NH CD2: Kuster uses graveyard theme to accept pro-abortion group’s endorsement; pro-life women speak out for Garcia

Call this a tale of two press conferences. This week, a pair of endorsements came out in the Second Congressional District race between incumbent Ann Kuster and challenger Marilinda Garcia. Quite a contrast.

Kuster stands in front of symbol of death to accept abortion advocates’ endorsement

NARAL-NH has endorsed Ann Kuster for re-election. That was altogether predictable. What I couldn’t have predicted is that a member of Congress would think it clever to stand in front of a skeleton figure while accepting an endorsement for her abortion advocacy. If a picture is worth a thousand words, I need say no more about this.

Congresswomen Ann Kuster (D-NH) accepts NARAL endorsement, 10/20/14.
Congresswomen Ann Kuster (D-NH) accepts NARAL endorsement, 10/20/14. Photo from Cornerstone PAC press release http://eepurl.com/6thWX

Pro-life women join Women Speak Out PAC to support Marilinda Garcia

A couple of days ahead of the Kuster spectacle, Women Speak Out PAC announced a $50,000 independent-expenditure ad buy in support of Marilinda Garcia. Women Speak Out PAC is a partner of the Susan B. Anthony List, which is dedicated to electing pro-life women and promoting pro-life legislation at state and federal levels. Three New Hampshire women from the Second Congressional District spoke at a press conference kicking off the ad campaign. They are pushing back on Ann Kuster’s pro-abortion message.

Marilyn Musgrave, representing Women Speak Out PAC, called Garcia “a strong young woman who is courageous, who opposes taxpayer funding of abortion, who knows that banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is the compassionate thing to do.”


College student re Kuster: “By  refusing to protect the next generation, she is hurting my generation.”

Sarah Koski
Sarah Koski

Sarah Koski is a college student and a voter in Ann Kuster’s district. She wonders if she even registers on Kuster’s radar. “Ann Kuster and her friends have fabricated this lie that somehow leading a successful life as a young woman is completely incompatible with being a pro-life conservative Republican. This is untrue. I am one of many women who respect the sanctity of life at every stage. Ann Kuster does not represent me.

“She says that she cares about us and that she’s going to protect our rights. But in reality, she treats me like I lack the capacity to have a life outside of myself. That’s not the kind of representation that I want. We know that abortion kills innocent children. We also know that it hurts women. We need to make sure that we band together and make sure that we reveal this truth about Ann Kuster: by refusing to protect the next generation, she is hurting my generation. I think it’s high time that this demeaning attitude towards women come to an end.”

Koski is looking forward to entering the post-college job market. She has started giving serious consideration to what paycheck deductions are about. Just what, she wonders, are our representatives doing with that money? “Ann Kuster’s fiscal record is very clear. As it pertains to abortion, she voted against the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. Which means that she’s in favor of letting my money be used to fund abortions on demand. I’m not alone in this concern. The majority of Americans, 72% of Americans, believe that we should not allow our tax money to go towards funding abortions on demand. 72% agree that it is wrong for my representative to take my money and use it to fund something that I fundamentally disagree with and find immoral. The good news is that we have the opportunity to change that this November. We have an opportunity to send a new voice to Washington. And I sincerely hope you will join me in that effort.”

Garcia “would be a champion for life … Ann Kuster is not our champion.”

Margaret Carnahan at podium with Karen Testerman (dark jacket), Christine Peters (center), and Rep. Jeanine Notter (right front)
Margaret Carnahan at podium with Karen Testerman (dark jacket), Christine Peters (center), and Rep. Jeanine Notter (right front)

Margaret Carnahan of Concord is one CD2 voter who is tired of being represented by an abortion extremist. “I cannot say [Kuster] represents me. When the opportunity came for the Congresswoman to show a compassionate way to protect unborn babies five months and older in the womb, she chose not to support that legislation” – the Unborn Child Pain-Capable Act, a post-20-week abortion ban. “Worse, she voted no, she would not protect unborn babies, even though the babies were old enough to recognize their mothers’ voices and to feel pain.Carnahan spoke of a friend’s child born at 30 weeks. “One pound thirteen ounces. When I went to the NICU and saw all the micro-preemie babies, my heart went out to them. We saw one little boy named Jacob, born at 22 and a half weeks gestation. He was fighting for life. What we learned from seeing Jacob and Isabella is that a baby looks when outside the womb the same as when inside the womb – a complete living human being. I saw the tenacity to live. They needed a protector and a champion to speak on their behalf.

“Ann Kuster is not our champion and she is not a protector of the unborn child. She does not reflect our values. She does not reflect our compassionate heart. Marilinda Garcia would be a champion for life, who would reflect a woman’s heart towards life.”

“I’m beginning to think a little bit differently about what our daughters face”

New Hampshire women who vote pro-life have a message for Ann Kuster.
New Hampshire women who vote pro-life have a message for Ann Kuster.

