restricting abortion providers from the definition of charitable organization for the purposes of games of chance.
Summary
HB 1338 would amend New Hampshire’s games-of-chance law to exclude abortion providers from the statutory definition of a “charitable organization.” Under current law, certain bona fide religious, charitable, civic, veterans’, fraternal, church, police, fire, and house-of-worship organizations that meet registration and existence requirements may be eligible for licensure to conduct games of chance. This bill adds a categorical exclusion stating that, for purposes of RSA 287-D, an abortion provider is not a charitable organization.
The practical effect is to bar abortion providers from obtaining or relying on charitable-organization status for gaming licenses under the games-of-chance chapter. The bill does not appear to change the broader regulation of abortion services or charitable organizations generally outside this licensing context, but it would amend the state’s gaming statute and the eligibility rules administered under that chapter. The act would take effect 60 days after passage.
Impact
HB 1338 would narrow the pool of entities eligible for charitable-organization licensure under New Hampshire’s games-of-chance law by expressly excluding abortion providers from RSA 287-D:1, IV(a). This would affect licensing eligibility for bingo, raffles, and other permitted games of chance governed by that chapter, while leaving the rest of the charitable-organization definition intact for other types of organizations. The bill would therefore alter state law primarily in the gaming/licensing context and could affect any abortion-related nonprofit or provider seeking to conduct fundraising activities under that statute.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be introduced as a targeted policy restriction rather than a broadly negotiated reform. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. The sponsorship pattern suggests the bill is likely aligned with anti-abortion policy positions, and the absence of recorded action in the provided history means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from votes, but the proposal itself is clearly framed in a restrictive direction.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether abortion providers should be treated as charitable organizations for purposes of games-of-chance licensing. Supporters would likely argue that abortion providers should be excluded from receiving the benefits of charitable status in this context, while opponents would likely view the bill as a politically motivated restriction that singles out abortion-related organizations for unequal treatment. Because no committee testimony or vote record is included, the specific arguments and the identities of any opponents are not documented in the provided materials.
Creating local options for games of chance, authorizing keno throughout the state, and changing charitable gaming license fees and reporting requirements.