#

New Hampshire’s Roman Catholic Diocese is not taking part in the annual March for Life, the largest pro-life demonstration in the country, citing concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The Diocese of Manchester recently decided to not organize a large, diocesan-wide contingent to attend the March for Life in Washington, D.C., primarily due to the difficulty of monitoring and mitigating the COVID-19 risk with a group of over 100 participants,” said Bevin Kennedy, the diocesan cabinet secretary for communications. 

The decision means that individual parishes that once booked seats on buses the dioceses chartered for the trip to Washington D.C., and secured hotel rooms through diocesan reservations, were left to scramble to make their own accommodations for this year’s trip.

The March is scheduled for Jan. 21, to be close to the Jan. 22 anniversary of the Roe v Wade United States Supreme Court decision being handed down. Claire Pullan, with the March for Life national organization based in Washington D.C., said she’s heard from some groups that normally take part that they are worried about the pandemic.

“People are concerned about what COVID is doing, and what role that’s going to play this year,” she said.

The March organizers are telling people to take the pandemic seriously and take sensible precautions to keep themselves and others safe. The larger problem connected to the pandemic is the costs for the trip. Many groups that relied on charter buses to get down to Washington D.C. are finding the trip costs have effectively doubled.

Because of the COVID-19 restrictions, many bus companies are requiring social distancing in the bus, leaving half the seats empty. Pullan said a group like a school or a church that could charter three buses in past years now has to charter six because of the restrictions.

“There are more costs because of COVID restrictions, and a lot of people are calling,” she said.

The march usually draws hundreds of thousands of activists to participate, but it is hard to guess how many might take part this year, Pullan said. Last year’s march was converted to a virtual event because of the pandemic, and it is not clear if the continued COVID-19 surge will continue to keep people away. Pullan thinks people might want to show up this year especially after dealing with the pandemic for so long.

“People are recognizing the need to stand up,” she said.

Kennedy said the Diocese is encouraging people to attend smaller, local events to mark the occasion and is encouraging individual parishes to hold their own events.

This year’s event comes as many in the pro-life movement believe the controversial Supreme Court decision creating a nationwide right to abortion, Roe v. Wade, may be overturned or significantly curtailed by the Court sometime next year.

New Hampshire Democrats, many of whom support an even more extreme pro-abortion position than the trimester system laid out in Roe, are hoping a backlash on the abortion issue will help them avoid a 2010-style wipeout in next year’s midterms.

However, a new NHJournal poll found that abortion was named as the top issue by just four percent of Granite State voters.

New Hampshire Democrats are using abortion cases before the U. S. Supreme Court to renew their push for unrestricted abortion access in the Granite State.

“We are at a crisis moment for abortion rights: The threat to the constitutional right to an abortion has never been greater in our country. Six months from now, abortion could be illegal in half the country,” said Kayla Montgomery, vice president for public affairs at Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments on Wednesday as it considers whether the state of Mississippi can ban abortion at 15 weeks. The court previously heard arguments on the Texas law banning abortion at six weeks, and a decision on that case is pending.

It’s possible the court could overturn either the 1992 Casey decision or the 1973 Roe decision, both of which restricted the right of voters to pass laws regulating abortion. Some court watchers believe they heard Chief Justice John Roberts suggest a way to leave the Mississippi law in place without overturning Roe.

A decision is expected in June.

Gov. Chris Sununu, a self-described pro-choice Republican who supports upholding Roe v. Wade, signed a 24-week abortion ban when he approved the state budget. The ban was forced into the budget bill by House conservatives who threatened to derail the legislation over the ban. He has since said he supports removing the requirement that all women seeking abortions be required to undergo an ultrasound first.

According to Cornerstone, a non-partisan, non-profit Christian advocacy organization, the description of the ultrasound as mandatory is inaccurate.

“Under the act, performing an abortion without an ultrasound will only be punished in one situation: where there is a “substantial risk” that the child is at least 24 weeks old. In any other circumstance, the provider can skip the ultrasound and face no penalties under the act,” the group says in a fact sheet on the new law.

Asked about the Mississippi case this week, Sununu told NHJournal he wasn’t paying attention to it and does not believe Roe will be overturned.

Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said if the Supreme Court ends Roe, abortion in New Hampshire is still legal for the first six months. Chaffee and Montgomery stood with state lawmakers on Wednesday promising legislative action to make sure abortion stays legal no matter what happens in Washington.

“Unfortunately, it is no longer an option for us to count on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect our reproductive rights,” said state Sen. Rebecca Whitley, D-Contoocook. “Now is the time to take proactive action to protect abortion access in New Hampshire.”

Democrats want abortion rights codified in state law, and they are pushing to undo the 24-week ban and return to the policy of unrestricted legal abortion at any point in a pregnancy.

All the members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation came out in support of upholding Roe on Wednesday, as well as the federal effort to make sure abortion rights are protected from the Supreme Court. Rep. Chris Pappas said the Women’s Health Protection Act, supported by all members of the delegation, will codify Roe as federal law.

“We can no longer count on the Supreme Court to defend Roe and be the backstop as they have been – in this new era it’s up to us to fight back,” Pappas said.

Supporters of overturning Roe v. Wade have long argued that abortion should be regulated by the democratic process as Pappas suggests, not a court’s ruling.

Sen. Maggie Hassan called the Mississippi ban “extreme” and devastating for women.

“This is one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country and it would take us back to almost 50 years ago,” Hassan said.

Shannon McGinley, executive director of Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire, called out Democrats for equating New Hampshire’s 24-week ban with Mississippi’s law or the fetal heartbeat bill in Texas.

“The currently pending Supreme Court cases challenging abortion law in Mississippi and Texas are not going to have any legal effect on our law in New Hampshire,” McGinley said. “Our law prohibits abortion at six months, not 15 weeks (Mississippi) or six weeks (Texas). Those trying to link New Hampshire’s moderate law with these other states are ignoring the facts.”

Both major Supreme Court abortion decisions, Roe and Casey, allow for states to restrict abortion at some point in the pregnancy. Even those restrictions are considered loose compared to most developed countries, which set the limits at 12 to 15 weeks for elective abortions.

McGinley said Democrats are engaging in misinformation to push for complete, unrestricted access to abortion.

“Planned Parenthood’s position and messaging is predictable in its attempt to cynically sway public opinion,” she said. “With every elected branch of government in New Hampshire led by Republicans, not by Planned Parenthood, there is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to protect a law with absolutely no impediment to abortion access in those first six months, but that does balance that access with commonsense protections for the late-term pre-born.”

A day after Sen. Jeanne Shaheen compared New Hampshire’s new late-abortion ban to an “authoritarian state,” leaders of Democrats for Life called her position “extreme” and her claims dishonest.

The four members of New Hampshire’s delegation held an online event in advance of Wednesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. They decried New Hampshire’s new abortion law and warned of dire consequences if the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

“What we’re seeing in the ‘Live Free or Die’ state is unbelievable to me,” Shaheen said. “The attempt to have state control of our personal health really is what we would see in an authoritarian state. It’s not what we would expect in New Hampshire.”

“I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is,” Shaheen added.

Shaheen’s comment made national news as an indication, critics say, of pro-abortion extremism in the Democratic Party.

Democrats for Life President Monica Sparks addresses a crowd outside the DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C. on November 30, 2021.

Democrats for Life held a rally outside Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D. C. Tuesday, urging their party to move away from its extreme abortion-on-demand position and become more open to pro-life candidates.

“One in three Democrats are pro-life. That’s a lot of people. Why do you keep leaving us outside the big tent?” asked newly-elected DFL President Monica Sparks. “Shame on you, DNC!”

Asked about Shaheen’s statement, DFL Executive Director Kristen Day said she found it “interesting a U.S. Senator would completely misrepresent Roe v. Wade and the effects of overturning it. She knows better. She’s just trying to create a false narrative.”

Gov. Chris Sununu, a target of the New Hampshire congressional delegation’s criticism, was asked by NHJournal Wednesday if he’d take action to protect abortion rights if the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. 

“I’m not really paying attention to that case,” Sununu said. “It’s not an overturn of Roe vs. Wade. It’s about viability.”

The Dobbs lawsuit concerns the new Mississippi law that restricts abortion after 15 weeks. According to Shannon Brewer, who runs the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, about 10 percent of the abortions the clinic performs take place after the fifteenth week of pregnancy.

The court is also considering the constitutionality of a Texas law that bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks.

