Abortion is an important issue in today’s world. Students should learn about it to know what it truly is.
HB662
House · 2025 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseAbortion procedure videos in schools
AIRequires public schools to annually show high school students at least two specified animated abortion procedure videos during health education, bars abortion providers from supplying sexuality instruction materials, and lets the attorney general sue for violations.
requiring the discussion of abortion procedures and viewing of certain videos during health education in public schools.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 6, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
1,110 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 247 of 247 written submissionsHB662 would require New Hampshire public school health education to discuss abortion procedures and show specific videos, while barring abortion providers from supplying course materials or referrals. A small number of supporters argue students deserve full, factual information about what abortion involves before facing related decisions, while a much larger number of opponents argue the mandated videos (produced by the advocacy group Live Action) are biased, medically inaccurate propaganda that would traumatize students, impose religious viewpoints, override local curriculum control, and present abortion one-sidedly compared to other reproductive health topics.
- Students deserve full, truthful information about abortionSupport6 of 247 reviewed
Supporters argue students facing possible pregnancy decisions should be given complete and truthful information about what an abortion procedure involves, so they can make informed choices rather than decisions made "in the dark."
“I believe high school students deserve nothing less than the truth about what abortion is. It is unethical and unjust to continue to expect students who may face unplanned pregnancies, to be expected to make important decisions”
— Donna Peterson, Loudon · #406063 — read full submission →
“Please support this bill. All youth should be made aware of what goes on in an abortion. Knowing the truth of what goes on in an abortion matters.”
— Catherine Schlottmann, Dunbarton · #404986 — read full submission →
- If graphic media elsewhere is not deemed harmful, this shouldn't be eitherSupport1 of 247 reviewed
A supporter argues that since children are already commonly exposed to graphic content such as pornography and violence without it being treated as prohibitively harmful, truthful educational material about abortion should not be treated differently.
- Mandated videos are biased propaganda, not medical factOppose85 of 247 reviewed
Opponents argue the required videos, produced by the anti-abortion group Live Action, are ideologically motivated, medically inaccurate, and designed to manipulate emotions rather than inform, and that health curriculum material should instead come from neutral medical sources.
“The mandated videos are produced by Live Action, an organization with a clear ideological stance against abortion. These videos are not neutral, medically accepted educational materials; they are designed to promote a particular political and moral viewpoint.”
— Katie DeAngelis, Nottingham · #402240 — read full submission →
“This film is misleading and manipulative. Medical experts additional have denounced this film for multiple reasons such as not being aligned with medical facts, and the mischaracterization of how how soon fetuses exhibit certain traits.”
— Sarah Piana, Manchester · #385896 — read full submission →
- State overreach into local curriculum controlOppose33 of 247 reviewed
Opponents argue curriculum decisions belong to local school boards, educators, and medical professionals rather than the state legislature, and object to the bill's unfunded mandate, administrative burden, and enforcement penalties for noncompliant districts.
“AFT-NH opposes this bill because it is state interference with local control over curriculum and choosing curriculum materials.”
— Debrah Howes, Bow · #407355 — read full submission →
“Curriculum decisions are the purview of the LEA local control. Any requirement for additions to a curriculum should have a fiscal note.”
— Linda Tanner, sunapee · #406661 — read full submission →
- Bill imposes religious belief in violation of church-state separationOppose28 of 247 reviewed
Opponents argue the anti-abortion content reflects a particular religious viewpoint being imposed on a secular public school system, conflicting with other faiths' teachings and violating separation of church and state.
“Why would ANYONE think it is acceptable to use a government organ to enforce religious doctrine upon the children of New Hampshire? THIS IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.”
— Jacob Mandell, Manchester · #403982 — read full submission →
“This is religious instruction, which should have no place in public schools. Furthermore it flies in the face of religious teaching of Jewish people”
— Theresa Smith, Temple · #393249 — read full submission →
- Graphic content would traumatize or distress studentsOppose22 of 247 reviewed
Opponents argue mandatory viewing of graphic or simulated abortion imagery is age-inappropriate and could cause emotional distress or lasting psychological harm, particularly for students with personal experience of pregnancy loss or trauma.
