The House Health Finance and Policy committee met on Jan. 25 for a nearly five hour meeting on House File 1930: End of Life Options Act. You can review notes from that meeting below.

House File 1930: Freiberg – “End-of-life options established for terminally ill adults” 

00:29 – Introductory remarks by the Chair. 

Bill Author is Rep. Mike Freiberg (43B)

Co-author Rep. Heather Edelson (50A) 

House Health Finance and Policy Committee is called to order by Committee Chair – quorum is present

• Emotional issue. “There are strong feelings on all sides.”
• Bill would be re-referred to the House Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy. 
• Chair moves motion passing a DE amendment – amendment is adopted
• Chair moves author’s A2 amendment – technical amendment to the DE1-1 amendment – amendment is adopted

02:55 – Presentation of HF1930 and the delete-all amendment, and sponsor’s testifiers. 

Rep. Freiberg presents HF 1930

• “Before you is the End-of-Life Options Act. This is a bill that emphasizes personal autonomy at the end-of-life. I’ve heard very difficult stories from so many Minnesotans and some have dealt with loved ones dealing with unimaginable suffering. Some have terminal diseases themselves and want an option to end their suffering themselves when it becomes unbearable. This bill will give them that option.” 
• “The Delete All amendment is the product of nine years of feedback from Minnesota stakeholders, experience from other US states, and research findings. So my intent is to balance the urgent need of dying Minnesotans and their families with legal and medical parameters that protect patients and providers.”
• “The main criteria for medical aid in dying have remained unchanged since I first introduced the bill in 2015. So to qualify for medical aid in dying, a person must be an adult. Meaning they’re 18 years of age or older. They must be diagnosed with a terminal illness with the prognosis of 6 months or less to live. And they are eligible for hospice.”
• “They have to have the mental capacity to make healthcare decisions and provide informed consent. And they have to have the ability to self-administer medication. Injections and infusions are prohibited.”
• “Additionally, two providers of at least one of whom should be a physician, one may be a nurse practitioner, must evaluate the patient and agree that they meet the qualifications. Both providers have to confirm that the patient is acting of their own volition and not subject to coercion. They have to inform the patient of all feasible end-of-life care options, including hospice and symptom management. They have to provide a referral to hospice if indicated. They have to explain all the risks and benefits, and they have to offer the patient the option to rescind the request at any time. Both providers must document the request in the medical record and the attending provider must submit a request form signed by the patient and witnessed by a disinterested party.”
• Medical aid in dying is patient-requested so the new bill language in the Delete All amendment you just adopted emphasized that people do not qualify if they are subject to guardianship or conservatorship. It emphasizes that no individual  is qualified solely because of an advanced age or disability, and a request may not be made by a guardian, conservator, surrogate, decision-maker, or healthcare proxy.”
• “Additional protections for providers are included in the revised bill. Healthcare providers have no duty to participate. Protections for patients are included in the revised bill. Criminal penalties are established for coercion.”

Testifier 1: Nancy Uden

Diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme (an aggressive form of malignant brain cancer)

Lives in Corcoran, MN 

• Was in a car accident on Nov. 30, 2022 caused by a seizure 
• “I had no history or seizures and I don’t remember anything from the accident and waking up at North Memorial Hospital.” 
• Discovered she had a brain mass and she asked to be referred to Mayo Clinic
• Was diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme. 
• “This is the most aggressive terminal brain cancer. Even with standard treatment care. It has a very grim prognosis with a median survival of 15 months.”
• “My family and I have endured brain surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and I currently use the Optum device, 99% of the time, to target cancer cells. But this is all treatment, it is not a cure.”
• “I promised my family I would fight this ugly disease until there’s no hope left and my death is inevitable. So if there are no more treatment options then I deserve more death options.” 
• “I’m not afraid of death, but I am afraid of how I will die. I walked my brother and my mother to the end of their lives over the past few years. They both died beautiful, painless deaths and that’s what I want. I had no choice over the cause of my death and currently I have no choice over the slow and painful death most glioblastoma patients endure. Our organs will slowly shut down and experience seizures, painful headaches, delirium, blindness, paralysis, and others.”
• “While I’ve always supported the idea of dying on one’s own terms, it is now very real and urgent to me personally. I don’t have time for long debates. This bill has been in front of the Minnesota Legislature for ten years already. It’s time to act.”
• “As I imagine the end of my life, I would like to be able to say my goodbyes and go peacefully. I’m thankful that we have hospice as an option and I will use it for maximum comfort. But if it is not enough in the end I want the option to die gently in my sleep just as my mother and brother did. I want to be surrounded by my lovely family and, not only do they want me to have the choices at the end of my life but they also want to have choices at the end of their life too.”
• “As a terminally ill patient, I beg you to do something now to provide compassionate choices to those who qualify. The ability to end their life peacefully and painlessly surrounded by their loved ones. The safeguards of this bill are significant. There have been zero reports of abuse in the ten states and Washington, D.C. where this law has passed. And with that argument resolved, this should be a personal decision.”
• “The Minnesota Legislature has made bodily autonomy a priority. Well this is the final act of autonomy that any of us will have.” 

Testifier #2: Dr. Cory Carroll 

MD & Board-Certified Family Physician, practices in Fort Collins, CO and part-time Medical Director for Compassionate Choices, an organization aimed at mentoring and supporting doctors across the country wanting to incorporate “medical aid in dying” into their clinical practices  

