Take Action Steps:

CLICK HERE NOW TO EMAIL the committee members to OPPOSE MA S.261, a restrictive licensing bill, because it hurts alternative healing practitioners and the clients they serve. We have a pre-written letter ready for you to send. We recommend personalizing it if you can.

TO TESTIFY IN-PERSON/VIRTUALLY, SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY, OR BOTH – Click Here to Sign-up to Testify in-person or virtually during the public hearing on Monday, June 2, beginning at 1:00 pm EST.  Persons who wish to testify in-person/virtually, submit written testimony, or both, should complete this form.

Additional instructions for providing testimony may be found Here.

If providing Virtual testimony you will receive an invitation to the hearing with instructions via email after the deadline closes. Please note that there is a time limit of 3 minutes per person for oral testimony.

Persons who do not have a Google account or do not wish to use the Google form can submit testimony and/or sign up to testify by emailing:

JointCmte-ConsumerProtection@malegislature.gov.

Submit Written Testimony Only. Those who plan to submit only written testimony may do so before or after the signup deadline.

The subject line of your email should be: “Testimony in Opposition to S.261, An Act Regulating Alternative Healing Therapies”.

Please submit your written testimony via email to: jointcmte-consumerprotection@malegislature.gov

If you have any questions, you may email Marissa Dakin (Marissa.Dakin@mahouse.gov) or Tom Mahoney (Thomas.Mahoney@masenate.gov)

Attend the Public Hearing In-Person: Anyone can attend but you must register by June 2nd at 10:00 am if you would like to speak before the committee.

Date:  Monday, June 2, 2025
Time: 1:00 p.m. EST
Location:  Gardner Auditorium
The State House
24 Beacon Street
Boston, MA. 02133

Watch the public hearing.  For those who do not plan to testify but want to watch, the hearing may be live-streamed and will be recorded for later viewing on the “Hearings & Events” page of the General Court’s website.

MORE REASONS TO OPPOSE MA S.261

Under this licensing bill, practitioners practicing gentle alternative therapies would be both unnecessarily regulated and require licensing by the government.  The bills would add alternative healing therapies to the jurisdiction of the Massage Therapy Board.  An Advisory Council of practitioners from various vocations would advise the Massage Board, but the Board would be given the authority to adopt rules and regulations governing the licensure of all alternative healing therapists. This would include demonstration of competency and the approval and operation of alternative therapy training and certification programs and establishing standards of professional and ethical conduct for alternative healing therapies, and continuing education. Many of the spiritual and holistic practices affected by the proposed bills are ethnic minority or multicultural traditions offered by sole practitioners. New, unnecessary regulatory burdens would force closures, adversely impacting teaching masters, students, and consumers alike.  Many of these are women. Read the bill here. 

Also, under the restrictive licensing bill, practices and the use of titles would be prohibited and banned from the public domain.  A person would not be able to hold themselves out to others as an alternative healing therapist or practice any alternative healing therapy unless the person holds a valid state license.  Alternative therapy is a common phrase well used in the English language and should always remain in the public domain and not be restricted by an exclusive group of people.

Requirement that instructional programs be licensed by the state would also prevent many practices from being taught due to the bureaucratic process and high fees. This will put countless practitioners out of business, hurt families, increase jobless claims, and cause a loss of educational programs with restriction of trade and monopolization of health care offerings by state endorsed, dominant medicalized professions.

There is no constitutional basis for regulating vocations that do not pose a risk of harm to the public. Reducing the prevalence of unnecessary and overly broad occupational licensing that hurts our economy, workers, small businesses and consumers, and the health and wellness of our communities, is a goal of many governments, and Massachusetts should join in defeating these licensing bills.

Massachusetts needs a broad safe harbor law similar to laws in eleven other states that will protect complementary and alternative practitioners in a more feasible and practical manner that is good for the consumers and practitioners, and that gives clear guidance to government.

Thanks in advance for your help OPPOSING MA S.261! 

Together we can protect our alternative healing practitioner.