House committee hears hours of testimony on bill to protect health‑care workers' conscience rights

The House Judiciary Committee heard more than two hours of testimony on HB 232, a measure introduced by Representative Mark Pearson that would expand statutory conscience protections for health‑care workers and other individuals who provide or facilitate medical services.

Supporters told the committee the bill aims to protect health‑care professionals from being forced to perform procedures that violate their ethics or religious beliefs and to retain workers in New Hampshire; opponents said the bill is overbroad, would permit refusals that harm patients and could leave patients without timely care.

Representative Mark Pearson, the bill’s prime sponsor, opened by describing the measure as limited to “conscience‑based objections to very specific procedures” and said it “does not permit a refusal to serve a person on the basis of their race, color … or any other protected characteristic.” He told the committee the bill’s primary goal is to keep physicians and other clinicians practicing in New Hampshire rather than leaving for other states.

Dissenting testimony came from clinicians and health‑system representatives who warned that the bill’s definitions could reach far beyond operating rooms to clerks, pharmacists and other staff. Paige Beauchmann, a maternal‑child health nurse, said she feared the provision covering “any other person who furnishes artificial contraception” could allow a clerk at a rural pharmacy to refuse to dispense contraception. Kate Peters, a family doctor, said similar policies in other states narrowed access over time: “Over months and years, they had to narrow and narrow and narrow the opportunities they had to provide those things,” she said, adding that in rural settings a single objection can effectively end a service line.

Dartmouth Health’s senior director of government relations, Courtney Tanner, told the committee the bill’s definition of “health care provider” is too broad and could encompass outpatient clinics and retail pharmacies, raising EMTALA and access concerns. The ACLU of New Hampshire raised constitutional and discrimination concerns and cautioned the committee that emergency carve‑outs would be hard to operationalize across the wide range of workers the bill covers.

Supporters argued the bill includes carve‑outs: Pearson told members he had amended the measure to exclude emergency care situations and to deny protection to someone who “weaponizes” the law by taking a job at a facility and then immediately invoking an objection to force a legal case. Jason Hennessy, president of New Hampshire Right to Life, said the bill simply enshrines conscience protections and pointed to rules in many states that provide similar safeguards.

Committee members repeatedly pressed for clarification on operational details: who decides an emergency, whether staff who take calls could refuse scheduling without telling anyone, and how employers would verify prior disclosures from candidates. Representative Manos asked explicitly, “Who determines whether it’s an emergency situation?” Pearson replied the triage process in an emergency room should make that “pretty obvious,” and that refusing care in extremis would expose a provider to sanctions.

Several witnesses described concrete examples they said motivated the bill and its critics. Rebecca Hoskins gave testimony on her personal medical history and said she feared being denied contraceptive care or life‑saving treatment under broad conscience rules. Physicians and health‑system witnesses described staffing and operational risks in rural hospitals if clinic staff could opt out of tasks that are part of routine care teams.

The committee did not vote on HB 232 during the hearing. Members indicated many technical questions remained; sponsors and stakeholders said they would seek drafting clarifications to narrow or better define coverage for non‑clinical staff, the emergency exception and notice procedures.

The hearing continued with public testimony and follow‑ups; the committee recessed the item without a formal vote, leaving the bill’s next steps to the committee’s schedule.