Vice President of Public Affairs with Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund Kayla Montgomery said abortion rights are at stake whether Sununu is paying attention or not.

“To be clear, abortion rights are at stake at the Supreme Court. Reproductive health providers, advocates, and Granite Staters are paying attention to this case because we know it will determine the future of abortion access in our country. Without constitutional protections, abortion rights will be decided on a state-by-state basis,” Montgomery said.

Overturning Roe would have no impact on New Hampshire’s late-term abortion ban.

Jason Hennessey, president of New Hampshire’s Right to Life, said Sununu’s record on abortion has been mixed, though he does approve some of the governor’s actions.

“The governor did sign the fetal life protection act, and he signed a bill to protect state taxpayer money from going to abortion clinics,” Hennessey said. “This past year he’s done some good things … We would certainly like to see him take more of a leadership role, but he’s said he’s pro-choice.”

In a statement to the Portsmouth Herald, Sununu spokesperson Brandon Pratt said, “To be clear, he did not propose this legislative amendment. But as the governor has repeatedly said, he would not veto a $13 billion state budget over a change that would bring New Hampshire in line with 43 other states, and any claim that this is a radical restriction is just partisan politics.”

Most U.S. states, as well as most modern industrialized countries, reject Shaheen’s abortion-on-demand up to the day of birth position as extreme. According to recent polls, so do most American voters.

Gallup polling has consistently found more than 80 percent of Americans oppose abortions in the third trimester. And a new Marquette University poll found 37 percent of Americans favor upholding Mississippi’s 15-week limit, while just 32 percent oppose it.

The DFL’s Day said the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion stance is hurting it among voters in middle America, and statements like Shaheen’s aren’t helping.

“She’s just creating panic, unnecessary panic,” Day said. “What we really need to focus on is providing women with real choice.”

Damien Fisher contributed to this report. 

At an Independence Day celebration, a Republican friend asked me about our starting a third party. Then he said it might not work because we disagree on one big issue…abortion.

Surprised, I asked, “You are pro-choice?”  He replied, “Yes, I don’t think we should take a right to abortion away, but I don’t think we should pay for it.” He clarified his position further by declaring his support both for parental consent and for a ban on abortion after 12 weeks. So, while he considers himself pro-choice, his clarifications show that “pro-choice” doesn’t always mean what you think.

In many ways, my friend represents the voters of New Hampshire, which is called a pro-choice state, but when you look deeper, the views on abortion are not so clear. The majority may not want abortion to be illegal, but many people support regulation.

The nuances of abortion are not stopping gubernatorial candidate Steve Marchand from taking one of the most extreme positions in the nation.

Marchand’s extremism contrasts with moderate New Hampshirites’ positions on life. His plan promotes abortion through nine months (most of Europe restricts abortion after the early second trimester), eliminates the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal funding of abortion), and abolishes reasonable restrictions of abortion.

Marchand advocates overturning a 2017 law that recognizes children at 20 weeks of pregnancy as eligible to be considered victims of crime. Ask any mother or father who has lost a preborn child as a result of a crime, and she or he will tell you that this law is a good thing. The law has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with justice for grieving families.

The hostility of Marchand’s plan is frightening and will not win against a Republican incumbent who in recent polls showed a 25-point lead.

To win, Marchand should expand his base of support and recognize that abortion-on-demand is not what most women want. Most women who seek an abortion feel as if they have no choice. They are most often poor, in unhealthy relationships, and/or pressured to abort their unborn children by the fathers or other family members.

Marchand should replace his abortion-expansion plan with a woman-centered plan that whole-life voters would support.

First, he should advocate for paid maternity leave, so that a woman doesn’t have to choose between an abortion and keeping a job she needs.

Second, Marchand should support the thirty-plus pregnancy centers in New Hampshire, which provide diapers, cribs, strollers, clothing, and other necessities for mothers, free of charge.

Third, Marchand should promote perinatal hospice, which supports mothers and families who receive a diagnosis that the child in utero has a life-threatening disease and will likely not survive.

It matters that New Hampshire, which carries symbolic weight when it comes to picking the leader of the country, is seeing a frightening hostility to life in its gubernatorial race.

New Hampshire prides itself for being “first in the nation.” But will it lead the way for life or for hostility?

