Category Archives: New Hampshire politics

Fetal homicide: nudge the committee

If you want to see fetal homicide legislation pass in New Hampshire this year, you might want to send a friendly emailed nudge to the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. Brief, polite, nothing cut-and-pasted: recommend Ought to Pass on SB 66, without weakening the bill’s language. You’ll certainly want to send an email if one of your own reps is on the committee (see the table below).

The committee earlier this year voted to retain HB 156, one of two 2017 versions of the legislation. “Retain” means the committee will have to make a recommendation one way or another to the House next January. In short, “retain” is a delay. (Here’s a reminder of what happens without fetal homicide legislation.)

Now the same committee has to decide what to recommend with the other fetal homicide bill, SB 66. The hearing is past. The committee vote has yet to be taken. Today, in a comment on someone’s Facebook post, a member of the Criminal Justice committee made an alarming observation.

“You ca[n]’t believe the number of emails I get from people that are opposed to the pre-born (fetal) homicide bill.”

I am willing to bet that most opposition isn’t coming from people concerned about the point in pregnancy when such a law could be used: 20 weeks in SB 66, 8 weeks in HB 156. Opposition is coming from people who hate the very idea of fetal homicide laws.

Opponents are pushing for an Inexpedient to Legislate vote from the committee. Sounds like they’re generating a serious number of emails.

Perhaps the members of the Criminal Justice committee need some more emails, this time from people saying “YES” to SB 66. This will be good practice for when the bill gets to the House floor, as it will unless the committee goes for another “retain” vote.

Here are the names of committee members. I’ve included party identification and the towns in each district, along with email addresses as listed on the House web site. The committee as a whole can be reached at HouseCriminalJusticeandPublicSafety@leg.state.nh.us. If you see your own rep’s name below, though, send a customized email and identify yourself as a constituent.  Be sure you view the entire table; there are 21 names.

nametowns representedemail address
Beth Rodd (D)Bradford, HennikerBeth.Rodd@leg.state.nh.us
Bonnie Ham (R)Lincoln, Livermore, Waterville Valley, Woodstockbdham@roadrunner.com
Carolyn Gargasz (R)Holliscarolyn.gargasz@leg.state.nh.us
Dave Testerman (R)Franklin wards 1& 2, and Hilldave@sanbornhall.net
David Welch (R)Hampstead, Kingstonv-chcj@outlook.com
Delmar Burridge (D)Keene wards 1-5dburridge@ne.rr.com
Dennis Fields (R)Sanbornton, Tiltondennis.fields@leg.state.nh.us
Dennis Green (R)Hampstead, KingstonDennis.Green@leg.state.nh.us
Frank Sapareto (R)Derrysapareto@comcast.net
Jody McNally (R)Rochester ward 3mcnally_jody_usmc@yahoo.com
John Burt (R)Deering, Goffstown, Wearejohn.burt@leg.state.nh.us
Kate Murray (D)New Castle, RyeKate.Murray@leg.state.nh.us
Larry Gagne (R)Manchester ward 6lgagne25@comcast.net
Laura Pantelakos (D)Portsmouth ward 1lcpantelakos@comcast.net
Linn Opderbecke (D)Dover ward 3no email listed; phone 742-4119
Richard O'Leary (D)Manchester ward 6no email listed; phone 668-0069
Robert "Renny" Cushing (D)Hamptonrenny.cushing@leg.state.nh.us
Robert Fesh (R)Derryrmfesh@comcast.net
Roger Berube (D)Somersworth wards 1, 3, 4, 5, and Rollinsfordrogerrberube@hotmail.com
Scott Wallace (R)Brentwood, Danville, FremontScott.Wallace@leg.state.nh.us
Shannon Chandley (D)AmherstShannon.Chandley.NH@aol.com

 


 

Another writer’s view: “Anti-Trafficking Task Force in N.H.?”

Darlene Pawlik (photo: thedarlingprincess.com)

Recommended reading: make your way over to Darlene Pawlik’s blog, The Darling Princess, for a critical look at an anti-human-trafficking task force in New Hampshire. Darlene is on target with her concerns about the “New Hampshire Human Trafficking Collaborative Task Force Advisory Committee” and its recent hire, a woman not unsympathetic to decriminalizing sexual exploitation.

Darlene writes,

It was frustrating news to see that an outspoken advocate of decriminalizing prostitution entirely, including buyers and pimps, would be taking the lead for the NH anti-trafficking task force. Her smooth talk of decriminalizing the sex trade to ensure safety for sex workers shields the most contemptible practice of human slavery. Her motives may be well-meaning, but she is terribly misinformed.

