Senate committee to take up assisted suicide bill April 24

~ Ellen Kolb ~ Leave a comment

EDITED to reflect venue change announced on General Court website.

New Hampshire’s latest assisted suicide bill will have its hearing at the Senate Health and Human Services committee on Wednesday, April 24, at 10 a.m. in room 103 of the State House in Concord. HB 1283-FN passed the House earlier on a 179-176 vote.

Here are some reminders about the bill and the policy behind it, followed by the details you’ll need in order to weigh in on the measure.

Points to ponder

  • HB 1283-FN relies on dishonest language that doesn’t belong in New Hampshire law.
  • It would turn suicide into a form of medical care, giving insurers and other third-party payers an incentive to favor it over authentic care, which is likely to be more expensive.
  • It reinforces an attitude of “better dead than disabled.”
  • It undermines suicide prevention outreach to vulnerable individuals.
  • No amendment can “fix” this bill. HB 1283-FN needs to be voted “inexpedient to legislate.”

“An act relative to end of life options,” says the title of the bill. The last assisted suicide bill in New Hampshire, in 2020, used the words “patients’ rights.” Then and now, sponsors and supporters are not happy to hear the term “assisted suicide” used instead. Suicide is the deliberate taking of one’s own life. Prescribing and dispensing a drug with the intention of facilitating that act is assisting suicide. Hence, the act so carefully authorized in HB 1283-FN is indeed assisted suicide.

HB 1283-FN has a provision (“Death certificate” section, paragraph II) that the death certificate for a person whose suicide is committed with medical assistance shall not list “suicide” as cause of death. HB 1283-FN is a mandate to health care providers to falsify death certificates.

It’s also a gilt-edged invitation to insurers to treat assisted suicide as medical care. Compare the cost of palliative care for a patient – possibly a complex regimen of which pharmaceuticals are only one element – with the cost of a lethal dose of drugs. The insidious financial pressure toward the cheaper option would be overwhelming for insurers and patients alike.

It’s no coincidence that among the most passionate opponents of HB 1283-FN are people living with chronic debilitating diseases or irreversible disabilities. They know they are the patients who are most vulnerable to pressure. Lisa Beaudoin, longtime advocate in New Hampshire for the rights of disabled persons, wrote about the bill in an op-ed published in February. “Physician-assisted suicide is insidiously becoming normalized as a legitimate option instead of doing the hard work of creating safe, equitable end-of-life care….In April 2023, four disability rights groups filed a CA lawsuit alleging California’s 7-year-old End of Life Option Act, originally designed to allow terminally ill people to end their life, puts people with disabilities at greater risk of being coerced into seeking assisted suicide because we know from the research that healthcare providers undervalue life with a disability.”

Representatives of veterans’ groups were among more than a thousand people who registered opposition to the bill before its House hearing. Recall the words of a representive of the State Veteran’s Advisory Committee: “this bill scares our members right out of their socks.” We’re all familiar with efforts to reduce the appalling rate of suicide among veterans. Those efforts arise from the belief – the fact – that each human life is valuable and worth caring for. HB 1283-FN would turn that belief on its head. It would establish as a matter of public policy that the value of life is situational and subjective.

And this is what the bill’s chief sponsor at the House hearing called a “conservative” measure.

No, thanks.

Preparing for the Senate hearing

The goal is a committee recommendation of “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL).

You can refer to this blog’s Legislative Tool Kit page for more information about contacting elected officials and about procedures for hearings. Always be polite, and never let them say they didn’t hear from you.

Your presence at the hearing will make an impression. We saw at the House hearing what can happen when people show up to try to stop bad legislation. Let’s keep up the effort. Expect a crowd. Seating may be limited. If you can’t stay for long, try to be there for the first hour, beginning at 10 a.m.

This hearing’s scheduled to be in room 103 of the State House.

The members of the Senate Health and Human Services committee are Sens. Regina Birdsell (R-Hampstead), Kevin Avard (R-Nashua), Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro; also Senate President), Rebecca Whitley (D-Hopkinton), and Suzanne Prentiss (D-West Lebanon).

You can sign in at the hearing on sheets that will be available near the door of the hearing room. You’ll be asked to provide your name, address, the name of any group you’re representing – and don’t forget to put a check mark in the “opposed” column. Even if you don’t give any oral or written testimony, your name on that sign-in sheet will have an impact.

You can sign in online to register your opposition to the bill right now. The online form will be available through the day of the hearing. Go online to the Senate’s “remote sign-in” page and follow the instructions. You may attach a written statement if you wish, but you don’t need to provide one in order to sign in. You may also email testimony to the committee members via the link on the committee’s page.

