Massachusetts Democrats who helped pass a sweeping update to the state’s gun laws want opponents who have threatened to file a legal challenge to the new statute to “bring it on,” arguing the measure is rock solid and meant to save lives.

Originally Published: July 30, 2024 at 6:16 p.m.

The Massachusetts Senate is set to pass a bill today that would give cities and towns the authority to open overdose prevention centers, facilities where people can use illegal drugs under the supervision of medical personnel.

Supporters say overdose prevention centers, also known as safe injection sites, can be a way to help stem the tide of drug deaths. They would allow people to use illegal drugs under the eye of trained medical workers and volunteers, who can step in to help in the event of an overdose.

But there are a number of obstacles to opening them, including a rocky path ahead at the State House.

Here’s what to know about the legislation.

It would permit supervised injection sites — and more

Overdose prevention centers are illegal under federal law.

The Massachusetts Legislature cannot amend federal law, but it can explicitly permit overdose prevention centers within state lines, GBH State House reporter Katie Lannan said.

“Their bill would give cities and towns the authority to pursue various harm reduction strategies to help decrease the negative consequences of substance use disorder and drug use,” Lannan said. “It’s needle exchanges, drug testing programs, overdose reversal care using Narcan and treatments like that, and referral to treatment and other services.”

The Senate’s bill would require the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to study such programs in their first year and report on their outcomes.

The bill doesn’t require supervised use sites to open, Lannan said. It only allows cities and towns to opt in if they wish, with support from both their local board of health and the city council or town select board.

State Senator Julian Cyr said the initiative is “about saving lives.”

“It’s also about providing a gateway to critical services, and helping getting people into treatment,” Cyr said. “There’s not one tool, including overdose prevention centers, that alone can solve this addiction crisis, but I’ve really come to believe that they are a crucial harm reduction tool.”

Legal liability is a hurdle

A handful of cities in Massachusetts, including Cambridge and Somerville, have already been exploring the idea of opening overdose prevention centers.

But one big barrier, at least in the eyes of state government, is legal liability for the medical professionals.

Last winter, a Department of Public Health report found that it would be feasible to open overdose prevention centers in Massachusetts and that they could be an effective intervention — but state legislators first would need to write some sort of liability protections into law.

“That’s what the Senate is hoping to do here,” Lannan said. “Their bill would provide some limited legal protections for both people who work in overdose prevention centers and for the people who use there, who go there to use drugs they’ve obtained from somewhere else.”

Next steps: No guarantee of passage

With two days left in this year’s session, legislators will have to act fast.

“The House has passed an overdose prevention bill that takes some different tacks, and they’re facing an extreme time crunch with a deadline to finish legislation by tomorrow,” Lannan said. “And the House seems pretty frustrated that the Senate is coming up with a new idea this late in the game.”

The Massachusetts high school Class of 2003 was the first required to pass a test to graduate.

The impact of the mandate, part of the state’s education reform law known as the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System or MCAS, was felt within two years.

In 2005, Massachusetts public school students outperformed students in all other states in all subjects tested on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. They have continued to do so for most years since then.

Sounds like the state has something that really works. Who would want to get rid of the requirement?

Teachers.

A question on the November election ballot will ask the state’s voters to end the graduation test. The referendum is being pushed hard by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union.

Each year, more than 70,000 students starting in the third grade take the standardized tests. Students in Grade 10 are required to pass the math, English and science exams to graduate from high school.

The MTA and other critics argue that Massachusetts has become an outlier as one of only eight states that require students to pass a test to graduate from high school. They also cite recent research showing that passing an exit exam does not increase students’ academic achievement or employment rates but merely improves their test-taking skills.

Instead of a test, the MTA say students will be “eligible for a high school diploma if, among other requirements, they complete coursework demonstrating mastery of competencies in our state’s high academic standards.”

We understand the concerns.

Yes, the tests consume a lot of time and resources.

Yes, the MCAS needs improvement. As we have said in the past, we urge Gov. Maura Healey and the Legislature to order a study to review and put into place innovative ways to assess performance in our public schools.

But, no, Massachusetts voters should not eliminate the graduation test. There are many reasons why.

Massachusetts may be one of only eight states that mandate a graduation test, but many countries with top-ranked public schools require them.

Independent research shows that students whose scores were boosted in Grade 10 earned over 20 percent more by age 30.

“The higher the MCAS scores, the greater the future earnings,” one researcher told the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The teachers’ union also says the MCAS is merely a reflection of the students’ zip codes — in short, their socioeconomic status.

But even within zip codes, MCAS scores can vary, depending on whether students attend good schools or poor or mediocre ones.

Most importantly, eliminating the graduation test would strip the state of its ability to assess schools and teachers and to intervene when a district is underperforming.

We urge voters to retain the graduation test. We have a system that is working. Our schools are among the best in the country.

There’s no reason for change.