The week ahead: Senate budget writers sharpen pencils, members tackle social agenda
While Senate budget writers are busy every day as they begin to make final decisions about a two-year spending plan, the members of the House of Representatives and state Senate must tackle a variety of social issues — everything from parental rights, clearing a path to receive Ivermectin without a prescription and segregating locker rooms, sports teams and jails by biological sex.
The actions could deliver one big victory for Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who has made it one of her top priorities to sign a bill that enshrines the right of parents to ask and get answers from educators and others about discussions their children might have had including on matters of sexuality and gender identity.
To do so, she'll need to survive what is shaping up as a bitter battle with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England that claims that the House-Senate GOP rewrite of the bill would deny minors access to birth control without their parents' consent.
Reps. Debra DeSimone and Jay Markell, both R-Atkinson, co-authored the rewrite (SB 72 amended) with the support and collaboration of Sen. Timothy Lang, R-Sanbornton, who authored the original bill.
'No children should ever be prescribed any medical procedures of medication without parental consent to protect all children from undue and unnecessary harm by parental knowledge and information provided concerning family history,' DeSimone said.
Rep. Heather Raymond, D-Nashua, said the change would run counter to federal law and threaten the state's status of having one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.
'The amended bill would strip the rights of teenagers to access birth control or receive pre- and postnatal care without written parental permission,' Raymond said.
'In states like Texas which now require parental permission for birth control, teen pregnancy rates have increased along with the rates of maternal and infant death.'
Ivermectin started as a treatment for animal parasites, but in 2015 its creators won the Nobel Prize for the success in treating similar conditions in humans.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became a viral sensation as many citizens went to feed stores to purchase the drug for them to deal with that virus.
Rep. Linda McGrath, R-Hampton, who worked in the pharmacy field for decades, said it's time to lift pressures off doctors and pharmacists who want to dispense the drug by creating with the amendment a standing order that a patient can get it without a prescription.
'There have been tremendous efforts to block doctors from prescribing and pharmacists from filling this medication. Doctors have even lost their medical license for prescribing Ivermectin,' McGrath said.
'This will be totally voluntary for all health care providers who wish to participate.'
Rep. Lucy Weber, D-Walpole, said giving Ivermectin such a lofty status is inappropriate given it's now done only in 'extremely limited' cases, such as smoking cessation, Narcan and EpiPens.
She warned passing the bill could cause a stampede of other drug-makers seeking the same benefit.
'Consider the chaos when the manufacturers of the thousands of other medications on the market propose similar standing orders for their medications,' Weber warned.
House Democrats objected to tacking the Ivermectin matter to the original bill (SB 119) the Department of Health and Human Services proposed to save $9 million a year by allowing it to dispense the cheaper drug to Medicaid patients even if that's the brand name once drug rebates have discounted that price.
HHS officials also sought in its bill the same 'standing order' for 'over-the-counter medications and supplies' in the Medicaid program.
The House GOP amendment took out the latter provision.
Segregation on biological sex
On Thursday, the Senate is expected to embrace the bill (HB 148) from House Speaker Pro Tem Jim Kofalt, R-Wilton, on segregating by biological sex.
'The passage of HB 148 is a critical step toward safeguarding privacy, fairness, safety, and respect for all Granite Staters. This legislation permits schools, businesses, prison officials and others to develop common-sense rules to govern the use of bathrooms, locker rooms, and correctional facilities,' Kofalt said.
'By upholding sex-based classifications in sports, HB 148 also preserves the safety and integrity of women's athletics by permitting schools to adopt policies that align with biological reality. The bill will also help safeguard federal funding for our public schools, colleges, and universities.'
Senate Democrats will surely join their House colleagues to oppose this bill, claiming that it unfairly targets and stigmatizes transgender individuals, but they appear to be lacking the numbers to stop it.
'This bill would restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth by overriding decisions made by doctors and parents,' House Democrats said in a statement last month.
Last year, former Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed an identical bill questioning if it could come in conflict with the anti-discrimination law on gender identity that he signed in 2018 and over concerns what segregating in prisons might do to the tension behind the walls.
On a related matter, the House Education Policy and Administration Committee will vote on whether to support a Senate-passed plan that would restrict sports to members of the same biological sex (SB 211).
The Senate is also expected to recommend killing two popular House-passed bills.
Rep. Jonah Wheeler, D-Peterborough, has championed one to annul the convictions of all offenders for possession of cannabis offenses (HB 196).