Christine Peters of Amherst is the mother of four. She says her daughter’s about to become a teenager, “so I’m beginning to think  little bit differently about the issue of Planned Parenthood [whose PAC backs Kuster] and choice and what my daughters face for messaging that’s being targeted toward them.” She added that her own experience as a CareNet crisis pregnancy center volunteer broadened her pro-life perspective. “I began to change how I thought about it. It became a little less about the babies – although I’m in favor of saving babies – and more about those women who are facing crisis pregnancies. When you look at Ann Kuster, you cannot call her pro-choice. She is 100% pro-abort. There is no choice for women who walk into Planned Parenthood. That is the war on women and our unborn. Send extremist Ann Kuster into retirement and give Marilinda Garcia a chance to reflect a view that will prepare the way for our daughters, giving them the choices they really truly need.”

For more information about Women Speak Out PAC, go to womenspeakoutpac.com. You can read more about the Susan B. Anthony List at sba-list.org

 

 

NH GOP CD2 candidates Garcia & Lambert have a voting record on the life issues

New Hampshire’s Second District Congresswoman, Democrat Ann Kuster, has a battle ahead of her next year. There will be at least two Republicans competing to get past the GOP primary and onto the November ballot.

Col. Gary Lambert (photo from Google public profile)
Col. Gary Lambert (photo from Google public profile)
Rep. Marilinda Garcia (photo from marilindagarcia.com)
Rep. Marilinda Garcia (photo from marilindagarcia.com)

Gary Lambert served as state senator from Nashua for one term. His campaign web site highlights his experience as a Marine Corps veteran, but I still think of him as Senator Lambert. Marilinda Garcia is serving her fourth term as a state representative from Salem and is now seeking the CD2 seat. Both candidates’ web sites emphasize economic issues.

So where are they on the right to life? Their Concord records look good, based on votes in 2012. Lambert was on the short end of some Senate votes to shunt aside good bills, indicating his willingness to keep conversations going even when there was no straight-up-or-down vote at stake.

HB 217, fetal homicide (I wrote an overview of the bill here): Lambert and Garcia supported the bill. When Governor John Lynch vetoed it, Garcia voted to override the veto. The House override vote fell just short of the necessary two-thirds.

HB 228, prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion services: Garcia voted yes. When the bill got to the Senate, it was tabled, with Lambert opposing the tabling motion.

HB 1659, Women’s Right to Know (informed consent for abortion): Garcia was absent from the final House vote on the bill, but she earlier opposed a motion to kill it. The Senate killed the bill, with Lambert voting against the Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) motion.

HB 1660, to limit post-20-week abortions: Garcia voted yes. In the Senate, where the bill was sent to interim study and never heard from again, Lambert opposed the interim study motion.

HB 1679, a ban on partial-birth abortion, which passed and is now on the books: Garcia and Lambert supported the bill, and they both voted to override Gov. Lynch’s veto. This one did not affect the legality of abortion overall; it just ruled out the killing of a partially-emerged child as an abortion method. Remember that when abortion advocates start calling Garcia or Lambert “anti-choice.”

HB 1680, abortion statistics: here’s a weird one. Rep. Garcia was the chief sponsor of a bill calling for the collection of abortion statistics. It passed, but it did nothing to bring stats reporting to New Hampshire. It was amended into nothingness.The final bill called on the Health and Human Services committee to set up a subcommittee to advise the General Court (House & Senate) “on the collection of data regarding induced termination of pregnancy statistics.” There was never any follow-up. This paper “win” was therefore not substantive. For what it’s worth, the gutted bill passed both Houses without a recorded roll call (division vote in House, voice vote in Senate).

HCR 31, commending pregnancy care centers that provide life-affirming options without doing abortions: Garcia voted for the resolution in the House, where it passed by a single vote. The Senate passed it on a voice vote.

HCR 41, urging Congress to find the U.S. grant to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England null and void: this was a way for legislators to express their annoyance at the federal government for helping PPNNE get around the state’s decision to reject its Title X contract in 2011. Garcia voted yes, Lambert voted no, and the resolution failed.

I can attest to the calm and respectful manner in which both candidates conducted themselves at the State House during hearings and discussions on these bills. They have the temperament of bridge-builders. It remains to be seen how that holds up during what is sure to be a lively campaign.

 

 

 

Shaheen, Kuster cosponsoring the “Gosnell Taught Us Nothing” Act

New Hampshire’s senior Senator Jeanne Shaheen and 2nd District Congresswoman Ann Kuster are co-sponsors of legislation introduced in Washington earlier this month that would wipe out all abortion regulations in every state, including those recommending parental involvement and restricting late-term abortions.