• “In 2016, the Colorado Medical Society withdrew its opposition to medical aid in dying, that was adopted back in the 70s, in favor of a position of engaged neutrality that respects diverse views. The Minnesota Medical Society adopted a similar policy of engaged neutrality in 2017. The intent of these changes was to protect the doctor-patient relationship and keep medicine where it belongs: with patients, families, and clinicians. In 2018, the American Academy of Family Practice moved to a position of engaged neutrality on medical aid in dying. The following year the American Medical Association affirmed that physicians could provide medical aid in dying ‘according to the dictates of their conscience without violating their professional obligations.’ These changes reflect an accumulating body of research and experience that demonstrates that medical aid in dying laws are working as designed: infrequently, thoughtfully, and appropriately.”
• “Patients who request medical aid in dying have typically endured years, if not decades, of treatment for a chronic condition and most are enrolled in hospice receiving maximal care because, as you heard, they have a prognosis of six months or less that has been given to them.”
• “This [prognosis] has been given to them by at least two physicians, if not countless more, who have concurred that they do have terminal illness and they will likely be dead in six months. They have full decision-making capacity, they understand and appreciate their diagnoses and prognoses, and consider all the options, and have clearly and consistently communicated their wishes. They do not want to due but they have accepted their death is inevitable and want to avoid unnecessary suffering.”
• Notes the three most common prognoses (of people choosing medical aid in dying) are: cancer, neurological disease, and coronary disease. 
• “These patients do not want to die, but they are dying. They are seeking relief from “suffering they have or worry their suffering will worsen in the final weeks of their lives.” 
• “Approximately one out of three individuals who qualify for medical aid in dying choose not to injest the medication. 33% have qualified and do not take the medication.”
• “We can only speculate, but that fact demonstrates clearly that patients are in control and make the decisions for themselves. What we do know is having the medication, even having the potential option for medical aid in dying, relieves fear and anxiety.”
• Says the option for medical aid in dying “improves quality of life” even if folks eligible for medical aid in dying do not choose to accept medical aid in dying 
• “Since passage of the law in Colorado, I’ve had the privilege to serve as the Attending Physician for 19 patients. For all but one I’ve been at the bedside with their permission and request when they consume the medication and watched as they peacefully transition from this life to the next, bathed in the love of their family and friends. These have been some of the most meaningful experiences in my role as a doctor.”
• “One example, in 2022 I was contacted to clarify medical aid in dying for a patient diagnosed with glioblastoma, the same diagnosis you heard from Nancy. Henrietta was diagnosed in 2018. She knew the terrible prognosis and she wanted to have access to medical aid in dying, but she had a marvelous response to treatment. It’s quite amazing that she lived for another four years. Fast forward to 2022. Now she is having seizures, she is paralyzed, bedridden, and she knows this is not going well. She is desperate for medical aid in dying. I was able to qualify her with the consulting physician being her neurologist and this is the great part. On the day she chose to take the medications, her friends arranged a party and it was filled with loved ones and friends and family to say goodbye and thank her for being on this planet. When I arrived, only close friends and family remained, and she took the medications with her two adult grandsons holding her and crying. She quietly went to sleep in a few minutes and about 15 minutes later she peacefully died and stopped breathing. The family thanked me profusely for helping Henrietta have a good death on her own terms.” 
• “I appreciate what medicine can do, but medicine cannot stop the inevitable. I took an oath to do no harm, but harm is also partially defined by the patient. My role as a healer is to provide comfort and support. Death is a part of life and part of my job as a physician is to make that transition as peaceful as possible.”
• “In my view, withholding medical aid in dying, especially with well-tested, well-delineated parameters, causes harm.” 
• Says medical aid in dying does not increase number of deaths, but it does decrease amount that dying people suffer 

Testifier#3: Thaddeus Pope

Professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has published 300 articles and two books on end-of-life decision-making 

Testifying in favor of the bill in his “personal capacity.” 

• “This year, 50,000 Minnesotans will die and many of them want to control the precise timing and manner of their death.” 
• Says that many people are already implementing measures through declining care, through “palliative sedation,” through “voluntarily stopping eating and drinking,” etc. 
• “Medical aid in dying is just one more option, and it’s an option with a proven and long track record.”
• Says the legislation is “modeled” on legislation passed in Oregon in 1994
• Says 15000 people have chosen medical aid in dying in the 10 states and Washington, DC where medical aid in dying is legal – “That experience shows a solid patient-safety track record.” 
• “We don’t need to speculate or hypothesize about the effects of this bill, because it includes the very same elements as laws in 11 other jurisdictions. 
• Says the legislative requirements – all based off of Oregon – have remained the same since 1994 for all jurisdictions but for two changes:
  • Type of licensed clinician required has changed  – 3 states allow for APRNs now in addition to physicians. “That just follows the broader trend of expanding their scope of practice.” 
  • Waiting period has changed. “Originally the patient had to make two requests, separated by 15 days. But substantial evidence showed that since patients seek medical aid in dying until very late in their disease process, that many or lose capacity before the 15 days. So now most states have either shortened or permit waiver of the waiting period.” 
• “Medical aid in dying is completely optional. It’s optional for patients, for clinicians, and healthcare entities.” 
• “Medical aid in dying is opt-in, only.” 

26:22 – Public testimony.  

Testifier #1: Sara McCumber 

Works in Duluth Minnesota in adult geriatric primary care and as a Family Nurse Practitioner for the past 23 years 

Specializes in “working with adults and older adults with chronic, life-limiting health conditions” 

• Says she has witnessed adults suffer and supports the bill which would “allow these individuals to peacefully die in their sleep if their suffering becomes unbearable.” 

Testifier #2: Jean Bender

No identifying information.

• Says her “primary concern with this legislation is that our current healthcare system and workforce shortage are creating conditions that might lead a qualifying person to choose medical aid in dying to end their life [because] their quality of life is diminished because of difficulty accessing necessary supports
• Provides 2 personal examples
  • Shares that her son had spinal cord damage and spine surgery and follow-up care. Was told prior to bringing him home that in-home care and services would not be available. Son would not be eligible for medical aid in dying because he’s under guardianship “but this experience speaks to the difficulty accessing necessary services and supports” 
  • Shares that her father, “already dying from Stage 4 kidney failure, had a major stroke, and our family was encouraged to consider hospice at home or a nursing home.” Says she met with hospice personnel. “The plan was for hospice to meet medical transport at my dad’s home and equipment and training for transfers would be provided. Medical transport brought my dad home with no supports. Hospice agency did not even visit until a day later.” – Says lack of equipment is what led to his suffering 

Testifier #3: Suzanne Walfoort

No identifying information. 

