Katie DeAngelis

Dear Honorable Members of the House Judiciary Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB 232, which allows healthcare providers to refuse care based on personal beliefs. While freedom of conscience is important, this bill prioritizes personal beliefs over patient rights and could result in dangerous barriers to essential healthcare services. 1. HB 232 Puts Patients at Risk This bill allows medical professionals to deny care for abortion, sterilization, and contraception, which are essential healthcare services for many individuals. If providers refuse care, patients—especially in rural areas with limited healthcare options—may struggle to access timely and necessary medical treatments. Delayed or denied care can lead to serious health complications and unnecessary suffering. Moreover, the bill does not provide exceptions for emergency situations, meaning patients facing urgent reproductive health crises could be left without the care they need. This directly contradicts the ethical duty of healthcare professionals to provide care without discrimination. 2. HB 232 Undermines Patient Autonomy and Rights Every patient deserves the right to make informed decisions about their healthcare without unnecessary interference. HB 232 allows providers to impose their personal beliefs on patients, restricting their ability to access legal and medically approved treatments. This is particularly concerning for individuals who rely on publicly funded healthcare institutions, where providers should serve all patients equally. Additionally, the bill allows refusals not only for performing procedures but also for referring patients elsewhere. This creates unnecessary barriers for patients who may not have the knowledge, resources, or ability to find an alternative provider in a timely manner. 3. Discrimination in Healthcare is Unacceptable While HB 232 claims to prevent discrimination against healthcare providers, it instead enables discrimination against patients. Reproductive healthcare is already disproportionately difficult to access for low-income individuals, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people of color. By permitting healthcare professionals to refuse care based on personal beliefs, this bill further exacerbates existing healthcare disparities. Additionally, there is no clear limit to what might be considered a "moral or ethical" objection. Could a provider refuse to prescribe birth control for non-contraceptive medical conditions? Could they refuse to treat a patient based on personal disapproval of their circumstances? The broad language of this bill opens the door to dangerous and arbitrary denials of care. 4. HB 232 Creates Legal and Ethical Uncertainty This bill allows for broad civil penalties against employers or institutions that hold healthcare workers accountable for refusing care. This could create significant legal and administrative challenges for hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies, making it more difficult to enforce policies that ensure consistent and equitable patient care. Healthcare institutions must be able to ensure that all patients receive appropriate care without fear of lawsuits or financial penalties. HB 232 forces institutions to accommodate personal beliefs over medical ethics and best practices, undermining their ability to provide comprehensive healthcare services. 5. Conclusion HB 232 is a dangerous bill that places personal beliefs over patient care, allowing providers to deny essential health services without regard for the well-being of the people they serve. Healthcare should be driven by medical science and patient needs, not individual moral or religious convictions. I urge the committee to reject HB 232 and ensure that all Granite Staters have access to the care they need without unnecessary obstacles or discrimination. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Katie DeAngelis