Committee Summary for House Judiciary (03/03/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB148 00:17:58.240 - 9:18:14 AM	Executive Session	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain circumstances.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2025
HB254 00:34:34.639 - 9:34:50 AM	Executive Session	relative to options for end of life care.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB611 2025-0638 00:47:55.520 - 9:48:11 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to repayment regarding appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants.	Scherr, Buzz(D)[D-]2025
HB615 2025-0320H 01:24:41.400 - 10:24:57 AM	Executive Session	relative to drug forfeiture proceedings.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
CACR6 01:56:47.880 - 10:57:03 AM	Executive Session	relating to the right to compute. Providing that the right of individuals to use computation resources shall not be infringed.	Ammon, Keith(R)[A]2025
CACR7 02:14:46.840 - 11:15:02 AM	Executive Session	relating to the presumption of innocence. Providing that in all cases and suits of the state against one of the people, the defendant shall be innocent unless proven guilty.	Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025
HB88 02:19:29.920 - 11:19:45 AM	Executive Session	establishing community property trusts.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
HB762 02:22:29.920 - 11:22:45 AM	Executive Session	appropriating $30,000 to the judicial branch for the purpose of hiring a contractor to conduct a manual review of domestic violence and stalking cases and related criminal cases.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025
HB88 20257H 02:24:54.560 - 11:25:10 AM	Executive Session	establishing community property trusts.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
HB199 02:42:21.359 - 11:42:37 AM	Executive Session	extending the statute of limitation on civil actions relative to damage caused by per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).	Vail, Suzanne(D)[CT]2025
HB293 03:26:39.680 - 12:26:55 PM	Executive Session	preventing minors from accessing obscenity on certain electronic devices with internet access.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB293 2025-0684 03:54:36.680 - 12:54:52 PM	Executive Session	preventing minors from accessing obscenity on certain electronic devices with internet access.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025

HB148: Chair Information Only00:17:58.240 - 9:18:14 AM; The Chair opened the executive session of the House Judiciary Committee, thanked the vice chair and other members for their work during their absence, and announced the intention to address HB 148 first due to time constraints of some members.
HB148: Representative Pell Support00:19:06.600 - 9:19:22 AM; Representative Pell moved 'ought to pass' on HB 148, explaining that the bill is identical to a previously passed bill, HB 396 from 2024. The bill allows for classification based on biological sex in specific circumstances such as multi-use bathrooms, certain athletic events, and involuntary commitment facilities, emphasizing it does not mandate but permits such classification. They also mentioned recent developments in gender testing and federal actions that underline the necessity of the bill, citing examples from Maine and local lawsuits to illustrate the urgency and relevance of the legislation.
HB148: Representative Tur Oppose00:23:08.440 - 9:23:24 AM; Representative Tur expressed opposition to HB 148, criticizing it as legislative malpractice due to the lack of a clear definition of 'biological sex' in the bill. They argued that the bill could potentially cause the very problems it aims to solve, such as forcing individuals to participate in sports based on their sex at birth, which could lead to unfairness and issues in sports, referencing a case from Texas.
HB148: Representative Tur Oppose00:25:55.399 - 9:26:11 AM; Representative Tur expressed concerns about the lack of clear definitions in HB148 regarding gender. He highlighted the potential for discrimination and confusion in various settings like sports and public facilities due to the bill's ambiguity. He mentioned a case from Texas where a male wrestler was forced to compete on the girls' team, becoming the champion, to illustrate the potential unintended consequences of the bill. He argued that the bill could lead to privacy issues and inconsistent treatment across different locations, urging caution and consideration of the bill's broader implications.
HB148: Representative Organ Oppose00:27:05.799 - 9:27:21 AM; Representative Organ argued that HB148 is unnecessary and potentially harmful due to its lack of a clear definition of biological sex. He emphasized that gender identity and expression do not necessarily align with chromosomes and that such tests are not definitive. He pointed out existing legal protections against assault and harassment, and the ability of sports organizations to set their own rules. He also criticized a related federal executive order for its confusing language on gender, suggesting that the bill could lead to unnecessary complications and should be found inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: Representative Smith Information Only00:31:22.279 - 9:31:38 AM; Representative Smith asked about the requirement for at-home gender tests mentioned in the context of HB148. He expressed surprise at the existence of such tests and shared a personal anecdote about the surprise of discovering the gender of his children at birth. He highlighted concerns about privacy and intrusion if such tests were mandated, reflecting a broader discussion on the implications of the bill.
HB148: Representative Lynn Support00:33:40.799 - 9:33:56 AM; Representative Lynn, in his role as chairman, called for a vote on HB148, which resulted in a motion to pass with 10 votes in favor and 8 against. He emphasized the urgency of completing reports before a deadline and mentioned the anticipation of a minority report.
HB254: Representative Lynn Support00:34:34.639 - 9:34:50 AM; Representative Lynn moved to pass HB254, arguing that it represents a choice for liberty for those terminally ill and within six months of death. He emphasized the importance of allowing individuals to end their lives peacefully rather than suffer, acknowledging the presence of strong opposing views based on religious and other beliefs.