• Says she’s in “total support” of the legislation
• Has two terminally-ill sisters
• “Many chronic, terminally-ill patients wish to petition for the right to end their suffering, as my two sisters fervently do. They desperately want to be granted to end their own lives, gaining dignity in death that has been lost under helpless long term care and pain.” 
• Says the legislation (and stated that have enacted medical aid in dying legislation) grant “the right to choose to those who are rational but desperate to seek relief in death that has been forbidden to them” 

Testifier #4: Anita Cameron 

Director of Minority Outreach for Not Dead Yet

• Testifying in opposition to the legislation “because bills like this are dangerous to communities of color” 
• Says that research related to hospice care shows that patients of color are less likely to receive the same care, including visits from hospice care
• Says that patients of color are less able to afford life-saving treatment and “more likely that doctors will write off patients as terminal and thus eligible for assisted suicide”

Testifier #5: Kevin Bradley

Communications Director for the Libertarian party of Minnesota 

Ordained Minister, having worked as a Hospital and Hospice Chaplain 

• Supports the bill because it gives people more control over their own lives “including the right to end that life on their own terms”
• Says Democrats should support the bill because of respect for bodily autonomy, Says Republicans should support the bill because of government having less control over life 
• “The right to die is also known as death-with-dignity, but many hospice professionals don’t like that term because they believe hospice care provides death with dignity. However, it was not uncommon for hospice patients to tell me they did not consider their circumstances to be dignified. I believe the patient should have the right to decide what dignity means to them.” 

Testifier #6: Laurie Engel

Has incurable leukemia 

Age 65 

• Chose immediately to go into hospice and says she “wishes” the bill “could help [her] out” 
• “Unfortunately I’m probably going to pass before this happens. But I’m lending my support because I feel it is so important that this bill move forward.” 

Testifier #7: Mona Henkels 

No identifying information. 

• Speaking in favor of the bill, ‘on behalf of a dear friend,” who was a longtime Minnesotan who moved to Washington State who worked on the issue of medical aid in dying, suffered from pancreatic cancer for four years, and “when she had exhausted all treatments, she exercised this option. She fought to live, helped by knowing she could be spared the worst and when the worst was all that was left, this strong independent woman, with her dignity still intact, chose to gather her family and beloved dogs in her own home overlooking Puget Sound, and kindly and humanely leave this world.” 
• “We all deserve to have the choice of this humane option.”

Testifier #8: Dr. Joanne Roberts

Retired palliative medicine doctor & hospice director from Washington State

Suffering from a terminal illness

• Opposed the Washington Death with Dignity Act in 2008
• “I was wrong. The Washington experience, since then and my own experience, have changed my mind and I stand in support of this bill, which is much like the Washington bill.” 
• Says medical aid in dying, in Washington has been used “sparingly, compassionately, and thoughtfully” 
• “Every person enrolled in the program has complete agency in their decision-making and each has an imminently terminal disease.” 

Testifier #9: Paul Bullard 

No identifying information. 

• Supports the bill
• “I started thinking about it because my father passed away in August of last year after being in hospice for one month.”  
• “They did their best to keep him comfortable but during the night he fell out of bed on multiple occasions and, once, my mom found him on the floor when she went to visit him. She was upset and the next few weeks felt like a few years. He passed away alone after my mom had left his side and she felt terrible. She returned to his room the next morning and found that he had passed, and I don’t know if she’s ever going to get over that.” 

Testifier $10: A. Stuart Hanson

Retired physician. Pulmonary doctor and critical care specialist in the Twin Cities for 49 years. 

• Speaking in favor of the legislation, supports Compassion & Choices 
• “During those 49 years I estimate that I had about 4000 conversations with individuals about end-of-life and how they wanted to be treated, encouraged them to advance directives and to help them in the last weeks, months, and years.” 
• “As a physician my job was to cure if possible and to care always. At the end of life when curing is not possible, then I enter the area of caring, and caring as much as possible, with getting relief of pain and suffering.” 

Pause in Testimony. Virtual Testimonies completed, in-person testimonies commencing.   

Testifier #11: Jean Swenson 

• Says she has “grave concerns” about the legislation, as a person with a disability 
• Was paralyzed in a car accident, fell into a deep depression, spent 18 months learning to live as a quadriplegic 
• “I’m so grateful that assisted suicide was not available, and that those around me listened compassionately to my longing to die……and then gave me what I really needed – good medical care, counseling, access to disability services, and lots of prayer and loving support.”
• “This law currently applies only to people with a terminal illness. However, guidelines in other places have expanded from terminal illness to include people with disabilities.”
• Says that “ in Canada, a paralyzed veteran requested a wheelchair ramp. Instead, she was told that they could not provide a ramp, but they could offer her medical assistance in dying.”
• “I know all of you want to do the compassionate thing, so I respectfully ask that we  pause and ask ourselves, once we open the door to this type of legislation, what will keep it from expanding like in other places?”

Testifier #12: Eileen Weber 

Nursing ethics professor

• Has incorporated discussions on versions of the proposed legislation in her classes at the University of Minnesota for both undergraduate and graduate students to learn about, and she invited proponents and opponents of the bill into her classroom to speak with students. Students would debate and vote on the issue and proposed legislation
• “Without fail, they overwhelmingly recognized the autonomy of people who are dying, who want to – but cannot – escape their imminent death. They questioned why such a flawed healthcare system as the one we have should insist that people suffer instead of having the control they rightfully and reasonably request to decide when in their dying process they can self-administer the medicine that can shorten the slow death they are suffering.”
• “The nursing profession does not oppose laws like this, as long as dying people who choose this option self-administer the medication. That is because nurses advocate for patients’ autonomy, insist on ongoing informed consent, and because we do not abandon patients at the end of their lives.” 
• “Among the most unfair and, frankly insulting, arguments pushed by opponents of this end of life option is to call it suicide. Patients who want this end of life option are not suicidal in the honest sense. They would rather live, but they are sadly dying, terminally ill. Experts on true suicide at the American Association of Suicidology state unequivocally that suicide is not the same as medical aid in dying. Suicide is the end result for patients of inadequately treated psychiatric illness who no longer want to live. People who choose MAID have thorough psychiatric evaluations to assure the decision to choose this option is not based in psychiatric pathology.”

Testifier #13: Kathy Jo Ware

Registered Nurse for 25 years

Joined by her son (with a disability)

• “Assisted suicide is a disability rights issue and a disability justice issue. Assisted suicide re-weaponizes the medical community against people with disabilities.”
• “You are asking us to trust the medical community to dole out prescriptions for suicide without discrimination and to never stray from the guidelines.”

Testifier #14: Michelle Witte

Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota

Speaking personally on behalf of her mother

• Says her mother died after years of treatment for Parkinson’s Disease and months of seizures and panic attacks 
• “Most every day she would ask: when is this going to end, why don’t you just take me outside and shoot me? But as a Minnesotan and as a daughter, I had no good choices to offer her.” 
• Says her mother chose to refuse all food & water, she lasted 11 days, and then passed
• “My father could not bear to sit at her bedside.” 
• “This is the End of Life Options Act. Anyone who does not want the option does not have to take the option.”
• “This bill simply gives adults more humane options.” 
• “Death is a part of life. We should use medical science at the edge of death in the same way we do in life.” 

