The New Hampshire Democratic Party released a statement today warning of an "anti-women's health extremist" who is running for Executive Council. Look up "anti-women's health extremist" in your Orwellian-English-to-standard-English dictionary, and you'll find "citizen activist who sees no reason why Planned Parenthood should get tax dollars." What's not to like?
Introducing Michael Tierney: husband, father, Contoocook resident, Republican, land-use attorney, and candidate for Executive Council district 2. He can do the math on state spending, and he believes that an Executive Councilor should take seriously the responsibility of scrutinizing state contracts and contractors.
The NHDP doesn't give a hoot about Tierney's day job. Their gripe is over his pro bono work as an allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. In that capacity, Tierney has given Planned Parenthood of Northern New England fits. Does he blockade clinic doorways? Does he give fiery speeches threatening hellfire and damnation to all who enter the premises? No, he's worse: he asks for documentation of PPNNE grants and expenditures, and he doesn't take no for an answer.
The Executive Council shocked PPNNE by rejecting its Title X contract proposal last year, and the legislature added to PPNNE's unease by considering a bill to keep state funds away from abortion providers. PP's New Hampshire PR machine had to go into overdrive, and it squeaked mightily as it cranked out the usual tripe: only 3% of our services are abortion, we don't use public money for abortion, we help so many people, you're just antichoice, and so forth.
Tierney was undeterred. He recognized that a contract going to an abortion provider for other-than-abortion work frees up other funds to use for the abortion part of the enterprise. When the federal government sidestepped the Executive Council and awarded PPNNE a grant, Tierney, representing New Hampshire Right to Life, filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all documentation relating to the grant. This began a long and grinding discovery process that is still ongoing, and it has turned up matters that raise other questions about PPNNE operations. This has earned Tierney the title of "extremist" from the NHDP, and I'm sure worse is coming as the Executive Council campaign moves forward.
Tierney understands the need for accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars, he is politely tenacious, and he doesn't fold when someone calls him names. In those respects, he'd be a worthy successor to retiring Councilor Dan St. Hilaire (R-Concord), who unexpectedly started all the fuss last year by being the third and deciding vote to reject PPNNE's Title X proposal. (Ten other Title X contracts went through without a hitch that day - just not the one with northern New England's chief abortion provider.)
This is a redistricting year, and the New Hampshire House and Senate have agreed on new electoral maps, after the customary decennial wrangling. The Executive Council's District 2 is now an amazing piece of work. With the addition of Keene and Durham, the seat now seems to be gift-wrapped for presentation to the Democratic nominee. What's more, the district has been gerrymandered to stretch from Durham in the east to Hinsdale in the far southwestern corner of the state, with towns from six of the state's ten counties. Campaigning will be a challenge for all the candidates, and winning the district will be a tall order for a Republican.
Thanks to Michael Tierney, PPNNE's political protectors cannot take district 2 for granted. There's going to be a real race here.
I'll post more information about his campaign as it becomes available, including how to make donations.
Sorry about the technical glitch that makes today's post look odd. I'm working on it.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Running the Numbers on the Override Votes
Anyone taking results for granted on next week's override votes in New Hampshire is simply not paying attention.
Two-thirds of members present & voting in each chamber the day of the vote are required for an override. At the moment, even with the departure of Andy Sanborn, that still means 16 votes in the now-23-member Senate, which normally enjoys full attendance on session days. With the recent departures of Laurie Sanborn and D.J. Bettencourt in the House, there are 395 seats occupied, although attendance for floor sessions is usually substantially lower. (Corrections to that figure are welcomed. Resignations have kept the House below 400 members for most of this session.)
HB 1679, the partial-birth-abortion ban, passed the Senate 18-5, with Sen. DeBlois absent. Assuming no changes, even with the loss of Sanborn's vote, the Senate will override. Ditto for HB 217, fetal homicide, which passed 18-6. That's the good news.
The House is a different story, and since these override attempts will begin in the House, the Senate might not even get a crack at these bills. The vote hinges on three questions: will the Yea votes hold? Are any of the Nays reversible? Perhaps most significantly, how many reps will show up Wednesday?
HB 1679 passed the House 224-110, with a whopping 36 excused absences and 27 other reps simply choosing not to vote. HB 217 passed 213-125, with 47 excused absences and eleven other reps not voting. That means based on the attendance for these votes, HB 1679 reached a two-thirds majority by two votes. HB 217 was thirteen votes shy of two-thirds.
If everyone shows up for veto day - granted, that's not likely - 264 votes are needed for override. Most challenging scenario: HB 1679 needs to hold all its previous Yeas, and add 40 more. HB 217 needs to pick up 51 votes on top of the original Yeas. Lower attendance in the House will mean fewer votes needed for override.
One hint to all the Republicans: do not count on any Democrats staying home. The minority party this session has been exemplary in its attendance and its unity. It's actually remarkable that nine Democrats supported a ban on partial-birth abortion, while four supported the fetal homicide bill. Minority leader Terie Norelli is no doubt working to rope in those few stray votes. Republicans were sharply fractured, despite leadership's support for these bills: 27 voted against HB 1679; 42 opposed HB 217.
Phone calls and emails between now and the morning of June 27th could make the difference.
Quick links:
Who's your legislator? http://bit.ly/9FDLgr (this includes contact information)
House vote on HB 1659: http://bit.ly/M41KD7
House vote on HB 217: http://bit.ly/Lwp7FO
Two-thirds of members present & voting in each chamber the day of the vote are required for an override. At the moment, even with the departure of Andy Sanborn, that still means 16 votes in the now-23-member Senate, which normally enjoys full attendance on session days. With the recent departures of Laurie Sanborn and D.J. Bettencourt in the House, there are 395 seats occupied, although attendance for floor sessions is usually substantially lower. (Corrections to that figure are welcomed. Resignations have kept the House below 400 members for most of this session.)
HB 1679, the partial-birth-abortion ban, passed the Senate 18-5, with Sen. DeBlois absent. Assuming no changes, even with the loss of Sanborn's vote, the Senate will override. Ditto for HB 217, fetal homicide, which passed 18-6. That's the good news.
The House is a different story, and since these override attempts will begin in the House, the Senate might not even get a crack at these bills. The vote hinges on three questions: will the Yea votes hold? Are any of the Nays reversible? Perhaps most significantly, how many reps will show up Wednesday?
HB 1679 passed the House 224-110, with a whopping 36 excused absences and 27 other reps simply choosing not to vote. HB 217 passed 213-125, with 47 excused absences and eleven other reps not voting. That means based on the attendance for these votes, HB 1679 reached a two-thirds majority by two votes. HB 217 was thirteen votes shy of two-thirds.
If everyone shows up for veto day - granted, that's not likely - 264 votes are needed for override. Most challenging scenario: HB 1679 needs to hold all its previous Yeas, and add 40 more. HB 217 needs to pick up 51 votes on top of the original Yeas. Lower attendance in the House will mean fewer votes needed for override.
One hint to all the Republicans: do not count on any Democrats staying home. The minority party this session has been exemplary in its attendance and its unity. It's actually remarkable that nine Democrats supported a ban on partial-birth abortion, while four supported the fetal homicide bill. Minority leader Terie Norelli is no doubt working to rope in those few stray votes. Republicans were sharply fractured, despite leadership's support for these bills: 27 voted against HB 1679; 42 opposed HB 217.
Phone calls and emails between now and the morning of June 27th could make the difference.
Quick links:
Who's your legislator? http://bit.ly/9FDLgr (this includes contact information)
House vote on HB 1659: http://bit.ly/M41KD7
House vote on HB 217: http://bit.ly/Lwp7FO
Monday, June 18, 2012
Lynch Strikes Again; Vetoes Fetal Homicide Bill
Late Monday afternoon, Governor Lynch vetoed House Bill 217 - the fetal homicide bill, Dominick's Law. I have blogged about this bill many times, beginning here. In response to the veto, I wrote the following statement today on behalf of Cornerstone Policy Research, where I serve as VP for Government Affairs.
The first concern the governor stated in his veto message was that the bill would allow the state to prosecute a pregnant woman for causing the death of the fetus. This is absolutely false. The first full paragraph of the bill is very clear: the bill does not apply to any act performed by a pregnant woman, or any act done with her consent, that causes the death of a fetus. This concern was raised and addressed repeatedly in the legislative hearings on this bill.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court in the 2009 case State v. Lamy was forced to overturn a drunk driver's conviction for causing the death of Dominick Emmons, whose premature birth was triggered by injuries sustained by his mother in the collision, and whose death two weeks later was a result of the trauma he sustained. The unanimous decision of the Court included a plea to the legislature: "Should the legislature find the result in this case as unfortunate as we do, it should follow the lead of many other states and revisit the homicide statutes as they pertain to a fetus." The legislature did just that, and now Governor Lynch is inventing excuses to block this needed legislation.
Finally, while a woman has the legal right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, a woman's choice to carry a pregnancy deserves respect and legal protection as well. Just as "viability" has no bearing in New Hampshire on the right to terminate a pregnancy, "viability" should have no bearing on the right to carry a pregnancy to term. Anytime a pregnant woman loses her baby against her will due to another's wrongful act, a crime has been committed and the state should have the tools to respond accordingly. The family of Dominick Emmons surely knows that, the New Hampshire Supreme Court knows that, and the New Hampshire House and Senate know that. Governor Lynch's refusal to bring New Hampshire law on this subject into the 21st century can best be met with an override.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Lynch Vetoes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban; Override to Be Attempted 6/27
Late Friday afternoon, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch announced his veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortion. The House and Senate will consider overrides to this and other vetoes on June 27.
After becoming the longest-serving New Hampshire governor in nearly two centuries, and after building a reputation as a moderate politician, he has chosen to end his tenure by defending the indefensible. John Lynch is pleasant, intelligent, cheerful, savvy, and friendly. But moderate? No politician who keeps the way clear for this kind of carnage is "moderate."
The New Hampshire bill, HB 1679, was originally introduced by Rep. Ross Terrio (R-Manchester) as a ban on the partial-birth procedure and a ban on all late-term abortions. Soon after introduction, Terrio agreed to amend the bill so that it addressed only partial-birth. This put the bill in line with similar legislation in force in other states. The bill was drafted to complement federal law and to withstand court challenges. In a spirit of compromise and cooperation, supporters of the bill agreed to amendments that helped to build strong majorities for passage in House and Senate.
None of this figured into Governor Lynch's veto. While beginning his statement with the assurance "I am not a proponent of so-called partial birth abortion", he went on to reject the bill because he found it unnecessary and dangerous, in that order.
The federal ban means none is needed at the state level, according to the governor. He overlooked or ignored the fact that the federal law is only triggered if the partial-birth procedure is committed by a federal employee, or by someone on federal property, or by someone engaged in interstate commerce. He also made no mention of the fact that federal officials may choose not to enforce the federal law, leaving states without their own partial-birth bans helpless to stop the procedure.
Governor Lynch expressed fear that HB 1679 would jeopardize the life of a woman in emergency circumstances. He was critical of the bill's requirement that two physicians agree that life-threatening conditions exist before a partial-birth procedure can be done. Getting that second opinion could cost a woman her life, he fears.
But how? The partial-birth ban would apply only to a particular procedure, not to all abortion methods. Any physician declaring an emergency could terminate a pregnancy without a second opinion, presumably with the pregnant woman's consent, using any method other than the one that pulls the live child/fetus partway out of the woman's body before "termination." The governor's objection sounds as though he means that women are at risk if that procedure is ruled out. (If the governor had true concern for women's health and safety, he would direct the state department of public health to collect statistics on abortion in New Hampshire, so that he would have hard data to buttress any assertion that abortion is safe for women.)
Roe v. Wade established a woman's right to choose abortion. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gonzales case, Roe did not establish a provider's right to kill a child after assisting a woman in a vaginal delivery of a portion of the child's body. Or should I say fetus's? Tough call, when the child/fetus is half-in and half-out of the mother. In any case, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on the partial-birth procedure. The Court decided that while the ban prevented the performance of one particularly gruesome and inhumane procedure, it did not amount to a denial of a woman's choice since alternative abortion methods are available. Note that the federal law and New Hampshire bill apply to abortion providers, not to women seeking termination of pregnancy.
Having issued the veto, John Lynch is beyond persuasion. Representatives and state senators are not.
The governor's full statement on HB 1679 is at http://1.usa.gov/MdosTR
After becoming the longest-serving New Hampshire governor in nearly two centuries, and after building a reputation as a moderate politician, he has chosen to end his tenure by defending the indefensible. John Lynch is pleasant, intelligent, cheerful, savvy, and friendly. But moderate? No politician who keeps the way clear for this kind of carnage is "moderate."
