New Hampshire
Overall: 59.6/100
Summary
Some practical advantages remain, but major legal or healthcare dangers demand caution.
Category assessment
Legal protections
63/100
MAP records 61% of its gender-identity policy benchmark and 38% of its identity-document benchmark. HRC gives housing and public-accommodation protections full credit and full credit.
Affirming-care access and security
32/100
MAP records 54% of its affirming-care policy benchmark; HRC gives the state no credit for transgender healthcare protection. This does not measure provider wait times or travel distance.
Safety protections and enforcement
69/100
MAP records 83% of its criminal-justice benchmark, while HRC gives hate-crime protections full credit. The score measures safeguards and enforcement policy, not the general crime rate.
Family and youth rights
70/100
MAP records 60% of its youth-policy benchmark and 75% of its relationship and parental-recognition benchmark. HRC’s school and family criteria provide the cross-check.
Affordability
42/100
BEA’s regional price parity is 104.2, where 100 equals the national price level. This captures broad costs; city-level housing can differ sharply.
Workplace and housing protections
95/100
MAP records 100% of its gender-identity employment benchmark and 100% of its housing benchmark here. The state also protects at least some public employees. The nationwide Title VII rule remains a limited employment floor; it does not replace state housing law or reliable local enforcement.
Community support
69/100
MAP estimates 7.2% of adults are LGBT. Community scale is balanced with the wider policy record and HRC criteria; rural access may be much thinner.
Resilience against federal action
49/100
The resilience estimate combines no comprehensive healthcare shield law identified, a R governor, R state control, 78% statewide support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, a 50% FY2026 federal Medicaid matching rate, and the state’s broader protection record. Party control is only a proxy; enacted safeguards and official action carry more weight.
How to read this score
This is a relative U.S. relocation baseline. It combines current state law, healthcare, safety, family and youth rights, affordability, work and housing, community conditions, and resistance to hostile federal action. It does not mean a state can override federal law or guarantee anyone’s safety.
State profile sources
- Movement Advancement Project — Current state equality profile and policy components.
- Human Rights Campaign — Independent state equality criteria cross-check.
- Movement Advancement Project — Scoring definitions for state and local employment and housing nondiscrimination coverage.
- Supreme Court of the United States — Bostock v. Clayton County establishes the nationwide Title VII employment-discrimination baseline.
- UCLA School of Law — Current state shield-law analysis and limits.
- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — 2024 state regional price parity used for affordability.
- National Conference of State Legislatures — Current governor party and legislative composition used as institutional-support proxies.
- Public Religion Research Institute — 2025 state-level support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — FY2026 federal Medicaid matching percentages used to estimate federal healthcare funding dependence.