HB254: Representative Perez Oppose00:36:55.880 - 9:37:11 AM; Representative Perez strongly opposed HB254, citing both religious beliefs and legislative concerns. He argued that the bill is faulty and potentially dangerous, noting that it has been opposed by veteran services organizations due to its implications. He expressed worry over the bill's potential to normalize suicide among young people and its misalignment with party platform values.
HB254: Representative Andrew Oppose00:38:18.880 - 9:38:34 AM; Representative Andrew voiced opposition to HB254, citing personal experiences with family members who suffered. He argued that doctors take an oath to save lives, and facilitating the end of life through medication contradicts this principle. He expressed his intention to vote against the bill again, as he did the previous year.
HB254: Representative Pano Oppose00:39:36.440 - 9:39:52 AM; Representative Pano opposed HB254, criticizing the bill for its deceptive nature and frequent rebranding. He argued that the bill's language misrepresents the cause of death and could lead to underreported instances of assisted suicide. He expressed strong reservations about supporting legislation he perceives as dishonest.
HB254: Representative Lynn Support00:40:42.440 - 9:40:58 AM; Representative Lynn responded to criticisms about the definition of suicide in HB254 by drawing an analogy to legal expungement of criminal records. He argued that the law can appropriately classify a peaceful end-of-life choice as not being suicide under specific stringent conditions, emphasizing the importance of allowing terminally ill individuals to avoid unnecessary suffering.
HB254: Representative Perez Oppose00:41:59.119 - 9:42:15 AM; Representative Perez reiterated his opposition to HB254, expressing concern over the potential for the bill to justify suicide among young people struggling with depression. He criticized the bill for being faulty and noted instances where medications intended for one person were misused by others, highlighting the slippery slope he fears the bill represents.
HB254: Representative Tur Information Only00:42:45.440 - 9:43:01 AM; Representative Tur discussed the importance of not confusing the cause of death on death certificates with legal rights, such as those potentially granted under HB254. They emphasized the need to maintain accurate public health data to study disease statuses, warning that allowing the cause of death to be listed as a result of exercising a legal right could skew data on conditions like cancer. Additionally, Representative Tur made a distinction between suicide and medical intervention in terminally ill patients, arguing that the latter is not suicide but an end-of-life decision.
HB611 2025-0638: Chairman Lynn Support00:47:55.520 - 9:48:11 AM; Chairman Lynn moved to pass HB611 with Amendment 2025-0638, which is a replace-all amendment. The original bill aimed to end efforts by the Office of Cost Containment to recoup funds for council services provided to indigent criminal defendants or juveniles. The amendment, however, seeks to restore the law to its state before the 2020 amendments to RSA 604-A:9, which had prohibited the state from recouping funds from those found not guilty and prevented reevaluation of a person's ability to pay.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Cutab Support00:48:58.359 - 9:49:14 AM; Representative Cutab seconded the motion to pass HB611 with the proposed amendment.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Burch Oppose00:54:59.119 - 9:55:15 AM; Representative Burch expressed opposition to the amendment, highlighting a scenario where an innocent person, Johnny, was wrongly charged and detained, only to be later cleared when the real perpetrator confessed. Despite the exoneration, the state would still attempt to bill Johnny for the legal services provided, which Representative Burch finds unjust. They argue that billing an innocent person who availed themselves of a constitutional right is wrong, emphasizing the state's responsibility in such cases.
HB611 2025-0638: Unknown Speaker Oppose00:57:08.839 - 9:57:24 AM; The speaker argues against the amendment, expressing concerns about its impact on the fundamental values of Granite Staters. They highlight the issue of charging children with delinquency, only to find them not delinquent later, yet they are financially burdened until reaching the age of majority. The speaker questions the kind of society this reflects and hopes that the amendment will be voted against.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Smith Oppose00:59:00.599 - 9:59:16 AM; Representative Smith begins by challenging the authoritative tone used by the previous speaker regarding the motives behind a law change five years ago. He expresses discomfort with the political party distinctions used in the discussion, noting that the governor at the time of the law change was a Republican. He then shifts focus to the financial aspect, criticizing the cost-effectiveness of the program before the change. He argues that it is financially unwise for the state to spend more on collecting money than it receives, suggesting that the program should be discontinued on financial grounds alone. He also mentions another amendment prepared with the guidance of the Commissioner of Administrative Services, which he believes would be a financial plus for the department and allow reallocation of resources to better meet the state's needs. He urges the committee to reject the current amendment and consider his proposed amendment, which he believes aligns with financial, administrative, and moral perspectives.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Bur Oppose01:03:11.480 - 10:03:27 AM; Representative Bur opposes the amendment, arguing that it unfairly treats indigent defendants who are not convicted by requiring them to pay for legal services, a constitutional right. He emphasizes that the amendment removes the distinction between convicted and non-convicted individuals in terms of payment obligations. He also brings up the broader issue of the state's spending, referencing Vermont's decision to cease such collections due to the cost inefficiency.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Smith Support01:04:21.400 - 10:04:37 AM; Representative Smith supports the amendment, arguing against what he calls 'benign discrimination of low expectations.' He questions the fairness of allowing indigent individuals to not pay for legal services when others cannot reclaim legal fees if found not guilty. He extends his argument to broader social services like Medicaid, questioning the philosophy of socializing service provision.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Oregon Oppose01:08:01.119 - 10:08:17 AM; Representative Oregon challenges the factual basis of Representative Smith's argument regarding Medicaid eligibility. He disputes the notion that Medicaid recipients are able-bodied adults choosing not to work, emphasizing that the facts do not support this claim.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative McFarlane Oppose01:09:42.359 - 10:09:58 AM; Representative McFarlane argues against the amendment, questioning the fairness of making indigent defendants, whether convicted or not, pay for their legal defense. He suggests that this could be seen as part of the punishment, which he finds inappropriate.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Burch Support01:11:45.199 - 10:12:01 AM; Representative Burch supports the amendment and the overall bill, emphasizing cost efficiency. He mentions Vermont's decision to stop similar collections as a model, arguing that it is not fiscally responsible to spend more on collection than what is collected.
