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
Showing posts with label partial birth abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partial birth abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
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, 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)