By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – Bills that would prohibit abortion once a heartbeat is detected at about six weeks and a bill that would make it a Class A felony for medical providers to withhold treatment or hasten the death of those “born alive” received strong pushback in the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.
There are no statistics on how many abortions occur each year in the state but proponents said New Hampshire is destroying the next generation.
Currently, abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
In some cases, women do not even know they are pregnant when a heartbeat can be detected at about six weeks.
Some said House Bill 591 would effectively ban all abortions in the state. Others said that would be good.
“Our next great leaders are being destroyed,” said state Rep. John Sellers, R-Bristol co-sponsor of HB 591.
“We need to come to reality and stop doing this. When that baby’s heart starts beating, it is more than alive…(At) that point it is an infant,” he said.
Another bill that received lengthy testimony both for and against would deny parents the chance to hold their infants with fatal anomalies as they die, forcing them out of their arms for futile surgery and painful care.
Doctors, abortion rights advocates, and families who faced the heartbreaking situation said the bill was cruel and unnecessary.
Supporters, however, said HB 346 is about saving lives in the case of those who intentionally have an abortion but it fails and the child survives the procedure.
The measure, if passed they said, would allow for an untold number of healthy children to live.
A third bill requires that those seeking an abortion listen to and receive information 24 hours before they can have a procedure.
“BORN ALIVE”
House Bill 346 kicked off a second day of hearings in the House Judiciary Committee in Representatives Hall on what abortion procedures should be allowed here and when and what penalties should apply, as the state wrestles with the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade last summer.
To see the other bills heard on Wednesday visit this link https://indepthnh.org/2023/02/15/abortion-bills-bring-out-both-sides-in-uncertain-climate-after-fall-of-roe/
Laws that prohibit infanticide are already on the books and in 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a “born alive” provision protecting such infants, but this measure “fills in the gaps” to compel life-protecting attention, said Danielle Pimentel, policy counsel for Americans United for Life.
The compelling force would be the threat of imprisonment for committing a Class A felony, under the bill’s provisions.
Dr. Danielle Albushies, a Bedford obstetrician and gynecologist, said she takes seriously her oath to do no harm.
Babies, she said, are already protected under criminal statutes and are protected.
She said the bill if passed, it would be incredibly detrimental to those patients who face a fatal fetal anomaly.
The goal for babies with no chance of survival is to allow grieving families to be together rather than be rushed off to surgery.
“It removes this difficult decision out of the hands of the family,” she said.
“There’s intent. And there is reality,” she said, noting the bill as written “is vague and it will do harm.”
Omer Ahern, Jr. of Wentworth urged support of the bill, “as reasonable common sense legislation required in this day and age. “I am here to urge you to save the lives of innocent alive human beings,” Ahern said.
Brian Lewis of Alexandria, reading a letter from those who are survivors of abortion supported the bill as well.
While there are no U.S. statistics, the organization Abortion Survivors Network extrapolates from Canadian data and theorizes .21 percent of abortions end in an infant survivor, often who has suffered burned skin from a saline abortion.
The bill denies comfort to those traumatized and denies baptism, one minister said.
Dr. Chris Rouse, of Auburn, a neonatologist, who resuscitates babies, said the bill would undermine the standard of care and was vague.
He described interventions taken for infants born alive who need help including intubating, chest compression, placing emergent IVs, medicating with adrenaline, and transporting to a higher level of care.
“They are not benign. There are risks associated with those,” he said, including pneumothorax, broken ribs, and torn skin.
He said he had a few concerns with the way the bill is worded particularly the part about withholding treatment.
“How do you define intention?” he said. “I would ask you to put yourself in our shoes.”
He said babies born at 23 weeks gestation are “not healthy” and in a failed abortion will perhaps face a lot of intervention and be in a neonatal intensive care unit for months.
There were no specific examples of a botched abortion in New Hampshire detailed in the testimony and some said they know of no such a case.
Dr. Maris Toland of Lebanon, an ob/gyn called the bill “ludicrous” undermining care, opening the door to a more litigious environment than it already is, and is “exceedingly complex.”
Dr. Emily Zajano of Exeter said the bill would deny palliative care and said there are current laws that keep people safe, codes of ethics, and a process that penalizes, studies, and evaluates the standard of care.
“This law is not needed to keep people in check and doing well by their patients. This law causes harm,” Zajano said.