“Requiring students to watch videos depicting abortion procedures is deeply troubling. Such content can be graphic and may cause emotional distress, particularly among students or those with personal or familial experiences related to abortion.”
— Tonja Neve, Stratham · #383961 — read full submission →
“Exposing minors to such disturbing content risks desensitizing them or, in some cases, fostering unhealthy psychological responses.”
— Sarah Hill, Hudson · #406343 — read full submission →
- Curriculum is one-sided, omitting comprehensive sex educationOppose13 of 247 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill singles out abortion for mandated coverage while comprehensive topics like contraception, consent, and STI prevention are neglected, and that a balanced curriculum would include multiple perspectives.
- Abortion is healthcare and a private medical/personal decisionOppose12 of 247 reviewed
Opponents argue abortion is a legitimate healthcare service and a personal decision to be made between a patient and their doctor, not a topic for the state to editorialize about in schools.
“Abortion is healthcare and Healthcare is a human right which is the stance of NHMS and AMA as well as ACOG.”
— Joyce Neilsen, Wilmot · #401564 — read full submission →
“Abortion is a personal choice. Abortion is healthcare. Bodily autonomy is a human right and anti-abortion propaganda has no place being forced into public schools.”
— Cora Panella, Nashua · #407760 — read full submission →
- Double standard versus other medical proceduresOppose10 of 247 reviewed
Opponents note that no comparable graphic or mandated videos are required for other medical procedures (childbirth, C-sections, vasectomies, IUD insertion), arguing this reveals the bill singles out abortion for stigmatization rather than genuine medical education.
“Are we going to also show IUD insertion and removal, tubal ligations and vasectomies? Should we force students to watch plastic surgeries too in case they might want to have a nose job?”
— Emily Gagne, new durham · #407466 — read full submission →
“We can show them videos of pregnant patients in the throes of an eclamptic seizure, a known, and deadly pregnancy complication related to elevated blood pressures that develops due to pregnancy.”
— Angela Koenig, Hanover · #401521 — read full submission →
- Bill also bars abortion providers from schoolsOppose3 of 247 reviewed
Some opponents focus specifically on the provision barring school districts from providing or referring students to abortion services or accepting curriculum materials from any entity that provides abortion services, arguing it cuts off legitimate medical resources like Planned Parenthood.
- No opt-out provision for students or parentsOppose2 of 247 reviewed
A small number of opponents object that the bill mandates participation in the required lesson or video viewing without any provision allowing students or parents to opt out, which they view as a liberty or consent problem.
- Bill may be legally unconstitutional or violate civil rights lawOppose2 of 247 reviewed
A few opponents assert the bill is legally vulnerable, including a claim that it may violate Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act or otherwise be unconstitutional.
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.
If health education classes are going to encourage abortions and/or abortifacients (often called “contraceptives”) to students, students should be aware of what the pills and procedures actually do.
When of appropriate age, this should absolutely be mandatory education. If you are going to elect for an abortion you should know ALL the facts, and be able to make an informed decision.
Rather than requiring students to watch a video of abortion procedures, I favor teaching them birth control measures they can take to prevent pregnancy. I think watching abortion procedures videos could be very distressing to students.
Abortion is healthcare. Full stop.
This is not appropriate for school.
This is the epitome of grooming and indoctrination. It’s repulsive that this bill was allowed to be introduced. I vehemently oppose this.
Showing videos of abortions does nothing to stop abortions from taking place. Teen pregnancy is already decreasing, there is no need to show videos of procedures. In addition, most abortions are not surgical procedures, but medically induced. All surgical procedures are graphic, rare surgical abortions are no different.
Please see the following email I sent to the primary NH representative, John Sellers on this bill after reviewing the videos. fter reviewing the footage I agree that they appear politically unbiased. However, they are not unbiased in their presentation and it is clear there is an undertone of an opposed view to this procedure. An unbiased medical video does not fear monger by saying things like “she will experience severe cramping” as well as imagery of the fetus and uterus turning completely black after medication is received, or depicting a quivering fetus post injection. These are not medically accurate. Furthermore, the CDC reports that less than 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester. Can you please state one other medical procedure that we teach in schools or force children to watch a video of that has an occurrence rate of less than 1%? As an educator, I can not. While I do believe educating our youth on abortion can be meaningful and important, it would behoove you to chose more medically accurate depictions, as well as focusing on the statistical rates in which abortions occur (i.e., first trimester) and leave out unnecessary “shock value” videos that play into a very clear agenda. Due to the fact that these are the chosen videos, I will be opposing this bill and urging others to do so as well. Respectfully, Allison
I have three children in school in NH, and I do not support under any circumstances inclusion of this obvious propaganda in their education.