HB611 2025-0638: Representative Smith Information Only01:15:36.920 - 10:15:52 AM; Representative Smith introduces Amendment 2025-0611H and moves for its consideration. He explains that the amendment was crafted in response to concerns raised by the Commissioner of Administrative Services during the initial discussion of the bill. The amendment aims to implement procedures that would enhance the effectiveness and responsibility of the original bill's implementation. Representative Smith highlights the coincidental matching of the amendment and bill numbers as a sign of their compatibility and emphasizes that the amendment would facilitate a more efficient operation for the Department of Administrative Services.
HB611 2025-0638: Unknown Speaker Oppose01:18:22.560 - 10:18:38 AM; An unidentified speaker argues against Representative Smith's amendment, stating that it was designed to accompany the original bill but since the bill has already been replaced by another amendment, this new amendment should be rejected. The speaker believes rejecting the amendment would allow the committee to proceed directly to voting on the main bill with the previously approved amendment.
HB611 2025-0638: Clerk Information Only01:19:55.400 - 10:20:11 AM; The clerk conducts a roll call vote on Amendment 2025-0611H. The amendment receives 8 votes in favor and 10 votes against, resulting in the failure of the motion to adopt the amendment.
HB611 2025-0638: Clerk Information Only01:19:55.400 - 10:20:11 AM; Following the rejection of Amendment 2025-0611H, the clerk conducts another roll call vote on the main motion, OTPA (Ought to Pass as Amended) on the bill with Amendment 2025-0638. The vote results in 10 votes in favor and 8 votes against, leading to the passage of the motion.
HB611 2025-0638: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:21:25.280 - 10:21:41 AM; The speaker discusses the writing of reports for the majority and minority regarding the bill HB611 with Amendment 2025-0638. They mention that Representative Birch will write the report for the minority and they confirm the task will be completed by late tonight.
HB611 2025-0638: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:22:28.639 - 10:22:44 AM; The speaker discusses the potential committee assignment for the bill HB611 if it passes with the amendment. They mention it is likely to go to the Finance Committee due to it being an early bill with a fiscal note (FN).
HB611 2025-0638: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:23:47.960 - 10:24:03 AM; The speaker thanks the Commissioner and Deputy of the Department of Administrative Services for attending the session and observing the proceedings. They note that the department officials will likely be present when the Finance Committee discusses the department's budget.
HB615 2025-0320H: Representative Lyn Support01:24:41.400 - 10:24:57 AM; Representative Lyn moves to pass HB615 with Amendment 2025-0320H and is seconded by Representative Perez. They explain that the amendment makes technical changes to clarify the language of the original bill, particularly regarding the circumstances under which an innocent owner's property would not be forfeited and the rights of non-defendant parties to appeal in case of property seizure or forfeiture.
HB615 2025-0320H: Representative Manos Information Only01:27:01.840 - 10:27:17 AM; Representative Manos inquires about the availability of copies of the amendment 2025-0320H, indicating that they do not have a copy and were under the impression that copies were distributed during the public hearing. They confirm that everyone should have a copy before proceeding.
HB615 2025-0320H: Representative Bur Information Only01:28:27.480 - 10:28:43 AM; Representative Bur questions the use of 'actual knowledge' in the amendment, contrasting it with 'constructive knowledge' or 'had reason to believe.' They express concern over the high burden of proof for property owners in cases where there might be a 'wink and a nod' situation, questioning why the standard is set at actual knowledge.
HB615 2025-0320H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:29:35.000 - 10:29:51 AM; The speaker responds to Representative Bur's query on 'actual knowledge,' explaining the concept of willful blindness and how it might still constitute actual knowledge. They further elaborate that the bill aims to make forfeiture proceedings more owner-friendly by shifting the burden of proof to the state and including provisions that limit forfeiture for smaller amounts of currency or vehicles.
