[{"_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",6580831,"mediaKeyId","3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc","parentId",3102452,"title","NH hearing spotlights bill to bar doctors from denying sterilizing care based on age, family status","audioSeconds",2831,"startMs",466000,"endMs",3297000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc&start=466&end=3297","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc/thumbnail_466000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6580831/New-Hampshire/NH-hearing-spotlights-bill-to-bar-doctors-from-denying-sterilizing-care-based-on-age-family-status","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580831-22ab943b62a16fc40e02f17c08e843b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166222&Signature=GUMDN5ILAzJjIhneNOt0M0iJG7dJLa8X-a1r2ntNLUk8A8jhcaVjCJpDDytgHtu8JXXCLHellu~QRl8Fq4OEqi~gS~LX-ft8bp4lyuf6CHdZMQ0rgLSRdnuMgfKT7iExCVsVteDFfnGCW~GwWIKVLS-uo~tYN8nVuTp3akQvCckoOL-1RwmdrLZcOcGikmGSqHcFRKZNMNILDUt1PJcOwBtK8TsnJS96APnQsh1mFo47mc~wyvG8aioqPkV966xj3EuEXRoSsywjngqaIwwJmOcDkmFxc9gk~xO03Ps9tkg0uIjdBtRSQUjZTg2XD-T9FSwRPgsQb1T3sAgnpP2rUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-23T19:52:26.357Z","article","CONCORD, N.H. — Lawmakers in a Senate Health and Human Services hearing heard extensive testimony on House Bill 606 Tuesday, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Ellen Reed that would bar physicians from denying medically appropriate sterilizing procedures to adults on the basis of age, number of children, marital status or future fertility goals. Supporters said the change would protect adults seeking hysterectomies, oophorectomies and other definitive reproductive treatments; opponents, including the New Hampshire Medical Society, raised implementation and federal-limit concerns.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Ellen Reed (Rockingham 10), told the committee she sought the measure after hearing decades of testimony from patients who were repeatedly denied sterilizing care. Reed said many women were told “you don’t know what you want” and left with years of pain. Reed described her own case and said the bill is “really a medical freedom issue.” She and other backers also said the measure is narrowly written to preserve physician discretion for medical or religious reasons and to allow an informed-consent or waiver process.

Why it matters: supporters said adult patients with genuine, medically documented reproductive conditions are sometimes denied definitive treatment because a physician assumes a patient might want future children. Reed said the bill would stop that form of paternalism while still permitting physicians to refuse care for medical, religious or payment reasons. She noted the measure previously drew strong bipartisan support in the House, including a committee vote “15 to 2,” and passed the House on a near‑unanimous voice vote.

Opponents included Kathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society, who told the committee she had not previously registered opposition but said concerns surfaced after the draft language was circulated. Stratton said the society worries the bill’s disciplinary language and civil-liability consequences are vague and could put physicians in difficult positions; she also noted a potential conflict with federal Medicaid consent rules, which require patients to be at least 21 for certain sterilization consent procedures. “I am the CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society, and I’m here to speak in opposition,” Stratton said.

Committee members pressed both sides on several practical points: how the state’s medical board would adjudicate complaints, whether the bill conflicts with federal Medicaid rules, and how an appeals process to the medical board would operate. Reed said the bill includes an appeals pathway so a patient can ask the state medical board to review a denial within three years. Reed also told senators the bill would allow physicians to require informed‑consent documents and would limit civil suits when a patient has knowingly signed a waiver about sterilizing procedures.

Public testimony included multiple accounts from residents who said they had waited years for hysterectomies or were denied recommended care until later in life. Several witnesses described heavy, debilitating bleeding, long diagnostic journeys, and complications such as device rejection and infections. Supporters said the bill addresses routine denials — not lucrative elective surgery — and would align clinical access for patients who understand and affirm their decision.

What the bill does not do: it does not require physicians to perform procedures contrary to their clinical judgment or religion, Reed and backers repeatedly emphasized. Physicians may still deny treatment for medical reasons; the bill targets denials based solely on demographic factors such as age or number of children.

What’s next: committee members asked staff to check federal Medicaid consent rules and to clarify the specific disciplinary language in the bill. No vote was recorded at Tuesday’s hearing; Reed said she had placed an amended, more precise draft before the committee.

