Latest news with #WilliamSkipworth
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
From ivermectin to armed drones, New Hampshire lawmakers take action on a flurry of bills
New Hampshire lawmakers took final action on several bills on Thursday. Here, House members meet during a session in March. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) As New Hampshire's 2025 legislative session nears its end, state lawmakers are working to get some of the remaining pieces of legislation across the finish line — or kill them entirely. The New Hampshire House and Senate convened Thursday to review the bills, which required another vote because they were amended later in the legislative process. These are bills that one chamber approved before the other chamber added an amendment and passed a different version. Now, the chamber where the bill originated must review those amendments to decide whether they agree. Lawmakers had three options. They could accepted the amendment, advancing the bill to Gov. Kelly Ayotte; kill the bill outright, if they disliked the amendment; or aim to hash out their differences by creating a committee of conference, which includes lawmakers from both chambers. Here's a look at some of those votes. In many cases, the chambers simply agreed with the new amendments and decided to approve the bill. These bills will now be reviewed by Ayotte, who will have the option of signing them into law or vetoing them. She could also let them become law without her signature. Here are some of the noteworthy bills from Thursday headed to the governor's desk: AI child pornography: The Senate approved Senate Bill 300 in March, which makes it a felony to create child pornography — or any 'intimate visual representation' of a 'child's intimate parts' — using artificial intelligence or any other technology. It is already illegal to create child pornography using a camera. The House amended the bill to specify that, for it to be a felony, the perpetrator must be creating it 'for the purpose of sexual gratification or sexual arousal.' The Senate agreed Thursday. Drones and high speeds: House Bill 468 originally sought to make it illegal to use a drone in a manner that interferes with law enforcement, emergency response, or human-occupied airplanes or airports. The bill would also make it illegal for civilians to equip drones with weapons or fly them into restricted airspaces. The House approved the bill in February, but the Senate subsequently added an amendment that would make punishments for speeding more severe if the perpetrator drives over 100 mph. The bill would require fines of at least $750 on the first offense and $1,000 for subsequent offenses, and it would temporarily revoke the perpetrator's license. Local tax caps: The House approved House Bill 200 in March, legislation that makes it harder to override a local tax cap. Currently, if voters want to impose a tax cap on their local elected officials — forbidding them from raising taxes above a certain point — they must have a 60% supermajority of votes in favor of the tax cap. If they want to override the tax cap and allow their elected officials to raise taxes above the established threshold, they need only a simple majority. This bill seeks to change that and require a supermajority to override the tax cap as well. When the Senate's turn to consider the bill came, it amended the bill to remove a provision forbidding tax cap override votes from being put on the same ballot used to elect local officials. The House concurred Thursday. Crime reports: House Bill 218 seeks to require police to provide crime reports to the victim for free within 7 days if requested. The House approved it in March. The Senate amended the bill to specify the procedures for how the police should inform victims of their rights to receive crime reports. The House agreed with that amendment Thursday. Both chambers outright rejected several bills over their new amendments and decided against a committee of conference. Here are some of them: Medicaid … and ivermectin: Senate Bill 119 was originally proposed as a Medicaid efficiency program. The bill would've allowed Medicaid to purchase name-brand drugs when they are cheaper than generics, something it has long been prohibited from doing because historically name brands are more expensive. Recent market developments have resulted in some name-brand drugs being cheaper than their generic counterparts, so lawmakers introduced SB 119 to change that and save the state money. The Senate approved it in March. However, when the House took up the bill, a group of Republicans added a provision that would turn ivermectin — the antiparasitic drug that gained notoriety when it was erroneously touted as an effective COVID-19 treatment — into an over-the-counter drug that doesn't require a doctor's prescription. The Senate killed the amended bill Thursday. Horse racing … and vaccines: Senate Bill 60 was introduced to make online horse betting legal. Horse racing is already legal in New Hampshire, but lawmakers in support of this bill said the laws needed to be modernized to account for new digital advancements in gambling and to allow the state lottery commission to properly regulate it. The bill also would've allowed gamblers to deposit money into accounts before they place a bet, rather than paying each individual bet. However, when the House approved it, they added unrelated provisions that would take away the state health commissioner's ability to require that children receive certain vaccines. These provisions were taken from a different bill, House Bill 357, that was approved by the House but rejected by the Senate. The Senate rejected this Thursday. Migrant driver's licenses: The Senate rejected the House's amended version of Senate Bill 13 Thursday. The bill would've made out-of-state driver's licenses issued to immigrants who lack proper documentation invalid in New Hampshire. The Senate approved it in January, but when the House considered it months later, lawmakers added a provision that would've barred state employees from renewing driver's licenses for people with pending asylum claims, regardless of whether they have a previous or current work authorization in the country. The Senate voted this down Thursday and killed the bill.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Hampshire Senate approves $15.9 billion state budget plan