Testifier #15: Chris Massoglia 

From Blaine, MN

Speaking on behalf of Americans United for Life

• Says that AUL opposes the legislation
• “This bill, if passed, would legalize physician-assisted suicide, which would intentionally end human life.” 
• “Suicide is not health care, and it’s completely un-necessary due to the advancements of palliative and end-of-life care.”  
• Asks the legislature to support suicide prevention, not suicide assistance

Testifier #16: David Sturgeon 

No identifying information. 

• Says the subject is personal to him, speaking in support of the legislation
• “We’ll all, at some point, have our own end of life experience, our own end of life process. Medical aid in dying gives us some level of control over that inevitable process. It’s an option we should all have given the right circumstances.” 
• Shared two stories: one of a bad death, one of a good death

Testifier #17: James M. Hamilton

No identifying information

• “I testify today because I will not be here one year from now. I am dying of extensive small cell lung cancer, the same incurable disease that killed my brother and devastated my family 15 years ago. I spent his final weeks at his bedside, doing what little I could to alleviate the suffering of suffocating as the disease ate away what remained of his lungs and wreaked havoc on his other organs. I do not wish the prolonged death he experienced. Nor do I wish my wife, my son, my siblings, my extended family, and my friends to weather the same storm. My brother’s death scarred me, as you can see, just as my own death may scar those I love.”
• “Death need not be this ugly. Were the law to allow it, I would choose to end my life before this disease riddles my body and destroys my brain, as it did my brother’s. As things stand, my options are to travel to another state for an extended period and die far from my friends and family or, as my mother did, to voluntarily stop eating and drinking, and hope that I can maintain that through death. Many start, not all manage.  That is only slightly less arduous than death by lung cancer, in my experience. I ask that you spare me, and others like me, from this fate by enacting HF 1930 as soon as possible. The time and manner of my death should be mine to decide.”

Testifier #18: Charles Dennis O’Hare 

MD, works in an assisted living and memory care unit 

• Opposes the legislation
• Says he has never encountered a patient request or desire physician-assisted suicide
• “We are here because some desire to legalize physician-assisted suicide. It’s about legalizing the ability for physicians to help our patients commit suicide by purposefully giving them enough drugs to die.” 
• Says a supermajority from the AMA in 2019 deemed that the correct terminology is Physician-Assisted Suicide “and assisting with this is fundamentally incompatible with the physician role of healer”
• “It requires the physician to become the gatekeeper of which suicides are supposedly acceptable.” 
• Says he has patients who cannot get wound care covered by insurance, “but now will pay for them to get narcotics to commit suicide.”
• “The AMA is correct. Once you open this door, it becomes uncontrollable.” 

Testifier #19: Ellen J. Kennedy, PhD 

Executive Director, World Without Genocide

Adjunct Professor, Hamline Mitchell School of Law

Speaking in her personal capacity 

• Speaks about her husband, a 40-year professor of Advanced Statistics and athlete
• “In 2019, he began having terrible back pain. He was diagnosed with advanced multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer that eats away the bones. For 3 years, under wonderful care at the Mayo Clinic, he tried every option to stop the disease.”
• Details the impacts of care on her husband. 
• “In November 2022, Mayo enrolled him in a new drug trial, a last ditch effort, but when it was supposed to start, he was too sick and he was hospitalized for extra care. A few days later he was scheduled to begin. When I joined him at the hospital, the morning of that first treatment, he told me that he had decided to decline it. He said he no longer had any psychological or physical strength left and we sat together and cried, knowing he would die soon.” 
• “We had talked about death. He wanted to choose to die when the essential elements of his life, as he defined them, were no longer sustainable and viable. And he wanted to die then. But for 16 days he endured the erosion of his personhood.” 

Testifier #20: Karin Charron

Catholic

Nurse

Lives in Rochester

Mother of four 

• “People are a gift from God, from the unborn to the aged, the healthy and the sick. The catechism of the Catholic Church says we are stewards, not owners, of the life that God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”
• “House File 1930 is horrific because it is not healthcare, it is deathcare.”
• “We cannot claim to be concerned with the mental health crisis and the rise in suicides and at the same time promote helping someone die on purpose.” 

Testifier #21: Angela Sovak 

No identifying information. 

• Supports the bill
• Shares a personal story about her grandmother – “I have witnessed the relief that hospice care can provide for most, but not all, dying patients.” 
• “My grandmother was not afraid of death, she was afraid of the dying process. Not knowing if this day or the next would be the day that it started, her fear kept her from enjoying the final days.” 
• Says her grandmother’s dying process took 5 days 
• “Hospice was managing her physical suffering as best they could but there are other kinds of suffering. After five agonizing days we had the gift of being with her when her heart stopped beating, but a better gift would have been months of connection and shared laughter instead of relentless anxiety. And that could have been possible if she knew she could have a peaceful death. She deserved to have that option.” 

Testifier #22: Cathay Blaeser 

Co-Executive Director of Minnesotan Citizens Concerned for Life

• Opposes the bill
• “This bill would move Minnesota from a community of compassion to one of active, callous, abandonment of our most vulnerable patients. When we move towards offering death as the solution to problems, we turn our backs on an actual cry for help and lose our incentives to solve the real root causes of that cry.” 
• “Instead of improving palliative and hospice care, Minnesota will simply offer a deadly cocktail.” 

