Committee Summary for House Judiciary (04/09/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB146 00:33:22.480 - 9:31:58 AM	Public Hearing	relative to medical examiner's certificates and medical certification of the death record.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
SB146 01:38:26.719 - 10:37:02 AM	Executive Session	relative to medical examiner's certificates and medical certification of the death record.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
SB189 03:33:16.080 - 12:31:52 PM	Public Hearing	relative to fetal death records.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
SB263 04:00:09.600 - 12:58:45 PM	Public Hearing	criminalizing and creating a private right of action for the facilitation, encouragement, offer, solicitation, or recommendation of certain acts or actions through a responsive generative communication to a child.	Carson, Sharon(R)[C]2024
Unclear 05:05:25.680 - 2:04:01 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

SB146: Senator Apprentice, District 5 Support00:33:22.480 - 9:31:58 AM; Senator Apprentice introduced Senate Bill 146, which aims to remove the requirement for a cremation certificate before a body can be cremated. He explained that this certificate is a procedural act that involves reviewing the death certificate but is not the death certificate itself. He highlighted his personal experience as a paramedic and deputy medical examiner, emphasizing the low percentage (less than 1%) of cases where the cremation certificate process changes the outcome. He argued that eliminating this requirement would allow medical examiners to focus on more pressing cases, such as unnatural and unexpected natural deaths, and would reduce delays for families and funeral homes awaiting cremation.
SB146: Dr. Jenny Duval, Chief Medical Examiner Support00:43:27.680 - 9:42:03 AM; Dr. Jenny Duval supported the bill but clarified the importance of reviewing death certificates to ensure deaths are appropriately reported. She mentioned that while the physical viewing of the body before issuing a cremation certificate is required by current law, it adds little value compared to reviewing the death certificate alone. She provided an example of a case where reviewing a death certificate led to the discovery of a previously unreported homicide, which would not have been detected by merely viewing the body. Dr. Duval emphasized that the bill's change would help alleviate the workload on medical examiners without compromising the review process.
SB146: Senator Apprentice Information Only00:46:51.040 - 9:45:27 AM; Senator Apprentice clarified the structure of death certificates, explaining that they include a primary cause of death and, if applicable, secondary causes or underlying conditions which are listed on multiple lines. This was in response to a question from Representative Manos about the inclusion of secondary causes on death certificates.
SB146: Representative Turk Information Only00:48:02.640 - 9:46:38 AM; Representative Turk inquired about the low percentage of cases requiring review and whether the possibility of review could encourage more accurate reporting on death certificates, similar to tax audits. The response highlighted the value of reviewing death certificates but noted the impracticality of verifying every certification due to the volume of death certificates issued annually.
SB146: Representative Trip Information Only00:50:22.000 - 9:48:58 AM; Representative Trip questioned the focus of the bill on cremations rather than burials. It was explained that the existing statute mandates the review of death certificates for cremations because it is a final disposition, and currently, 80% of decedents are cremated in New Hampshire.
SB146: Representative Manos Information Only00:51:43.400 - 9:50:19 AM; Representative Manos confirmed the requirement for a certificate from the medical examiner before cremation and discussed the potential for hastening the process by eliminating the physical view of the body, while maintaining the two-day delay requirement for cremation.
SB146: Representative Banos Information Only00:53:01.280 - 9:51:37 AM; Representative Banos inquired about the rationale behind the pre-cremation viewing requirement, established since 2008. It was explained that the view is intended to check for any signs of injury not previously reported, due to the finality of cremation.
SB146: Representative Perez Information Only00:55:08.960 - 9:53:44 AM; Representative Perez asked about the fiscal implications of the bill, noting a potential cost saving for the department by reducing travel time for deputy medical examiners. The response affirmed cost savings and efficiency gains, despite not reducing the need for deputy medical examiners due to other demands on their time.
