NHMS Opposes HB 1313. While the First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble, it does not provide an absolute right to protest at any time, in any location, or in any manner. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible—particularly when necessary to protect public safety and individual rights. In Hill v. Colorado (2000), the Court upheld the constitutionality of “bubble zones” around individuals entering healthcare facilities, recognizing the government’s authority to protect patients from unwanted approaches and harassment. More recently, on February 24, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to similar local laws, effectively affirming lower court rulings that upheld their constitutionality. In Turco v. City of Englewood (New Jersey), lower courts upheld an 8-foot demonstration-free zone around clinic entrances, finding it did not impose an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights. Likewise, in Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale (Illinois), courts dismissed a challenge to an 8-foot floating bubble zone, citing the binding precedent established in Hill v. Colorado. This law was enacted in response to specific and documented threats and incidents. There is no evidence that the risk of violence, intimidation, or aggressive confrontation has diminished. The need for protective measures remains real and ongoing. This legislation serves several critical purposes: Ensuring Physical Safety: Safety zones help prevent physical violence, threats, intimidation, and aggressive encounters outside healthcare facilities. They create clear boundaries that protect patients, staff, and physicians from harm. Guaranteeing Safe Access to Care: Healthcare facilities must remain accessible without obstruction or interference. Patients seeking care—often during vulnerable or urgent moments—should not be forced to navigate confrontational protest lines to enter a clinic or hospital. Protecting Privacy: The Supreme Court has recognized a “right to be let alone” and the state’s legitimate interest in protecting individuals from unwanted, close-range confrontations. Patients accessing healthcare services have a reasonable expectation of privacy and protection from targeted harassment during deeply personal medical moments. Recognizing Medical Necessity: Crowded or aggressive protest environments can cause significant anxiety and stress. For some patients, particularly those undergoing medical procedures, this stress can lead to elevated blood pressure, panic responses, and other complications. Maintaining calm and safe entry points is not merely a matter of convenience—it is a matter of medical prudence. Safeguarding the Healthcare Workforce: Healthcare providers and clinic staff have faced documented aggression and violence. Safety buffer zones are an essential tool to prevent assault, harassment, and intimidation of medical professionals simply performing their duties. In sum, this law reflects a balanced and constitutionally sound approach. It respects First Amendment protections while ensuring patient safety, privacy, and access to medical care, as well as protecting the healthcare workforce. These protections remain necessary and appropriate. We strongly urge the committee to vote ITL on HB 1313.
HB1313
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseRepealing abortion clinic buffer zones
AIRepeals the state law prohibiting people from entering or remaining on a public way or sidewalk within a buffer zone adjacent to a reproductive health care facility.
repealing buffer zones for reproductive health care facilities.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 11, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
1,423 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 387 of 387 written submissionsHB1313 would repeal New Hampshire's buffer zone ("patient safety zone") law restricting protest activity near the entrances of reproductive health care facilities. The overwhelming majority of submitters oppose repeal, arguing buffer zones protect patients and staff from harassment, intimidation, and violence without limiting free speech; a much smaller number support repeal, arguing the current law is legally unconstitutional, improperly restricts protected speech, or objecting to abortion access itself.
- Current buffer zone law is legally unconstitutionalSupport2 of 387 reviewed
Some submitters argue New Hampshire's buffer zone law is overbroad and unenforceable under the U.S. Supreme Court's McCullen v. Coakley decision, and warn that defending it in court could expose the state to significant litigation costs, as happened in Massachusetts.
- Current law improperly restricts free speech in public spacesSupport3 of 387 reviewed
Submitters argue people should not be prevented or criminalized for engaging others in conversation on public sidewalks, including on difficult topics, and that restricting access to public spaces for this purpose is an unwarranted limit on free speech.
- Opposition grounded in objection to abortion itselfSupport2 of 387 reviewed
A few submitters support the bill from an explicitly anti-abortion position, framing buffer zones as preventing them from confronting or trying to dissuade women from having abortions, or calling for abortion access to be eliminated entirely.
