Sponsor frames breast‑reduction measure as clarifying option for minors; lawmakers press for clinical detail

Sen. Tara Reardon told the House Health Committee SB 520 responds to constituent testimony describing how an elective breast‑reduction in adolescence transformed a life. Reardon said the bill would add statutory language to allow a minor, in consultation with a primary care physician and parent, to elect a breast‑reduction procedure in narrowly defined circumstances.

Committee members asked whether current RSA exceptions for symptomatic macromastia and gynecomastia already address the case Reardon described. Representative Mazur and others noted statutory definitions of macromastia include physical symptoms such as headaches and neck or shoulder pain; Reardon said her constituent lacked some classic symptomatic findings and that physicians had at times been reluctant to proceed without clearer statutory language.

Clinical witnesses, including former surgeon and oversight board members, said macromastia can cause measurable physical and psychological harms; they recommended hearing from practicing plastic surgeons and psychiatrists to ensure providers and teams understand how to apply any new language. Witnesses emphasized the difference between breast reduction (removing tissue to reduce volume) and mastectomy (removing the breast), and cautioned the statute should avoid enabling complete removal of breast tissue absent clear clinical indication.

Opponents at the public microphone, including Beth Skaer, raised concerns that earlier bill drafts would have allowed mastectomies for minors masquerading as reduction procedures and urged caution on scope and safeguards.

The public hearing closed without a committee vote. Lawmakers requested further clinical input and clarification about definitions, diagnosis thresholds and how the bill would interact with the statute passed last year.