GOP proposal seeks to require EpiPens in New Hampshire schools
Some lawmakers expressed concerns about creating a mandate without establishing a funding source in the budget and relying on outside programs to provide the epinephrine for free. (Photo of state Senate Chamber/New Hampshire Bulletin file)
The New Hampshire Senate is set to vote Thursday on a bill to require that schools maintain a supply of epinephrine, which is used to treat allergic reactions.
House Bill 677 requires New Hampshire schools to have epinephrine injectors, commonly known by the brand name EpiPen, or nasal epinephrine spray, and it requires that a nurse or at least one 'assistive personnel' be on site to administer the epinephrine at the school during school hours. The bill gives nurses and school staff five days to replace the epinephrine after it's used.
Rep. Mike Drago, the Raymond Republican who sponsored the bill, said there are at least two programs that offer epinephrine to schools for free. Epinephrine manufacturers Viatris and ARS Pharmaceuticals both advertise such programs on their websites. Lawmakers plan to rely on these programs to make this proposal possible.
'In reality, we're putting EpiPens in every single school at no cost,' Drago, who has a child with a nut allergy, said in an April Senate hearing. 'And potentially saving lives.'
Under state law, schools are allowed to maintain a supply of and use epinephrine. This bill, if enacted, would require them to do so.
The House previously approved the legislation in an April voice vote, and it received the unanimous recommendation of the Senate Education Committee earlier this month. The bill is co-sponsored by a group of mostly Republicans but has bipartisan support.
Some lawmakers expressed concerns about creating a mandate without establishing a funding source in the budget and relying on outside programs to provide the epinephrine for free.
Sen. Debra Altschiller, a Stratham Democrat, commended Drago at the April hearing for raising the issue, but said she's concerned 'the state would rely on a program that's at the discretion of a pharmaceutical company.'
'It exists today,' Altschiller said. 'It might not exist tomorrow. And to require a specific product be carried in the school at the expense of the school is where I have significant problems.'
She noted epinephrine is 'wildly expensive' and called this an 'unfunded mandate.'
Drago said he doubts these programs will ever disappear.
Still, to address these concerns, the Senate Education Committee proposed an amendment that establishes a state fund to help schools pay for epinephrine. Though it doesn't appropriate any money to that fund, the amendment creates a mechanism for the state to accept gifts from organizations besides the pharmaceutical companies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
Planned NIH Cuts Threaten Americans' Health, Senators Charge in Tense Hearing
U.S. senators grilled National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Jayanta Bhattacharya at a hearing on 10 June about how his professed support for science squares with unprecedented funding delays and research-grant terminations at the agency this year, as well as enormous cuts that have been proposed for its 2026 budget. What would normally be a routine hearing about government spending was anything but: hundreds of scientists and advocates for Alzheimer's disease research packed into a cramped room on Capitol Hill to denounce US President Donald Trump's 2026 budget request, which calls for cutting the NIH's budget by about 40% and collapsing its 27 institutes and centres into 8. Such a cut 'would stop critical Alzheimer's research in its tracks,' Tonya Maurer, an advocate for the Alzheimer's Association, a non-profit group based in Chicago, Illinois, told Nature at the hearing. 'We've worked too damn hard to see this happen.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Bhattacharya defended his leadership at the agency — the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world — noting that there is a 'need for reform at the NIH' and that to restore its reputation, the NIH 'cannot return to business as usual.' (The NIH has been accused by Trump and his Republican allies of funding 'woke' science and research on coronaviruses that they say could have sparked the COVID-19 pandemic.) To help fix the agency, Bhattacharya told the senators that he wants to focus on increasing reproducibility in biomedical research, upholding academic freedom and studying the cause of autism, which US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has pledged to find an answer to by September. Letters of dissent The hearing comes the day after more than 300 NIH staff members sent Bhattacharya a fiery letter decrying the mass termination of jobs at the agency and its cancellation of thousands of research projects on a growing list of topics that the Trump team has said are 'politicized', including those investigating the biology of COVID-19, the health of sexual and gender minorities (LGBT+) and reasons that people might be hesitant to receive a vaccine. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the staff members wrote. They named their letter the 'Bethesda Declaration,' after the Maryland community and Washington DC suburb where most of the NIH is located. The title also alludes to the 'Great Barrington Declaration', an open letter that Bhattacharya co-signed in October 2020 that argued against COVID-19 lockdowns except for the most vulnerable citizens, instead allowing for children and others to be infected so that 'herd immunity' could be reached ― a proposal that numerous scientists and NIH officials called dangerous at the time. At the hearing, Patty Murray, a Democratic senator from Washington, implored Bhattacharya to 'heed their warning,' and said that she expects that 'none of them face retaliation for raising those concerns.' Bhattacharya didn't respond to this comment at the hearing but said in a statement on 9 June that the Bethesda Declaration 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months,' but that 'respectful dissent in science is productive.' Gavin Yamey, a global-health researcher at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who signed the latest declaration, said, 'he can talk about freedom, but his own staff are decrying his censorship. How he's actually acting and what he says are not one in the same.' Taking ownership Several senators, including Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, questioned who was in charge at the NIH, given reports that billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency ordered agency employees to cut hundreds of specific grants. 'The changes in priorities, the move away from politicized science, I've made those decisions,' Bhattacharya responded. The mass terminations of awards at institutions such as Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 'that's joint with the administration', he said. (The Trump administration has alleged that universities such as Harvard have allowed discrimination, including antisemitism, on their campuses, and has cut or frozen research funding as a result.) The drastic 40% cut to the NIH's budget proposed for the fiscal year 2026 is not yet set in stone: the US Congress has the ultimate say over government spending, and during Trump's first presidency, when he proposed a huge cut to the biomedical agency in 2017, it instead approved a slight increase. Nevertheless, the composition of the body has changed significantly since then — far more of its members are now loyal to Trump. Comments made at the hearing by the senators weren't entirely divided down party lines. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who voted to confirm both Bhattacharya and RFK Jr, said she was disturbed by the budget proposal. 'It would undo years of congressional investment in the NIH,' she said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA announces major rollbacks to power plant pollution limits
US power plants will be allowed to pollute nearby communities and the wider world with more unhealthy air toxins and an unlimited amount of planet-heating gases under new regulatory rollbacks proposed by Donald Trump's administration, experts warned. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a plan on Wednesday that would repeal a landmark climate rule that aims to mostly eliminate greenhouse gases from power plants by the 2030s and would, separately, weaken another regulation that restricts power plants' release of hazardous air pollutants such as mercury. 'We choose to both protect the environment and grow the economy,' said Lee Zeldin, administrator of the EPA, at an event to announce the plans. He said the rollbacks will save households money while also defying what he called 'the climate change cult'. The climate rule has 'saddled our critical power sector with expensive, unreasonable and burdensome regulations', Zeldin said. 'American energy suffered and Americans who rely on reliable, affordable energy suffered. The good news is those days are over.' The EPA's proposals will go out for public comment and are likely to face legal challenges. They target a rule crafted last year by the Biden administration to phase out emissions from electricity-producing fossil fuel plants, which are responsible for around a quarter of US greenhouse gases, and a regulation called the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which Biden toughened in 2023 to slash harmful pollution suffered by communities. These rollbacks come despite overwhelming scientific evidence of the dire consequences of the worsening climate crisis and the harm caused by pollutants such as mercury, which can seep into water, soils and the air and has been linked to neurological damage in young children as well as heart, lung and immune system ailments in adults. Coal-fired power plants cause nearly half of all mercury emissions in the US, according to the EPA. More than 200 health experts wrote to the EPA on Wednesday warning the moves 'would lead to the biggest pollution increases in decades and is a blatant give-away to polluters'. The experts added the reversals are 'a direct contradiction to the Environmental Protection Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment'. Trump, however, has vowed to boost fossil fuel production at all costs, having reaped record donations from the oil and gas industry during his election campaign. At Wednesday's