Testifier #23: C. Eric Bergh 

Retired psychologist

Worked with patients who were “actively suicidal” 

Sharing personal testimony

• Says his brother died by suicide in 1997 via gunshot to the head 
• “My brother found him when he had not come down for dinner. He suffered from untreated depression, he was an active alcoholic, and he had a gun collection. A trifecta of vulnerability. This event was tragic in every sense of the word.”
• Father suffered from melanoma that spread over his entire body. Father was in palliative care at home in 1989. His father spoke about dying. His mother had planned for his death. 
• A doctor friend gave his father medications he could use to die. His father self-administered the drugs and died with Bergh’s mother present 
• “But there was still tragedy. For one thing, it was all against the law, and that caused great worry for both my parents. The dying was a relief as life, such as it was, had become intolerable.”
• Says “dying on your own terms, peacefully with dignity, is a gift” 

Testifier #24: Andy Aplikowski

Executive Director, Human Life Alliance 

• “We should not give doctors who are trained to save lives, a license to kill.” 
• “Begging a doctor to prematurely kill someone you love, or that complete stranger you think has no value to society, is not compassionate.” 
• Says the legislation “exploits the suffering and preys on the vulnerable”

Testifier #25: CeAnne Becker 

Lifetime resident of Minnesota

• Supports the legislation\
• Says she suffers from a permanent, debilitating disability “so I know the difference between a disability and a terminal illness”
• Said her father wanted to die, he was in home hospice, she was his primary caregiver. 
• She had told her father that if he had ever gotten to the point that the suffering was unbearable, he had enough morphine to let him go to sleep peacefully and to no longer suffer
• Says she doesn’t know if he overdosed on the morphine, “but if he did, I cannot say that I blame him. He had suffered for far too long.”  

Testifier #26: Rae Parker 

Lives in Rochester, MN

• Opposed to the legislation
• Questions the language and definition of coercion in the text 
• “This legislation is one of death.” 
• Says the legislation is just “the foot in the door to implement more death legislation” 
• Says the legislature is “opening a Pandora’s Box of Evil, you’re trying to play God, you’re not God, so stop with the death suggestions, trying to make suicide normal, acceptable, easy, and embracable”

Testifier #27: Kathryn Kelley 

Professor of Communications

• “Physicians wouldn’t kill me if I chose suicide, I would be killing me.”
• “It’s now that we’re trying to have a law of murder or death, but that death is completely part of living.” 
• Says her mother died in 1967, had ovarian cancer. “She went through all the treatments and eventually had to be put in the hospital and wait. Which is what we do when we have these terminal illnesses. And in the waiting she was able to push her own morphine and give it to her when she needed it so at least that seemed very humane.”
• Says she doesn’t want to die like her mother and does not want anyone to die like her mother (“in an ice bath screaming until there was nothing left”)
• “I want us all to have a choice.” 

Testifier #28: Caryn Addante

From Mendota Heights

• Opposed House File 1930 
• Says the bill troubled her, wording horrifies and heartbreaks
• “The bill is not compassion and it does not provide a so-called peaceful death. I’m concerned for our most vulnerable including the disabled.” 
• “This is not care and this is not how a civilized society treats people.”

Testifier #29: Mindy Smith

No identifying information. 

• Supports the legislation
• Shares the story of her father who suffered from ALS
• Says her father researched how to end his own life, “without resorting to suicide which he knew would devastate our family. He investigated moving to another state that has passed a right-to-die law, but realized time would likely run out. And then, very quickly, he was unable to move. And then unable to speak.” 
• She says her father said, “I waited too long.” 
• Her father died alone in a nursing home, although his dream was to gather loved ones to celebrate his life and then to choose when to die

Testifier #30: Nina Sivula

Has lived in Minnesota her entire life

Has suffered from depression and suicidal ideation

• Opposes the legislation
• Says states where medical aid in dying is allowed shows an increase in suicide rates [Editor’s NOTE: this is NOT fact-checked]
• “You’re telling people like me that suicide is an option, that death is an option, because our suffering is too great.” 

Testifier #31: David B Plimpton, MD

Retired physician, practiced Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology at Abbott Northwestern for 40 years

• Supports the legislation
• “I have had to deny requests for medical aid in dying made by suffering, terminally ill patients.” 

Testifier #32: Jennifer Williams

Nurse

Resident of Saint Paul 

• Opposes the legislation
• “It is also a hypocritical bill in our current times of ‘opioid overdose crisis.’”
• “It is an unnecessary bill as people with terminal diagnosis do really have a plethora of options such as traditional pain medications, palliative care and hospice.”
• Says prognosis is not a certainty 

Testifier #33: Jillian Nelson

Disability lobbyist

Daughter 

• Supports the legislation
• Shares the story of her father, suffering from end-stage COPD, who has been denied a lung transplant and lives alone in a group home, separate from his family, due to the risk of COVID
• Says her father tried to kill himself in Nov. 2023 
• Says her father taught her “my body, my choice” and now “he is trapped in a body that is a nightmare every day” 

Testifier #34: Karin Miller

No identifying information

• Says life is sacred
• Says Minnesota State Legislature have lost sight of the Constitution and promises of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

Testifier #35: Marie Koehler

No identifying information. 

• Became an end-of-life doula after retiring 
• “I now have the great privilege of providing support to people during their end-of-life journey.” 
• “I firmly believe that for people with a terminal, life-limiting illness, the dying process should be theirs to control. Their wishes for how they die should be respected and allowed to unfold, as they want.” 

Testifier #36: R. Paul Post

MD, American Academy of Medical Ethics 

Retired Family Physician 

Practiced for 37 years 

• Opposes the legislation
  • Says that “physician-assisted suicide is harmful to the physician-patient relationship”
    • “Sows distrust in the relationship”
  • “In my clinical judgment, there is never a case when assisted suicide is necessary to relieve pain, especially with advancements in palliative and hospice care.” 
  • Right of conscience concerns
  • Legalization will lead to higher suicide rates 
• Says medical-aid in death is a “euphemism for physician-assisted suicide” 

Testifier #37: Christina Ogata

No identifying information

• Opposes the bill
• Says her brother “was lucky enough to live in a state that has this bill on the books, in New Mexico, and he made use of it two years ago, after suffering for years from multiple system atrophy” 

Testifier #38: Teresa S. Collett

Law Professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law 

Director of the Pro-Life Center 

• Says that data from Oregon shows that people who participate in Medical Aid in Dying take advantage of MAID because they cannot participate in activities worth listening or a fear of a loss of bodily autonomy – 6th in list of reasons is “the avoidance of pain” 
• “The simple reality is that today’s medical facilities and devices and drugs can relieve almost any form of pain. This isn’t pain. This is about trying to control the last moment of death.” 

