A plan moving forward in New Hampshire’s State House has triggered heated discussion about whether groups that provide abortions should still qualify for funds generated through the state’s charitable gaming system.
House Bill Targets Abortion Clinics’ Eligibility for Casino Donations
The proposal, introduced as House Bill 1338, would change current law so that any nonprofit linked to abortion care would no longer be considered an eligible charitable partner for casinos.
Republican Rep. John Sellers introduced the bill. He made his case to a House committee that abortion providers should not get money from a program meant to help groups that make positive contributions to society, reported the Concord Monitor. He explained to his fellow lawmakers that he believed abortion ends a human life, so it should not get public support. Members of New Hampshire Right to Life agreed with this thinking. They said the heart of the debate was whether it is okay to use money from gambling for things they see as morally acceptable.
New Hampshire‘s charitable gaming setup allows licensed casinos to pick their own partner organizations. Once selected, a nonprofit can get a big chunk of money from either table games or old-school horse-racing machines, based on the location. Groups that provide reproductive health care have been part of this for a long time, and some count on this extra cash to support many different medical services. Right now, the law in the state lets abortions happen up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.
Health Centers Warn Bill Could Politically Target Charitable Clinics
People in charge of impacted health centers argue the plan targets groups that follow both medical rules and charitable gaming laws. Jinelle Hobson, who runs Equality Health Center in Concord, pointed out that her clinic’s share of revenue last year helped cover everyday running costs. She stressed that most of their work involves preventive and diagnostic care, from cancer checks to tests for infections and treatments related to hormones. Hobson cautioned that the bill brings political factors into a system that up to now was guided by regulatory standards instead of beliefs.
Staff at Lovering Health Center in Greenland voiced matching worries, stating the shift might set a precedent for future attempts to bar other groups based on changing political stances. In the hearing, some lawmakers asked if redefining “charitable” this way could lead to excluding various organizations depending on who is in charge.
Casino owners now choose which groups get spotlighted in their venues, a visibility boost that clinics claim helps them reach people unaware of available health services. Those against the bill argued that removing abortion providers would not just cut funding but also lessen public awareness. The committee will keep weighing input as the lawmaking session moves ahead.