The Legal Landscape of Food Allergy Accommodations with Laurel Francoeur

Season 4: I Don't Want to Talk About Politics

In this important episode, we’re joined once again by legal advocate and friend of the show, Laurel Francoeur, to unpack the Texas v. Becerra lawsuit—a case brought by 17 states challenging how the federal government enforces Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This law is crucial for ensuring students with disabilities, including those with food allergies, receive the medical support and accommodations they need at school.

Francoeur helps us make sense of the current legal landscape, including why this lawsuit is on pause for now, what’s at stake for students with food allergies and other medical needs, and how the outcome could shape school-based accommodations across the country.

3 Action Steps You Can Take After Listening:

1. Stay informed by revisiting our previous episode with Laurel, where we took a deeper dive into the legal rights of students with food allergies and explained key laws like the ADA and 504 in more detail.
   https://www.buzzsprout.com/2371319/episodes/15860506
   Blog — The Allergy Lawyer
2. Follow COPAA (Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates), who are working tirelessly to protect the rights of students and families.
   Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.
3.  Share your story and celebrate the importance of 504 with FAACT 
   Accommodations - Celebrate Section 504 - Celebrate Section 504 | FAACT

Special thanks to Kyle Dine for permission to use his song The Doghouse for the podcast theme!
www.kyledine.com

Find Dr. Whitehouse:
-thefoodallergypsychologist.com
-Instagram: @thefoodallergypsychologist
-Facebook: Dr. Amanda Whitehouse, Food Allergy Anxiety Psychologist
-welcome@dramandawhitehouse.com

Transcript

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 0:01

Welcome to the Don't Feed the Fear podcast, where we dive into the complex world of food allergy anxiety. I'm your host, Dr. Amanda Whitehouse, food allergy anxiety psychologist and food allergy mom. Whether you're dealing with allergies yourself or supporting someone who is, join us for an empathetic and informative journey toward food allergy calm and confidence.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 0:22

Welcome back to the Don't Feed the Fear Podcast. This spring, we are continuing to talk about all the things that we don't want to talk about, but that are important for us to have open conversations about. Today, t he thing that I really don't want to talk about is politics, but unfortunately current politics are potentially affecting the food allergy community in ways that we didn't expect.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 0:46

So today we are joined once again by friend of the show and food allergy attorney Laurel Francoeur, who is here to help us make sense of a major federal case that's been playing out Texas v. Beccera. This is a lawsuit brought by 17 states. Challenging the federal guidance around Section 5 0 4 plans. While kids with food allergies were not intended to be the target of this state's lawsuits, these plans are important for many of our children to stay safe and included at school. So while right now the case is currently on hold, it really raises big questions about how disability rights and the needs of people with medical disabilities are being interpreted and protected at the federal level.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 1:28

So full disclosure, I was so excited to get Laurel's take on this, and she and I really enjoyed chatting with each other. We didn't realize until we were finished that we really jumped right into this conversation without laying the groundwork or defining some of the terms that we used.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 1:43

If you aren't already familiar with these concepts, here's a quick primer to help you follow along. 5 0 4 refers to section 5 0 4 of the Rehabilitation Act, which protects students with disabilities and ensures that they get the accommodations they need in schools. Food allergies are one of many disabilities that can be accommodated under Section 5 0 4 A DA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Another key law protecting people with disabilities from discrimination IDEA or IDEA is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees special education services to eligible students. An IEP is an individualized education program under Idea, while a 5 0 4 plan is a support plan under Section 5 0 4. Both are legal tools that schools use to meet students' needs, depending on their individual situations. And OCR is the Office for Civil Rights, which is part of the Federal Government's Department of Justice, DOJ, and is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws in schools and other public programs.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 2:49

So this episode is an invitation just to stay up to date, to understand what's happening behind the scenes and why it matters so much for families like yours. We don't wanna cause an uproar, we just want everyone to be aware because the uncertainty of what's going on can be quite distressing for us. It's still up in the air, but here is Laurel Francoeur to talk to us more about where things stand at this moment in time. And I'll preface this episode by saying if you missed our first conversation on the show, it might be a good idea for you to pause and go back to listen to that first, because Laurel gives a more thorough background of the laws that apply to food allergy rights. And that was episode seven, which was published in October of 2024. So if you feel very unsteady about those concepts I just defined, you might wanna stop and go back and listen to that episode first and without further. Clumsy description from me here is Laurel Francoeur to help us understand what's going on at the current

