Nevada Legislative Session 2015 – Making Your Voice Heard

It has been an interesting legislative session here in Nevada – every other year lawmakers get to their lawmaking and epinephrine is back on for discussion again!  (Posts about stock epinephrine in Nevada schools from last session are here, here, and here.)  The year between sessions is not without activity, as last April the subject of stock epinephrine was expanded upon and has progressed now to Assembly Bill 158.  We must not rest on our laurels as the resistance to AB158 feels greater than the initial stock epinephrine push (in my totally unscientific opinion).

Nevada Assembly Bill 158

The bill applies to:

“any public or private entity where allergens capable of causing anaphylaxis may be present on the premises of the entity or in connection with activities conducted by the entity. Such an entity may include, without limitation, a restaurant, recreation program, sports league, amusement park, stadium or arena. The term does not include a public or private school.”

Schools that are public and private aren’t included because of provisions for them elsewhere.  Just reading that passage gives me goosebumps because my pessimistic mind goes straight to thinking of people experiencing anaphylaxis in a restaurant or while playing sports after school.  And then I think of the lives that may be saved.  I think about vacationers in Las Vegas going out to eat and maybe leaving their epinephrine in their hotel room, something I tend to do when my routine is disrupted on vacations elsewhere, actually.

A lot of bases are covered in the bill – who may prescribe the epinephrine, protection from liability for those using the epinephrine in an allergic emergency, and more.

Submit a Comment (Nevada Residents Only, Please)

As you can see below, some folks have confused their bill numbers in making online comments as you can see by this remark “against” the bill that references the state retirement program (“PERS”):

PERS comment on the epinephrine legislation page

I am hoping the 20+ others in the graphic above are just confused, but wouldn’t it be great to have 20 “for” supporters for every “against” listed above?  The downside is the site won’t let me link you directly to the page for voicing support so I’ve got some screenshots to help you along so it is an easy process.

First!  Go to http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/78th2015/vwComments.cfm or use this handy short link: http://goo.gl/dRezms and click “Submit an Opinion.”

howtocommentonanevadalegislativebill1

Now, select AB158 from the drop-down menu like so…

howtocommentonanevadalegislativebill2

And the summary of the bill will pop up – helping you make sure you’re offering commentary (or not, it is optional to write a comment) on the right bill (yes, that was a gentle jab at the PERS commenter above).  However, you’ll see that you need to select the variant of the bill you’re supporting.  Today, April 17th, an amended version was posted (viewable here) and it impacts provisions not only in the original bill but in last session’s school stock epinephrine bill.  Be sure to fill out the Constituent Information before submitting so they know you’re a, well, constituent.

howtocommentonanevadalegislativebill3

This bill has not been on my radar as much as it might have been had there not also been two guardianship bills winding their way around, (guardianship is a main area of my law practice).  I mention the guardianship bills because my involvement in the process for both has shown me just what a dream team Senator Debbie Smith had in her camp last time around, including Senator Smith herself.  Everyone was poised, on point, and respectful of legislators’ time during the whole process.  In contrast, I was boo-ed when I made my statement to a legislative committee about AB325 the other day (right about at the part in my talk around paragraph 3).

SenS
Senator Smith speaking before a committee in April 2014

 

Senator Smith recently returned after a February 3, 2015 operable brain tumor diagnosis (read more on Grateful Foodie) and subsequent surgery and I think a great “welcome back” gift we could offer such a champion for individuals with food allergies would be support for AB158.

If you have submitted your vote of support for AB158, be sure to comment below.  Thank you for your help and thank you also to the team of food allergy advocates in both Northern and Southern Nevada for your continued hard work!

 

3 thoughts on “Nevada Legislative Session 2015 – Making Your Voice Heard

  1. Great info, Homa! What reasons do people have for being opposed to AB158? And, do you happen to know how many states have passed similar legislation? Thanks so much.

    Like

    1. I’ve been told people are concerned about misdiagnosis – they worry there would be negative impacts if a good Samaritan mistakes other symptoms for anaphylaxis and administers epinephrine. I am not sure about other reasoning, Caroline at Grateful Foodie is up in Carson City so she may have a better pulse on any opposing views.

      Like

Comments are closed.