creates a loophole in the non-discrimination protections, filed by Rep. Cusack

Op-Ed: “An Abundance of Questions Coming to the November Ballot”

Jonathan Cohn, “An Abundance of Questions Coming to the November Ballot,” Fenway News, June 2026.

With the onset of spring weather in May came a biennial Massachusetts tradition: signature collectors outside the grocery store and at local events.

That’s because as soon as signature collection wrapped up for candidates running for office this year, it started up again for ballot questions. And we have a lot of them.

Last fall was only Round One for these questions. A record-breaking 11 ballot questions reached the necessary 74,574 certified signatures needed to advance. They began the new year as bills filed with the Legislature.

A special committee in the Legislature held hearings on all 11 of those questions, listening to proponents, opponents, nonpartisan experts, and members of the public. They decided not to take action on any of them. That means that the campaigns need to collect another 12,429 signatures between early May and mid-June, a much tighter window than Round One, but a lower threshold.

Unfortunately, one of the original 11 is no longer moving forward: the ballot initiative taking on the legislature’s hierarchical pay structure. Currently, legislators can more than double their pay through stipends attached to various leadership posts. Critics rightly deride these stipends as “loyalty pay,” given how they make their recipients indebted to the House and Senate leaders who dole them out. The State Senate, a bitter foe of the question, sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on the question’s constitutionality, and SJC sided with them. The question’s backers are planning to regroup and try again next year.

So what are the remaining 10 questions you might see on clipboards in the coming weeks?

  • Rent stabilization, i.e., limiting how much rent can increase each year to 5% or inflation (whichever is lower), with tailored exemptions for small landlords and new construction
  • Limiting minimum lot sizes in order to eliminate zoning obstacles to the construction of starter homes in the suburbs
  • Expanding the public records law to the Governor and Legislature (We’re the only state where the Governor and Legislature claim full exemption)
  • Election Day Registration, i.e., enabling eligible voters to register to vote or update their registration at the polls (as New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut already allow). Our early September primaries put the need in stark relief.
  • Replacing party primaries with all-party runoff elections like in California, a system Californians are thinking twice about amidst their chaotic gubernatorial election
  • Reducing the state income tax from 5% to 4%, which would lead to a $5 billion cut to the state budget on top of looming cuts to health care and food assistance and disproportionately benefit the top 1%
  • Tightening the revenue cap created by a 1986 ballot question, making it harder for the state to invest
  • Enabling public defenders at the Committee for Public Counsel Service to form a union
  • Recriminalizing recreational marijuana
  • Dedicating funds from the existing state sales tax on sporting goods to a fund for protecting and conserving water and nature

Sound like a lot of ballot questions to keep track of? That’s not all of them.

The one question already guaranteed to be on the ballot is a referendum on the guns safety omnibus bill passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 2024. The bill modernized Massachusetts’ existing firearms laws to address issues such as untraceable “ghost guns,” strengthened the state’s “Red Flag Law,” protected safety in public spaces, and increased violence prevention programming. The Gun Owners Action League collected signatures to try to repeal it. With ballot questions, always remember to pay attention what the yes means and what the no means: it’s yes to keep the law and no to repeal it.

The Legislature can take action until June 30 (the date signatures are due to the Secretary of the State) on any of the 10 other questions. With a question like Election Day Registration, which the State Senate has passed multiple times over the years, doing so seems like a no-brainer.

But barring a quicker legislature or a lot of illegible signatures, we are destined to a historically long ballot this November. Make sure to do your homework before heading into the polls: you won’t want to be taken by surprise by a never-ending list of questions when there is already a long list of offices on the ballot.

MA Could Have up to 11 Ballot Questions This Year, But This One Is Already on the Ballot.

You’ve probably seen signature collectors out in force for the *10* campaigns currently collecting to get questions on the November ballot.

But what you need to remember is that there are *11* potential questions, as one question is already guaranteed a spot on the ballot.

That’s because the gun lobby in the state collected signatures for a referendum on MA’s 2024 gun safety omnibus bill. It’s critical to remember as well that you vote YES to keep the law.

But what’s in the bill anyway? And why is this so important? Join us on Monday, June 15, at 7 pm to learn more about the Vote Yes for a Safe MA campaign and how to get involved.

RSVP Here

Rent Control and Same Day Registration Are in the Mass Dems Platform. Beacon Hill Should Pass Them.

It’s ballot question signature collection season. When going to the grocery store or the farmer’s market, you may have started seeing people collecting for various questions. Maybe you are even doing it yourself. We’re on track for a record number of ballot questions this fall.