The New Hampshire bill, HB 1679, was originally introduced by Rep. Ross Terrio (R-Manchester) as a ban on the partial-birth procedure and a ban on all late-term abortions. Soon after introduction, Terrio agreed to amend the bill so that it addressed only partial-birth. This put the bill in line with similar legislation in force in other states. The bill was drafted to complement federal law and to withstand court challenges. In a spirit of compromise and cooperation, supporters of the bill agreed to amendments that helped to build strong majorities for passage in House and Senate.
None of this figured into Governor Lynch's veto. While beginning his statement with the assurance "I am not a proponent of so-called partial birth abortion", he went on to reject the bill because he found it unnecessary and dangerous, in that order.
The federal ban means none is needed at the state level, according to the governor. He overlooked or ignored the fact that the federal law is only triggered if the partial-birth procedure is committed by a federal employee, or by someone on federal property, or by someone engaged in interstate commerce. He also made no mention of the fact that federal officials may choose not to enforce the federal law, leaving states without their own partial-birth bans helpless to stop the procedure.
Governor Lynch expressed fear that HB 1679 would jeopardize the life of a woman in emergency circumstances. He was critical of the bill's requirement that two physicians agree that life-threatening conditions exist before a partial-birth procedure can be done. Getting that second opinion could cost a woman her life, he fears.
But how? The partial-birth ban would apply only to a particular procedure, not to all abortion methods. Any physician declaring an emergency could terminate a pregnancy without a second opinion, presumably with the pregnant woman's consent, using any method other than the one that pulls the live child/fetus partway out of the woman's body before "termination." The governor's objection sounds as though he means that women are at risk if that procedure is ruled out. (If the governor had true concern for women's health and safety, he would direct the state department of public health to collect statistics on abortion in New Hampshire, so that he would have hard data to buttress any assertion that abortion is safe for women.)
Roe v. Wade established a woman's right to choose abortion. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gonzales case, Roe did not establish a provider's right to kill a child after assisting a woman in a vaginal delivery of a portion of the child's body. Or should I say fetus's? Tough call, when the child/fetus is half-in and half-out of the mother. In any case, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on the partial-birth procedure. The Court decided that while the ban prevented the performance of one particularly gruesome and inhumane procedure, it did not amount to a denial of a woman's choice since alternative abortion methods are available. Note that the federal law and New Hampshire bill apply to abortion providers, not to women seeking termination of pregnancy.
Having issued the veto, John Lynch is beyond persuasion. Representatives and state senators are not.
The governor's full statement on HB 1679 is at http://1.usa.gov/MdosTR
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Friday Assortment: Run for Office, Wait for Vetoes, Watch the Court
If you want to run for state office as a member of a political party later this year, you have until 5 p.m. tomorrow (Friday, June 15) to file. The primary election will be held on September 11, and the general election follows on November 6. What's your pleasure? State rep, maybe? Two bucks and a trip to your town clerk to fill out the paperwork will make you a candidate. Prospective delegates to the GOP state convention register with town clerks as well, with no filing fee. Other offices - state senate, executive council, county offices, governor, Congress - must file at the Secretary of State's office in Concord. Filing information is here.
A special note to my Republican readers: running to be a delegate to the state convention costs you nothing, and winning a seat requires nothing more than a couple of meetings. If the party platform matters to you, this is a job for you.
**********************
Governor Lynch has begun plowing through the pile of bills on his desk, and he has found his veto pen. An education tax credit bill is the latest victim. The fetal homicide bill still awaits action. The House and Senate are scheduled to meet on June 27 to deal with vetoed bills.
**********************
The current U.S. Supreme Court session will end in a couple of weeks, with a ruling expected on some aspects of the president's health care plan. The unlikeliest outcome is that the plan will be struck down altogether. If that happy event comes to pass, the HHS mandate will be dead. The Court could find the plan constitutional in all aspects (perish the thought), or constitutional in part. In either of those situations, the lawsuits against the mandate will continue, challenging its inherent religious liberty violation.
**********************
A "Fortnight for Religious Freedom" begins next Thursday, June 21, and ends on Independence Day, July 4. Organized by Catholics who have been moved to action by the mandate, the two-week observance is for anyone who's ready to pray, study, and act to defend our First Amendment heritage. Find more information here.
A special note to my Republican readers: running to be a delegate to the state convention costs you nothing, and winning a seat requires nothing more than a couple of meetings. If the party platform matters to you, this is a job for you.
**********************
Governor Lynch has begun plowing through the pile of bills on his desk, and he has found his veto pen. An education tax credit bill is the latest victim. The fetal homicide bill still awaits action. The House and Senate are scheduled to meet on June 27 to deal with vetoed bills.
**********************
The current U.S. Supreme Court session will end in a couple of weeks, with a ruling expected on some aspects of the president's health care plan. The unlikeliest outcome is that the plan will be struck down altogether. If that happy event comes to pass, the HHS mandate will be dead. The Court could find the plan constitutional in all aspects (perish the thought), or constitutional in part. In either of those situations, the lawsuits against the mandate will continue, challenging its inherent religious liberty violation.
**********************
A "Fortnight for Religious Freedom" begins next Thursday, June 21, and ends on Independence Day, July 4. Organized by Catholics who have been moved to action by the mandate, the two-week observance is for anyone who's ready to pray, study, and act to defend our First Amendment heritage. Find more information here.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Introducing New Ministry to Abortion Workers
Abby Johnson used to work for Planned Parenthood, and I reviewed her book Unplanned in an earlier post. She has launched an new ministry to what I can safely call an underserved population: workers in the abortion industry who would like to get out. Since leaving PP and going public with her story, Johnson has heard from other ex-workers, as well as from current abortion participants who are having second thoughts about their line of work. In a webcast last night, Johnson unveiled this new ministry, "And Then There Were None" (ATTWN).
The banner on the ATTWN web site says "no abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions." Ambitious goal, indeed. If that had been written by anyone other than an industry veteran, I'd roll my eyes and dismiss it as hopelessly unrealistic. It sounds like a wish, not a plan. Johnson is making it real by building a team to offer the practical assistance that people need in a difficult time of transition. Leaving the abortion industry is not easy. In addition to wondering where to go to find new employment, the worker may be threatened with legal action, as Johnson learned when she left PP.
ATTWN will give workers leaving the abortion industry access to pro bono legal representation if needed, along with financial support while looking for new work. Emotional support and spiritual counseling are part of the ministry as well.
Leaders in the abortion industry will not be happy to lose workers, and I expect PP and the National Abortion Federation will push back hard against ATTWN. That's a backhanded tribute to Abby Johnson. We can help her out with prayers & donations. We can help exit-minded abortion workers by referring them to ATTWN - after helping them with our personal support and welcome and acceptance.
You can listen to a reply of last night's webcast, hosted by Abby Johnson, at this link: http://bit.ly/LOOMVW
Friday, June 8, 2012
"Go Back To The Drawing Board" on HHS Mandate
I was privileged to be invited to speak on behalf of Cornerstone Policy Research at today's Standing Up for Religious Freedom rally in Concord. I hope the other speakers will post their remarks as well, and if they do, I'll link to them. We saw a lot of thumbs-up from drivers going past. Apparently, the message is getting out there, even in Concord. Here are the remarks I delivered.
We’re gathering on the anniversary of a special day in our nation’s history. Two Hundred Twenty-Three years ago today, James Madison gave Congress his proposal for the Bill of Rights. We’re here today in defense of the very first clause in the First Amendment: protection of the free exercise of religion.
We’re gathering on the anniversary of a special day in our nation’s history. Two Hundred Twenty-Three years ago today, James Madison gave Congress his proposal for the Bill of Rights. We’re here today in defense of the very first clause in the First Amendment: protection of the free exercise of religion.
In March, Americans in 140
cities including Concord stood up for religious freedom, moved by the Health
and Human Services Mandate. Today, people are standing up in 160 cities. More
and more Americans recognize that the mandate is not about women and not about
a particular church. It’s about the federal government effectively rewriting
the First Amendment.
Start with health care plans
in which we all must participate under penalty of law.
Make “preventive care” free
to a patient, with no co-pay.
Further, include
contraception, abortive drugs, and female sterilization in the list of what is
“preventive”.
The result of such a plan: we
all subsidize these procedures for the women who choose to use them.
What if I embrace a religious
belief that says these things are immoral? What if I run a business and want to
provide health insurance to my employees without subsidizing these procedures? What
if I’m a woman who rejects the bad science & bad medicine behind the belief
that a healthy woman’s body needs chronic chemical alteration?
Our president and our secretary
of health and human services say “too bad,” and Congress is so far nodding
meekly. Agree that women’s fertility is a disease, or else pay a penalty, they
say.
We say “Go back to the
drawing board.”
Our current President and his
HHS Secretary tried unsuccessfully to buy off the Catholic church in America
with an “exemption” for religious employers. They even tried to tell that
church what a religious employer looks like: a business operated by a certain
religion that serves only those of the same religion.
Stop right there. You have no
right to tell me what my faith means, and you may not penalize me or my
employer or my church for acting on our beliefs.
This is critical. Voters are
watching. Any policy that pushes any religion to the margins and seeks to
extract a penalty from its adherents is unconstitutional. If one religion is
threatened, we are all threatened.
The Administration is welcoming comments from
the public on the mandate, until June 19. Here’s my
comment – the same one I made in March: my faith is not a crime, a woman’s
fertility is not a disease, and this mandate has got to go.
I don’t like using the term
“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” The fact is that this health care
law is neither protective nor affordable. It claims to protect my family’s health,
but does so at the price of our First Amendment protections. It claims to be
affordable, but in fact by threatening the operation of the most extensive
health care network in the country – the network of religiously-affiliated
health care facilities – it will restrict access to health care and thus drive
up costs. Poor women, single mothers, and children with chronic illnesses will
be hit first and hardest. “Affordable” would be a sick joke.
What do I want to see? An end
to the mandate. You think pregnancy is a disease and women’s fertility should
be suppressed? Go ahead and act on those beliefs for yourself, and make a co-pay.
If you think a co-pay is a war on women, wait until you hear from the women who
know the mandate is a war on religion. Do not expect me to call contraception
& sterilization & abortive drugs “preventive.” Do not threaten to
penalize people of faith because of their faith. You exercise your beliefs and
let me exercise mine. That’s right – turn the clock all the way back to January
2012.
I am grateful that New
Hampshire’s people of faith are getting support from some elected officials. I am
grateful to religious leaders who have spoken peacefully and relentlessly
against the mandate But you and I would be wrong to depend on
anyone else to carry the banner for us. We will be wrong to depend on a
political party to fix everything. We will be wrong to expect a pastor to do
our work for us. We each need to claim the protection of the Bill of Rights,
without apology. We each need make our case to our neighbors who don’t yet
understand what the fuss is about. It’s up to you and me as Americans to let
our leaders know that we will not trade away the First Amendment for our
family’s medical security, and we take a very dim view any politician who
thinks we should.
Don’t wait for media coverage
of this event and this debate. BE the coverage. Keep spreading the news.
I make a special appeal to
people of faith who oppose this mandate and are in one of two specific
callings: professional health care, and caring at home for a loved one with
medical challenges. People who are pushing for this mandate are counting on you
to back them up, or at least to stay silent. This is not the time for silence.
You have experience and credibility. Tell the world what you know about health
care, and what you know about your faith, and why this mandate interferes with
both.
We are not alone in speaking
out. On May 21, 43 plaintiffs filed a total of twelve lawsuits in various U.S.
District Courts. Yesterday, when the White House had an online town hall
meeting on women’s health and invited people to submit questions via Facebook,
women opposing the mandate took to the Internet in Droves. It was ironic that
the video feed showed a room full of women all on board with the “Affordable”
Care Act – while the women speaking out on the Facebook feed were nearly all
opposed to it, with the mandate being the #1 concern.
Take the encouragement you
find here today and bring it to your town, your neighbors, your pastors, and
especially your elected representatives. Thank you.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Friday Rally In Concord - Pass It On!
Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally, Concord NH, Federal Courthouse at the corner of Pleasant & South Streets, Friday 6/8 at noon. Go tweet that to your friends & neighbors and - this is important - your pastors & your elected representatives. Facebook it. Get on the phone about it. The event will last one hour. Signs will be available there. Bring your kids, & dress for the weather. Logistical details are at the end of this post.
I'll ask nicely by adding PLEASE. But let's not be so nice that we stay home. The HHS mandate is still coming as part of Obamacare, regardless of what you've heard about "accommodation" for religious institutions. As with a similar rally day on March 23, people in over 130 U.S. cities will stand up on Friday and say no to the mandate.