New Hampshire lawmakers only have until Thursday to finalize what the final state budget will look like for the next biennium, but there are two issues that could hurt its chances of getting passed in the full House.

One of the policies is not even related to monetary funds, it’s about a family planning contracts provision that was hotly contested in the Senate version of the state budget last month.

The Senate added language to its budget prohibiting the state from giving money to health care facilities to provide abortions. Republicans argued the language simply codifies current practice under the federal Hyde Amendment, but Democrats called it an attack on women’s health.

“The decision by House conferees to accept the Hyde amendment as part of the state budget proposal is a completely unnecessary attack on women’s health,” said Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord, ranking Democrat on the House Finance Committee and a budget conferee.

“Because federal law already prohibits the use of tax dollars on abortion services, this amendment is a political statement, not a budget statement,” she added.

A conference committee is working to compromise on differences between the $11.8 billion budget passed in the Senate and an $11.9 billion spending plan proposed by the House Finance Committee that was eventually rejected by the full House after conservatives voted against the budget with Democrats.

Wallner blasted Republicans for sneaking the provision into the budget without public input.

“These provisions never received a public hearing in either the House or Senate, in direct violation of the legislative process,” she said. “If Republican lawmakers are going to turn the budget process into a partisan debate over social issues, the least they can do is follow their own rules and be transparent about it.”

Budget writers began hammering out the details in the conference committee on Friday, with less than a week to submit a budget report by Thursday, so both legislative chambers can vote on the final version of the state budget by June 22. The current fiscal year will end on June 30.

The move to include the abortion provision signals that House GOP leadership is looking to work with conservative members, instead of Democrats, to get a budget passed. Several Democrats in the House have reportedly called the provision a “deal breaker” and if it’s included in the final version, they will vote against it.

The Senate, since it’s a smaller body of 24 members, is not as politically divided as the 400 legislators in the House. The House has several different caucuses, all wanting something different out of the state budget.

In April, the House failed to pass its version of a budget for the first time since records were kept in 1969. Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus sided with Democrats to defeat the plan crafted by House GOP leadership citing that spending was too high and there weren’t enough tax cuts.

The Senate version included cuts to the state’s business profits tax and business enterprise tax. House Speaker Shawn Jasper took to Twitter to indicate his support for these cuts.

I support biz tax relief for NH job creators. I urge House colleagues to support our budget that will contain responsible cuts. #NHPolitics

— Speaker Shawn Jasper (@NHSpeaker) June 12, 2017

But the House Freedom Caucus and one of its members, Rep. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, asked if those were the only tax cuts planning to be included in the final version.

Looking forward to more information. Are biz tax cuts the only cuts?

— Victoria Sullivan (@VSullivan4NH) June 12, 2017

With more, or other, tax cuts in the state budget, conservatives could be more inclined to support the GOP-led spending plan. Yet, if the abortion provision and no tax cuts are included in the final version before the House next week, there might not be a budget passed before the end of the fiscal year, which means lawmakers would need to pass a continuing resolution to fund the state government at its current levels and then come back to negotiate a budget again in the fall.

A lot could still happen in the final negotiation days.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

In a 10-hour marathon session, the Republican-led Senate approved an $11.8 billion state budget, defeating all Democratic attempts to increase spending in mental health, social services, and education. The budget ultimately passed on a 14-9 party line vote.

The spending plan changed very little from what the Senate Finance Committee put forward, but concerns and praise for the budget fell on party lines. Republicans applauded the money going to help the mental health crisis in the state, but Democrats disagree, saying the budget doesn’t fund critical social services.

Some of the budget’s highlights include expanding mental health treatment beds, creating a new student scholarship program, and cutting the state’s business taxes.

“What we’ve developed is a budget that serves the citizens of New Hampshire, but lives within our means,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Gary Daniels. “I believe we have achieved an appropriate balance between the two and we’ve done a lot to get us to this point.”

Democrats put forward more than two dozen amendments to increase funding for child protective services, adding nurses to New Hampshire Hospital, making Medicaid expansion permanent, funding full-day kindergarten, and increasing the budget for the state university system. They argue that the state can spend an additional $45 million since the budget’s revenue estimates are too low.

“It creates an artificial, trumped-up surplus to sell the biggest Republican ruse of all, that slashing taxes for the rich will grow revenues and improve lives for poor, middle-class people,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn.