SB146: Representative McFaren Information Only00:57:58.880 - 9:56:34 AM; Representative McFaren raised concerns about identification and the motivation behind the bill. It was explained that identification is ensured at multiple stages before cremation, and the motivation for the bill is to improve efficiency and serve families better by eliminating an unnecessary step.
SB146: Representative McFarland Information Only01:02:30.079 - 10:01:06 AM; Representative McFarland inquired about the potential for an amendment requiring next of kin to sign off on waiving the viewing. It was noted that next of kin must already authorize cremation, and if no next of kin can be found, the funeral director is authorized to proceed after a certain period.
SB146: Representative Information Only01:05:17.920 - 10:03:53 AM; A representative asked about opposition within the medical examiner's office to the bill and clarified the current law's requirement for viewing the deceased within 24 hours after death. It was explained that this requirement is outdated and often impractical, and the bill seeks to change this.
SB146: Benjamin Agatti, Senior Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire Department of Justice Information Only01:11:13.280 - 10:09:49 AM; Benjamin Agatti, a Senior Assistant Attorney General with nearly 19 years of experience at the New Hampshire Department of Justice, testified on SB146. He clarified that the Department of Justice does not take a position on the bill. Agatti highlighted the bill's potential to address a gap in current law, preventing individuals from benefiting from their crimes. He raised three main concerns for the committee to consider: definitions within the proposed language, protection for ongoing homicide investigations, and the concept of estoppel to ensure probate court findings do not impact future criminal cases. He pointed out specific issues with the term 'interested person' due to its lack of definition, which could lead to ambiguity in who can bring forward actions in probate court. Additionally, he discussed the term 'intentionally kills', explaining that it applies only to purposeful or knowing mental states, excluding reckless or negligent homicides. He also addressed the phrase 'provisional remedies', noting its unfamiliarity in New Hampshire law and suggesting it might need clarification. Agatti concluded by expressing concerns about the potential impact of probate court proceedings on future criminal prosecutions, suggesting careful consideration of these issues by the legislature.
SB146: Representative Smith Information Only01:21:32.480 - 10:20:08 AM; Representative Smith commended Benjamin Agatti for his detailed presentation and confirmed that the Department of Justice did not take a position on the bill. He asked Agatti if he had testified on this bill in the Senate and whether he made the same points. Agatti confirmed his testimony in the Senate, noting that he used different examples and did not discuss provisional remedies due to time constraints.
SB146: Representative Burch Information Only01:22:01.360 - 10:20:37 AM; Representative Burch, a former public defender, thanked Agatti for his service and asked about the ability of parties in probate court to access discovery from investigative or prosecutorial files. Agatti acknowledged the concern, suggesting that protective orders might be used to manage sensitive information but noted the potential for the suspect to access the same information. Burch also raised the issue of a person's Fifth Amendment rights during probate court proceedings and the potential one-sided nature of such hearings, to which Agatti responded that it could place individuals in a difficult position regarding their testimony. Burch further inquired about the possibility of prosecutors indirectly gathering information through probate court actions when unable to bring a case directly, to which Agatti responded that while possible, it was unlikely due to risks of evidence tampering.
SB146: Representative Manos Information Only01:26:08.560 - 10:24:44 AM; Representative Manos questioned the handling of assets by the probate court when no proceedings have been filed, referencing specific lines in the bill. Agatti responded that this issue was addressed in his Senate testimony, pointing out the broad definition of assets that could include real property and other valuables, and the potential burden on the probate court to manage and store these assets.
SB146: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:32:08.480 - 10:30:44 AM; The speaker discusses the need for specific language from the Attorney General's office regarding provisional remedies in the context of the bill. They suggest that while the committee could come up with language, the expertise of the Attorney General's office would be beneficial. They clarify that they are not trying to protect the Department of Justice but emphasize the legislature's responsibility to assess the readiness of the bill.
SB146: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:33:07.840 - 10:31:43 AM; The speaker continues the discussion, expressing a belief that the Attorney General's office could provide informed views on the issues at hand, which would be more beneficial than the committee's best efforts alone. They mention that some committee members have expertise in the area but still see value in input from the Attorney General's office.
