I took notes at the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee’s January 2025 hearings on HB 476-FN, a 15-week abortion limitation, and HB 254-FN, assisted suicide. Here are some impressions.
HB 476-FN, a New Hampshire bill to establish a 15-week abortion limitation, drew online opposition from 11,000 people on the House’s online testimony system. At the January 27 hearing, abortion advocates dominated both the hearing room and an overflow room set up down the hall. Within an hour, the hearing had turned into a rally for ableism.
Two days later, I had a sense of déja vu at the hearing on an assisted suicide bill, HB 254-FN, dubbed “The End of Life Freedom Act” by its sponsors. The chief sponsor assured all present that it would only apply in terminal cases, with safeguards built into the bill. He dismissed the idea that any of the expansions seen in other jurisdictions with assisted suicide could ever happen in New Hampshire.
The people testifying for the bill weren’t interested in such nuances. They wanted to make assisted suicide legal, safeguards be damned. The fear of having a disability, of becoming dependent, of watching a loved one suffer, was almost palpable in the room.
At the same time, the New Hampshire Suicide Prevention Council page on the state website was up and running, promoting suicide prevention. One can imagine the revision that an assisted suicide law would make necessary: “Oh, wait: this doesn’t apply if a pair of doctors OKs it.”
Startling candor
The abortion bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Katy Peternel, tried at the beginning of the hearing to withdraw the bill. No dice. Only the full House can withdraw a calendared bill, so the hearing went on.
Abortion advocates testified that a 15-week bill would endanger women, drive health care providers out of the state, and violate personal autonomy. Gradually, another message emerged from the shadow of these familiar points.
A doctor preparing to go into maternal/fetal medicine spoke about a woman who gave birth to a child with multiple physical anomalies diagnosed before birth, only to watch her child die within weeks. “I don’t want to force New Hampshire families into this suffering.” She believes a 15-week law would “force” her to do just that.
Other people testifying against the bill warned of the “harsh reality” of prenatal adverse diagnoses. The quality of life. Being born into poverty. Suffering.
One pediatric/fetal cardiologist said the 15-week bill “targets my patients” since many fetal anomalies can’t be diagnosed until after that point.
Targets, indeed.
Health care providers sporting white coats showed up to object to the bill. “Pay attention to how many people are here from health professions,” advised one doctor.
I paid attention, all right. I could have choked on the ableism in the room. It didn’t go down any easier for being served up by people in white coats.
No one uttered the words “better dead than disabled.” No one had to.
I’ve lost three children to miscarriage. One of those miscarriages taught me how it feels to look at an ultrasound and see that something’s gone terribly wrong.
My child had already died in utero. Had she been alive despite her physical anomalies, my own OB would have known better than to suggest induced abortion. How many of his colleagues would have advised me otherwise, as though my child’s worth rested solely on their own observations?
Behind the scenes, there was dispute among pro-life advocates about whether HB 476-FN merited support. House Republican leadership even wanted to replace the bill’s entire text with a non-germane amendment. Rep. Jeanine Notter, a high-ranking GOP rep, quietly and briefly expressed her disagreement with that option. Testifying that while she understood the sponsor’s reason for wanting to withdraw the bill, she supported HB 476-FN because of her belief in the sanctity of innocent human life, of mother as well as child.
HB 476-FN is on the House calendar for the February 6 session, when a vote will be taken on the sponsor’s request to withdraw it.
The best intentions
Proponents of the assisted suicide bill want me to believe it would reduce suffering, enhance dignity, and allow terminally ill people to end their own lives without having to resort to violent means.
Some of the pro-HB 254-FN testimony I heard was about not having to watch a loved one suffer. The people who spoke did so with the best of intentions. They’d been scarred by their own experiences with loved ones, leading them to promote HB 254-FN as a compassionate measure.
Three members of the Safford family testified to a different view of the bill. Sam and Ben Safford are young men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Sam expressed his concern that insurance companies could view assisted suicide as a way to end lives like his, by covering lethal meds as medical treatment while declining to cover more complex care. His brother Ben was even blunter, saying that the bill promoted an “ableist worldview. I am tired of living in a world where people with disabilities are pushed [aside].”
Mary Fahey followed the Saffords, testifying on behalf of Cornerstone Action. She is a survivor of a suicide attempt. She warned that HB 254 would normalize suicide. She noted how odd it would be to promote suicide in some cases – cases of people who are ill – while the state has its current suicide-prevention policy.
A sponsor’s remarks
Given the resumé of HB 254’s chief sponsor – a retired chief justice of the state Supreme Court, no less – I found his testimony interesting. The words “assisted suicide” never passed Rep. Bob Lynn’s lips. It was left to others to call the bill what it is, scorning euphemisms.
He was asked about potential abuses and expansions of an assisted suicide law. He replied that he couldn’t say abuses would never happen, but the bill’s “strong procedures” should be reassuring. Addressing his legislative colleagues, he said “I’m not afraid that you will go too far. We can draw the lines properly.”
That was a bit disingenuous, since the gentleman knows perfectly well that the legislature in this session cannot bind lawmakers in future sessions. Any assisted suicide law could be amended or expanded later. Further, as a former justice, he’s aware that limitations written into an assisted suicide law could be challenged in court, leaving unelected judges to override a law’s “strong procedures.”
His response was unclear, to put it charitably, when he was asked by a committee member what would be noted on the death certificate as the cause of death for a patient committing suicide pursuant to the bill. I trust that by now one of his colleagues has reminded him the bill’s explicit insistence that a death certificate after a patient’s assisted-suicide death NOT list “suicide” as the cause of death. (See page 9 of the bill, line 4, section 137-M:13.) In other words, lying about the use of assisted suicide would be integral to the law.
At this writing, the House Judiciary Committee has not yet voted on the bill.
For how to contact legislators, look for the Legislative Tool Kit tab on my Substack site Braided Trails.
Two resources I’ve found helpful as assisted suicide legislation is considered in NH and elsewhere are Patients Rights Action Fund and the New Hampshire Coalition for Suicide Prevention.
Header photo: Tom Fisk/pexels.com
Ellen Kolb 