Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Health Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require 'Baby Olivia' gestation video in classes draws mixed testimony on neutrality and parental opt‑out
Summary
Rep. John Sellers told the committee HB 667 would require students at public high schools and state colleges to view an animated gestational‑development video; testimony split between advocates who said the video teaches prenatal biology and opponents who said mandating a particular video risks bias and infringes on local curricular judgment.
Representative John Sellers returned to present House Bill 667, which would require students in grades 9–12 and students at state universities and community colleges to view a specific animated video about prenatal development (referred to in testimony as “Baby Olivia”) or similar materials.
Sellers described the video as a “medically accurate animated glimpse of the human life from the moment of fertilization” and said it fosters “empathy and respect for life” and helps students make informed decisions. He said the requirement could fit into freshman orientation at colleges and community colleges and that state institutions could certify students have watched the material.
Committee members and witnesses probed neutrality, age appropriateness and the cost of university implementation. Representative Selleck asked whether the video producer’s stated goal of changing minds raised neutrality concerns; Sellers said other neutral resources (he cited the “Endowment for Human Development” video) could be used instead. Representative Paul asked about fiscal‑note lines cited in testimony — community college estimates ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per year and a $135,000‑figure for UNH — and Sellers said fiscal notes are estimations and he did not know the exact costs.
Health educators and public‑school teachers testified against mandating a particular video. Paige Beauchampagne, a women’s health nurse and certified sex‑education instructor, said no single mandated video is appropriate because teachers need to tailor materials to students’ maturity and emotional health. She also recommended opt‑out for students and adults. Other witnesses (Sarah McNeil, a retired RN who volunteered at a clinic that performed abortions) said calling an embryo a “baby” is misleading and could confuse students. Kurt Wolper, New Hampshire Right to Life chairman, and other pro‑bill witnesses repeated that the video presents prenatal development in a way they consider educational and life‑affirming.
School boards and administrators warned the committee about prescriptive curriculum bills; NHSBA and NHSAA representatives told the committee that the State Board’s “306” health education rules and local curriculum control mean districts and teachers are best placed to decide on materials and timing.
The committee did not take a vote. Sponsors and witnesses discussed options for amendments (opt‑out language for adults/students; allowing alternative, evidence‑based videos; clarifying fiscal impacts for higher‑education institutions).
