Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (10/23/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB59 2024-2961s 00:11:31.600 - 1:39:32 PM	Executive Session	relative to the assault of a firefighter, emergency medical care provider, or law enforcement officer.	Mannion, Dennis(R)[A-]2024
HB109 2024-2950s 00:23:03.760 - 1:51:04 PM	Executive Session	relative to false reports to law enforcement.	Mannion, Dennis(R)[A-]2024
HB191 2024-3027s 00:25:57.120 - 1:53:58 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) providing criminal and civil penalties for the transporting of an unemancipated minor in order to obtain a surgical procedure without parental permission.	Cordelli, Glenn(R)[A-]2024

HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Carson Support00:11:31.600 - 1:39:32 PM; Senator Carson moves for ought to pass on HB59 with amendment 2024-2961s, emphasizing the need to protect first responders who are increasingly in harm's way. He highlights that the amendment adds 'knowingly' to elevate assaults on first responders to a Class A felony, distinguishing it from existing Class B felony provisions for serious bodily injury.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Abbis Support00:11:31.600 - 1:39:32 PM; Senator Abbis seconds the motion and agrees with the amendment, stressing that first responders deserve maximum protection as they consistently put themselves in harm's way. The amendment demonstrates a commitment to their safety.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Atmas Support00:12:58.240 - 1:40:59 PM; Senator Atmas concurs with the discussion, noting the joint amendment and the importance of protecting first responders. She explains that adding 'knowingly' differentiates it from current law, creating a specific Class A felony for assaults on first responders without requiring serious bodily injury.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Ruby Oppose00:12:58.240 - 1:40:59 PM; Senator Ruby agrees with supporting first responders but argues the amendment is redundant, as existing statute (RSA 631:2) already covers knowingly or recklessly causing serious bodily injury as a Class B felony. She believes the public policy is already addressed adequately.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Ala Oppose00:14:07.279 - 1:42:08 PM; Senator Ala reiterates Senator Ruby's concerns about redundancy in Chapter 631, Section 2. She opposes the amendment because it does not differentiate based on whether the officer is on duty or off duty, potentially elevating simple assaults without the perpetrator knowing the victim's status, which could undermine deterrence.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Carson (response) Support00:16:00.000 - 1:44:01 PM; Senator Carson counters that police officers are officers 24/7 and often identify themselves when intervening. He notes that undercover officers follow protocols and that 'knowingly' accounts for mental states, protecting first responders like firefighters and EMTs from attacks. He supports elevating penalties for intentional acts against them.
HB59 2024-2961s: Unidentified Senator Support00:19:38.960 - 1:47:39 PM; The senator clarifies that the amendment applies to off-duty officers targeted due to their employment, making it a Class A felony for bodily injury motivated by their profession, which warrants stronger penalties.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator (possibly Ala or Ruby) Oppose00:19:38.960 - 1:47:39 PM; The senator suggests adding a requirement for the officer to identify themselves, arguing it's unreasonable to elevate the offense without the perpetrator knowing the status, especially off-duty or former officers.
HB59 2024-2961s: Senator Carson (further response) Support00:20:50.799 - 1:48:51 PM; Senator Carson explains that no identification is needed if the attack is motivated by the victim's known status as an officer; the state must prove intent, and the amendment targets those who knowingly harm based on profession.
HB109 2024-2950s: Senator Carson Support00:23:03.760 - 1:51:04 PM; Senator Carson introduces HB109, arguing it promotes truth-telling without chilling genuine reports, as truthful witnesses should stand by their statements. He moves ought to pass with amendment 2024-2950s.
HB109 2024-2950s: Senator Abbis Support00:23:03.760 - 1:51:04 PM; Senator Abbis seconds the motion on the amendment.
HB109 2024-2950s: Unidentified Senators Support00:24:13.600 - 1:52:14 PM; The committee votes 3-2 in favor of the amendment and then unanimously on ought to pass as amended.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Carson Support00:25:57.120 - 1:53:58 PM; Senator Carson moves ought to pass on HB191 with amendment 2024-3027s, which removes the notary requirement for parental written approval. He explains it ensures parental involvement for non-emergency procedures on minors by non-guardians.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Abbis Support00:25:57.120 - 1:53:58 PM; Senator Abbis seconds the motions. He supports removing the notary as unnecessary with written or digital consent, emphasizing clarity on parental support for procedures.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Rig Oppose00:27:17.679 - 1:55:18 PM; Senator Rig criticizes the bill for broadly criminalizing transporting minors for any procedure without permission, including non-abortion cases like wisdom teeth removal, suggesting it should target abortion specifically if that's the intent.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Adams Support00:28:30.559 - 1:56:31 PM; Senator Adams clarifies the bill is not targeting specific procedures but requires parental permission for any non-emergency medical transport of minors by non-guardians, with exceptions for emergencies or taxis. He views it as sound policy.
