Absolutely not. This state lives free or dies. How dare anyone considers this a win for NH.
HB1769
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseRestricting abortion referrals at public clinics
AIBars state-funded medical facilities from referring patients for abortion unless a medical emergency exists or the patient is also referred to a pregnancy resource center, and allows taxpayers or family members to sue over violations.
relative to certain prohibitions on abortion referrals by publicly funded medical facilities.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 5, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
968 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 210 of 210 written submissionsHB 1769 would restrict abortion referrals made by publicly funded medical facilities, generally requiring that any facility referring a patient for abortion care also refer the patient to a state-defined 'pregnancy resource center,' with loss of funding and civil litigation exposure for noncompliance. All 210 written submissions reviewed oppose the bill; submitters argue it inserts government and religious ideology into the exam room, compels referrals to unlicensed facilities accused of spreading misinformation, exposes providers and public entities to lawsuits, and endangers patient health, particularly for low-income and rural residents.
- Medical decisions belong to patients and doctors, not governmentOppose118 of 210 reviewed
Submitters argue that abortion and related referral decisions are private medical matters that should be resolved between a patient and her clinician, and that lawmakers and other political actors have no legitimate role in dictating or second-guessing those decisions.
“I vehemently oppose HB 1769. Government has no business forcing ideology into exam rooms or second-guessing medical professionals and their patients.”
— Meg Cowan, Wilmot · #621115 — read full submission →
“This bill would interfere with the relationship between a pregnant patient and her medical provider(s). Reject the bill. Let doctors, nurses, midwives, and others do their jobs without interference by the state.”
— Holly Cooper, Concord · #617650 — read full submission →
“I oppose this bill. The right to a safe abortion is between a person and their doctor, not the government”
— Laura Sprague, Dover · #623223 — read full submission →
- 'Pregnancy resource centers' are unlicensed and mislead patientsOppose18 of 210 reviewed
Submitters contend that the facilities providers would be forced to refer patients to are not licensed medical clinics, are often religiously affiliated, and have a documented history of giving misleading or false information about pregnancy and abortion.
“Crisis pregnancy centers are not medical facilities and are not held to the same standards of licensure, transparency, or accountability as healthcare providers. Numerous investigations have documented that these centers frequently provide propaganda”
— Amy Paris, `Hanover · #613806 — read full submission →
“"Pregnancy Resource Center" means "Pregnancy Crisis Center". Given my religious background, I know what those Centers are--they are facilities run by religious organizations that try and steer women toward making decisions”
— Megan Thurkins, Dover · #623042 — read full submission →
- Bill spreads misinformation instead of supporting healthy communitiesOppose20 of 210 reviewed
Many submitters use near-identical language stating the bill 'does nothing to support healthy communities' and only spreads medical misinformation, arguing lawmakers should instead focus on making health care affordable rather than mandating anti-abortion messaging.
“HB 1769 bans public funding for health centers that refer patients to reproductive health centers - unless they also refer patients to anti-abortion centers. This bill does nothing to support healthy communities - it only spreads medical misinformation”
— Joanna Gallant, Hollis · #612995 — read full submission →
“New Hampshire lawmakers should prioritize making health care affordable for all Granite Staters, not mandate anti-abortion ideology in health centers, hospitals, and pharmacies. The fact that we are still fighting this fight in 2026 is atrocious.”
— Carrie Russell, Hanover · #613252 — read full submission →
- Restricting referrals functions as a gag rule undermining medical ethicsOppose16 of 210 reviewed
Several submitters, including physicians and mental health providers, describe the bill as a 'gag rule' that overrides clinical judgment and professional ethical obligations by dictating what referrals providers may make regardless of medical necessity.
“Interference with Medical Ethics: This bill effectively functions as a "gag rule," preventing doctors and nurses at any facility receiving state or municipal funds from providing comprehensive medical information to their patients.”
— Michael Courville, Manchester · #612437 — read full submission →
“HB 1769 interferes with medical decision-making by dictating what kinds of health care referrals publicly funded medical facilities must make, undermining the professional judgment of doctors and risking confusion or delays in patient care.”
— Laura Gillespie, West Lebanon · #614557 — read full submission →
- Restricting referrals endangers patient health and safetyOppose14 of 210 reviewed
Submitters warn that limiting abortion referrals will lead to delayed or unsafe care, worsen maternal and infant mortality, and put patients at risk of serious harm or death, including in cases involving ectopic pregnancy or other complications.
