Immunity for overdose reporting bill agreed upon in joint conference committee
CHEYENNE — A bill to extend immunity to people seeking medical assistance for themselves or another person in an overdose incident has passed the House and Senate.
Senate File 74, 'Immunity for drug overdose reporting,' went before a joint conference committee Friday to reconcile differences between the bill proposed by each chamber. The House had removed Senate limitations on the number of times someone can report an overdose, when the Senate's position was to restrict immunity to twice per year, on the condition of supervised drug treatment.
At noon recess Friday, a joint conference committee voted to adopt the Senate's position, including limitations on the number of times someone can receive immunity for reporting an overdose before being required to seek treatment. Friday morning, Andi Summerville with the Wyoming Association of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle that at this point in the session, the most important thing is to get any form of immunity passed into law, whether it is restricted in number or not.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, asked the Senate not to concur on SF 74 as it returned to the body Thursday.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper (2025)
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper
'The discussion in committee was that somebody who's had two or more of these episodes, more than two, is in trouble and needs help that they're just not getting,' Scott continued. 'It's to their advantage that we remove the immunity and use compulsion to get them some help.'
As the bill left the Senate, it included language that immunity shall be offered only twice a year, and that a person experiencing a drug overdose 'shall be eligible to receive immunity … only upon the person completing, after the second qualifying drug overdose event, a drug treatment program approved by the applicable district attorney.'
During testimony in the Senate Labor, Health and Social Services Committee on Jan. 22, Sen. Eric Barlow, R-Gillette, acknowledged he understood 'multiple states do not have this kind of limitation' as the Senate included in the bill.
In the other chamber, the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee recommended on Feb. 19 that the limitations be removed, which representatives did on the floor. Rep. Ken Clouston, R-Gillette, who sits on that committee, explained to representatives that SF 74 is really designed to save lives.
Rep. Ken Clouston, R-Gillette (2025)
Rep. Ken Clouston, R-Gillette
'This is a bill dealing with when people are experiencing a drug overdose. They can call in and say they are having a drug overdose, or if they see someone, they can call in and get medical help with immunity,' Clouston said. 'They will not be punished for calling this in.'
Clouston told the House that law enforcement has also confirmed Wyoming is the only state without a drug overdose reporting immunity law on the books.
'The goal here is to try to help people. We hear, especially from our college-age people, that their friends may be going through an overdose situation and they don't want to call in, because nobody wants to get in trouble. This is a bill to try to protect someone in that situation,' he said.
The intent behind removing the limitations, Clouston said, was to keep the bill simple.
'We didn't want to confuse the issue or discourage anyone from calling in,' he said.
Clouston also said it was unclear who would track overdose calls. In the Senate, lawmakers had discussed who would have oversight or jurisdiction to enforce mandatory treatment if a person was offered immunity, but not entered into the court system. But they did not amend the bill to clarify that issue.
SF 74 would extend immunity from criminal prosecution if a reporting person 'reasonably believed he or another person was experiencing a drug overdose, and if that person provided a description of the actual location of the drug overdose event.' The reporting person must also remain at the scene of the drug overdose until a responding law enforcement officer or emergency medical service provider arrives, and would be required to cooperate with law enforcement.
The six members of the joint conference committee who approved of the Senate's position were Sens. Gary Crum, R-Laramie; Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne; and Cheri Steinmetz, R-Torrington; and Reps. Paul Hoeft, R-Powell; Lloyd Larsen, R-Lander; and Darin McCann, R-Rock Springs.
It was Hutchings who first proposed limiting immunity offered under the bill, and her first amendment was to limit immunity to once a year. Larsen said that the Senate 'already broadened' limitations so the House would accept that position.
