Latest news with #SB72
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Both sides lobby Ayotte over parental rights, trans bills
Conservative and liberal organizations lobbied Gov. Kelly Ayotte for and against legislation promoting parental rights, which critics unfairly contend target transgender residents. Last week, the Legislature completed action on a series of bills that conservative groups have dubbed a 'landmark parental rights package.' The coalition includes RebuildNH, Young Americans for Liberty, Citizens Alliance of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance and Health Freedom N.H. 'These bills collectively ensure that parents — not government institutions — retain the primary role in guiding their children's development,' said Melissa Blasek, executive director of RebuildNH. 'This package embodies New Hampshire's commitment to freedom and personal responsibility. It's time to lead the nation once again.' The Parental Rights Package includes the following bills: • Parental rights: HB10 and SB72 would establish a Parental Bill of Rights, codifying parents' fundamental rights to make decisions regarding the care, custody, education and medical treatment of their children. • Risk surveys: HB446 requires parental notice and opt-in consent for non-academic surveys administered in public schools. • Child's library records: HB273 would grant parents access to their child's records, which supports said would ensure transparency. • Mandating student info disclosure: SB 96 would require school district employees to disclose material information regarding a student's mental, emotional or physical health to parents. • Ban mask wearing: HB 361 would outlaw mandatory mask policies in schools, reinforcing the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. • Obscenity definition in schools: HB324 would prohibit obscene or harmful sexual materials in schools, protecting children from age-inappropriate content. 'The Parental Rights Package is about trust — trusting parents to know what's best for their children,' said Dan Gray, executive director of Citizens Alliance of New Hampshire. 'Governor Ayotte has an opportunity to affirm the rights of every New Hampshire family and to send a clear message that our state values liberty and family sovereignty.' Ayotte urged to veto 4 bills A liberal bloc of organizations called upon Ayotte to veto four bills, starting with the parental rights bill they charge would leave students dealing with gender identity issues without a 'trusted adult' to confide in. 'The majority of New Hampshire politicians chose to insert themselves in conversations between young people, their parents, and doctors, by passing a ban on medically necessary health care that has vastly improved the well-being of transgender young people,' said Linds Jakow, founder of 603 Equality. 'Politicians likewise chose to insert themselves in conversations between young people, their parents, and teachers, by passing bills that would require teachers to reveal a student's gender or sexuality, rather than suggest a conversation between the parent and their student. We control our bodies and lives. Gov. Kelly Ayotte must swiftly veto this legislation, which has no place in any state that claims to value individual freedom.' These groups include 603 Equality, Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire Action Fund, N.H. Outright, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the American Civil Liberties of New Hampshire. Other bills these advocates opposed included: • Gender-affirming care: HB 712 would ban all elective surgeries for transgender patients under 18 years old, even with parental consent and after consultations with medical professionals. On Thursday, the House will decide whether to concur with changes made to this bill along with HB 377 that restricts access for minors to puberty blockers. • Allow segregation of spaces: HB 148 would allow government agencies and private businesses to restrict access to restrooms, sports teams and prisons to members of the same biological sex. Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed an identical bill (HB 396) in 2024. 'It is clear that these bills would cause harm, permit discrimination, and heighten cruelty and harassment in our communities — and they have no place in New Hampshire,' said Courtney Reed, ACLU-N.H's policy advocate. 'Every Granite Stater deserves the freedom to control their bodies and to seek the health care they need free from government intrusion — period. These merciless, cruel, and endless legislative attacks against LGBTQ+ Granite Staters need to end.' What's Next: Most of these bills that both sides are working on have passed both branches of the Legislature and are on the way to Ayotte's desk. Prospects: Ayotte has expressed support for the parental rights bills and publicly she hasn't raised an objection to any of the other measures. klandrigan@
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Parental rights bills get over finish line