Links to my earlier coverage of HB 1283-FN: Assisted suicide bill draws a crowd, Assisted suicide bill scheduled for House vote, House passes assisted suicide bill

Out of nowhere, a stats bill – with a problem

~ Ellen Kolb ~ Leave a comment

I once (maybe twice) said that if New Hampshire legislators ever passed an abortion statistics law, I’d never show up at the State House again, out of sheer gratitude at the victory. Someone seems determined to see if I was serious.

How did we get a statistics bill so late in the legislative session?

I had thought any future deep dives into legislation would come via this blog’s newsletter, but this one calls for lengthy comment. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney (and neither are most of our legislators): a bill introduced by abortion advocates has been amended into a stats bill, only with the abortion advocates’ language still in there. I confess I never saw that coming.

SB 461 as introduced was meant to weaken the Fetal Life Protection Act (NH RSA 329:44, with RSA standing for “revised statutes annotated”). RSA 329:49, just a few lines down from FLPA, says that nothing in the law shall be construed to create a right to abortion. I take that to mean that FLPA leaves pre-24-week abortions legal, but doesn’t create any “right” that can be expanded by a court, as long as RSA 329:49 stays in effect. SB 461 started out as a simple repeal of RSA 329:49. It was sponsored by a who’s who of New Hampshire abortion absolutists, led by all ten Democratic state senators.

So where’s the problem?

A funny thing happened when SB 461 got to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Along party lines, the committee replaced the original language of SB 461 with language establishing a program to collect abortion statistics. The original sponsors expressed vehement disapproval, to no avail. The Senate passed SB 461 as amended on a 14-9 party-line vote, with Democratic Sen. D’Allesandro absent.

So there’s an abortion statistics bill on its way to the New Hampshire House, with a hearing coming up in the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs (HHS) committee sometime soon.

There’s just one problem with that. The amended version of SB 461 still repeals the statute saying that nothing in the law creates a right to abortion. Abortion absolutists might be apoplectic about seeing a statistics bill in the works, but the original goal of SB 461 is well on its way to being realized.

I don’t ascribe bad faith to the senators (all Republicans) who supported SB 461 as amended. There are strong advocates for women’s health in that group, and health is what abortion statistics laws are about. I just can’t figure out why we need to undermine FLPA in order to get an abortion statistics law.

That’s why when I sign up online to register my opinion on the bill when it goes to House HHS, I’ll probably sign in as “neutral.” I’ll add a written statement as simple as I can make it: I am pro-stats, while being against repeal of the statutory provision that nothing in RSA 329 creates a right to abortion. That ought to be what House HHS hears over and over again: yes to stats; no to repealing RSA 329:49.

Such nuances are lost on abortion absolutists who oppose the bill as passed by the Senate. They’ll probably be lost on the journalists who will report the support/oppose numbers from the online sign-ins. They might also be lost on some pro-life allies. So be it. I’m uneasy about leaving pro-abortion language nestled inside what is meant to be a pro-life bill.

What does it mean to collect abortion statistics?

As has been the case since long before this blog came into being, New Hampshire does not report any statistics to the Centers for Disease Control about induced abortions – how many occur, how many are late-term, how many are for eugenic reasons or for maternal health, how many women experience complications, how many minors are brought across state lines for abortion, and so on. This sets New Hampshire apart from the 47 other states who provide aggregate data to the CDC, which every few years publishes an Abortion Surveillance report in the interest of public health.

“Aggregate” means that the data is NOT personally identifiable. No woman’s name is handed to the state or to the CDC. SB 461 as amended starts out with that assurance. Any claim you hear that SB 461 would name-and-shame women is nonsense.

I recall a 2020 state senate campaign where an incumbent senator was accused of being opposed to doctor-patient confidentiality – because he supported a statistics bill. Again: nonsense.

What is and isn’t in SB 461 as amended

SB 461, ignoring the troublesome provision I cite above, is actually a pretty stripped-down stats bill, which makes the reaction of abortion advocates that much harder to take seriously.

It doesn’t call for any reporting to the CDC. It requires abortion providers to give their abortion data to the medical facility in which the abortion is performed, which in turn will report the information to the state Department Health and Human Services, which will then provide a report of statistical data to legislators annually.

It calls on abortion providers to note the date and place the abortion was performed, the age and state of residence of the pregnant patient, gestational age of the fetus, method used to perform the abortion, and any prescription written for the purpose of inducing abortion. That’s it. At least SB 461 as amended would be an attempt to learn how many abortions take place under the direction of “health care providers,” independent of the anecdotal information handed out by lobbyists.