Laurel Francoeur: 3:45

It started with DOJ 'cause they put a pause on all new cases at the Department of Justice. So Department of Justice, they enforced the ADA, so they enforced the ADA a at school. They enforce it in public places, employment. So they basically said, we're not gonna take any more cases. OCR is gutted, so they're pretty much stopped working DOJ lost, 70% of their lawyers and so they, had a pause taking new cases. I emailed them earlier this week and I normally get a response back, haven't gotten a response back.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 4:19

Okay. And for those weren't sure the ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA is for anyone who has a disability, including a food allergy that Right. The law would apply to protecting them as an, as a person with a disability. Right. Right, right.

Laurel Francoeur: 4:32

Okay.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 4:32

So the DOJ enforces the ADA.

Laurel Francoeur: 4:35

Right. Okay. And they've been on pause and then they just, got rid of 70% of their workforce. And they're changing their priorities. So they're no longer focusing so much on disabled people. They're focusing on anti DEI and transgender issues.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 4:53

And for those who don't know,, DEI is diversity, equity. Diversity, equity, inclusion, inclusion. It sounds like you're saying they're shifting away from people with medical disabilities and needs, and focusing on Particularly transgender people Right?

Laurel Francoeur: 5:08

Right, right. And so then that's where the Texas versus Beccera case came in.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 5:14

Which is what a lot of us in the food allergy community are hearing about and which is confusing because now it's Texas versus Kennedy.

Laurel Francoeur: 5:19

Just because they're suing the head of HHS and so HHS used to be a guy named Javier Beccera, and now it's Kennedy. Okay. So that's why the name is changed to Kennedy.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 5:30

Okay.

Laurel Francoeur: 5:31

But on the official docket it's still listed as Beccera,

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 5:34

Walk us through that it started with Texas. What are they claiming and what is happening with the most recent hearing that you told me about? That was in April.

Laurel Francoeur: 5:43

So what happened was, um, the HHS under the Biden administration. Put in new regulations about, 5 0 4, and it said things like,, reaffirmed that it has to be in a, the most inclusive environment, and certain other things, but as the example the HSS used transgender or gender dysphoria as a disability. So that freaked out 17 states, attorney General because they said we don't want to have to, um, not discriminate basically against people with gender dysphoria. And so they filed a lawsuit. So they said that those new regulations are unconstitutional, but then they went so far as say 5 0 4 in and of itself is unconstitutional. So they wanted to get rid of all of 5 0 4. And so there was a huge backlash. A lot of disability groups had their members write. To Congress or, you know, protest and so forth. So the last, they just had a, filing in April, and they said they're no longer challenging 5 0 4 in and of itself as unconstitutional. So they're saying we're only concentrating on this one context, meaning the transgender or gender dysphoria context. Okay, but they didn't withdraw the complaint part. The part of the complaint that makes it unconstitutional. So that's still in front of the court. They're just saying we're not pursuing it, but they didn't withdraw it.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 7:17

Okay? So that's still in the language and it's written into the case all the same. So this,

Laurel Francoeur: 7:22

they still have a count for 5 0 4. It in and of itself is unconstitutional. They're saying we're not pursuing that count anymore, but they didn't dismiss it. And then they're still pursuing this least restrictive environment, rather. Mm-hmm. They're saying that that's not part of 5 0 4, so that, places shouldn't have to worry about putting people in the least restrictive environment. So, for instance, with a person with food allergies, if they could be accommodated in the cafeteria mm-hmm. Where they can be with their peers, that would be great. As opposed to making them eat in the nurse's office where they're separated by themselves. And that has been part of 5 0 4, uh, law. And now they're saying that that part is not constitutional.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 8:08

Yeah, and my, education. Initially my psychology training was in school psychology, and that's the biggest central concept to everything about addressing needs, learning disabilities, medical needs in, in the school environment is the least restrictive environment means we don't have to remove the child anymore than necessary to, to meet their needs. It's helping kids to be included to the maximum extent that they can, which obviously benefits everyone. That's our whole, our whole special education system is designed and built on this concept. It's huge. Yep. So that's still part of the lawsuit. I'm sure there is legal terminology for this, but that would open the window for if, if you have a need that needs to be met, we can just seclude you and cordon you off in order to, to meet that need. Or is it that we don't have to meet it at all?