But there’s something Beacon Hill could do to make that ballot more manageable: pass policies already in the Massachusetts Democratic Party platform.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party platform supports rent control and supports Same Day Registration. It recognizes that curbing the growth of rent is a critical tool to fight displacement, and it recognizes that voters should be able to register to vote or update their registration at the polls (almost all of our neighboring states already allow it).

So, as Massachusetts Democrats get ready for their annual party convention in Worcester this weekend, it’s a good time to write to your Democratic state legislators and tell them: let’s make our platform mean something.

Already emailed your legislators recently? Why not try calling for follow-up?

My Top Five Favorite Songs about Data Privacy

Today, technology has far outpaced privacy law. Data brokers and Big Tech are free to do almost anything they want with our personal information, including selling our cellphone location data on the open market.

That’s why we have been working with groups from across the state to push for stronger data privacy protections.

When I was thinking recently about this push for data privacy at the State House, I got to thinking about a really important question: What are the best songs about data privacy?

So I put together my top five favorite songs about privacy and surveillance (🥁🥁):

5. “Secret Agent Man” by Johnny Rivers

4. “Our Lips Are Sealed” by The Go-Go’s

3. “Somebody’s Watching Me” by Rockwell

2. “Every Breath You Take” by The Police

1. The sweet sound of people calling their legislators to demand action on data privacy (It’s music to my ears)

That’s right: nothing beats the sound of people putting pressure on their elected officials to take overdue action.

Can you call or email your state rep today in support of taking action to protect data privacy?

Here’s what you need to know:

  • The MA Senate passed a bill to ban the sale of sensitive data (like location data) and curtail what companies can collect back in September.
  • The MA House’s Advanced IT Committee advanced a bill (H.4746) in November.
  • The clock is ticking, and we need the House to bring it up for a vote.

And here’s what you can do:

In solidarity,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts

PS: When you call or email about data privacy, it can’t hurt to add a note about why the House should also back down from its push for online age verification policies that are filled with privacy landmines.

50+ human rights groups sign letter opposing MA “age verification” bills, hold press conference at State House with Rep Mike Connolly

BOSTON, MA—A growing coalition of human rights, LGBTQ+, civil liberties, racial justice, and environmental advocacy groups will release a letter signed by more than 50 organizations on Wednesday, May 13th, expressing grave concern about dangerous and unconstitutional online ID check bills proposed by the Massachusetts House and Governor Maura Healey.

Leaders from organizations that signed the letter will hold a press conference in front of the State House at 10am on Wednesday, May 13th, urging the Governor and the House to work with experts and impacted communities to make significant changes to the legislation.

Signers of the letter, led by Fight for the Future, include the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Sierra Club of MA, Partners in Sex Education, United American Indians of New England (UAINE), The Coalition for Student Mental Health, Progressive Massachusetts, Muslim Justice League, Mass 50501, Act On Mass, and dozens more. 

See a preview of the letter and current list of signers here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

Rep. Mike Connolly, who voted against the House bill H.5366, will join advocates for the press conference. Advocates will hold signs, make short remarks, and take questions from the press before going into the State House to deliver the letter to House and Senate leadership as well as the Governor’s office. 

Fight for the Future has released a working draft proposal of an alternative model bill that would address Big Tech harms without undermining privacy or human rights. The group has met with Governor Healey and the Attorney General’s office after holding a protest outside the governor’s broadcast on WGBH last week. Fight for the Future director Evan Greer and Nathalie Marachél of Northeastern University penned an op-ed for the Boston Globe explaining the privacy, civil liberties, and free expression problems with the current legislation. 

Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org or 978-852-6457, to RSVP for the press conference or arrange a separate interview. We will have photos and video available for press later in the day.

Members of the coalition have offered the following statements to press:

“Health education is built on the principle that young people are best protected not by cutting them off from information but by giving them the tools they need to navigate a complex world. We are especially concerned about LGBTQ+ teens, young people in abusive homes, and adolescents in mental health crises who rely on online communities for support they may not find anywhere else. This bill would put those young people at greater risk, not less. A real legislative response should focus on privacy protections and algorithmic accountability, not surveillance and restricted access to information. We urge Massachusetts lawmakers to scrap H. 5349 and pursue policy that is genuinely centered on the wellbeing of young people.” -Megara Bell, Director of Partners in Sex Education

“Mass 50501 stands firmly against handing our personal data to large tech companies — especially when they are so willing to share that data with our federal authoritarian government. We also stand with marginalized youth who often feel isolated until finding their communities online. It is true that social media can do harm, especially to the mental health of children. However, the way this bill is written will disproportionately affect LGBTQIA+, disabled and neurodivergent youth, while opening the door to surveillance overreach for all citizens of Massachusetts by for-profit tech companies. The problem is real, this solution is reckless, invasive, and puts the very people it claims to protect at greater risk.” – Rebecca Winter (she/her), Executive Director, Mass 50501

