By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — Two bills seeking to significantly change access to abortion services drew mostly opposition during public hearings Wednesday.
One bill would mimic Texas’s six-week limit on abortion, which health care providers said would essentially ban the procedure in New Hampshire, and the other would allow a possible male partner to prevent a pregnant woman from having an abortion.
The House Judiciary Committee also heard a third bill that would repeal the law creating a patient safety buffer zone around facilities that offer abortion services lawmakers passed in 2014 to protect patients and providers.
Male Rights
Sponsors of House Bill 1118 say it would rectify a gap in in the laws and procedures by assuring the rights of the father when a woman considers having an abortion.
But opponents say it is egregious and sexist and really about male control over women.
Dr. Oglesby Young, long-time Concord OB-GYN and past president of the NH Medical Society, opposed the bill allowing a male who claims to be the father to block or at least delay the woman’s abortion.
“I don’t think I have ever seen a more ludicrous anti-abortion bill in my time here,” Young said, noting it allows any male to claim to be the father of a pregnant woman prior to any testing to prove he is.
“And he can make that claim without penalty,” Young said.
Rep. Walter Stapleton, R-Claremont, said the bill establishes the father’s right to protect the life of his baby.
“This would give him a chance to preserve the life he has created,” Stapleton said. “There is no legal written testimony some place about father’s rights. It is a derived right out of natural law.”
But others said the bill is nothing more than an attempt to delay a woman’s right to an abortion, and another step by the current Legislature to restrict abortion rights in New Hampshire.
Under the bill, a person could file a petition for injunction to stop a woman from having an abortion anywhere in the United States. The woman would have to attend a court hearing or a permanent injunction would be granted automatically. Sponsors of the bill said if the woman says the person is not the father, the male making the claim would have to pay for a DNA test and if the injunction is granted, the woman would have no obligation after giving birth and the father would be responsible for raising the child.
Opponents of the bill noted the backlog in the family court system and the further delay a DNA test would require making an abortion more and more risky.
Young noted the bill would make early termination impossible when it is safest.
“The difference between six to eight weeks versus 12 to 18 weeks is significant,” he said.
If the pregnancy resulted from a rape, the woman would have had to report it before the rapist petitions for an injunction and in a case of incest, the cost of testing would be on the woman.
Sara Smith of Pembroke said as a college student she was raped.
“I had to face the consequences of that and the first thing you think about is whether the person will come back again,” Smith said. “This bill makes that nightmare come true.”
Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips, D-Hanover, said there is nothing in the court decisions surrounding the Roe v. Wade decision that gives veto power to a spouse or partner.
“If this is enacted, it causes and begs the question – what other health care decisions will require a spouse’s or partner’s consent?” she said.
The bill was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union NH and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
HB 1181 is one of the most extreme attacks on abortion and bodily autonomy in the country, said Liz Canada, advocacy manager for PPNNE.
“Pregnant people deserve to make these decisions for themselves, with influence from their loved ones and health care providers,” they said. “Our state should not allow judges, rapists, sexual partners, or anyone—including politicians—to make these decisions for women.”
Several physicians also opposed the bill, including Dr. Maris Toland, an OB-GYN at Dartmouth Hitchcock, who said the bill made her sick to her stomach.
“This bill is about control, a man’s ability to control a woman’s body,” Toland said. “Limiting access to safe and essential medical services sends a very dangerous and sexist message.
The bill was opposed by 2,760 people on the House’s website with 29 in support.
Texas Ban
House Bill 1477 would prohibit an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often only weeks after conception with today’s technology.
The bill is similar to Texas’s six-week abortion ban and would have physicians performing an abortion after a fetal heartbeat face disciplinary action by the state medical board and could result in loss of license.
The bill makes exceptions for the life of the mother.
The prime sponsor of the bill, Rep. David Testerman, R-Franklin, said he would really prefer a bill that would ban abortion entirely.
“This is not really a pro-life bill,” he said, “it is a pro-death bill.”
The bill was supported by several women who had abortions, and now regret it, including Rep. Susan Delemus, R-Rochester, who said she made the decision to “murder her baby” and has suffered for that decision ever since.
“I was selfish and did not want to sacrifice my life, so I blood-sacrificed my baby,” she said. “I had no right to take my baby’s life.”
Roy Dennehy of Windham, a member of the Knights of Columbus and a pro-life supporter, supported the bill.
“When every abortion procedure is performed on a pregnant woman, a life is brutally killed,” Dennehy told the committee. “Today a womb is the most dangerous place in America. Over one million people are killed in a womb in America every year.”
But opponents to the bill say the Texas law has created chaos in Texas and surrounding states as women leave to seek an abortion, some traveling as far away as New Hampshire because of the backlog.
Dr. Charlotte Hastings, an OB-GYN at Dartmouth Hitchcock, said she grew up in Vermont and began working in Texas where abortions were restricted even before the new law.
She noted one hospital had a support group for pregnant 14 year olds and under.
Hastings said she left Texas to return to New Hampshire because of the restrictions.
“I do not want New Hampshire to become Texas,” Hastings said. “I want us to protect our young girls.”
Kayla Montgomery, vice president of public affairs for PPNNE, said if the bill passes New Hampshire women would experience the same thing as Texas women.
“Sending patients out of state is completely unnecessary, and forcing a person to carry a pregnancy against their will is callous and dangerous,” Montgomery said. “Abortion providers have been operating safely in this state for decades. This bill will not provide any benefit to patients; it will only cause harm.”
But others urged the committee to approve the bill including Mariah McCarron, New England director of Student for Life Action.
She said the bill would protect the committee members’ unborn constituents as a heartbeat is a sign of life on a battlefield or in a hospital emergency room.
The current model she said fails because the people who profit from abortion are the ones counseling women to have an abortion.
“It is a life or death matter in a high-sales environment,” McCarron said.
But Young said he is old enough to remember what it was like prior to Roe v. Wade, and what a difference that decision made.
He said as a young resident he treated a young woman with a classic case of sepsis from a botched abortion in a back alley. Young said they gave the young woman antibiotics and fluids and removed her perforated uterus. He said he asked her why she did not use birth control and she said she is Catholic, and then Young said he asked her why she did not tell her parents and she said her father was the one responsible and knowing that would kill her mother.
“Unfortunately she died a few days later, she was an honor student and the star of her high school basketball team. I can still see that young woman’s face. We can not go back,” Young said.
The bill was opposed by 2,620 people on the House’s website with 68 in support.
Buffer Zones
The committee also heard House Bill 1625, which would repeal the state’s law permitting patient safety buffer zones around abortion facilities, which was passed in 2014.
The buffer zones were established after disruptions by anti-abortion demonstrators at clinics, particularly in Manchester, prevented patients and providers access to the clinics.
Several women who had abortions said they would have liked to have someone meet them on the sidewalk and convince them not to have an abortion.
Noella Olson of Hopkinton told of her abortion at an early age.
“Coercion and fear put me on the abortion train,” she said. “If i had encountered praying on the sidewalk or offering resources it may have been different.”
But Montgomery of Planned Parenthood noted the growing trend of violence at reproductive services clinics around the country.
“We know that as states move to ban abortion across the country, anti-abortion protestors will travel to states that still allow abortion care and we need to ensure the safety of patients and providers,” Montgomery said.
The bill was opposed by 2,138 people on the House’s website with 141 in support.
The committee has scheduled an executive session Friday Feb. 18 to decide on its recommendation on the three bills it heard Wednesday and an additional three bills to protect abortion rights it will hear Thursday.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
