Representative Pearson urges narrow conscience protections; doctors and civil-rights groups warn of risks

Representative Mark Pearson told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee that House Bill 232 is intended to protect health-care professionals who object on conscience grounds to participating in abortions, and he repeatedly said the proposal is narrowly focused and allows for emergency exceptions. “This bill addresses one item only and one profession only,” Pearson said, adding that he did not intend the measure to reduce abortion access.

Opponents said the bill is broader than described and could create operational, legal and patient-safety problems. Rachel Potter, policy associate at the ACLU of New Hampshire, said the bill —grants sweeping refusal rights that jeopardize patient health and undermine non-discrimination protections.— Dartmouth Health's senior director of government relations, Courtney Tanner, said the system already relies on federal remedies and warned of conflicts between state and federal law and of staffing and access problems in rural areas.

Several physicians and medical representatives told the committee they had not seen evidence that clinicians were routinely compelled to perform abortions against their will. “In 40 years of practice, I never saw a physician . . . asked to perform or participate in an abortion against their will,” Dr. Og Young said in opposition. He and other medical witnesses said institutional policies and federal protections generally address conscientious-objection claims.

Supporters, including religious and pro-life groups, said conscience protections are necessary to prevent isolated but severe workplace abuses and to retain clinicians who would otherwise leave the state. Bob Dunn of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester and Jason Hennessy of New Hampshire Right to Life cited examples from other states and federal complaints to argue a state law would offer stable, local remedies.

The hearing focused heavily on statutory definitions and operational detail: who counts as a health-care provider for the bill's purposes, how a health-care institution would be defined, whether the phrase "not limited to" would expand protections to staff with no clinical role, and whether civil penalties and posting requirements included in draft language could create inadvertent liabilities for hospitals.

The ACLU and medical witnesses repeatedly urged the committee to narrow the language or rely on federal protections such as Title VII and existing regulatory remedies. Representative Pearson said he would consider edits suggested in committee discussion.

The committee heard from scores of witnesses on both sides and closed the hearing with no final vote recorded at this session. Members signaled they would weigh revisions focused on scope, emergency exemptions and limits on coverage for nonclinical staff.