EPA event, Zeldin was joined by eight lawmakers, all Republicans – Kevin Cramer, Troy Balderson, Brett Guthrie, Carol Miller, Dan Meuser, Rob Bresnahan, Michael Rulli and Riley Moore – who have collectively received more than $3m from fossil fuel donors in their own election campaigns, a Guardian analysis of the OpenSecrets database shows. Bresnahan, a Pennsylvania representative, holds personal financial interests in more than 20 fossil fuel companies. In justifying the deletion of the Biden climate plan, which the EPA previously estimated would deliver $370bn in net benefits, Zeldin has claimed that US power plants only produce a small and declining fraction of the world's emissions. This is despite the fact that if these power plants were a country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter on the planet. Gina McCarthy, who was EPA administrator under Barack Obama, said that Zeldin's 'dismantling of our nation's protections from power plant pollution is absolutely illogical and indefensible. It's a purely political play that goes against decades of science and policy review.' 'By giving a green light to more pollution, his legacy will forever be someone who does the bidding of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our health,' she added. 'Everyone will be affected by his actions, but the most vulnerable among us, our kids and grandkids, will suffer the most.' The EPA has embarked upon a wide-ranging blitz upon environmental regulations since Trump became president, setting about removing or loosening clean air and water rules that, collectively, were on track to save 200,000 American lives in the decades ahead. Trump, who has adopted the mantra of 'drill, baby, drill', has claimed unhindered fossil fuel production will bring down energy costs, although he has sought to hobble clean energy such as solar and wind, which are typically the cheapest sources of new electricity generation. The rollbacks follow the second-hottest May on record globally, and a record-hot 2024 that unleashed a stunning number of climate-driven disasters and six weeks of extra-dangerously hot days. Experts have warned that sea level rise is on track to cause 'catastrophic inland migration', including to millions of Americans, with climate shocks set to wipe 50% from global GDP by the end of this century. 'It's completely reprehensible that Donald Trump would seek to roll back these lifesaving standards and do more harm to the American people and our planet just to earn some brownie points with the fossil fuel industry,' said Patrick Drupp, climate policy director at the Sierra Club. 'This administration is transparently trading American lives for campaign dollars and the support of fossil fuel companies, and Americans ought to be disgusted and outraged that their government has launched an assault on our health and our future.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.
Almost three years after the fall of Roe v. Wade made way for near-total abortion bans, state lawmakers are weighing whether to offer more specific guidance about when doctors can perform abortions in a medical crisis. Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee all passed laws this year ostensibly clarifying the scope of its abortion bans, a reaction to climbing sepsis rates and harrowing stories of patients who have suffered or died preventable deaths. Since June 2022, lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such bills. But doctors, attorneys and policy experts say that the laws being enacted will not solve the problems health providers have been forced to navigate since the end of Roe: The risk of being punished has deterred physicians, hospitals and health systems from providing consistent care, even when it is needed. 'The problem with these clarifying laws is they don't expand access under the law, they don't change the definitions, and they don't remove the legislative interference in the practice of medicine,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In Texas, a bill that awaits Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature ostensibly clarifies when the state's near-total abortion ban allows for the procedure, saying explicitly that physicians do not need to wait until a patient is in imminent danger of dying to perform an abortion. The bill also requires training for doctors and lawyers on the state's abortion law. But lawmakers have made clear that the bill, crafted in consultation with Texas-based health professionals and abortion opponents, does not introduce new exceptions; Texas' ban does not allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal anomaly. And if enacted, it would codify a Texas Supreme Court decision that found that the state's ban still applied even in cases with complications that could threaten a pregnant person's health.. Such was the case for Dallas woman Kate Cox, who experienced amniotic fluid leaking and cramping — which create the risk of bacterial infection — after discovering a likely-fatal fetal anomaly in her pregnancy. Some former abortion patients whose lives were endangered because of delayed or denied care, including several who challenged the Texas abortion ban, said they fear Senate Bill 31 may not address situations like theirs. Amanda Zurawski, who sued the state after being denied an abortion when experiencing a life-threatening condition called preterm premature rupture of membrane, said at a legislative hearing on the bill that it likely doesn't provide the clarity she would have needed. 