Medical Industry and NC Legislators Collude to Give Pharma Direct Access to Our Children
Medical Industry and NC Legislators Collude to Give Pharma Direct Access to Our Children
by HEALNC
Last month, we wrote about NC having one of the most dangerous minor consent laws in the country. Attorneys see this law as a ticking time bomb because the schools and large medical centers are beginning to take advantage of this open-ended law. In fact, many children are being harmed – and all of our children are at risk.
The following article outlines our experience in working to overturn this concerning law and how the medical industry is using two Republican legislators to increase pharma's direct access to our children.
In June, the NC Health Coalition met with some legislators we had identified as those who would be receptive to our concerns. Our hope was that these legislators would embrace a common sense approach to removing a dangerous loophole in the Parent's Bill of Rights. That loophole allows a child of any age to consent to medical treatment. However, almost immediately, we sensed an undertow of resistance to our suggested remedy, even though it is backed by medical facts and current research.
Our concern focused on what sounded like influence from external forces that superseded parental rights and overrode the welfare of children, possibly that of the medical industrial complex.
Meeting Summary
In mid-May, members of the Coalition held a briefing with some of our most trusted legislators to discuss the loophole in The Parents' Bill of Rights (PBR). We knew they had voted for the PBR. However, we were uncertain that they were aware of the loophole that contained a little-known NC law allowing children ages 0-17 to consent to vaccines and other controversial therapies.
They were shocked to learn that the medical part of the bill, on which they worked so hard, had become useless. To date, no one has been able to determine how this carve-out (being called a loophole) was left in the bill. But these legislators immediately went into action to have it removed.
Amending the bill was going to be a relatively simple process, which required a vote by committee chairs. Initially, it seemed to be working as most legislators were in favor of the fix. Then we learned that Rep. Dr. Kristin Baker, a chair of the health committee and child psychiatrist, acted behind the scenes (the public doesn’t have access to this process) to stop the bill from being corrected.
Immediately, physicians and other leadership of the NC Health Coalition, including the Policy Director of North Carolina Physicians for Freedom (NCPFF) Dianna Lightfoot, scheduled a meeting with Rep. Baker to weigh in and secure her support for correcting the bill.
The day of the meeting, we learned that Rep. Baker had also invited a freshman legislator, Rep. Dr. Tim Reeder, even though he is not a chair on the health committee.
Rep. Dr. Reeder’s Position on Child/Minor Consent
We were concerned because Dr. Reeder, a Pitt County Republican Representative, has strong connections within the medical establishment that are opposed to parental consent on many critical health issues. Reeder is the former president of the board of the NC Medical Society, and is currently serving as the past-president of the NC Medical Society Foundation. The Foundation is the legislative advocacy arm of the Medical Society, meaning they work to influence the law.
The NC Medical Society website boasts a resolution in support of minors consenting to “certain medical health services” which, interestingly, is almost verbatim the same as a core section of NC's troubling law:
The N.C. Medical Society has made significant donations to Dr. Reeder, contributing over $300,000 in support of his campaign. Of course, the general public would assume that the Medical Society advocates and supports best practices regarding the health and well-being of NC children and families. They have access to the same current data, research (and common sense) NCPFF used to confirm that a minor’s brain development renders them unable to provide true informed consent.
Parental involvement is essential to a child's growth and development according to multiple studies, including the “Cass Review,” as well as recommendations on protecting the health of children from the American College of Pediatricians and Doctors Protecting Children. But it appears from our conversation with Dr. Reeder, that in many cases, he supports child autonomy over parental guidance.
Rep. Reeder is a physician at Eastern Carolina University's Brody School of Medicine, and as a candidate, he denied to voters the existence of ECU's pediatric LGBTQ+ Clinic. In reality, the clinic advertises gender affirming care for ages 4 and older. They clearly reported the services in their newspaper, The East Carolinian.
NC Health Coalition’s Meeting with Rep. Drs. Baker and Reeder
Dianna Lightfoot, Director of NC Physicians For Freedom (NCPFF), arranged and led the meeting that included physicians and leaders of other state-based organizations. She has a long career in health policy. Prior to joining NCPFF, she was a White House appointee as Senior Policy Advisor for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Global Health. Other experts at the meeting included two physicians and a nurse.
