Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Patients and committee press for clearer access to sterilization and hysterectomy care; bill recommended for further work
Summary
After two public testimonies describing long histories of endometriosis and delayed care, the House Health committee voted to recommend HB1067 for future legislation, asking sponsors to refine language so patient rights are protected without unintended drafting problems.
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two women provided emotional testimony about endometriosis and barriers to care as the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs considered HB1067, a bill about patients’ access to sterilization treatment.
"I began experiencing pain so intense, it felt like a serrated knife was slicing and twisting through my abdomen," testified Lindsay Taylor Jackson, who described years of misdiagnosis, frequent ER visits and ultimately a hysterectomy she said restored her dignity and daily functioning. Another testifier, Maggie Cons, said her condition began at puberty, forced repeated absences from school and limited her career opportunities. Both urged the committee to ensure consenting adults can access sterilization when clinically appropriate.
Committee members expressed sympathy with the callers’ accounts but raised drafting concerns. Some members said the existing "patient bill of rights" language applies only to certain facilities (RSA 151 was cited) and advised moving any longer‑term protections into a different statutory section so the right to a procedure would not be limited by facility definitions.
Representative Lamb moved to recommend HB1067 for future legislation; the motion carried on a roll call of 12–3. Members asked sponsors to work with stakeholders and counsel to narrow language, avoid unintended interaction with facility‑specific laws and to include safeguards that protect both patient choice and clinical standards.
Next steps: Sponsors were asked to produce revised draft language before the next session; committee staff will note public testimony in the record so drafters can reflect patient experiences in the revision.
Representative quotes in this article are taken from committee testimony and the public‑comment record.

