Minors; prohibit health care providers and institutions from providing health care to without parental consent.
Summary
HB 120 would substantially revise Mississippi’s rules for consent to medical treatment for unemancipated minors. The bill requires health-care providers, when a minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian, to give the parent or guardian a written notice explaining that they may restrict who can consent to treatment for the child and may instead designate specific adults authorized to do so. It also creates a process for parents or guardians to list additional authorized adults for each minor child.
The bill generally prohibits health-care institutions and providers from treating an unemancipated minor without first obtaining consent from a parent, guardian, or parent-designated adult. If no such person can be reached within 72 hours after attempted contact, the bill allows certain other relatives or responsible adults to consent in a priority order, subject to listed exceptions. It also creates a private right of action allowing a parent, guardian, or surrogate to sue for violations, seek damages and injunctive relief, and recover attorneys’ fees, while waiving certain immunities to the extent of liability created by the act.
Impact
HB 120 would amend Section 41-41-3 and conforming provisions in Sections 41-41-17 and 41-42-7 of the Mississippi Code, while repealing Sections 41-41-13 and 41-41-14. The practical effect is to tighten parental control over consent for minors’ medical care and remove existing statutory exceptions that allowed treatment of minors for venereal disease and certain alcohol- or drug-related mental or emotional problems without parental consent. The bill would also affect health-care providers, hospitals, and institutions by imposing notice, consent-verification, and documentation requirements beginning July 1, 2025, and by exposing them to civil litigation for noncompliance.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the available context does not show direct debate or formal vote outcomes. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a strong pro-parental-consent policy position. The structure of the bill suggests support for parental authority in minors’ health-care decisions and skepticism toward existing exceptions that allow some treatment without parental involvement.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between parental rights and minors’ access to confidential or timely medical care. Opponents would likely focus on the repeal of the venereal disease and substance-related mental health exceptions, the 72-hour consent framework, and the private right of action with damages and fee-shifting, all of which could increase barriers and liability for providers. Supporters would likely emphasize parental notice, control over who can consent, and the ability to designate trusted adults, as well as the bill’s exceptions for emergencies and other specific circumstances.