No mention of penalties for failure to report. No mention of maternal race or ethnicity which might help policymakers pinpoint communities where there are disproportionately poor post-abortion outcomes. No mention of collecting information on morbidity and mortality correlating to abortion.

And still, abortion advocates are crying foul. It’s enough to make one wonder if women’s health is really what they’re concerned about.

I wish SB 461 as amended were something I could support with a full-throated cheer, even with its bare-bones requirements. But with the repeal of language that says nothing in the law shall be construed to create a right to abortion, I just can’t. Yes to stats, no to repeal of RSA 329:49.

Side note: opponents of abortion stats were fans of Covid stats

I reported in 2021 that House Democrats called for collection of statistics on Covid infections. They were seeking information on the extent of infections, not personally-identifiable data that would violate patient privacy.

As I wrote back then, “That’s something to keep in mind the next time an abortion statistics bill is introduced. The same ‘Democratic leaders’ (and any likeminded Republicans) calling for COVID-19-positive stats ‘which wouldn’t invade personal privacy’ could explain their aversion to abortion stats subject to the same privacy protections….Maybe COVID will prompt some reconsideration about what it takes to collect and report aggregate public health data that protects individual privacy.” Maybe such reconsideration never happened, but it should.

header image by Pexels.com

    UPDATE and action item: reconsideration vote sought in House on assisted suicide bill

    ~ Ellen Kolb ~ 1 Comment

    [PLEASE NOTE: the reconsideration motion reported below failed on March 28.]

    In the wake of the narrow approval of an assisted suicide bill by the New Hampshire House on March 21, Rep. Mike Ouellet of Colebrook has filed a motion to reconsider the vote. This means that if the House accepts the reconsideration motion, a new vote will be taken on HB 1283-FN. The House’s next session is on March 28.

    What you can do: before March 28, contact your state representatives and ask them to vote YES on reconsideration of HB 1283-FN, and then vote NO on any ought-to-pass (OTP) or ought-to-pass-with-amendment (OTP/A) motion on the same bill.

    Yes, I mean state representatives. This reconsideration motion keeps the bill away from the Senate until the House acts on it.

    I’ve provided this information in an email newsletter format as well, which you can forward to likeminded friends.

    A few things to keep in mind

    Showing up matters. Assisted suicide won by three votes the other day. Sixteen reps had unexcused absences from the vote; another 24 were excused. Just a few of those reps could have made a difference.

    One of my town’s reps told me that he has gotten more emails and calls on the assisted suicide bill than on any other piece of legislation this year. I’m sure that’s the case for other reps, too. This underscores the need to be brief, clear, and polite in your communication; reps simply have no time for more. Look up your reps’ contact information on the General Court website.

    There is absolutely no amendment that can “fix” HB 1283-FN. YES on reconsideration, then REJECT the bill itself, in whatever form it comes to the House floor. The only good outcome will be an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) vote.

    Do not assume that your reps who voted against assisted suicide will do so again. They are under enormous pressure. Please THANK your reps who got the first vote right, and ask them to stand strong. Please ENCOURAGE your reps who supported the bill to change their minds. Find the earlier roll call on HB 1283-FN at this link on the General Court website; look at the box on the page under “Roll calls” and click on “OTPA.” A “Nay” vote was AGAINST the bill (good); “Yea” was for it.

    Use the words “assisted suicide” to describe what the bill allows. Sponsors call it “end-of-life-options” or “medical aid in dying.” It is a bill to allow prescribers to provide a lethal dose of drugs for a person to self-administer. That’s suicide.

    Cornerstone Action will lead a rally at 7:20 a.m. outside the State House on Thursday morning, March 28, before the House’s 9 a.m. session. From their event announcement: “…the bill to legalize state-sanctioned suicide will be put on the House floor for reconsideration (a second vote!) on 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝟐𝟖𝐭𝐡. This is our opportunity to stop this dangerous proposal in its tracks and all Granite Staters for Suicide Prevention must mobilize to protect our society’s most vulnerable! Signs will be available and you are also encouraged to make your own. Note: signs with metal or wooden sticks cannot enter the building. Meet in front of the State House at 𝟕:𝟐𝟎 𝐚.𝐦. to rally against HB 1283 and send our representatives a powerful message that Granite Staters DO NOT support normalizing suicide in New Hampshire!”