SB146: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:34:18.560 - 10:32:54 AM; The speaker compares the situation to another bill, suggesting that it is common for interested parties to propose language changes. They argue for the benefit of having expert input from the Attorney General's office, acknowledging that some committee members have relevant expertise.
SB146: Representative Alexander from Westmoreland Information Only01:35:25.520 - 10:34:01 AM; Representative Alexander suggests forming a small subcommittee to further discuss the bill, potentially with the involvement of the Attorney General's office. This proposal is met with approval from the chair, who agrees to the formation of the subcommittee and appoints Representative Alexander as its chair.
SB146: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:36:34.639 - 10:35:10 AM; The speaker announces the closure of the public hearing on SB148 and discusses the possibility of moving to an executive session for SB146. They seek consensus on this move and receive approval to proceed with the executive session.
SB146: Representative Smith Support01:38:26.719 - 10:37:02 AM; Representative Smith moves for an 'ought to pass' recommendation on SB146, highlighting the expertise of the bill's prime sponsor and the efficiency improvements the bill could bring to the medical examiner's office, funeral homes, and families.
SB146: Representative Perez Information Only01:40:37.679 - 10:39:13 AM; Representative Perez expresses a concern based on personal experience with a case of misidentification at a hospital leading to wrongful cremation. They stress the importance of careful identification procedures to prevent such incidents, though they do not explicitly oppose the bill.
SB146: Representative McFarl Information Only01:42:25.920 - 10:41:01 AM; Representative McFarl expressed concerns similar to those of Representative Perez, particularly focusing on the necessity of amendments to the bill that would limit the requirement for cremation to cases where a family member has viewed the body and confirmed the identity. He questioned the infallibility of medical institutions in identifying the deceased and emphasized the importance of additional verification steps to prevent misidentification. He also discussed the fiscal implications of changing the current process, suggesting that the medical examiner's office should be questioned about potential budget cuts if the process is eliminated.
SB146: Representative Trip Information Only01:48:23.840 - 10:46:59 AM; Representative Trip discussed the issue of identity verification in the context of the bill, expressing uncertainty about the process described and its effectiveness in ensuring correct identification. He also mentioned the potential for errors in medical institutions, referencing a personal experience where a misidentification occurred. He questioned the need for changes to a process that he believes has been working effectively and raised concerns about the financial motives behind the proposed changes.
SB146: Representative McFarland Information Only01:49:31.360 - 10:48:07 AM; Representative McFarland further discussed the implications of the bill, focusing on the role of the medical examiner in verifying identity and the potential for errors in the process. He supported the idea of additional verification steps, such as involving a family member, to ensure accuracy. He also expressed concerns about the fiscal note, questioning why eliminating the process would not reduce the number of people required to work on it. He concluded by suggesting that the finance committee should ask tough questions about the budget implications of the proposed changes.
SB146: Chairman Lynn Information Only01:54:16.520 - 10:52:52 AM; Chairman Lynn managed the discussion and voting process on the bill. He acknowledged the concerns raised by Representatives McFarl and Perez and asked if anyone else wanted to delay the vote to further consider the issues. After confirming that no one objected to proceeding with the vote, he called for a roll call vote on the motion to pass the bill. The vote resulted in 10 yays and 6 nays, and the bill was passed to the regular calendar.
SB189: Tommy O'Neal on behalf of Senator Sue Apprentice Support03:33:16.080 - 12:31:52 PM; Tommy O'Neal introduced SB189 on behalf of Senator Sue Apprentice, explaining that the bill aims to modernize the filing process of fetal death records by moving from paper to electronic submission. This change is intended to improve efficiency and timeliness for families, aligning the process with other death records in New Hampshire that are already filed electronically.
