House committee approves bill allowing health care workers to refuse blood draws
Rep. Phillip Rigsby, R-Huntsville, speaks to colleagues on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 11, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. Rigsby's bill would allow health care providers to refuse blood draws for suspected drunk driving without a court order. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama House Health Committee Wednesday approved a bill clarifying health care providers can refuse to draw blood in alleged drunk driving situations.
HB 391, sponsored by Rep. Phillip Rigsby, R-Huntsville, aims to address a 'misinterpretation' of previous legislation that some believed required paramedics and other health care providers to comply with all law enforcement blood draw requests. The bill says that health care providers may refuse to draw blood at the direction of law enforcement except when required by a court order.
'That was kind of misinterpreted, and misinterpreted in the sense that they must draw that blood,' Rigsby said to the committee.
Rigsby said that under the bill, health care providers on the scene or at an ambulance station have the discretion to decline a request, allowing law enforcement to transport the individual to a hospital for testing instead.
Rep. Frances Holk-Jones, R-Foley, asked if there would be a time limit to perform the test, asking how long people usually stay intoxicated. Rigsby acknowledged said blood-alcohol content testing is time-sensitive but said that factors such as liver function, hydration, and food intake affect how long substances remain detectable in an individual's system.
The bill passed on a voice vote and goes to the full House for further consideration.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Yahoo
Alabama lawmaker plans to revive failed religious vaccine exemption bill next year
Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City (center) speaks to Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, in the Alabama House of Representatives on April 29, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) A bill that would have made it easier for parents to exempt their children from vaccine requirements failed to advance out of the Alabama Legislature this year. SB 85, sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, would have allowed parents to claim religious exemptions from vaccines for their children without requiring them to state a reason. The bill would have also required public colleges and universities to provide medical and religious exemptions to vaccine or testing requirements. But despite the bill's failure to become law, one lawmaker said he's committed to reintroducing the bill and feels confident it will pass in the next session. 'I plan to bring it back and continue to fight. We're going to keep chipping away until we feel like we've got our liberties back,' said Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, who introduced a companion bill in the House, in a phone interview Monday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The bill would have allowed parents or guardians to object to vaccination or testing requirements by submitting a written statement stating that the vaccination or testing conflicts with their religion as valid grounds for exemption from any school enrollment vaccine or testing requirement. It also specified that no additional forms, fees or documentation could be required of the parent, guardian or child for enrollment in any public K-12 school. The bill would have also extended these provisions to public colleges and universities. Alabama's measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination rate among kindergartners was 93.8% in the 2023-2024 school year, under the 95% rate set by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to achieve herd immunity. An ongoing outbreak in West Texas that started with two unvaccinated school-age children in January has now spread to at least 29 other states. Orr said in a phone interview Friday that an amendment added by Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, which he said proponents of the bill did not like, likely kept the bill from advancing in the House. The amendment would have required a student claiming a vaccine exemption to submit a board-approved physical evaluation form or the Alabama High School Athletic Association's Preparticipation Physical Education form, but it did not have an enforcement mechanism or sanctions for not submitting the form. 'Among the proponents, they were not happy with the Singleton amendment put on in the Senate,' Orr said. 'And among the opponents, they still want to stay with the status quo, which is a bit unnecessary, in my opinion.' Orr added that the House seemed reluctant to take up controversial bills toward the end of the session, adding that Butler would have to be asked for the specific reasons the bill didn't make it to the House floor. The bill passed the House Health Committee two weeks before the session ended, giving it enough time to be considered by the House, but Butler said that tension between the House and Senate toward the end of the session only allowed a number of priority bills to be passed. 'I don't think it was a priority either. The Back-the-Blue (package) was the big priority there at the last minute, which we did get across, but we have got to do a better job of waiting until the last minute on everything,' Butler said. Apriell Hartsfield, Kids Count director for VOICES for Alabama Children, who opposed the bill in its House committee hearing, said Monday that she was concerned about the potential impact on children's health and safety if similar legislation becomes law in the future. She said that declining vaccination rates can threaten community health, potentially leading to outbreaks and increased risk for everyone. She added that fewer vaccinated people lead to a higher risk for others, especially those who are immunocompromised or too young to be fully immunized. 'Our biggest concern are the most vulnerable of the children, and those are the children who are immunocompromised, so that they cannot, medically and for health reasons, get the immunizations, and then, of course, the youngest children, those who are too young to be fully immunized,' Hartsfield said. She said the existing process already allows parents to claim a religious exemption for required vaccines, and safeguards are in place to help public health officials address outbreaks effectively. Butler said he was concerned about the alleged adverse effects of vaccines, particularly the COVID-19 vaccine, saying that 'we're seeing so much, so many adverse effects from mainly the COVID vaccine, and now they're still pushing that out.' While rare adverse reactions related to the COVID-19 vaccine have been reported, such as anaphylaxis or myocarditis, the vaccine is considered safe, and these reactions are significantly less common than the severe health risks of a COVID-19 illness. Hartsfield said that discussions on the COVID-19 vaccine and school-required immunizations shouldn't be grouped together and that it's essential that parents and guardians understand the decades of research behind immunizations required in schools. She said that parents can't truly make an informed decision 'if we are reducing not just the accessibility to the vaccinations, but the accessibility to the information.' 