A timely throwback video: “Bureau of Womanhood Conformity”

The team at the Susan B. Anthony List reminded me today of a canny little video they made a few years back, when the outgoing president and his appointees imposed the HHS mandate.  The video hits a nerve anew, in this week of the rescission of an invitation to pro-lifers by organizers of a so-called “Women’s March.” This week, it’s not a president speaking – but the Bureau of Womanhood Conformity sounds like it’s still in business.


 

Pro-life women have been disinvited from the “Women’s March”

Telling pro-life women to shut up and go away is a waste of time. Some people who don’t get that are about to be enlightened.

The “Women’s March” on Washington has rejected participation by New Wave Feminists, who are pro-life. First, the organizers ignored NWF, then just a couple of days ago agreed to list them as a participating group in the Women’s March, then yanked the invitation today after press coverage ensued and Twitter hit the fan.

You have probably heard of this planned “Women’s March,” which will take place next Saturday, January 21 in Washington. I refuse to drop the quotation marks, or link to any official site for it, since now I know for sure what I’ve suspected all along: the organizers are under the thumb of leading abortion advocates who don’t think pro-life women count as women. The “Women’s March” is supposedly a way to declare resistance to President-elect Trump (hey, I’ve been on that train for awhile, girls; catch up).

Now we know that while Trump might be the excuse for the march, he’s not the reason.

There will be a local march in Concord the same day, by the way. Pro-lifers will be present with or without an invitation. More about that at the end of this post.

NWF sought admission to the “Women’s March” as – wait for it – pro-life women. There was no concealment of the group’s reason for being, which is to be pro-life. The “Women’s March” is supposed to be about unity and action, after all, according to its promo material. The short-lived decision to welcome NWF prompted some press coverage, particularly by The Atlantic. Rage ensued, and NWF was disinvited, presumably relegating pro-life women back to their ghetto.

“Women’s March,” you are messing with people who have long memories and vibrant associations with very active social media accounts.

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa of NWF made a 28-second announcement on Facebook. Language alert (and I don’t blame her).

Destiny and NWF will be there anyway, “whether we are official partners or not.” Good.

The Life Matters Journal team feels the same way. That’s Aimee Murphy on the left in this Facebook video. “We will still be there with a great group of young feminists that stand for the rights of all human beings regardless of their circumstances….The reason that we are pro-life really hinges on an understanding of the equal dignity of human beings.”

Remember all this when you see what is bound to be massive coverage of the “Women’s March” on the 21st. Pro-life women were excluded by the organizers and are going to show up anyway.

I’m going to seek these women out at the March for Life in Washington on the 27th so I can thank them and encourage them in person.  They will be there.

Closer to home, the “Women’s March”-ette in Concord on the 21st has inspired a pro-life contingent that has been granted a permit to demonstrate on the sidewalk in front of the State House while the “Women’s March”-ette takes place on State House plaza. I have it on good authority that there was resistance on the part of the City of Concord to issuing the permit to the pro-lifers, but one was finally issued (I believe the word “attorney” entered the conversation at one point, but that’s secondhand information).

The permit, by the way, requires that the pro-lifers not impede pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk.  Abortion advocates demonstrated in Concord this weekend how that’s done.

On Martin Luther King Day, of all days, pro-life women have been told they’re unwelcome at a “Women’s March.” Let that sink in.

Fortunately, pro-life women don’t need anyone’s permission to do their thing.

Gallery: New Hampshire March for Life 2017

Photos by Ellen Kolb except as noted in captions.

For more coverage of the 2017 New Hampshire March for Life, see the 40 Days for Life – Manchester Facebook album.

New Hampshire pro-lifers gather on State House plaza. Photo by Phyllis Woods.
Students from Northeast Catholic College came from Warner to march.
Jane Cormier of New Hampshire Right to Life led the speakers on State House plaza.
Fr. Christian Tutor of NHRTL Education Trust, flanked by NH Knights of Columbus.
WICX radio host interviews Northeast Catholic College president George Harne on State House plaza.
Abortion advocates outside the Equality Center (formerly known as the Feminist Health Center) clustered at the corner of Main & Thompson streets to counter the pro-life march. Photo by Phyllis Woods.
Benjamin Pellerin and Eric McNail of WICX radio (102.7, Concord) set up to broadcast live from the post-march rally.
Featured speaker at post-march rally was Jennifer Lahl, a nurse and the founder of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.
Kathy Peterson with a life-affirming message.


 

New contact info for N.H.’s federal reps

Update to the Hundred Days assignments: our federal representatives have been sworn in, and here are the ways to contact them.

U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

To send an email, use the contact form on her Senate web page: http://www.shaheen.senate.gov/contact/contact-jeanne

Washington, D.C. office: 506 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510, phone 202-224-2841.

Sen. Shaheen has six offices in New Hampshire: Manchester, Nashua, Keene, Dover,  Berlin, and Claremont. Addresses and phone numbers are on her web site.

You can also communicate with her via Facebook and Twitter, @SenatorShaheen

U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan
Sen. Maggie Hassan (nh.gov photo)

Sen. Hassan’s Senate web page isn’t online at this writing; I’ll update this post when her site goes live. Her site will include a list of New Hampshire offices.

Washington, D.C. office: B85 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510, phone 202-224-3324.

Facebook and Twitter: @SenatorHassan

Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (First Congressional District)
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (congress.gov photo)

Email her via the contact page at her Congressional site, https://shea-porter.house.gov/contact.

Washington, D.C. office: 1530 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515, 202-225-5456.

Dover office: 660 Central Ave., Dover NH 03820. Expect more offices to open in the coming months.