Brief summary of life under the yet-to-be-fully-implemented mandate: Health insurance will be mandatory for all. Pregnancy will apparently be classified as a disease, since contraceptives and abortifacient drugs will be counted as "preventive care." Preventive care will be free to the consumer, meaning all participants in the system will subsidize it via premiums. Institutions seeking exemptions on religious grounds can go whistle Dixie, since the federal government will be the sole arbiter of what is and is not a sufficiently "religious" organization.
The recent lawsuits filed in twelve federal courts by over 40 Catholic institutions against implementation of the mandate probably surprised a few D.C. bureaucrats. I hope they get surprised again when more lawsuits are filed, as other religious entities and people of faith realize that this mandate attacks all religions. Even our neighbors who profess no religious faith whatsoever have reason to be concerned when the First Amendment is threatened.
Litigation should never be a first response, of course, and these lawsuits were certainly not filed in haste. Catholic leaders sought a dialogue with the president and Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius to resolve their concerns. No dice. The federal government and its workers, once mobilized, are loath to change course.
And so we take to the streets and the courts, peaceful and resolute. Please join me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information or to find out about rallies in other cities, check out the Facebook page here or the web page here . Concord details: parking is not allowed in the courthouse lot or at Sacred Heart Church across the street, but on-street parking is available nearby. Bring a few quarters. The rally will be held on a sidewalk, without shelter or restrooms, so plan accordingly. If it's a warm day, you'll want to bring a bottle of water. Directions to the courthouse are at http://1.usa.gov/M55C2e . And if you're ready for lunch afterward, Concord's Main Street has a number of options; if fast food is more your thing, head south on Main Street towards exit 13 for I-93.
I'll ask nicely by adding PLEASE. But let's not be so nice that we stay home. The HHS mandate is still coming as part of Obamacare, regardless of what you've heard about "accommodation" for religious institutions. As with a similar rally day on March 23, people in over 130 U.S. cities will stand up on Friday and say no to the mandate.
Brief summary of life under the yet-to-be-fully-implemented mandate: Health insurance will be mandatory for all. Pregnancy will apparently be classified as a disease, since contraceptives and abortifacient drugs will be counted as "preventive care." Preventive care will be free to the consumer, meaning all participants in the system will subsidize it via premiums. Institutions seeking exemptions on religious grounds can go whistle Dixie, since the federal government will be the sole arbiter of what is and is not a sufficiently "religious" organization.
The recent lawsuits filed in twelve federal courts by over 40 Catholic institutions against implementation of the mandate probably surprised a few D.C. bureaucrats. I hope they get surprised again when more lawsuits are filed, as other religious entities and people of faith realize that this mandate attacks all religions. Even our neighbors who profess no religious faith whatsoever have reason to be concerned when the First Amendment is threatened.
Litigation should never be a first response, of course, and these lawsuits were certainly not filed in haste. Catholic leaders sought a dialogue with the president and Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius to resolve their concerns. No dice. The federal government and its workers, once mobilized, are loath to change course.
And so we take to the streets and the courts, peaceful and resolute. Please join me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information or to find out about rallies in other cities, check out the Facebook page here or the web page here . Concord details: parking is not allowed in the courthouse lot or at Sacred Heart Church across the street, but on-street parking is available nearby. Bring a few quarters. The rally will be held on a sidewalk, without shelter or restrooms, so plan accordingly. If it's a warm day, you'll want to bring a bottle of water. Directions to the courthouse are at http://1.usa.gov/M55C2e . And if you're ready for lunch afterward, Concord's Main Street has a number of options; if fast food is more your thing, head south on Main Street towards exit 13 for I-93.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Decisions: Lynch & Bass
The fetal homicide and partial-birth abortion bills would not die, despite grueling journeys through the New Hampshire House & Senate. Look up the dockets for these bills on the state web site sometime. A number of tales are hidden behind those dry factual entries.
And so, at long last, Governor Lynch will get these bills. I am telling every pro-life person I know to get those calls and emails going. The number is 271-2121, where I'm sure a very polite individual is waiting to take our calls. Lynch's pleasant and understated persona is not enough to make me forget that he vetoed parental notification (and overriding that veto was one of the proudest moments for the legislative class of '10). He has not made direct veto threats on either fetal homicide or partial birth, but on the latter, it's a real stretch for me to believe he'll support it.
As for fetal homicide, if Lynch can't be persuaded by the state Supreme court's Lamy case, he just can't be persuaded.
The success of these bills so far is great news, and it shows what can be done with legislators who can think straight. As for the governor, we live in hope. What will he do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Congress today, a bill called PRENDA came up for a vote, and fell short of the two-thirds that it needed. PRENDA stands for Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act, and it was written to ban sex-selection abortions. PP hates the bill, and the president has weighed in against it as well. When the dust settled this afternoon, only seven Republicans had voted against the bill. One was Charlie Bass, New Hampshire's own Congressman from the Second District.
Bass is avowedly pro-choice, and has been for as long as I can remember. I used to testify in front of his committee when he was a state senator. But refusing to frown on sex selection? Really? Worldwide, most of the preborn children killed for being the "wrong" sex are girls. There's a war on women for you.
This won't help him in November, of course, since Ann Kuster will get the pro-Roe vote. Kuster's mother, the late Susan McLane, served with Bass in the state senate years ago. McLane and Bass were both "pro-choice" Republicans. It is some kind of rough justice that pits McLane's daughter against Bass now.
And so, at long last, Governor Lynch will get these bills. I am telling every pro-life person I know to get those calls and emails going. The number is 271-2121, where I'm sure a very polite individual is waiting to take our calls. Lynch's pleasant and understated persona is not enough to make me forget that he vetoed parental notification (and overriding that veto was one of the proudest moments for the legislative class of '10). He has not made direct veto threats on either fetal homicide or partial birth, but on the latter, it's a real stretch for me to believe he'll support it.
As for fetal homicide, if Lynch can't be persuaded by the state Supreme court's Lamy case, he just can't be persuaded.
The success of these bills so far is great news, and it shows what can be done with legislators who can think straight. As for the governor, we live in hope. What will he do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Congress today, a bill called PRENDA came up for a vote, and fell short of the two-thirds that it needed. PRENDA stands for Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act, and it was written to ban sex-selection abortions. PP hates the bill, and the president has weighed in against it as well. When the dust settled this afternoon, only seven Republicans had voted against the bill. One was Charlie Bass, New Hampshire's own Congressman from the Second District.
Bass is avowedly pro-choice, and has been for as long as I can remember. I used to testify in front of his committee when he was a state senator. But refusing to frown on sex selection? Really? Worldwide, most of the preborn children killed for being the "wrong" sex are girls. There's a war on women for you.
This won't help him in November, of course, since Ann Kuster will get the pro-Roe vote. Kuster's mother, the late Susan McLane, served with Bass in the state senate years ago. McLane and Bass were both "pro-choice" Republicans. It is some kind of rough justice that pits McLane's daughter against Bass now.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Backward & Forward
Custer went forward. Lemmings go forward. The Light Brigade went forward. And now, in an exquisitely apt marketing move, the incumbent president has chosen "Forward" as the slogan for his re-election campaign.
The vice-president, in a noisy visit to Keene State College a few days ago (why does he always wind up yelling at his audience, anyway?), pleased the youthful crowd by declaring "we will not go back to the 50s on social policy."
So social policy shall move "forward" if the incumbent president is re-elected. Social policy includes abortion, which will remain legal if we choose to move "forward". Not safe-and-rare, as former presidents have said in an effort to sound moderate. Just legal, so we don't go back to the bad old pre-Roe v. Wade days of back alleys & knitting needles and women dying.
Listening at one hearing after another in Concord this year on bills that touch on the life issues, I was struck more than once by how many of Roe's defenders sounded scared of the future even as they said they were determined not to go back into the past.
Eugenic abortion was surely one of the twentieth century's most ghastly ideas - one that belongs in the past, even when it's prettied up with the euphemism "therapeutic." Yet this year, I heard objections to New Hampshire's fetal homicide bill (still in the balance, by the way, with yet another vote coming next week) based on the fear that it might interfere with selective reduction. Assisted reproductive technologies that call for implantation of multiple embryos in a woman's womb also call for the culling of the surplus once pregnancy is established. Apparently, to protect the brave new world, he only way to face the future is by planting one foot firmly in the past.
A bill for informed consent for abortion prompted some women to recount heartbreaking stories of pregnancies gone tragically wrong, with fetal anomalies diagnosed prenatally. The mothers chose abortion, because it "wasn't fair" to bring such a child into the world. So what's wrong with informed consent? These women said they resented the assumption that abortion providers weren't already being perfectly upfront. They also complained that the 24-hour waiting period in the bill would have caused them an additional 24 hours of anguish (with the unspoken corollary being that their anguish somehow subsided once their children were dead). Keep abortion quick and unregulated: no back-alley abortionist from the 1950s could have asked for more. Those shades of the 50s can rest easy, knowing that New Hampshire's 2012 informed consent bill was killed.
New Hampshire public health officials do not collect abortion statistics, letting the abortion industry voluntarily provide whatever information it sees fit. A bill to require collection of statistics was passed this year after being amended into nearly-unrecognizable form, and now a committee will consider whether it's a good idea to collect the statistics. (This is glacial progress, as opposed to incremental.) Who fought this one? Abortion providers. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England along with the Feminist Health Center in Concord and the Lovering Center in Greenland all sent representatives to the hearings on this one. They all earnestly assured legislators that they DO report the number of abortions done at their facilities. Honest. They do not want oversight even to the extent of accounting for the number of procedures or reporting on morbidity and mortality to the women who have abortions. Again, the pre-Roe industry of illegal abortionists would approve wholeheartedly.
In the past, no one kept track of how many women suffered and died after abortion. Bernard Nathanson, MD, a founder of NARAL who later became a pro-life advocate, wrote candidly after leaving the abortion industry that NARAL leaders invented maternal-mortality figures in the late 1960s to try to build support for liberalization of abortion laws. To this day, we don't know if legal abortion has been any safer for women. The same people who criticize anecdotal reports from pro-life sources, and demand hard figures, flee from those figures when they make their own arguments. (By the way, if you can find Nathanson's book Aborting America, read it. It's one of those basic books for the pro-life library.)
Moving forward, really forward, means we will want to know for sure how many women are being left to die or suffer permanent injury after abortion. We will want to know who is doing the procedures and we'll want to know the safety record of the provider (granting that the babies always wind up dead). We'll want to know at what point in pregnancy the terminations take place. We'll want to do more for each other than recommend death when disability looms.
So, forward, Mr. Biden?
The vice-president, in a noisy visit to Keene State College a few days ago (why does he always wind up yelling at his audience, anyway?), pleased the youthful crowd by declaring "we will not go back to the 50s on social policy."
So social policy shall move "forward" if the incumbent president is re-elected. Social policy includes abortion, which will remain legal if we choose to move "forward". Not safe-and-rare, as former presidents have said in an effort to sound moderate. Just legal, so we don't go back to the bad old pre-Roe v. Wade days of back alleys & knitting needles and women dying.
Listening at one hearing after another in Concord this year on bills that touch on the life issues, I was struck more than once by how many of Roe's defenders sounded scared of the future even as they said they were determined not to go back into the past.
Eugenic abortion was surely one of the twentieth century's most ghastly ideas - one that belongs in the past, even when it's prettied up with the euphemism "therapeutic." Yet this year, I heard objections to New Hampshire's fetal homicide bill (still in the balance, by the way, with yet another vote coming next week) based on the fear that it might interfere with selective reduction. Assisted reproductive technologies that call for implantation of multiple embryos in a woman's womb also call for the culling of the surplus once pregnancy is established. Apparently, to protect the brave new world, he only way to face the future is by planting one foot firmly in the past.
A bill for informed consent for abortion prompted some women to recount heartbreaking stories of pregnancies gone tragically wrong, with fetal anomalies diagnosed prenatally. The mothers chose abortion, because it "wasn't fair" to bring such a child into the world. So what's wrong with informed consent? These women said they resented the assumption that abortion providers weren't already being perfectly upfront. They also complained that the 24-hour waiting period in the bill would have caused them an additional 24 hours of anguish (with the unspoken corollary being that their anguish somehow subsided once their children were dead). Keep abortion quick and unregulated: no back-alley abortionist from the 1950s could have asked for more. Those shades of the 50s can rest easy, knowing that New Hampshire's 2012 informed consent bill was killed.