New Hampshire senators debate various aspects of the budget in the State House Thursday, June 5, 2025. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire Senate approved a roughly $15.9 billion two-year state budget Thursday. The Senate passed House Bill 1 — the budget — and House Bill 2 — accompanying legislation that adjusts policy necessary to implement the budget — on votes of 15-9 and 14-10, respectively. Leading up to the second vote, Democrats proposed a series of amendments to remove or curtail Republican priorities, such as the voucher-like education freedom account program, and provide funding for their priorities, such as the renewable energy fund. All the amendments were voted down by the Republican majority. The Senate's budget vote comes two months after the House passed its version of the budget. In April, the Republican-controlled House approved a roughly $15.5 billion budget. The Senate's budget marks a more optimistic outlook and cuts state services less harshly, though it is a far cry from the larger budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte requested. The House, pessimistic about how much revenue the state would receive from business tax revenues, made heavy reductions to state services. That includes entirely eliminating the Office of the Child Advocate, the Housing Appeals Board, the Commission for Human Rights, and the State Commission on Aging. In their budget, the Senate, which was slightly more bullish about tax revenues, restored those agencies, but reduced them to save money. For example, the House had laid off the entirety of the Office of Child Advocate's staff of nine; the Senate restored the office, but eliminated four positions. The Senate also rolled back the House's layoffs in the Department of Corrections from 190 positions to 60 civilian positions, many of which are currently vacant. It also set aside more money to a settlement fund created in response to a massive abuse scandal at the state-run Youth Development Center, in which courts are compelling them to pay settlements to victims. The Senate also reversed a 3% cut to Medicaid reimbursement rates made by the House. However, there were some places where the Senate cut more deeply than the House, such as special education in public schools and $32 million of general 'back of the budget' cuts that gives Ayotte's administration the flexibility to decide where to cut. The House and Senate are now set to enter a process called committees of conference, in which they'll hash out the differences between their two budget proposals. They'll have two weeks to merge their budget proposals into one before their deadline to send a budget to Ayotte's desk. Ayotte, the state's Republican governor, will then have the choice of whether to sign, veto, or allow the budget to pass without her signature.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH House passes mandatory minimums for fentanyl possession and reduces punishments for shrooms
The New Hampshire House of Representatives debates bills during a voting session in the State House Thursday afternoon. Earlier Thursday, they approved Senate Bill 14, which institutes mandatory minimums for fentanyl possession. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted, 214-167, Thursday to pass Senate Bill 14, which creates mandatory minimums for fentanyl possession and reduces the penalty for people caught with psilocybin mushrooms. If enacted, SB 14 would create mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted on fentanyl charges. That includes manufacturing, selling, transporting, or possessing the drug with the intent to sell. People convicted with 20 grams or more of the drug would face at least 3½ years in prison under the bill. People convicted with 50 or more grams would face no less than seven years. There is currently no minimum sentence under state law, which gives judges leeway to decide. There is, however, a maximum of 30 years on the first offense and life imprisonment for repeat offenders. The bill was previously approved by the Senate in February. 'The people asked us for law and order,' Rep. Terry Roy, a Deerfield Republican, said on the House floor. 'Let's give them law and order.' One Republican lawmaker doubted the bill's minimums would actually be impactful. 'Twenty grams plus of fentanyl possession is almost certainly gonna be prosecuted as a federal crime,' Rep. Kevin Verville, a Deerfield Republican, said. 'The odds of the state actually using this bill when it becomes law is infinitesimally small in my opinion.' The representative characterized the mandatory minimums as something being done for show. 'You can campaign on law and order on this,' Verville said. 'In my opinion, that's what this is.' However, the bill was amended on the House floor to add a provision that aligns with one of Verville's biggest priorities as a legislator. That provision reduces the penalty for possession of psilocybin, a psychedelic drug commonly known as magic mushrooms or shrooms. Under the amended bill, possession or use of less than three-quarters of an ounce of psilocybin would be a misdemeanor on first offense as opposed to a felony, which is currently state law under the Controlled Drug Act. Verville is the sponsor of another bill, House Bill 528, that would reduce the penalty to a simple violation. Verville and his colleagues have argued it's less dangerous than other harder drugs and that it has medicinal benefits such as treatment for PTSD or migraines. HB 528 was approved by the House in March. Verville is a vocal proponent of fully legalizing psilocybin, though he has acknowledged he doesn't believe he can convince enough of his colleagues of that, so he settled for this measure. Verville urged his colleagues to approve SB 14. 