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

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.

By vetoing HB 217, the fetal homicide bill, Governor Lynch has managed to get three things wrong at once. He has misread the bill, he has ignored the reasonable concerns of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and he has done what he can to make sure that drunk drivers and abusive partners are not held responsible for actions that put an end to a woman's wanted pregnancy. 

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.

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.

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:

• 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 legislative session runs through the end of June, but the state budget dominates the last weeks of a session. The life bills are likely to be dealt with soon.

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.

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.

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:

• 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.

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.

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.