    From the NH Coalition for Suicide Prevention, a video worth sharing: https://fb.watch/q-1aQ9W_nh/

    New Hampshire House passes assisted suicide bill; next stop: Senate

    ~ Ellen Kolb ~ 1 Comment

    Assisted suicide proponents scored a victory as the New Hampshire House today passed HB 1283-FN on a 179-176 vote, The measure will now go to the Senate on a date yet to be determined.

    The ill-named “end-of-life options” bill was characterized by co-sponsor Rep. Marjorie Smith (D-Durham) as “a toe in the waters” at the bill’s House hearing. Apparently, 179 representatives are fine with that.

    Supporting this bill meant rejecting the voices of more than a thousand people who signed in online against it when the Judiciary committee held its hearing. It meant ignoring the New Hampshire Coalition for Suicide Prevention (zerosuicidesnh.org), a broad alliance of veterans’ groups, advocates for the rights of Granite Staters with disabilities, mental health professionals, and faith-based providers of human services.

    Fortunately, the coalition’s participants don’t get discouraged easily. Already, they’re preparing to appeal to senators.

    Breakdown of the vote

    Details of the vote are on the General Court website. (Look on the left side of that page for Roll Calls; the relevant one is “OTP/A.”) The motion was Ought to Pass with Amendment, which included the Judiciary Committee’s recommended amendment leaving the substance of the bill unchanged.

    I see that seven of my town’s reps voted Nay, and that means I have seven thank-yous to write. Please do the same for your own reps who opposed the bill.

    Party affiliations

    It wasn’t a straight party-line vote. While most Democrats supported the bill, 33 opposed it. On the other hand, while most Republicans opposed the bill, 36 supported it.

    Republican Speaker of the House Sherman Packard handed the gavel to Deputy Speaker Steven Smith in order to cast a Nay vote.

    Unexcused absences: a few more votes would have changed the outcome

    Twenty-four representatives had excused absences, which means they reported to the House Clerk that they missed the session due to illness, important business, or death in the family.

    But how about the 16 reps marked “Not Excused” in the official roll call? Where were they? I don’t know their circumstances; let their constituents ask them. What’s indisputable is that on a bill with a three-vote margin of victory, these reps could have made a difference. The roll call posted on the General Court website as of 9:20 p.m. on the day of the vote lists the following reps as being “not excused” (name, party, town, county/district):

    Richard Beaudoin (R-Gilford, Belknap 6), Amy Bradley (D-Manchester, Hillsborough 41), Jacob Brouillard (R-Nottingham, Rockingham 1), Gerri Cannon (D-Somersworth, Strafford 12), Matthew Coulon (R-Pike, Grafton 5), Linda DiSilvestro (D-Manchester , Hillsborough 17), Sean Durkin (R-Northumberland, Coos 1), Jason Gerhard (R-Franklin/Northfield, Merrimack 25), Heidi Hamer (D-Manchester, Hillsborough 19), David Huot (D-Laconia , Belknap 5), Cassandra Levesque (D-Barrington, Strafford 4), Nikki McCarter (R-Belmont, Belknap 8), Andrew Prout (R-Hudson, Hillsborough 13), Jeffrey Rich (D-Somersworth, Strafford 12), Jared Sullivan (D-Bethlehem/Franconia, Grafton 2), Linda Tanner (D-Georges Mills, Sullivan 5),

    I hope their constituents will reach out to them and open up some lines of communication. Tell your stories. Perhaps those stories will prompt a constructive vote someday.

    Next steps

    The Senate hearing for the assisted suicide bill will be announced in the Senate calendar and online in the coming weeks. As there was on the House side, there will be an online sign-in form, which will be available as soon as the hearing is scheduled. It’s not too early to contact your own senator and express your opposition to the bill.

    Resources to view and share

    The Concord Monitor published an op-ed from Lisa Beaudoin, longtime New Hampshire advocate for the rights of people with disabilities: “Physician-assisted suicide is insidiously becoming normalized as a legitimate option instead of doing the hard work of creating safe, equitable end-of-life care.”

    Robert Dunn, public policy director for the Diocese of Manchester, testified to the House Judiciary committee on how assisted suicide legislation is inconsistent with our state constitution’s affirmation of the common good. The two-minute video is on YouTube.

    Steven Wade of the Brain Injury Association of New Hampshire has a short blog post at zerosuicidesnh.org that outlines briefly the major problems with HB 1283: “Assisted Suicide Open the Wrong Door.“

    Lori Safford wrote about her Christian faith and how it guides her approach to HB 1283: “As tempting as it is to try legislating pain away, I hope Granite State Christians will look at this issue through the lens of faith and join me in affirming the value of human life.” (linked at nhcornerstone.org)

    header image: pexels.com