'It is unclear whether SB 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022, and I find that problematic,' Zurawski said. She only received care after she developed sepsis. Clarification bills can have mixed support in legislatures. Local physicians might back tweaks to exemption language if they see it as potentially lifesaving for their patients. Some anti-abortion advocates might also favor changes if the legislation can address certain medical emergencies that they believe fall outside of a state's ban, such as ectopic pregnancies or preterm premature rupture of membranes. But not all anti-abortion advocates or Republican lawmakers within these statehouses support even a small clarification. 'I think in all these cases, lawmakers are being pulled in different directions by these different constituencies,' said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis. 'The bills themselves are kind of muddy, because they're trying to be different things to different people.' The end result are clarification laws that remain unclear to physicians and their employing hospitals and health systems, who can still face high penalties for violating an abortion ban. 'When the law isn't clear, physicians don't intervene,' Ziegler said. 'You're not going to be willing to gamble your liberty and your medical license on an uncertain interpretation of the law.' In Kentucky, doctors vocally opposed a Republican-backed bill that supporters said would help health professionals understand when they can provide abortions. Like in Texas, the state's ban only allows abortion when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The clarification bill listed specific conditions that would qualify for an exception to the ban — such as sepsis, hemorrhage or ectopic pregnancy — despite concern from doctors that a delineated list wouldn't be able to predict every possible situation where an abortion might save someone's life. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill in March, calling gaps in the law 'literally a matter of life and death.' The state's legislature, where the GOP holds a supermajority, voted days later to override him. 'It's hard to create this laundry list of, 'This is OK, this is not OK,' because unfortunately, medicine is something with a bunch of gray areas,' said Dr. Caitlin Thomas, an OB-GYN in Louisville. In Georgia — where pregnant, brain-dead woman Adriana Smith remains on life-support until she can give birth later this summer, and where the death of Amber Thurman was attributed to the confusion created by the state's abortion ban — some lawmakers have asked physicians whether a clarification might allow doctors to provide abortions when the pregnancy threatens a patient's life, possibly by listing specific conditions that qualify for an exception. 'We encouraged them not to, and said that would not be helpful,' said Dr. Neesha Verma, an Atlanta-based OB-GYN. 'The more and more prescriptive you make these laws, the less space there is for clinical judgment.' Following a case filed by seven Tennessee patients who had been denied abortions under the state's ban, lawmakers in that state passed a law this year meant to clarify that, under the state's ban, abortions could be performed in cases of preterm prelabor rupture of membrane or severe preeclampsia, but that the exception did not include mental health emergencies. Mental health conditions including substance use disorder, depression and confirmed or probably suicide are the largest single cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the state, according to a 2022 report. The interest in clarifying bans — including from some lawmakers who oppose abortion — 'is a response to where we know the public is and the fact that we know the public is generally supportive of abortion access and also has been presented with these terrible preventable cases since Dobbs,' said Kimya Forouzan, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion research organization. That ambiguity was on display in a Texas case last year. A state judge held that the state's abortion law exception permitted Cox to have an abortion when her doctors discovered the anomaly in her pregnancy. But the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, swiftly intervened, threatening legal action against any health care provider that performed an abortion on Cox. Cox ultimately left the state to terminate her pregnancy. Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and author of 'Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood,' said state officials can do more to ensure health providers know their legal rights. 'It would be credible for states' attorneys generals and the prosecutors who are conservative to immediately issue statements of clarity, saying that they are opposed to these kinds of conditions, that they will not prosecute,' she said. The post New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
