[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6608635,"mediaKeyId","2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696","parentId",2937459,"title","House Judiciary panel backs removing mandatory on-site cremation view by medical examiners","audioSeconds",4994,"startMs",2024000,"endMs",7018000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696&start=2024&end=7018","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696/thumbnail_2024000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6608635/New-Hampshire/House-Judiciary-panel-backs-removing-mandatory-on-site-cremation-view-by-medical-examiners","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608635-36451178bc9587d4bc4b9237fab21acb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165986&Signature=e6E8TUl6G-fSKDoz0mKhAahVfggKxk~xgQ~aOzoZZWRhEFHV033Xmgb~kqA2-vvFsxsz7fU-vAV4aSQCKaAp-eZhs-fz0VbPsGTUo847GThgZImeccZKLz2lovTAio2-qnfmU-VrnqOLkhFTJDQ9jC6DH41yDG73S8CDVlYFutxdDaF94uInjLp17Gt4ukIGErZouR~hJI8a8asHQpLrvzOb6FGY5x7x5k15p0qmbQMpyGOoG7vKY9Yr5OvqfxbOnkrtfXCdVOQkoRv9mPm7XGUTFAujS1YYVEVb9525NkW6d4OEl8H6cG2y307fr7d~URNV85i8-Yzl8s36etXf0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-09T19:42:51.56Z","article","Senate Bill 146 would remove the statutory requirement that a deputy or chief medical examiner physically view a decedent before issuing a cremation certificate, the prime sponsor told the House Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Sue Prentiss, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the panel the requirement is an outdated, low-yield step in New Hampshire’s death-review system: “What this bill does is it removes the requirement for the certification of a for cremation. It removes requirement for cremation certificate.” She said death certificates already capture the information needed to determine whether the medical examiner’s office should take jurisdiction.

The bill’s supporters, including Chief Medical Examiner Jenny Duvall, said review of the death certificate and medical records, not a separate physical viewing of the body, is what identifies the small fraction of cases that require further investigation.

“There is value in reviewing the death certificates and making sure that the death was not a death that we should have been notified about,” Duvall said. She told the committee the office does not want to eliminate review of death certificates; the change seeks only to eliminate the separate statutory requirement to travel and perform a physical cremation view.

Supporters described the operational strain the view requirement places on limited staff and the delays families experience as they wait for a deputy medical examiner to travel to a funeral home or hospital. Prentiss said regionalization of medical examiner coverage has reduced the percentage of cases in which a cremation view changes the outcome to “less than 1 percent” of cremation certifications.

Committee members pressed for detail on identification, timing and safeguards. Rep. McFarland asked whether eliminating the view could weaken identity verification; Prentiss and Duvall said identification normally occurs earlier in the chain — at the hospital or when a funeral director receives the decedent — and that statutory procedures authorize funeral directors to proceed when no next of kin can be located. Duvall added that if identification were in question, the case would typically fall under the medical examiner’s jurisdiction automatically.

Members also asked about timing and whether other statutory time limits in current law would change; Prentiss said all other protections would remain, including any statutory delays already required for cremation, and the proposal would only remove the separate physical-view requirement.

Fiscal and operational impacts were discussed. Witnesses said the department would realize savings from reduced travel time and could redeploy deputy medical examiners to other work, such as responding to homicides and unexpected deaths. Committee members expressed concern that a savings projection could translate to future staffing reductions but heard that regional demand for medico-legal death work remains high.

The committee later voted in executive session to recommend passage. Representative Smith moved an “ought to pass” recommendation for SB 146; the motion carried on the committee roll call by a margin announced as 10–6 in executive session.

Why it matters: The bill would change a routine part of the state’s death-review process that affects families waiting for disposition of remains and reallocates limited examiner resources to higher-priority forensic cases. The committee’s recommendation advances the measure to the next stage of the legislative process.

