Filed So Far: Some Bills for 2018

More than 800 bills have been filed so far by New Hampshire legislators for 2018. Here are a few on which I’ll be reporting, with links to the texts of the bill where available. The Senate hasn’t released all its bill requests yet, so watch for updates in future posts.

HB 1707: The “Abortion Information Act,” requiring the physician who performs an abortion, or the referring physician, to provide the pregnant woman with certain information at least 24 hours prior to the abortion, and to obtain her consent that she has received such information. Sponsors: Reps. Jeanine Notter (R-Merrimack), Victoria Sullivan (R-Manchester), Kevin Verville (R-Deerfield), and Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester).

HB 1680: The “Viable Fetus Protection Act,” to restrict post-viability abortions. Sponsors: Reps. Keith Murphy (R-Bedford), Mark Pearson (R-Hampstead), Jeanine Notter, and Victoria Sullivan.

HB 1721: to prevent coerced abortions. Sponsors: Reps. Kurt Wuelper (R-Strafford), Mark Pearson, Bill Nelson (R-Brookfield), Dan Itse (R-Fremont), Jeanine Notter, Al Baldasaro (R-Londonderry), Duane Brown (R-Wentworth), and Carl Seidel (R-Nashua).

LSR 2222 (no bill number assigned yet), relative to conscience rights for medical professionals. Sponsors: Reps. Kathleen Souza, Dan Itse, Al Baldasaro, Jeanine Notter, Linda Gould (R-Bedford), James Spillane (R-Deerfield), Kurt Wuelper, Carl Seidel, Jess Edwards (R-Auburn), and Mark Pearson.

HB 1511: amending the fetal homicide law to make it effective at 8 weeks of pregnancy (instead of the 20-week standard in the law signed by Gov. Sununu earlier this year), and removing the law’s exemptions for actions performed by, or at the direction of, the pregnant woman. (I’ll have plenty to say about this one after New Year’s Day, and I doubt I’ll please the sponsors.) Sponsors: Reps. Kurt Wuelper, Linda Gould, Al Baldasaro, Kathleen Souza, Jeanine Notter, and Dan Itse.

HB 1503: authorizing minors 16 years of age and over to independently consent to medical procedures. Sponsor: Rep. Caleb Dyer (L-Pelham).

HB 1671: abolishing the death penalty in New Hampshire. Sponsors: Reps. Delmar Burridge (D-Keene), Caleb Dyer, Ellen Read (D-Newmarket), and Donovan Fenton (D-Keene).

LSR 2748 (no bill number assigned yet): establishing a committee to study end-of-life choices. Sponsors: Sens. Martha Hennessey (D-Hanover) , Bette Lasky (D-Nashua), David Watters (D-Dover), Dan Feltes (D-Concord), Jay Kahn (D-Keene), Kevin Cavanaugh (D-Manchester), and Reps. James MacKay (D-Concord) and Jerry Knirk (D-Freedom).

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

 

A look at upcoming bills

A legislative service request is the first step for a bill in New Hampshire. These LSRs will be taken by the legislative services staff at the State House and turned into the bills that will be formally introduced in January. The LSRs therefore give a clue to what’s ahead, although they don’t provide the actual text of a bill. More than 300 LSRs are already in the hopper for next session, with hundreds more likely to come.

Here are a few to keep an eye on. Intended sponsors are listed, and more may sign on before the bill-drafting process is through.

  • relative to induced termination of pregnancy statistics (LSR 2017-0057): Kathleen Souza , Daniel Itse, Jordan Ulery, Alfred Baldasaro, Steven Beaudoin, Glenn Cordelli, David Murotake, Linda Gould, Carl Seidel
  • including a viable fetus in the definition of “another” for purposes of certain criminal offenses (LSR 2017-0085; this will be fetal homicide): Jeanine Notter, Daniel Itse, Peter Hansen, Linda Gould
  • expanding the death penalty to cover persons who knowingly cause the death of a child (LSR 2017-0154): Werner Horn
  • repealing the death penalty (LSR-0210): Renny Cushing
  • relative to banning abortion after viability (LSR 2017-0184): Keith Murphy
  • buffer zone repeal (LSR-0316): Kurt Wuelper

 

 


Death penalty in NH: two bills, two directions

Legislators came close to repealing New Hampshire’s death penalty statute a couple of years ago. I cheered for that.  Now, two death penalty bills are on the table: one a moratorium, one an expansion.

