Republican Led Bill Would Stop Doctors from Pulling the Plug on Hospitalized Children Without Parental Consent

The Legislative Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on a bill from Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport) on Tuesday that would prevent doctors from withdrawing life support from hospitalized children without parental approval.

[RELATED: Report: 57 Maine School Districts Hide Gender Transition Counseling From Parents…]

“There is a Nazi style, eugenics driven genocide of children happening in our nation’s hospitals which blatantly disregards your parental right to make critical medical decisions for your child,” said Rep. Paul during her testimony on the bill.

“In most states, it is perfectly legal for a doctor to unilaterally decide that your precious child is not worthy of life preservation,” she added.

In explaining the need for her bill, Paul argued that doctors often place a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order on a child they deem to be severely cognitively impaired. She believes that it is not the doctor’s place to make such determinations about a child’s quality of life, whether he or she should not be resuscitated or that he or she should be denied medical intervention.

Paul’s bill would put those difficult decisions solely in the hands of parents.

“Your right to choose what is best for your child should be held in the highest regard,” said Paul.

In addition to the ethical issues the bill seeks to resolve, and the human life it could preserve, Paul pointed out that the bill could benefit doctors legally because they will no longer be liable for the decision to end or preserve the lives of minors under their care.

Paul submitted the bill, LD 410, in honor of Simon Crosier, a baby who died in a Missouri hospital after doctors placed a DNR on his file without his parents’ knowledge or consent.

“Baby Simon was diagnosed with Trisomy 18 when he was three days old, and three months later his life was cut short when medical professionals decided that his life was not worth saving, and without parental knowledge or consent, they placed a DNR on his file and systematically starved him until he eventually passed away,” said Paul on X.

Tomorrow, Tuesday March 4th, 2025, there will be a public hearing for my bill LD 410 "An Act to Require Parental Consent to Withhold Life-sustaining Measures for a Minor or to Comply with a Do-not-resuscitate Order for a Minor." Around the country, this bill is known as "Simon's… pic.twitter.com/SOocYNtOF8

— Reagan Paul (@RepReaganPaul) March 3, 2025

Simon’s mother, Sheryl Crosier, testified in favor of the bill.

“Our son Simon was passively euthanized, or call it whatever you want, right before our eyes, and we were helpless to stop it. No parent should bury their child because a doctor disregarded a parent’s wishes,” said Crosier.

Numerous members of the public and organizations submitted testimony in favor of the “Simon’s Law” bill.

Nicholas Adolphsen testified in favor of the bill on behalf of the Christian Civic League of Maine.

“LD 410 is a vital piece of legislation that upholds the rights of parents to be fully informed and to consent to significant medical decisions affecting their children. By enacting this bill, Maine will join other states in affirming the essential role of parents in the healthcare of their minor children, ensuring that such critical decisions are made collaboratively and transparently,” said Adolphsen.

Bobbi Johnson, director of the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) in the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), submitted testimony against the bill on behalf of the state agency.

She argued that there are already provisions in Maine law to allow parental input in life-or-death situations, although parental input can be overridden.

“It directly conflicts with the existing statute around DNRs in the Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act. 22 MRSA §4037(2) provides a process for withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment for children in the care and custody of the Department. OCFS has an established process for these instances that allows for the parents to provide input when their rights have not been terminated,” said Johnson.

DHHS’ Johnson expressed concern that the bill still requires parental consent even if the parents have lost custody of the child, despite the bill allowing a parent or legal guardian to make the decision. In addition, Johnson said the OCFS is concerned that the bill does not address cases in which parents may disagree on whether to place a DNR on their child’s medical file.

Out of 22 written testimonies submitted on the bill, only Johnson and one other member of the public opposed LD 410. One additional woman submitted testimony against LD 410, but her testimony appeared to be for an entirely different bill and had apparently been mislabeled.

Five Republican lawmakers joined Paul as co-sponsors, but the bill did not garner any Democratic support.

As written, the bill requires written consent from a parent or legal guardian before doctors can withdraw life support or place any restrictions on life-sustaining measures for a minor. It forbids doctors from hindering parents in obtaining an alternative medical opinion or transferring the child to another medical facility, and requires them to aid in any transfer.

Health care practitioners must also provide access to the child and the child’s records to the parents, and cannot hinder parents in procuring medical measures, mechanisms, or procedures. At the same time, the bill allows parents to revoke consent to stop treating a child and requires hospitals to attempt to contact a minor’s parents if they have not been consulted.

Paul’s legislation also creates a legal presumption that continuation of life is in a child’s best interest, preventing a court from overriding a parent’s decision to continue with life-saving measures.

Parents will retain the right to decide whether measures will be taken to preserve their child’s life unless the child’s circulatory and respiratory systems and brain have been destroyed.

The fiscal note attached to the bill estimates that it will cost taxpayers nothing.

Multiple states have already passed similar “Simon’s Laws,” including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia.

Former U.S. Rep. Jake LaTurner (R-Kan.) submitted a Simon’s Law bill for national consideration in 2023, but it has not yet advanced towards a vote in Congress.