The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 232 as amended, a measure that would allow health-care workers to refuse participation in abortion-related services on conscience grounds.

Representative Pedernal, the amendment sponsor, said the latest "replace-all" amendment removes sterilization and contraceptive provisions, aligns the definition of abortion with a referenced New Hampshire statute, and eliminates threefold damages in favor of limiting damages to actual losses. "This bill is about choice," Pedernal said, arguing it would protect physicians who object and could attract clinicians to the state.

Opponents urged caution, arguing the amendment still leaves key terms undefined and could enable broad refusal across health-care settings. Representative Rambo warned the amendment could "trample on employers' rights to set schedules" and noted the bill lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a provider for whom the exception would not apply. Representative Mannos said including nursing homes raises the risk of denying care to incapacitated patients, and that rural communities could lose access to necessary services if nonclinical staff are allowed to refuse care.

Other members pressed two recurring concerns: (1) the amendment does not define the procedural steps for claiming a conscientious objection (so an employer might not know or be able to respond), and (2) the civil-liability language includes a statutory minimum recovery (earlier drafts referenced a $10,000 floor) that some members said would substitute judicial determinations for juries.

After extended debate the committee conducted roll calls first on the amendment and then on the main motion. The final recorded tally on the motion to report HB232 "ought to pass as amended" was 10 yays and 7 nays. Representative Pedernal was asked to write the majority report; arrangements for a minority report were also noted.

The committee's action is a procedural step that advances the bill to the next stage of the legislative process; it does not itself change state law. The majority argues the amendment narrows and clarifies the measure; critics say lingering ambiguities about definitions, employer authority and emergency-care exceptions should be resolved before it proceeds.