…Decriminalizing pimping and the sex trade would tie the hands of investigators. The buyers and the sellers would be able to continue their devastating business, while victims would have no clear way out. Sex trafficking is not an event, but a process and the results of that process. Sex trafficking cannot exist without the existence of prostitution.

Read the whole thing. I hope some legislators come across Darlene’s post, too.


N.H. House Nixes Death Penalty Expansion

A day before rejecting limitations on post-viability abortions, the New Hampshire House quietly and decisively rejected expansion of the death penalty. HB 351 was killed on an Inexpedient to Legislate motion, 305-46.

The death penalty vote is good news. I’m just sorry that it was a division vote, not a roll call. We don’t know the names of the people who rejected that particular form of state-sponsored violence. I’d like to thank them.

I’d also like to compare that list to the roster of reps who support unrestricted abortion. The numbers tell me there must be overlap.

There are legislators in Concord who in the space of thirty hours said no to one constitutionally-sanctioned method of taking human life and then effectively said yes to another.

I refuse to believe the discordance will be permanent.


Post image by ccPixs.com under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

 

N.H. House rejects post-viability limit on abortion

All nine months: that’s how far into pregnancy abortion is legal in New Hampshire. Viable, non-viable, with or without “anomalies”: all irrelevant. What’s more, any abortion-minded woman in New Hampshire is entitled to a dead baby, not merely a terminated pregnancy.

Rep. Keith Murphy and ten co-sponsors brought forward HB 578 in an effort to push back against that bit of barbarity. Murphy took Justice Blackmun at his word as expressed in Roe v. Wade: the state may assert an interest in the preborn child once that child is viable.

The New Hampshire House had a chance to stand with Murphy. The House refused.


Murphy’s clean bill, the one he introduced, was weakened in committee. The clean bill never came up today. The question before the House was whether to adopt the committee amendment, which while inferior to the original bill, kept alive (you’ll pardon the expression) the idea that aborting children at eight or nine months’ gestation is something to be more-or-less avoided.

The amendment was defeated , 170-189.  After that, the bill itself was swiftly tabled.

Somewhere, Kermit Gosnell is smiling. If his life sentence is ever somehow shortened, he can come set up shop in New Hampshire. Among the Pennsylvania laws he violated was one barring abortion beyond a certain point in pregnancy. In New Hampshire, there’s no such limit to ignore.

Both Murphy’s bill and the committee amendment left the determination of viability to the abortionist. That’s quite a concession.

Not enough for the abortion advocates, though. I sat in the gallery today and listened to one of them, Rep. Ebel of New London, condemn both the underlying bill and the proposed amendment, saying they “roll back existing rights” and would interfere with “private medical decisions.”

Murphy’s bill called for a second doctor to be present at the abortion of a viable fetus so that if such a fetus were to survive the attempted abortion, the little one could be cared for, provided that doing so would not endanger the life of the mother. The committee amendment dispensed with that provision, and it still didn’t pass.

That would have “roll[ed] back existing rights”…the right to a dead child, I guess, not merely a terminated pregnancy.

Rep. Claire Rouillard, whose name was on the committee amendment, calmly yet forcefully argued for its adoption. She should give lessons in legislative deportment. Her amendment would have okayed post-viability abortion for “anomalies incompatible with life,” among several other reasons.

Would an abortionist declare a child with “anomalies incompatible with life” to be viable in the first place? Absurd, but it apparently made sense to a majority of people on the Judiciary Committee, which gives me pause. Someone in there thought the bill stood a better chance of passage with the amendment.

Bit of a miscalculation, that.


I love my state deeply. At the same time – and probably because I love my state – I’m ashamed that we’re one of seven states where Kermit Gosnell would feel right at home.

I hope Rep. Murphy will forgive me for quoting extensively from a public Facebook post he made following the tabling of his bill. He is disheartened. (I sympathize.) He started his post by naming the thirty or so Republicans, plus one Libertarian, who joined Democrats in opposing the amendment.

In a later comment on his post, he acknowledged that two Democrats bucked their colleagues on this one: Raymond Gagnon and Jean Jeudy. Good for them.

Murphy acknowledged that a few of those GOP reps might have opposed the amendment because it weakened the original, but he knows better than to give that much credit to all of them.

Most simply opposed the state protecting the lives of unborn children at any moment prior to birth, even when those children could survive outside the womb.

[Update: Rep. Murphy revised his post within four days to indicate five Republicans who voted against the amendment but supported the underlying bill. Those reps are Anne Copp, David Danielson, Jess Edwards, Robert L’Heureux, and Kurt Wuelper.]