Meeting Summary According to One of the Attendees
The Coalition had requested the meeting with Dr. Kristen Baker because we understood that she was the key to correcting this loophole. Several physicians and I were granted that meeting.
Just before the meeting began, Rep. Baker said she had invited Dr. Reeder. The meeting began with the Coalition stating our reason for requesting the meeting, and that each organization represented strongly supported the Parent's Bill of Rights. We emphasized our collective position is that it is a parent’s right and responsibility to protect the health and well-being of their children. Unfortunately, after the PBR passed, we learned that a loophole in the bill largely negated the bill’s purpose. In fact, it violates the rights of parents to protect the health and well-being of their children.
Initially, Doctors Reeder and Baker focused the conversation on parental access to a child’s electronic medical records; we agreed that was part of the larger problem. That is, that parents are being blocked from providing critical information and decision-making control regarding their children's health. Equally dangerous is the fact that parents are also blocked from access to their child's medical records, including treatments and prescriptions.
Dr. Baker said, "Oh, we've had many groups here expressing concerns about this from every end of the spectrum, we even met with a group that thought parents should have no right to provide healthcare input at all! Then there are others who were concerned about specific aspects of the law."
We continued reiterating our concern that this loophole violates the Constitutional rights of parents to protect their children. It also violates the tenants of true informed consent, and it creates barriers of mistrust and dishonesty between doctors and parents, creating a truly unhealthy environment for families.
Our medical team pointed out the medically accurate, scientifically provable facts about the brain development of children. One of those facts is a child's lack of understanding about long-term consequences and that they certainly do not understand clinical terms and information. Allowing a child to make those decisions is, on its face, very wrong and unhealthy.They argued for an age “continuum for more mature children” who should be allowed to consent to prescriptions and medical treatments (that could impact their long-term health). When asked who had the knowledge and ability to make such arbitrary decisions about someone else's child, there was no reply.They would not acknowledge that at the bare minimum, 18 is the age of consent for almost everything country-wide (voting, purchasing alcohol, even tattooing). Instead, Dr. Reeder asserted that many states were bringing down the age of consent for issues like contraception, STD treatment, and emotional disturbance. One of our experts corrected Dr. Reeder, explaining that many states are in fact revising minor consent laws after seeing the negative consequences, including new data and research (cited above) proving that it is illogical, irrational and dangerous to suggest a child can provide true informed consent.Furthermore, there is increasing concern from the medical community about the growing number of lawsuits resulting from psychological and physical damage done to children who have received prescriptions such as anti-anxiety medications and contraceptives without parental knowledge. We noted that as physicians, they must know that all anti-depressants carry a Black Box warning (can cause suicidal ideation for those under 18 ). Again, there was no reply. In fact, much of our conversation at that point was steered toward contraception and STD treatment.Every time we brought up concerns and issues with similar laws in other states, Dr. Baker continued to refer to Dr. Reeder as the person who would be the expert on that. "He would know more about that than I do," she said repeatedly.Hiding prescriptions and treatment for STD's and pregnancy prevention are of great concern to the Coalition. However, of greater concern is the Grand Canyon loophole of emotional disturbance--this term can include anything. However, when that giant void for parental knowledge and consent was discussed, there was no argument from either doctors Reeder or Baker that we could consider medically logical or factual.These representatives' focus was also on child abuse. Our response: the Parental Bill of Rights should not be about potential child abuse by parents or adult guardians. There are already strong laws which exist to protect children from abuse. Most parents are not abusive, and focusing on extreme cases makes for bad law and policy. Regardless, potential abuse seemed to be their main reason for refusing rights to most North Carolina parents.In this atmosphere of clearly differing positions, Dr. Baker said they were willing to continue the conversation and that they appreciated how many groups were concerned about this. The Coalition responded by asking if there is this much concern among so many groups, including medical experts, why are we this close to the end of the session with no definitive response or correction? Unfortunately, that was the end of the meeting.
The 2024 session is coming to a close, and thanks to Drs. Reeder and Baker, there has been no progress in eliminating this harmful law. We are working on a bill to overturn the law in the 2025 session, which starts in late January.
The medical industrial complex, with the help of the NC Medical Society and Dr. Reeder, is a formidable opponent. However, there is power in numbers! We all need to work together to educate the public and our many friendly legislators that this issue is critical.