Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears emotional and divisive testimony on bill to criminalize nonconsensual medication abortion
Summary
Supporters of HB 13 33 framed it as protecting pregnant people from forced medication; dozens of medical experts, reproductive‑health organizations and civil‑liberties advocates urged the committee to study or reject the bill, citing existing assault statutes, medical practice concerns and risks of 'personhood' language.
CONCORD, N.H. — A packed Judiciary Committee hearing on HB 13 33 drew sharp and emotional testimony on both sides of a bill that would create new criminal offenses for nonconsensual administration of medication intended to end a pregnancy.
Sponsor Representative Cyril Arce framed HB 13 33 as a criminal‑law response to the ‘‘slipping’’ of drugs into a pregnant person’s drink or otherwise administering medication that ends a pregnancy without consent. Arce said the bill would protect women and preserve bodily autonomy.
Supporters told stark stories of alleged incidents in other states in which pills were clandestinely mixed into beverages, and some urged stronger criminal penalties. Jason Hennessy of New Hampshire Right to Life described cases in other jurisdictions in which defendants were prosecuted under fetal‑homicide statutes.
But medical experts, reproductive‑health organizations and many legal specialists urged the committee to vote to interim study or table the bill. The New Hampshire chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said the bill ‘‘does not reflect mainstream science and medicine’’ and warned that personhood language and redefinition of ‘‘fetus’’ would have sweeping, unintended consequences for pregnancy care, miscarriage management and fertility treatments. Dr. Julia Mead and others testified this could criminalize common clinical care decisions and threaten physician practice.
New Hampshire Legal Assistance and domestic‑violence advocates warned the bill could be used to trap abuse survivors in relationships, and that contract language in the draft could limit victims’ ability to challenge coerced agreements. Several witnesses urged that existing statutes — for example, first‑degree assault (RSA 631:1) and current fetal‑homicide law — already provide tools for prosecutors.
The committee recessed the bill without a vote; members asked for additional technical and legal drafting analysis, including clarifying definitions and exceptions for emergency medical care and incapacity.