Testifier #39: Douglas Bruce

Lives in Bloomington

• Supports the bill
• Shares a story about his mother and when her mother chose to discontinue medication
• Says that the decision to discontinue medication is a family decision and that the legislation is very strong family legislation

Testifier #40: Elena Niehoff

Lives in Rochester

• Calls the legislation cruel and ruthless, in conflict with federal law
• Opposes the legislation

Testifier #41: Blessing Griswold

Lifelong Minnesotan

• Opposes the legislation
• Sends she is concerned about the “message this bill sends about the value of my life and how it endangers people with experiences similar to mine”
• “My concern is that for others like me, especially with people whose conditions are terminal, that battle may be pointless. Daily pain takes a mental and emotional toll. Now thousands of Minnesotans are looking to their representatives to give an opinion. Can a life, even a remainder of a life, be considered expendable? Can government really decide that the last six months of life are irrelevant?” 

Testifier #42: Ellie Hayland

Member of HumanistsMN

• Supports the legislation
• Cites doctrines of humanism, re individual autonomy and more
  • Right to die
  • Individual autonomy
  • No higher power controlling life
  • Separation of religion and government 

Testifier #43: Jerry Kyser

Vietnam War Veteran

Disabled Veteran

• Believes the legislation will hurt the veteran community 
• Shares the story of someone in Vietnam who committed suicide after receiving a Dear John letter
• Names PTSD as a challenge – says the bill will increase suicide in veteran communities 

Testifier #44: Rev. Kathleen Rolenz

Interim Senior Minister, Unity Church Unitarian 

• Supports the legislation
• “This is not assisted suicide.” 
• Says she has attended the deaths of many “parishioners, colleagues, and friends” 
• Shares two death stories and how she was asked to counsel the dying around end-of-life 
• “Passing this bill does not force anyone to make a choice that they don’t want to” 

Testifier #45: Patricia James 

Health Chair for the NAACP- Saint Paul 

Guardian for a sick individual 

• Says she was asked to give the doctors permission to help the individual she is guardian for to pass away when they were in ICU  – Says her response was “I want to do all that I can for him because I know that this is what he would want. If he passes after having everything done for him, so be it, that is God’s will.” 
• Was told he would not make it, she should bring in loved ones to visit with him, he began to recover. “To this day, this individual is no longer on the ventilator.”

Testifier #46: Jeff McComas

Lives in Woodbury

• Supports the legislation
• Diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2022
• “13 months ago I was told I had 12 months to live.”
• Most recent prognosis has McComas living into 2025, “I’ll take that.” 
• “I’ll never be cancer-free, I’ll never be in remission, at some point the chemo will stop being effective, and then my cancer will continue spreading. I don’t want a long, painful, drawn out end. I did not pick this road, but I’m on it. And I want to decide when I’ve had enough.” 

Testifier #47: Françoise Willems-Shirley

No identifying information. 

• Supports the legislation
• Mother passed away from terminal cancer in March 2022
• Mother advocated for dying on her own terms, “peacefully and without suffering” 
• Mother would have chosen medical aid in dying

Testifier #48: Sue Eckfeldt 

Retired Registered Nurse

Psychologist

• Says she is going to speak about the protocol for eligibility for medical aid in dying
• Says that if either physician necessary for the diagnosis and eligibility has concerns about a patient’s mental capacity, the patient is referred to a “mental health professional for evaluation”
• “It’s normal for someone in this situation to be sad, even to have periods of feeling despondent. However, being eligible for medical aid in dying is based on capacity to make an informed decision, rather than mental health issues or diagnoses.”
• “Capacity is determined by four capabilities: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and communication.” 

Testifier #49: Valerie Golden

Clinical Psychologist 

• Supports the legislation
• “I have seen far too much unnecessary pain and suffering, senselessly endured in the final moments of life, because there was not adequate end-of-life options available.”

Testifier #50: Bill Amberg 

Representing a psychiatrist with the Minneapolis Psychiatric Society 

Representing Dr. Girardeau with the MN Psychological Assoc. Legislative Committee

Lawyer

• Says that both clients have met with proponents of the bill to “express some technical concerns that we would like to see addressed”

Testifier #51: Kimberly Horton

No identifying information

• Shares the story of her mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at age 57
• “She chose life, she wanted to be here, but there came a moment for her that life was no longer an option.” 
• “Until shortly before her death my mom was fully mentally competent, and if it was legal, she could’ve made the decision to end her unnecessary suffering. My last memories of her could’ve been from the beautiful weekend that our whole family spent together for the last time. But instead my last memories are of my own trip to see her the week of her death when she was barely recognizable and in excruciating pain.”

Testifier #52: Jane Cowles

Lives in Saint Paul

• Supports the legislation
• “I know I’m going to die, I just don’t know when or how. If I have a disease and diagnosis that qualifies me to apply for medication to end my life, I want to have a prescription on hand that will bring peace of mind, a sense of relief, if I determine I am no longer able to bear the pain and anguish of the disease, the option is available.” 

Testifier #53: Tom Albin

Lived in South Minneapolis

• Diagnosed with ALS
• “Still playing on two hockey teams” 
• “I love life. ALS, however, is a long term torture. I’m a victim. I have no say in what happens.” 
• “Dying by ALS is like dying in slow motion. I don’t mind dying. It’s the act of dying that will take years.” 
• “I don’t want my family to be filled with traumatized memories of my prolonged death.” 
• Says HF1930 can take months of pain and “turn it into a beautiful moment, and that’s what I’m asking for” 

Testifier #54: Carrie Framsted

No identifying information

• Supports the legislation
• Says her wife died 4 years ago from Stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer – only lived 8 months after her diagnosis
• Not sure if her wife would have chosen medical aid in dying, but she does know “that she felt very strongly that any person facing their death in hospice care should have the right to choose”

Testifier #55: Merle Greene

Lives in Saint Paul

Adult educator, approximately 40 years

• Tells the story of her mother who died when she was 60 – brain cancer 
• Refers to earlier testimony – “It’s very unfortunate and unacceptable that people get inadequate hospice care, that proper equipment isn’t available to people with disabilities, or that a health care plan would not cover wound care. Those are awful, but these shortcomings, and the passage of an End-of-Life Options Act, have nothing to do with one another. They are not mutually exclusive.” 
• Speaks about concerns folks have as medical aid in dying relates to people with disabilities, Black and Brown people, and “the slippery slope” 
• Refers to data from Columbia University

Testifier #56: Mark Caron

Lives in Saint Paul

• Speaks about a friend who passed who testified in favor of medical aid in dying in 2019 
• “[Maryann] was a passionate supporter of medical aid in dying.” Maryann had terminal ovarian cancer. 
• He got a call in March 2021, “it was the beginning of her last few months” 
• Maryann passed May 2021. 
• “It’s only speculative whether she would have used medical aid in dying, she was a supporter, she wanted the option, but if she did take it, she would have been able to give her family, who did a great job, the gift of a death ceremony. And that would have been a wonderful gift Maryann would have given to her family.” 