Murphy has a touching faith in the GOP platform, which supports the right to life even if some Republican officeholders don’t. And he has something to say to pro-life activists, even if it makes them indignant.

I will not sponsor this bill again until and unless there is both a solid majority of real Republicans who will support it and a commitment by the pro-life community to drum up support and educate the public about the fact that late term abortions are legal in our state. Ultimately those Republicans who find nothing wrong with abortions at 34 weeks need to be defeated in their next primary and replaced with people true to our platform.

…I appreciate the work that several reps put into the bill, and those of you that did try to get emails out to the representatives about the issue….This was the bill I cared about most this year. It was the most consequential bill I filed, and I worked for it. I’m pretty disappointed with the outcome; I truly believe lives hung in the balance and because of the above [GOP] representatives those lives are lost.

Other representatives may yet pick up the banner this year, if parliamentary procedure permits. We shall see. The man who moved to table the bill following rejection of the amendment was Rep. Joe Hagan, chairman of Judiciary, who in very hasty remarks indicated that he thought the bill was salvageable.

Perhaps some of the 280 reps who voted to table the bill agreed with him. Others were probably whistling “Another One Bites the Dust” under their breath.


 

On trusting women: written 5 years ago, still too apt

Facebook’s On This Day feature served up a blast from the past today. I wrote a certain post five years ago, on International Women’s Day, a month before starting this blog,  This was before I went freelance, and at that time I was working for New Hampshire’s Cornerstone Action.

I had just spent a day at the State House monitoring some life-issue votes. There were a lot of “Trust Women” stickers being sported by women who didn’t trust me. The tone at the State House hasn’t changed appreciably since then, through changes in party majorities.

By the way, by the time that 2012 session was over, New Hampshire had a partial-birth abortion ban. It wasn’t easy, and it required an override of John Lynch’s veto. Nevertheless, it was done.

You can find the full post at Granite Grok.

On Women and Trust

The hallways in the state house were lined on Wednesday with people sporting stickers emblazoned with the slogans “Trust Women” and “Stop the War on Women.” Such exhortations give me pause, inasmuch as I’m a woman, and none of my sticker-clad fellow citizens seemed inclined to trust me.

Imagine, if you will, a band of citizens bearing stickers saying “Trust Men.” Passersby would immediately think “trust men to do what?” The men wearing such stickers would be laughed out of the state house. Women wearing such stickers would have my pity, along with my fervent hope that some serious consciousness-raising would take place before the next election.

So back to trusting women. Many of Wednesday’s citizens bearing the “Trust Women” message also held signs for NARAL Pro-Choice NH and Planned Parenthood. Aha. Now I get it: the stickers are telling elected officials to trust the women who support so-called pro-choice policies. Other women are not invited to the trustfest….

I was called a neanderthal this morning at the state house by someone who saw that I was not there to support the bogus “Trust Women” campaign. I was asked “how can you call yourself a woman?” I’ve spent 30 years in the thick of civic engagement, and it takes more than being outnumbered & verbally abused to make me go away. Still, it’s telling that a fellow citizen can look at me and see not a woman or a neighbor but a neanderthal. Civility, anyone?

Head to Granite Grok for the full post.

Update: abortion stats bill retained

New Hampshire House Bill 471, abortion statistics, has been retained in committee and will not get a vote in the full House until 2018.  This is a step sideways, but it keeps the bill alive.


A subcommittee is likely to work on the bill between now and January. I’ll watch for those work session dates.

This is 2015 all over again, when the last statistics bill (HB 629) was retained. A subcommittee assigned to work on the bill had six work sessions between May and October 2015. They produced what I thought was an improved bill that enjoyed bipartisan support. The full House passed the resulting version of HB 629 on a voice vote in January 2016.

Then the state Department of Health and Human Services got a new commissioner, who yanked the Department’s participation in crafting the bill. Planned Parenthood, whose representative had attended the work sessions (I know because I attended them as well), refused to support the amended bill. That was enough to prompt a pair of Republican senators to join ten Democrats in voting against HB 629. That tied the vote at 12-12 in the Senate in May 2016, and the bill then died after being tabled. 

That was then; this is now. Under House rules for retained bills, HB 471 must come back for a House vote next year. Last time around, the House did its job: careful study with involvement from a variety of stakeholders, yielding a bipartisan bill so strong it passed without debate. I expect no less from them this time with HB 471. The Senate will then have a chance to redeem itself from 2016’s fiasco.