Rep. Jayme Lien, R-Casper (2025)
Rep. Jayme Lien, R-Casper
Rep. Jayme Lien, R-Casper, tried to bring a third-reading amendment to include protection for someone under 21 reporting or experiencing an emergency alcohol overdose, but that amendment was called before the House Rules Committee. Speaker of the House Rep. Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, determined that it was not germane to the bill, and Lien withdrew her amendment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Challenge to Tampa Bay Senate seat revisits how it was created in 2022
The federal courthouse in Tampa on June 11, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Day Three of the federal lawsuit alleging that a Tampa Bay area state Senate district was racially gerrymandered focused in part on how that district was created in 2022. The suit, filed by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University on behalf of three residents of Tampa and St. Petersburg, alleges the Legislature packed Black voters into District 16 to reduce their influence in nearby District 18, in violation of their equal-protection rights. Democrat Darryl Rouson serves in SD 16, while Republican Nick DiCeglie is the incumbent in SD 18. The defendants are Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, and their attorneys began their defense on Wednesday, bringing Jay Ferrin back to the witness stand in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. Ferrin is now a senior adviser to the Florida Senate, but he served as staff director of the Florida Senate Committee on Reapportionment in the fall of 2021, when the districts lines were created. He discussed how he and his staff went about drawing up the Senate districts that year and the guidelines they followed. The reapportionment process beginning that fall was taking place under the guidance of Ray Rodrigues, who chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee. Defense attorneys aired several Florida Channel video excerpts on Wednesday showing Rodrigues explaining how 'hard lessons were learned' following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 2015 to throw out the GOP-controlled Legislature's maps after deeming them unlawful under the Fair Districts constitutional amendments adopted by voters in 2010. Rodrigues was insistent that he wanted the 2022 Legislature to conduct itself in such a fashion that the courts would not reject the maps lawmakers would produce. 'This map will withstand a court challenge,' Rodrigues declared on the floor of the Senate. That's what the trial taking place this week will ultimately determine. Ferrin testified that, after his staff created other Senate districts in the Tampa Bay area, there remained about 100,000 residents in Pinellas County who would have to be inserted into another Senate district. (With the population of Florida in 2021 at 21.5 million people, Ferrin said, his staff were tasked to draw approximately 538,438 voters into each of the 40 Senate districts). The resultant SD 16, which encompasses parts of St. Petersburg and Hillsborough County, is similar to the 'benchmark' map created in 2015 that was then known as Senate District 19. Ferrin denied that he was instructed to maintain that same configuration. He also said that under the rules promulgated by Rodrigues, he and his fellow staffers could speak about any new maps only with either the Senate's general counsel or other Senate members — and not the general public. He was not supposed to review public submissions. Florida senators were allowed to propose amendments during the reapportionment process, to add their own maps. Rodrigues and Democratic Sen. Audrey Gibson had filed such amendments, Ferrin said, but no senator had asked him to directly to create any Senate maps. ACLU attorney Nicholas Warren said at the beginning of the morning that he had sought to depose Rodrigues and fellow Republican and committee member Danny Burgess before the trial, but both had asserted legislative privilege, which shields them having to testify in certain lawsuits. In the afternoon, the defense called two expert witnesses who criticized the expert witness testimony and voting analysis that came from the plaintiffs on Tuesday. Steven Voss is a political science professor at the University of Kentucky. When asked to break down the political partisanship of the Tampa Bay area, he included four counties that make up the Tampa Bay metropolitan statistical area — Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk and Hernando. Based on population, he said, five Senate districts could be folded into the area, and that three historically were reliably Republican while two would favor Democrats. Currently, that breakdown is four Republican districts and one Democratic — with Senate District 14, which Voss said historically favored Democrats, going to the GOP in 2022. Voss took aim at the alternative voting maps produced for the ACLU by Penn State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan. Those maps showed that a district could have been fairly drawn up exclusively in Hillsborough County while still protecting Tier-1 standards there and in Pinellas County. (That involves the Florida Constitution's Fair District Amendment, which says that districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice). Voss said that the result of McCartan's work was that he was 'cracking and packing' voters in his maps to ultimately help Democrats at the voting booth. Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, also testified for the defense. He praised the composition of the Senate maps passed by the Legislature in 2022, saying it was 'pretty incompetent racial gerrymandering, if that's what's going on.' The trial is expected to conclude on Thursday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 things to know about RI's new $14 billion state budget plan
