Long hearing on proposed Parental Bill of Rights highlights deep divisions on student privacy and medical consent

Representative John Packard and Representative Deborah DeSimone presented an amended version of House Bill 10, a proposed "parliamentary" parental bill of rights that would consolidate a parents' ability to direct education, medical care, and access to school materials for their minor children.

Packard said the measure "establishes the parental bill of rights" and described it as a response to parents who told him "they are the ones that are responsible for the upbringing of their children. The schools are there to teach them. The parents are the ones that are responsible for their health, their upbringing, putting a roof over their head, feeding them." DeSimone, who helped draft the substitute language, told the committee the amendment "tightened up the language" and was intended to produce a usable statutory framework.

Opposition and major themes

The hearing drew a long line of witnesses who urged the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate (ITL) or to substantially redraft the measure. The comments fell into three main themes:

1) Medical access and confidentiality: Health-care groups, including the New Hampshire Medical Society, warned the bill's written-consent provisions would create barriers to care for minors in sensitive situations. Kathy Stratton, the society's CEO, told the committee the proposed requirement that providers obtain written parental consent before scheduling or providing care could "create delays in treatment and potentially dissuade minors from seeking care, particularly those who may fear for their safety or well-being." She urged an ITL vote.

2) Student safety and privacy: Mental-health and LGBTQ advocates warned the bill could force schools or staff to disclose student-identifying information before a child was ready. David Trumbull and other witnesses cited the New Hampshire Supreme Court's August 2024 decision in Doe v. Manchester School District, which the court used to limit a parent's constitutional claim over student privacy, and argued the bill's use of a strict-scrutiny test and broad "including but not limited to" language would chill teachers' ability to be a confidential resource.

3) Practical consequences for educators and school districts: Teachers' unions and school administrators told the committee the bill's opt-out and review requirements would be administratively burdensome and could discourage teachers from using diverse materials. The American Federation of Teachers, New Hampshire, and the NEA-New Hampshire said the amended language removed criminal penalties but left vague provisions that could still lead to disciplinary exposure for educators.

Notable testimony

Sam Hawkins of NAMI New Hampshire said the organization does not take a position on the bill but urged the committee to add a mechanism for providers to withhold records when disclosure "will result in abuse or neglect," and said the bill's "attempts to encourage or coerce" language could chill helpful adult-child conversations.

Kathy Stratton (New Hampshire Medical Society): "This provision would require parental consent before a physician could even schedule an appointment for a minor. Such a law would create delays in treatment and potentially dissuade minors from seeking care, particularly those who may fear for their safety or well-being."

Attorney Ian Hewitt of Cornerstone told the committee his group opposes a parents' bill of rights that would leave special protections for "secret transitioning" policies unaddressed; he circulated 2023 senate language that he said had passed the Senate and warned that a new statute could make future legal remedies harder to pursue.

Committee reaction and next steps

Multiple legislators suggested the committee could refine the text before executive session; Representative DeSimone and sponsor Packard acknowledged the amendment was a revision of the original and invited further edits. Several committee members asked for legal review on conflicts with federal and state statutes referenced during testimony (for example, statutes governing minors' consent for some health services and the state court precedent discussed in testimony.)

Ending

The committee took extensive testimony and announced the executive session date; no committee vote on HB 10 is recorded in the hearing transcript. Testimony split along lines of parental-control advocates on one side and medical, mental-health, educational and civil-rights groups on the other, with many witnesses urging the committee to either substantially rewrite the bill or vote ITL.