A push to give parents affirmative rights to information about their children — a legislative priority for Gov. Kelly Ayotte — cleared both House and Senate Thursday in two identical bills. In a key concession, however, Republican leaders in both chambers agreed to remove a section requiring that parents give consent for all health care services provided to their children. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and other advocates of legal abortion argued that section would have been in conflict with federal law that permits teens to gain access to birth control without parental permission. The Senate-passed bill (SB 72) won approval in the House largely on a party line vote of 214-167. The vote to support changes the Senate made to the House bill (HB 10) was 210-160. State Rep. Peter Petrigno, D-Milford, charged that the measure's high legal standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' for educators to be able to withhold information from parents could put children at risk of harm. 'We will be giving cover to child abusers; I am sure that is not the intent but that is exactly what that provision does,' Petrigno said. Rep. Heather Raymond, D-Nashua who formerly worked for the Division of Children, Youth and Families, said the current standard for DCYF to investigate abuse is if the teacher has a 'reasonable cause to suspect' that it happened. DCYF can then bring an abuse allegation to law enforcement if it meets the 'preponderance of the evidence.' House Speaker Pro Tem Jim Kofalt, R-Wilton, said the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a Manchester parent seeking information about their child showed that the Legislature needed to act. 'They did not have clear and unequivocal guidance from this Legislature and governor that parental rights are fundamental and should be viewed through that lens; that changes the game,' Kofalt said. House Speaker Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry, had been working for the past four years on a parental rights policy and made it one of the top 10 issues contained in the House GOP's 'Contract with New Hampshire' during the 2024 campaign. 'Today, with the passage of HB 10, the Legislature has taken a decisive step to uphold parental rights. This legislation reaffirms a fundamental principle: that parents have the right to be informed and involved in decisions affecting their children's lives,' Packard said in a statement after the vote. Kayla Montgomery, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, praised a coalition of groups who had pushed to remove the section requiring parental consent for health care. 'Confidentiality plays a key role in supporting young people to make healthy, responsible decisions as they grow into adulthood,' Montgomery said. 'When confidentiality is assured, teens and young adults are more likely to obtain health services, disclose necessary information to their providers, and seek out needed services in the future. When young people perceive a lack of confidentiality, they often delay or forgo seeking critical care, including sexual and reproductive health care.' Devon Chaffee, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, said removing that section was the right move. 'Granite Staters have continued to make it crystal clear that legislative attacks on our reproductive rights and health care are deeply unpopular,' Chaffee said. Senate Majority Leader Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, said this reform came about because lawmakers worked to come up with the best proposal. 'This language is a compromise between both bodies and is a win for the parents and children of New Hampshire,' Birdsell said. The Senate approved its measure on a voice vote after Senate Democratic Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka of Portsmouth had warned that it would not do enough to 'protect our kids' from potential abuse. klandrigan@
Boston Globe
5 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
N.H. House approves ‘parental bill of rights'
Conservatives around the country have been pushing for parental rights legislation and demanding greater parental control in the wake of pandemic-era policies around masking, school closures, and vaccines. Meanwhile, schools have become a battleground for culture war issues about how they handle gender identity and race and the books available on these topics. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Passing a parental bill of rights this year has been a priority for New Hampshire Republicans who say parents shouldn't be kept in the dark. Advertisement 'Growing up is hard. Every family has its challenges, and every family has some difficult conversations. Keeping parents in the dark is not an answer to that problem,' said Representative Jim Kofalt, a Wilton Republican, Thursday. 'Governments do not raise children. Parents do,' he said. SB 72 would allow parents to sue schools over a violation for monetary damages and relief. Democrats argued the bill would put children in harm's way and make it harder for them to confide in trusted adults at school. Advertisement The If an immediate answer cannot be provided, it instructs that an answer be provided no later than 10 business days after the request. 'We all agree that parents have rights and schools should be working with parents, not against them,' said Representative Heather Raymond, a Nashua Democrat. 'But we also know that some parents hurt their children, and those children need help from trusted adults.' Raymond said the bill creates too high of a standard of evidence that would stop many schools from reporting suspected child abuse to the state's child protective services, inadvertently providing cover for child abusers. She said the 'clear and convincing' standard for evidence means the school would need to present video evidence to report abuse, and a child informing them of parental abuse wouldn't be sufficient. Republicans disagreed with her assessment, and said schools could still report child abuse. Both of the bills enshrine many rights parents already have, such as choosing where to enroll their child in school, receiving vaccine exemptions, and the ability to opt out of sex education. Some of the measures would be new: The bills instruct school boards to develop policies promoting parental involvement in school attendance, homework, and discipline, and to lay out procedures for parents to object to instructional material based on 'morality, sex, and religion or the belief that such materials are harmful.' Advertisement The House removed language that would've created new restrictions on health care for minors, which drew opposition. Over 200 health care providers from around the state signed a petition opposing part of the bill they say would restrict access to confidential 'The best-case scenario is that young people discuss their contraceptive and sexual health decisions openly with their families. But the reality is that not all young people are in situations where it's easy or they're able or safe to do those things,' said Dr. Amy E. Paris, an OB/GYN and director of family planning at Dartmouth Health. 