I had a spinal injury at age one. I walked with crutches until my early 60’s, Up until then, I thought I understood most of the issues faced by people with physical disabilities. When I switched to a mobility scooter, I quickly realized how little I knew about the issues faced by those who get around on wheels. Unless a person lives with a disability or interacts a lot with this population, s/he has no right to take away the services that are needed for those with disabilities. The “504 rights” are essential to create a society where every person is valued. I was lucky to have a strong mother who pushed for my inclusion in public school. Otherwise, I would have been an EasterSeals kid who used a wheelchair for her whole life. Without my parents’ advocacy and dedication, my life would have been much different. Despite my spinal injury, I attended college, traveled in Europe with a backpack for 4 months, worked in various jobs, including as a VISTA Volunteer, married, birthed 2 healthy children and adopted two more. Because of the support I’ve received over the years, I’ve been able to participate in a full and active life. All people deserve the support needed to reach their potential.
HB1593
House · 2026 sessionDemocraticInterim studyState disability nondiscrimination protections
AICodifies into state law the nondiscrimination protections of federal Rehabilitation Act section 504 for individuals with disabilities in programs receiving state or federal financial assistance, and establishes remedies including civil action and attorneys' fees for prevailing parties.
relative to nondiscrimination due to disability.
Status
Referred to interim study (House) · March 4, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
313 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 60 of 60 written submissionsHB1593 would codify the federal Section 504 disability nondiscrimination protections into New Hampshire state law. Most submissions shown support the bill, arguing state-level protection is needed in case federal enforcement is weakened or challenged, and sharing personal and family experience of how 504 accommodations enabled education, employment, and independence. A small number of submissions oppose the bill, arguing it duplicates existing federal law, creates open-ended fiscal and litigation risk for the state and municipalities, or, in a couple of cases, framing it as a religious-freedom concern.
- State law needed as a hedge against federal rollback/uncertaintySupport12 of 60 reviewed
Supporters argue that because federal disability protections face legal challenges and shifting enforcement priorities, writing Section 504 into state law ensures Granite Staters keep these rights regardless of what happens at the federal level.
“With multiple states currently challenging federal disability protections, relying solely on federal enforcement is risky.”
— Seana Hallberg, Dover · #640594 — read full submission →
“Federal law can change. Administrative priorities can shift. Court interpretations can evolve. But the people of New Hampshire deserve consistent protections that do not depend on federal uncertainty.”
— Adam Thompson, Nashua · #644259 — read full submission →
- Personal testimony that 504 accommodations enable independenceSupport22 of 60 reviewed
Many supporters, often disabled people themselves or family members, describe firsthand how Section 504 accommodations, vocational rehabilitation, or assistive technology allowed them or a loved one to pursue education, employment, and independent living.
“For 20 years, I relied on Social Security Disability Insurance, and did not believe employment was possible for me. That changed when I began working with Vocational Rehabilitation Services of New Hampshire.”
— Kelley Snyder, Farmington · #651017 — read full submission →
“I was lucky to have a 504 plan in school that allowed me to have the accommodations I needed. Section 504 has given disabled people more access to public schools, hospitals, employment, transportation, public services, and more.”
— Rebecca Hayes, Keene · #650051 — read full submission →
- Framed as a basic civil rights and dignity issueSupport10 of 60 reviewed
Supporters argue disability nondiscrimination is a fundamental civil rights and moral issue, framing the bill as ensuring dignity and equal participation in community life.
“Morally, we cannot call ourselves civilized if we continue to discriminate others based on their ability level.”
— Kevin Blanchette, Concord · #647885 — read full submission →
“Situations like these made her feel so diminished and unwelcome as a citizen and as a human being. It screamed "you don't belong here...you don't matter."”
— Catherine M Spinney, Pelham · #641307 — read full submission →
- Ensures students receive needed school accommodationsSupport7 of 60 reviewed
Some supporters focus specifically on the school setting, arguing the bill protects students' access to 504 plans and IEP accommodations needed to succeed academically.
“Safeguard our disability civil rights. I am the Mom of a student who has benefitted from a 504 accommodation plan to help him be successful in school due to a learning disability.”
— Suzanne McBournie, Goffstown · #648760 — read full submission →
“This bill ensures that schools, hospitals, and state-funded programs remain accessible and inclusive for all children.”
— Carey Greene, Salem · #640937 — read full submission →
- Bill duplicates existing federal protectionsOppose1 of 60 reviewed
An opposing submission argues disability discrimination is already prohibited under federal law (ADA, Rehabilitation Act), and that the bill would mainly add regulatory redundancy and litigation risk without a demonstrated need.
