HB1338

Abortion is healthcare.

I feel this bill is unnecessary and seeks to do more harm to abortion providers. Most of them provide many more services than just abortions and this is another form of punishment because you do not agree with abortions. What about the public at large that uses these facilities? What's next? If they aren't qualified as "charitable organizations", do they lose their tax status?

If Nh gaming is open to all, it should be just that. Not cherry picked because you don’t like the non profit like the health providers who offer more than just abortion services but other healthcare services to men and women throughout the state.

I oppose this bill. I see abortion providers as established medical providers, serving a medical need in NH. The only reason they might be seen as "charity" is that medical care is not available to all in our country, and many people are subject to a patchwork system of care that includes different types of providers. Abortion access needs to be seen as a sometimes necessary part of a person's medical care.

Independent abortion providers do incredibly important work to assure that all Granite Staters have access to evidence-based and standard-of-care reproductive health care. They are as deserving of charitable organization status as any other non-profit healthcare provider in New Hampshire.

It is obviously discriminatory to distinguish between charitable organizations all of which are carrying on legal activities in support of legal objectives—including the provision of medical care—because some people object to such care and would not avail themselves of it. Such discrimination is a denial of equal treatment and should not be engaged in, or promoted, by the State of New Hampshire.

HB 1338 would change New Hampshire’s charitable gaming law to say that “charitable organization” does not include an abortion provider. This bill is discriminatory and part of a broader strategy to stigmatize abortion providers for providing safe, legal care.

This bill is unnecessary, it is partisan, and it is punitive solely to one segment of the many entities that may benefit from proceeds of gaming in NH.

IF THERE ARE NO PHYSICIANS IN THE HOUSE, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF WOMEN'S BODIES. Abortion is healthcare, it should be accessible to all who need it. This should not be a topic for OLD WHITE MEN to discuss and I'm sick of having to share this POV. If people don't want their own personal funds to go toward abortions, they can gamble somewhere else.

Independent abortion providers should not be excluded from the definition of charitable organizations. It is illogical and unfair to single them out from hundreds of other NH nonprofits that are called "charitable" although they benefit from games-of-chance revenue.

I believe this bill is discriminatory against abortion providers who are providing safe and legal care.

Testimony Opposing New Hampshire HB1338: An Intersectional Perspective New Hampshire's HB1338 seeks to restrict abortion providers from being classified as charitable organizations for the purposes of games of chance. While the bill may be framed as upholding certain values, its implications reveal a more troubling underside that could disproportionately affect marginalized communities. This testimony aims to expose these adverse consequences through an intersectional lens. Adverse Underpinnings of HB1338 Exclusion of Abortion Providers By specifically excluding abortion providers from the definition of charitable organizations, the bill sends a clear message: that healthcare services related to reproductive rights are not worthy of the same support as other community services. This exclusion can lead to: Financial Instability: Many abortion providers rely on funding from games of chance to support their services, including crucial aspects of reproductive health care, education, and advocacy. Restricting their eligibility for such funding may jeopardize their financial sustainability, potentially leading to reduced access to care. Denigration of Services: The implication that abortion providers do not contribute to community welfare undermines the essential services they provide. Such a narrative marginalizes individuals who rely on these services, perpetuating stigma around reproductive health and limiting open dialogue about it. Impact on Vulnerable Populations The consequences of this bill disproportionately affect marginalized groups, particularly: Low-Income Individuals: Those with fewer resources often depend on community-based organizations for affordable reproductive health services. By removing support for these organizations, the bill effectively targets the most vulnerable among us, risking their access to necessary healthcare. Women and Gender Non-Conforming Individuals: The bill may particularly harm women and gender non-conforming individuals who seek reproductive health options. By sidelining abortion providers, this legislation reinforces barriers to healthcare that already exist within these communities. Legal and Ethical Concerns Beyond immediate health implications, the bill raises significant ethical and constitutional questions: Freedom of Association: By denying abortion providers the same status as other charitable organizations, the bill may violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Such action sets a precedent that could further marginalize not only reproductive health services but also other health-related organizations that serve historically underserved populations. Chilling Effect on Advocacy: This legislative move can deter organizations from advocating for comprehensive reproductive health services, creating a chilling effect on free speech and the right to organize. The message that reproductive health advocacy is less legitimate than other forms of civic engagement may silence important voices in the community. Conclusion: An Inclusive Perspective HB1338 is a legislative attack on reproductive healthcare that seeks to redefine charity in a manner that excludes essential services. Such exclusion is not just an issue of funding; it's deeply intertwined with broader questions of access, equity, and justice. To truly advocate for community health, lawmakers must consider how policies affect all populations, particularly those already marginalized. An inclusive dialogue around reproductive rights and healthcare is crucial for fostering an environment where all individuals can access the services they need without stigma or barriers. Opposing HB1338 aligns with a commitment to uphold the dignity of all residents in New Hampshire, ensuring that reproductive health services are treated with the same respect and support as other essential community services. An intersectional approach is vital to achieving true justice and equity for all individuals, regardless of their circumstances.

ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE IMPORTANT HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INCLUDING LEGAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES WITHOUT CHARGE, TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO HEALRHCARE COVERAGE OR ABILITY TO PAY, ARE MOST CERTAINLY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, THIS BILL ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER NH LAW. PLEASE OPPOSE IT.

Picking away at the edges of the abortion issue is not good governance. If you are going to restrict who benefits from gambling, you should just criminalize all gambling, including the NH Lottery. Please oppose this bill.

Abortion is a human right and deserves funding. Government should have no hand in restricting funding or access. Especially wild in the Life Free or Die state

I vehemently oppose this HB1338. 1. Nonprofit health care centers that also provide abortion services , like all NH charities that participate in Games of Chance, must apply annually to the NH Lottery & Gaming Commission to determine eligibility. It is not up to the legislature to determine on a case by case basis which charitable causes it deems "worthy." 2. To prevent these health care centers from benefitting from the proceeds of games of chance will further limit access to essential health care services, like cancer screenings, for countless NH women & men. 3. This is simply another attempt to limit access to abortion in NH. NH citizens have made it clear that they do not approve of more restrictions on this needed health care service,

As a future physician, I did not move to NH to receive my education here for it to become the same state like Texas where women are actively dying from this type of discriminatory bill. Do you have no shame? Do you not come from a woman, or know a woman, or IS a woman, and you think that she should be dying in her home or some parking lot because physicians (like me one day) can’t operate on her, when her fetus isn’t viable for life anyways. How many more women must die for you to realize how evil this is? How many more? We have the proof, the evidence, just look at every single abortion restrictive state, and the statistics are no lies. I came to NH for freedom, for liberty, for protection- but now my house of representative would rather deafen their ears to the cry of the people so they can line the wallets of their pockets.

This bill is discriminatory and part of the national strategy to stigmatize abortion providers; we NEED providers who can provide safe and legal care. History tells us that people will get abortions; our aim should be to ensure that when these services are needed they can be provided by trained professionals, in safe accessible places.

HB 1338 is discriminatory. Less government is important; a non-profit organization is just that. We should not be micromanaging the details of every non-profit. It's not the governments place to interfere with this. The rule is "charitable organization" the government interfering further is necessary.

Mr. Chair: I oppose HB1338, because this legislation is part of a national strategy to defund, isolate and stigmatize healthcare providers based on one particular procedure in which they participate. Thank you.

I am opposed to this bill. I encourage this committee to stop targeting health care providers and protect fairness, access, and nonprofit independence in New Hampshire.

Abortion is essential health care and must be kept safe, legal and affordable. This legislation will push more providers to stop providing this service, making it out of reach for many and putting lives at risk.

I object to any attempt to restrict abortion further which this bill serves to do.

As a female residing in the state of NH I am opposed to any legislative action that in any way could limit my access to health care choices. Please oppose this bill.