(New Title) establishing a committee to study what legal protections currently exist for the freedom of expression of pregnancy resource centers and whether further First Amendment protections are needed.
HB 1416 would create a new chapter in New Hampshire law protecting pregnancy resource centers from certain state, local, and municipal regulations tied to abortion, chemical abortion, and contraception. The bill defines pregnancy resource centers as private nonprofit facilities that provide pregnancy counseling, material support, or medical care to pregnant women, but do not perform abortions or refer for abortion services. It also defines chemical abortion to include mifepristone and broadly defines contraception.
Under the bill, government entities could not require these centers to offer or refer for abortions, chemical abortion drugs, or contraception, or to counsel in favor of those services. They also could not force the centers to post advertising or informational materials promoting abortion or contraception, or bar them from providing pregnancy-related counseling, prenatal and postnatal supplies, medical care, or counseling about pregnancy-related treatment, including abortion-pill reversal. The bill further protects staffing and hiring decisions by preventing government interference with a center’s mission-based employment standards.
HB 1416 would add a new statutory chapter, RSA 332-O, and create a private right of action allowing pregnancy resource centers or other aggrieved parties to sue the state, its agencies or subdivisions, or municipalities for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. If enacted, it would limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate or condition the operations, speech, referrals, or employment practices of pregnancy resource centers in ways the bill identifies as inconsistent with their mission. The bill would take effect January 1, 2027.
The bill appears to have generated mixed but active debate. In the recorded House votes, a motion to table failed, an amendment was adopted, and a subsequent motion to kill the bill in committee failed, indicating that supporters were able to keep the bill moving despite significant opposition. The final vote totals suggest the chamber was closely divided, with substantial support and substantial resistance.
The main point of contention is whether the state should protect pregnancy resource centers from regulations that could require them to promote, refer for, or provide abortion-related or contraception-related services. Supporters frame the bill as protecting free expression, mission integrity, and the ability of centers to provide pregnancy support without being compelled to endorse abortion or contraception. Opponents are likely concerned that the bill could limit consumer-protection, public-health, or nondiscrimination regulations and could shield centers that provide counseling or medical services from oversight, especially where the bill reaches staffing decisions and counseling about pregnancy-related care.