NH State Rep. Susan Almy (D) said, “Well, you don’t get to decide what is Constitutional and I don’t get to decide what is Constitutional, the judiciary decides what is Constitutional.” Translation: It ain’t my job, even when drawing up new laws that YOU are subject to, to consider if it is “legal” or not.
So NH Democrats want to continue to slice away at one of the foundational pillars of life in American – mandating that Parents of a minor child can be ignored in possible or actual cases of HIV.
HB 1404 – AS INTRODUCED
2020 SESSIONAN ACT relative to HIV/AIDS prophylaxis treatment for minors without parental consent and allowing pharmacists to dispense a limited supply of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the human immunodeficiency virus.
SPONSORS: Rep. Muscatel, Graf. 12; Rep. Marsh, Carr. 8; Rep. Knirk, Carr. 3; Rep. Merchant, Sull. 4; Rep. P. Schmidt, Straf. 19; Rep. Weston, Graf. 8; Rep. Kenney, Straf. 6; Rep. Query, Hills. 16
COMMITTEE: Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs
When confronted with one of the world’s worst diseases, these Democrats believe that Parents should be kept in the dark about their child’s condition. Are THEY going to go through the dark times, the hard and expensive times, of dealing with a possible death of a young offspring? Sure, the treatment for AIDS and HIV have come a long way, but nothing is sure in this world. That said, I’m not sure which is worse – a child having HIV or Democrats saying that Parents are totally unnecessary? The right for parents to have the responsibility and authority for the raising of their children is well standing (reformatted, emphasis mine):
The Supreme Court of the United States has traditionally and continuously upheld the principle that parents have the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. A review of cases taking up the issue shows that the Supreme Court has unwaveringly given parental rights the highest respect and protection possible. What follows are some of the examples of the Court’s past protection of parental rights.
In Meyer v. Nebraska,1 the Court invalidated a state law which prohibited foreign language instruction for school children because the law did not “promote” education but rather “arbitrarily and unreasonably” interfered with “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life…” The court chastened the legislature for attempting “materially to interfere with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” This decision clearly affirmed that the Constitution protects the preferences of the parent in education over those of the State. In the same decision, the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized, “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of the individual … to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to his own conscience.”. In 1925, the Supreme Court decided the Pierce v. Society of Sisters6 case, thereby supporting Meyer’s recognition of the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and to control the process of their education.
Parental Authority – every which way you can think of, your Authority to bring up your children according to your precepts are being whittled away, one cut at a time. Mostly by Democrats, Liberals, or adherents to the Politically Correct, Cultural Marxism adages that; you are subject to the Collective. No longer are Individuals, as our Founders held, the sovereigns and not the State; the State was to serve and not to rule.
Doubt me? If your School District has a Gender Dysphoric policy (commonly, Policy JBAB dealing with “Transgender and non-conforming”), this tearing away the authority of parents to oversee their child’s upbringing is there as well. In some school systems, they can bring your female minor child to an abortionist, have that procedure done, bring them back to school, and you are none the wiser.
Until complications set in (and they have in past cases) at which time YOU are the responsible party (once again).
This has to stop, either by legislation or by electing only those that hold to the value that used to be uppermost – that YOU have the responsibility and the authority for your child’s upbringing.
**************
HB1404 text (reformatted a tad, emphasis mine):
HB 1404 – AS INTRODUCED
2020 SESSION
AN ACT relative to HIV/AIDS prophylaxis treatment for minors without parental consent and allowing pharmacists to dispense a limited supply of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the human immunodeficiency virus.
SPONSORS: Rep. Muscatel, Graf. 12; Rep. Marsh, Carr. 8; Rep. Knirk, Carr. 3; Rep. Merchant, Sull. 4; Rep. P. Schmidt, Straf. 19; Rep. Weston, Graf. 8; Rep. Kenney, Straf. 6; Rep. Query, Hills. 16
COMMITTEE: Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs
—————————————————————–
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes physicians and advanced practice registered nurses to examine and provide prophylaxis or treatment for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome for a minor without parental consent under certain circumstances. This bill also authorizes pharmacists to administer up to a 60-day supply of pre-exposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus if certain conditions are met.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
20-2159
01/05
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty
AN ACT relative to HIV/AIDS prophylaxis treatment for minors without parental consent and allowing pharmacists to dispense a limited supply of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the human immunodeficiency virus.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Paragraph; Communicable Disease; Sexually Transmitted Disease. Amend RSA 141-C:18 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:
III.(a) Any licensed physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) may examine and provide prophylaxis or treatment for human immunodeficiency virus infection or acquired immune deficiency syndrome for a minor without knowledge or consent of the parents or guardian of the minor if the minor requests that his or her parents or guardian not be notified and the physician or APRN determines that notification of the parents or guardian of the minor will result in prophylaxis or treatment being denied or the physician or APRN determines that the minor will not seek, pursue, or continue prophylaxis or treatment if the parents or guardian are notified. The physician or APRN shall document that the reasons for the determination to provide prophylaxis or treatment without the consent or notification of the parents or guardian of the minor and shall include such documentation, signed by the minor, in the minor’s clinical record.
Note: Legally, minors can’t sign anything in the legal realm – and this would be if this case were to be brought to court. Minors can’t give consent, legally, to ANYTHING. This would not absolve any medical professional of anything – in fact, if things were to go sideways, I’m betting that the Doctor / ARNP would really be regretting aiding and abetting said minor as the jury is looking at them.