This bill promotes anti-abortion propaganda and discussion in schools. Abortion is a personal choice. Abortion is healthcare. Bodily autonomy is a human right and anti-abortion propaganda has no place being forced into public schools.
This requirement of showing a simulated video of an abortion to students is cruel. There are many things you can do to discourage abortion while still respecting choice. This does not do that. Please oppose HB662
I strongly oppose this legislation.
Enough, already. You want to be a Christofascist, go legislate in Alabama.
Testimony in Opposition to HB662-FN – Education Policy and Administration Committee Chairperson and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I strongly oppose HB662-FN, which would require public schools to show students simulated abortion videos during health education. This mandate is unnecessary, politically motivated, and could result in the spread of misleading or distressing information rather than fostering informed, age-appropriate discussions about reproductive health. Comprehensive health education should be based on medically accurate, evidence-based information that empowers students to make responsible decisions about their health. Singling out abortion for graphic simulation, without requiring similar depictions of other medical procedures, is not about education—it is about pushing an ideological agenda. Such an approach risks traumatizing students, particularly those who may have personal or family experiences with pregnancy loss or abortion. Decisions about curriculum should remain in the hands of educators and health professionals, ensuring that students receive balanced, fact-based instruction without undue political influence. I urge the committee to reject HB662-FN and uphold the integrity of New Hampshire’s health education standards. Thank you for your time and consideration.
This is indoctrination of our children. Our school aged children in the Bristol, NH public schools are not even meeting basic standards. Only 43% of children in Bristol are “at least” proficient in math. Only 56% are “at least” proficient in reading. The sheer drop in test scores from elementary to middle schools is embarrassing and deplorable. It’s a 20% drop. That’s embarrassing. As a tax payer in Bristol, our children should be able to read and write. Maybe focus on that before traumatizing these children.
I am an almost 50 year voting resident of NH and a veteran public health nurse with a focus on maternal and child health. I strongly urge you to OPPOSE this bill. Mandatory films such as the one proposed are based NOT on science and facts and informed decision making, but on scare tactics and are extremely biased. If your religion opposes abortion, then don't get one and tell your loved ones why you would not but please DO NOT INDOCTRINATE every other child in your religious beliefs - this does not belong in public schools. Please OPPOSE. And thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion on this platform - I learned of this bill late, but still would not have been able to make it to Concord in person today. Suzanne Allison
This bill is not what is needed in our schools, what is needed is real education on all health topics and treating health class with respect and truth . We do not need someones religion to tell people how health topics work, what we need is a medical professional to answer ALL questions about health and reproduction. The last things that a student needs is a scare tactic video that gives false information or half truths.NO religious group should have a say in anything to do with goverment or policy.
I oppose this bill
HB 662 would require anti-abortion discussions and videos during health education and public schools.
This is ridiculous. Are we going to also show IUD insertion and removal, tubal ligations and vasectomies? Should we force students to watch plastic surgeries too in case they might want to have a nose job? Stop shoving this anti abortion indoctrination down our throats!
