Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parental Consent Medical Transport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor frames HB 191 as parental‑rights measure; hospitals and coaches warn of unintended consequences
Summary
HB 191 would require written, notarized parental consent before an unemancipated minor may be transported by a nonparent for a surgical procedure. Sponsors invoked longstanding parental rights precedents; hospitals and community volunteers raised timing and liability concerns.
Sponsor Representative Glenn Cordelli said HB 191 is “basically a parents rights bill” that would require written parental consent before a nonparent transports an unemancipated minor for a surgical procedure. He cited Meyer v. Nebraska and other due‑process precedents as grounding parental authority to direct a child’s upbringing.
Witnesses raised practical concerns. Kristen Martino (previous hearing) had testified earlier about marriage forms; at this hearing the Hospital Association (Ben Bradley) said it supports parental rights but warned that a notarized‑consent requirement could impede timely emergency or urgent care and create liability or ambiguity for community volunteers, coaches and first responders. Bradley gave the example of a youth coach who may need to transport an injured player for urgent care when a parent is not immediately available; he asked the committee to consider removing a notarization requirement or otherwise preserving flexibility for emergency situations.
Senators questioned technical drafting points: the bill uses the term “surgical procedure” without a statutory definition and sponsors acknowledged they had relied on an AMA definition outside New Hampshire law. Committee members also asked how stepparents, foster parents and temporary guardians would be treated, and whether a foster parent who transported a minor while the child was in their care would retain standing to bring a civil action later.
Representative Cordelli said the bill includes exceptions for ambulance drivers, common carriers, parents and guardians. Hospital association counsel recommended an expedited review and suggested the committee consider an “ITL” or additional drafting time to reconcile consent exceptions and to avoid chilling emergency medical transports.
Ending: The hearing closed with requests for drafting clarifications. Committee members suggested working with the Hospital Association and other stakeholders to clarify definitions, exceptions for emergency care and the intended scope of civil liability.