New Hampshire public health officials do not collect abortion statistics, letting the abortion industry voluntarily provide whatever information it sees fit. A bill to require collection of statistics was passed this year after being amended into nearly-unrecognizable form, and now a committee will consider whether it's a good idea to collect the statistics. (This is glacial progress, as opposed to incremental.) Who fought this one? Abortion providers. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England along with the Feminist Health Center in Concord and the Lovering Center in Greenland all sent representatives to the hearings on this one. They all earnestly assured legislators that they DO report the number of abortions done at their facilities. Honest. They do not want oversight even to the extent of accounting for the number of procedures or reporting on morbidity and mortality to the women who have abortions. Again, the pre-Roe industry of illegal abortionists would approve wholeheartedly.
In the past, no one kept track of how many women suffered and died after abortion. Bernard Nathanson, MD, a founder of NARAL who later became a pro-life advocate, wrote candidly after leaving the abortion industry that NARAL leaders invented maternal-mortality figures in the late 1960s to try to build support for liberalization of abortion laws. To this day, we don't know if legal abortion has been any safer for women. The same people who criticize anecdotal reports from pro-life sources, and demand hard figures, flee from those figures when they make their own arguments. (By the way, if you can find Nathanson's book Aborting America, read it. It's one of those basic books for the pro-life library.)
Moving forward, really forward, means we will want to know for sure how many women are being left to die or suffer permanent injury after abortion. We will want to know who is doing the procedures and we'll want to know the safety record of the provider (granting that the babies always wind up dead). We'll want to know at what point in pregnancy the terminations take place. We'll want to do more for each other than recommend death when disability looms.
So, forward, Mr. Biden?
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Week In Review, Days Ahead
Several topics and observations today. Something for everyone, I hope. Copy and forward as you wish.
Tenacity and patience have thus far kept a few important bills going. I expect that both the partial birth ban and fetal homicide bills will be scrutinized anew by House committees on Tuesday. The Senate amended both bills, and the House may choose to concur, requiring no further action except a trip to Governor Lynch's desk, or request a committee of conference. Concurrence would be the right outcome, since the Senate amendments didn't gut either bill.
Lynch's spokesman was finally moved to take note of HB 217 (the fetal homicide) a few days ago, and his remarks were not encouraging.
Keep an eye on the Cornerstone Policy Research Facebook page and @nhcornerstone Twitter feed for Tuesday coverage of House committee votes on these bills.
********************
Nongermane amendments are nothing new in legislative work, rules or no rules. If leadership wants one, in it goes, productive or not. Such moves always seem like a good idea at the time, at least to the person making the amendment.
The Senate sent a late term abortion ban (HB 1660) to interim study. Not so fast, replied the House last Thursday. The ban was added as an amendment to a bill on pulse oximetry for newborns (SB 348) by a four-vote margin. Less than ten minutes later, the House reversed itself. The sponsor of SB 348, the indisputably pro-life Rep. Lynne Blankenbeker (R-Concord), pleaded for the main bill, stressing that the Senate would kill it if it contained the abortion amendment.
The nongermane amendment in this case resulted in nothing more than two confusing House votes. The proponents of late-term abortions can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that New Hampshire will continue to keep abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy.
********************
Filing period for the fall elections is coming up June 6-15. Details here. Some good pro-lifers have chosen not to run again, so anyone who wants to step up may find an open seat available.
********************
Mark your calendar for Friday, June 8th at noon. There will be a Standing Up for Religious Freedom rally outside the federal courthouse in Concord, where a similar rally was held a few months ago. As long as the federal HHS mandate is still part of Obamacare, religious freedom is under attack and no church is safe. See you there - and bring your kids, your neighbors, your minister, and even your state rep. I'll be one of the speakers. (Please be there anyway.) There was a Bush II era bumper sticker displayed back in the day by some disaffected voters: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Okay, then. Let's all be utterly patriotic on June 8th.
Tenacity and patience have thus far kept a few important bills going. I expect that both the partial birth ban and fetal homicide bills will be scrutinized anew by House committees on Tuesday. The Senate amended both bills, and the House may choose to concur, requiring no further action except a trip to Governor Lynch's desk, or request a committee of conference. Concurrence would be the right outcome, since the Senate amendments didn't gut either bill.
Lynch's spokesman was finally moved to take note of HB 217 (the fetal homicide) a few days ago, and his remarks were not encouraging.
Keep an eye on the Cornerstone Policy Research Facebook page and @nhcornerstone Twitter feed for Tuesday coverage of House committee votes on these bills.
********************
Nongermane amendments are nothing new in legislative work, rules or no rules. If leadership wants one, in it goes, productive or not. Such moves always seem like a good idea at the time, at least to the person making the amendment.
The Senate sent a late term abortion ban (HB 1660) to interim study. Not so fast, replied the House last Thursday. The ban was added as an amendment to a bill on pulse oximetry for newborns (SB 348) by a four-vote margin. Less than ten minutes later, the House reversed itself. The sponsor of SB 348, the indisputably pro-life Rep. Lynne Blankenbeker (R-Concord), pleaded for the main bill, stressing that the Senate would kill it if it contained the abortion amendment.
The nongermane amendment in this case resulted in nothing more than two confusing House votes. The proponents of late-term abortions can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that New Hampshire will continue to keep abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy.
********************
Filing period for the fall elections is coming up June 6-15. Details here. Some good pro-lifers have chosen not to run again, so anyone who wants to step up may find an open seat available.
********************
Mark your calendar for Friday, June 8th at noon. There will be a Standing Up for Religious Freedom rally outside the federal courthouse in Concord, where a similar rally was held a few months ago. As long as the federal HHS mandate is still part of Obamacare, religious freedom is under attack and no church is safe. See you there - and bring your kids, your neighbors, your minister, and even your state rep. I'll be one of the speakers. (Please be there anyway.) There was a Bush II era bumper sticker displayed back in the day by some disaffected voters: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Okay, then. Let's all be utterly patriotic on June 8th.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
"Bureau of Womanhood Conformity": Share this Video
The Susan B. Anthony List has created this web video that's less than two minutes long and ought to be seen by everyone voting or running for office this year. Share it with your teenagers, too. See link below.
http://bit.ly/KntoXf
http://bit.ly/KntoXf
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
About Time: an Alternative to Guttmacher Institute
I note with great pleasure the rollout of a web site for the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Check it out here. The Lozier Institute is the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List (web site here), which promotes the election of pro-life women and men to Congress. The Lozier Institute looks to me like a breakthrough in policy research.
For years, the Guttmacher Institute has been relied upon by policymakers at all levels for statistical information about abortion and reproductive health care (which are two different things - repeat after me: abortion is not health care). Formerly an arm of Planned Parenthood, the organizations allegedly split in the late 1970s. However formal the split may be in a legal and financial sense, Guttmacher is hand-in-glove with PP on policy.
Guttmacher's statistics and findings are given entirely too much credence at the State House, as I've seen through the years. I have to remind lawmakers from time to time that any "statistics" Guttmacher reports about New Hampshire are based on voluntarily-reported information from abortion providers, since the state of NH does not collect abortion statistics. Most of the NH statistical information reported to Guttmacher about abortions comes from PPNNE. PPNNE then sends its lobbyist to Concord to fight efforts to enact a bill to require the state to collect statistics. PP-reported figures go to Guttmacher, which bases policy research on those numbers, and then the research is used by PP to advance its mission. Fuzzy math, cozy relationship.
I am looking forward to learning what the Lozier Institute is able to do to provide a clearer picture of how abortion is affecting us as individuals and as a community. It's encouraging to know that the parent organization, SBA List, has been extremely supportive of efforts in NH and elsewhere to require public health authorities to gather accurate information. How many abortions in NH? How old are the mothers? At what gestational age are pregnancies terminated? What about morbidity and mortality for the mothers, both short- and long-term? Who's doing these procedures? Where?
I recommend supporting the Lozier Institute's research. It will take time, but I hope legislators and public health officials will soon see that Guttmacher isn't the only kid on the block.
For years, the Guttmacher Institute has been relied upon by policymakers at all levels for statistical information about abortion and reproductive health care (which are two different things - repeat after me: abortion is not health care). Formerly an arm of Planned Parenthood, the organizations allegedly split in the late 1970s. However formal the split may be in a legal and financial sense, Guttmacher is hand-in-glove with PP on policy.
Guttmacher's statistics and findings are given entirely too much credence at the State House, as I've seen through the years. I have to remind lawmakers from time to time that any "statistics" Guttmacher reports about New Hampshire are based on voluntarily-reported information from abortion providers, since the state of NH does not collect abortion statistics. Most of the NH statistical information reported to Guttmacher about abortions comes from PPNNE. PPNNE then sends its lobbyist to Concord to fight efforts to enact a bill to require the state to collect statistics. PP-reported figures go to Guttmacher, which bases policy research on those numbers, and then the research is used by PP to advance its mission. Fuzzy math, cozy relationship.
I am looking forward to learning what the Lozier Institute is able to do to provide a clearer picture of how abortion is affecting us as individuals and as a community. It's encouraging to know that the parent organization, SBA List, has been extremely supportive of efforts in NH and elsewhere to require public health authorities to gather accurate information. How many abortions in NH? How old are the mothers? At what gestational age are pregnancies terminated? What about morbidity and mortality for the mothers, both short- and long-term? Who's doing these procedures? Where?
I recommend supporting the Lozier Institute's research. It will take time, but I hope legislators and public health officials will soon see that Guttmacher isn't the only kid on the block.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Week in Review: Hurry Up & Wait
As previously reported, the Senate last Wednesday passed HCR 31, commending pregnancy care centers. This straightforward legislative pat on the back to an invaluable pro-life resource must go to the House for agreement on some changes.
HB 217, fetal homicide, was put off by the Senate until next Wednesday. The amendment printed in the calendar should not create any further delay, but then again, there have already been two delays that caught me and the chief sponsor by surprise.
HCR 41 was killed in the Senate. This resolution asking Congress to scold the feds for funding PPNNE over the objections of the Executive Council would have had no substantive effect but would have sent a message to our Washington representatives.
Legislators annoyed by the financial end-run in PPNNE's favor should now focus on HB 228. There will be other contract proposals before the Exec Council, and HB 228 sits on the table in the Senate. That's not a good place for it.
Fate unknown, possibly being taken up this week:
The House will meet next week on Tuesday & Wednesday, and possibly Thursday if the lengthy calendar requires that much time. The Senate will meet Wednesday.
HB 217, fetal homicide, was put off by the Senate until next Wednesday. The amendment printed in the calendar should not create any further delay, but then again, there have already been two delays that caught me and the chief sponsor by surprise.
HCR 41 was killed in the Senate. This resolution asking Congress to scold the feds for funding PPNNE over the objections of the Executive Council would have had no substantive effect but would have sent a message to our Washington representatives.
Legislators annoyed by the financial end-run in PPNNE's favor should now focus on HB 228. There will be other contract proposals before the Exec Council, and HB 228 sits on the table in the Senate. That's not a good place for it.
Fate unknown, possibly being taken up this week:
- HB 1679, partial-birth abortion ban. House & Senate must reconcile language.
- HB 1653, respecting conscience rights for medical professionals, was tabled by the House months ago and seems unlikely to be taken up.
The House will meet next week on Tuesday & Wednesday, and possibly Thursday if the lengthy calendar requires that much time. The Senate will meet Wednesday.
2012 NH Republican Women's Summit #5
Last one. I'll skip remarks on the upcoming luncheon speaker, Nashua mayor Donnalee Lozeau, whose topic is "How to find balance and do it all." Puh-leeze. There's balance, and there's doing it all, and there's a difference, and I say that with due respect to the accomplished Mayor Lozeau. I once heard a quote attributed to actress Katharine Hepburn, who was asked whether a woman could have it all. "Yes," she replied, "but not all at once." To me, a married woman with five grown kids and a job and therefore some experience in this area, that has the ring of truth.
Phyllis Woods mentions plans for 2012 "victory offices" statewide - satellite offices of the GOP, which proved so effective in 2010 - which of course are dependent on financial support for the GOP. Volunteers will be needed in these offices as well. When I worked for John Stephen in 2010 on his gubernatorial campaign, those offices and the people in them were tremendously helpful. Even as an independent, I knew a good thing when I saw one. Of course, these offices will help any GOP man or woman, including the ones who will earn the title of RINO and the ones who will vote against every imaginable piece of pro-life legislation. That's where pro-life PACs & activist groups come in. I'm glad to be with Cornerstone.
Alicia Preston, communications whiz & consultant: "I talk to people about how to talk to people." Oh, and "how to not get in trouble with the media ... Be cautious, but never fear them...Be concise and be accurate." Reasonable advice. I like the way she handles Q&A. She talks a mile a minute and manages to be clear at the same time.
All this good nuts-and-bolts information is probably being spread by both parties in forum after forum. I'm not sure where the seeds will take root. It's interesting to see the turnout here today & to hear the applause for things like parental notification. The filing period in a few weeks will tell me if all this training is a step in the right direction.
