Home » News » Politics
March 13. 2013 1:10PM
CONCORD -- The Democratic-controlled House Wednesday killed legislation that would have implemented a 24-hour “informed consent” waiting period for women seeking abortion.
The state Senate killed an almost identical bill last year.
The House, on a vote of 229-121, followed the lead of its judiciary committee, which voted 13-6 last month recommending the bill be killed.
Supporters argued unsuccessfully that the bill did not in any way prohibit abortions and simply required that information be provided to women before they have the procedure. But opponents said the bill was ideologically, and even theologically driven, and said women are already required to be provided adequate information about the procedure.
Rep. Sylvia Gale, D-Nashua, reported on behalf of the committee majority opposing House Bill 483, “No woman facing this most personal and difficult decision has come to the point of seeking to terminate a pregnancy without significant thought, deliberation and discussion with her family, friends and health care professionals.
“This bill suggests that women do not think carefully about abortion and are unable to make responsible decisions without government interference.”
For the minority, co-sponsor Rep. Lenette Peterson, R-Merrimack, called it a “pro-educational/pro-choice bill. Education is key to making an informed decision.”
It was the only major abortion-related bill to come before the House this year.
In a half-hour debate, Rep. Jane Cormier, R-Alton, argued in favor of the bill that women, while making a difficult decision, should receive “full disclosure as to alternative and support services available to her with regard to giving birth to her child.
“There is nothing invasive or hidden” in the bill, she said. “It’s an attempt to be truthful and forthcoming. Pro-choice means pro-information.”
But Gale said women already receive “comprehensive counseling” and information on “other options. Safe and legal abortion services already provide informed consent services.”
Rep. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, called the bill “a common sense solution that protects a person's right to know just like any other medical procedure.”
Rep. Peter Sullivan, D-Manchester, however, argued that the bill “interjects theology into a place where medical science should prevail.”
He said he “hoped for a day when those of us who are pro-life and pro-choice can find common ground. But it doesn’t look like today is that day. It’s a bad bill.”
In the roll call, 35 Republicans joined 194 Democrats in voting to kill the bill, while 24 Democrats joined 97 Republicans in opposition to killing the bill.
After the vote, NARAL Pro-Choicie New Hampshire said, "Today the House sent a powerful message to anti-choice extremists -- government interference in private medical decisions is not the New Hampshire way."
NH House rejects 24-hour ‘informed consent’ waiting period before abortions
The state Senate killed an almost identical bill last year.
The House, on a vote of 229-121, followed the lead of its judiciary committee, which voted 13-6 last month recommending the bill be killed.
Supporters argued unsuccessfully that the bill did not in any way prohibit abortions and simply required that information be provided to women before they have the procedure. But opponents said the bill was ideologically, and even theologically driven, and said women are already required to be provided adequate information about the procedure.
Rep. Sylvia Gale, D-Nashua, reported on behalf of the committee majority opposing House Bill 483, “No woman facing this most personal and difficult decision has come to the point of seeking to terminate a pregnancy without significant thought, deliberation and discussion with her family, friends and health care professionals.
“This bill suggests that women do not think carefully about abortion and are unable to make responsible decisions without government interference.”
For the minority, co-sponsor Rep. Lenette Peterson, R-Merrimack, called it a “pro-educational/pro-choice bill. Education is key to making an informed decision.”
It was the only major abortion-related bill to come before the House this year.
In a half-hour debate, Rep. Jane Cormier, R-Alton, argued in favor of the bill that women, while making a difficult decision, should receive “full disclosure as to alternative and support services available to her with regard to giving birth to her child.
“There is nothing invasive or hidden” in the bill, she said. “It’s an attempt to be truthful and forthcoming. Pro-choice means pro-information.”
But Gale said women already receive “comprehensive counseling” and information on “other options. Safe and legal abortion services already provide informed consent services.”
Rep. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, called the bill “a common sense solution that protects a person's right to know just like any other medical procedure.”
Rep. Peter Sullivan, D-Manchester, however, argued that the bill “interjects theology into a place where medical science should prevail.”
He said he “hoped for a day when those of us who are pro-life and pro-choice can find common ground. But it doesn’t look like today is that day. It’s a bad bill.”
In the roll call, 35 Republicans joined 194 Democrats in voting to kill the bill, while 24 Democrats joined 97 Republicans in opposition to killing the bill.
» SHARE EVENTS FOR PUBLICATION, IT'S FREE!
Upcoming Events
- Should Manchester's mayor receive a 59% pay raise?
- Yes
- 23%
- No
- 77%
- Total Votes: 292