Naomi Braker

To the Honorable Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, I am writing in strong opposition to HB 232, which would allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortion, sterilization, or contraception services based on personal beliefs. As written, this bill poses an unacceptable threat to patient safety, creates unnecessary barriers to essential health care, and undermines medical ethics. 1. No Medical Exemption—A Direct Threat to Women’s Lives HB 232 lacks an essential medical exemption for emergencies. This means a doctor could legally refuse life-saving care, allowing a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life. This is a fundamental violation of medical ethics, including the Hippocratic Oath, which states: “I will use those therapeutic regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.” In a non-pregnancy-related, emergency situation, the doctor’s patient is the pregnant woman—not the pregnancy itself. While the woman may choose to defer the right to the unborn fetus, that must be a conscious choice either by voice or medical directive. In a medical emergency, patients do not have the luxury of choosing a hospital or provider. If this bill becomes law, a woman experiencing a pregnancy-related crisis could be taken to a facility where doctors refuse to act. That is not religious freedom—that is reckless endangerment. 2. Blocking Contraception Increases the Need for Elective Abortion Contraception is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancies, which, in turn, reduces the need for elective abortions. By allowing providers to refuse contraception, this bill actively undermines its supposed moral purpose. Beyond birth control, contraception is also prescribed for serious medical reasons. It is not simply used by single people who wish to avoid pregnancy—it is used by married couples trying to responsibly plan their family, by young women managing debilitating conditions like endometriosis and PCOS, and by people like me, whose lives depend on it. I take contraception to prevent pregnancy because my body physically cannot sustain a pregnancy while I am on critical, life-saving medication. If I became pregnant while on my medication, my child would not survive, and I would face life-threatening complications. I am morally opposed to abortion for myself specifically, but this bill would leave me with an impossible choice: either stop the medication that keeps me alive or risk carrying a pregnancy that is incompatible with life. I would love to have a child with my husband - and I should be able to in the future - but that must be a choice we have the ability to make while still sustaining our healthy, loving relationship. That is not a choice anyone should be forced to make. Contraception is my safeguard against a heartbreaking and dangerous situation—one that no one should have to endure because of a provider’s personal beliefs. 3. Devastating Impact on Rural and Low-Income Communities This bill assumes patients can simply “go elsewhere” if a provider refuses care, but for many, especially in rural areas, that is not possible. There are regions in New Hampshire where the only accessible provider could be one who refuses contraception or reproductive health care. This bill creates insurmountable barriers to necessary medical care for people without reliable transportation, financial resources, or flexible schedules. No one should have to drive hours just to access basic health care. No one should have to beg for care that should be a standard part of medical practice. No one should be forced into a situation where their life or their family’s future is at risk because a provider chooses personal beliefs over patient care. America is founded on the belief that everyone has a right to LIFE, liberty, and happiness. This violates a direct constitutional right. Healthcare providers may have their own personal beliefs, but their right to act on those beliefs should not come at the expense of another person's life and health. The age-old adage applies here: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Conclusion: Patient Care Must Come First Doctors and health care providers have the right to their personal beliefs, but they also have a professional duty to provide care. No one should be left to suffer—or die—because a provider refuses to do their job. This bill puts ideology above patient safety, and for that reason, I urge you to oppose HB 232. Sincerely, Naomi Braker