The fact of consultation, examination, and prophylaxis or treatment of a minor under the provisions of this paragraph shall be confidential and shall not be divulged without the minor’s consent, including a bill sent for the services to any person other than the minor until the physician or APRN consults with the minor regarding the procedures for sending a bill. In this paragraph:
(1) “Prophylaxis” means the use of medication to prevent human immunodeficiency virus, but does not include the administration of any vaccine.
(2) “Minor” means any person under the age of 18.
(b) A minor shall be personally liable for all costs and expenses for services afforded the minor at their request under this paragraph.
The above doesn’t even make any sense – who is really going to pay the bill? Most teens don’t have the wherewithal to pay doctor visits, lab tests, and the recurring costs of medications. Is the doctor going to eat the bill? The ARNP? How about the drug store – are they legally obligated to give stuff away to a minor child for free? By this Bill, are the sponsors now creating the situation of dragooning the services and expertise of all those involved for free? There’s a legal word for that – a “taking”. A common term for when a “Power inequity” exists (to user the language of the Left) as in the case of the Legislature vs a doctor to force coerced labor – slavery. I can hear the “tit, tit” of outrage, but hey, I’m not writing the bill.
Parents will be on the short end of the stick – current law and court decisions make it clear that Parents are legally responsible for expenses by their children. And a child cannot sign any legal paperwork – so that makes Medicaid out of bounds. So who gets paid and how?
2 New Section; Pharmacist Administration of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis. Amend RSA 318 by inserting after section 16-d the following new section:
318:16-e Pharmacist Administration of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis.
I. A pharmacist may initiate and furnish HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in accordance with this section. A pharmacist shall furnish at least a 30-day supply, and up to a 60-day supply, of pre-exposure prophylaxis if all of the following conditions are met:
“SHALL” – a very specific meaning with the results of “at the penalty of legal retribution if you don’t”. Er, does this violate any such laws concerting the deliquency of a minor or any other laws on the books along these lines? There’s nothing in this bill that would hold ANY adult blameless in this. Or in the frightful result that full blown AIDS / HIV takes place.
Who has the responsibility then? It’s still the Parents and THEY may have NO idea what is going on. And these Democrats are perfectly fine with that as they are showing that Parents don’t matter any more.
(a) The patient is HIV negative, as documented by a negative HIV test result obtained within the previous 7 days from an HIV antigen/antibody test or antibody-only test or from a rapid, point-of-care fingerstick blood test approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. If the patient does not provide evidence of a negative HIV test in accordance with this paragraph, the pharmacist shall order an HIV test.
Again, who pays? Who does the counselling? Is the pharmacist trained in given such news to a minor child, be it good OR bad?
If the test results are not transmitted directly to the pharmacist, the pharmacist shall verify the test results to the pharmacist’s satisfaction. If the patient tests positive for HIV infection, the pharmacist or person administering the test shall direct the patient to a primary care provider and provide a list of providers and clinics in the region.
In other words, these NH State Reps are now making others complicit in the actions of a minor – there is nothing that absolves them of any blame when Parents figure out that the jig is up and starting suing all those involved. What professional, again I ask, wants to put them into that position when a child’s life may be on the line?
Oh, yeah, the Law will force them into it.
(b) The patient does not report any signs or symptoms of acute HIV infection on a self-reported checklist of acute HIV infection signs and symptoms.
(c) The patient does not report taking any contraindicated medications.
(d) The pharmacist provides counseling to the patient on the ongoing use of pre-exposure prophylaxis, which may include education about side effects, safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding, adherence to recommended dosing, and the importance of timely testing and treatment, as applicable, for HIV, renal function, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy for individuals of child-bearing capacity. The pharmacist shall notify the patient that the patient must be seen by a primary care provider to receive subsequent prescriptions for pre-exposure prophylaxis and that a pharmacist shall not furnish a 60-day supply of pre-exposure prophylaxis to a single patient more than once every 2 years.
(e) The pharmacist documents, to the extent possible, the services provided by the pharmacist in the patient’s record in the record system maintained by the pharmacy. The pharmacist shall maintain records of pre-exposure prophylaxis furnished to each patient.
That will be an interesting time when a data breach happens, won’t it?
(f) The pharmacist does not furnish more than a 60-day supply of pre-exposure prophylaxis to a single patient more than once every 2 years, unless directed otherwise by a prescriber.
(g) The pharmacist notifies the patient’s primary care provider that the pharmacist completed the requirements specified in this section. If the patient does not have a primary care provider, or refuses consent to notify the patient’s primary care provider, the pharmacist shall provide the patient with a list of physicians and surgeons, clinics, or other health care service providers to contact regarding ongoing care for pre-exposure prophylaxis.
II. In this section:
(a) “Pre-exposure prophylaxis” means a fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (300 mg) with emtricitabine (FTC) (200 mg), or another drug or drug combination determined by the board to meet the same clinical eligibility recommendations provided in CDC guidelines.
(b) “CDC guidelines” means the “2017 Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States–2017 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline,” or any subsequent guidelines, published by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
3 New Paragraph; Pharmacy Board; Rulemaking. Amend RSA 318:5-a by inserting after paragraph XX the following new paragraph:
XXI. Procedures and protocols for the administration of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the human immunodeficiency virus, pursuant to RSA 318:16-e.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
This bill should not just be ITL’d (not to be legislated) but laughed / scorned out of the hearing room. The gavel should be brought down good and hard, as quickly as possible, on this bill and scornful rebukes of the sponsors should be mandatory.
(H/T: HSLDA)