- Creates open-ended fiscal and liability exposureOppose1 of 60 reviewed
An opposing submission argues the bill's fiscal note admits an 'indeterminable' cost, and that creating a new state-level cause of action exposes state and local government to unpredictable liability.
- Claimed to violate First Amendment religious freedomOppose2 of 60 reviewed
A couple of identically-worded submissions oppose the bill on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of and from religion, without further elaboration.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Dear Honorable Chair and Committee Members, My name is Owen Bastille. I am a member of the public and a resident of Dover, NH. I am writing to urge you to Support HB1593, which HB 1593 would put the protections of Section 504, the federal law that prohibits disability discrimination in schools, healthcare, housing, employment, and public services, into New Hampshire state law. That means if the federal government cannot or will not enforce these rights, New Hampshire still can. As someone diagnosed with multiple learning and developmental disabilities as a child, I am well aware how much I have directly benefited from the protections Section 504 provided. My life trajectory and adult life would have been intensely limited without that support. Without access to the protections from Section 504 I would not: • Have been able to attend college nor obtain my bachelor’s (I had a 504 plan all 5+ years) • Be able to even entertain getting a master’s without support (some professors already violate this law but many more will if there are no legal repercussions) • Get the reasonable accommodations I need to perform my current jobs effectively • Have access to employment programs like NH Voc Rehab that are vital for career advancement • Be able to advocate for my needs when going through the job application process without risking automatic rejection And many others I did not listed here. The point is disabilities do not just affect one aspect of our lives so when you take away our rights to pursue discrimination you are taking away our access to a full and free life. The federal government has already threatened to or has outright dismantled programs that actively support the disability community. The administration has proven that they do not share our belief that the disability community has the right to live a full independent life with the same access to education, healthcare, housing, employment, and public services as everyone else. Having these rights enshrined by BOTH state and federal law will give myself and others in NH’s disability community the confidence to advocate for our needs without worry of retaliation or denial based on prior assumptions! Please vote “YES” on HB1593 and help secure the disability community’s rights to a full life in NH! This bill is not about politics. It is about making sure that our rights are protected no matter what happens at the federal level. Sincerely, Owen Bastille
The support of this bill goes to the care and consideration of residents of our state.
Section 504 is the federal civil rights law that protects disabled people from discrimination in schools, healthcare, housing, employment, and public services. This is important to safeguard these rights in state law.
TO: House Judiciary Committee FROM: Rep. Terry W. Roy, Chair of Criminal Justice and Public Safety RE: Opposition to HB 1593 – Relative to Nondiscrimination Due to Disability DATE: February 25, 2026 ?Chairman Lynn and Members of the Judiciary Committee, ?I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB 1593. While the bill is framed as a simple codification of federal law, its practical effect would be to create a significant new layer of legal liability for New Hampshire taxpayers and municipalities at a time when we can least afford it. ?As Chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, I look at any expansion of the civil code through the lens of enforcement and liability. HB 1593 presents several critical concerns: ?Indeterminable Fiscal Impact: The fiscal note for this bill admits the impact on state and local expenditures is "indeterminable." In plain English, we are being asked to sign a blank check. By creating a new state-level cause of action, we are inviting a surge in litigation against state agencies and local towns that are already struggling with rising costs and limited staff. ?The "Attorney's Fees" Magnet: Section 354-A:16-b specifically allows for the award of "reasonable attorneys' fees." While this sounds fair in theory, in practice, it creates a massive incentive for "litigation mills" to target small municipalities and local programs over technical or minor grievances. We should not be creating new ways for out-of-state trial lawyers to deplete New Hampshire’s local tax bases. ?Redundancy and Confusion: Federal law (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) already provides robust protections for individuals with disabilities. Codifying this at the state level with slightly different procedures and remedies doesn't simplify the law; it creates a "shadow" legal system that will lead to conflicting court rulings and years of expensive legal clarification. ?Burden on Small Providers: While the bill mentions protections for small providers, the threat of a state-level lawsuit—with the added sting of paying the other side’s legal fees—will be enough to force settlements even when no actual discrimination occurred. This "regulatory chill" will only hurt the very community-based programs our citizens rely on. ?We must protect the rights of all Granite Staters, but we must do so without bankrupting our towns or weaponizing our judicial system. HB 1593 is a solution in search of a problem that federal law already addresses. ?I respectfully urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). ?Respectfully, ?Rep. Terry W. Roy State Representative, Rockingham 31 Chair, House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee
I am a visually impaired individual that relies on accommodations in school and will need accommodations in the future for college and navigating the world as a whole. It is very necessary that every disabled individual, including myself, have access to these accommodations because it helps us live like a normal citizen. We rely on outside help since it is difficult for us to do everything a non-disabled person can do by themselves. Disabled people are still people and strive to live normal lives like everyone else, and it's these accommodations that help us do that. We need as much help as we can get and the help of everyone else is our way of getting it.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee: My name is Shannon Bouchard, and I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to the proposed legislation creating RSA 354-A:16-a and 354-A:16-b relative to disability discrimination. Let me begin by stating clearly: discrimination against individuals with disabilities is unacceptable, and strong legal protections must remain in place. Federal law already provides comprehensive safeguards through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, enforcement mechanisms modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are already available under existing frameworks. The question before the Committee is not whether disability discrimination should be prohibited—it already is—but whether this bill meaningfully improves protections or instead creates redundancy, regulatory expansion, and increased litigation risk without demonstrated need. 1. Duplication of Existing Federal Law Entities receiving federal funds are already subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. This proposal largely mirrors federal standards and incorporates them by reference. The bill does not identify a gap in existing protections or provide evidence that current enforcement mechanisms are failing New Hampshire residents. Before establishing a parallel state enforcement structure, the Legislature should determine whether there is a documented deficiency in current law. Absent such evidence, this legislation appears duplicative rather than corrective. 2. Expanded Litigation Exposure Although the bill excludes compensatory damages, it authorizes civil actions, injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, appeals, and attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees provisions, even without damages, create substantial leverage in litigation and can pressure settlements regardless of the merits of a claim. For municipalities, school districts, small providers, and nonprofit organizations, defense costs alone can be significant. These expenses ultimately fall on taxpayers, ratepayers, or service recipients. 3. Broad and Ambiguous Scope The bill defines “program or activity” expansively, potentially encompassing entire organizations or facilities if any portion receives state or federal assistance. This breadth may extend compliance obligations far beyond the specific funded activity. While the bill includes language allowing small providers flexibility regarding structural alterations, it leaves key terms open to interpretation. Ambiguity invites litigation and regulatory uncertainty, particularly for smaller organizations without in-house counsel or compliance departments. 4. Open-Ended Regulatory Authority The legislation directs agency heads to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the section. Without clearer statutory parameters, this represents a broad delegation of rulemaking authority. Compliance obligations could evolve through administrative rulemaking rather than legislative action, creating uncertainty for regulated entities. 5. Fiscal and Administrative Impact Layering state-level enforcement over existing federal frameworks increases administrative complexity. Public institutions—including school systems and higher education entities—would need to evaluate policies, update procedures, and potentially defend against new state-level claims in addition to federal processes. At a time when state and local resources are limited, expanding parallel enforcement structures should be carefully justified. Conclusion New Hampshire must remain committed to protecting individuals with disabilities. However, sound policy requires clarity of purpose, demonstrated need, and careful consideration of fiscal and regulatory consequences. Because this bill largely duplicates existing federal protections while expanding litigation exposure and regulatory uncertainty, I respectfully urge the Committee to find this bill Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Shannon Bouchard
I support HB 1593 as our NH legislation to support the principles of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 has given individuals who experience disabilities important opportunities to become productive, contributing citizens of New Hampshire. As a Special Educator and college level Coordinator of Disabilities Services, I have seen firsthand over decades how this legislation has allowed hundreds of individuals to benefit from reasonable accommodation plans and equal access. Furthermore, these individuals have then given back as members of our workforce and our communities. I sincerely believe that preserving and continuing these processes and protections are vital to our state.
Written Testimony in Strong Support of HB 1593 My name is Angela Fletcher and I write in strong support of HB 1593 as a disabled person, a parent of a disabled child, wife of a disabled husband and advocate. HB 1593 is a critical and necessary bill because it codifies the protections of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 into New Hampshire state law. Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability in schools, healthcare, housing, employment, and public services that receive state or federal financial assistance. These protections are foundational to equal access and participation in everyday life. At a time when federal disability protections face growing legal challenges and enforcement uncertainty, HB 1593 ensures that disabled people in New Hampshire do not lose their civil rights due to changes at the federal level. It provides stability, clarity, and enforceability for individuals, families, providers, and institutions alike. The bill also codifies the remedies available under Section 505, including the availability of reasonable attorneys’ fees for certain prevailing parties. This is essential. Civil rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced. Without access to remedies, many disabled individuals and families—already navigating barriers and inequities—would have no practical way to challenge discrimination. As both a disabled person and a parent, I know firsthand how vital these protections are. Disability discrimination is not theoretical; it happens in classrooms, medical settings, housing decisions, and public services. HB 1593 ensures that New Hampshire affirms the dignity, rights, and full inclusion of disabled people in our state. I respectfully urge you to support HB 1593 and stand firmly for disability civil rights in New Hampshire.
