HB 589-FN - AS INTRODUCED
HOUSE BILL 589-FN
SPONSORS: Rep. Wuelper, Straf. 3; Rep. Scully, Hills. 33; Rep. Notter, Hills. 21; Rep. Gould, Hills. 7; Rep. Burt, Hills. 39; Rep. M. Pearson, Rock. 34; Sen. Avard, Dist 12; Sen. Giuda, Dist 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seventeen
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
I. The general court hereby finds that:
(a) The exercise of a person’s right to free speech is a First Amendment activity, the protection of which is paramount.
(b) RSA 132:37 through RSA 132:40 (2014, 81) was based on a similar Massachusetts statute, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266 section 120E ½.
(c) On June 26, 2014 the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the Massachusetts statute in the case of McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518.
(d) On July 9, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire held in the case of Sister Mary Rose Reddy v. Foster, Docket 14-cv-00299-JL that RSA 132:37 through RSA132:40 “is materially indistinguishable from the Massachusetts statute that the Supreme Court invalidated in McCullen v. Coakley.”
II. Therefore, the general court hereby repeals RSA 132:37 through RSA 132:40 because if left as law, this statute will cause the state of New Hampshire to expend considerable sums defending a law which the United States Supreme Court unanimously found unconstitutional.
HB 589-FN- FISCAL NOTE
FISCAL IMPACT: [ X ] State [ ] County [ ] Local [ ] None
Estimated Increase / (Decrease)
[ X ] General [ ] Education [ ] Highway [ ] Other
This bill repeals RSA 132:37 through 132:40, relative to providing certain parameters for access to reproductive health care facilities. These sections currently make violation of the statute a violation-level offense and authorize the attorney general or county attorney to bring injunctive relief to prevent further violations. There is a potential fiscal impact to the Judicial Branch in the form of decreased expenditures due to fewer violation-level offenses in the circuit court and fewer injunction actions in the superior court. The Branch is unable to estimate the aggregate amount of any expenditure decrease, but does provide the following information on per-case costs:
Violation Level Offense
Complex Equity Case
It should be noted average case cost estimates for FY 2018 and FY 2019 are based on data that is more than ten years old and does not reflect changes to the courts over that same period of time or the impact these changes may have on processing the various case types.
The Department of Justice indicates that the existing statute has been challenged in federal court, and passage of the bill would eliminate the basis for that legal challenge and the potential cost of litigation. The extent of any cost savings is indeterminable.
Department of Justice, Judicial Branch, New Hampshire Association of Counties, and New Hampshire Municipal Association
|Feb. 1, 2017||House||Hearing|
|Feb. 14, 2017||House||Exec Session|
|Feb. 21, 2017||House||Exec Session|
|March 8, 2017||House||Floor Vote|
March 9, 2017: Reconsider HB 589 (Rep. White): MF VV 03/09/2017 HJ 10 P. 28
March 9, 2017: Inexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 191-165 03/09/2017 HJ 10 P. 26
: Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass
March 8, 2017: Majority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate for 03/08/2017 (Vote 9-8; RC)
Feb. 21, 2017: ==CONTINUED== Executive Session: 02/21/2017 10:00 AM LOB 208
Feb. 14, 2017: ==RECESSED== Executive Session: 02/14/2017 01:00 PM LOB 208
Feb. 1, 2017: Public Hearing: 02/01/2017 11:00 AM LOB 208
Jan. 5, 2017: Introduced 01/05/2017 and referred to Judiciary HJ 3 P. 20