- Buffer zones protect patients and staff from harassmentOppose260 of 387 reviewed
The dominant argument is that buffer zones exist to let patients, providers, and staff enter and leave clinics without fear of harassment, intimidation, or obstruction, and that repealing them would expose people to unsafe, hostile encounters when accessing legal medical care.
- Firsthand accounts of harassment at NH clinicsOppose40 of 387 reviewed
Many submitters, including clinic escorts, nurses, physicians, and former patients, describe personally witnessing or experiencing yelling, name-calling, filming, stalking, or physical confrontation outside New Hampshire reproductive health facilities, and argue this shows buffer zones are needed in practice, not just in theory.
- Bodily autonomy and medical privacy should be protectedOppose35 of 387 reviewed
Submitters argue that reproductive health decisions are private matters between a patient and their doctor, and that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right the bill would undermine by exposing personal medical decisions to public confrontation.
- Clinics provide many services, so all patients are at riskOppose25 of 387 reviewed
Submitters point out that reproductive health facilities provide services well beyond abortion, including cancer screenings, prenatal care, birth control, and STI testing, so removing buffer zones would expose anyone entering the clinic to harassment regardless of the reason for their visit.
- Current law is a lawful, narrowly tailored safety measureOppose15 of 387 reviewed
Submitters argue buffer zones are a reasonable, content-neutral time-place-manner restriction that courts have upheld, do not prevent protestors from being seen or heard, and do not infringe on First Amendment rights since protest remains legal just outside the zone.
- Framed as a gendered attack on women's rightsOppose15 of 387 reviewed
Some submitters characterize the bill as part of a broader political effort targeting women, noting the bill's predominantly or entirely male sponsorship and framing it as an attempt to control or intimidate women seeking reproductive care.
- History of anti-abortion violence justifies buffer zonesOppose8 of 387 reviewed
Submitters cite documented national and local incidents of violence against abortion providers and clinics, including shootings, bombings, and arsons, arguing this history shows buffer zones prevent escalation and that repeal risks a return to such violence.
- Repeal would burden law enforcement and taxpayersOppose6 of 387 reviewed
A number of submitters argue that removing buffer zones would increase confrontations that police must respond to, adding costs and strain on local law enforcement resources.
- Bill repeats a rejected proposal, wasting legislative timeOppose7 of 387 reviewed
Several submitters note that this or similar legislation has been introduced and defeated in prior years, arguing it is a repeated waste of legislative time and taxpayer resources rather than a serious policy proposal.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Emotions can interfere with safety at a reproductive health care facility. Therefore I hope your good judgement will not repeal the existing buffer zone that allows for expression while providing an important layer of safety.
NH’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Behavioral Health and Wellness (MTSS-B) is a framework that helps provide behavioral health support to our students. The three tiers of this system work together to ensure that all kids in our public schools are given positive behavioral expectations. Some children can benefit from Tier 2, which simply means they will receive coping support and skill building. This can help children who are struggling in school. The kids with the highest needs have access to individualized behavioral health services through local community health care partners. There will always be some children who need more supports to be successful, and this is a thoughtful and impactful way of helping those children. MTSS-B can reduce exclusionary practices like suspension and expulsion. It can improve instructional time by decreasing disruptive behaviors in the classroom, and it can increase academic success. This initiative had bipartisan support and was signed into law by a republican governor just a few short years ago. I am not sure why this committee is considering ending the Multi-Tiered System of Supports before we see the impact it could have on our students. Please give this framework a chance to make a difference. Please vote ITL on this bill.
I oppose this bill
Harassment of people trying to enter and leave health centers as clients or staff members is not okay! It is the personal business of clients and health providers what their reasons are for being there and they should be free to conduct their business without interference.
This bill does not help anyone besides fulfilling an unnecessary fantasy of a broad interpretation of the free speech clause. Removing protest buffer's for critical healthcare like that discussed hurts both patients and volunteers by putting them at higher risk of assault, harassment, and distress. There is no benefit to the bill's passage besides making the aforementioned political statement.
We must preserve women’s access to healthcare and that includes abortion access. I oppose this bill.