Laurel Francoeur: 8:57

So they're basically saying that that shouldn't be part of the calculation. Okay. So you shouldn't have to bring that into the calculation, but so we, we have two different. Different tracks. Here we have what the federal government is doing, and then we have the courts. So if you go into court, the court is still going to say that the least restrictive environment is the standard because that's based on their own case law and precedent and so forth. Okay? Unless this, unless this case says that that's all unconstitutional, then you have what the, um, federal government is doing and they're choosing not to enforce. Certain parts of civil rights law and disability law now.

Laurel Francoeur: 9:41

So for instance, OCR had 12 regional offices. They got rid of seven of them. They, have access civil rights for people who dunno for civil rights as part of the Department of Education. In the past three months, supposedly they've dismissed 90% of all disability cases that have come before them. They have stopped updating the OCR website, so usually the website will tell you which investigations are pending. They stopped updating that, so you have no idea what, what cases are pending anymore. And, they cut the staff. So the staff that is remaining is basically saying we can't do our job because it involves, investigations and, we don't have the staff anymore. Right? One of the OCR employees said, um, their caseload went from 60 cases to 380 cases. because of the regional closings and then parents are saying that they're not getting phone calls back, they're not getting updates on their current cases that are pending there, people aren't answering the phone supposedly. It's, it's horrible.

Laurel Francoeur: 10:45

Now there is a lawsuit brought by the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates or COPA, saying that this is wrong, that. The administration doesn't have a right to curtail the money that's gone to OCR and curtail its, priorities. But that case has just begun, so that's gonna take a long time to go through the, the wheels of justice.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 11:08

What avenue does that case go to? Who hears that?

Laurel Francoeur: 11:11

That's in federal court. That's in. DC the federal court in dc So they're basically saying that, what's been happening to OCR is is not authorized that Congress intends for it to be a working organization and, and for money allocated should go towards it. But, they wanna get rid of the entire Department of Education. They said they would put disability complaints with the Department of Justice. Now they're saying they might put them with HHS, health and Human Services. So they haven't decided where, if they close it, they would put disability complaints. But if you put it in either one, those organizations are already overwhelmed.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 11:53

Give people an idea of what kind of cases we're talking about. What's an example of a, a parent or a family who might have a case that's pending or that's not moving through because these are cut down so drastically.

Laurel Francoeur: 12:03

So a parent who, has a child with food allergies who is looking for accommodations and has been denied accommodations or has a 5 0 4 plan that's not being enforced by the school. So those are the types of cases, and discrimination, bullying, against people with food allergies. So basically

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 12:22

if your child is unsafe at school and the school is not responding appropriately, this would be your avenue for taking action. And it's, it's all but eliminated.

Laurel Francoeur: 12:32

States still have anti-discrimination rights. The problem is, most state departments of education only enforced IDEA, which is, for like IEPs. Mm-hmm. They don't have the power to enforce 5 0 4. So what's gonna happen is if OCR is no longer enforcing 5 0 4 mm-hmm. And the states cannot, 'cause they're not set up to enforce 5 0 4 mm-hmm. Then your only option is to go to federal court. Okay. And that takes long time. Right. So I have one case. It's a food allergy case, but not involving schools, but it's in federal court right now. And we filed a motion. In October, we haven't had a decision yet. So federal court moves very slowly. Right. So that was the whole idea of OCR was to be a quick process because if you are in school, you need a decision right away. I mean, you don't want a decision four years from now when you're no longer in school. I see. So now that's basically your only remedy.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 13:37

Right, people get confused about the difference between IEPs and 504, but IEPs cover for kids who have a learning disability, one of the categories of a learning disability, most kids with food allergies, if they don't also have a learning disability, would fall under the category of 5 0 4, which is a medical disability rather than a learning disability. So what you're saying applies to most of us, or at least many of us that have kids with food allergies who have 5 0 4 plans in the schools. Correct? Exactly. Exactly. What's the next step for the Texas case.

