CONCORD, N.H. — Abortion opponents call a bill before New Hampshire’s House “informed consent” because it requires women to wait 24 hours and be given information on fetal development, but pro-choice groups say it is insulting to require women to wait and would require biased counseling.

The bill is one of three related to abortion that the House is expected to vote on this week. One would ban partial-birth abortions, already prohibited under federal law. Another would change a requirement when a minor seeks permission to have an abortion without notifying her parents. In those cases, a judge must issue a ruling within 48 hours. The bill, a proposed amendment to New Hampshire’s two-month-old parental notification law, would change that requirement to within two court business days.

New Hampshire lawmakers have considered counseling bills and partial-birth abortion bans over the years and rejected them, but abortion opponents gained a majority when Republicans won control of the Legislature in 2010, evidenced by passage last year of the parental notification law over a gubernatorial veto. It isn’t clear if they have the same numbers in the House and Senate when voting on abortion limits affecting adults.

Supporters of the counseling bill argue women have a right to be provided with all the information necessary to make a decision they might later regret.

“Abortion is a life-altering decision for a woman and it has severe negative short and long-term medical and psychological consequences,” Kurt Wuelper, president of New Hampshire Right to Life, said Friday.

The bill would require a doctor or someone qualified to discuss the issue to tell the woman about the procedure, medical risks, alternatives, the fetus’ probable gestational age, the fetus’ probable anatomical and physiological characteristics, medical risks of carrying the baby to term and that medical and financial assistance may be available if she chooses instead to have the baby.

The state would be required to publish such information for distribution and create a video for a state-maintained website.

The woman could not have the abortion until 24 hours after being supplied with the information and allowed to view the video. She also would have to certify in writing before receiving the abortion that she has reviewed the materials.

Opponents argue that’s insulting to women and that the information is biased.

“Sadly, this is a trend that has been sweeping across the states. Until now, New Hampshire had been protected from it because it had elected officials who believed that government shouldn’t interfere with private medical practice,” Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Friday.

Before the 2010 election, New Hampshire was conservative, but pro-choice, she said.

“The fact that these bills are moving in a state like New Hampshire shows how important one election can be,” said Crane.

Laura Thibault, interim executive director of NARAL’s New Hampshire affiliate, calls the bill insulting to women because it assumes women have taken the decision lightly and treats them like children.

“It’s insulting to women to give them information so they can make a rational decision? How is that insulting?” responded Wuelper.

Violating the law would be a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The bill also calls for extensive statistical reports to be filed with the state that include the number of abortions, any medical problems and the fetus’ state of development.

Thirty-two states have similar laws and 15, including New Hampshire, are considering counseling requirements, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban in 2007 on partial-birth abortion procedures, but supporters of that ban argue a state law also is needed to ensure enforcement.

Wuelper said he does not trust the federal government to prosecute its law and also believes the law is applied too narrowly.

“This is significant because this is such an outrageous, gruesome, barbaric procedure,” he said “We should go way further and say you just blatantly can’t take a living child and kill it.”

In a partial-birth abortion, the fetus is partially extracted before being destroyed.

But the bill is unnecessary because the federal law already bans the procedure, said State Rep. Frances Potter, a Concord Democrat and bill opponent. She said the state should not interfere with medical decisions.

“The federal government already enacted a federal law in this area. The only reason a state Legislature would want to move it would be to be politically provocative,” added Crane.

Doctors who violate the ban could be charged with a felony, jailed up to 10 years and fined up to $100,000. The mother could not be prosecuted.

The bill also allows the father and the fetus’ maternal grandparents to sue under certain circumstances.

Twenty-nine states have enacted bans on abortions after 12 weeks, but most are not enforced, according to NARAL. Like the federal ban, eight states have no health exception for the mother. New Hampshire’s bill would exempt partial-birth abortions to preserve the mother’s life.

Another six states ban abortions after 20 weeks, according to NARAL.

This year, at least a dozen states, including New Hampshire, are considering legislation to limit abortions, according to NARAL.