HB615 2025-0320H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:31:47.639 - 10:32:03 AM; The speaker continues discussing the implications of the amendment, focusing on the balance between the state's need to retain property for criminal prosecutions and the rights of innocent owners to have their property returned. The speaker expresses concern over the mandatory language in the bill which requires the state to summarily return property, suggesting it might conflict with other provisions in the bill that allow the state to retain property for criminal cases. The speaker questions the consistency of the language and its potential to cause confusion for innocent owners.
HB615 2025-0320H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:33:03.760 - 10:33:19 AM; The speaker continues the discussion on the amendment, responding to the previous speaker's concerns about the language requiring the state to return property. The speaker suggests that the language can be interpreted consistently with other parts of the bill, which allow exceptions for retaining property needed in criminal cases. The discussion concludes with a call for a vote on the amendment.
HB615 2025-0320H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:35:55.199 - 10:36:11 AM; The speaker announces the vote results on Amendment 2025-0320H, which passed with 10 votes in favor and 8 against. Following the amendment's passage, the speaker moves to the main motion on the bill as amended, proposing an 'ought to pass' recommendation. The speaker reiterates the bill's purpose to ease the burden of forfeiture proceedings, particularly for small amounts of property, and highlights that the forfeiture proceedings would be handled by the same judge as the related criminal case, with representation by the public defender.
HB615 2025-0320H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:37:09.400 - 10:37:25 AM; The speaker discusses the vote on the main motion of the bill as amended, which failed with 4 votes in favor and 14 against. Following the failed motion, another motion is proposed to recommend the bill as 'inexpedient to legislate' (ITL), which is seconded and put to a vote. The ITL motion passes with 15 votes in favor and 3 against. The speaker then discusses the writing of the majority and potential minority reports, indicating a division on the committee regarding the bill.
HB615 2025-0320H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:41:47.679 - 10:42:03 AM; The speaker concludes the session on HB615, mentioning the need for a break and suggesting to finish other agenda items after the break. The session ends with a plan to take a 10-minute break and then continue with remaining business.
CACR6: Representative McFarland Support01:56:47.880 - 10:57:03 AM; Representative McFarland moved for an 'ought to pass' on CACR6. He emphasized the importance of recognizing the right to keep and use computers for general purposes, including encryption. He noted the previous discussions during the hearing and expressed his support for the motion, believing it to be appropriate.
CACR6: Representative Burch Oppose01:58:11.199 - 10:58:27 AM; Representative Burch expressed opposition to CACR6, highlighting two major issues. He pointed out the inconsistency between the first sentence of the CACR, which states the right to freely use computers shall not be infringed, and the second sentence, which allows for infringement under laws considered reasonable. He raised concerns about potential misuse by criminals, specifically mentioning pedophiles using computers for crimes against children. He argued that under CACR6, a judge might not be able to restrict a convicted individual's computer use as a bail condition, which he sees as problematic. Additionally, he referenced a case from Keene involving romance scams and questioned the implications of allowing such criminals to continue their activities in New Hampshire under the protection of this CACR.
CACR6: Representative McFarland Support02:01:25.840 - 11:01:41 AM; Representative McFarland expressed support for CACR6, focusing on the language of the proposed constitutional amendment. He acknowledged imperfections in the language, such as his dislike for split infinitives, but argued that the amendment was good enough for its purpose. He addressed concerns raised by Representative Burch about potential conflicts within the amendment's sentences, suggesting that the first sentence broadly establishes a right, while the second sentence clarifies that no law should unreasonably burden this right. He drew a comparison to the Second Amendment, emphasizing that reasonable restrictions exist on other constitutional rights and should apply here as well. He also cited historical attempts to block the free use of computers and encryption as reasons to support the bill.
CACR6: Representative Oran Oppose02:04:47.440 - 11:05:03 AM; Representative Oran expressed opposition to CACR6, highlighting issues with the amendment's language. He compared it to the Second Amendment, noting that its language has been misinterpreted, leading to broad interpretations. He questioned the practicality of unrestricted computer use, referencing concerns about energy consumption and intellectual property rights associated with AI technologies. He also mentioned the Biden administration's past concerns about AI's environmental impact. He suggested that the amendment's language could lead to unintended consequences and should not be rushed into the state constitution given the time available until the next public vote.
CACR6: Representative Tur Oppose02:07:31.400 - 11:07:47 AM; Representative Tur opposed CACR6, arguing that the threat to the right to use computational resources was not clearly demonstrated during the hearings. He noted that the federal requirement mentioned was merely a registration process, not a restriction. He criticized the amendment's language as too broad and lacking definitions, which could undermine network security and governance. He expressed concerns about potential unintended consequences and did not support the amendment.
CACR6: Representative Burch Oppose02:08:50.320 - 11:09:06 AM; Representative Burch opposed CACR6, questioning the interpretation of the phrase 'shall not be infringed' within the amendment, suggesting it might be subject to litigation similar to the Second Amendment. He proposed withdrawing his motion to pass the bill and instead suggested retaining it for further consideration. He assessed the committee's sentiment through a show of hands to determine the best course of action.