Facebook and Twitter: @RepSheaPorter

Congresswoman Ann McLane Kuster (Second Congressional District)
Rep. Annie Kuster (photo from congress.gov)

Email contact form: https://kuster.house.gov/contact/email-me 

Washington, D.C. office: 137 Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC 20515, 202-225-5206.

Nashua office: 70 E. Pearl Street, Nashua NH 03060, 603-595-2006

Concord office: 18 N. Main Street, 4th floor, Concord NH 03301, 603-226-1002

Littleton Office: 33 Main St., Suite 202, Littleton NH 03561, 603-444-7700.

Tweet to her: @RepAnnieKuster


 

“Euthanasia Deception” screening 1/21 in Rochester

I’ve seen & recommend this film, The Euthanasia Deception, produced by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Rochester-area readers have a chance to see it January 21 at Our Lady of the Holy Rosary church in Rochester, New Hampshire. Details are in the PDF embedded below.

Download (PDF, 191KB)



 

N.H. journalism starts 2017 on the wrong foot

You’d think I could get through my first hot chocolate of 2017 without being moved to post here. Nope, thanks to the New Hampshire Sunday News, a Union Leader publication.

I’ve been a subscriber for decades and will remain one. The editorial page has retained a pro-life tone through changes in staff. Someone on the news side was a bit self-indulgent today, though, employing this subhead in an article by Kevin Landrigan and Dave Solomon on the upcoming legislative session.

“New efforts to restrict abortion services.”

OK, you have my attention, I thought as I sipped and savored my New Year’s mug of chocolate. I read on, curious about the use of the plural “efforts” when I’m aware of only one bill to limit post-viability abortions.

I shoulda known. The buffer zone and fetal homicide are grossly miscast as “efforts to restrict abortion services.” Here is the relevant portion of the article, page A8, carried over from the front page’s “State House to take on drugs, guns, money.” I’ll hold my remarks until after the excerpt, much as the content begs for in-line comments.

The new Republican governor is already well-known for his on-again, off-again, on-again relationship with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

Sununu calls himself “pro-choice,” which was why his deciding vote to block state grants to Planned Parenthood in 2015 became such a flash point in the campaign.

Less than a year later, Sununu got the chance for a makeup call on the matter and reversed field, endorsing grants for Planned Parenthood.

Sununu had opposed them last year due to the allegations that other locals of Planned Parenthood had paid for fetal body parts, allegations that were never taken to court to be proved.

What is less recognized but worth watching next year is whether Sununu gives any political support to restrictions on abortion laws that he did endorse in 2016.

For example, Sununu said he would sign into law the repeal of the still-unenforced law that requires there be a buffer zone around abortion clinics so that their patrons aren’t harassed by pro-life protesters.

Further in a mailing to pro-life voters, Sununu said he favors the so-called Health Care Freedom of Conscience Act that permits all employees of health care providers to refuse to work or counsel anyone regarding services that they morally oppose. 

Those services include abortion, birth control, stem-cell research and euthanasia.

Finally, Sununu said that unlike the last two governors who vetoed such measures, he would embrace legislation that treats an unborn fetus as a person when it comes to the state’s homicide laws. 

“I need your help to restore strong, value-based governance to our state,” Sununu wrote to pro-life voters days before his Nov. 8 victory.

Pro-choice advocates remain hopeful they can convince the legislature not to pass these measures.

The subhead is astounding, more so when you realize that the post-viability bill did not rate a mention.

One more time, folks: the buffer zone law does not protect abortion access, and repealing it would not restrict abortion access. “Harassment” can be addressed under disorderly conduct laws, which have not been used against New Hampshire pro-life witnesses in recent years. The failure to use such laws before infringing on the First Amendment is what doomed the Massachusetts law struck down by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in McCullen v. Coakley.

Further, the unenforced law would not “require… there be a buffer zone around abortion clinics.” The law as written gives abortion facility management sole discretion on whether, when, and where a zone may be posted.

The experience in other states with buffer zone laws in effect indicates that abortions go on regardless of the presence or absence of a buffer. The presence or absence of such a law has no effect on any right to abort.

Also under the subhead mentioning “restrict” is a brief mention of conscience legislation, as though respect for conscience rights means a restriction on abortion and is therefore a bad thing.

Finally, fetal homicide legislation finds itself under a subheading about “restrict[ing]” abortion services. The writers decline to use the words fetal homicide legislation, preferring treats an unborn fetus as a person when it comes to the state’s homicide laws.

Fetal homicide laws are on the books in more than three dozen states. Abortion is legal in all those states. No fetal homicide law, including the versions introduced in New Hampshire over the past quarter-century, would affect ANY decision made with the consent of the pregnant woman – including abortion.

That bears repeating. Fetal homicide laws are NOT applicable in any case where the death of the fetus occurs with the mother’s consent. Fetal homicide laws have nothing to do with abortion. 

Fetal homicide legislation gives prosecutors the right to seek a homicide charge against people like drunk drivers and abusive partners whose actions cause the death of a fetus, against the will of the mother.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court in 2009 – that’s going on eight years ago – had to overturn the conviction of a man whose drunk driving resulted in the death of Dominick Emmons. The unanimous Court concluded at that time,  “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.”

A minor point, by comparison: the writers of the article mention two vetoes of fetal homicide legislation. There has been only one, by Governor John Lynch in 2012.

I doubt today’s news coverage would seem half so egregious had it not been under the words “new efforts to restrict abortion services.” Buffer zone repeal, fetal homicide laws, and respect for conscience rights don’t amount to restrictions.

Should you be moved to comment on the Sunday News coverage, you can leave a comment online under the article, reply to the paper’s Twitter or Facebook links to the piece, or email a letter to the editor via letters@unionleader.com.

 


a Granite State pro-life blog by Ellen Kolb