The hearing record documents a wide range of patient stories alongside professional concerns from the state medical society — a combination that the committee said it would weigh as it considers possible amendments and next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Health and Human Services (04/23/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","CONCORD, N.H. — Lawmakers in a Senate Health and Human Services hearing heard extensive testimony on House Bill 606 Tuesday, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Ellen Reed that would bar physicians from denying medically appropriate sterilizing procedures to adults on the basis of age, number of children, marital status or future fertility goals.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"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},6580819,"Debate intensifies over ban on puberty blockers and hormones for minors as Senate hears emotional testimony",6393,17576000,23969000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc&start=17576&end=23969","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc/thumbnail_17576000.jpg","/articles/6580819/New-Hampshire/Debate-intensifies-over-ban-on-puberty-blockers-and-hormones-for-minors-as-Senate-hears-emotional-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580819-719cd3d251078db83841767dd914c329/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166222&Signature=gJCG~aPBepoyQ289gu5esM5Df4dePzXI50nplL2AVxBBes4UWxMn~S13F0Dj5MD2T5mn~gpK2ch2uSuUwgT46Gqqtg0davN4melrlnacRHb-a75GGPXB8l2jpyitjAU2clp7Sjac3Z3TUOBT8~pj8jSrR4R5FaZvMAxqut~KOrYVDxKmzcec0hH21KsxeHpqmROwCNreHojud2xf1Du~8R-34CdYM-513XcKIMxA4X0UdT498Rk0wSTbu1XIPTer5IAppfBFKv7oeOj5mfNPYjgNfBULmVfLswF7QVHjC~uF2mfeiCqTdgjv10UZFH3ZU-cmSvsRlTqkHIMYM~bjlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CONCORD, N.H. — The Senate Health and Human Services Committee heard lengthy, at times emotional, testimony Tuesday on House Bill 377, a proposal to ban the prescription of puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones for minors.

Sponsor Representative Lisa Mazur opened the hearing by describing the health‑policy rationale: she told senators puberty blockers such as Lupron were originally developed for other conditions and said their use in children “stop[s] puberty, stalling natural development of bones, the brain, and fertility.” Mazur and other proponents argued a lack of strong long‑term evidence and cited policy shifts in parts of Europe and other jurisdictions as reasons to restrict use in minors.

Supporters included detransitioners who described permanent harms they attribute to early medical interventions. One witness, Elle Palmer, said she began testosterone at 16 and later reversed course; she recounted health problems and doctors’ uncertainty about treating people who later detransition. Several speakers said the long‑term effects on bone density, fertility and neurodevelopment are not yet well known.

Opponents included Dartmouth Health and the ACLU of New Hampshire, which argued the bill would interfere with clinician judgment and parental decision‑making and raised constitutional concerns. Courtney Tanner of Dartmouth said the system for gender‑affirming care in New Hampshire involves multi‑disciplinary teams and that Dartmouth does not perform top surgeries on minors in state; she said a categorical ban raises difficult clinical and legal questions. The ACLU and other civil‑liberties witnesses urged the committee to await pending court rulings and to consider narrower regulatory guardrails rather than a full ban.

Lawmakers asked detailed questions about the evidence base, the logistics of a ban and how a law would treat existing patients on blockers or hormones. Several witnesses suggested a grandfathering or tapering period for current patients; others said long‑term discontinuation plans are medically complex. Committee members also discussed an ongoing Supreme Court matter related to gender‑affirming care; counsel and witnesses noted a major decision is expected in the coming months and that a state ban could invite litigation.

As with other gender‑care bills, testimony in Concord reflected a stark divide: detransitioners and parents of those harmed urged immediate restrictions; parents of thriving trans youth, clinicians and civil‑rights advocates urged caution and recommended continuing multidisciplinary care and study. Senators asked staff to collect additional medical literature and legal analyses and did not take a vote.","CONCORD, N.H. — The Senate Health and Human Services Committee heard lengthy testimony on House Bill 377, a proposal to bar puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones for minors, as supporters warned of long‑term developmental harms and opponents urged preservation of clinical judgment and parental choice.",{"_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},6580823,"Bill to bar elective breast surgeries on minors draws sharply divided testimony in Concord",1464,4924000,6388000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc&start=4924&end=6388","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc/thumbnail_4924000.jpg","/articles/6580823/New-Hampshire/Bill-to-bar-elective-breast-surgeries-on-minors-draws-sharply-divided-testimony-in-Concord","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580823-fcb34e0e4ca6cbdcea107ec606b0f688/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166222&Signature=oPjFfo9Ia0rKwZMdUOb4GipqwuoRypdYETXtP8FRikfuOs24w0tJCVmWY-NT8eIYcTkvkvarV7TWlAAjwqYw~DpmhOOPz7xOePLuECfXHJcBweiWIrQNLc4IwkMNlVeU45wNmaI2212ubGbkye92ckHXj5WQnCTwQRke495Qaxr1fDCn4uHkZEv~vWk8qe9CBBvG1QK9r5TmRQgQzWIxPwWH~bFDGy4v1hX5owahddRhA~VPkBP1FBu0hrW8dlcXvhST0~99jN1S4bAOpdDKDTHRj5th2ugHD4hgMMp55Vh2EB9Ii1-0b5bMSbX3Di05BJ9vezSCJF-Wsb4fdfC~3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CONCORD, N.H. — Senators heard deeply divided testimony on House Bill 712 Tuesday, a proposal to restrict gender‑affirming chest surgeries for minors while carving out narrow medical exceptions.

