N.H. Senate Education Committee hears hours of testimony on House Bill 10, parental-rights bill drawing sharp debate over medical access and student privacy

The New Hampshire Senate Education Committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 10, a proposed "Parental Bill of Rights," drawing more than two hours of testimony from legislators, medical providers, child-welfare officials, teachers and dozens of members of the public.

Proponents told the panel the measure would put long-scattered parental rights into a single statute and give parents clearer, enforceable routes to information about their children’s school experience. Representative Deborah DeSimone, one of the bill’s presenters, said the measure is intended to make it easier for parents to find and exercise rights that now are scattered across statutes and local policies. "Parents deserve transparency. House Bill 10 provides that protection," Representative DeSimone said during her presentation.

Nut graf: Supporters framed HB 10 as an effort to consolidate existing parental rights and standardize school notification practices; opponents, including child-welfare officials, medical societies and civil-rights groups, warned the bill as written would require schools and health-care providers to disclose sensitive information — including medical and behavioral-health records and, critics say, students’ sexual orientation or gender identity — in ways that could endanger vulnerable students, conflict with federal privacy standards and invite legal challenges.

Most important facts: The bill would create a new chapter described in the draft as a parental bill of rights and contains multiple provisions that would (1) require schools and school personnel to respond immediately or within five days to parental inquiries about "any and all matters" relating to a minor child; (2) give parents access to and review of a child’s medical records as the child’s personal representative unless a court order or an ongoing investigation provides otherwise; (3) require written parental consent before health-care practitioners provide services or prescribe medication to a minor, except in emergencies; and (4) allow parents to opt their children out of portions of health instruction, including instruction tied to acquired immune deficiency syndrome and certain sexual-health materials. The House-passed version discussed at the hearing included a housekeeping amendment to correct a printing error in an RSA citation (the sponsors said a reference to RSA 186:11, IX(c) would be removed).

Supporting testimony: Backers including the bill’s House sponsors said HB 10 codifies rights already in place and makes them easier for parents to find in one place. Representative DeSimone described a goal of partnership between families and schools and cited a poll she said showed broad public support for parental authority over school matters.

Opposition and concerns: A broad coalition of witnesses — including the Office of the Child Advocate, the New Hampshire Medical Society, Dartmouth Health, the American Federation of Teachers–New Hampshire, the ACLU of New Hampshire and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England — urged the committee to amend or reject the bill. Key objections included:

- Confidentiality and federal law: Medical witnesses and advocates said the bill’s language could override or confuse federal privacy protections that apply in some care settings. Courtney Tanner of Dartmouth Health and Kathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society, warned that behavioral-health notes, Title X confidentiality for contraceptive care, and 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance-use treatment could be jeopardized or misapplied if the statute is not carefully limited.

- Risk to LGBTQ youth and trusted adults: Students and advocates described situations in which school staff are the trusted adults who help vulnerable youth; testifiers said the bill’s requirement that educators provide "accurate, truthful and complete" disclosure on demand could force staff to out students to parents and would chill student–provider relationships. David Trumbull, speaking for the opposition, said the bill "creates a legal paradigm that gives parents 100% of the rights in this scenario and children get 0% of the rights." Student speakers, including Oliver Bonama and Evan Weaker, described fears that the bill would force disclosure of identity and lead to harm.

- Child-welfare and law-enforcement investigations: Cassandra Sanchez, the state Child Advocate, and her staff cautioned that caregivers, school staff and medical providers sometimes must withhold or limit disclosures while law-enforcement or child-protection investigations proceed. Sanchez said the draft bill does not explicitly reference RSA 169-C (the New Hampshire Child Protection Act) and argued that the measure could impede confidential criminal or child-welfare investigations if school personnel or providers disclose information prematurely.

- Practical burden and vagueness: Teachers’ and school leaders’ witnesses, and some senators on the committee, said the "immediate" response requirement and the phrase "any and all matters" are overly broad and would create unworkable obligations on staff, potentially forcing instant answers when further review is needed.

Medical-practice impacts and penalties: Several medical witnesses flagged a section that would make providing certain care without parental written consent a disciplinary offense and possibly a class A misdemeanor for health-care practitioners. Medical groups warned such penalties could create a chilling effect that discourages providers from offering adolescent services and could delay urgent care (for example, treatment for infections, contraceptive needs and substance-use disorders).

Legal and constitutional context: Witnesses and several committee members discussed recent New Hampshire Supreme Court precedent — witnesses cited a case listed in testimony as Doe v. Manchester School District — and cautioned that the court has recognized limits on absolute parental rights in the school context. David Trumbull and others urged the committee to consider constitutional standards and noted the court’s role in interpreting parental-rights claims.

Committee process and next steps: The hearing drew a large public turnout and extended questioning by senators. Committee members asked detailed, technical questions about HIPAA and other federal protections, how the bill would interact with RSA 461-A (parental rights/responsibilities/family-law provisions) and RSA 169-C, and whether the measure should explicitly carve out or cross-reference those statutes and federal rules. Several witnesses offered to provide written recommendations and statutory cross-references to help craft narrower language. No committee vote or formal action on HB 10 was taken at the hearing; the bill remains under consideration.

Why it matters: The debate centers on a common legislative tension — how to preserve parental involvement and school transparency while protecting student privacy, safety and federally protected confidentiality for certain health services. Education officials, child-welfare advocates and medical providers warned that imprecise drafting could inadvertently reduce access to care and safety for children who depend on confidential school or medical services. Supporters say clearer consolidated rights would restore parental trust and transparency.

Ending: Lawmakers and witnesses asked the committee to consider narrower drafting, cross-reference federal and state confidentiality statutes, and add exceptions or procedures to protect children in the child-welfare and criminal-investigation contexts. Several organizations said they would submit written amendments or legal references to the committee for consideration.