'Those people shouldn't be cast aside and left without birth control and sexual and reproductive healthcare,' she said. Paris said requiring parental consent would cause fewer young people to access contraception, driving up rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Nationally, teen pregnancy rates have been going The bill would have required parental consent for health care and prescriptions, unless they were explicitly permitted in another law. While New Hampshire law is silent on contraception for minors, a federal Title X program requires confidential contraception, which could proceed, even if New Hampshire's parental bill of rights becomes law. Paris said her young patients are aware of the current political environment and worried about potential impacts to their health care. 'I think people are very worried about the potential loss of access to contraception and abortion,' she said. 'If anything I think young people have become more proactive over time about taking responsibility for their contraceptive needs.' Advertisement Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
What to know about the House and Senate parental rights bills
House Speaker Sherman Packard (center) is expected to bring forward a floor amendment to SB 72 on Thursday. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) Thursday brings a major deadline: the final day in which the House and Senate can pass remaining legislation. And Republicans in both chambers will be pushing to achieve a long-sought priority and finally approve a 'parental bill of rights.' In past years, those votes have failed, often defeated by a handful of votes in the House. This week, the House and the Senate are considering two separate bills: House Bill 10 and Senate Bill 72. Each looks slightly different from past versions. Here's what to know. What are the bills intended to do? Supporters of the bills say they are meant to give parents a toolkit to assert control over their child's education in public schools. The laws outline a number of rights the parents have over that education. Many of those rights already exist in law, such as the right for a parent to choose whether to send their child to a charter school, private school, or to home school them; to learn about school disciplinary procedures and class curriculum; to opt their child out of sex education courses by providing alternative instruction; to receive a report card; to review medical records; and to exempt their child from immunization with a doctor's note or because of religious beliefs. Other provisions of the bills would be new. School boards would be required to develop policies to promote parental involvement in school around homework, attendance, and discipline. They would also be required to pass policies making it easy for parents to examine instructional materials and to withdraw their child from any lesson or material being taught. And the bills would clarify in law that 'no school may infringe on the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of his or her minor child.' But the legislation has inspired fierce pushback from teachers and LGBTQ groups, who say it puts too many burdens on teachers and staff, and that it could force them to divulge to parents details about students' sexual orientation or gender identity against the students' will. Do this year's bills require teachers to tell parents about a student's sexual orientation or gender identity? Unlike past attempts at a parental bill of rights, this year's bills do not explicitly require school staff and teachers to divulge to inquiring parents details about their child's sexual orientation or gender identity. Some bills in the past have included that explicit language, sparking opposition from LGBTQ rights groups and driving some Republicans to vote against them on the House floor. But this year's versions of the legislation do include a catch-all phrase that opponents argue achieves a similar result. Language in a floor amendment to SB 72 expected to be brought forward by House Speaker Sherman Packard Thursday provides parents the right to 'inquire of the school or school personnel and promptly receive accurate, truthful, and complete disclosure regarding any and all matters related to their minor child, unless an immediate answer cannot be provided when the initial request is made.' If an immediate answer is not available, the school employee must provide one within 10 business days. The bill provides an exception to providing the information if there is a 'compelling state interest' against doing so, and it defines that interest as 'an actual and objectively reasonable belief, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the infringement upon parental rights is necessary to prevent the child from being abused,' under the state's abuse laws. HB 10 includes similar language. Republicans say the requirement is necessary to prevent teachers from withholding information from parents and to allow parents full information about their children. Democrats and LGBTQ advocates say the requirement that the disclosure 'complete' could be difficult to follow, and that the standard that must be met to constitute a