Nora Armstrong

To the New Hampshire House Judiciary, I am a member of the public who relies on Planned Parenthood for all of my gynaecological needs. That includes regular check-ups (necessary due to a history of pre-cancer), managing PMDD, and much more. The quality of care is incredible, doctors and nurses take time to listen and have solved medical issues that other doctors ignored. As such, I oppose any measures that make it harder for people to access those services. I would like to include a very quick testimony of my experience with people outside of a health center, to provide another perspective. The incident in question occurred in front of my father, who had driven me to a cervical cancer screening. As we left the health center a woman called to us that I had 'other options.' It was very clear that she assumed I was there for an abortion. While this pales in comparison to the harassment that other women (and men) have faced, I find it significant for three reasons: 1. Planned Parenthood has long provided me both advice and high-quality contraception to ensure I don't need to use their abortion services. My visiting the health center is directly related to avoiding what this woman was condemning me for. 2. My father was being incredibly supportive during a scary time, yet this woman made him feel extra discomfort based on completely unfounded assumptions. He shouldn't have had to go through that to support my health. Allowing protestors outside of health centers puts unnecessary pressure on caretakers, who might already be quite uncomfortable. 3. People who will occupy what were safety zones, if this law is repealed, are decidedly uninformed. The people outside Planned Parenthood that day did not know why I was at the health center, and they didn't take time to ask. They were not interested in my experience or my well-being. If the State of New Hampshire could ensure that everyone outside every Planned Parenthood would understand the function of the institution in regular people's lives, and the fragility of patients dealing with health issues, I would say safety zones are not needed. But we make laws based on reality. The reality is that abolishing safety zones would force people facing health scares or crises to walk a gauntlet of misinformation and prejudice simply to get high-quality care they couldn't access anywhere else. It is not an action that benefits the well-being of New Hampshire's people and communities.