relative to certain prohibitions on abortion referrals by publicly funded medical facilities.
Summary
HB 1769 would add a new subdivision to RSA 329 governing abortion referrals by publicly funded medical facilities. The bill prohibits a medical facility that receives state, municipal, or other public funding, and health care providers employed by or working at such a facility, from referring a patient for an abortion unless the provider reasonably believes the patient is experiencing a pregnancy-related medical emergency or also provides a referral to a pregnancy resource center. The bill defines pregnancy resource center as a private nonprofit facility that offers pregnancy counseling, material support, or medical care to pregnant women but does not perform abortions or refer for abortions.
The bill also restricts public funding relationships with organizations that refer for abortions. Public bodies would be barred from contracting with or making grants or other payments to recipient organizations that refer for abortions, except as allowed by the bill, and organizations with a history of abortion referrals would have to submit an affidavit promising compliance as a condition of receiving public funds. The bill includes a severability clause and would take effect January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1769 would create new statutory limits in RSA 329 on abortion-related referrals by publicly funded medical facilities and providers, and it would add enforcement mechanisms tied to public contracts, grants, and payments. It would also authorize taxpayer lawsuits against public entities that violate the new restrictions, with available remedies including declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and potentially punitive damages for willful disregard. In practice, the bill would affect state and local agencies, publicly funded medical facilities, health care providers at those facilities, and organizations receiving public funds that have referred patients for abortions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to reflect a strongly pro-life policy approach and is likely supported by sponsors seeking to limit abortion access through publicly funded health systems. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to redirect patients toward pregnancy resource centers and to deter public funding of entities that refer for abortions. No contrary viewpoints are documented in the provided context, but the proposal itself is likely to generate significant debate because it touches on abortion access, provider counseling, and the use of public funds.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the prohibition on abortion referrals by publicly funded facilities, the requirement that providers instead refer patients to pregnancy resource centers, and the restriction on public funding for organizations that have referred for abortions. Supporters would likely view these provisions as preventing public money from supporting abortion access, while opponents would likely argue that the bill interferes with medical counseling, patient autonomy, and access to lawful reproductive health care. The taxpayer standing provision and punitive damages remedy are also likely to be controversial because they expand enforcement through private litigation against public entities.
Limiting breast surgeries for minors, relative to residential care and health facility licensing, and relative to the collection and reporting of abortion statistics by health care providers and medical facilities.