Patients are going to theses clinics for many different kinds of medical issues. Protestors can get their point across at the current zones. Any closer would be harassment, and be dangerous to staff, patients, and protesters
Patient safety zones help keep anti-choice individuals away from entrances, stairs, patients, staff, and volunteers. These protections matter for real people showing up for care every single day. No one should face harassment, intimidation, or threats when accessing or providing safe, legal health care. Please OPPOSE this bill; show up for patient and provider safety in New Hampshire.
You should have titled this one “Let’s see who can get shot for wanting a cancer screening”. COME ON.
Abortion is part of healthcare and is an essential component of women’s health. The fact that we are further trying to limit access to medical procedures for women is offensive to me.
I support this bill because free speech should not be prohibited and free speech is a constitutional right
without fail, the NH GOP tries to pass this bill every single year for one reason and one reason only: they want the state's permission to harass women. The only reason you would support removing something called a "patient safety zone" is because you plan to make patients less safe. The sponsors and supporters of this bill think that their ability to say whatever they want, wherever they want, and whenever they want, is more important than other people's health and safety. They think that not being able to harass people is a more significant constitutional "burden" than being intimidated out of receiving potentially lifesaving healthcare. They're pathetic, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
I don't understand why the legislature would re-visit legislation that protects citizens who are seeking safe, legal health care services from violence, harassment, or threats. Are you suggesting that you want to make it acceptable to harass people seeking health care? Please oppose this bill and keep people in New Hampshire safe.
The only reason you would support removing something called a "patient safety zone" is because you plan to make patients less safe. People are free to protest whatever they want obviously but a reasonable standard of physical distance has long been set and accepted (by reasonable people, at least). This bill reads like a method/excuse to harass people who are accessing necessary and legal healthcare services. This is New Hampshire, not Louisiana. We are better than this. BTW, it seems this bill or something like it comes up year after year. and goes nowhere, as it should. Isn't there a way to stop wasting taxpayer money on it over and over again?
Who could possibly justify supporting a bill that would objectively make patients and healthcare providers less safe? This is not what New Hampshire needs or asks of you as elected representatives.
Do not let our legislators keep taking away protections to patients and staff.
Disguised as a Free Speech bill, this bill would allow anti-abortion advocates to crowd entrances to health care facilities and taunt women seeking abortions. Buffer zones provide a measure of protection from harassment and should not be eliminated. Please oppose this bill.
Protect women and all those seeking healthcare by voting to maintain safety zones around clinics. I can't imagine why anyone would vote to eradicate them. Even if you oppose abortion and would like to be able to protest loud and proud about it, one of the main focuses of clinics is birth control. If women don't feel safe to go get birth control because there are protestors standing in her way, she may very well end up pregnant and need an abortion. Abolishing safety zones helps literally nobody.
We must keep things safe for all peoples
As written, New Hampshire's buffer zone law is overbroad and unenforceable, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's McCullen decision (a 9-0 decision, including Justice Ginsburg). McCullen threw out the Massachusetts law on which the NH law was based. If an abortion facility chooses to post a zone consistent with the current buffer zone law, the law will be challenged in court. The state of New Hampshire will be responsible for paying for the litigation. After the Massachusetts law on which the NH law was based was thrown out by the Supreme Court, Massachusetts taxpayers had to come up with more than a million dollars for the prevailing side's legal fees.
I oppose threats to patient safety of any kind.
Please don't remove protections in place for health centers. People use these medical spaces for all kinds of needs, most of which are routine health care and screenings, and while no one should ever face harassment for their work or their personal health choices, removing these buffer zones will make it harder for everyone to access safe, supportive health care.
These are public spaces where people should have a right to peacefully interact with mothers who are attempting to murder their pre-born children. We must be the voice for the most vulnerable in society. Today the most vulnerable are the pre-born babies being murdered in the womb. Making sure these mothers understand what they are doing, that by all scientific standards, they are killing a living human being, we will have the God given right to help people, not just the pre-born babies but also the mothers who often live with regret and remorse for the rest of their lives. Access to "Reproductive Health Care" is a euphemism for access to the ability to murder human beings.
Harassing women going for medical care is not ok - leave the buffer zones intact