'What this bill now has in it is it has real psychedelic reform for the citizens of New Hampshire,' he said. 'Compounds that help people beat alcoholism, opioid addiction, other drug addiction, depression, post-traumatic stress syndrome.' Verville said SB 14 'finally ends a felony charge for simple possession for a small amount of psilocybin,' which he called 'an excellent trade.' He also argued that the minimum sentences outlined by the bill were 'fairly short.' 'The benefit of the psilocybin far outweighs — far outweighs — any mandatory minimums,' he said. 'I'm begging you.' Eight Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, while six Republicans bucked their party to vote against it. Most Democrats were opposed to the legislation. 'I want to be clear, SB 14, like several other bills, is not about crime,' Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright, a Nashua Democrat, said. Harriott-Gathright pointed out that fentanyl possession is already illegal and punished severely by law. She, and many of her Democratic colleagues, argued that mandatory minimums were ineffective at hindering crime. 'The question before us today is whether we think adopting mandatory minimums and maximums, an outdated one-size-fits-all solution, is going to be an effective use of taxpayer dollars to address the many substance issues in our state,' she continued. 'The bottom line is that our country has already tried that approach. … We all know that it has failed.' She said the bill 'robs judges of their ability to fully consider all relevant facts and circumstances and 'undermines basic principles of justice.' She also argued the psilocybin provision was 'likely to vanish in committee of conference,' the process where House and Senate members negotiate the differences between their bills. Because the bill was amended by the House, it will return to the Senate to be reconsidered. The Senate can now either accept the amendment, enter the committee of conference process to hash out its differences with the House, or reject the bill outright. Enacting the mandatory minimums has been a priority for Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who publicly called on lawmakers to bring the legislation to her desk. A similar bill, Senate Bill 15, would've created even harsher minimum sentences for cases where a death was involved. It would've created a minimum sentence of 10 years for people who illegally manufactured, sold, or dispensed fentanyl that resulted in someone dying. The Senate approved that bill the same day as SB 14 in February. However, that bill was retained in committee and has not yet been considered by the full House.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
What to know about the House and Senate parental rights bills
House Speaker Sherman Packard (center) is expected to bring forward a floor amendment to SB 72 on Thursday. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) Thursday brings a major deadline: the final day in which the House and Senate can pass remaining legislation. And Republicans in both chambers will be pushing to achieve a long-sought priority and finally approve a 'parental bill of rights.' In past years, those votes have failed, often defeated by a handful of votes in the House. This week, the House and the Senate are considering two separate bills: House Bill 10 and Senate Bill 72. Each looks slightly different from past versions. Here's what to know. What are the bills intended to do? Supporters of the bills say they are meant to give parents a toolkit to assert control over their child's education in public schools. The laws outline a number of rights the parents have over that education. Many of those rights already exist in law, such as the right for a parent to choose whether to send their child to a charter school, private school, or to home school them; to learn about school disciplinary procedures and class curriculum; to opt their child out of sex education courses by providing alternative instruction; to receive a report card; to review medical records; and to exempt their child from immunization with a doctor's note or because of religious beliefs. Other provisions of the bills would be new. School boards would be required to develop policies to promote parental involvement in school around homework, attendance, and discipline. They would also be required to pass policies making it easy for parents to examine instructional materials and to withdraw their child from any lesson or material being taught. And the bills would clarify in law that 'no school may infringe on the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of his or her minor child.' But the legislation has inspired fierce pushback from teachers and LGBTQ groups, who say it puts too many burdens on teachers and staff, and that it could force them to divulge to parents details about students' sexual orientation or gender identity against the students' will. Do this year's bills require teachers to tell parents about a student's sexual orientation or gender identity? Unlike past attempts at a parental bill of rights, this year's bills do not explicitly require school staff and teachers to divulge to inquiring parents details about their child's sexual orientation or gender identity. Some bills in the past have included that explicit language, sparking opposition from LGBTQ rights groups and driving some Republicans to vote against them on the House floor. But this year's versions of the legislation do include a catch-all phrase that opponents argue achieves a similar result. Language in a floor amendment to SB 72 expected to be brought forward by House Speaker Sherman Packard Thursday provides parents the right to 'inquire of the school or school personnel and promptly receive accurate, truthful, and complete disclosure regarding any and all matters related to their minor child, unless an immediate answer cannot be provided when the initial request is made.' If an immediate answer is not available, the school employee must provide one within 10 business days. The bill provides an exception to providing