“I recognize and respect my colleagues who think it’s not enough or some would suggest even never enough, but on the other hand, Mr. President, you know there are people like me who are always very concerned that maybe it’s always too much,” responded Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford.

On a few amendments, a couple of GOP senators sided with Democrats, but it was not enough for the measure to be adopted. For example, Republican Sens. Sanborn and Ruth Ward of Stoddard voted with Democrats to roll back proposed health care premium increases for state retirees, but it failed on a 12-11 vote. In another 12-11 vote, GOP Sens. Regina Birdsell of Hampstead and Harold French of Franklin voted with Democrats to add $6 million in additional education aid grants to public schools, but that measure also failed.

Heated debate between the two parties occurred, as expected, on the business tax cuts in the budget blueprint. An old debate flared up over abortion policy, though, when an eleventh-hour Republican amendment was introduced to block state and federal funds from going to centers that offer abortion services.

“This is about controlling women’s health choices, plain and simple, and this is about merging church and state,” said Sen. Martha Hennessy, D-Hanover.

Tensions remained high as Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, raised his voice in response to Hennessy.

“Forcing people to violate their conscience with their tax dollars, that is hateful,” he said. “I challenge anyone in here to tell me in any constitution where I am forced to pay for somebody’s abortion, show it to me.”

Hennessy said the amendment was an attack on her rights, while Republicans argue it’s just codifying what’s already happening.

“Could you imagine the men in this room if we snuck in some amendment about how the government shouldn’t pay for Viagra?” Hennessey said.

The amendment ultimately failed, 17-6. Democrats also tried unsuccessfully to eliminate a reference to the so-called Hyde Amendment that outlaws spending public dollars on abortions, in order to prevent any future cuts to Planned Parenthood.

With the Senate’s approval, the biennium budget is sent to the GOP-led House. Yet, there are some concerns from conservatives who are threatening to oppose the plan because it spends too much. The chamber is likely to call for a conference committee of senators and representatives to compromise on various issues within the budget, despite the House failing to pass their own plan earlier this year.

Red flags that House conservatives were not entirely pleased with the budget were first raised during a Tuesday budget information session.

“I’m opposed to this budget as it currently stands, and I am going to work to defeat it,” said Rep. James McConnell, R-North Swanzey, who is also a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

The House Freedom Caucus helped sink the chamber’s budget this year, making it the first time since at least 1969 that the House failed to produce a spending plan.

Yet, it’s still too early to tell if the caucus will try to defeat the Senate budget. In an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, and co-chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said the Senate proposal is an improvement.

“They’ve made some great changes in terms of improvements — cutting the business taxes is a good example, funding the charter schools is another good example, so there are positive steps forward,” he said. “Some of us are still concerned that it spends more than we’re comfortable with and that’s…put us in a stalemate almost. The overall increase in government size is bigger than a number of us are conformable with.”

Hoell sent an email to caucus members after a meeting this week, saying the group is hopeful that their needs will be met in the conference committee.

Republicans only hold a slim majority in the House and a handful of defections could defeat the budget if Democrats also oppose it. They have largely criticized the GOP-budget, but some could side with Republicans out of fear of not getting anything passed.

The budget process needs to be over by June 30 before the start of the next fiscal year. If a budget is not passed by then, lawmakers would need to pass a continuing resolution, which would fund the government at its current levels until a full budget is passed.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

While House leadership said that bills restricting abortion rights would not be a priority for the Republican majority, there are still some bills before the New Hampshire Legislature tackling the contentious issue.

After the November election, House Speaker Shawn Jasper outlined his top priorities for the 2017 legislative session, which included concealed carry and right to work, but not any abortion bills.

However, that didn’t stop several state representatives from putting them forward. With a Republican-controlled State House, some bills that seek to restrict abortion rights could quietly make it far in the legislative process. While pro-life and pro-choice groups are paying attention to the issue, most eyes will be on the budget, right-to-work legislation, or other bills dealing with election laws.

Rep. Keith Murphy, R-Bedford, is hopeful his bill, which would ban abortions after “viability,” passes the House. He introduced a similar version of the bill last year, when it was deemed “ought to pass” in the House Judiciary Committee, but failed by three votes in a House session.

Murphy blamed the defeat on the fact that it was “the end of a long day and a lot of people already left.” He also thought some of the representatives did not fully understand the bill.