'A lot of the misinformation that's out there, a lot of these things have been debunked over and over and again. It is the right of the parent to choose, but I think it's important that parents know what they're choosing, and that is where public health helps with that,' she said. Hartsfield also pointed to the economic impact that limiting vaccine access could have on the state and communities, saying that non-immunized children exposed to measles must be out for 21 days, which could impact working families. She also said that a measles outbreak or even a single case in a child care setting, which already faces challenges, could force closures. 'Alabama is right in the middle of states that have outbreaks. We don't have one yet, but as Dr. Scott Harris has said, it's really not a matter of if but when this is going to happen in Alabama,' she said. There were 1,024 confirmed measles cases across 30 states as of May 15, according to the CDC, where 96% of individuals are unvaccinated or have unknown vaccination status. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Yahoo
Gov. Kay Ivey signs presumptive Medicaid eligibility bill into law
Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham, speaks in the Alabama Senate on April 9, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. Gov. Kay Ivey Thursday signed a bill sponosred by Coleman extending presumptive MEdicaid eligibility to expectant mothers. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector_ Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill Thursday increasing access to Medicaid coverage for expectant mothers in Alabama. SB 102, sponsored by Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham, would provide 'presumptive eligibility' for pregnant women by allowing health care providers to determine eligibility for Medicaid based on preliminary information. The process is aimed at expediting access to prenatal care by allowing eligible women to receive Medicaid coverage and necessary medical services within the first trimester. A spokesperson for the governor confirmed the bill was signed Thursday but did not provide further comment. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The legislation explicitly states that a pregnant woman can only receive one 60-day presumptive eligibility period per pregnancy. The Medicaid Agency is prohibited from retroactively denying coverage during the presumptive eligibility period due to the woman's failure to submit a formal application or a negative decision on her application. The provider must notify the Medicaid agency within five working days of determining a woman's presumptive eligibility. They are also required to inform the woman that she must apply to the agency for Medicaid by the end of the following month. This legislation is set to be repealed in October 2028. Robyn Hyden, executive director of Alabama Arise, said in a statement that the new law has the potential to 'save lives and money.' 'For too long, Alabama mothers have faced needless barriers to early prenatal care – care that can mean the difference between hope and heartbreak. SB 102 will lift some of those red-tape barriers at last,' Hyden said. A'Niya Robinson, ACLU of Alabama's Director of Policy and Organizing, said that ACLU is 'pleased with the passage of the Alabama Maternal Healthcare Act' but acknowledged that the legislation will not entirely resolve the state's maternal and infant mortality challenges. 'While this law will not end the maternal and infant mortality crisis in Alabama, we believe that it does have the potential to save lives and lessen the burden for pregnant people to access prenatal care early in pregnancy. As part of our reproductive justice work, we will continue working on policies to make Alabama safer for those experiencing pregnancy,' Robinson said in a statement. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Yahoo
Alabama House committee considers bill to ban certain food dyes in schools
Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Pike Road, sits on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on April 25, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) A bill seeking to remove certain food additives from Alabama's public K-12 schools faced discussion in the House Health Committee Wednesday, with proponents citing health concerns and opponents raising issues of regulatory burden and implementation timelines. HB 491, sponsored by Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Matthews, would prohibit schools from selling or serving food items containing specific artificial colorings, including common dyes like Red No. 40 and Yellow No. 5. The committee held the bill for a vote next week to allow members to review a potential amendment. 'Europe has banned it years ago, and all we're asking is just in the lunches, what's in the schools,' Ingram said to the committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Ingram argued passionately against the additives and said he doesn't 'think we ought to keep giving our kids poison.' 'Why not take a proactive approach to save a life? … we're prescribing so much medication now, it's got to be something that we're eating and something we're doing,' Ingram said to the committee. The scope of the bill focuses specifically on food provided by schools. It would not restrict items brought from home or shared by students for events like class parties. Alabama House bills would target some food additives But concerns were raised about the bill's impact. Virginia Banister, executive director at Alabama Beverage Association, said the bill would create 'unnecessary regulatory burdens, cost, consumer and retailer confusion.' She also said that it would undermine the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 'HB 491 would place the state of Alabama in an unprecedented position in regulating food and beverage ingredients. That's a role currently held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,' Banister said. In a recent interview, Ingram indicated that a push by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to 'Make America Healthy Again' is allowing Republicans, who have historically opposed regulation, to talk about the issue. He also said that his grandchildren aren't allowed to have synthetic dyes, which led him to learn more about the issue. Kennedy has promoted numerous controversial and unfounded views around public health issues. He has made false claims about the safety of vaccines and the impact of environmental chemicals on a child's sexual orientation or gender identity. He has also baselessly connected anti-depressant use to school shootings and has advocated for raw milk consumption despite health risks. California banned Red Dye No. 3 in 2023 after a state report raised concerns about its link to increased youth ADHD and questioned federal safety levels for children. The FDA recently followed, announcing a Red Dye No. 3 ban in food effective in early 2027 and 2028 in drugs. Research continues on the safety of other food dyes. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