“The Intersex community is still so young that we don’t have accessible resources; and the sex and gender resources that do exist don’t know how to support us. Intersex youth and adults alike are totally dependent on social media for peer support, patient centered medical support and the lived experiences of our elders.” -Esther Morris Leidolf, President and Founder of MRKH Intersex

Online verification policies have proven to be a data privacy nightmare. Rather than reining in Big Tech, as legislators have portrayed the bill as doing, it expands new frontiers for them to profit from our data and puts marginalized communities at risk.” -Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts 

“We share the concern about young people’s wellbeing online, but this bill raises serious questions that lawmakers haven’t answered. Age verification means collecting government IDs and face scans — data that can be hacked, sold, or misused. The solution to protecting young people is not putting their private information at greater risk. It’s ensuring they have access to comprehensive sex education that builds the critical thinking and media literacy skills they need to navigate the digital world safely.” – Callie Simon (she/her), Executive Director, SIECUS

“As an organization grounded in the Unitarian Universalist faith, we oppose H.5366 as this bill directly threatens many of our UU principles including; ‘justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.’ This bill endangers the safety of our children and youth, puts them at risk, robs them of their right not to be surveilled, and in this way denies them the justice, equity, and compassion to live free from surveillance and censorship.” –Rev. Jo Murphy, UU Mass Action

“This House bill is in effect an ID check for everyone to go online. Digital Fourth strongly opposes legal mandates for technological verification of people’s ages online. This bill won’t protect kids from the negative consequences of Big Tech; instead, they will kill the non-Big Tech Internet, by imposing expensive burdens on volunteers who operate community forums, listservs and blogs. The House should focus on proven, non-corporate-sponsored solutions, like education on online harms and universal user protections that don’t target or disempower youth, and that therefore don’t require invasive online ID checks.” –Alex Marthews, Co-Chair, Digital Fourth

“After witnessing the current horrors of the Trump administration and the failures of social media platforms like Discord to adequately prevent data breaches, I cannot imagine how anyone thinks that age verification would make a single person in Massachusetts safer. Our personal information should not be put on the marketplace for anyone to buy and abuse, from Meta to Stephen Miller. The legislature should drop this effort and instead send the Consumer Data Privacy Act to Gov. Healey’s desk and actually keep us safe online.” – Noah Risley (they/them), Jamaica Plain Progressives Steering Committee Member.

“Intersectional Innovation and Impact Labs opposes age verification requirements and similar forms of digital surveillance targeting youth due to serious privacy concerns and the ways these measures widen existing digital divides, particularly for vulnerable communities seeking access to critical resources. With 28% of Boston’s population being foreign-born, surveillance measures such as ID checks will not effectively address online harms against youth, but instead risk deepening economic and health inequities by limiting access to essential information and support.” -Muhammad Burhan (They/Them), Executive Director of III Labs.

Follow-up from webinar “The Tech Billionaires Are Coming for Fair Share. Here’s How to Fight Back.”

Thank you so much to everyone who joined us last night for our webinar “The Tech Billionaires Are Coming for Fair Share. Here’s How to Fight Back.”! 

You can watch the video here. And feel free to share it with friends! 

Next Steps

PM in the News: “A ballot question to eliminate party primaries in Massachusetts is dividing state Democrats”

Chris VanBuskirk, “A ballot question to eliminate party primaries in Massachusetts is dividing state Democrats,” Boston Globe, May 11, 2026.

Jonathan Cohn, policy director for Progressive Massachusetts and a former state committee member, said all-party primaries increase the power of candidates who can self-fund their own campaigns.

He pointed to a 2018 congressional race in California, which also has a “top-two” primary system and where the open seat initially drew more than a half dozen Democratic candidates.The lineup eventually winnowed to those who could bankroll their bid. Gil Cisneros, who scored a $266 million lottery jackpot with his wife in 2010, won the election.

In California, among those vying in the crowded race for governor this year is hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer, who’s already spent more than $130 million on the campaign, most of it from his own pockets.

“It increases the power of big money,” Cohn said of the “top-two” primary system.

Cohn also said opposition to the ballot question has united factions of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee that were at odds last year amid an insider battle over the party’s platform, which saw a push to spell out support for LGBTQ+ protections, rent control, transgender individuals, and efforts to address systemic racism.

“Across all factions, people thought that the ballot question was a bad idea,” Cohn said.