The Senate yesterday defeated an attempt to require minors to get their parents' consent before they could buy emergency contraception.

The bill would have required young women under 18 to get parental approval before obtaining the morning-after pill. It also would have protected pharmacists from lawsuits if they refused to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception. The Senate voted, 14 to 10, to kill the bill.

The emergency-contraception bill came in response to a state law that took effect last August, which allows pharmacists to write prescriptions for emergency contraception themselves, so women do not have to make a separate trip to the doctor's office. The program is voluntary, and only pharmacists who have participated in training and partnered with a physician or nurse can prescribe the pill on the spot.

In the Senate yesterday, many praised that law. But others said they opposed it last year and hoped to change it to require parental permission for emergency contraception.

"We have state law requiring parental consent for tanning, body piercing, seatbelts, helmets the list goes on," said Sen. Bob Letourneau, a Derry Republican who sponsored the parental-permission bill. "When a decision is of even greater importance, it is wrong for parents to be completely excluded from the decision making."

Sen. Maggie Hassan, an Exeter Democrat, called Letourneau's argument a "red herring."

"We allow minors in this state to get medical treatment for things like sexually transmitted diseases without their parents' consent, because as important as a parent's right to be involved in a child's medical care is, what is more important is a child's right to safety and health," she said.

Sen. Iris Estabrook called the bill "an outrage," saying it would discriminate against poor and rural women and minors by inhibiting their access to emergency contraception. Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat, said he didn't understand why lawmakers would want to inhibit access to a drug that provides a proven alternative to abortion or childbirth.

"It struck me as a cry in the wilderness that (Letourneau) did not speak for the rights of young women," Burling said. "I think every young woman in the state of New Hampshire should have the right to make a choice that's different from abortion or childbirth. And if you take that choice away from them, that's all they're left with."

All eight Democrats were joined by six Republicans in voting to kill the bill. Senate President Ted Gatsas and Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg sided with the minority.

In other action, the Senate:

q considered a resolution from Estabrook to urge Congress to allow federal money to be spent on embryonic stem-cell research. Estabrook and other supporters spoke about the hope of using research on stem cells from embryos that would otherwise be discarded to develop treatments for degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and leukemia.

But the version approved by the Senate yesterday was amended to strike the word "embryonic"and instead encourage research only on other types of stem cells.

Estabrook protested, saying that would render the resolution "completely and utterly meaningless."

That prompted a debate between Sen. Joseph Foster, a Nashua Democrat, and Sen. Andre Martel, a Manchester Republican, on the potential value of embryonic stem-cell research. Foster praised the potential for finding new cures and expressed dismay over the current limitations. Martel said embryonic stem-cells were not needed for research and objected to Foster's claim that science was being restricted.

"I would never tie a scientist's (hands) behind anybody's back, Senator," Martel said. "And to imply that, I resent. I believe the scientists are doing a fine job and would excel" at their research whether or not embryonic stem cells were used. (next page »)