Phyllis Woods mentions plans for 2012 "victory offices" statewide - satellite offices of the GOP, which proved so effective in 2010 - which of course are dependent on financial support for the GOP. Volunteers will be needed in these offices as well. When I worked for John Stephen in 2010 on his gubernatorial campaign, those offices and the people in them were tremendously helpful. Even as an independent, I knew a good thing when I saw one. Of course, these offices will help any GOP man or woman, including the ones who will earn the title of RINO and the ones who will vote against every imaginable piece of pro-life legislation. That's where pro-life PACs & activist groups come in. I'm glad to be with Cornerstone.
Alicia Preston, communications whiz & consultant: "I talk to people about how to talk to people." Oh, and "how to not get in trouble with the media ... Be cautious, but never fear them...Be concise and be accurate." Reasonable advice. I like the way she handles Q&A. She talks a mile a minute and manages to be clear at the same time.
All this good nuts-and-bolts information is probably being spread by both parties in forum after forum. I'm not sure where the seeds will take root. It's interesting to see the turnout here today & to hear the applause for things like parental notification. The filing period in a few weeks will tell me if all this training is a step in the right direction.
2012 NH Republican Women's Summit #4
Morning break means going to the literature table in the lobby. I note that the NH House Republican Victory PAC has a flyer for a candidate training class in Concord June 16, 9 a.m.-noon.
Next speaker: Christine Peters, NH Federation of Republican Women, talks about her 13-year involvement in the NHFRW and how the group fosters political involvement. The money they raise goes in large part to GOP women running for office. (By the way NHFRW has one of the more useful handouts in the lobby: "Running for NH House 101.") Christine promotes the Lilac Luncheon, coming up May 21 in Nashua, with Anita Moncrief (of exposing-ACORN fame) speaking on "Integrity of the Ballot Box" (voter ID).
Jen Wrobleski on the role of a delegate and state committee member: I, your faithful blogger, leave the details to those who want to contact the state GOP. (Sorry, Ms. Wrobleski.) I will add that running for delegate gives you a seat at the party convention this fall, allowing one to vote on the party platform. I was a delegate several times in my far-distant Republican past. Filing period and election are the same as for state reps.
As Wrobleski is peppered with questions about the somewhat convoluted state committee process, I look around the room and note that there's a broad age range represented in this room. That goes for presenters as well as attendees. That's good to see. I wonder if there's good geographic distribution as well. I'm pleased to see one rep from Littleton, and I hope she brought some friends with her.
And now for first-term Rep. Regina Birdsell, who's not only a terrific state rep but someone I respect very much for her work on Sen. Santorum's recent presidential campaign. (And she's running for re-election - good news!) She's here today to speak about NH's unique Vesta Roy Excellence in Public Service Program, which has become one of the most respected political training programs in the state. She graduated from the program in '09. The program is nine months long, with a new group of GOP women participating every year. This is worth looking up: www.vestaroyseries.com.
Next speaker: Christine Peters, NH Federation of Republican Women, talks about her 13-year involvement in the NHFRW and how the group fosters political involvement. The money they raise goes in large part to GOP women running for office. (By the way NHFRW has one of the more useful handouts in the lobby: "Running for NH House 101.") Christine promotes the Lilac Luncheon, coming up May 21 in Nashua, with Anita Moncrief (of exposing-ACORN fame) speaking on "Integrity of the Ballot Box" (voter ID).
Jen Wrobleski on the role of a delegate and state committee member: I, your faithful blogger, leave the details to those who want to contact the state GOP. (Sorry, Ms. Wrobleski.) I will add that running for delegate gives you a seat at the party convention this fall, allowing one to vote on the party platform. I was a delegate several times in my far-distant Republican past. Filing period and election are the same as for state reps.
As Wrobleski is peppered with questions about the somewhat convoluted state committee process, I look around the room and note that there's a broad age range represented in this room. That goes for presenters as well as attendees. That's good to see. I wonder if there's good geographic distribution as well. I'm pleased to see one rep from Littleton, and I hope she brought some friends with her.
And now for first-term Rep. Regina Birdsell, who's not only a terrific state rep but someone I respect very much for her work on Sen. Santorum's recent presidential campaign. (And she's running for re-election - good news!) She's here today to speak about NH's unique Vesta Roy Excellence in Public Service Program, which has become one of the most respected political training programs in the state. She graduated from the program in '09. The program is nine months long, with a new group of GOP women participating every year. This is worth looking up: www.vestaroyseries.com.
2012 NH Republican Women's Summit #3
Next up: panel with Sen. Nancy Stiles, Rep. Laurie Sanborn, and Rep. Lynne Blankenbeker, discussing how they decided to run and what it's like being in office.
NS: three terms in House before being elected to Senate in 2010. Her work with her professional association brought her to Concord to testify as a member of the public, and she found herself facing committees "full of men" who were not particularly responsive. Result: running for office. She serves on the Senate Education committee. In the Senate, "you look at all the stakeholders in the room, and ask 'can you all live with the language in this bill?' If so, we tend to support it." Unlike the House, the Senate does not have time to "get down into the weeds" on bills. She plans to run for re-election.
LS: Never considered herself politically active until about four years ago. The LLC tax passed a few years ago ("an income tax on small businesses") galvanized her and her husband (now-Sen. Andy Sanborn) into running. She challenged an 18-year incumbent, and "never thought in a million years I could win" in a college town, "but I did it." Useful piece of advice she got: "be an expert on something," which in her case is business. She looked around for a coalition of like-minded legislators, and when she couldn't find one, she started one. Praises House Republican Alliance for its support. "Women have a special bond ... we can do great things together." Will run again, but she's moving from Henniker to Bedford and so will have a new district in which to campaign.
LB: A nurse and naval officer by profession (recently returned from Afghanistan); went to law school "to build credibility" as she advocated for veterans. Working for former Congressman & NH Supreme Court Justice Chuck Douglas in his law/lobbying practice exposed her to day-to-day legislative work. Watching a parental notification vote from the gallery one day when the Democrats were in control, she was livid to see so many seats empty on the House floor. "I wanted to be part of the solution... I had no idea how hard this (campaigning) would be." She gets applause when she says how parental notification was eventually passed. She recommends the Vesta Roy program for GOP NH women, which she thinks would have helped her as a candidate. Won her House seat in a special election by 17 votes, and then won a regular election by 40 votes - no mean feat in Concord! Does not plan to seek re-election; she has been recalled to Afghanistan. "Step up," she concludes. She also gives a shout-out to homeschoolers for the effective way they tend to communicate with legislators - no canned emails.
In the Q&A, Rep. Laurie Pettengill asks "do you think about the GOP platform when you vote?" Stiles: yes, "but I also think about the people I represent. " Sanborn: "absolutely, and I also look at my palm card" to be reminded of her promises. Blankenbeker: "The first thing I look at is constitutionality ... [then] does this align with our party values ... [then] liberty ... and constituency."
NS: three terms in House before being elected to Senate in 2010. Her work with her professional association brought her to Concord to testify as a member of the public, and she found herself facing committees "full of men" who were not particularly responsive. Result: running for office. She serves on the Senate Education committee. In the Senate, "you look at all the stakeholders in the room, and ask 'can you all live with the language in this bill?' If so, we tend to support it." Unlike the House, the Senate does not have time to "get down into the weeds" on bills. She plans to run for re-election.
LS: Never considered herself politically active until about four years ago. The LLC tax passed a few years ago ("an income tax on small businesses") galvanized her and her husband (now-Sen. Andy Sanborn) into running. She challenged an 18-year incumbent, and "never thought in a million years I could win" in a college town, "but I did it." Useful piece of advice she got: "be an expert on something," which in her case is business. She looked around for a coalition of like-minded legislators, and when she couldn't find one, she started one. Praises House Republican Alliance for its support. "Women have a special bond ... we can do great things together." Will run again, but she's moving from Henniker to Bedford and so will have a new district in which to campaign.
LB: A nurse and naval officer by profession (recently returned from Afghanistan); went to law school "to build credibility" as she advocated for veterans. Working for former Congressman & NH Supreme Court Justice Chuck Douglas in his law/lobbying practice exposed her to day-to-day legislative work. Watching a parental notification vote from the gallery one day when the Democrats were in control, she was livid to see so many seats empty on the House floor. "I wanted to be part of the solution... I had no idea how hard this (campaigning) would be." She gets applause when she says how parental notification was eventually passed. She recommends the Vesta Roy program for GOP NH women, which she thinks would have helped her as a candidate. Won her House seat in a special election by 17 votes, and then won a regular election by 40 votes - no mean feat in Concord! Does not plan to seek re-election; she has been recalled to Afghanistan. "Step up," she concludes. She also gives a shout-out to homeschoolers for the effective way they tend to communicate with legislators - no canned emails.
In the Q&A, Rep. Laurie Pettengill asks "do you think about the GOP platform when you vote?" Stiles: yes, "but I also think about the people I represent. " Sanborn: "absolutely, and I also look at my palm card" to be reminded of her promises. Blankenbeker: "The first thing I look at is constitutionality ... [then] does this align with our party values ... [then] liberty ... and constituency."
2012 Republican Women's Summit #2
Rep. Pam Tucker, Deputy Speaker of the NH House, on women in the legislature: interesting that until 1998, GOP women outnumbered Democratic women in the NH House. Thanks to the 2010 GOP landslide, there are now 58 GOP women in the House and three in the Senate. "Can you imagine if we had a Republican majority of women in the House?" Says "there is a massive support system in the House & Senate" for women.
As for "women's issues", "we are making a difference to the future of the state." She goes on to list those issues: education; strong economy; strong families; public safety; environment; embracing new technology; health care.
(My comment: I give Rep. Tucker full marks for staying on message. Abortion and the life issues are being supported but not stressed by House leadership. Of course, we all know that Republican does not necessarily mean pro-life or conservative. One must vet one's candidates. I could add this to every post today, but I won't.)
"You will be a role model, whether you like it or not" if you're elected. True enough. In my opinion, that's why it's so heartbreaking when an elected Republican woman votes against things like parental notification and informed consent. On the other hand, it's good to see so many pro-life GOP reps here today. May their tribe increase.
Next speaker: Susie Hudson, Vermont's GOP National Committeewoman, on the Republican National Committee: she rightly starts with thanks & recognition to Phyllis Woods, who has just stepped down as NH's committeewoman. She notes that RNC has a rule that chair and co-chair must be of opposite genders. (Affirmative action? You decide.) She gets applause when she says she'd like to get rid of that gender rule completely (Good!), but an attempt to change that rule has thus far not gained sufficient support. Hudson goes on to encourage involvement in party leadership on the state level, and RNC is developing training programs to make that easier.
As for "women's issues", "we are making a difference to the future of the state." She goes on to list those issues: education; strong economy; strong families; public safety; environment; embracing new technology; health care.
(My comment: I give Rep. Tucker full marks for staying on message. Abortion and the life issues are being supported but not stressed by House leadership. Of course, we all know that Republican does not necessarily mean pro-life or conservative. One must vet one's candidates. I could add this to every post today, but I won't.)
"You will be a role model, whether you like it or not" if you're elected. True enough. In my opinion, that's why it's so heartbreaking when an elected Republican woman votes against things like parental notification and informed consent. On the other hand, it's good to see so many pro-life GOP reps here today. May their tribe increase.
Next speaker: Susie Hudson, Vermont's GOP National Committeewoman, on the Republican National Committee: she rightly starts with thanks & recognition to Phyllis Woods, who has just stepped down as NH's committeewoman. She notes that RNC has a rule that chair and co-chair must be of opposite genders. (Affirmative action? You decide.) She gets applause when she says she'd like to get rid of that gender rule completely (Good!), but an attempt to change that rule has thus far not gained sufficient support. Hudson goes on to encourage involvement in party leadership on the state level, and RNC is developing training programs to make that easier.
2012 Republican Women's Summit Live Blog #1
A break in form today for this blog: I am a guest at "This One's For the Girls", the 2012 Women's Summit organized by Phyllis Woods, being held at the NH Institute of Politics at St. Anselm's. I will post periodically throughout the day, reporting on the various speakers. I am in debt to Phyllis for welcoming me as representative of Cornerstone Action, even though I'm not a Republican. Call me a lapsed Republican.
About forty women are here, either officeholders or those who are giving thought to a run. Filing period is in June, which is coming right up.
After prayer and pledge, program begins with greeting from NHGOP chairman Wayne MacDonald followed by an RNC video on the history of American women's suffrage. Let it not be forgotten that women's history is not the exclusive province of the Democratic party.
I can't thank Phyllis enough. Her service to NH through the years has been remarkable, and her friendship and mentoring to me means a great deal. This event is happening thanks to her.