fear of abuse, 'clear and convincing,' is too high to meet in most situations. How would the bills affect health care services for students? While Republicans broadly support the parental bill of rights, they have disagreed over one key area: medical care for students. A version of SB 72 recommended by the House Children and Family Law Committee would have included language requiring parents to consent in writing before any biometric scans are conducted by a medical provider on a child, or before any DNA or blood is drawn. That version would also give parents the right 'to make health care decisions unless otherwise provided by law' and 'to be physically present at any health care facility providing care.' However, Democrats and advocates had raised concerns that the medical provisions would violate teenagers' health care and reproductive rights by impeding their ability to receive birth control and pre- and post-natal care without getting parental permission. And House Republican leadership appears aware: The floor amendment from Packard expected to be introduced on Thursday would strike those parental medical rights from the final bill. Meanwhile, both of this year's House and Senate versions of the bills include language to protect confidential conversations between children and counselors. Both bills protect school counselors, psychologists, nurses, or other health care providers from being required to disclose information about children to parents that 'was reasonably expected to be privileged.' What could be the consequences of noncompliance for schools or teachers? Past parental bill of rights legislation has made teachers personally accountable for failing to follow the law, in some cases opening teachers up to litigation or potential disciplinary action by the State Board of Education against their license. But this year, the House and Senate bills do not include direct consequences for teachers. The bills do provide that a parent who claims a violation may sue the school district for injunctive relief or for damages. What should be expected on Thursday? In their current versions, the two bills up for a vote Thursday — HB 10 in the Senate and SB 72 in the House — are largely identical. Both bills include parental rights over medical care that have attracted debate. But Packard's floor amendment, which removes those medical rights, would make SB 72 more moderate, and potentially more palatable for Gov. Kelly Ayotte to sign. Should the House Republican caucus vote to pass that floor amendment, as well as the underlying bill, SB 72 would return to the Senate, which would decide next week whether to accept the moderating changes and send the bill to Ayotte. But if conservative-leaning House Republicans join with Democrats to reject the floor amendment, SB 72 and HB 10 could head to the governor's office in their most robust form yet.
Miami Herald
24-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Colorado legislators tightened regulation of the herbal remedy kratom. But will Gov. Jared Polis veto the bill?
DENVER - As Gov. Jared Polis ponders a bill to increase Colorado's regulation of the herbal remedy kratom, Dave Bregger said he feels like he's on "pins and needles." The bill on Polis's desk bears the name of Bregger's son - Daniel Bregger, a 33-year-old Denver resident who died in 2021 after ingesting kratom and diphenhydramine, a common ingredient in Benadryl and sleep aids. But whether Polis will sign the bill into law or not remains a mystery. Supporters of Senate Bill 72 pushed the legislation through on the last day of the session after using a rare parliamentary maneuver. They say the new law would help rein in the most dangerous forms of kratom, while leaving consumer choice intact. Industry opponents - including one company employing unconventional methods - are pushing for a veto, arguing the law would sow confusion in a growing market and ultimately harm consumers looking for a safe, effective product. Kratom, a traditional herbal remedy from Southeast Asia, has exploded in popularity and availability in the United States over the past decade. Proponents point to the plant's potential for a variety of uses, including as a stimulant or pain reliever, or as treatment for depression, anxiety and opioid withdrawal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned against the use of kratom because of the herb's potential for addiction, liver toxicity and seizures. The Harvard Medical School warns of "considerable uncertainty of (kratom's) health risks," including a lack of regulation. But a general lack of independent research means there's not enough information for a definitive conclusion about the plant, either. Supporters of kratom argue that the herb by itself has proven safe for tens of millions of consumers, though tragedy has struck some, including Daniel Bregger. A 2024 Washington Post analysis found kratom implicated in 846 deaths across 30 states and Washington, D.C., in 2022, though the vast majority involved other substances as well. Daniel Bregger's father, Dave, said his son was a healthy young man enjoying the best of Colorado with his brother - hiking, mountain biking, skiing - and simply looking for a natural treatment for anxiety. Kratom and diphenhydramine, however, had a severe interaction that led to his death. Knowing kratom has shown promise for some people's pain management, Dave Bregger doesn't want a ban, he said. He just wants stronger warnings and regulations to stop other parents from feeling their world shatter. Bill's supporters deploy 'super motion' Colorado lawmakers passed SB 72 to build on existing regulations for the emerging product. If the bill becomes law, sellers would need to bar kratom from being sold as candy or in a way that appeals to children, increase