SB189: Kristen Martino, Director of Vital Records Support03:35:18.399 - 12:33:54 PM; Kristen Martino, the Director of Vital Records, provided detailed testimony on SB189. She clarified that the bill focuses on stillbirths and not abortions, and outlined the current paper-based process for filing fetal death reports, which often requires multiple communications with hospitals to complete records. She explained the proposed electronic filing system, which would be integrated into the existing electronic vital records registry system (Nevern Plus). This change would streamline the process, allowing hospitals with maternity wards to file fetal death records directly, reducing delays and improving efficiency. Martino also discussed the low volume of fetal deaths in New Hampshire and the minimal impact expected on hospitals and funeral directors. She concluded by stating there would be no fiscal impact as the system changes are already in place.
SB189: Representative Alexander Information Only03:34:16.560 - 12:32:52 PM; Representative Alexander asked a question regarding the inclusion of abortion statistics in the bill, specifically related to the definition of fetal death. Tommy O'Neal responded that the bill does not include abortion statistics and suggested that Senator Apprentice would be available to answer further questions on this matter.
SB189: Representative McFarland Information Only03:40:49.920 - 12:39:25 PM; Representative McFarland asked about the privacy implications of the electronic filing system proposed in the bill, expressing concerns about hospitals handling electronic records and the potential for disregarding patients' privacy instructions. Kristen Martino responded by explaining that the electronic system is already in place for births and that it does not change the privacy policies currently in effect.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:42:49.439 - 12:41:25 PM; The speaker explained that the current system for filing vital records is already electronic but involves mailing paper forms to the state office for entry into the database. The proposed change would allow the same person who completes the birth worksheet to enter the data directly, streamlining the process without additional staff involvement.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:43:56.880 - 12:42:32 PM; The speaker clarified that the bill aims to refine existing language in the statute regarding the naming of a fetus or baby, noting that the language in question is already in current statute and no new changes are being proposed.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:45:05.359 - 12:43:41 PM; The speaker discussed the existing software used for vital records at the state level, noting that hospitals could access it directly to enter birth records, similar to the current process for birth records.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:45:58.560 - 12:44:34 PM; The speaker explained that data on fetal deaths is collected and used by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC to study maternal health and fetal death statistics, emphasizing that this data is deidentified and used for national health research.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:46:23.920 - 12:44:59 PM; The speaker addressed concerns about the cost and feasibility of modifying the existing software to handle data related to the intentional killing of babies after 20 weeks, estimating a cost of about a million dollars for such changes.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:47:24.399 - 12:46:00 PM; The speaker clarified that the forms used for vital records follow the national standard as required by RSA 5C:5, and the bill seeks to align New Hampshire's form with this standard by adding information currently collected but not included in RSA 5C:75.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:48:27.680 - 12:47:03 PM; The speaker addressed questions about the reporting of fetal deaths, explaining the distinction between a baby born alive and subsequently dying, which would be recorded as a birth and then a death, versus a stillbirth, which is recorded as a fetal death.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:48:58.160 - 12:47:34 PM; The speaker discussed the access and security of the New Hampshire Vital Records Information Network Plus database, noting that access is role-specific and limited, with about 3,000 users statewide. They mentioned that they would need to consult IT staff for detailed answers about penetration testing and security measures.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:52:56.239 - 12:51:32 PM; The speaker explained that the vital records system, known as Nevin, has been operational for years and has recently been updated to a new platform (SQL). They clarified that the bill would expand the user role to allow direct data entry by hospital staff.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:53:54.720 - 12:52:30 PM; The speaker confirmed that town clerks have access to the vital records system to issue certified copies and explained the process and cost for obtaining such copies. They also discussed hypothetical scenarios regarding fetal death reporting, including non-intentional deaths and deaths due to external causes, indicating some uncertainty and the need for further research.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:58:04.000 - 12:56:40 PM; The speaker addressed a question about the choice of 20 weeks as the gestational age for considering a death as a fetal death, noting it aligns with the national standard and is used for reporting to the CDC, but they were unsure of the specific reasons behind this standard.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:58:04.000 - 12:56:40 PM; The testimony of the Unnamed Speaker was not captured in the provided snippet, as they were finishing their speech before the snippet began.