“Restricting abortions doesn't stop abortions, it only stops safe abortions.”
— Ciel May, Wolfeboro · #622347 — read full submission →
“I oppose this bill. States that place restrictions on life saving medical care has resulted in the deaths of people in this country.”
— Alexia Paquette, Penacook · #621190 — read full submission →
- Bill imposes religious ideology on health policyOppose13 of 210 reviewed
Submitters argue the bill reflects a religiously motivated agenda being written into law, characterizing 'pregnancy resource centers' as faith-based advocacy organizations and asserting the requirement violates religious freedom and church-state separation.
“I oppose this legislation, it is in direct violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of and from religion.”
— Sarah Lamoureux, Lancaster · #612623 — read full submission →
“Stop trying to force religious beliefs on to everyone and calling it law. This is America which means freedom of religion and we had separation of church and state for a reason.”
— Genevieve Deschenes, Salem · #614525 — read full submission →
- Litigation exposure will chill care and burden taxpayersOppose7 of 210 reviewed
Submitters point to provisions allowing lawsuits and punitive damages against public entities and providers, arguing this will encourage costly litigation, discourage appropriate referrals out of fear of liability, and waste taxpayer resources.
“More alarmingly, this bill creates legal chaos. It allows any taxpayer to sue public entities and win punitive damages for all”
— Robyn Kozierok, Concord · #621055 — read full submission →
“is an anti-abortion bill, censors medical professionals, forces ideological referrals, weaponizes taxpayer lawsuits and undermines evidence-based healthcare.”
— bonnie bruno, HOLLIS · #617720 — read full submission →
- Disproportionate harm to low-income and rural patientsOppose8 of 210 reviewed
Submitters argue that because publicly funded facilities disproportionately serve lower-income and rural residents, restricting referrals at those facilities will widen existing health care access gaps for people with the fewest alternatives.
“Restricting abortion referrals from agencies receiving government funding will decrease equity, violating the essential medical principle of justice. Government-funded healthcare institutions disproportionally serve lower-income people.”
— Ashleigh Shenton, Lebanon · #619493 — read full submission →
“This is exclusionary based on socioeconomic as well as gender means. Wealthier people can access what they need regardless ans there are no restrictions on the healthcare related to men.”
— Arwen Mellor, Rindge · #614635 — read full submission →
- Bill will worsen healthcare workforce shortagesOppose3 of 210 reviewed
Some submitters argue that imposing referral mandates and litigation risk on providers will make it harder for New Hampshire's already understaffed medical facilities to attract and retain clinicians.
“These restraints placed on medical providers will severely impact NH medical facilities ability to attract and retain medical professionals at already understaffed facilities.”
— Claire Mallette, Bartlett · #619880 — read full submission →
“shouldn't we be encouraging people to work in the medical field without even more fear of getting sued? This is just lighting another fire to turn people away from the medical field.”
— Renee Masson, Raymond · #620807 — read full submission →
- Bill singles out women's health without comparable rules for menOppose3 of 210 reviewed
A small number of submitters argue the bill discriminates by gender, regulating reproductive decisions for women while imposing no equivalent government mandates on men's reproductive health care.
- Bill would require posting scientifically unsupported claimsOppose3 of 210 reviewed
A few submitters, including physicians, specifically object to provisions they say would require facilities to present claims such as 'medication abortion reversal' that major medical organizations state are not supported by scientific evidence.
“Major medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), state that claims of medication abortion reversal are not supported by scientific evidence.”
— Yvonne Van Gessel, Holderness · #612878 — read full submission →
“I oppose this bill because there is no medical evidence that supports this so called abortion reversal. It would be irresponsible to require hospitals, pharmacies to post something false and then expect patients to trust us.”
— Ellen Joyce, Meriden · #613580 — read full submission →
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.
I strongly oppose requiring referrals to reproductive health centers to also include anti-abortion organizations. These organizations routinely stretch the truth and spread medical misinformation, and forcing doctors to lend them an air of legitimacy will have serious negative consequences for public health. Doctors and health organizations should be making referrals based on their judgment of what's medically necessary, not based on rules made up by legislators with no knowledge of the specific patient.
Keep your nose out of a woman's right to choose, a decision that is between her and her doctor.