the information if there is a 'compelling state interest' against doing so, and it defines that interest as 'an actual and objectively reasonable belief, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the infringement upon parental rights is necessary to prevent the child from being abused,' under the state's abuse laws. HB 10 includes similar language. Republicans say the requirement is necessary to prevent teachers from withholding information from parents and to allow parents full information about their children. Democrats and LGBTQ advocates say the requirement that the disclosure 'complete' could be difficult to follow, and that the standard that must be met to constitute a fear of abuse, 'clear and convincing,' is too high to meet in most situations. How would the bills affect health care services for students? While Republicans broadly support the parental bill of rights, they have disagreed over one key area: medical care for students. A version of SB 72 recommended by the House Children and Family Law Committee would have included language requiring parents to consent in writing before any biometric scans are conducted by a medical provider on a child, or before any DNA or blood is drawn. That version would also give parents the right 'to make health care decisions unless otherwise provided by law' and 'to be physically present at any health care facility providing care.' However, Democrats and advocates had raised concerns that the medical provisions would violate teenagers' health care and reproductive rights by impeding their ability to receive birth control and pre- and post-natal care without getting parental permission. And House Republican leadership appears aware: The floor amendment from Packard expected to be introduced on Thursday would strike those parental medical rights from the final bill. Meanwhile, both of this year's House and Senate versions of the bills include language to protect confidential conversations between children and counselors. Both bills protect school counselors, psychologists, nurses, or other health care providers from being required to disclose information about children to parents that 'was reasonably expected to be privileged.' What could be the consequences of noncompliance for schools or teachers? Past parental bill of rights legislation has made teachers personally accountable for failing to follow the law, in some cases opening teachers up to litigation or potential disciplinary action by the State Board of Education against their license. But this year, the House and Senate bills do not include direct consequences for teachers. The bills do provide that a parent who claims a violation may sue the school district for injunctive relief or for damages. What should be expected on Thursday? In their current versions, the two bills up for a vote Thursday — HB 10 in the Senate and SB 72 in the House — are largely identical. Both bills include parental rights over medical care that have attracted debate. But Packard's floor amendment, which removes those medical rights, would make SB 72 more moderate, and potentially more palatable for Gov. Kelly Ayotte to sign. Should the House Republican caucus vote to pass that floor amendment, as well as the underlying bill, SB 72 would return to the Senate, which would decide next week whether to accept the moderating changes and send the bill to Ayotte. But if conservative-leaning House Republicans join with Democrats to reject the floor amendment, SB 72 and HB 10 could head to the governor's office in their most robust form yet.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill allowing trans people to be kept out of bathrooms, locker rooms heads to NH governor's desk
Supporters of transgender rights gather at the Legislative Office Building in Concord on Feb. 19, 2025. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) A bill that would eliminate certain transgender protections established by a 2018 anti-discrimination law in New Hampshire was approved by the state Senate Thursday and now heads to Gov. Kelly Ayotte's desk. If it becomes law, House Bill 148, which was sponsored by Wilton Republican Rep. Jim Kofalt, will allow businesses and organizations in New Hampshire to classify certain services, such as locker rooms and restrooms, by biological sex. It would also permit schools and organized sports teams in the state to keep transgender athletes off teams that are consistent with their gender identity. It would allow prisons, mental health facilities, and juvenile detention centers to place transgender people with members of their at-birth sex even if they ask to be placed according to the gender they identify with. The bill doesn't require any of these things, but it allows whoever owns the restrooms, administers the sports teams, or runs the prison to do so without facing discrimination charges. This reverses parts of 2018's Law Against Discrimination, which was enacted to protect people from discrimination on the basis of 'age, sex, gender identity, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, or national origin.' The Senate passed the bill, 16-8, along party lines Thursday, with all Republicans voting yes and all Democrats voting no. The House passed the legislation, 201-166, in March. Only two Democratic House members, Reps. Jonah Wheeler and Peter Leishman, both of Peterborough, voted in favor. Ayotte will now have the option to sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without her signature. Her predecessor, former Gov. Chris Sununu, was given the same options in 2024 when the House and Senate approved House Bill 396. This year's bill, HB 148, is a word-for-word copy of last year's HB 396. Sununu ultimately vetoed the bill, calling it 'unacceptable,' and saying it 'runs contrary to New Hampshire's Live Free or Die spirit' and 'seeks to solve problems that have not presented themselves,' per his veto message. LGBTQ+ rights supporters sang outside the State House restrooms in protest of the bill during the Senate session Thursday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