Once again, I have to laugh at how absurd our country is becoming. Republicans don’t want education on safe sex or sexual health… but they want to show simulated abortion videos during health education? Are you kidding me? I actually support the discussion of abortion procedures in health and wellness education—because reproductive health should be fully covered. But this bill isn’t about full education. It’s about pushing one side of the conversation. Abortion is the only aspect of reproductive health being mandated for discussion, and that tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind this bill. It's a blatant attempt to inject politically motivated, anti-abortion propaganda into public school health education. This bill is not about providing comprehensive, evidence-based health information—it is about indoctrination, fear-mongering, and restricting students' access to medically accurate reproductive education. Let’s be real: The sponsors of this bill would be clutching their pearls and gasping in horror if we suggested Planned Parenthood come in to teach students about safe sex and condom use. But showing graphic, misleading anti-abortion videos? That’s fine? Make it make sense. To be clear, this bill mandates the use of videos produced by Live Action, an extremist anti-abortion organization known for spreading misinformation and misleading depictions of abortion procedures. By requiring public schools to show these highly biased materials, the state would be forcing students to consume one-sided, ideologically driven content rather than objective, medically accurate information. Schools are meant to educate—not to serve as tools for political and religious agendas. And it doesn’t stop there. HB 662 explicitly prohibits schools from referring students to abortion providers or using materials from organizations that offer abortion services. This is a direct attack on reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, restricting students’ ability to access factual information about their healthcare options. Let’s be clear: This is not about education. It is about shaming and scaring young people, particularly those who may need reproductive healthcare in the future. This is not about health and wellness. It is about controlling the narrative and ensuring that students only receive an anti-abortion perspective. This is not about protecting students. It is about withholding critical information and preventing them from making informed choices about their own bodies. If lawmakers are truly concerned about student health, they should be advocating for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education—not using scare tactics to push a political agenda. Students deserve to learn about contraception, consent, pregnancy, and reproductive healthcare from neutral, fact-based sources, not from propaganda designed to mislead them. This bill also sets a dangerous precedent. If the government can force schools to show politically motivated content about abortion, what’s next? Will students be forced to watch anti-LGBTQ videos? Videos opposing contraception? Censorship of real science? Lawmakers should respect the separation of church and state, uphold students’ rights to factual education, and stop using public schools as a battleground for their ideological wars. The only ones getting hurt here are the kids—and maybe the anti-abortion lawmakers’ feelings. (Though, full caveat, I say that as a Christian myself. But even I can recognize an agenda when I see one.) And just as a note, I don’t think anyone is ever 'pro-abortion' in the sense of eagerly awaiting one. I don’t think abortion providers are rubbing their hands together like cartoon villains, excited for the day’s procedures. I don’t think teenagers are jumping for joy when they accidentally get pregnant. I don’t think the mother who was told her baby isn’t viable is celebrating. And I certainly don’t think rape victims are saying, “Finally! I can get one of those abortions people keep talking about.” I think most people here (and in other developed countries) just understand that it’s medical care. So, to the sponsors of this bill—please have some class. Have some compassion. Or at least pretend to. Because abortions are never a throwaway decision. And if this bill was submitted because of your strong religious beliefs, I ask you to reflect: Is it not enough to live by your own convictions? Why impose them on everyone else? I thought history taught us that colonization was bad... So, just as a reminder, not every person shares your beliefs, and we all deserve the right to access the healthcare we need, free from judgment or interference. I urge legislators to reject HB 662 and focus on policies that actually support students’ well-being—not weaponize education against them.
It’s unconstitutional to force personal religious beliefs onto school age children. Taking anti-abortion rhetoric into the classroom goes AGAINST certain religions, such as judaism, buddhism, atheism, and more. The right to an abortion is not something to tell teenagers they shouldn’t have.
Hello, I recognize I am late in writing this but hope that this bill will not be passed. I have watched the video and I am having a hard time recognizing how this is appropriate when other much less provocative material has been demonized in schools. There is a harsh double standard here. I do believe it to be appropriate for teenagers to learn about the process of abortion, but not in so graphic of a way. I think it is also important to note the reasons people get an abortion and not to only suggest it is due to the child being unwanted. A lot of people want to have a child but are faced with complications to the child and/or mother resulting in abortion being necessary. There are also people who do not want to have a child but were also not consenting adults who had a say in the sexual acts leading to their situation. Please have a balanced view on this situation and leave politics out of education. Thank You, Kevin Blanchette
This bill is blatant far right indoctrination. There is absolutely NO NEED for high schoolers to watch propaganda made by far right anti abortion extremist groups. I have seen the videos this group puts forward and they are full of misinformation, statistics are skewed to the point of falsehood, and they are DESIGNED to fear monger and scare women out of getting an abortion. Please vote NO on HB662. We do not need to fear monger our teens into believing a medical procedure is dangerous or a moral failure. We cannot allow extremist groups to touch the minds of our youth