Laurel Francoeur: 14:08

So the attorneys general are trying to decide whether that's enough for them to be satisfied and don't need the case or whether they still need to bring the case. So I don't know how long that'll take. I think their next check-in is in July with the court.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 14:22

Okay. You had said after. There was some pushback from people pointing out how this might affect things very widely, even though it was really a discussion specifically about how to handle transgender issues when people spoke up about how this would impact other issues, including people with food allergies and 5 0 4 plans, The attorney's general of these states raising these cases? Um, said really, that wasn't their intent, but you said that it's still written that way. Even though they're saying their intent is really specific to how to handle transgender issues as they arise in schools.

Laurel Francoeur: 14:56

Right, right. So one of the counts in the complaint, what they call count three, is saying that asking the court to find 5 0 4 unconstitutional, full stop, that the, that their law and of itself is unconstitutional. They have written in their memos saying that we are no longer seeking that relief, that they're not actually looking for it to be unconstitutional the entire 5 0 4, but just in this one context,

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 15:24

Okay.

Laurel Francoeur: 15:25

however, they haven't withdrawn the actual complaint. So they've said we're not going forward with it, but they haven't removed that count from the complaint, so it's still in the complaint.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 15:35

They can remove that specific count., They can amend it as it's written, not just withdraw the whole piece, but they have,

Laurel Francoeur: 15:42

could, they could take out that one count, they

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 15:45

okay.

Laurel Francoeur: 15:45

that one count and keep the rest of the complaint going.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 15:49

Okay. So.

Laurel Francoeur: 15:50

why they didn't choose to do that. I don't know why. Instead, they're saying, we're not pursuing this claim.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 15:56

Right.

Laurel Francoeur: 15:56

know why they didn't just get rid of it.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 15:58

I see. What would you recommend people do if they wanna speak up?

Laurel Francoeur: 16:02

So ask for your attorney general to get out of the case completely.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 16:07

Okay.

Laurel Francoeur: 16:07

even if you get rid of that count, they're still asking for the least restrictive environment language to be stricken. So unfortunately, the rest of the cases still would still be pending even if they got rid of that one count.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 16:22

And still definitely impacting our community then.

Laurel Francoeur: 16:25

Oh yes. Yeah. yes. Everything is on pause right now and it's on pause, basically because the President signed an executive order saying We're no longer going to enforce trans rights, the states are trying to decide whether that's enough for them, enough of a win for them, or whether they need to still continue fighting the case. I see. So that's why it's on, on pause. So they're all assessing that part of it.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 16:51

And that is another thing that I think many of us get confused about. How does an executive order require or demand the changes that are involved? It just seems like it's such a more complicated process than that. It's an executive order, not a law. Right,

Laurel Francoeur: 17:05

right. But so every administration sets its priorities. So, for instance, the Department of Justice, civil Rights Division, they enforce the ADA. So each administration decides what priorities, 'cause obviously they, they don't have enough staff to handle every single ADA case or every issue that comes. So they, they prioritize. So in the past, the priorities have been people who are racially discriminated, gender discrimination, right?

Laurel Francoeur: 17:32

This administration has said those are no longer our priorities. our priorities now are basically anti DEI and,, keeping trans people out of sports, and allowing the religious schools To get vouchers and things like that. That's a case in front of the Supreme Court right now, whether religious schools can get state funds. With OCR for instance, the way they're not enforcing it is by getting rid of the people. So originally they fired a bunch of people at OCR. The court stepped in and said, you can't do this. You have to rehire these people. So what happened was they rehired them briefly, but then decided that they were gonna get rid of entire departments. So then they said, well, we're not firing the people. We're reorganizing and we're getting rid of departments. So they essentially got around the court order that way. And with Department of Justice, they started sending, memos to people saying, you could take an early retirement and get a severance pay, but then they also sent memos around saying, our priorities are changing. And so a lot of the lawyers who'd been there for years, over a hundred of them decided. These aren't the right priorities and quit.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 18:47

Mm-hmm.