CACR6: Representative McFarland Information Only02:12:11.199 - 11:12:27 AM; Representative McFarland moved to retain CACR6, suggesting that more time was needed to refine the amendment's language. The motion was seconded by Representative Alexander, and a roll call vote resulted in unanimous support for retaining the bill.
CACR7: Representative Rambo Oppose02:14:46.840 - 11:15:02 AM; Representative Rambo moved to find CACR7 inexpedient to legislate (ITL), arguing that the amendment would disrupt civil proceedings by altering the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is already established. He believed there was no need for such a change based on the testimony heard. The motion was supported by a roll call vote with 16 in favor and 2 opposed, and the bill was placed on consent.
HB88: Representative Alexander Oppose02:19:29.920 - 11:19:45 AM; Representative Alexander moved to find HB88 inexpedient to legislate, arguing that the bill lacked specificity regarding the data to be collected on domestic violence and stalking cases. He believed that transitioning to electronic filing would address the issues the bill aimed to solve, making it unnecessary.
HB88: Representative Manos Oppose02:20:23.200 - 11:20:39 AM; Representative Manos opposed the motion to find HB88 inexpedient to legislate, mentioning an amendment he had circulated that would address the concerns about data specificity. He argued that electronic filing was not currently available for domestic violence cases and that the judicial branch lacked the funding to implement it. He also expressed concerns about the safety and accessibility of electronic filing for victims, suggesting that his amendment would provide a more suitable solution.
HB762: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:22:29.920 - 11:22:45 AM; The speaker announced the result of the vote on House Bill 762, which resulted in a motion to recommend it as inexpedient to legislate (ITL) passing with a vote of 10 yes and 8 no. The speaker also confirmed that a minority report would be written by Representative Alexander and an amendment by Representative Manos would be considered on the floor.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Support02:24:54.560 - 11:25:10 AM; The speaker moved to pass House Bill 88 with Amendment 20257H, which was seconded by Representative Perez. The amendment, prepared by Representative Maguire, aims to clarify that the establishment of the Community Property Trust does not infringe on the rights of creditors or others with a security interest in the property. The amendment passed unanimously.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Support02:28:52.800 - 11:29:08 AM; The speaker moved to pass Amendment 015h to House Bill 88, which was seconded by Representative Alexander. This amendment, proposed by Representative Burch and agreed upon by Representative McGuire, removes Section 1 of the bill, which would have affected the real estate transfer tax, and renumbers the sections. The amendment passed unanimously with 18 votes in favor.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Support02:29:58.800 - 11:30:14 AM; The speaker moved to pass House Bill 88 with the two amendments previously discussed. The motion was seconded by Representative Perez. The speaker, not being a tax lawyer, referenced testimony about the implications of community property laws on property transfer after the death of a spouse, indicating support for the bill with the amendments.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:31:36.800 - 11:31:52 AM; The speaker discussed the tax implications of a community property trust as per IRS regulations. They explained that if the property was held in such a trust, the surviving spouse would not have to pay capital gains tax upon selling the property. They argued in favor of allowing community property trusts in New Hampshire, noting that several other states have implemented similar laws, and questioned the rationale for not adopting this approach unless the intent was to increase tax revenue.
HB88 20257H: Representative Manos Oppose02:33:52.720 - 11:34:08 AM; Representative Manos, speaking as a family law attorney, expressed opposition to the bill. They highlighted concerns about the bill's impact on divorce proceedings, suggesting that it would effectively turn New Hampshire into a community property state. They argued that the bill's language could strip courts of their jurisdiction to equitably divide assets in divorce cases, as it mandates an automatic equal distribution of trust assets upon the dissolution of marriage unless otherwise agreed by the spouses.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:36:32.439 - 11:36:48 AM; The speaker, not a tax attorney, shared personal experience about the tax implications of joint property ownership upon the death of a spouse. They mentioned that, from their understanding, the surviving spouse typically receives a stepped-up basis on the marital home, making the sale of the home a non-taxable event. They acknowledged potential inaccuracy in their understanding of tax law.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:37:23.760 - 11:37:39 AM; The speaker responded to Representative Manos's concerns about the bill's impact on court jurisdiction over property division in divorce. They argued that the language in the bill does not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction to equitably divide property held in a revocable trust, emphasizing that the court retains the power to do what it deems fair.
HB88 20257H: Representative Manos Oppose02:38:28.880 - 11:38:44 AM; Representative Manos further elaborated on their opposition, likening the bill's implications to a court decision about postsecondary education payments. They argued that the bill could prevent courts from ordering equitable property division in divorce cases unless both spouses agree otherwise, raising concerns about the potential loss of judicial authority.
HB88 20257H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:39:53.560 - 11:40:09 AM; The speaker acknowledged the disagreement on the bill's interpretation regarding court jurisdiction and moved to a vote on the bill. The bill was recommended to pass with two amendments, with a roll call vote resulting in 10 yes votes and 8 no votes. Representative Manos agreed to write the minority report.