Senate Bill 463 would suspend imposition of capital punishment “until such time that methods exist to ensure that the death penalty cannot be imposed on an innocent person.” The list of sponsors is impressively varied: Senators Avard, Daniels, Kelly and Lasky, and Reps. Seidel, Cushing and Ferreira. The Senate Judiciary Committee has made an “ought to pass” recommendation on a 3-1 vote, and the full Senate will vote on the bill on March 3.

And then there’s the House bill, or perhaps I should say Rep. Flanagan’s bill, since no one else’s name seems to be on it. It’s HB 1552, and it would  extend the death penalty to acts of terrorism and civil rights offenses. The House Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee has already held a hearing on the measure and will vote on it March 1.

I’d like to believe that a moratorium or suspension in imposing the death penalty would be a step in the right direction. I hope the Senate passes SB 463. I’m proud that my own district’s Senator Gary Daniels is the one who will formally present the committee’s recommendation on the Senate floor.


SCOTUS term is over – but they suspended Texas abortion regs before leaving

Abortion regulation, the HHS/Obamacare contraceptive mandate, and the death penalty got some attention from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) before the Court’s term ended Monday. The day was somewhat anticlimactic in view of last week’s decision re-defining marriage nationwide.

Justice Anthony Kennedy (supremecourt.gov photo)
Justice Anthony Kennedy (supremecourt.gov photo)

> New Texas abortion regulations are on hold by order of the Court, pending a full hearing of the case – possibly next term. The vote was 5-4. Stop me if you’ve heard this one: Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with “the Court’s liberals” (Politico’s term, not mine) in the majority.

> In the latest order – again, not a decision – on Obamacare’s insurance-coverage contraceptive mandate, the Court upheld for now a Solomonic decision by the Third Circuit that figuratively splits the baby. A group of Catholic entities in Pennsylvania challenged the mandate. The Third Circuit upheld the mandate, but okayed a mother-may-I procedure for religious entities objecting to it. Whether the Constitution allows mother-may-I is yet to be decided by the top court. I’ll let the legal eagles at SCOTUSblog summarize this one.


“First, the religious groups must provide some type of notice to the federal Department of Health and Human Services that they want and are entitled to a religious exemption from the mandate.   If the groups do that, the government may not enforce the mandate directly against them, while the Court is pondering whether to review the case itself.

“Second, the women who are employed by or are students at the religious organizations are assured that they will have access, at no cost to them, of birth control methods and devices approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.   The government can go ahead, the Court made clear, and make arrangements for the health insurance plans in effect for the religious groups to assure free access to the contraceptives.  The government will reimburse the cost.

“The Court’s order stressed that it did not mean that the Justices were ruling on the correctness of the Third Circuit decision.   That will be the issue if the Court grants review in the pending case of Zubik v. Burwell (docket 14-1418).”

> This one was a full-blown decision: in Glossip v. Gross, the Court upheld the use of a particular drug for executions. Challengers had claimed it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Among the original petitioners, according to Justice Scalia, was someone convicted of the rape and murder of an 11-month-old baby. I feel nothing but revulsion at that; “cruel and unusual” seems just about right for such a criminal. My opposition to the death penalty, though, doesn’t depend on how lovable the criminal might be.

Justice Stephen Breyer (supremecourt.gov photo)
Justice Stephen Breyer (supremecourt.gov photo)

I have to wonder whether “humane” execution is designed for the prisoner’s sake or the onlookers’. The less we squirm, the better – is that the idea? Justice Breyer – not a man whose decisions respect any right to life for preborn children – dissented from the Glossip decision, and he apparently didn’t parse the which-drugs-are-better question. He flat-out asked for a briefing on the constitutionality of capital punishment.

This wasn’t the case for that. Apparently, the Court is cautious about overreaching on the death penalty. Their delicacy is amusing in view of their marriage decision. Perhaps I’ll live to see a day when boldness prevails in defense of the right to life.