About forty women are here, either officeholders or those who are giving thought to a run. Filing period is in June, which is coming right up.
After prayer and pledge, program begins with greeting from NHGOP chairman Wayne MacDonald followed by an RNC video on the history of American women's suffrage. Let it not be forgotten that women's history is not the exclusive province of the Democratic party.
I can't thank Phyllis enough. Her service to NH through the years has been remarkable, and her friendship and mentoring to me means a great deal. This event is happening thanks to her.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
What's With the Senate re HB 217?
The NH Senate just put off the fetal homicide bill for the second time, delaying it another week. There was no public debate or discussion. I am left to speculate on reasons. Our senators need to hear from us.
Pregnancy Care Resolution HCR31 Gets Senate OK
Midday report from the NH Senate: HCR 31, the resolution commending pregnancy care centers, passed on a voice vote. I heard Sen. Larsen say "no" quietly; other opponents were either quieter or silent. It will go back to the House for concurrence on a Senate amendment, which should NOT be complicated, but then again nothing going on between the chambers is uncomplicated nowadays.
HCR 41, the resolution calling on Congress to declare the end-run grant to PPNNE "unconstitutional and void", went down to defeat on a 20-4 inexpedient-to-legislate vote. My thanks to Sens. Forrester, Forsythe, Barnes, & DeBlois for resisting the ITL.
Next up: HB 217, fetal homicide. Tune in again after 1:30 this afternoon.
HCR 41, the resolution calling on Congress to declare the end-run grant to PPNNE "unconstitutional and void", went down to defeat on a 20-4 inexpedient-to-legislate vote. My thanks to Sens. Forrester, Forsythe, Barnes, & DeBlois for resisting the ITL.
Next up: HB 217, fetal homicide. Tune in again after 1:30 this afternoon.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
On WH Tours, Preborn Children Count
Do not adjust your sets, as the saying goes. This is a truth-stranger-than-fiction item. I have not seen the original document on which the story is based, and if it turns out to be bogus, I'll be right back to offer my profound apologies.
LifeNews.com reports here that pregnant visitors to the White House are supposed to register their preborn children as visitors in their own right when booking a White House tour. This is mind-boggling, coming from a consistently pro-abortion Administration. Anyone care to ask Jay Carney about this at the next press briefing?
LifeNews.com reports here that pregnant visitors to the White House are supposed to register their preborn children as visitors in their own right when booking a White House tour. This is mind-boggling, coming from a consistently pro-abortion Administration. Anyone care to ask Jay Carney about this at the next press briefing?
Monday, May 7, 2012
O'Keefe: "I'm here to tell you how to do it"
James O'Keefe is a muckraker, prankster, or crusading journalist, depending on your point of view. He and his Project Veritas (theprojectveritas.com) came to New Hampshire & found that getting a presidential primary ballot was so easy in some towns that even a deceased voter could do it. Governor Lynch and Attorney General Delaney are not fans of O'Keefe & his work. O'Keefe posted on Facebook yesterday that Delaney has "attempted to serve a criminal subpoena" on him.
Lynch & Delaney ought to be thanking O'Keefe. Even if New Hampshire's election laws are sound, O'Keefe has at the very least shown that the implementation of those laws can be careless. I'd hate to see the state go after O'Keefe without going after the irregularities he highlighted.
I heard O'Keefe speak at SNHU a few months ago. He looked tired. He must have been on a lecture circuit that had kept him on the road for awhile. The hall was full of Tea Partiers who were enthusiastic fans of what O'Keefe had accomplished with his ACORN videos. He took questions after his speech, and someone called out, "What's your next project?" O'Keefe, the tired kid, replied a bit impatiently, "I'm not here to tell you what I'm doing next. I'm here to tell you how to do it." He went on to say that he borrowed $2000 on his credit card to get the equipment to make his first video. He didn't need anyone's permission. He just acquired the equipment and went to work.
I was impressed. The last thing he wanted was for all of us to tell him how great he was. He wanted us to get busy.
Lynch & Delaney ought to be thanking O'Keefe. Even if New Hampshire's election laws are sound, O'Keefe has at the very least shown that the implementation of those laws can be careless. I'd hate to see the state go after O'Keefe without going after the irregularities he highlighted.
I heard O'Keefe speak at SNHU a few months ago. He looked tired. He must have been on a lecture circuit that had kept him on the road for awhile. The hall was full of Tea Partiers who were enthusiastic fans of what O'Keefe had accomplished with his ACORN videos. He took questions after his speech, and someone called out, "What's your next project?" O'Keefe, the tired kid, replied a bit impatiently, "I'm not here to tell you what I'm doing next. I'm here to tell you how to do it." He went on to say that he borrowed $2000 on his credit card to get the equipment to make his first video. He didn't need anyone's permission. He just acquired the equipment and went to work.
I was impressed. The last thing he wanted was for all of us to tell him how great he was. He wanted us to get busy.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Week In Review: bills in Senate; odds 'n' ends
The fetal homicide bill about which I wrote last week, HB 217, is on Wednesday's NH Senate calendar after being put off a week. Last-minute objections regarding the bill's potential unintended effect on the practice of in vitro fertilization have apparently been addressed to the GOP leadership's satisfaction. I'll be in the gallery to watch this vote. If the bill passes, and it should, it will be the culmination of twenty years of work stretching from the late Rep. Carolyn Brady (R-Manchester) to current Rep. Kathy Souza (R-Manchester). If the bill for some reason does not pass or is shelved, it will be the second time since 2009 that legislators have refused to act on the state Supreme Court's request in the Lamy case to "re-visit" homicide laws as they pertain to a fetus.
The Senate will also take up the resolution commending pregnancy care centers, HCR 31 (subject of another blog post last week). I expect this to pass on party lines, although I wouldn't be shocked if Sens. Odell & Stiles voted no. Why on earth should anyone vote no? But some legislators see threats to Roe the way three-year-olds see monsters in the closet: the monsters aren't there, but there's no reasoning with the three-year-old's imagination.
I don't see HCR 41 passing. That's the resolution calling the federal grant to PPNNE "unconstitutional and void." At the committee hearing last week, the resolution got a 4-1 "inexpedient to legislate" vote, and Sen. Molly Kelly (D-Keene) will present the report to the full Senate. The Senate does not seem to share the outrage in the House about the federal side-step of a NH decision.
A couple of items not NH-based, but of interest:
The Senate will also take up the resolution commending pregnancy care centers, HCR 31 (subject of another blog post last week). I expect this to pass on party lines, although I wouldn't be shocked if Sens. Odell & Stiles voted no. Why on earth should anyone vote no? But some legislators see threats to Roe the way three-year-olds see monsters in the closet: the monsters aren't there, but there's no reasoning with the three-year-old's imagination.
I don't see HCR 41 passing. That's the resolution calling the federal grant to PPNNE "unconstitutional and void." At the committee hearing last week, the resolution got a 4-1 "inexpedient to legislate" vote, and Sen. Molly Kelly (D-Keene) will present the report to the full Senate. The Senate does not seem to share the outrage in the House about the federal side-step of a NH decision.
A couple of items not NH-based, but of interest:
- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law late last week a bill to de-fund abortion providers in her state. The legislation she signed is similar to New Hampshire's HB 228, which the Senate recently tabled over concerns that the bill might lead to litigation and loss of federal funds. Thank God there are legislators and governors willing to take on these threats. We should be standing with them. In Texas, a de-funding law was taken to court by Planned Parenthood affiliates, and a lower court granted PP an injunction in April which was promptly overturned by a higher court. That litigation will continue.
- The Family Research Council, based in Washington, DC, will have a webcast on Wednesday called "Pregnancy Resource Centers: Celebrating Mother's Day Every Day." Details here.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Basic Book: Voices of Post-Abortive Women
Aborted Women: Silent No More by David C. Reardon. 1987: Crossway Books, ISBN 0891074511. Reissued 2002: Elliot Institute, ISBN 0964895722
I have the older edition on my shelf. It was the first thing I ever read about post-abortive women, beyond a few brochures from an outfit called Women Exploited by Abortion. With WEBA's cooperation, Reardon surveyed 252 women in 42 states about their abortion decisions and the aftermath. The survey results would have fit into a short magazine article. What makes the book so enlightening and necessary are the many stories recounted by and about the women who agreed to speak to Reardon.
Reardon surveyed 252 women in 42 states. That's a fairly small sample, and to a degree it was a self-selected group, since the women were part of WEBA. The stories and the numbers are powerful nonetheless. All the women cited in the book were determined to be "silent no more". Their stories had, and continue to have, urgency and importance.
One of Reardon's statistics stands out even today: over two-thirds of the women surveyed felt rushed to make the abortion decision. It's ironic that New Hampshire's lawmakers are arguing now over whether a 24-hour waiting period is too great an imposition on a woman's right to choose abortion.
This book is available on Amazon but might be hard to find in bookstores. Look on your church's bookshelf. This one made a splash when it was first published, and a lot of faith communities with active pro-life ministries picked up the book.
I have the older edition on my shelf. It was the first thing I ever read about post-abortive women, beyond a few brochures from an outfit called Women Exploited by Abortion. With WEBA's cooperation, Reardon surveyed 252 women in 42 states about their abortion decisions and the aftermath. The survey results would have fit into a short magazine article. What makes the book so enlightening and necessary are the many stories recounted by and about the women who agreed to speak to Reardon.
Reardon surveyed 252 women in 42 states. That's a fairly small sample, and to a degree it was a self-selected group, since the women were part of WEBA. The stories and the numbers are powerful nonetheless. All the women cited in the book were determined to be "silent no more". Their stories had, and continue to have, urgency and importance.
One of Reardon's statistics stands out even today: over two-thirds of the women surveyed felt rushed to make the abortion decision. It's ironic that New Hampshire's lawmakers are arguing now over whether a 24-hour waiting period is too great an imposition on a woman's right to choose abortion.
This book is available on Amazon but might be hard to find in bookstores. Look on your church's bookshelf. This one made a splash when it was first published, and a lot of faith communities with active pro-life ministries picked up the book.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Thumbs Up to Pregnancy Care Centers, I Hope
The NH Senate HHS committee held its hearing on HCR 31 today and approved it 4-1. This resolution commending the work of pregnancy care centers (PCCs) called forth the usual naysayers, but they were far outshone this afternoon by three outstanding advocates.
In case "pregnancy care center" is ambiguous - poor Sen. Kelly couldn't quite come to terms with it - let me explain: it is a place where pregnant women in crisis can come for anything except abortion. Anyone can come through the door for information, counseling, and practical assistance, whether pregnant or not, whether male or female. CareNet is the most famous example of a pregnancy care center, with several CareNets operating in NH. Most services are free, and in NH, CareNet relies on private donations and an extensive volunteer network. Medical professionals assist with ultrasounds, and referrals to obstetric care are available.
Kathleen Molway of Concord CareNet and Katherine Anderson, RN, of the Pregnancy Resource Center of the Monadnock Region told the senators about the work they do and the women they serve. Jeanneane Maxon, AUL's VP of External Affairs and a former general counsel to CareNet, offered information about PCC policies and support nationwide. By the time these three women were finished giving their calm and straightforward testimony, opponents of the resolution sounded pathetic. Terms like "anti-choice" and "deceptive" rang pretty hollow once Kathleen, Katherine, & Jeanneane had spoken.
HCR 31 had ten co-sponsors, led by Rep. Kathy Lauer-Rago (R-Franklin). Full Senate action will come sometime later this month. In the meantime, I recommend writing a check to your local PCC, Birthright, or even Americans United for Life. You'll be doing some good and you'll be annoying all the right people.
In case "pregnancy care center" is ambiguous - poor Sen. Kelly couldn't quite come to terms with it - let me explain: it is a place where pregnant women in crisis can come for anything except abortion. Anyone can come through the door for information, counseling, and practical assistance, whether pregnant or not, whether male or female. CareNet is the most famous example of a pregnancy care center, with several CareNets operating in NH. Most services are free, and in NH, CareNet relies on private donations and an extensive volunteer network. Medical professionals assist with ultrasounds, and referrals to obstetric care are available.
Kathleen Molway of Concord CareNet and Katherine Anderson, RN, of the Pregnancy Resource Center of the Monadnock Region told the senators about the work they do and the women they serve. Jeanneane Maxon, AUL's VP of External Affairs and a former general counsel to CareNet, offered information about PCC policies and support nationwide. By the time these three women were finished giving their calm and straightforward testimony, opponents of the resolution sounded pathetic. Terms like "anti-choice" and "deceptive" rang pretty hollow once Kathleen, Katherine, & Jeanneane had spoken.
