The New Hampshire House of Representatives is currently debating House Bill 1769, legislation that proposes to restrict taxpayer funding to medical facilities that do not simultaneously offer referrals to both abortion services and pregnancy resource centers. The bill has ignited a debate about informed choice, patient autonomy, and the role of state funding in reproductive healthcare.
As proposed, HB 1769 would require healthcare providers receiving state funds to provide patients seeking abortion services with a referral to a pregnancy resource center (PRC). These centers, which generally oppose abortion, offer counseling, resources, and support services to pregnant women. Supporters of the bill argue that this ensures patients are fully informed of all available options. Representative Samuel Farrington, R-Rochester, stated, “We want mothers to understand that they have options, that abortion isn’t always the only option.” He further highlighted the services offered by PRCs, noting they provide “free resources, medical training, consulting, all free of charge to mothers.”
However, opponents of the bill raise concerns about the potential for coercion and the ethical implications of requiring doctors to present options that may conflict with their medical judgment. Kayla Montgomery, of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, expressed concern that the bill places providers in an untenable position. “Most health care providers would not be comfortable with lying to their patients,” she said. “So, the state of New Hampshire would be asking providers to choose between funding and lying to their patients, and we know that the vast majority of providers would choose not to have that funding, because they’re not going to lie to patients.”
The debate over HB 1769 occurs within a broader context of ongoing changes to reproductive healthcare access in New Hampshire. In 2021, the state legislature enacted a budget mandate requiring physical and financial separation of abortion and family planning services for facilities receiving taxpayer dollars. This earlier measure, as reported in , aimed to restrict funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood, with proponents arguing that public funds should not indirectly support abortion services. This separation requirement was based on a new state law.
a separate piece of legislation, discussed in a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier in , proposes to require healthcare centers receiving state dollars to refer pregnant women to crisis pregnancy centers when discussing abortion options. This bill, HB 1769, is supported by groups like New Hampshire Right to Life, who argue it promotes “informed choice.” Jason Hennessey, president of New Hampshire Right to Life, explained, “So this bill basically just helps to inform pregnant women of their options.”
The nature of pregnancy resource centers is also a point of contention. Opponents, like Montgomery, point out that these centers often do not offer comprehensive medical care, are not subject to the same medical standards and guidelines as licensed healthcare facilities, and do not provide referrals for abortion services. This raises questions about the quality and objectivity of the information provided to patients.
The proposed legislation also impacts the state’s family planning program. According to Montgomery, the 2021 decision to end state family planning money going to Planned Parenthood has already had consequences. She suggests that the current bill could “decimate” what remains of the state’s family planning program.
The debate surrounding HB 1769 reflects a broader national trend of increasing legislative activity related to abortion access. The bill’s passage could significantly alter the landscape of reproductive healthcare in New Hampshire, potentially limiting access to abortion services and influencing the information available to pregnant women. The potential impact on women’s health outcomes, as noted by opponents, remains a key concern. The bill’s supporters maintain that it simply aims to ensure women are aware of all available options and have access to resources that support both continuing a pregnancy and making informed decisions.
The bill includes an exemption for medical emergencies, acknowledging situations where immediate medical intervention is necessary. However, the core issue remains: whether the state should mandate specific referral practices for healthcare providers, potentially influencing patient choices and raising ethical concerns about the role of government in medical decision-making.