The Press Herald’s editorial (“Parental consent bills could hurt kids in need,” March 28) opposing L.D. 31, which would ensure legal guardian consent for prescription medications, ignores some crucial facts.

There are already legal mechanisms to handle removing a child from a dangerous home situation that at least offer some semblance of respect for the parent’s fundamental right to direct the medical treatment of their minor children. Barring an immediate life-saving situation, I see no reason why this recourse should not be used in the event the minor in question is living in an abusive home situation.

Secondly, the editorial ignores or dismisses the need for such a bill. I need only point to numerous recent documented instances of minor children being involved in sex trafficking at the hands of an abusive adult (who is not their legal guardian) attempting to obtain “health” services so that minor can continue to be an unwilling accomplice in their trade, all of this without a legal guardian’s knowledge or consent.

Moreover, the editorial fails to note that a parent (or legal guardian) is typically more knowledgeable of their minor child’s health history than any non-parent could hope to be and thus could avert potentially dangerous applications of prescription medications.

All of these make a much stronger case for guaranteeing parental consent in this area and continued support for what the editorial rightfully acknowledges at the outset: the “perfectly legitimate and time-honored belief that parents want and are entitled to responsibility over any decisions affecting the health and welfare of their children.”