Eight New Hampshire state representatives will come before the Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs committee next Thursday to make their case for HR 6, a resolution marking the 40th anniversary of Roe. v. Wade. Are sponsors trying to commemorate the real Roe v. Wade or an imaginary one?
My advice to the courageous state representatives who will fight against this one: expose the contradictions. Your colleagues who are sponsoring this resolution have some explaining to do.
There’s what Roe says, and there’s what its partisans want it to say. Roe and the Supreme Court decisions based on it allow for informed consent laws, parental involvement for minors seeking abortion, regulation of late-term abortion, and a ban on partial-birth abortion. The sponsors of HR 6 have at one time or another come down against these measures, while claiming to support Roe.
Ironically, at nearly the same time as the hearing on HR 6, there will be a hearing down the hall on a bill for informed consent for women seeking abortion. Courts have ruled over and over again that carefully drafted informed consent statutes are constitutional. Yet the same reps who are sponsoring HR 6 will be scurrying down to the Judiciary committee a few minutes later to complain that informed consent is a thinly-veiled attempt to repeal Roe.
The resolution has three references to “safe and legal” abortion. New Hampshire requires no documentation that abortion is safe. The division of public health collects no reports of complications. I’ve heard a doctor tearfully testify in Concord to the horror of treating women years ago who were bleeding to death due to botched illegal abortions. He made no mention of botched legal ones. No one can say with certainty that those aren’t happening. As long as public health authorities decline to require meaningful data from abortion providers, lawmakers can pretend that women are safe. I don’t trust my health to that kind of wishful thinking.
Roe permits statistical collection, by the way. You won’t hear that from the sponsors of HR 6.
One of the resolution’s introductory statements is “violence against health care providers and restrictions on access to abortion endanger the lives of women and families and have continued to erode access to abortion.” Wow. Equating violence against abortion workers with legal regulation of abortion, right in the same sentence. Will a majority of the NH House go along with that?
And then there’s this statement from the resolution: “The 2012 elections sent a powerful and unmistakable message to federal and state elected officials all around the country that women do not want politicians to interfere in their personal medical decisions.” That’s revisionist history at best. To be charitable, though, I’ll take that provision of the resolution at face value. Does this mean that the sponsors are equally indignant about a politician-imposed health care plan, the “Affordable Care Act,” that forces Americans to subsidize medications and medical procedures to which they have religious objections?
Error knows no party, and this is a bipartisan resolution. With two Republicans and at least one Catholic among the sponsors, I have no doubt that Thursday’s hearing will feature claims that HR 6 reflects mainstream “moderate” thinking. Remember that such phony moderation has kept abortion providers in New Hampshire free from public-health scrutiny.
Remember as well, even though this will hardly prove persuasive to the sponsors, that such “moderation” rests on pitting pregnant women against their children. That is no way to develop constructive public policy.
This resolution is a celebration, not mere commemoration. One last piece of advice to representatives: make sure there’s a roll call.