HB199: Representative Smith Support02:42:21.359 - 11:42:37 AM; Representative Smith introduced a motion to pass HB199, emphasizing the seriousness of the issue related to past chemicals and their long-term health effects, particularly on children. They argued for extending the statute of limitations to provide a reasonable period for those affected to seek redress, recognizing the delayed manifestation of health problems.
HB199: Representative Tur Support02:44:32.640 - 11:44:48 AM; Representative Tur supported the bill, highlighting the distinction between knowing about exposure to harmful chemicals and having enough evidence to bring a successful lawsuit. They argued that the nature of chemical exposure cases differs from immediate injury cases like car accidents, as the damage and its causation take time to become clear, justifying an extension of the statute of limitations.
HB199: Unnamed Speaker Oppose02:45:47.439 - 11:46:03 AM; The speaker expressed opposition to HB199, acknowledging the difference between chemical exposure cases and immediate injury cases but arguing against extending the statute of limitations to 20 years. They questioned the necessity of such an extension, suggesting that once an injury and its cause are known, the affected should not be allowed to delay legal action for an extended period.
HB199: Representative Smith Support02:49:15.080 - 11:49:31 AM; Representative Smith responded to the opposition, questioning why anyone would delay legal action once they understand the health issues are likely caused by past chemicals. They challenged the notion that individuals would unnecessarily delay seeking redress for such serious health concerns.
HB199: Representative Perez Support02:52:25.239 - 11:52:41 AM; Representative Perez expressed support for extending the statute of limitations, arguing that many people, especially non-lawyers, might misinterpret the law's start time at discovery. He highlighted the potential for future cases involving children's issues and saw no harm in extending the time limit.
HB199: Representative Burch Support02:53:44.920 - 11:54:00 AM; Representative Burch supported the idea of extending statutes of limitations, emphasizing that they are special rules that limit access to justice. He pointed out the decreasing favor towards statutes of limitations as documentation and preservation of knowledge improve, and mentioned the expansion of limitations in cases like sexual assault due to victims' delayed reporting.
HB199: Representative McFarland Support02:56:30.520 - 11:56:46 AM; Representative McFarland supported the bill, referencing RSA 485hp and discussing the discovery rule. He argued that the slow manifestation of PFAS contamination's health and environmental impacts necessitates a longer statute of limitations to ensure justice for victims who may not realize the full extent of their harm until long after exposure.
HB199: Representative Alexander Support03:00:39.479 - 12:00:55 PM; Representative Alexander moved to retain HB253, expressing support for the bill. He believed it was important to allocate funds to areas where the state has a constitutional obligation, such as the public defender's office, rather than to organizations that might lobby for activities he disagrees with.
HB199: Representative Horgan Oppose03:01:39.040 - 12:01:55 PM; Representative Horgan opposed HB253, arguing that it was unnecessary because the judicial branch already has similar mechanisms in place. He was critical of comments made by the bill's sponsor against nonprofit organizations, especially the Disability Rights Center and Catholic Charities, and found the sponsor's stance inconsistent with typical views on government and charity roles.
HB199: Representative Smith Information Only03:03:34.439 - 12:03:50 PM; Representative Smith discussed the concept of state control over donations, using the hypothetical example of donating to the Portsmouth Symphony to question whether the state could dictate where private donations go. He clarified that the funds discussed are not state money.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Oppose03:04:30.520 - 12:04:46 PM; The speaker discusses the nature of IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts) funds, emphasizing that these funds are private money held by attorneys for their clients, typically in small amounts for short periods. They argue that these funds are pooled together due to their small individual values, and while they are used for public purposes as per a Supreme Court rule, they are not state money. The speaker criticizes the bill for potentially undermining the court's authority over these funds and the separation of powers, suggesting that the bill could hinder access to justice, particularly for those in civil courts. They strongly oppose the bill, arguing it does not serve the people of the state well and disrespects the separation of powers.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Oppose03:09:01.279 - 12:09:17 PM; The speaker strongly opposes the retention of the bill, arguing that retaining it would be unconstitutional. They also oppose the Ought to Pass (OTP) recommendation.
HB199: Representative Bur Oppose03:09:48.120 - 12:10:04 PM; Representative Bur used a personal anecdote about a poker game where they donate 10% of each pot to charity. They expressed concern over the state potentially taking this money for other uses, such as refurbishing chairs in the Representatives' Hall. They see this as an example of the state taking money from private individuals, likening it to theft, and are undecided on voting to retain the bill due to the influence of Representative Smith's arguments.
HB199: Representative McFar Support03:11:00.560 - 12:11:16 PM; Representative McFar expressed support for Representative Alexander's comments but had nothing else substantial to add, humorously mentioning their desire to say the word 'chairman' multiple times.
HB199: Representative Manos Oppose03:12:15.279 - 12:12:31 PM; Representative Manos opposed the motion to retain and the bill itself, citing Supreme Court Rule 50 as a method to address the allocation of IOLA money. They argued that using Rule 50 is the appropriate way to handle the issue rather than through the bill in question.