Pregnancy crisis centers are not medical facilities and do not provide safe or science backed care. They target and harm and already vulnerable population. State medical providers should be required to provide scientifically up to date, accurate and accessible care to all populations. Restricting that care based on identity politics is unscientific and will cause unnecessary harm up to and including adult and infant deaths.
Again I ask that you please let medical professionals do their job without political interference. Thank you.
Please *oppose* this bill. Thank you!
Again I ask that you please OPPOSE this bill. Thank you.
We should not be legislating control over a mother’s choices. I am personally against abortion but I do not have the right to force my beliefs on this on another person and the state should not either.
In the land of the free, it is abhorrent to attempt to limit the ways that people access and have access to healthcare and providers. This bill is a noxious attempt to remove autonomy from providers, patients, and community members. Kill this bill.
Please do not pass this bill. This is a woman’s choice and the government should not be involved in women’s choices.
abortions are part of health care options for women and a civil right. Denying women access to abortions is equivalent to death in some cases. We cannot find Women's health providers in the state if we are denying those providers the right to decode what is best for their patient.
This is 2026. The world has moved on from the dark ages
I oppose this bill deeply. Abortion is the only medical procedure we vote on. It is ridiculous. Someones income should not determine if they get adequate healthcare they should have the right to which ever procedures they would prefer. Stop policing bodies with uterus' please. I worry about my future healthcare as a granite stater woman.
Testimony in Opposition to HB 1769 (2026) – Relative to prohibitions on abortion referrals by publicly funded medical facilities As a New Hampshire resident, I respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB 1769. ? This bill would restrict medical counseling and referrals at publicly funded or publicly contracted facilities by prohibiting abortion referrals unless the provider believes there is a medical emergency or the provider also gives a referral to a “pregnancy resource center” (defined as a nonprofit that does not perform or refer for abortions). ? Patients deserve accurate, individualized, and timely information from their clinician; without political conditions attached. HB 1769 inserts the state into the exam room by dictating what a provider must do before making a lawful referral, even when the patient has already decided what care they want. That is not patient-centered care. HB 1769 also creates a punitive legal framework that will chill care and reduce access. It voids contracts made in violation of the bill and gives “aggrieved” taxpayers standing to sue for declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, with potential punitive damages if a court finds “willful disregard.” This invites costly litigation, drives up compliance burdens, and may discourage facilities from accepting public funds, hurting patients who rely on those clinics for primary and preventive care. New Hampshire can support informed consent and high-quality health care without coercing referrals or weaponizing civil suits. Please vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1769. ?
Hands off women’s healthcare. It’s between her and her Doctor.
All doctors should be able to refer their patients to any and all medical procedures as the doctor and patient see fit without big government trying to get in their way.
Poor people need to have good and sufficient food.
Oppose
This is a violation of our rights as citizens. Stay out of women's health choices.
Government should not dictate who gets medical care, including reproductive care. The only people who should be involved are the patient and their provider.
Firstly, regulating against medical treatment that is proven to be safe and effective and recommended by licensed medical professionals is in no way the right or duty of an elected official with no medical training. It is borderline a criminal act of practicing medicine without a license. Secondly, as no competent doctor could ever approve of these restrictions, who determines when a medical emergency is happening? It is a fact of record even when such blatantly unconstitutional forced birth laws include openings for medical emergency that those limitations are always so restricting that a woman will have already suffered permanent harm before the doctor is safe to do their duty to provide necessary care. Thirdly, the falsely named pregnancy resource centers are religious anti-choice organizations, all of which have been proven in courts to regularly lied to women about their medical and legal options to deceive them into being forced to give birth, provide no actual resources or help to those pregnant women and regularly also further abuse women of color who are tricked into consulting with them. And even if they weren't proven fraudsters they are still RELIGIOUS organizations and it is blatantly unconstitutional to use the power of the law to allow them to interfere in anyone's life choices who does not willingly choose to associate with them.
This bill is completely unacceptable! How dare you try to dictate what I can and can't do with my body! How dare you have the audacity to know what is best for my health! How dare you push your religious beliefs upon us! Do you want women to die? What are you even thinking? These are medical decisions that are reserved for me and my doctor to make together!!!! How dare you!
I oppose this bill. The right to a safe abortion is between a person and their doctor, not the government
I can't believe women still have to fight our rights to access healthcare in 2026. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WOMEN'S BODIES.
No health centers should be forced to refer patents to anti-abortion centers, which often provide misleading or inaccurate information to patients. I strongly oppose this bill.