Bill Seeks to Block Abortion Providers from Receiving Casino Donation Funds
Legislation Introduced to Exclude Abortion Providers from Casino Charity Donations
A new legislative proposal in New Hampshire’s State House has sparked controversy by aiming to prevent organizations involved in abortion services from qualifying to receive funds generated through the state’s charitable gaming program.
Details of House Bill 1338 and Its Intentions
House Bill 1338, proposed by Republican Representative John Sellers, seeks to amend existing legislation so that any nonprofit organization associated with abortion services would be disqualified as a charitable partner eligible for casino donations. Representative Sellers argued before a House committee that such organizations should not benefit from a program intended to support groups contributing positively to society, stating his belief that abortion ends human life and should therefore not receive public funding. Supporters from New Hampshire Right to Life echoed this perspective, framing the debate around whether gambling proceeds should be used to support causes they find morally objectionable.
Current Charitable Gaming Framework and Reproductive Health Funding
At present, New Hampshire’s charitable gaming system permits licensed casinos to select their own nonprofit partners, who then receive significant financial support from revenues generated through table games or traditional horse-racing machines based on venue. Organizations providing reproductive health services have long been included among these beneficiaries, relying on this funding to maintain a variety of healthcare programs. Under state law, abortions are currently permitted up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Concerns Raised by Health Centers About Political Impact
Leaders from affected healthcare centers warn that this bill politicizes the charitable gaming system by targeting organizations that comply with medical guidelines and gaming regulations. Jinelle Hobson, director of Equality Health Center in Concord, highlighted that funds obtained through this program last year contributed substantially to routine operational expenses. She emphasized that much of their care focuses on preventive and diagnostic services, including cancer screenings and hormone-related treatments. Hobson cautioned that introducing political considerations into this funding process risks shifting the program away from its traditionally regulation-based framework.
Similarly, staff at Lovering Health Center in Greenland expressed worry that this change could set a precedent for excluding other nonprofit organizations based on changing political views. During committee discussions, some legislators questioned whether redefining “charitable” in this way could lead to arbitrary exclusions depending on who holds power.
Implications for Casion Partners and Public Health Outreach
Currently, casino operators select which nonprofits to highlight within their venues, increasing public awareness of various health services offered by these organizations. Opponents of the bill argue that removing abortion providers not only reduces critical funding but also diminishes public outreach efforts. The committee continues to review feedback as the legislative session progresses.