Sponsor Representative Lisa Mazer told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee the bill aims to protect children from irreversible body‑altering procedures performed before they are fully mature. “This bill is grounded in a simple but crucial question: Do children change their minds?” Mazer said, arguing that breast removal for cosmetic gender affirmation can cause lifelong loss of function and later regret. She framed the measure as a narrow protection for minors while preserving surgical options for clearly defined medical needs such as severe juvenile macromastia with posture or pain issues, reconstructive needs after trauma, and other listed exceptions.

The hearing attracted large public turnout and sharply personal testimony. Several speakers described long, painful waits for hysterectomies and testified in favor of HB 712, while others — including multiple current and former patients, parents of trans children and clinicians — opposed the ban as overly broad or potentially harmful.

Dartmouth Health’s senior government‑relations director, Courtney Tanner, told the committee Dartmouth has gender‑affirming care clinics and expressed concern that the bill’s referral ban could interfere with the clinician‑patient‑family relationship. Tanner said Dartmouth does not perform top surgeries on minors in New Hampshire and warned the bill’s disciplinary penalties could have chilling effects: “We would have great concerns about prohibiting referrals thereof,” she said.

Detransitioners and parents of those who regret surgery testified in favor of prohibiting elective chest surgery for children. One witness, Prisha Mosley, described undergoing chest surgery as a young adult and later experiencing chronic pain and breastfeeding complications; she told senators her “surgery left me with nerve damage and painful scar tissue.” Other witnesses called the practice a form of irreversible harm and urged the committee to ban cosmetic mastectomies for minors.

Opponents warned HB 712 would impede the ability of adolescents, their parents and clinical teams to make individualized medical decisions. Representative Erica Leon, a co‑sponsor of related language, defended a carefully drafted exception list that supporters say preserves surgery for genuine medical necessity such as symptomatic macromastia or trauma. Critics noted the bill’s referral prohibition language and professional‑discipline penalties and asked for clearer drafting to avoid chilling routine clinical communication and referrals.

Senators repeatedly pressed Dartmouth and the New Hampshire Medical Society on whether any New Hampshire hospitals currently perform top surgery on minors; Dartmouth representatives reiterated that they do not perform top surgeries for minors in the state but said the referral prohibition still raises constitutional and clinical‑practice concerns. Several legislators also asked about private insurance billing data that advocacy groups have cited; committee staff said they would request clearer documentation and that Dartmouth offered to work with staff on technical clarifications.

