Planned Parenthood Leader’s Revealing Tweet

I don’t follow Cecile Richards on Twitter; life’s too short. I do follow David Daleiden, though, ever since his Center for Medical Progress videos documented the baby-parts business in some Planned Parenthood affiliates. Daleiden recently re-tweeted something from Richards.

In case the embedded tweet doesn’t show up for you, @CecileRichards on March 6 said, “Planned Parenthood is proud to provide abortion – a necessary service that’s as vital to our mission as birth control or cancer screenings.”

@DavidDaleiden’s re-tweet: “Today @CecileRichards admitted that abortion is equally important to @PPact as cancer screenings. So much for ‘only 3%’ #PPSellsBabyParts”

Save this. The next time a PP contract comes before the Executive Council, every Councilor needs to see Richards’ tweet, preferably about 500 times over.

If you understand that abortion is not health care, save this.

If you understand that PP’s business model depends on using its patients as human shields (give-us-a-contract-or-else-we’ll-deny-cancer-screenings-to-women), save this.

If you understand that PP uses its supposedly non-abortion contract funds for “infrastructure” at facilities where abortion is performed, save this.  Don’t take my word for it; New Hampshire’s HHS commissioner is the one who let that slip during a public Executive Council meeting last year. Infrastructure is just a four-syllable way of saying “overhead.”

Cecile Richards says that abortion is “vital” (ironic use of a word whose Latin root means “life”) to PP’s mission.

There’s no excuse for forgetting that.


 

Welcome a new women’s health care practice to N.H.

Dr. Sarah Bascle (CMC photo)

This is good news, and it’s a long time coming: Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, NH is welcoming Sarah Bascle, M.D., to its Women’s Wellness & Fertility Center of New England. The public is invited to an Open House on March 14 to meet Dr. Bascle and tour the new practice.

This won’t be just an abortion-free practice. It’ll be a practice staffed by professionals who know that fertility is understandable and manageable, it’s not a disease, and women don’t need to be “fixed.” The Open House is a good opportunity to learn more about NaPro Technology and restorative reproductive medicine, among the other specialties of the new OB/GYN practice.

When a woman in New Hampshire wants to find an obstetrician or gynecologist who neither performs nor refers for abortion, it’s an uphill battle. Harder still – impossible, in my experience – is finding a provider who isn’t fully invested in providing and promoting contraception.

My use of natural family planning was tolerated with some amusement by my longtime primary care provider. When she retired a few years ago, after we had known each other for a quarter of a century, she remarked that I was the only patient she had ever known who had used NFP and who understood her own body so well. (There’s a connection there.)

I welcome CMC’s work in expanding life-affirming options in New Hampshire, and I look forward to meeting Dr. Bascle.

 

Pro-Life Conference March 18 in Rochester NH

The Works of Mercy ministry at Our Lady of the Holy Rosary parish in Rochester, New Hampshire has put together another program (they’re good at this sort of thing) exploring the life issues. This time, the topic is assisted suicide and euthanasia, which threaten the very nature of end-of-life care.

WOM COL FLYER 2017 REVISED

WOM-COL-Registration-Form-2017


Two of the five speakers are well-known to me: Nancy Elliott is the director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA, and Kurt Wuelper is a state representative. Nancy is a neighbor of mine, a former state rep, and I don’t think anyone in this neck of the woods knows more than she does about the status of end-of-life legislation nationwide. Kurt has proven adept at one of the harder political jobs: not just getting elected, but getting RE-elected. Kurt is on one of the toughest committees in Concord: House Judiciary, where he is a voice of reason.

This should be a worthwhile way to spend a Saturday. Details as I’ve been advised:

Where: Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Church, 189 N. Main Street, Rochester NH

When: Saturday, March 18, 2017, 9 a.m. – 3 p.m.

Schedule: For those who wish, there will be a Mass at 8:00 a.m. All conference participants are welcome to breakfast during registration time beginning at 8:30. The conference begins at 9 a.m. and ends at 3 p.m.

Cost & Registration: $15, with scholarships available; payment by March 15 is appreciated. Make out checks to OLHR, and mail them with registration form (linked above) to Works of Mercy c/o OLHR, 189 N. Main Street, Rochester NH 03867.

For more information, contact Nancy at worksofmercynh@gmail.com.

Spread the word, especially to your friends on the Seacoast and in Strafford County.

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.

Off to CPAC to see what’s up

I’ll be heading down to the Conservative Political Action Conference near Washington, DC for a one-day visit on Friday. While I’m down there, I look forward to hearing from (and maybe interviewing?) the authors of a new book on Kermit Gosnell and his crimes. That’s one book-signing I’ll stand in line for.

Yes, the President will be speaking, but as longtime readers know, that’s not something for which I’d travel to Washington. I’m going for the lower-profile events. I know from other CPACs that the most worthwhile material comes not from the big names but from the lesser-known speakers, from the conversations in the hallways, and from the breakout sessions.

The tweeting and Instagramming will commence as soon as I’m off the train Friday morning and will continue until I get back to South Station 24 hours later. Those so inclined are welcome to follow along at @leaven4theloaf.

Some notes from my trips to earlier CPACs: Ten Hours at CPAC (2015), Notes from CPAC 2014, Encountering New Faces and Old Friends (2013)

The cost of the buffer zone law, so far

A postscript to yesterday’s New Hampshire House committee vote on buffer zone repeal, HB 589: Rep. Gary Hopper (R-Weare) read aloud to his fellow committee members a communication he had received from Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice in response to a query from him about what the state has spent so far defending the buffer zone law.

He read the letter aloud in a meeting that was open to the public; he posted it today on Facebook; his correspondent is a state employee; the topic was state business. Sounds like quotable stuff to me. So here is Deputy AG Rice to Rep. Hopper, as posted by Rep. Hopper this morning:

…So far, the Department has devoted 313.75 hours of attorney time in defending the buffer zone law, which equates to $43,611.25 (313.75 hours x $139.00/hr). We do not track the time that support staff devotes to any particular case so I cannot provide a cost for that. As far as future costs, that will depend on what the plaintiffs chose to do. If they appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, we would file an objection, which I would estimate would involve approximately 40 hours of attorney time at $139/hr, or $5560 in cost. If the US Supreme Court accepted the appeal, the Department would likely devote several hundred hours on the appeal. I am unable to better estimate the amount of time required.

The plaintiffs could opt to refrain from further litigation unless and until a buffer zone is actually being considered. At this point, I cannot estimate if or when that would occur, or the amount of time that this office would spend on the litigation.

Recall that in the Supreme Court’s McCullen v. Coakley decision overturning a Massachusetts buffer zone law, taxpayers not only covered the cost for the state to defend an ultimately unconstitutional law but were later on the hook for $1.2 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

I’m sure Massachusetts’ costs started small. Look where they ended up.


a Granite State pro-life blog by Ellen Kolb