Testifier #57: Sara Winkels

From Stacy, MN

Radiation Therapist

Lost her mother to metastatic cancer in 1990 when she was 14

Recently lost her mother-in-law to Alzheimer’s Disease

• “For me, it is a personal choice that I want to have available to myself and to my family.” 
• Describes seeing her mother and mother-in-law both suffer and die 

Testifier #58: Margaret Oibrekken

No identifying information. 

• Tells the story of her father, “a World War 2 vet, a retired farmer, and a devout Christian” 
• “He didn’t leave farming until he was 90. And that’s because he was having so much trouble with his legs.”
• Father had rheumatoid arthritis 
• At age 97, he read about voluntarily stopping eating and drinking and he chose to do that
• “It took him a week. I’m here because I would have liked to see him be able to see him do this by drinking something and be done in a couple hours instead of suffering some more.” 

Testifier #59: Penny A. Pergament

Retired Clinical Psychologist 

• Speaking in favor of the legislation 
• “While there’s numerous disagreements, the thing I want to address specifically is the difference between suicide and medical aid in dying.”
• Refers to the American Association of Suicidology and their distinction between suicide and medical aid in dying 

Testifier #60: Gary Wederspahn

Editor of the Good Death Society Blog

• Says he wants to offer some data-based context for the conversation
• Refers to a meta-study on defining a good death and a standard of care for achieving a good death – repeated points for a good death were: painless, peaceful, on my own terms 

Testifier #61: Stephanie Jirik

Lives in Webster

• Supports the legislation
• Tells the story of her friend Bobbi, who has ALS, and her uncle who passed away from ALS a few years ago 
• Was originally supposed to be testifying alongside her friend Bobbi, but Bobbi has two surgeries on Friday and she remains hospitalized 
• “We were friends long before I was her caregiver.”
• “The people who need this bill passed most are those suffering the worst health conditions imaginable and it is keeping them from being here in-person.” 

Testifier #62: Julia Nottingham

No identifying information

• “This bill is providing the opportunity to change the way death is dealt with for terminally ill people and their families.” 
• Mother, Maryann (discussed earlier), advocated in 2019 around the same legislation, “so she would have the choice of medical aid in dying”

Testifier #63: Marty Rossmann

MD

Chronic lung infection – currently being controlled, but future prognosis is not “rosy”

87 years old 

• “When I eventually am diagnosed with failing lungs and routinely super short of death, and I know I’ll be miserable with no chance of improvement, only suffering, I hope the end of life option legislation will have passed.”

Testifier #64: Paula Engelking

No identifying information

• Speaks about her cousin who lived in Minnesota, “but moved to Colorado a few years before an ALS diagnosis”
• “Ann didn’t fear death, it would be a chance to see her mom and dad again, but she feared choking to death.” 
• “I am happy to report that Ann had a really good death.” 

Testifier #65: Lisa R. Mattson

MD

• Supports the legislation
• “Please remember that this bill only applies to people with terminal, irreversible, incurable diseases who are likely to die within six months. It does not apply to people with chronic illness or people with mental health disease or the disabled.”
• “This bill also only applies to people who are mentally competent, who ask for this option of their own free-will.” 
• Says the bill protects patient autonomy
• Says the bill does “not negate the benefits of palliative care or hospice”

Testifier #66: Melinda Mattson

Speaking on behalf of herself and her family 

• Supports the legislation
• Says her mother asked her, “for over two years, to kill her” 
• “I don’t fear death, I fear the process of dying, of having nothing to look forward to in my life, uncontrollable pain, of drooling and wearing diapers that somebody else has to change.” 

Testifier #67: Hunter Cantrell

Retired State Rep

First-year medical student

Cancer survivor 

• Speaking in honor of a friend and former constituent, Richard Seeker, who was a strong supporter of the bill but passed away “a couple years ago in a car accident” 
• Calls the legislation “emotionally-complex”
• “We, as health care providers, have a duty to do no harm and to alleviate the cause of human suffering to the greatest extent possible. As someone who suffered a life-threatening illness from which I almost died, due to a nearly fatal reaction to one of my chemo drugs, I understand intimately what it is like to face your own deterioration and mortality.” 
• Says he’s thankful he recovered “but should that not have been the case,” he would have liked to explore medical aid in dying

Testifier #68: Louise Bonach

No identifying information.

• Shares an image of the house her husband lived and chose to die in
• “But we lived in Minnesota and there were no provisions for medical aid in dying when he died, so he died instead in a cold sterile hospital room.”

Testifier #69: Hallie Vanney

No identifying information

Medical School student

• Supports the legislation
• Says when she was 16, she started to notice vision loss in her right eye and “thanks to the Minnesota Healthcare System, she was promptly diagnosed” with a rare genetic disease that results in tumor growth throughout the body
• Life expectancy is 49 years
• “I think one of the pearls of having this disease is I’ve really gotten to think about the way I want to live my life and my death from a really young age. As a result, when I do pass, I am really confident I will have lived my life with purpose and intent and be surrounded by people I love. I know that I will die and I am accepting of that.”
• Says she’s scared of Minnesota’s end-of-life care options

Testifier #70: Rosie Gaston

Hospice Clinical Social Worker in the Twin Cities 

Studied medical aid in dying in graduate school and was the focus of her clinic research project, published in a medical academic journal

Speaks locally and nationally on medical aid in dying 

• “I believe in what hospice and palliative care provides, a vast majority of the time we’re able to manage the physical symptoms and support the emotional and physical journey that comes along with death and dying. I have also had a front row seat when this does not happen.”

Testifier #71: Kathleen Oganovic

No identifying information

• Shares the story of her mother and her mother’s death’s which was challenging
• “Everything that gave her joy…everything was gone, and when you lose those things, you do not have quality of life.” 
• “I don’t want to have the last months of my life the way my mother did.” 

