NH House committee hears bill to bar doctors from denying medically necessary sterilizing treatments based on reproductive assumptions

Representative Ellen Reed, prime sponsor of House Bill 606, told the House Committee on Health and Human Services and Elderly Affairs that the bill responds to repeated accounts of patients being denied sterilizing treatments even when physicians said the treatment would address a medical condition.

"The doctor can, of course, always deny for medical reasons ... The doctor can deny for payment reasons. The doctor can deny even for religious reasons, but just not these kind of condescending patronizing reasons," Representative Ellen Reed said in opening testimony.

Why it matters: Supporters say the bill would remove a recurring barrier that has delayed or denied treatment for people with conditions such as endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and other reproductive and systemic disorders. Opponents raised questions about religious liberty, clinical judgment and whether the bill should preserve a duty to refer when a clinician objects.

What the bill would do: The amendment before the committee defines a "medical condition" tailored to reproductive and related health matters and lists "appropriate reproductive care" to include hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, salpingectomy, endometrial ablation and medications that affect fertility. Under the text offered to the committee, physicians may not deny medically indicated sterilizing treatment on the basis of age (if the patient is 18 or older), the number of children a patient already has, marital status or the physician's speculation about a patient's reproductive intent.

Supporters' testimony: Dozens of witnesses, many describing years of pain and repeated refusals by clinicians, urged passage. Representative Lauren Selig (Strafford County) described a ten‑year struggle to secure a hysterectomy for debilitating symptoms; other witnesses recounted long delays in diagnosis, repeated denials and impacts on daily functioning. Charlotte Montgomery, who told the panel she was later diagnosed with stage 2 endometriosis and adenomyosis, said, "I started bleeding uncontrollably at the age of 10," and described repeated denials before surgical care.

Questions from members: Committee members pressed about religious‑objection carveouts and legal exposure. Representative Markell asked whether physicians could refuse on religious grounds; Reed replied her draft did not remove existing religious exemptions. Several members asked for clarification about the bill's removal of earlier referral language and for precise definitions of the medical conditions covered.

Opposition and concerns: A handful of questions and statements at the hearing asked the committee to preserve clinical judgment and consider referral duties if a clinician objects. Some members also sought clearer statutory language for the definition of covered conditions and for how the bill would interact with insurers and malpractice law.

Where it goes next: The committee closed public testimony and did not take a formal vote during the hearing. Committee members asked technical and drafting questions; sponsors and staff offered to circulate and refine language before a future committee action.

Ending: Supporters framed the bill as a limited patient‑rights measure — one designed to prevent clinicians from overriding an informed adult patient's decision on non‑medical grounds. Opponents and some members requested clearer definitions and assurances about the interplay with religious objections and existing standards of care.