HB199: Representative Oregon Information Only03:13:16.640 - 12:13:32 PM; Representative Oregon discussed the lack of data on nonprofit contributions from the public defenders office and expressed doubt about the necessity of the bill, questioning the existence of the problem it aims to solve. They also mentioned their earlier proposal for a retained bill process on another bill, questioning the use of time on this bill.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Support03:14:09.120 - 12:14:25 PM; The speaker agreed with the sentiment that the money in question belongs to the clients, not the state or the bar foundation. They referenced two U.S. Supreme Court cases, suggesting that the current system of appropriation might be reconsidered if challenged today due to technological advancements. They supported the retention of the bill to explore the feasibility of returning the money to clients.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Support03:19:08.399 - 12:19:24 PM; The speaker explained their vote to retain the bill, despite opposing it, as they believed it could serve as a vehicle to improve services for indigent clients in legal matters.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:19:08.399 - 12:19:24 PM; The speaker concluded their previous discussion on HB199.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Support03:20:54.080 - 12:21:10 PM; The speaker proposed Amendment 0539h to HB199, addressing concerns about the location of land and tax appeal hearings. The amendment suggests that hearings should be held in the county where the land is located, but if space is not available, the hearing can be conducted at the board's hearing room in Concord. The speaker believes this amendment is straightforward and requested its adoption followed by a motion to pass the bill with the amendment (OTP/A).
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Support03:22:02.920 - 12:22:18 PM; The speaker supported the amendment to HB199, considering it non-controversial and addressing the concerns about the location of hearings. A vote was taken on Amendment 0539h, which passed with 16 votes in favor and 2 opposed.
HB199: Unidentified Speaker Support03:24:03.560 - 12:24:19 PM; Following the adoption of the amendment, the main motion to pass HB199 with Amendment 0539h (OTP/A) was moved and seconded. A roll call vote was taken, resulting in unanimous support with 17 yes votes and 0 no votes, and the bill was passed on consent.
HB293: Representative Kutab Support03:26:39.680 - 12:26:55 PM; Representative Kutab moved to retain HB293, emphasizing its importance in protecting children from online obscenity. They noted the need to clarify language in the bill to make it more effective and expressed willingness to chair a subcommittee to address concerns.
HB293: Representative Pet Support03:27:47.439 - 12:28:03 PM; Representative Pet supported retaining HB293, highlighting the significant public support for the bill, as evidenced by the collection of 174 signatures in a short timeframe. They emphasized the importance of the bill in protecting children from online pornography and obscenity.
HB293: Representative Bur Information Only03:28:54.399 - 12:29:10 PM; Representative Bur expressed concerns about the impact of HB293 on libraries, particularly regarding the use of tablets and the technological changes that might be required. They hoped these concerns would be addressed if the bill was retained.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:30:01.399 - 12:30:17 PM; An unidentified speaker expressed confusion about the bill's requirement for manufacturers of electronic tablets to filter out sexual material, questioning its feasibility and impact on educational institutions.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:31:12.520 - 12:31:28 PM; Another unidentified speaker sought clarification on the definition of 'obscene material' within HB293 and suggested that retaining the bill would allow for addressing any concerns about its language.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Support03:32:32.279 - 12:32:48 PM; The speaker expressed personal support for HB293 but had concerns about the private cause of action and the civil penalty included in the bill. They also mentioned concerns raised by industry lobbyists about the bill's practicality. The speaker supported retaining the bill to allow a subcommittee to refine it, potentially making it more acceptable.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Support03:32:32.279 - 12:32:48 PM; The motion to retain HB293 was put to a vote and passed unanimously with 17 yes votes and 0 no votes.
HB293: Representative Smith Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Smith voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Horgan Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Horgan voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Burch Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Burch voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Paige Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Paige voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Manos Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Manos voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Tur Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Tur voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Rambo Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Rambo voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Representative Berson Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Representative Berson voted yes on the matter being discussed.
HB293: Chairman Lynn Information Only03:33:50.479 - 12:34:06 PM; Chairman Lynn voted yes on the matter being discussed and called for a brief recess.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:35:13.439 - 12:35:29 PM; The unidentified speaker agreed to the recess.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:42:44.120 - 12:43:00 PM; The unidentified speaker mentioned waiting for something.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:52:43.439 - 12:52:59 PM; The unidentified speaker noted that the document includes boilerplate language.
HB293: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:53:42.520 - 12:53:58 PM; The unidentified speaker called the Judiciary Committee back to order and recognized Representative Peternell for a motion on House Bill 232 FN.