HB191 2024-3027s: Unidentified Senator Information Only00:29:29.360 - 1:57:30 PM; The senator notes that line 11 of the amendment specifies a Class A misdemeanor for transporting a minor for abortion services without parental consent, referencing existing law on notification.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator (colleague from Salem) Information Only00:30:15.200 - 1:58:16 PM; The senator clarifies that the amendment applies to common carriers like taxi, Uber, Lyft drivers, buses, or trains transporting passengers, as per line 18. He argues the bill reintroduces abortion into the statute and makes it more punitive by including any mode of transportation not driven by the patient, subjecting ride providers to criminal penalties. He questions Senator Gannons on why abortion is being added back into the law.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Gannons Support00:31:43.440 - 1:59:44 PM; Senator Gannons explains that the amendment requires intent to transport for an abortion, so an unaware Uber driver would not be liable. He supports the amendment, emphasizing it clarifies existing laws on minors and abortions, and addresses intentional transport without parental permission or court order.
HB191 2024-3027s: Unidentified Senator Information Only00:31:43.440 - 1:59:44 PM; The senator points out that lines 14 through 22 provide exemptions, suggesting the previous speaker may have misread the section, and the law does not apply to exempted parties.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Carson Oppose00:32:54.960 - 2:00:55 PM; Senator Carson reiterates the question of why line 11 adds back the misdemeanor for intentionally transporting a minor for pregnancy termination, noting prior closure of discussion and the governor's opposition to abortion bills, calling it a 'zombie bill'. She highlights existing laws on judicial notification and bypass, arguing this creates conflict.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator (unidentified, responding to Carson) Support00:33:59.679 - 2:02:00 PM; The senator explains the amendment addresses two issues: existing laws on minors and abortions since 2011, and intentional in-state transport for termination without permission. He references a New Hampshire incident where an adult took a minor for an abortion without permission, clarifying the bill penalizes knowing violation of the law, not abortion per se.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Abvis Support00:36:30.160 - 2:04:31 PM; Senator Abvis notes prior confusion on whether abortion is a surgical procedure and clarifies the bill applies to any surgical procedure for minors without parental or guardian permission. He argues it's inappropriate for others to transport minors to surgery without consent, and the bill doesn't change the court procedure for abortions.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Ruden Oppose00:37:35.599 - 2:05:36 PM; Senator Ruden argues 'intentionally' does not equal 'knowingly' on page nine, and uses a wisdom teeth surgery example where a parent might have someone else drop off or pick up the child without written notes, making the law too broad and open to interpretation. She questions if medical providers or drivers would be criminalized without clear permission.
HB191 2024-3027s: Unidentified Senator (responding to Ruden) Support00:38:30.400 - 2:06:31 PM; The senator counters that digital communications like texts or emails count as written consent, eliminating notary needs, and clarifies permission must be in writing for anyone transporting the minor.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator Carson Information Only00:39:35.839 - 2:07:36 PM; Senator Carson clarifies 'intentionally' is a higher legal standard than 'knowingly', requiring awareness. She shares a personal anecdote about staying with her children during wisdom teeth surgery.
HB191 2024-3027s: Unidentified Senator Information Only00:39:35.839 - 2:07:36 PM; The senator shares that their mom stayed with them during a similar procedure, agreeing on parental involvement.
HB191 2024-3027s: Senator (unidentified) Oppose00:40:55.520 - 2:08:56 PM; The senator debunks a story about a teacher driving a minor for healthcare, noting the Commissioner of Education investigated and found the individual was 18, not a minor. She reiterates opposition to adding abortion back into the statute, citing conflicts with existing Chapter 132 on judicial notification and bypass.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Carson, Sharon(R)[C]2024
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024	Reardon, Tara(D)