The other measure (HB 387) from Rep. Janet Wall, D-Madbury, would ban the release of 'lighter-than-air' balloons into the atmosphere carrying a fine of $250 for the first offense and $500 if there's a second.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Health Line
21 minutes ago
- Health Line
What to Know About High Functioning Schizophrenia
When a person's schizophrenia symptoms do not appear to interfere with their daily life, their condition may be referred to as high functioning schizophrenia. But this is not an official diagnosis. Schizophrenia is a complex and varied psychiatric disorder that affects each person differently. Some people have relatively mild symptoms that come and go. Others experience more severe, persistent symptoms that interfere with their daily lives. When a person with schizophrenia is able to live a mostly independent life, hold a job, and maintain relationships, their condition is often referred to as 'high functioning.' Language matters The term 'high functioning' doesn't have a clear medical definition. Some clinicians use it to refer to people who require a lower level of assistance for daily activities. But terms like 'high functioning' and 'low functioning' don't account for people's unique life circumstances, abilities, and strengths. It's best to avoid using this kind of language outside of a conversation with your healthcare professional. What is high functioning schizophrenia? High functioning schizophrenia is a term used when people with schizophrenia are able to function well in daily life despite their diagnosis. They may have milder symptoms, or they may have developed good coping mechanisms despite having more severe symptoms. It's important to note that 'high functioning' is a subjective term and not a clinical diagnosis. And the label doesn't necessarily reflect the severity of a person's symptoms. People with high functioning schizophrenia may still experience significant challenges and need continuous treatment and support. A person's level of functioning can be influenced by a range of factors, including: Symptom severity: People with fewer or less severe symptoms may be able to function better in daily life than those with more severe symptoms. Treatment response: Those who get timely, appropriate treatment are more likely to maintain good functioning. Research from 2020 suggests that early intervention may be linked to better long-term outcomes. Personal coping strategies: Some people develop strong coping strategies that allow them to effectively manage their symptoms and prevent those symptoms from having a major effect on their daily life. Strong support network: Those with very supportive family and friends may be able to function better in daily life than those who don't have this support. Lack of other mental or physical health conditions: Many people with schizophrenia have other mental or physical health conditions that make it more difficult to function in daily life. People who don't have another condition may appear higher functioning. Symptoms of high functioning schizophrenia Any person with schizophrenia, whether it's considered 'high' or low' functioning, can experience the same types of symptoms. Schizophrenia symptoms are divided into positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms. Positive symptoms are those that 'add' to your personality (in other words, they weren't there before the condition). These symptoms include those of psychosis, such as: hallucinations delusions disorganized thoughts and speech atypical motor behavior (e.g., catatonia) Negative symptoms 'take away' from your personality and involve five key areas: alogia (reduction in the number of words spoken) anhedonia (reduced experience of pleasure) asociality (reduced social activity) avolition (reduced goal-directed activity, due to decreased motivation) blunted affect (difficulty expressing emotions, such as diminished facial expressions) Cognitive symptoms may include issues with: focus and attention span working memory executive functioning The negative symptoms of schizophrenia are often more challenging to treat than the positive symptoms. For some people with schizophrenia, these negative symptoms persist, even when positive symptoms are well managed. Research from 2020 suggests that negative symptoms are associated with poorer outlook and long-term disability. While many people with high functioning schizophrenia do have negative symptoms, these symptoms may be less severe. Diagnosing high functioning schizophrenia In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. text revision (DSM-5-TR), schizophrenia is now listed as a spectrum disorder. This more accurately represents the condition's wide range of symptoms that can change over time. It's important to note that high functioning schizophrenia is not a clinical diagnosis. So, whether a person exhibits a higher or lower level of functioning, they still have to meet the same diagnostic criteria. A diagnosis of schizophrenia must include at least two of the following symptoms, with one of these symptoms being among the first three: delusions hallucinations disorganized speech severely disorganized or catatonic behavior negative symptoms The symptoms must occur frequently for at least 1 month, with some symptoms lasting for more than 6 months. In addition, you'll need to have experienced reduced functioning in one or more important areas of life, such as personal relationships, work, or self-care. Treating schizophrenia Schizophrenia is typically treated with antipsychotic medication as well as various types of therapies and skills training. Schizophrenia may be treated with the following: Atypical antipsychotics: Atypical, or second-generation, antipsychotics are the first-line treatment for schizophrenia. These medications lower dopamine levels in the brain, which helps target symptoms of psychosis. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT): CBT helps people with schizophrenia identify and fix unhelpful thought processes and behaviors. Social skills training: Social skills interventions help people with schizophrenia learn social and independent living skills. These may include classes covering interpersonal skills and medication management. Cognitive remediation: This intervention focuses on skills such as attention, memory, and flexible thinking. Social cognition training: This intervention targets skills such as social perception (understanding social cues or body language), emotion perception (identifying others' emotions), and theory of mind (identifying and understanding another person's mental state). Some people with high functioning schizophrenia may have achieved symptom remission after responding well to treatment. Symptom remission means that your symptoms are mild enough to not significantly interfere with your life. Research from 2018 suggests that symptom remission is possible in 20% to 60% of people with schizophrenia, but this depends on many complex factors.
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.
Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