Testifier #72: Michael Tedford

Head and neck surgeon who worked at Abbott Northwestern

Treats patients who have cancer above the collarbone 

• Wants legislators to consider the suffering beyond pain that patients suffer at end-of-life
• Shares graphic stories of some of his patients and the tumors they experienced
• “As much as we wish we could manage all of this stuff, it just doesn’t happen.”
• “This is not hypothetical, philosophical, theoretical.” 

Testifier #73: Peter Wyckoff

Retired clergy, founder and Executive Director of the Minnesota and Metropolitan Senior Federations

Daughter died of sarcoma cancer

• Says the legislation is well-written and provides more than adequate safeguards 

Testifier #74: Pastor Fred Hintz 

Clergyman with the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod

Representing the Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare 

• MAEH opposes the “legalization of physician-assisted suicide” and “advocates for a more equitable and robust system of palliative care” 

Testifier #75: Janice Geigel (sp?)

No name spelling available

No identifying information

• Supports the legislation, husband had ALS and chose to end his own life
• “He was determined to end his own life before he lost all of his own functioning or before he became dependent on others to care for him.” 
• First attempt to end his life was unsuccessful, he tried again
• “Had there been an end-of-life option act in place, my family would have had an opportunity to sit with him, to hold his hand, and to support him with our love before he died.” 

3:28:28 – Consideration of amendments

A3 Amendment Filed 

Offered by Rep. Jeff Backer (GOP)

Amendment would require MDH review all the reports, submitted to the department, for completion, accuracy, and timeliness

Asks the author a question: “Consider this is a friendly amendment, the reason being, if this is going to become law, I think it’s very important that MDH review all of the deaths that happen through this type of bill?”

Rep. Backer says the legislation is based off of what other states do, says the amendment is “not terrible,” but he assumes there’s a cost and “is happy to consider a discussion on this” 

Rep. Quam (GOP) comments that he’s concerned if the data is not appropriately reviewed and addressed – “could affect different communities in our state” 

Rep. Backer asks for a roll call 

Amendment fails to be adopted

A5 amendment Filed

Offered by Rep. Neu Brindley (GOP)

Amendment changes the dates of effectiveness, giving MDH more time given its oversight responsibilities 

“It’s not an amendment to postpone implementation, it’s an amendment to ensure it’s done right.” 

Rep. Backer says the amendment is “very reasonable” and is “common sense.” 

Rep. Murphy (GOP) discusses a need for a checklist for MDH and social workers

Amendment fails to be adopted

A4 Amendment Filed 

Rep. Kiel (GOP) says on the amendment, “The A4 amendment would require that both the attending and the consulting providers need to be physicians.” 

Rep. Freiberg – The bill allows for one physician, one APRN, and that current language is a compromise, instead of allowing for two APRNs. APRN should be allowed: access of care

Rep. Kiel: Discusses a family friend’s experience with ALS

Discussion back and forth on why APRN’s are allowed to be one of the providers 

Rep. Freiberg: “It’s out of respect for the profession. There is still supervision by a physician as part of this process.” 

Amendment fails to be adopted. 

A8 Amendment Filed 

Rep. Quam offers: Says the amendment is doing what Oregon did, restricting the bill’s legality to Minnesota residents. “I want Minnesota to be a destination of hope, not a destination to end life.” 

Amendment fails to be adopted.

3:59:40 – Discussion of the bill as amended. 

Rep. Schomacker (GOP) to Rep. Freiberg: Asks a clarifying language on the bill re pauses in between requests for medical aid in dying

Rep. Freiberg requests Professor Pope to speak on the issue: “Originally, there was a 15 day waiting period. The patient would have to make a 15 day waiting period to the physician and then 15 days later they would have to make a second request. And then in addition to the two oral requests, they would have to make a written request.”

Says most states where medical aid in dying have moved away from the process laid out about, “because people don’t start exploring medical aid in dying until very late into their disease trajectory” 

Rep. Schomacker to Rep. Liebling: Does this bill have a fiscal note? 

Rep. Liebling: This bill has a long way to go. Maybe. 

Rep. Schomacker requests a roll call on a final vote. 

Rep. Quam to Professor Pope – Data shows people don’t sometimes take the meds they get or they pass otherwise…?

Professor Pope: Yes, 30-40% of people get the medications, but do not ingest them. “I would not characterize that as changing their mind, most people get the medications as fire insurance or home insurance, we have it to keep ourselves peace of mind and comfort, but we hope we don’t have to use it.” 

People don’t get the actual medications until they’re ready to use them

Rep. Backer to Rep. Frieberg: Has there been any documentation of the complications of the medications used to end a life? 

Dr. Carroll: “The phenomenon of complications is present in basically everything.” 

Dr. Carroll: Data is collected. “There is documentation of seizures, of prolonged time to death, but to my knowledge, no data for documentation that shows the medicines have not completed a task of allowing a patient to die.” 

Rep. Backer to Rep. Frieberg: How long does it take for the medications to work? What does the medication do? 

Dr. Carroll: Combination of five medications, “in large quantities. They are designed to depress the respiratory centers in the brain and to decrease cardiac output in performance.” 

Rep. Backer to Rep. Freiberg: Why are social workers included in the definition of mental health professionals in this bill? 

Rep. Freiberg: That is based on other state’s language. This is part of what they do as clinical social workers. 

Rep. Backer: “I would professionally disagree.” Says that language needs to be changed and is “misguided.” 

Rep. Neu Brindley to Rep. Freiberg: Asks Rep. Freiberg to clarify specific instances of language in the bill 

Rep. Neu Brindley and Rep. Freiberg discuss the clarifications with additional information shared by Dr. Carroll and Professor Pope on specific clarifications

Rep. Neu Brindley discusses her personal experience with the end-of-life care of loved ones and she says “she has great concerns” with the bill and its lack of clear language

Rep. Liebling says that Rep. Neu Brindley that she can work with Rep. Freiberg to improve the bill, that the bill can come back to committee before it ever makes it forward. 

Rep. Acomb (DFL) speaks on the bill 

Discusses her husband who is diagnosed with Advanced MS. “It gives him great anxiety to not know what the future will hold and to have that uncertainty of suffering in the future.” 

Rep. Freiberg closes discussion on the bill, responding to specific arguments from testimony

Roll Call – Rep. Liebling renews motion to re-refer the bill to the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee

Bill will not move until the legislative session is back in session

Bill is passed “sorta” to the public safety committee