Laurel Francoeur: 18:48

So that's how they get, that's how they get around it, you know?

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 18:52

Um, right. They quit. They chose to quit. Right. But they set the tone with all these executive orders. You're helping me understand it better. They're saying this is how we're gonna play things out and this is going to be the intent. So they kind of did that in order to set. The precedent for all these people before these offers were made of early retirement or resignation. The underlying tone is if you stay on, you have to be on board exactly what we're gonna enforce and how we're gonna approach it.

Laurel Francoeur: 19:16

Right. And so then The administration issued an order asking all federal agencies to stop enforcing cases based on disparate impact. So what that means is, Under disability law, you can have a policy that isn't discriminatory on its face, but it still ends up being discriminatory towards a group of people. So it has a disparate impact on one group of people versus another. That's been always been part of the disability law, that you look at, you know? Has there been disparate impact? But now all federal agencies are supposed to, reassess their cases involving disparate impact and possibly dismiss them and not this going forward. what that means is now in order to show discrimination, you have to show intent to discriminate, not just that the policy itself ended up discriminating.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 20:16

Right, which I imagine legally is hard to demonstrate. Demonstrate someone's intent.

Laurel Francoeur: 20:20

It's very hard. Yeah.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 20:22

All right, so that's another complication then that could affect cases. Anything regarding cases, where food allergies were discriminated against. If it wasn't intentional, if we can't prove that it was intentionally discriminatory, then those cases might not be heard. Is that correct?

Laurel Francoeur: 20:40

exactly. mean, they, we still be heard in the federal court, but this is, but this is federal governments agencies that are enforcing select DOJ. The,, equal Opportunities Commission Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, EOC, or organizations like that will stop enforcing it.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 20:57

I see. Thank you for explaining it all. All the different levels and departments and state and federal and, and how it's all connected is, is quite confusing to a lot of us. So it's hard to wrap our heads around. But basically it's just another very wide reaching policy that could impact us specifically, as individuals with a, a medical disability, right.

Laurel Francoeur: 21:18

Yeah.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 21:18

You had mentioned something positive to me about a new committee, and I would love it if you'd share that with everybody because we need to hear about some potential wins.

Laurel Francoeur: 21:27

HHS, is now forming an allergy committee to look into allergy issues and how they should be handled. And the woman who's heading it is somebody who's prominent in the food allergy community and she's very good, with the issues and understands the issues. So I'm sure that they will end up doing wonderful things. keep your eye out for that. Hopefully they will be, public soon.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 21:50

another promising thing that is state specific, but you know, you have so much experience with this. I would love it if you would comment on, the initiative that's building in California with the proposed law to require labeling of the top allergens on restaurant menus. And I know you had some. Similar work, in Massachusetts in terms of discussing these issues. I'd love your take on that topic.

Laurel Francoeur: 22:15

Yes, so Massachusetts was the first state to have a law regarding food allergies and restaurants. The initial law was going to. Include, that the restaurants should list all of their ingredients. So the proponent of the bill was Ming Sai, who had a Boston restaurant, and he had what he called the, the Bible, he had all of the ingredients of all of his recipes listed in. So originally the bill was written to require to list all of their ingredients. was pushback from the National Restaurant Association and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association because they were afraid that they would be giving away proprietary recipes, so they didn't want to do that.

Laurel Francoeur: 22:58

So a compromise was reached wherein if you ask. server are there, for instance, peanuts in this meal, they have to tell you whether or not there are peanuts in the meal. They don't have to tell you all of the ingredients, just if there's what the allergen that you're asking for. So that's why you see on the menus. Please ask your server if you have a food allergy or please alert your server. So that means, means that if you want to get questions about an allergen in a meal, you tell the server and ask them, and they have to. They have to reveal that,

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 23:33

I see. They don't have to write it on the menu, but they have to disclose it if you ask.

Laurel Francoeur: 23:38

right. But they don't have to disclose everything. Just if you say, are there peanuts in this? They have to be able to say yes or no.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 23:45

Does that apply only to the top allergens or is that any specific ingredient? If I said I'm allergic to.

Laurel Francoeur: 23:50

that you ask

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 23:51

Okay.