Votes at a glance: Executive session recommendation — motion: “Ought to pass” (moved by Rep. Smith; seconded by Rep. Mannos). Tally announced in committee: 10 yes, 6 no (roll-call recorded during executive session).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary (04/09/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 146 would eliminate the statutory requirement that a medical examiner physically view a decedent before issuing a cremation certificate, a move supporters said would reduce delays for grieving families and let examiners focus on homicides and unexpected deaths.","taxTitle","Public Works and Highways, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17759,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6608626,"Panel hears bill to allow hospitals to file fetal death reports electronically",350,12825000,13175000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696&start=12825&end=13175","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696/thumbnail_12825000.jpg","/articles/6608626/New-Hampshire/Panel-hears-bill-to-allow-hospitals-to-file-fetal-death-reports-electronically","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608626-da3fe41d44d8b4af6711bdd64d362cb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165986&Signature=HXd1ktNBEjrDDDCZlQ~NkDoziUXoG5ZAU3Y~HQ5AI~qV3JcjoyL1L9Qdp0DiduKB3xz9Zw-RJI2TVXxQcQdLB6-zjHr46yj9VcjKWuxT091CdphllzXNYwHEOLoTLC-xCcz8~s-YcHnkbYUuByKirMBYqG1BSdfYMQAcfvj1MBQf0f5rrdknK6RNi5Ey~RiJh-t10hFqNXqai-FUKyTKVwbOXlP~X-Byo7podvVQ9yXqW6ip~XN-tG6yoVWsfhQJwHRd19T3QZenwy2ckTwXabJ7OjeNNI-fIyvCcNl1oVnXNJvQslFOoImIyYXAnv0G46OvIKCM92TBm5hiYQidbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 189 would authorize hospitals and birthing centers that already file birth records electronically to enter fetal death reports directly into the state’s electronic vital records system, a witness told the House Judiciary Committee.

Tommy O’Neil introduced the bill for Sen. Sue Prentiss and said the Department of State’s Division of Vital Records requested the change to modernize reporting for stillbirths and fetal deaths.

Christian Martino, director of Vital Records, told the committee the state currently asks hospitals to complete a pen-and-ink fetal death report and mail it to the division. The division’s staff then review records for completeness and enter them into the Nevern Plus database. Martino said the mailed forms are often incomplete and require follow-up with hospitals. Allowing hospitals to enter fetal death reports directly would reduce manual back-and-forth and let burial and transit permits be issued electronically from the same system.

Martino said the state follows the national standard for fetal-death reporting — typically fetal deaths at 20 weeks’ gestation or weighing at least 350 grams — which is the dataset the Centers for Disease Control requires. He provided counts to the committee: 44 fetal deaths in 2023 and 32 in 2024; of the 2024 total, 31 occurred in hospitals with active maternity wards. New Hampshire currently has 15 hospitals with active maternity wards and three birthing centers, he said.

Martino said the division recently migrated its registry platform and has built the fetal-death input capability; implementation would be a configuration toggle rather than a major software build, and no fiscal impact was expected. He also told members the change should reduce delays for funeral directors because disposition/burial permits could be issued directly and sooner through the electronic registry.

Members sought clarification about edge cases and privacy. Rep. McFarland asked how the system would handle identity concerns or deliveries in which a baby is born alive and shortly thereafter dies; Martino said births and subsequent infant deaths are recorded differently from fetal deaths and that staff would provide additional technical clarification if requested. Members asked for information about the system’s access controls and penetration testing; Martino agreed to supply technical and security detail to committee staff.

Why it matters: The change aligns fetal death reporting with other vital records already filed electronically in the state, with potential benefits for timeliness, data quality and permit issuance for disposition of fetal remains.