SB263: Well Rich Information Only04:00:09.600 - 12:58:45 PM; Well Rich did not provide substantive testimony in the provided snippet, only stating their name.
SB263: Senator Sharon Carson, representing Senate District 14 (Londonderry, Hudson, Auburn) Support04:04:04.720 - 1:02:40 PM; Senator Sharon Carson introduced Senate Bill 263, which aims to criminalize and create a private right of action for the facilitation, encouragement, offer, solicitation, or recommendation of certain acts or actions through responsive generative communication to a child. She highlighted the current mental health crisis among youth and the exacerbating effect of social media and the internet. The bill seeks to protect children from online threats to their mental health by prosecuting owners of online services, including AI chat programs, that endanger children by promoting harmful behaviors such as sexually explicit content, illegal drug use, self-harm, suicide, or violence against others. The bill was amended in the Senate Judiciary to address concerns from telecommunications providers. Senator Carson emphasized the importance of keeping children safe and hoped for the committee's support of the bill with a recommendation of ought to pass.
SB263: Representative Perez Information Only04:07:19.359 - 1:05:55 PM; Representative Perez asked for clarification on the definition of a child, to which Senator Carson responded that it typically refers to someone under 18 years old.
SB263: Representative Alexander Information Only04:07:48.880 - 1:06:24 PM; Representative Alexander expressed concern about the bill's application to video games, particularly those involving violence and the potential use of AI in future games. Senator Carson explained the bill's focus on chatbots and the intention to prevent encouragement of harmful behaviors, not necessarily to regulate video games directly.
SB263: Representative Smith Information Only04:08:44.680 - 1:07:20 PM; Representative Smith questioned the applicability of the bill to video games and streaming services, as mentioned in the bill's text. Senator Carson clarified that federal law regulates content created by or supplied on behalf of another person, and the bill targets intentional acts outside of federal regulation, emphasizing the problem of chatbots encouraging harmful behaviors in children.
SB263: Representative Tur Information Only04:12:23.600 - 1:10:59 PM; Representative Tur asked about the term 'next friend' used in the bill, to which Senator Carson explained it generally refers to someone with a legal relationship to the child, possibly broader than just a relative but more defined than a casual friend.
SB263: Representative Perez Information Only04:13:38.159 - 1:12:14 PM; Representative Perez sought clarification on the term 'intent' in the bill, confirming with Senator Carson that liability would only apply if harmful actions were done intentionally.
SB263: Representative McFarland Information Only04:14:43.920 - 1:13:19 PM; Representative McFarland inquired about the origin and specifics of the bill's language, particularly the term 'responsive open-ended generative communication.' Senator Carson explained that the language was developed with input from OSI and telecommunications providers, and the bill was amended to address their concerns.
SB263: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:15:56.000 - 1:14:32 PM; The speaker addressed questions regarding the language of the bill, clarifying that the intent is not limited to commercial entities but also includes individuals who might create harmful programs. The discussion highlighted the rapid evolution of AI and the need for protective measures to safeguard children from potential misuse.
SB263: Barb Patch, Merrimack, Director of All Girls Allowed, New Hampshire TrafficFree Coalition Support04:18:23.199 - 1:16:59 PM; Barb Patch expressed strong support for SB263, emphasizing the dangers of AI chatbots to children. She highlighted instances where chatbots have led to harmful outcomes, including encouraging violent behavior and exploiting children for profit. Patch stressed the need for regulation to protect children from inappropriate interactions and urged the committee to pass the bill, providing a fact sheet and a video link to further illustrate the issue.
SB263: Megan Stokes, State Policy Director for the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Oppose04:40:46.798 - 1:39:22 PM; Megan Stokes raised concerns about the broad scope of entities covered under SB263, which could include sales and customer service bots. She argued that the bill's vague language might inadvertently affect minors seeking information on health or education. Stokes highlighted potential First Amendment issues and the possibility of the bill leading to lawsuits against developers, suggesting that it could result in barring minors from accessing services altogether.