No committee vote was taken. The hearing underscored a sharp divide among families, clinicians and advocacy organizations: some framed the bill as child‑protection, others as an intrusion into medical judgment and parental decision‑making. Senators asked staff and counsel to review the referral, professional‑discipline, and constitutional issues raised during testimony before advancing the matter.","CONCORD, N.H. — Senators heard deeply divided testimony on House Bill 712, a proposal to restrict elective chest surgeries for minors while allowing limited medical exceptions; supporters said the measure protects minors from irreversible procedures, opponents warned it could interfere with clinical judgment and parental decision‑making.",{"_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},6580827,"’Right to try’ bill draws backing from patients, biotech advocates and legal debate over civil liability",4251,3694000,7945000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc&start=3694&end=7945","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102452-92780f2e0236e6c9468c5e06d3fda1fc/thumbnail_3694000.jpg","/articles/6580827/New-Hampshire/Right-to-try-bill-draws-backing-from-patients-biotech-advocates-and-legal-debate-over-civil-liability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580827-7aa6f6bc4099704cd3c2733f7921b03f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166222&Signature=nLlmNOhx7bxO-fGdbeL5zq-y5rrSXw2Iq2y--~Eoga0LWll51S5b36CmF78yFPY1ZgJYx-Tw1I-UStI5bduyhRsGYCgTIN~c0fmZ4wYWAStYykcSUoBs5KcF906dmLfFxGyot4FdJjTYJbdRryFUWpQQXRBcJUdzuDTcyuJFMOqOsJt65aVlcOmP9XQ5UubiV7BGPc1j-CgQcbe~kBsw-DYcjxCTvW1toX1SPGCtyxTeFa-LpaIMKMPZu7F48h2kAov6mSrv9sK-8K2U-ufh7M~ohsQBjBcRcL5yvJWMXpyvVEcmi11uz9QoUd2axjRdkR0lDvtt4cu7iC2kgMHKmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CONCORD, N.H. — House Bill 701, a proposal to expand so‑called “right to try” access for terminally ill patients, drew a crowded hearing Tuesday in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Sponsor Representative Lisa Mazur described the bill as an effort to make New Hampshire “the best jurisdiction in the country for clinical trials and right to try for people with life‑threatening illnesses,” citing proximity to Boston’s biotech hub and a hope that the state could both save lives and attract clinical innovation.

Mazur said the bill would add three features not widely available in other states: clearer limitations on civil liability where a terminally ill patient consents, legal authority for a prescreening evaluation to be done remotely when the patient is dying, and a direct route to injunctive relief so providers need not wait for an enforcement action before asking a court to protect a patient’s access to treatment. “This will make New Hampshire competitive,” she told the committee.

Supporters at the hearing included patient advocates and national policy groups. Ian Hewitt, counsel for the Christian advocacy group Cornerstone, told senators that risk of civil suits currently deters providers and manufacturers from delivering experimental treatments and argued the bill’s informed‑consent waivers were critical. “Why should those people have to die just to maintain the precedent that civil liability shouldn't be waivable under state law through informed consent?” Hewitt asked.

The Goldwater Institute’s Brian Norman supported the bill’s expansion to allow individualized investigational gene therapies and called it an opportunity for the state to lead in making treatments available for rare and ultra‑rare diseases.

Opponents, including attorney Holly Haynes (representing the plaintiffs bar) and representatives of medical groups, said the bill would go too far in limiting liability and that existing statutes already provide reasonable protections. Haynes said the bill extends immunity beyond what states such as Montana have and warned the proposal risked stripping patients of remedies. She also said the bill could be inconsistent with federal human‑subject rules when individualized treatments and institutional review board oversight are implicated.

Several committee members focused on drafting details. Multiple witnesses and the sponsor described a late‑filed amendment by Senator Murphy that tightened the language on individualized gene‑therapy treatments and clarified that certain requirements apply only to truly individualized treatments performed in approved facilities. Proponents said the amendment fixed a drafting glitch that had inadvertently broadened an earlier draft.

Another practical question: witnesses noted that the state cannot control how other states apply their licensing rules and that telehealth prescreening protections in state law do not immunize out‑of‑state providers from their own licensing authorities. The sponsor and supporters acknowledged that and urged the committee to accept the narrow protections to remove disincentives for providers to offer compassionate access.

No vote was taken. Supporters said they will submit additional written testimony documenting families who waited for access to experimental treatments; opponents said they will file written legal analyses about liability and human‑subjects protections. Committee staff asked for clarification language and the sponsor agreed to circulate the amended language.

The hearing highlighted two recurring tensions: whether narrower legal protections for providers would produce more actual access to treatments for dying patients, and whether the proposals risked eroding long‑standing patient remedies. Both sides told the committee they were motivated by patients’ needs but differed sharply on how much liability reform was acceptable to produce access.","Supporters said House Bill 701 would make New Hampshire a national leader in compassionate access to experimental treatments for terminally ill patients, adding civil‑liability waivers, remote prescreening and an injunctive‑relief path for providers. Opponents warned the reforms could undercut patient protections and conflict with federal rules.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

NH hearing spotlights bill to bar doctors from denying sterilizing care based on age, family status

Debate intensifies over ban on puberty blockers and hormones for minors as Senate hears emotional testimony

Bill to bar elective breast surgeries on minors draws sharply divided testimony in Concord

’Right to try’ bill draws backing from patients, biotech advocates and legal debate over civil liability