State House 2020 Preview

New Hampshire legislators have filed legislative service requests for 2020, indicating the kinds of bills we’re likely to see when House and Senate convene in January. To date, 795 LSRs are on record, and more may be on the way.

Among the proposals:

  • Born-alive legislation, to ensure that children who survive attempted abortion are given appropriate medical support.
  • “Prohibiting abortion in certain cases”: LSRs can be very vague, sometimes intentionally so, with clarity and precise language coming only when the bill based on the LSR is finally released. The sponsors on this one look encouraging in any case.
  • A heartbeat bill. Iowa passed a heartbeat bill in 2018 that was struck down as unconstitutional earlier this year. Whether NH’s proposal is identical remains to be seen.

Then there’s LSR 2600, which should be setting off alarms:

“[R]elating to reproductive medical decisions. Providing that the state shall not infringe or unduly inconvenience the right of reproductive medical decisions.”

That’s not a proposed bill. It’s a proposed amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution. Sponsors thus far: Reps. Timothy Smith, Timothy Harrigan, Catherine Sofikitis, Sherry Frost, Chuck Grassie, Heidi Hamer, and Arthur Ellison.

I’ve been concerned that the privacy amendment recently added to the state constitution might be misinterpreted to protect the abortion industry. That’s nothing compared to this proposed amendment, which would embed abortion unambiguously into New Hampshire’s constitution in the guise of “reproductive medical decisions.”

The texts of bills should be available next month, with hearings beginning in January.

Follow-up in Dover

Yesterday’s post shared the news about a classic grassroots pro-life organizing effort in response to a pro-abortion exhibition at a Dover, NH arts venue. It seems that last night’s peaceful witness attracted even more participants than the first one a few days ago.

From a public post on Facebook from Phyllis Woods, who led the effort: “The experience of seeing nearly seventy prolife defenders come out on a Friday night to stand in witness to the truth that giving birth to a child is normal and abortion is anything but normal, was moving and heartwarming for me and I am both humbled and proud to be counted among them.”

Phyllis has been inspiring me for a long time. Looks like she’s not done yet.

Normalize Life: Peaceful Witness in Dover

Friday, October 18 at 5:30 p.m. – just a few hours from when this post is published – peaceful pro-life witness will be going on outside the Dover Art Center, 1 Washington Street, Dover NH. Read on for what it’s about and how you can participate.

Phyllis Woods of Dover, NH saw that the Art Center in Dover was planning an exhibition intended to – ready for this? – “normalize” abortion. She didn’t wring her hands or try to close the place down. Instead, she sent out the word to pro-life allies: will you come pray with me?

They came. The day the exhibit opened, the pro-life witnesses were on the public sidewalk outside the Art Center. They didn’t try to block anything. They were there to “normalize” life. They’ll be there again today, Friday, October 18, for the exhibit’s official reception. All who are committed to peaceful, non-confrontational pro-life witness are welcome.

By the way, Phyllis has caught some flak on her social media. Feel free to chime in with something edifying.

(Photos in this post are by Phyllis Woods and are used with permission.)

Pro-abortion political action groups target local races

In Manchester and Epping, with elections coming up within the next few weeks, candidates with pro-life voting records are facing opposition from abortion-friendly political action groups.

EMILY’s List, which according to its website “recruits, trains and supports pro-choice Democratic women candidates at every level of the ballot,” has made endorsements in both campaigns. Planned Parenthood has jumped into one of the races, according to a report from the candidate.

In a special election for state representative from Epping (Rockingham district 9), EMILY’s List has endorsed Naomi Andrews. Andrews is challenging former Republican state representative Michael Vose. The Epping special election is coming up October 8.

As in 2017, EMILY’s List has endorsed incumbent Manchester mayor Joyce Craig. Craig is being challenged by Victoria Sullivan. The weekend of September 28, Sullivan reported on Facebook and in an email that she was cast as “standing against women and families” in literature distributed by Planned Parenthood. The mayoral election is on November 5.

As state representatives, Sullivan and Vose both supported fetal homicide legislation and abortion statistics. They opposed the anti-First-Amendment buffer zone law. They voted against a motion to table (and thus kill) discussion of post-viability abortion regulation.

So Sullivan and Vose support the First Amendment, support collection and reporting of aggregate public health data, support Sarah and Griffin’s Law, and are unwilling to cut off debate about regulating late-term abortion. Their opponents apparently take a different view.

Why would a national PAC like EMILY’s List get involved in local races? From its website: “…we’re not only building a farm team, but we’re also putting strong women in charge of decisions that affect women and families every day —”

…But only if those “strong women” are pro-choice [sic] Democrats.

The highly competitive nature of the Epping race is reflected in candidate fundraising and expenditures. For the $100-a-year job, Andrews has thus far spent $8310, with $4744 still on hand, according to her most recent financial report filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of State. Vose has reported spending $6869, leaving $2366 still on hand.

For more information and contact information on Victoria Sullivan’s campaign for mayor of Manchester, check out the campaign’s Facebook page. For more information on Michael Vose’s campaign for state representative in Epping, see his Facebook page.

Budget compromise on abortion funding: no direct, plenty of indirect

Edited 9/28/19: Governor’s signing is still pending, awaiting the bill’s enrollment process.

As of September 25, New Hampshire has a new budget for the coming biennium. In a compromise overwhelmingly approved by legislators and soon to be signed by Governor Sununu, the budget includes language preventing the direct funding of abortion using state dollars.

Or rather, more-or-less preventing. More on that below. But for now, my hat’s off to the House and Senate minority leadership teams (GOP) who refused to cave in to the majority’s desire to open the door to direct funding.

Direct abortion funding: not this time

No direct funding: that’s a depressingly low bar to clear. I work and pray for the day when there’s no need to jump for joy over something that ought to be fundamental policy. I likewise work and pray for the day when no party thinks direct funding is a good idea.

In the no-direct-funding provision, budget negotiators added a sneaky little clause that bears watching (emphasis added):  “Unless specifically appropriated in the biennial budget, no state funds awarded by the department of health and human services to a reproductive health care facility, as defined in RSA 132:37, I, shall be used to provide abortion services.”

There should be no “unless.”

In any case, the no-direct-funding provision was welcomed by Governor Sununu, who continues to draw a line between funding abortion and funding abortion providers.

indirect abortion funding: more than ever

The political trade-off for getting the no-direct-funding language was to hand additional funds to the state’s largest abortion provider. You can see why I haven’t used the word “victory” to describe the budget compromise.

Every public dollar that goes to an abortion provider, even for non-abortion work, helps keep the abortion side of the business going.

In an earlier post, I outlined the situation with Title X federal family planning funds in the state budget. Several New Hampshire family planning contractors are also abortion providers, principally Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. When the federal government recently enacted the Protect Life Rule barring abortion providers from receiving Title X funds, PPNNE announced that it would leave the federal Title X program rather than give up doing abortions.

In the state budget compromise, there’s a huge increase in the family planning appropriation from the state general fund, compared to last biennium’s budget. That increase exists to offset PPNNE’s “loss” of federal funds under the Protect Life Rule. PPNNE and a few smaller contractors voluntarily surrendered those federal dollars in order to keep their abortion businesses going.

In other words, abortion providers will now get more state dollars precisely because they’re abortion providers. The dollars are appropriated for “family planning,” but the increase over the previous biennium isn’t going to the Title X contractors who are abortion-free. The increase is going to the abortion providers.

And that’s what political compromise looks like this week. “It’s the best we’re going to get,” I was told by a source close to the negotiations. That’s true, for now.