“I have vowed this year to be different,” he told NH Journal.

House Bill 578 would prohibit any person from performing or inducing an abortion on a woman when it has been determined that the age of the “unborn child” is 21 weeks or older, unless there is a medical emergency in order to save the woman’s life or stop physical harm. The bill also sets penalties for doctors who perform abortions in violation of the law.

New Hampshire is one of eight states that does not place a specific restriction on abortions at a certain point in pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.

“New Hampshire tends to be a fairly moderate state on the question of abortion,” Murphy said. “I think this bill has an excellent chance [of passing] because it protects children who are viable, who will live if they are removed from the womb. There is no reason to kill these children because they will survive.”

Kayla Montgomery, director of advocacy and organizing for Planned Parenthood NH Action Fund, said the bill would criminalize doctors and make “it impossible for women who face complex pregnancy complications or severe fetal abnormalities to access abortion as currently provided in New Hampshire.”

“Equally as problematic, the bill requires an intrusive data collection system which would create a registry of women who obtain abortions and doctors who provide them and store this information at the Board of Medicine and the Department of Health and Human Services,” she told NH Journal.

While Murphy understands that his legislation might not be a priority for the House leadership, he said he has spoken to House Majority Leader Dick Hinch about the bill and “Speaker Jasper has indicated in general that he will go where the House takes him.”

“I don’t think he is dictating the outcome of the bill,” he said. “If the House passes it, it will be supported.”

If enough Republicans rally behind the bill, it could make it to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk, and Murphy said he is optimistic that the Republican governor would sign it.

Sununu describes himself as a pro-choice Republican and said he stands by his vote to approve of state funding for Planned Parenthood last year. But he also said he opposes late-term abortions. He has not been specific about what that means.

“We can generally say third trimester, but some say 20 weeks,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader in October. “I think we can look at those options, but I am not going to put a timeline on it now.”

Planned Parenthood, though, is expecting Sununu to protect women’s health.

“We will be watching the budget process closely to ensure that women’s health programs are protected and fully funded,” Montgomery said. “Gov. Sununu campaigned as someone who supports abortion rights and pledged to stand up to his party to protect women’s health, and that’s what we are expecting of him. New Hampshire has a long bipartisan tradition of respecting individual privacy. Support for access to safe, legal abortion in New Hampshire is among the strongest in the country. Defeating attacks has always been accomplished by bipartisan efforts, and we expect no different this year.”

There are two near-identical bills in the House and Senate that would allow prosecution of a person, such as an impaired driver or abusive domestic partner, whose actions cause a woman to lose a pregnancy that she has chosen to carry. It does not apply to abortion or to any act performed with the mother’s consent.

Senate Bill 66 specifies a “viable” fetus, which is a “developing human” that has basic human qualities. House Bill 156 is just a fetus, which is defined as after the eighth week of a pregnancy until birth.

The House Bill is known as Griffin’s Law, which has been introduced in the Legislature before by former Rep. Leon Rideout, R-Lancaster, whose daughter lost her baby in 2013 after another driver ran a stop sign and crashed into her. His daughter suffered serious injuries and despite an emergency C section to keep the child alive, he succumbed to injuries from the crash.

Rep. Jeanine Notter, R-Merrimack, is the prime sponsor of Griffin’s Law in the current legislative session. But the future of the bill remains unclear. It has failed in the Legislature before, so it will remain to be seen if it has more widespread support this time. The House bill will hear public testimony in the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday.

Montgomery said the House and Senate bills do not have a “direct impact on the health services that Planned Parenthood of Northern New England provides.”

“We do share concerns that have been raised regarding implications of recognizing fetal rights prior to viability,” she said. “There are examples of similar bills in other states which have led to the prosecution of women for their own behavior during pregnancy.”

Montgomery said Planned Parenthood would also be watching House Bill 589, which would repeal the “buffer zone law,” which was passed in 2014, allowing for a 25-foot zone outside abortion facilities where no one would be allowed to protest or impede anyone from entering the facility.

“Now, more than ever, health centers need the flexibility to adapt buffer zones if they feel the privacy and safety of patients are at risk,” Montgomery said. “Undoing this law would be a step backwards and removes an important tool from the toolkit.”

Sununu has indicated during the campaign that he would support repealing the law.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.