Alicia Gregg

I write to oppose HB 1552-FN and urge you to consider the realities of domestic violence that this bill overlooks. This bill solves a problem that doesn’t exist while creating real barriers to safety. Perjury is already illegal under RSA 641:1. Petitioners for protective orders already swear under oath that their statements are true. Adding additional warnings and signature requirements suggests that protective order petitioners are uniquely untrustworthy, a premise unsupported by evidence and harmful to victim safety. The bill fundamentally misunderstands the domestic violence context. Victims seeking protective orders are often recently escaped from or still living with their abuser. They’re experiencing trauma that affects memory and ability to recall exact details. Many are confused about what “counts” as abuse due to years of gaslighting. They’re terrified of retaliation. When you’ve been told for years that you’re crazy, overreacting, or misremembering events, being forced to sign multiple statements acknowledging criminal penalties for “material false statements” is deeply intimidating, even when you’re telling the truth. Abusers already weaponize accusations of lying. A core tactic of domestic abuse is convincing victims that no one will believe them. This bill hands abusers additional ammunition. They can say, “You better not file that order because you know they’ll charge you with perjury if you can’t prove everything.” The threat doesn’t need to be real to be effective in silencing victims. What constitutes a “material false statement” in the context of abuse? Is it lying if you say you “fear for your safety” but can’t prove that feeling in court? If an abuser choked you but you can’t remember if it was Tuesday or Wednesday, is that perjury? If emotional abuse has made you doubt your own experiences, and some details turn out to be incorrect, have you committed a crime? The ambiguity creates exactly the kind of uncertainty that will prevent people from seeking help. This bill will particularly harm the most vulnerable. Those with language barriers, disabilities, mental health conditions, lower education levels, or cognitive impacts from trauma will be disproportionately frightened by additional legal warnings they may not fully understand. These are often the victims who most need court protection. Research shows false protective orders are rare. Studies consistently find that the vast majority of protective order requests involve genuine safety concerns. Meanwhile, we know that domestic violence is significantly underreported and many victims never seek legal protection at all. This bill addresses a minor concern while potentially exacerbating a major public safety problem. We should be removing barriers, not adding them. New Hampshire should make it easier, not harder, for abuse victims to access the legal protections they need. If there are concerns about false statements, the existing perjury statute is sufficient. This bill adds bureaucracy and intimidation without enhancing justice. I urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1552-FN.