Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health Abortion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate hearing on SB 260: sponsors seek statutory protection of abortion access up to 24 weeks
Summary
Sen. Deborah Ochsler introduced SB 260 to codify an affirmative state law protecting the right to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood, ACLU and reproductive‑rights groups, urged passage as a clear statutory guarantee after Roe’s overturn; opponents from pro‑life groups urged rejection. Committee members
Senate Bill 260 prompted a lengthy hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee when Sen. Deborah Ochsler introduced legislation that would affirm in statute that, prior to 24 weeks’ gestation, “the right to terminate a pregnancy shall not be infringed upon in New Hampshire.”
Ochsler framed the bill as grounding reproductive‑health protections in state law after federal protections were reduced. “This bill affirms that prior to 24 weeks gestation, the right to terminate a pregnancy shall not be infringed upon in New Hampshire,” she said, adding the measure “recognizes three important facts” about reproductive‑health access and state precedent.
Supporters described SB 260 as a clarity measure that would put New Hampshire in line with its New England neighbors. Claire T. Looney of Reproductive Equity Now said New Hampshire is “the only state in New England without affirmative legal protections for abortion, either in its statute or in its constitution.” Liz Kanda of Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Courtney Reed of the ACLU of New Hampshire urged the committee to report the bill favorably, citing public‑health harms from restrictions elsewhere and public opinion polling showing majority support for state protections.
Support witnesses emphasized the bill would not impose new medical requirements or change the current standard of care; rather, they said, it would provide explicit statutory protection and certainty for patients and providers. “When we talk about abortion access, we are talking about health care,” Ochsler said. Supporters noted the 1997 repeal of a 1955 criminal abortion ban and said a statute affirming an affirmative right would reduce confusion and protect access if stricter measures are proposed in future legislatures.
Opponents urged the committee to reject SB 260. Michael Cherney and Kurt Wolper (chairman, New Hampshire Right to Life) argued that the language “shall not be infringed” is unusually broad and could invite litigation; Wolper said the bill “sanctions abortion” and expressed moral objections. Pastor Sean Foster and other faith‑based opponents asked the committee to protect unborn life and opposed the bill on moral grounds.
Committee members pressed witnesses on what concrete legal difference SB 260 would make versus current law. Supporters acknowledged that statutory protections can be changed by future legislatures, but said a statute provides more immediate clarity and a public record of policy intent. Counsel and witnesses debated whether existing statutory language already provides practical access up to 24 weeks and whether an affirmative statute would materially alter legal outcomes.
The hearing concluded with no committee vote taken; senators asked follow‑up questions and requested additional information from witnesses. The hearing record includes multiple organizational statements and both affiliated and unaffiliated individuals presenting testimony for and against the bill.