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — R.I. House leaders unveiled their draft state budget bill on Tuesday night, releasing a plan that spends about $119 million more than Gov. Dan McKee had proposed back in January. The $14.3 billion budget bill makes major changes to the tax-and-spending plan McKee had put forward. Here are five key takeaways on the plan, which will be debated by the full House next Tuesday. R.I. House Speaker Joe Shekarchi said Tuesday that the primary care crisis was a major focus for lawmakers as they drafted the budget, leading to significant increases in spending. Over $40 million would go to primary care in an effort to shore up more doctors under the budget bill, while $38 million would go to hospitals. Those sums include federal matching dollars. The Hospital Association of Rhode Island (HARI) said in a statement it was 'grateful' for the investments, but warned the state's health care crisis 'cannot be solved in a single fiscal year.' 'HARI remains committed to working with the General Assembly and Governor McKee to create long-term solutions that protect patient access to care, support our health care workers, and ensure long-term financial sustainability for providers and hospitals,' the association said. 'Without clear commitments in these areas, hospitals remain at risk.' The budget also allocated $12 million to nursing homes, once federal matching funds are added to the totals. That money is part of a deal to amend the Nursing Home Safe Staffing and Quality Care Act, a law that was enacted but later halted from implementation amid an industry outcry. That amended law on staffing levels in nursing homes would take effect on Jan. 1. Leaders of SEIU 1199NE, a union that represents many nursing home workers, said the money would cover hiring new staff at facilities that have not met the safe staffing requirement, or raising wages and benefits for workers at facilities that are already in compliance. The proposal unveiled to reporters on Tuesday would raise a variety of taxes, fines, and fees in order to fund health care and education, though House leaders rejected calls for an income tax hike on the wealthy. A review of reimbursement rates paid to primary care providers would move up a year earlier than McKee proposed in his original budget bill, from 2027 to 2026. Lawmakers also plan to generate $30 million annually by adding a new fee on health insurance plans, at an estimated $4 a month per insured person, to fund primary care and other programs. Lawmakers said they want to make raise fines at the R.I. Traffic Tribunal for the first time since 2008. Most fines will rise from $85 to $100. Also of note to drivers: Registration surcharges for licenses and some vehicle registrations would rise from $30 to $40 Electric vehicles would now be charged an annual $200 registration fee Plug-in hybrids would be subject to a $100 registration fee Regular hybrids would be subject to a $50 registration fee Lawmakers also want to implement a statewide property tax on non-owner-occupied homes valued above $1 million. That means that part-time residents, like singer Taylor Swift, would pay more property taxes in the coming year. (Swift owns a home in Westerly.) The budget includes $10 million in expected revenue once the R.I. Department of Transportation restarts the state's truck toll program, which was paused amid litigation but got the green light from a court late last year. 'We're still waiting to hear from DOT regarding the likely target date to reinstate the tolls,' Shekarchi said on Tuesday night. The revised budget calls for a 2-cent gas tax increase that lawmakers said would generate nearly $9 million to help the RIPTA to close its funding gap. The agency would also get an additional $6 million from its share of Highway Maintenance Account funding, bringing its funding infusion to almost $15 million. The funding comes with conditions. RIPTA is required to maintain the RIde Anywhere program for passengers with disabilities, and also to complete an efficiency study examining cost savings and fare hikes. RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand said in a statement on Wednesday that the last time the agency saw a permanent change to its funding structure was over 10 years ago. 'The agency has long needed a consistent funding stream to allow us to better support getting Rhode Islanders to work, school and health care,' Durand said. 'This is a needed improvement, which we are thankful for.' At Tuesday's budget briefing, lawmakers revealed that the R.I. Department of Education had notified them just hours earlier that the department needed nearly $2 million to address a tentative legal settlement. RIDE spokesperson Victor Morente told 12 News that settlement of the civil suit, which dates back to 2014, still needs approval from the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education. Two categories of students with disabilities — those over 21 but under 22 as of Feb. 10, 2012, and those who turned 21 before July 1, 2019 — would be eligible for a share of the money if they did not receive a regular high school diploma and lost access to their legally required public education, according to Morente. Lawmakers dedicated $1.86 million in the budget to repay those students and cover related administrative costs and attorneys fees. The governor was not ready to go into detail about how he felt regarding the revised budget when reporters asked him about it at an unrelated event on Wednesday morning. 'I made sure the budget I put in that didn't have any real broad-based tax increases,' McKee said. 'We'll have to review everything to determine whether the budget that is being proposed, or being presented by the General Assembly, actually fits with our goals.' McKee also said, 'We certainly have had a challenge in this budget session — not only our office, but also the General Assembly. Let me review it and then I'll be able to kind of make comments on it.' The budget bill heads to the full House for a debate and vote next Tuesday, where additional amendments could be made that alter the final policies and price tag. Once the budget passes the House it will head to the Senate, which in most years makes no further changes before sending it on to the governor for his signature. The new fiscal year begins July 1. IN-DEPTH: Taxes, fees going up in $14.3B RI budget as federal relief wanes Alexandra Leslie (aleslie@ is a Target 12 investigative reporter covering Providence and more for 12 News. Connect with her on Twitter and on Facebook. Ted Nesi contributed to this report. Download the and apps to get breaking news and weather alerts. Watch or with the new . Follow us on social media: Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
