Relative to restrictions on elective abortion.
HB 476 would create a new statutory subdivision in New Hampshire law restricting elective abortions after 15 weeks of gestational age, while leaving existing law in place that separately addresses abortions after 24 weeks. Under the bill, abortions before 15 weeks would remain legal, but abortions after 15 weeks would be prohibited except in cases of a medical emergency or a fetal abnormality incompatible with life. The bill also requires a provider to determine probable gestational age, including by ultrasound in specified circumstances, before performing an abortion.
The bill adds criminal, civil, and administrative-style enforcement provisions. A provider who knowingly performs a prohibited abortion, or consciously disregards a substantial risk that the fetus is at least 15 weeks gestational age, would commit a class B felony and face a mandatory fine. The bill also authorizes civil actions by the pregnant woman, the father in limited circumstances, and, if the patient is under 18, the maternal grandparents, and it allows a provider to seek review by the New Hampshire Board of Medicine on whether the abortion was medically necessary. It further revises the definition of “fetus” in existing law to mean an unborn offspring after the embryo stage until birth, and sets an effective date of January 1, 2026.
HB 476 would significantly alter RSA chapter 329 by adding a new late-term elective abortion restriction and narrowing the circumstances under which abortions may be performed after 15 weeks. It would also expand enforcement mechanisms through criminal penalties, civil remedies, reporting requirements, and board review procedures, affecting health care providers, medical facilities, and state agencies involved in investigation, prosecution, and oversight. The fiscal note indicates no direct revenue impact but potentially indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems, as well as county and local governments, due to the bill’s criminal penalty provisions.
The available voting history suggests the bill faced strong opposition. A reconsideration vote on February 6, 2025 failed overwhelmingly, 15 yeas to 340 nays, indicating that most members did not support revisiting the bill’s disposition. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here reflects the vote rather than detailed debate. Overall, the bill appears to have been controversial and not broadly supported in the chamber.
The main point of contention is the bill’s reduction of the legal abortion threshold from 24 weeks to 15 weeks, which opponents would likely view as a major restriction on reproductive rights and access to care. The bill’s criminal penalties, mandatory fines, civil liability provisions, ultrasound requirement, and reporting obligations also create significant concern for health care providers and medical institutions. Supporters would likely frame the measure as a late-term abortion restriction with exceptions for medical emergencies and fatal fetal abnormalities, but the overwhelming reconsideration vote suggests substantial resistance to the bill’s approach and enforcement structure.