The deceptively-named “Women’s Health Protection Act” was introduced in the Senate by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and in the House by Judy Chu (D-CA). The Senate bill, S.1696, currently has 32 co-sponsors. The House Bill, H.R. 3471, has 77. Details of this bill may be found at congress.gov.

A better name for the bill would be GTUN: Gosnell Taught Us Nothing.

Kelly Ayotte’s name is not on the bill, which is no surprise. Neither is Carol Shea-Porter’s, which frankly does surprise me.

“Findings” in the preface to the bill include the claim that abortion has been “hindered” by blockades (like people praying outside abortion facilities?), restrictions on insurance coverage (like the Hyde Amendment), restrictions on minors (like parental notification with judicial bypass), and restrictions on providers.

Think about that. The sponsors want no restrictions on providers. Sounds like back-alley days to me.

So what would the bill do?

This Act would make a number of recently-passed state-level abortion laws null and void, including bills passed in the nauseating wake of Kermit Gosnell’s crimes in Philadelphia. Among laws that would be wiped out:

Limits on a provider’s ability to delegate tasks. Recall that Gosnell delegated to his staff the task of administering and monitoring sedation for women undergoing abortions. Karnamaya Mongar is dead thanks to that.

Limits on ability to prescribe and dispense drugs. This would mean the end of any meaningful FDA protocols regarding the use of abortion-inducing drugs. PP affiliates already advertise such drugs for use up to 63 days into pregnancy, while the FDA draws the line at 49. This would also pose challenges to any state that tries to keep taxpayers from entering into public contracts with abortion providers. Remember how PPNNE claimed after losing its New Hampshire Title X contract in 2011 that it could no longer “dispense” birth control, which turned out to be nonsense? The very claim of inability-to-dispense would undermine taxpayer protection.

Limits on telemed abortions. This is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies that make & plan to make abortion-inducing drugs.

Requirements that abortion facilities have doorways and hallways that can accommodate gurneys, should a woman require emergency transport following an abortion.

Requirements that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Any law that requires more than one trip to a provider before abortion could be performed. Goodbye, 24-hour waiting periods, where they’re required (NH has no such law yet). Hello, drive-through abortions. The thank-you notes to Shaheen and Kuster from abusive partners and other people who coerce women into abortions are probably already addressed and ready to go.

There’s more, but you get the idea. I see a lot in there to warm the heart of an abortion provider or a pharmaceutical rep, but nothing that protects women’s health.

Would statistical collection of abortion information be banned under this bill? I don’t see how such requirements would survive under the bill. God forbid the stats might show that women are being harmed by abortion providers. Might have a chilling effect on the industry.

And the preborn child? A cipher. Post-viability abortion would be fine under this bill. It has no requirement that a child born alive following attempted abortion be cared for. Gosnell-like snipping of babies’ necks would be protected under this bill, as long as the abortionist uses her or his “best” medical judgment.

Senator Shaheen will be hearing from me. 202-224-2841, if you’d care to join me. Congresswoman Kuster’s Washington office number is 202-225-5206.

With all the other problems in Washington, these women found the time to sign onto such a bill. Priorities, folks.

Decisions: Lynch & Bass

The fetal homicide and partial-birth abortion bills would not die, despite grueling journeys through the New Hampshire House & Senate. Look up the dockets for these bills on the state web site sometime. A number of tales are hidden behind those dry factual entries.

And so, at long last, Governor Lynch will get these bills. I am telling every pro-life person I know to get those calls and emails going. The number is 271-2121, where I’m sure a very polite individual is waiting to take our calls. Lynch’s pleasant and understated persona is not enough to make me forget that he vetoed parental notification (and overriding that veto was one of the proudest moments for the legislative class of ’10). He has not made direct veto threats on either fetal homicide or partial birth, but on the latter, it’s a real stretch for me to believe he’ll support it.

As for fetal homicide, if Lynch can’t be persuaded by the state Supreme court’s Lamy case, he just can’t be persuaded.

The success of these bills so far is great news, and it shows what can be done with legislators who can think straight. As for the governor, we live in hope. What will he do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Congress today, a bill called PRENDA came up for a vote, and fell short of the two-thirds that it needed. PRENDA stands for Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act, and it was written to ban sex-selection abortions. PP hates the bill, and the president has weighed in against it as well. When the dust settled this afternoon, only seven Republicans had voted against the bill. One was Charlie Bass, New Hampshire’s own Congressman from the Second District.

Bass is avowedly pro-choice, and has been for as long as I can remember. I used to testify in front of his committee when he was a state senator. But refusing to frown on sex selection? Really? Worldwide, most of the preborn children killed for being the “wrong” sex are girls. There’s a war on women for you.

This won’t help him in November, of course, since Ann Kuster will get the pro-Roe vote. Kuster’s mother, the late Susan McLane, served with Bass in the state senate years ago. McLane and Bass were both “pro-choice” Republicans. It is some kind of rough justice that pits McLane’s daughter against Bass now.