HCR 31 had ten co-sponsors, led by Rep. Kathy Lauer-Rago (R-Franklin). Full Senate action will come sometime later this month. In the meantime, I recommend writing a check to your local PCC, Birthright, or even Americans United for Life. You'll be doing some good and you'll be annoying all the right people.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
NH Senate Calls Time-Out on HB 217
The NH Senate has put off its vote on the fetal homicide bill until next week. A senator speaking off the record before today's session told me that Dartmouth-Hitchcock has raised concerns about how the bill might affect the practice of in vitro fertilization. The senators are taking some time to deal with this.
This snag came as a surprise to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Kathy Souza (R-Manchester), who found out about it just before the Senate session today.
I have not spoken to anyone from Dartmouth-Hitchcock, and so I don't claim to understand their objections. I have some ideas of my own, though.
Why on earth would in vitro fertilization figure be affected by a fetal homicide bill? I know that "selective reduction", the abortion of "surplus" fetuses, is now considered part of pregnancy management following assisted reproduction such as IVF. That's a ghastly practice, but it doesn't figure into HB 217. The bill refers only to fetal deaths from wanted pregnancies. If a mother has signed an IVF agreement and the physician later performs one of these "selective reductions", there would be no crime under a fetal-homicide bill because the mother would have OK'd the abortion.
Of course, if these selective abortions are being committed without a mother's consent, that's another story. I doubt, however, that any reproductive endocrinologist or obstetrician would proceed with IVF or a similar procedure without getting a woman's signature on a consent form. And this might not be Dartmouth-Hitchcock's concern anyway. We'll see.
I'm looking forward to next week's vote, and I'll be keeping an eye on Friday's Senate calendar to see if and how the bill is amended.
This snag came as a surprise to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Kathy Souza (R-Manchester), who found out about it just before the Senate session today.
I have not spoken to anyone from Dartmouth-Hitchcock, and so I don't claim to understand their objections. I have some ideas of my own, though.
Why on earth would in vitro fertilization figure be affected by a fetal homicide bill? I know that "selective reduction", the abortion of "surplus" fetuses, is now considered part of pregnancy management following assisted reproduction such as IVF. That's a ghastly practice, but it doesn't figure into HB 217. The bill refers only to fetal deaths from wanted pregnancies. If a mother has signed an IVF agreement and the physician later performs one of these "selective reductions", there would be no crime under a fetal-homicide bill because the mother would have OK'd the abortion.
Of course, if these selective abortions are being committed without a mother's consent, that's another story. I doubt, however, that any reproductive endocrinologist or obstetrician would proceed with IVF or a similar procedure without getting a woman's signature on a consent form. And this might not be Dartmouth-Hitchcock's concern anyway. We'll see.
I'm looking forward to next week's vote, and I'll be keeping an eye on Friday's Senate calendar to see if and how the bill is amended.
Monday, April 30, 2012
EMILY's List backs Hassan
EMILY's List has endorsed Maggie Hassan for NH Governor. Does anyone still think the life issues are irrelevant to November's elections?
"EMILY" is an acronym for Early Money is Like Yeast. This PAC describes itself as "a national organization dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office." I have no doubt that the pro-life counterpart, the Susan B. Anthony List (www.sba-list.org), will be watching New Hampshire intently.
"EMILY" is an acronym for Early Money is Like Yeast. This PAC describes itself as "a national organization dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office." I have no doubt that the pro-life counterpart, the Susan B. Anthony List (www.sba-list.org), will be watching New Hampshire intently.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Week In Review: NH Senate Bats .400
I understand the importance of gratitude as much as the next person. As a lobbyist, I forget it at my peril. So thank you, senators. And now permit me to quibble.
The New Hampshire Senate passed two bills that are years overdue: a ban on partial-birth abortions (HB 1679) and a bill to examine the possibility of collecting abortion statistics (HB 1680). Great news, momentous victories - and you probably have to have been around Concord as long as I have to appreciate just how momentous. Persistence pays off. Three other bills with pro-life implications met worse fates: killed, tabled, interim study.
When I'm up in the gallery cheering for five bills and two of them pass, it's a good day, even though one newspaper headline said pro-lifers were "crushed." Crushed? Not so much. I will, however, admit that my happiness was alloyed with a strong dose of the annoyance only an ex-Republican can understand.
The New Hampshire Senate passed two bills that are years overdue: a ban on partial-birth abortions (HB 1679) and a bill to examine the possibility of collecting abortion statistics (HB 1680). Great news, momentous victories - and you probably have to have been around Concord as long as I have to appreciate just how momentous. Persistence pays off. Three other bills with pro-life implications met worse fates: killed, tabled, interim study.
When I'm up in the gallery cheering for five bills and two of them pass, it's a good day, even though one newspaper headline said pro-lifers were "crushed." Crushed? Not so much. I will, however, admit that my happiness was alloyed with a strong dose of the annoyance only an ex-Republican can understand.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Mandate Rationale? Try Checking Under the Penumbra
Back in 1965, Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote for the majority in the Griswold case that the right to privacy, while not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, could be derived as an "emanation" within the "penumbra" of enumerated rights. (That's his language, not mine.) Emanations and penumbras can of course be toxic, as we learned in '73 when Roe was handed down, buttressed by Griswold's reasoning.
Forty-seven years later, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is apparently all on board with penumbras. She was on Capitol Hill yesterday to face Congressional questioning. One bold soul asked her how she decided the HHS contraceptive-coverage mandate could square with religious liberty. Madam Secretary's reply:
"Congressman, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests […] I am not going to wade into constitutional law, I’m talking about the fact that we are implementing a law that was passed by the Congress, signed by the President, which directed our department to develop a package of preventive health services for women. We have done just that with the advice of the Institute of Medicine, and promulgated that rule."
I am indebted to Calvin Freiburger (here) and his unbeatable commentary on that answer, published in Live Action News today:
"Note well that the combination of congressional votes, presidential signatures, and the opinion of the Institute of Medicine amount to somewhere between nada and zilch when it comes to constitutional law."
Forty-seven years later, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is apparently all on board with penumbras. She was on Capitol Hill yesterday to face Congressional questioning. One bold soul asked her how she decided the HHS contraceptive-coverage mandate could square with religious liberty. Madam Secretary's reply:
"Congressman, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests […] I am not going to wade into constitutional law, I’m talking about the fact that we are implementing a law that was passed by the Congress, signed by the President, which directed our department to develop a package of preventive health services for women. We have done just that with the advice of the Institute of Medicine, and promulgated that rule."
I am indebted to Calvin Freiburger (here) and his unbeatable commentary on that answer, published in Live Action News today:
"Note well that the combination of congressional votes, presidential signatures, and the opinion of the Institute of Medicine amount to somewhere between nada and zilch when it comes to constitutional law."
Thursday, April 26, 2012
How to Mount An Effective Counter-Demonstration
Our stalwart neighbors at PPNNE are excitedly tweeting about a rally in NH to be held Saturday: a Unite Against The War On Women Rally! (Exclamation point theirs.)
I am not going to call for a counter-demonstration. NH pro-lifers had one yesterday: the state senate passed a ban on partial-birth abortion - a bill that PPNNE fought tooth & nail from the day it was introduced. Yesterday's vote was the fruit of a lot of hard work by a lot of people.
That's my kind of demonstration.
I am not going to call for a counter-demonstration. NH pro-lifers had one yesterday: the state senate passed a ban on partial-birth abortion - a bill that PPNNE fought tooth & nail from the day it was introduced. Yesterday's vote was the fruit of a lot of hard work by a lot of people.
That's my kind of demonstration.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Your move, Governor Lynch
Two pro-life bills were passed by the New Hampshire Senate today, and the sky didn't fall.
The NH Senate passed HB 1679 today on a straight party-line vote, agreeing with the House that it is not a good idea for New Hampshire to put out the welcome mat for practitioners who want to do late-term abortions by the "partial-birth" method, also known as D&X. Partial-birth abortion is as close to infanticide as can be managed. Banning the method saves no babies, and Roe is unscathed. Nevertheless, this is a momentous day. The New Hampshire legislature, for the first time since NH's 19th-century abortion laws were repealed a few years ago, has said "no" to one abortion method.
A bill to collect abortion statistics (HB 1680) was amended and attenuated to the point where it now sets up a committee to study how to collect the stats. The House passed it, and the Senate today adopted it on a voice vote.
Three other bills fared less well in the Senate today, but got further this year than could have been hoped in earlier sessions. Women's Right to Know (HB 1659, with a 24-hour waiting period before abortion) was killed by the Senate, but just hours later the House attached it as a nongermane amendment to another bill. That was fun. Not sure how the Senators will feel having it tossed back at them, but we'll see. HB 1660, to stop abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, went to interim study. HB 228, the funding bill, was tabled.
Of course, WMUR tweeted "Senate blocks House-passed abortion bills." No tweets about the passage of the partial-birth ban. New Hampshire's news leader, I'm told ...
Governor Lynch should weigh in on the two successful bills shortly. Place your bets.
The NH Senate passed HB 1679 today on a straight party-line vote, agreeing with the House that it is not a good idea for New Hampshire to put out the welcome mat for practitioners who want to do late-term abortions by the "partial-birth" method, also known as D&X. Partial-birth abortion is as close to infanticide as can be managed. Banning the method saves no babies, and Roe is unscathed. Nevertheless, this is a momentous day. The New Hampshire legislature, for the first time since NH's 19th-century abortion laws were repealed a few years ago, has said "no" to one abortion method.
A bill to collect abortion statistics (HB 1680) was amended and attenuated to the point where it now sets up a committee to study how to collect the stats. The House passed it, and the Senate today adopted it on a voice vote.
Three other bills fared less well in the Senate today, but got further this year than could have been hoped in earlier sessions. Women's Right to Know (HB 1659, with a 24-hour waiting period before abortion) was killed by the Senate, but just hours later the House attached it as a nongermane amendment to another bill. That was fun. Not sure how the Senators will feel having it tossed back at them, but we'll see. HB 1660, to stop abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, went to interim study. HB 228, the funding bill, was tabled.
Of course, WMUR tweeted "Senate blocks House-passed abortion bills." No tweets about the passage of the partial-birth ban. New Hampshire's news leader, I'm told ...
Governor Lynch should weigh in on the two successful bills shortly. Place your bets.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Funding Vote Tomorrow: Any "Choice" Here?
Live and let live? Promote choice? Sure. Let's start by saying that while abortion is legal, taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for it. We'll see tomorrow if at least 13 senators can get behind that.
Whatever tomorrow's outcome, HB 228 has been a triumph.
Whatever tomorrow's outcome, HB 228 has been a triumph.
40 Days of Prayer? Bring It On
Here's one for the annals of creative protest: Six Rivers Planned Parenthood of Eureka, California is having "40 Days of Prayer" hosted by "Clergy for Choice" (see details) in response to the nationwide success of the "40 Days for Life" campaigns (about which more here).
Pro-lifers on Twitter & Facebook have expressed dismay at this effort. I say bring it on. Prayer in my experience is a powerful and unpredictable phenomenon. The results are not always what the petitioner intends. And if the California event gets some pro-lifers indignant enough to get involved in the next 40 Days for Life campaign, so much the better.
Pro-lifers on Twitter & Facebook have expressed dismay at this effort. I say bring it on. Prayer in my experience is a powerful and unpredictable phenomenon. The results are not always what the petitioner intends. And if the California event gets some pro-lifers indignant enough to get involved in the next 40 Days for Life campaign, so much the better.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Dominick's Law: Hearing Thursday in Concord
"Should the legislature find the result in this case as unfortunate
as we do, it should follow the lead of many other states and revisit the
homicide statutes as they pertain to a fetus."
That's the New Hampshire Supreme Court talking. The legislature might be listening. We'll find out as HB 217 makes its way to the state senate's Judiciary committee this week.
That's the New Hampshire Supreme Court talking. The legislature might be listening. We'll find out as HB 217 makes its way to the state senate's Judiciary committee this week.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Bullying Works: PP Scores Komen $
A chapter of the breast-cancer-fighting Susan G. Komen foundation has given a grant to a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Austin TX. The amount is
reportedly $45,000.
By the way, Texas PP affiliates are suing over a state de-funding law. That means that even if this affiliate doesn't do abortions, it has the money for litigation. Komen is therefore effectively paying $45k for health care so PP doesn't have to.
Press release here.
You'll recall that PP & its supporters were quick to ramp up an attack campaign when Komen decided earlier this year to curtail its grants to PP. A few days of pressure from PP did the trick, and now the pipeline's back open. Apparently, once an agency makes a grant or contract to Planned Parenthood, stopping is not an acceptable option. I know three NH Executive Councilors who found that out the hard way.
Of course, while Komen folded within days, the Councilors did not yield to the bullies. (PPNNE had to do an end run around the state Title X contract process by going to Sen. Shaheen, who persuaded the Obama administration to send money.) Komen could learn something here.