Laurel Francoeur: 23:51

Yeah.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 23:53

Are there other states since then that have similar laws?

Laurel Francoeur: 23:56

A bunch of states copied Massachusetts. So Rhode Island, I think, not sure if Illinois did, but a bunch of states copied Massachusetts restaurant law. So the so many states now, you'll see that disclaimer on menus. Please inform your server if you have a food allergy.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 24:14

Okay. Based on your experience with the formation of that law, how realistic do you think it is that we could have menus with the top allergens labeled? I know in Europe they've been doing this for a decade. Do you think it will happen here? And what do you think the barriers to it will be?

Laurel Francoeur: 24:31

It depends on how much pushback. They get. So if the restaurant association again says that they don't want to have to disclose, that might be some pushback. Another issue I think, is that restaurants fear that if they make a positive statement about, like for instance, this meal is peanut free, then they're gonna incur more liability than if they just said nothing. So I think restaurants are sort of afraid of that. However, they really shouldn't be afraid of that because in most states, there's strict liability for restaurants that serve something to a customer that's harmful, so they're gonna be liable regardless. I think the fear is if we hold ourselves out as this dish is peanut free and it turns out it's not, then they're gonna be more liable than if they just hadn't said anything.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 25:18

And you had mentioned that when you were talking about this in Massachusetts there was an attempt to, to clarify what it would mean for a restaurant to be allergy friendly

Laurel Francoeur: 25:29

Yeah,

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 25:29

and.

Laurel Francoeur: 25:29

of the law said that there'd be a commission to uh, what an allergy friendly restaurant. Would be. And so restaurants could declare themselves allergy friendly. And I was on the committee and we met a couple times and we couldn't decide what allergy friendly would be. Would it be you check the ingredients every month, every week, every day? Would you have to go back to your supplier and ask them if their ingredients have changed? we really couldn't come to a consensus on how you would define a restaurant as being. Allergy friendly, so that part of the law just never got implemented.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 26:07

I see with A good intent, but difficult to clarify, especially legally. Which reminds me of another topic it's encouraging that more and more states have stock epinephrine laws. I'm excited that in my state in New York last year, they passed a law requiring stock epinephrine at public venues Would you just talk about that trend a little bit too and what your thoughts are on how those laws are written and what they could mean for the future?

Laurel Francoeur: 26:31

Sure. So with those laws, there are good Samaritan provisions in them. So that means that if somebody gives an EpiPen, it has good intentions, but something goes wrong, they're not gonna be able to be sued. that, I think, should allay a lot of the fears that people have about. stock epinephrine and giving epinephrine in an emergency situation. However, I think a lot of people are still afraid. in Massachusetts we have a regulation that says the school nurse may train teachers on how to use epinephrine. I. But it doesn't say shall So I've had some school districts where none of the teachers have wanted to be trained. They just said, we don't wanna to bother.

Laurel Francoeur: 27:17

when I tried to find out what, what was behind that, I think it was this fear that a needle and it's a complicated procedure possibly, and just sort of the fear around that. And they, they don't understand that. EpiPens are designed for lay people. They are designed so that people can give them to themselves and it's really not that difficult to do. But I think there's still this fear of it being a needle and what if I do something wrong or,

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 27:48

I agree. I see that in in patients too, as far as people hesitating to use their epinephrine. There's something about that needle and that device that's really intimidating. So I think this wave of needle free options that's on the horizon with Nefi, you know, being the first to be approved here in the us, I think it really could change a lot, both with People's emotional experience and maybe legally, hopefully.

Laurel Francoeur: 28:10

yeah, I think it's, it's a, it's a huge game, game changer. Unfortunately, a lot of the laws, like the stock epi laws are gonna have to be rewritten because they mention autoinjectors.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 28:20

Right,

Laurel Francoeur: 28:21

a lot of those laws will have to be rewritten to account for other means of administration of epinephrine.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 28:26

right. Which

Laurel Francoeur: 28:27

not a big deal.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 28:28

it's not a big deal. I assume it's just a small change to the wording, yet a whole lengthy legal process to accomplish that is that

Laurel Francoeur: 28:35

Yeah.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 28:36

Usually the case. All right. Well, can you think of anything else that, you wanna leave people with in terms of all of these legal changes on the horizon and, and in the public discussion these days?