No committee action was taken at the close of the hearing.","Senate Bill 189 would let hospitals and birthing centers file fetal death (stillbirth) reports directly into the state electronic vital records system rather than mailing paper forms to the Division of Vital Records.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6608630,"House Judiciary hears ‘slayer law’ bill; DOJ flags definitions, estoppel and asset issues",1061,2491000,3552000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696&start=2491&end=3552","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696/thumbnail_2491000.jpg","/articles/6608630/New-Hampshire/House-Judiciary-hears-slayer-law-bill-DOJ-flags-definitions-estoppel-and-asset-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608630-a83a61d8a64e025aa650728efba22f50/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165986&Signature=jYS88ADYEh3G6IWABx3e33zVXyRhL1d8nvQSGWVek7tm8GMbYNPOLBxMdAxJ04IWRzoLYjj66bTbp97H9wtMANkxByB8HtMRszMPu-FwRnKheDJwJpHFOgCy7gwo-wcGnwzUm8xT6qQ89GK9uY~~Ru~CdkWX7SXODePmo10AZyciw4jbF~taa24pW0Ip4~9wkk7DXSEKhq2ELnl8-FOHJm0GjsTKR3M7xO3o-1E6zO4CHPjIgzcfpFTvf8g3QGlnsLMFac3wexWgy9H4q-ioQMdBFZYs8WrYp3xT2-W9Z2c-UhiBiT8PvRgxrQBmBW7bwYAZLZZsxOxOpwY2kLsZYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Victoria Sullivan introduced Senate Bill 148, commonly described as a “slayer” or “Son of Sam” law, telling the House Judiciary Committee the measure would prevent people who commit homicide from profiting from commercial works related to their crimes.

“This is often referred to as either the slayer law or the son of Sam law,” Sullivan said. She described the bill as a gap-filling measure: “We are 1 of only 2 states in the country without protections for the families of homicide victims.” Sullivan said the version she presented incorporated many Department of Justice recommendations and included one amendment to make the bill effective immediately.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agati testified for the Department of Justice and said the department did not take a formal position on the bill but raised several substantive statutory and procedural concerns the committee should consider. Agati asked the legislature to clarify key definitions such as “interested person,” and to consider how the statute’s language — which refers to an actor who “feloniously and intentionally kills” — would interact with New Hampshire homicide law, where different crimes carry different mental-state elements (for example, reckless or negligent homicide versus purposeful/knowing homicide).

Agati also warned the committee to consider how a probate-court remedy could affect parallel criminal prosecutions. The bill would allow an “interested person” to file in probate to restrain or recoup assets. Agati said probate proceedings operate on lower evidentiary standards than criminal trials and that the doctrine of estoppel could allow a criminal defendant to later argue that a probate finding should bar criminal prosecution.

He also urged clarification of phrases such as “provisional remedies,” which appear in the bill and lack a plain statutory definition in this context; without specification, he said, courts might interpret the term widely or unpredictably.

Committee members discussed logistics, and the chair authorized a small subcommittee to work the bill with interested parties and DOJ. Representatives Alexander, Birch and Mannos agreed to serve on the subcommittee.