labeling requirements and limit how much kratom's more potent active compound, 7-hydroxymitragynine, commonly marketed as 7-OH, can be found in the product. The state already bars the sale of kratom to people younger than 21 under a law Polis signed in 2022. The new law's labeling requirements would include a warning that kratom can have unforeseen interactions with certain medications, in the hopes of preventing future deaths. The bill was pared back from Sen. Kyle Mullica's original vision of a new license to sell kratom because of Colorado's budget crunch. He didn't "want to sit idly by" waiting for the state's fiscal outlook to improve while, in his view, a potential public health crisis emerged around an underregulated drug. "They're selling it at every smoke shop," said Mullica, a Thornton Democrat and emergency room nurse. "They want to make it seem like it's this healthy thing and it's causing real harm. It has very addictive properties." The bipartisan bill faced a wave of pushback and an unusual path to passage. After the bill passed the Senate with 30 of 35 members voting yes, supporters in the House used a so-called "super motion" to clear a key committee in the waning days of the legislative session. A super motion, in effect, bypasses a committee hearing - and the chair, who controls the agenda - to force a bill to the floor for consideration by the whole chamber. Rep. Matt Soper, a Delta Republican and sponsor of the bill, said it was the first time in more than 30 years the parliamentary maneuver had been used. The tactic paid off. The House voted 47-18 to pass the bill. Now, the measure sits on Polis' desk, with no clear indication if the governor will sign it into law. He has until June 6 to veto the measure. "Governor Polis is reviewing the final form of the bill, inclusive of the changes that were made at the end of the process," spokesperson Shelby Wieman said in a statement. The bill went through several amendments in its final week before passing on the last day of the legislative session. Pushing for veto with $30 gift cards The industry, meanwhile, has been jockeying for a veto. Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust, or HART, an advocacy group for plant-based treatments, including kratom, said in a statement that the bill "fails to create any meaningful regulation" for the industry and called the measure "hastily written and ill-considered." In an interview, members of the group said they want more regulation for the industry - but they want clear regulation and clear enforcement. The crux of the complaint fell on how the state defines concentration limits for 7-OH, the key compound in some kratom products' effects. The bill creates artificial limits on the compound, while leaving loopholes for bad actors looking to game the percentage-based limit, said Kyle Ray, a board member for the trust and president of kratom manufacturer Colorado Chromatography. Because the bill limits the percentage of the 7-OH compound, manufacturers could bump up the total amount of other ingredients and create an overall less safe product. "There is no regulator, there is no licensing process where they have to come inspect your facility," Ray said. "That is beyond frustrating. It's dangerous for the consumer." He also advocated for the compound as a "powerful harm reduction tool" against opioid addiction and overdose because of how it interacts with the body's chemical receptors. Some medical professionals have questioned how effective kratom is in treating opioid addiction. While the bill wouldn't ban the 7-OH compound - something Ray is grateful for - other members of the trust have still made it a rallying cry. CBD American Shaman, a national distributor based in Kansas City, Missouri, and a member of HART, urged customers to "Protect 7-OH–Stop Colorado SB 72!" - and offered people $30 worth of product if they sent their state representatives a prewritten email about it. CBD American Shaman did not return a request for comment. Jeff Smith, national policy director for HART, said in a statement "that some small businesses are turning to creative strategies to engage and mobilize their customers in the face of what they see as existential threats to their companies." "Our focus at HART remains on promoting responsible, evidence-based regulation of kratom and 7-OH, and ensuring that the voices of consumers, patients and small businesses are part of that conversation," Smith added. 'Giving people information - that works' Soper and Mullica, the bill sponsors, each said they'd never seen advocates on any side of a bill try to essentially pay customers to lobby an issue. It's not immediately clear if the practice is explicitly barred. The Colorado Secretary of State's Office declined to comment because a complaint could be filed about the practice, though none had been as of midweek. They both see the bill as a win, if Polis signs it, particularly for addressing access by people younger than 21 and limits on synthetic products. They both said the push is about informing the public about what they're consuming, not a ban. "I would be lobbying to have it vetoed myself if it were an outright ban," Soper said. "Prohibitions don't work. Outright bans don't work. But giving people information - that works." Meanwhile, Dave Bregger, whose son died from the mix of kratom and diphenhydramine, is also waiting for Polis's decision. He's asked for a signing ceremony and an invitation, if Polis makes it law. "We've got to start somewhere. Watered down as it is, we've got to be able to build on it in future years," Dave Bregger said. "Doing nothing at this point would just be exasperating to me. Something has got to be done. It's a plague in Colorado." _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