HB293: Representative Peternell Information Only03:53:42.520 - 12:53:58 PM; Representative Peternell moved to pass House Bill 232 and adopt Amendment 0684.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Pel Support03:54:36.680 - 12:54:52 PM; Representative Pel spoke in support of both the bill and the amendment. The amendment updates the definition of abortion to align with current law in RSA 329:43, removing references to ectopic pregnancy as an abortion. It also removes provisions related to artificial contraception. A new section added by Representative Pearson's amendment exempts healthcare providers employed by institutions primarily providing abortion or sterilization services, as well as providers in emergency situations. Representative Pel also addressed concerns about rural healthcare and cited a case from the University of Vermont Medical Center to highlight the necessity of the bill in New Hampshire.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Far Information Only03:58:09.120 - 12:58:25 PM; Representative Far sought clarification on the amendment, noting that it redefined abortion and removed references to artificial contraception, which was different from his initial understanding of the amendment's scope.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Rambo Information Only03:59:18.439 - 12:59:34 PM; Representative Rambo confirmed that the amendment did not address the issue of a receptionist turning away patients without explanation or referral, which was a concern raised earlier.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Manos Oppose04:00:36.000 - 1:00:52 PM; Representative Manos strongly opposed the bill, arguing that it infringes on the religious freedom of patients by allowing healthcare providers to deny services based on their own beliefs. They highlighted the potential for delayed or substandard care, especially in rural areas, and the lack of provisions for emergency care and patient notification. The amendment excluding birth control was deemed insufficient by Representative Manos.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Rambo Oppose04:03:31.399 - 1:03:47 PM; Representative Rambo echoed concerns about the bill, emphasizing the risk of patients being denied care or appointments by receptionists without referral or explanation, which they viewed as dangerous and unchanged by the amendment.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Perez Information Only04:04:54.159 - 1:05:10 PM; Representative Perez raised a question regarding the comparison of the bill's implications to the practices of Catholic hospitals, which do not advertise their refusal to provide certain services. This led to a discussion about whether such hospitals discriminate in a similar way to what the bill might enable.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Oregon Oppose04:07:23.199 - 1:07:39 PM; Representative Oregon opposed the bill, arguing that it only addresses objections to procedures opposed by certain religious groups and does not cover objections by other groups. They believe that healthcare professionals voluntarily choose their careers and employers, and thus, should align their ethical standards accordingly without needing the bill.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Tur Oppose04:09:25.319 - 1:09:41 PM; Representative Tur highlighted the dangers of the bill, particularly the lack of a process for objection, which means patients may not know if their care is being affected by personal objections of healthcare providers. They expressed concern about the bill's impact on organizational policies and patient care, including the inability to reassign staff who object.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Bur Oppose04:13:17.279 - 1:13:33 PM; Representative Bur discussed the broader implications of the bill, suggesting it carves out exceptions from anti-discrimination laws. They questioned the difference between conscientious objections to medical procedures and objections based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, implying a slippery slope in legal protections.
HB293 2025-0684: Unnamed Speaker Support04:15:28.520 - 1:15:44 PM; The speaker supports the bill, arguing that it aligns with Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom. They explain that the bill does not carve out from civil rights laws but rather adds protection for individuals' religious beliefs, allowing them to refuse participation in certain activities like abortions based on their faith. They highlight that amendments to the bill were made to prevent misuse, such as preventing employees from disrupting operations of organizations like Planned Parenthood by refusing to perform abortions when it's a major part of the business.
HB293 2025-0684: Unnamed Speaker Oppose04:16:43.800 - 1:16:59 PM; The speaker opposes the bill, arguing that it contradicts anti-discrimination laws. They express concern that allowing businesses to refuse service based on religious beliefs could lead to broader discrimination, similar to denying service based on race or sex. They question the fairness of public institutions receiving benefits while not serving all members of the public equally.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Man Oppose04:20:07.199 - 1:20:23 PM; Representative Man expresses opposition to the bill, highlighting the concern that patients may not receive safe, reliable, and accurate information due to the bill's provisions, which could lead to serious issues.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative CH Oppose04:21:19.760 - 1:21:35 PM; Representative CH opposes the bill, focusing on the broad definition of healthcare providers in the amended version of the bill. They argue that it extends beyond allowing doctors to conscientiously object to performing abortions and could potentially affect a wide range of employees and services, making it dangerously open-ended.
HB293 2025-0684: Representative Alexander Oppose04:22:21.159 - 1:22:37 PM; Representative Alexander initially considered supporting the bill but ultimately decided to vote against it due to concerns about unintended consequences. They express personal concerns as a homosexual about the potential for discrimination in healthcare, particularly regarding the refusal to prescribe medications like HIV prevention drugs based on lifestyle objections.
HB293 2025-0684: Chairman Lynn Information Only04:23:35.880 - 1:23:51 PM; Chairman Lynn announced the voting results on the motion to recommend HB293 'ought to pass as amended' (OTPA) with Amendment 2025-0684, which failed with a vote of 9-9. Subsequently, a motion to retain the bill was proposed and seconded, passing with a vote of 11-7. Chairman Lynn also provided a schedule for upcoming hearings and executive sessions, noting that the next executive session would be on the following week on the 10th at 1:00 PM due to a prior Ethics Committee meeting.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Kuttab, Katelyn(Clerk)(R)[B]2025	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Smith, Marjorie(D)[F]2025	Bergeron, Dan(D)[F]2025	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
Berch, Paul(D)[F]2025	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Tripp, Richard(R)[B]2025	Andrus, Louise(R)[C+]2025	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025	Perez, Kristine(R)[B+]2025	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025	Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2025	Paige, Mark(D)[D-]2025