Heated hearing on bill to shield pregnancy resource centers draws dozens of witnesses

The Senate Judiciary Committee spent extensive time on HB1416, a bill that would bar state agencies and municipalities from compelling pregnancy resource centers to promote or refer for abortion and would restrict certain regulatory or policy actions targeting those centers.

Supporters — including the bill sponsor, numerous faith‑based and volunteer-run centers, and representatives of organizations such as the Roman Catholic Diocese and New Hampshire Right to Life — portrayed the centers as charitable, donor‑funded providers of free material assistance (diapers, clothing, formula), counseling and, in some medical centers, pregnancy testing and limited ultrasound services. Bob Dunn, director of public policy for the Diocese of Manchester, said the bill protects organizations that provide "radical solidarity with moms and children in need." Numerous volunteer directors and board members described local services, including a pilot "Safe Haven" baby box funded by a local center.

Opponents, including Rachel Potter of the ACLU of New Hampshire and Liz Canada of Planned Parenthood, argued HB1416 is unnecessary as a free‑speech shield and would grant pregnancy resource centers special legal status. The ACLU warned the bill could allow centers to evade transparency and consumer‑protection standards that apply to other health and social‑service providers; planning for medical services raised questions about licensing, electronic health record privacy, and oversight. Potter said the measure "goes beyond" existing First Amendment protections and would "grant very broad and far‑reaching statutory protections." Planned Parenthood witnesses highlighted ongoing legislative and administrative pressures on reproductive-health providers and urged caution.

Committee members raised specific drafting questions: whether the bill's language should exclude municipal hearings, how it treats centers that provide medical testing under licensed clinicians, and the privacy implications when centers use electronic health records and third‑party platforms. Some public witnesses said they had experienced harassment and cited other states' regulatory actions as a reason for proactive protection; others said no New Hampshire agency had yet interfered but argued a preventive statute was warranted.

The transcript records extensive testimony from both sides but does not show a final committee vote. The hearing produced a mix of policy claims — public‑service benefits, free‑speech concerns, medical‑licensing questions and patient‑privacy risks — that the committee may need to reconcile in drafting.