By the way, Texas PP affiliates are suing over a state de-funding law. That means that even if this affiliate doesn't do abortions, it has the money for litigation. Komen is therefore effectively paying $45k for health care so PP doesn't have to.
Press release here.
You'll recall that PP & its supporters were quick to ramp up an attack campaign when Komen decided earlier this year to curtail its grants to PP. A few days of pressure from PP did the trick, and now the pipeline's back open. Apparently, once an agency makes a grant or contract to Planned Parenthood, stopping is not an acceptable option. I know three NH Executive Councilors who found that out the hard way.
Of course, while Komen folded within days, the Councilors did not yield to the bullies. (PPNNE had to do an end run around the state Title X contract process by going to Sen. Shaheen, who persuaded the Obama administration to send money.) Komen could learn something here.
Chuck Colson, RIP
Chuck Colson died today at the age of 80. I owe him thanks, and so does anyone else who holds dear religious freedom and the right to life.
When I first heard of him, he was a villain of the Watergate scandal. I was a teenager at that time, in the early stages of political activism, and Watergate's figures were clearly divided in my view between the Good Guys & the Bad Guys. Colson was decidedly and unapologetically one of the Bad Guys, seeming to deserve the media characterization of him as a "hatchet man" for Nixon. He wound up in prison for a brief time, where he experienced deep and fundamental conversion of heart. Like many people, I was skeptical that a "Bad Guy" could change.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was humbled to realize how mistaken I could be. He wore himself out in life-affirming ministries, most famously prison ministry.
Among the gifts he left us is the Manhattan Declaration from 2009, a "call to Christian conscience." (Among Colson's other work, he was a champion of ecumenical progress.)
Discover it for yourself here.
When I first heard of him, he was a villain of the Watergate scandal. I was a teenager at that time, in the early stages of political activism, and Watergate's figures were clearly divided in my view between the Good Guys & the Bad Guys. Colson was decidedly and unapologetically one of the Bad Guys, seeming to deserve the media characterization of him as a "hatchet man" for Nixon. He wound up in prison for a brief time, where he experienced deep and fundamental conversion of heart. Like many people, I was skeptical that a "Bad Guy" could change.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was humbled to realize how mistaken I could be. He wore himself out in life-affirming ministries, most famously prison ministry.
Among the gifts he left us is the Manhattan Declaration from 2009, a "call to Christian conscience." (Among Colson's other work, he was a champion of ecumenical progress.)
Discover it for yourself here.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Basic Books
I expect this to become a recurring feature in this blog. I'll recommend books that have influenced me in my pro-life journey. I'd like to hear your recommendations as well; I always enjoy discovering new good reading!
Today, it's something old & something new.
Deadly Compassion: the Death of Ann Humphry and the Truth About Euthanasia by Rita Marker (1995, William Morrow & Co., ISBN 9780688122218; also available as PDF download at www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/deadly-compassion/)
Unplanned: the Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line by Abby Johnson with Cindy Lambert
(2010, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., ISBN 9781414339399; also available as e-book)
Today, it's something old & something new.
Deadly Compassion: the Death of Ann Humphry and the Truth About Euthanasia by Rita Marker (1995, William Morrow & Co., ISBN 9780688122218; also available as PDF download at www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/deadly-compassion/)
Unplanned: the Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line by Abby Johnson with Cindy Lambert
(2010, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., ISBN 9781414339399; also available as e-book)
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
It Takes a Village to Kill a Mandate
The Nashua Telegraph is reporting this afternoon that a NH Senate committee has recommended "polite death" for HB 1546, a bill to repeal the state's mandate that health insurers cover contraception. It was tough enough getting that one through the House. The full Senate has yet to vote, so the outcome is still open. The committee's recommendation will be overturned if and only if enough senators recognize that this mandate and its federal counterpart are attacks on religious liberty.
When NH's mandate passed a dozen or so years ago, I didn't recognize its significance. I opposed the bill, but I settled for quietly shaking my head instead of taking up the argument. After all, in accordance with my religious faith, I wasn't using contraceptives, and I wasn't working for a religious institution with moral objections to contraception. It did not occur to me or to anyone else in the room that NH's mandate, and similar measures in other states, would help pave the way for the federal government's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require that all Americans purchase health care, define contraception and abortifacient drugs as "preventive care", and refuse to recognize conscientious objections to this arrangement.
(I'll save for another day a fuller treatment of just what kind of health problem contraception "prevents".)
Back in 1999, that would have seemed a huge leap. Now, looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to see what was coming. It is to the great credit of American Catholic bishops that they have been so outspoken in defending religious liberty against this encroachment (see their statement here). That's a start. The bishops have done their job. It's now for the rest of us to bring the no-mandate message to Concord and Washington.
When NH's mandate passed a dozen or so years ago, I didn't recognize its significance. I opposed the bill, but I settled for quietly shaking my head instead of taking up the argument. After all, in accordance with my religious faith, I wasn't using contraceptives, and I wasn't working for a religious institution with moral objections to contraception. It did not occur to me or to anyone else in the room that NH's mandate, and similar measures in other states, would help pave the way for the federal government's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require that all Americans purchase health care, define contraception and abortifacient drugs as "preventive care", and refuse to recognize conscientious objections to this arrangement.
(I'll save for another day a fuller treatment of just what kind of health problem contraception "prevents".)
Back in 1999, that would have seemed a huge leap. Now, looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to see what was coming. It is to the great credit of American Catholic bishops that they have been so outspoken in defending religious liberty against this encroachment (see their statement here). That's a start. The bishops have done their job. It's now for the rest of us to bring the no-mandate message to Concord and Washington.
Introduction: "Still Talking About This"
"I can't believe we're still talking about this."
I must have heard those words fifty times in the past year in Concord, spoken by fellow citizens who style themselves "pro-choice" and are truly surprised that pro-lifers are still active.
Still talking about what? About abortion, how it became legal, and how it has grown into a lucrative business for abortion providers; about women facing challenging pregnancies and sometimes facing the aftermath of terminating those pregnancies; about paying for it and subsidizing the industry. We're still talking because there is no way to shut down a debate when lives are at stake.
To the great dismay of abortion advocates, New Hampshire legislators in the past year have taken up a number of bills that touch on abortion. Every session has some abortion debate, but 2011-12 has been remarkable for the sheer volume of life-issue legislation. Most of the bills are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are based on Roe. With the exception of two measures to ban late-term abortion and "partial-birth" infanticide, the bills provide mere regulation, long-overdue and badly needed. One bill is simply an attempt to get the state to order abortion providers to report statistics.
New Hampshire currently is the Wild West where abortion law is concerned. Women's safety and public health policy would seem to call for a degree of regulation and oversight, even if one were to put aside the fact that each abortion takes a human life. Abortion advocates are loud and angry over each and every one of the bills, however, drawing no distinction among parental notification (enacted over a veto), funding restrictions, statistical reporting, and a late-term ban. To them, it's all one big attack on Choice, part of a larger effort to set women back.
This is worse than nonsense. What I see being set back are the rights of women and men who choose not to pay even indirectly for the operation of an abortion facility. I see people lobbying to keep abortion undocumented, so that public health officials will continue to be in the dark about how many New Hampshire women make this "choice" every year. I hear testimony to the need for eugenic abortion, which is a throwback to one of the 20th century's worst ideas. I hear women who should know better equate a 24-hour waiting period with an outright ban on abortion.
Both in New Hampshire and elsewhere, we need to meet this with more than hand-wringing and the occasional letter to the editor. I offer this blog as a tool and a guide to action for all who share my determination to bring an end to the carnage wrought by Roe. I will undoubtedly use the blog sometimes just to vent. At all times, though, I am mindful that if I do this right, I'll be reaching people who disagree with me. Persuasion is always possible. Of course, I have no doubt that someone over on the other side is working to persuade me right back. Fair enough.
I write as a woman who came of age in the years shortly after Roe v. Wade. When I was in high school and a dear friend "had" to have an abortion, I chipped in with some friends for the $250 cost. I found the idea of abortion regrettable & uncomfortable, but it was after all my friend's body & my friend's choice. Over the following five years, many experiences combined to leave me incapable of denying the humanity of the child in utero. The dignity of both mother and child are absolute, regardless of what any court may decide.
Just as the state rep who heads the Reproductive Rights Caucus is careful to mention that she's Catholic, I should be candid about my religious background. While raised Catholic, I spent most of my adolescence shrugging off religion. Later, it wasn't being Catholic that made me pro-life. It was recognizing the miracle of life that brought me back to professing the Catholic faith. This has been significant in more ways than I could have imagined when I was a young woman.
As for politics, I call myself a recovering Republican. I fall off the wagon now and then, but I am a registered "undeclared" voter, in New Hampshire parlance. The rest of the world knows me as "independent." It is true that nearly every candidate I support runs as a Republican. It is also true that GOP leaders tend to take pro-life voters for granted. By not signing up with the party, I can help whatever candidates I choose, and the party need not get annoyed with me for failing to back every candidate on the ticket.
So yes, we're still talking about this. Pro-lifers cannot be effective if they stay huddled together. I propose that we step out in faith and leaven the loaf of public discourse. Let's begin.
I must have heard those words fifty times in the past year in Concord, spoken by fellow citizens who style themselves "pro-choice" and are truly surprised that pro-lifers are still active.
Still talking about what? About abortion, how it became legal, and how it has grown into a lucrative business for abortion providers; about women facing challenging pregnancies and sometimes facing the aftermath of terminating those pregnancies; about paying for it and subsidizing the industry. We're still talking because there is no way to shut down a debate when lives are at stake.
To the great dismay of abortion advocates, New Hampshire legislators in the past year have taken up a number of bills that touch on abortion. Every session has some abortion debate, but 2011-12 has been remarkable for the sheer volume of life-issue legislation. Most of the bills are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are based on Roe. With the exception of two measures to ban late-term abortion and "partial-birth" infanticide, the bills provide mere regulation, long-overdue and badly needed. One bill is simply an attempt to get the state to order abortion providers to report statistics.
New Hampshire currently is the Wild West where abortion law is concerned. Women's safety and public health policy would seem to call for a degree of regulation and oversight, even if one were to put aside the fact that each abortion takes a human life. Abortion advocates are loud and angry over each and every one of the bills, however, drawing no distinction among parental notification (enacted over a veto), funding restrictions, statistical reporting, and a late-term ban. To them, it's all one big attack on Choice, part of a larger effort to set women back.
This is worse than nonsense. What I see being set back are the rights of women and men who choose not to pay even indirectly for the operation of an abortion facility. I see people lobbying to keep abortion undocumented, so that public health officials will continue to be in the dark about how many New Hampshire women make this "choice" every year. I hear testimony to the need for eugenic abortion, which is a throwback to one of the 20th century's worst ideas. I hear women who should know better equate a 24-hour waiting period with an outright ban on abortion.
Both in New Hampshire and elsewhere, we need to meet this with more than hand-wringing and the occasional letter to the editor. I offer this blog as a tool and a guide to action for all who share my determination to bring an end to the carnage wrought by Roe. I will undoubtedly use the blog sometimes just to vent. At all times, though, I am mindful that if I do this right, I'll be reaching people who disagree with me. Persuasion is always possible. Of course, I have no doubt that someone over on the other side is working to persuade me right back. Fair enough.
I write as a woman who came of age in the years shortly after Roe v. Wade. When I was in high school and a dear friend "had" to have an abortion, I chipped in with some friends for the $250 cost. I found the idea of abortion regrettable & uncomfortable, but it was after all my friend's body & my friend's choice. Over the following five years, many experiences combined to leave me incapable of denying the humanity of the child in utero. The dignity of both mother and child are absolute, regardless of what any court may decide.
Just as the state rep who heads the Reproductive Rights Caucus is careful to mention that she's Catholic, I should be candid about my religious background. While raised Catholic, I spent most of my adolescence shrugging off religion. Later, it wasn't being Catholic that made me pro-life. It was recognizing the miracle of life that brought me back to professing the Catholic faith. This has been significant in more ways than I could have imagined when I was a young woman.
As for politics, I call myself a recovering Republican. I fall off the wagon now and then, but I am a registered "undeclared" voter, in New Hampshire parlance. The rest of the world knows me as "independent." It is true that nearly every candidate I support runs as a Republican. It is also true that GOP leaders tend to take pro-life voters for granted. By not signing up with the party, I can help whatever candidates I choose, and the party need not get annoyed with me for failing to back every candidate on the ticket.
So yes, we're still talking about this. Pro-lifers cannot be effective if they stay huddled together. I propose that we step out in faith and leaven the loaf of public discourse. Let's begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)