29 Days

It's been widely reported that State Legislatures across the country have been introducing bills that would restrict women's control over their own bodies. Bills limiting availability to contraception, fertility, and yes, abortion have been have been popping up all over the country and New Hampshire is no different. HB 217 is one of those bills.

HB 217 prohibits violent offenses against fetuses. Now you might read that description and think, duh, what's wrong with that? Hopefully this excerpt from Governor Lynch's veto message will explain it:

I support legislation that would establish these criminal penalties for the death of a fetus, provided that criminal liability is triggered only if the fetus was deemed to be "viable" and that the legislation was based upon sound medical science. HB 217 fails to meet that standard. This bill would make it difficult for New Hampshire residents to obtain fertility treatments and unreasonably restricts a woman's rights during pregnancy. For these reasons and because this bill fails to contain a "viability" standard, I am vetoing HB 217.

Further, the definition of a fetus that is contained in HB 217 is ambiguous concerning whether or not the embryo stage is fully included or excluded. This ambiguity could affect the availability of reproductive medical treatments that are offered to women and men that assist in building families. HB 217 also does not provide sufficient protections when a woman is already pregnant. Because the medical treatment exemption is conditioned on the "request" of the pregnant woman or her legal guardian, it is not clear that an emergency room physician will be able to perform emergency treatment upon a pregnant woman brought in unconscious following a car accident or stroke, especially if there is no legally appointed guardian.

Josh Davenport and Adam Schroadter both voted in favor of this bill that would make it difficult for New Hampshire families to obtain fertility treatments.