Lawmakers in New Hampshire are debating a bill that would bar abortion providers from receiving charitable gaming revenues, sparking legal and policy questions over free speech and funding discrimination.
Lawmakers in New Hampshire are wrestling with a controversial proposal that would prohibit abortion providers from receiving charitable gaming funds, igniting debate over free-speech rights, discrimination, and the scope of the state’s gaming statutes.
The bill, discussed in a recent House Ways and Means Committee hearing, would amend New Hampshire’s charitable gaming law to exclude abortion providers from benefiting from revenues generated by bingo, games of chance, raffles, and similar licensed fundraising activities.
What the Bill Would Do
Under current law, organizations that qualify under federal tax rules are eligible to receive a portion of charitable gaming revenues overseen by the New Hampshire Lottery Commission.
The bill under debate would specifically exclude any organization that “provides, performs, or procures an abortion or contracts with a provider that performs abortions” from receiving these funds.
Supporters of the proposal argue that state-sanctioned gaming revenues, derived from activities like bingo and raffles authorized under RSA 287-A, should not flow to organizations that engage in or support abortion services, which they describe as “controversial” or “contrary to public policy.”
Opponents, including reproductive-rights advocates who testified at committee hearings, counter that the bill singles out a specific class of organizations for unfavorable treatment and could violate protections under the New Hampshire Constitution and federal law.
Testimony Highlights Legal and Policy Concerns
During legislative debate, opponents raised constitutional questions, including whether the bill constitutes viewpoint discrimination by targeting organizations based on the medical services they provide.
Critics also warned that the bill could have unintended consequences by creating an uneven charitable gaming landscape, advantaging some nonprofits while disadvantaging others based on their mission rather than their gaming compliance.
Supporters, however, maintained that the legislature has the authority to set eligibility conditions for state-regulated benefits, including charitable gaming revenue, and that excluding abortion providers reflects the values of a majority of voters and legislators in the state.
Fiscal and Operational Impacts
The bill’s fiscal impact remains uncertain, as it depends on the number of abortion-related organizations currently receiving,or eligible to receive, charitable gaming revenue in New Hampshire.
State lottery officials have noted that charitable gaming funds help support a broad array of nonprofits, but they have not issued a formal analysis of how many groups could be affected by this specific exclusion or how revenues might be redistributed.
Should the bill pass, gaming operators and nonprofit organizations would need to revise compliance practices to ensure that funds are not directed to excluded entities, potentially creating administrative burdens and legal scrutiny.
Political Context and Next Steps
The introduction and debate over this bill reflect broader national tensions around abortion policy, state funding, and how public revenues should be distributed.
In New Hampshire, a state with a mix of urban and rural constituencies and a politically competitive electorate, such bills often reveal deep divisions both within and between parties.
The proposal now moves through the legislative process, with committee consideration and possible amendments before reaching the full House and Senate for votes. Lawmakers on both sides of the issue have indicated that floor debate will continue as the session progresses.
Legal and Ethical Debate Ahead
New Hampshire’s proposal to exclude abortion providers from receiving charitable gaming revenues has thrust the intersection of gaming law, reproductive rights and state funding policy into the spotlight.
As the Legislature continues deliberations, advocates on both sides will likely intensify efforts to influence public opinion and legislative outcomes.
Whether the bill ultimately becomes law may hinge on broader judicial interpretations of equal protection and free speech, as well as the Legislature’s appetite for placing social policy limits on the distribution of state-regulated charitable funds.
Players trust our reporting due to our commitment to unbiased and professional evaluations of the iGaming sector. We track hundreds of platforms and industry updates daily to ensure our news feed and leaderboards reflect the most recent market shifts. With nearly two decades of experience within iGaming, our team provides a wealth of expert knowledge. This long-standing expertise enables us to deliver thorough, reliable news and guidance to our readers.