Phyllis Woods of Dover, a former legislator who filed a similar bill that failed 20 years ago, said it protects children “who have the tenacity to live” outside the womb.
“We have a moral imperative,” she said to care for that child after they exit the womb.
“We are talking about medically appropriate and reasonable care,” she said. “not thrown in the trash or left on a stainless steel counter” to move around while they die.
She said child abuse is reportable and this should be the same.
Woods called the bill “reasonable and compassionate.”
The committee heard from three individuals who suffered the tragic loss of their wanted pregnancies and told them the bill would deny people like them the opportunity to hold their infant as they died.
“We were so grateful to hold, hug,” and had only 30 minutes with their daughter, said Laura Aibel of Madison.
“I ask again, that you vote against HB 346. Please don’t put another family in a harder situation than it already is.”
Faith leaders also spoke in opposition, including Allison Palm of Nashua.
The bill would make it illegal for families to make decisions “about a baby they have hardly known.”
It would take away also their ability to have their baby blessed and bring more harm and trauma to families.
Also speaking against the bill was a representative of the NH Psychiatric Society who said Post Traumatic Stress syndrome is connected with stripping parents from their dying child, said Dr. Kathleen Duemling.
After three hours of testimony, there were 14 who spoke in opposition to the bill and nine who supported it.
INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED
The committee also heard House Bill 562 which would require informed consent be read and reviewed by those seeking an abortion.
State Rep. Dave Testerman, R-Franklin, the sponsor, said the measure would make this similar to other major medical procedures that require informed consent where currently, the person seeking an abortion can waive that information.
Pimentel said the bill does not require an ultrasound but that the patient needs to sign off on it and whether or not they want to see the photos from the ultrasound.
Kayla Montgomery, vice president for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, a healthcare and abortion provider, said the bill assigns barriers to abortion, adds misleading information, and mandates a 24-hour wait.
“There is no medical justification for this requirement,” she said.
Montgomery noted it is a standard medical practice that once an appointment for an abortion is made there is a mandatory consultation.
“This bill would undermine the informed consent process,” she said, “and delay care.”0
Courtney Reed of the American Civil Liberties Union-NH and Josie Pinto, executive director of Reproductive Freedom For New Hampshire opposed the bill saying it requires a 24-hour delay of care and adds additional costs.
Reed said mandated delays “demean patients” who don’t appreciate government overreach and mandates.
HEARTBEAT BILL
Ruby Furbush, a student at Plymouth Regional High School said she and her pro-life club support HB 591 saying more access to abortion is not what her generation needs.
She said a heartbeat detected is when she believes life begins.
Curtis Register of Durham opposed the bill.
“I hope we can all agree that feelings and facts differ and facts should drive decision-making,” he said.
Doctors across the board believe that abortion is a necessary procedure and a driving fact is viability of the fetus. Viability is not at six weeks.
The fact is that banning abortion does not save lives, he said.
Limiting abortion disproportionally devastates people of modest means and those of color.
He told the legislators that rights have been taken away since the Dobbs decision struck down Roe v. Wade, leaving the states to decide their own abortion laws and their constituents are scared.
“Protect individual liberty,” he pleaded.
Reed of ACLU-NH opposed the bill as well calling it “obscene government overreach into private healthcare decisions.”
She said this would effectively eliminate almost all abortions in New Hampshire before most people know they are pregnant.
Reed said the legislature should better spend its time on improving the overall healthcare of its constituents.
Sandra Denoncourt, of Lovering Health Care, which provides abortions, said the bill is “extreme” and out of touch with most citizens’ views because it would essentially be an abortion ban.
There are important reasons why the clinics do not provide abortions before six weeks including an ectopic pregnancy, she noted.
Ahern again spoke in favor of the pro-life bills, saying he lives with the reality of the world “and the reality we are in today is that we are still deciding what is to happen to infants.”
Life, he said, begins at conception and ends at natural death.
Montgomery of Planned Parenthood thanked the committee for the long hearings totaling 12 hours or more over two days.
The final bill, she said, removes a person’s ability to decide before they learn they have the decision to make about carrying a pregnancy.
What is different from years passed is that the bill is no longer unconstitutional but, Montgomery said, it is still “wildly unpopular.”
The committee took no immediate action on recommending the seven bills on the subject of abortion. The bills are due out of committee by March 16.