This is an extra layer of a protection for a real risk. We will resist any efforts to force us into an inaccessible past. This is one way we can do that.
I am writing in support of HB 1593. For people like me, equal access is not an abstract idea, it affects everyday life. Whether it is accessing services, programs, or information, communication access and fair treatment matter. As a Deaf person, I know how important it is to have equal access and a clear way to address barriers when they happen. This bill supports fairness, dignity, and equal opportunity for all Granite Staters. Thank you for your time and consideration.
As a teacher for students with visual impairments I provide specialized instruction in the public school in order to prepare individuals the ability to build and achieve independence as citizens in their community with the long terms goal to carryover post secondary school. As we begin to cheer on our American para Olympic team shouldn’t we be elevated to a mindset where we support opportunities for those who have a disability rather than strip away the independent trajectory established in their school aged years? Let New Hampshire show its love and support for people with disabilities .
My name is Kelley Snyder, and I am a resident of New Hampshire living with a life-altering disability. I am writing to express my strong support for this disability rights bill and to share how critical state services have been in transforming my life. For 20 years, I relied on Social Security Disability Insurance, and did not believe employment was possible for me. That changed when I began working with Vocational Rehabilitation Services of New Hampshire. Through their support, I received assistive technology, tutoring, job training, and individualized guidance tailored to my needs and abilities. With their help, I secured full-time, work-from-home employment. I have now been successfully employed for three years. Today, I am proud to be a contributing, tax-paying citizen again. Programs that provide access to vocational rehabilitation services are not simply supportive — they are transformative. They empower individuals with disabilities to achieve independence, dignity, and economic stability. My story is just one example of what is possible when these services are properly funded and protected. I urge you to support this bill to ensure that others with disabilities in our state have the same opportunity to succeed. Please see my VRNH testimony on Youtube: Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kns5kyjX3wo Thank you for your time and consideration.
People with disabilities deserve the same protections as any other member of the public. My clients have benefited as have family and friends. Stripping these protections leaves individuals and families vulnerable, weakening our communities. I am committed to protecting my people.
We need to support people with disabilities by preserving Section 504 protections.
There should never be discrimination due to disability. Please support this bill. Thank you.
I support this bill.
Medical information should be between the provider and the client. There is no need for parents to see their children's records, doctors will inform them of any action that needs to be taken. Minors shouldn't feel unsafe sharing information with their physicians.
My name is Rebecca Hayes, and I'm someone with multiple disabilities and a degree in Disability Studies. I first needed accommodations as a child because my chronic illness made it difficult to attend school without them. I was lucky to have a 504 plan in school that allowed me to have the accommodations I needed. Section 504 has given disabled people more access to public schools, hospitals, employment, transportation, public services, and more. Protecting these rights for disabled Granite Staters is important right now. Disabled people in every state deserve to have our rights protected. Many people don't realize just how many people in their communities would be harmed if anything were to happen to Section 504. Disabled Granite Staters have had a particularly difficult year after an investigation revealed abuse and neglect in our state’s intellectual and developmental disability care system. Let's do whatever we can to make sure that disabled Granite Staters are protected. We should be working towards improving access, not going backwards.
I support this bill
Section 504 has protected disabled Americans for 53 years. Right now, those protections are facing serious threats: This bill must pass. It is not about politics, it is about making sure that disability rights are protected no matter what happens at the federal level.
I support this bill because as a low vision resident of NH, I rely on accessible accommodations to be able to do things like vote, etc. It is very important to allow ALL residents to participate in all aspects of the community, not just the people that do not need these accommodations. Respectfully, Alfred Fournier 8 Aspen Way Exeter, NH 03833
504 must stay! We are all only temporarily able-bodied.
I support this bill because we need to provide appropriate services to those in our community who have disabilities. I have seen first-hand the impact that providing services such as IEP and 504 plans for students can make. They can be the difference between a child who thrives because their needs are being met, and a child who fails because needed services were not provided. We need to provide services to those who need them.
I have worked with people with disabilities in NH. Civil rights for these individuals and services for these individuals is non-negotiable. Individuals with disabilities should have access to federally funded services. They should have equal access to services which are federally funded. Ive been watching this state take religious based themes and Maga cult theories and weave insane propaganda into these ridiculous house bills. NH should promote Freedom Not exclusion. You’re wasting taxpayer money and showing future generations that ignorance and discrimination is the norm not the opposite.