Around 100 people gathered in Concord to testify and lobby lawmakers regarding a 15-week abortion ban on Monday, when they received an unexpected announcement: The bill is all but dead in the water.

As the public hearing opened, Rep. Katy Peternel of Wolfeboro, who proposed the bill, said that she was withdrawing it from consideration. The House of Representatives will vote at its next session on whether to accept that withdrawal.

Peternel didn’t disclose her reasoning, but multiple high-ranking Republicans, including Gov. Kelly Ayotte, promised on the campaign trail not to enact any law more restrictive than the state’s current 24-week ban.

The bill’s demise didn’t stop droves of advocates from sharing sharply contrasting views on the topic.

Charlotte Hastings, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Dartmouth Health, said she doesn’t want New Hampshire to become like Texas. Hastings briefly trained in Dallas, where she was subject to strict abortion laws that prohibit the procedure except in cases of fatal anomalies in the fetus or if the mother’s life is in danger.

Hastings remembers caring for young girls whom she said were forced to carry pregnancies to term. She remembers being unable to intervene when pregnant women came in with severe risks and complications that, under the state’s law, didn’t yet rise to the level of endangering their lives. Instead of performing a potentially life-saving abortion, Hastings said she was forced to turn these patients away.

“I left Texas because I felt I wasn’t training in a location where I could provide the safe, evidence-based care that I knew existed and as a result was limiting my abilities and the safety of my patients,” Hastings told the House Judiciary Committee, testifying against the proposed 15-week abortion ban. “I came to New Hampshire because I knew I’d be able to provide that care. This bill brings me back to my days in Texas.”

This legislation wasn’t backed by Republican majority leaders, unlike other issues atop the party’s platform, like creating a parental bill of rights or expanding the state’s school choice voucher program. Despite the bill’s fate, Democrats pushed for the committee to vote on a recommendation for it.

“This bill was put in knowing full well that it was never going to go ahead, that the governor was not going to support it, that the speaker was not going to support it. It was put in to make a point,” Durham Rep. Marjorie Smith said. “There was never an expectation that it was going to pass. Now, I think it’s important that the Judiciary Committee can carry out its obligations.”

House Bill 476 would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy with no exceptions for rape or incest. An amendment from Windham Rep. Bob Lynn would include provisions for the state to track abortion data by requiring healthcare providers to report to the government every abortion they perform each month. This data would include confidential identification numbers for both the provider and patient, the patient’s age and which county or municipality they live in, the estimated age of the fetus, the method of abortion and any contraception used by the patient.

Sen. Kevin Avard proposed a separate but similar bill on tracking that data last week. Some Democrats and healthcare providers have said they worried both bills could jeopardize patient privacy.

Lynn, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, adjourned the meeting without taking a vote on the bill. He rescheduled the executive session until Feb. 19 in case the House declines the withdrawal, but he said he expects the bill to die. During its next session on Feb. 6, the full House will take its vote.

For now, however, the bill is still active, so members of the public were able to testify for nearly five hours on the bill and amendment.

Abortion-rights advocates presented a slew of reasons the bill shouldn’t go through: Fifteen weeks isn’t enough time for many people to realize they’re pregnant, make the decision to seek out an abortion and then schedule, travel to and pay for the abortion. They said the bill is conflicting for doctors who say its requirements violate their ethics and that they're unsure about what would legally constitute a medical emergency. They also said it goes against New Hampshire’s ‘Live Free or Die’ nature to regulate someone’s medical decisions and personal choices.

Several of the anti-abortion activists who spoke recognized those struggles, but for them, the sanctity of all human life prevailed. They argued that abortion is inhumane to the unborn fetus and that adoption is the best option to protect both the fetus and the mother.

Paul Galasso, an organizer from Meredith, described various abortion processes, like medication abortion, which causes miscarriages, the use of suction and other methods that are used to remove the fetus from the uterus.

“This is what we’re allowing to happen in our country,” Galasso said. “Thankfully, in this state, we’ve limited abortions to 24 weeks. I’d ask you all, please just think about what’s really going on here.”

Laura El-Azem, from Londonderry, said she’s adopted four children and also knows adults who grew up in adopted homes.

“That’s not a bad outcome,” El-Azem said. “The parents of these children that were adopted get to know that their children are growing up usually safe and in a much better situation than dead. There are a lot of parents who would give loving homes to the babies that are currently being aborted.”

While many people testified that abortion restrictions impose a religious agenda, El-Azem, who’s heavily involved in Catholic ministries and organizations, disagreed. She said it’s just a “scientific fact” that life begins at conception. Scientists have not come to a consensus about whether life begins at conception or at birth.

Different religions also subscribe to different beliefs on the issue. Christianity tends to favor the beginning of life at conception, while Judaism, some speakers said, teaches that life begins at birth.

Frances Kleiger, a nurse who lives in Bow, said her Jewish faith also teaches that if a woman is negatively affected by a pregnancy — whether it be emotionally, financially, physically or otherwise — she’s permitted to terminate that pregnancy.

“If this proposed legislation was passed, it would actually violate a Jewish person’s right to practice their faith,” Kleiger said.

Charlotte Matherly is the statehouse reporter for the Concord Monitor and Monadnock Ledger-Transcript in partnership with Report for America. Follow her on X at @charmatherly, subscribe to her Capital Beat newsletter  and send her an email at cmatherly@cmonitor.com.