Laurel Francoeur: 28:48

It's frustrating right now because we're in a, a time of change and we don't know what's going to happen.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 28:53

Mm-hmm.

Laurel Francoeur: 28:54

have all of these, issues that could threaten our rights, a guy who's in my office, another lawyer has basically said, we have to tell clients, suck it up.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 29:05

Mm-hmm.

Laurel Francoeur: 29:06

And as lawyers, we don't like to, I mean, he was kidding. But as

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 29:10

Right.

Laurel Francoeur: 29:10

don't like to say that, you know, we, we wanna have an answer. We wanna be able to say, yes, you have a remedy. And right now it's unclear how this is all gonna shake out. So we just sort of have to wait and see and, and be vocal and speak up and contact your legislators. Contact your local people, and ask for these things to work out. And hopefully, hopefully that pushback will be enough to change things, but

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 29:37

Thank you for sharing that. I've been feeling the same a lot in my work in, in therapy sessions with clients and people being impacted in so many different ways and, I'm saying a lot of the same in terms of using our voices and speaking up when we have the time and the energy. So thank you for that encouragement.

Laurel Francoeur: 29:53

of protests now, people protesting every day, it's at Tesla or Social Security.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 30:00

Mm-hmm.

Laurel Francoeur: 30:01

and they are having, they are having effect and, and the courts have been helping too. The courts have been giving us good rulings saying that some of these things are not allowed, that you can't take certain funding away.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 30:13

Yeah.

Laurel Francoeur: 30:13

So there is some hope.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 30:15

Good. So keep speaking up. And you mentioned, particularly speaking up and giving a face to. The issue, a specific scenario, not just a general, idea. Right?

Laurel Francoeur: 30:26

When you do talk to your legislators, make it personal, tell a story, they respond much better to stories of how it's impacting you rather than just general principles. So if you say this. or this procedure that's in now is going to affect my child this way because X, Y, and Z really make it a personal story. I think you get a lot more traction with that. So I always say make sure you make it personal and let them know that this is really affecting their constituents.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 30:58

Thank you for that. I hope that people will continue to do that and hopefully we'll know more in time here and things will be clearer in terms of what the impact might be. But in the meantime, I appreciate your, your feedback and your insight about all of it,

Laurel Francoeur: 31:10

Oh, you're welcome.

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 31:11

Here are three things that you can do after you've finished this episode. Number one, as I mentioned before, go back and listen to the previous episode that Laurel and I did. It's episode seven, released in October of 2024. that's where Laurel broke down the basic legal concepts and how they apply to food allergy families. It's a great foundational companion to this very specific topic covered in today's episode. Check in with Laurel Francoeur blog. You can find her@theallergylawyer.com and link to her blog from her main page. Number two, I'd suggest that you learn more about and connect with the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. They are actively working on this issue and offering resources and updates and information to help families advocate effectively. You can find them online at copaa.org. Their Instagram account is C-O-P-A-A-F-A-P-E, counsel of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. You'll also find their Facebook page under the same name. They're very easy to track down and putting out a lot of helpful information. And finally number three. Fact, F-A-A-C-T, which is the Food Allergy and anaphylaxis connection team has created a great page celebrating section 5 0 4, encouraging people to share their stories and to help with advocacy by showing the impact that 5 0 4 plans have on our lives. The address is too long to repeat, but I will put the link in the show notes as well as the notes for the previously mentioned things, but you can also find it easily if you just search for F-A-A-C-T. Celebrate section 5 0 4

Amanda Whitehouse, PhD: 32:46

This was a tough conversation, but I do feel like it's important to know what's going on and what's potentially affecting us and have the chance to get involved if we choose. And I'm so grateful to Laurel Francoeur for helping us to navigate it with clarity. And a little bit of calm, even though it is a confusing time. the content of this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not a substitute for professional medical or mental health advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you have any questions about your own medical experience or mental health needs, please consult a professional. I'm Dr. Amanda White house. Thanks for joining me. And until we chat again, remember don't feed the fear.