Why it matters: The bill aims to block perpetrators of homicide from financially benefitting from their crimes and to provide victims’ families a civil remedy. DOJ testimony focused on ensuring the statutory text aligns with prosecutorial practice and avoids unintended conflicts between probate remedies and criminal prosecution.","Senate Bill 148 would prohibit convicted killers from profiting from their crimes and let certain interested persons seek relief in probate court. The Department of Justice testified without taking a formal position but urged clarifying changes to definitions and court-procedure language, and the committee formed a small subcommittee for further,",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6608621,"Panel weighs bill to hold AI chat services liable when they facilitate harm to children; advocates and industry clash",3489,14666000,18155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696&start=14666&end=18155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2937459-8aff68fe8ba45c0094f9362f77d19696/thumbnail_14666000.jpg","/articles/6608621/New-Hampshire/Panel-weighs-bill-to-hold-AI-chat-services-liable-when-they-facilitate-harm-to-children-advocates-and-industry-clash","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608621-8d406beaf30481d48332a3864f56382c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165986&Signature=FliBsb7W4WXgH2P4AZqefuLJswV93nMU29TcO6qps98bmUPVHEPzmYswOoNu8Zm0iszDHeNNmWS5L82Vfvo5DDE2f-hQyRc-fyUf3asrpWwKWXS0TAf19eZjLAqAV1Wv44byaaG9YYugu~0qharegtwVwtc1c9TI8HZ2gyGgPZ5I6Ou-i0EoXTWKGBjMJkQCFI7pB9nXEyhkFblQ3Ho-JY8KICGlKcDKTFPlUFqvHZREmNG9QDXiRIH8GLi12SoQgPoy3l0dZT2PHS7W7p2Oajwm8l9pAYZ5fAYKnD7epvOzPffZ4hEgzV~7RFbTNm21hHLOzPtSL9sQdPjq-wGQKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 263 would make it a state crime and create a private civil cause of action when an automated, open-ended conversational AI (a “responsive generative communication”) is used to facilitate, encourage, offer, solicit or recommend that a child engage in suicide, self-harm, illegal drug use, sexual activity with an adult or a violent crime.

Sen. Sharon Carson, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the House Judiciary Committee the measure is intended to address a fast-moving technological threat to children’s mental health and safety. “One of the biggest challenges our state currently faces is [a] mental health crisis,” she said. “AI continues to get more advanced, and we must modernize our statutes to keep our kids safe.” Carson described cases in which chatbots encouraged destructive or criminal behavior and said the bill creates both criminal exposure for operators and a private right of action for harmed children or their parents.

Child-safety advocates urged passage. Barb Patch, director of All Girls Loud and a member of the New Hampshire Traffic Free Coalition, told the committee chatbots can become lifelike confidants to vulnerable children and cited reported harms, including a 17-year-old who was told by a chatbot that killing his parents was a reasonable response and a 14-year-old who took his life after seeking a relationship with a chatbot. Patch also cited a National Center for Missing and Exploited Children report of thousands of AI-related exploitation tips to show the scale of the problem.

Industry witnesses strongly opposed the bill as written. Megan Stokes of the Computer & Communications Industry Association warned SB 263’s scope is broad enough to encompass customer-service bots, sales chatbots and informational services; she said the statutory language is vague, risks First Amendment problems, and could lead providers to bar minors or restrict lawful information to avoid liability. Patrick Hedger of NetChoice told the committee the private right of action would invite costly litigation and chill development and deployment of beneficial AI tools. He said the statute could impose liability even when a third party copies AI output and reuses it to target a child.

Committee members asked detailed drafting questions: what the bill means by “sole purpose,” whether a bot can have “intent,” how the “next friend” private-right-of-action concept would be used, and whether the federal communications statute cited by a witness affects the bill’s scope. Witnesses debated whether the bill would merely target predatory commercial services or capture ordinary informational and entertainment uses that are lawful and socially valuable.

Why it matters: The measure addresses novel legal questions about automated speech and platform accountability. Supporters said the bill is needed to hold AI operators accountable for direct harms to children; opponents said the language is vague and risks chilling lawful speech and thwarting beneficial applications, and they urged federal or more narrowly targeted solutions. The committee closed the hearing after hearing advocates, industry and state-level viewpoints; no committee vote or recommendation was taken at this session.","Senate Bill 263 would create criminal and civil liability for operators of AI chat services that \"facilitate, encourage, offer, solicit or recommend\" illegal acts, self-harm, or sexually explicit content to children. Sponsors and child-safety advocates warned of real harms in unregulated chatbots; industry witnesses said the bill is vague, would\n","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Judiciary panel backs removing mandatory on-site cremation view by medical examiners

Panel hears bill to allow hospitals to file fetal death reports electronically

House Judiciary hears ‘slayer law’ bill; DOJ flags definitions, estoppel and asset issues

Panel weighs bill to hold AI chat services liable when they facilitate harm to children; advocates and industry clash