SB263: Representative McFarland Information Only04:46:27.680 - 1:45:03 PM; Representative McFarland engaged in a discussion regarding the interpretation of the bill's language, specifically focusing on the phrase 'whose sole purpose' and how it applies to AI entities like bots or LLMs. He sought clarification on whether the intent and sole purpose apply to the AI itself or the corporate entity deploying it, and questioned the implications of the language concerning the programming and intent of AI bots.
SB263: Patrick Hedger, Director of Policy at NetChoice Oppose04:50:33.120 - 1:49:09 PM; Patrick Hedger expressed strong opposition to SB263, arguing that it violates the First Amendment by criminalizing AI-generated speech without direct engagement from minors. He highlighted the potential for the bill to force AI providers to censor adult content or implement age verification, which he sees as a serious infringement on free speech. He also discussed the private right of action the bill creates, suggesting it could lead to frivolous lawsuits against businesses using AI, particularly small businesses, and does not effectively target actual bad actors. Hedger used examples like a restaurant chatbot to illustrate how the bill could wrongly penalize businesses for legal speech.
SB263: Patrick Hedger, Director of Policy at NetChoice Information Only04:50:33.120 - 1:49:09 PM; Patrick Hedger discussed the importance of education as a tool to prevent harmful incidents involving minors online. He emphasized the need for education at both the K-12 level and through public campaigns to encourage parents to utilize existing parental controls and filters available at various levels of the internet stack. He noted that empowering parents, who are on the front line, is crucial. He also mentioned the difficulty in commenting on existing tort law due to not being an attorney but recognized the importance of ongoing litigation.
SB263: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:59:22.400 - 1:57:58 PM; The speaker responded to a question about existing statutory language and laws applicable to the discussed circumstances. They highlighted the gap in legislation, suggesting that new laws should focus more on education to prevent harmful cases, regardless of the technology involved.
SB263: Unidentified Speaker Information Only05:00:18.718 - 1:58:54 PM; The speaker discussed a failed legislative attempt to mandate opt-out protections on computers and iPhones, raising concerns about educating busy parents. They acknowledged the challenge and emphasized the importance of state education efforts about existing tools without infringing on First Amendment rights.
SB263: Unidentified Speaker Information Only05:01:26.638 - 2:00:02 PM; The speaker addressed First Amendment concerns related to previous legislation and the need for state education about online safety tools. They referenced successful legislation in Virginia and Florida that focused on education and curriculum development to help students and parents stay safe online.
SB263: Unidentified Speaker Oppose05:02:19.680 - 2:00:55 PM; The speaker expressed frustration over previous legislation that seemed to prioritize business interests over child protection, indicating a sentiment of opposition to the current focus of the bills.
SB263: Unidentified Speaker Information Only05:02:59.680 - 2:01:35 PM; The speaker discussed age restrictions for AI usage in Australia and the difficulty in applying similar restrictions in the U.S. due to First Amendment rights, as recognized in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:05:25.680 - 2:04:01 PM; The committee chair discussed the scheduling of future executive sessions to review bills, particularly SB263, which is due by May 8th. They proposed potential dates for the executive session, considering the availability of committee members and upcoming hearings. The discussion concluded with a tentative plan to meet on the 23rd for the executive session, with a possibility to adjust based on the progress of next week's hearings.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[A]2024	Peternel, Katy(Clerk)(R)[A]2024	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Smith, Marjorie(D)[CT]2024	Bergeron, Dan(D)	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[CT]2024
Berch, Paul(D)[INC]2022	Turer, Eric(D)[CT]2024	Tripp, Richard(R)[B+]2024
Andrus, Louise(R)[B+]2024	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2024	Perez, Kristine(R)[A]2024
Kuttab, Katelyn(R)[A-]2024	Alexander, Joe(R)[A]2024	McFarlane, Donald(R)
Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2024	Paige, Mark(D)[CT]2024	Morton, Jonathan(R)