Who’s getting EMILY’s List support: 2018 NH edition

I just posted over at GraniteGrok about the list of New Hampshire candidates being promoted by the pro-abortion PAC EMILY’s List in the November 6, 2018 election. Please head over and read the post to find out the names of a few of the people committed to keeping New Hampshire Gosnell-friendly.

A Note on Manchester Mayoral Race

From my post at Granite Grok:

To absolutely no one’s surprise, the September 19 primary in the Queen City confirmed that Ted Gatsas and Joyce Craig will face off once again in Manchester’s mayoral race. Craig lost to Gatsas in 2015 by 64 votes.

Craig has the endorsement of EMILY’s List this year, as she did in 2015. The abortion advocacy group describes its rationale for involvement in state and local elections

Read the full post.

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.

Weekend reading (and viewing) on life & conscience

A new report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute is just the thing for your weekend reading. “Unconscionable:  Threats to Religious
Freedom and Rights of  Conscience in the Abortion
Debate” is a new report by the Institute’s Timothy Bradley.   “While society continues to debate whether and when abortion should be permitted, a second question concerns whether to force pro-life individuals and institutions to participate in or facilitate abortions.” Indeed.

Bradley describes cases where the conscience rights of pro-life Americans are being challenged, and he includes recommendations for strengthening and enforcing those rights.

And now for something completely different…

Enjoy this video, just because it’s lovely: a two-minute drone’s- eye view of a beautiful church’s interior. h/t Aleteia via Granite Grok.

 

Supreme Court to hear Texas abortion arguments

supreme-court-dot-gov
photo from supremecourt.gov

A few thoughts on the eve of U.S. Supreme Court arguments about a Texas abortion law:

  • What’s at issue is a piece of the Texas abortion regulation that was passed only after a huge uproar in Austin. Wendy Davis and her pink-sneakered filibuster couldn’t prevent passage of the legislation almost three years ago. It took some fast action to get the case to the Supreme Court in less than three years. The Massachusetts buffer zone case took much longer than that.
  • I’m indebted to Steve McDonald of GraniteGrok for pointing me to a post from The Federalist that makes a point not yet stressed in most coverage of the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: there are parts of the Texas law that aren’t even being challenged. “Almost three years ago the Texas legislature enacted HB2, the principle [sic]components of which are (1) restricting abortions after 20 weeks, when we know the unborn child can feel pain; (2) requiring abortionists to comply with the Food and Drug Administration’s approved protocol on chemical abortions; and (3) ensuring that abortionists would have to comply with basic health and safety standards….[the] prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks remains unchallenged.…The Court will not consider that part of the law because the abortion industry, despite its claims about harm to women and Wendy Davis’s rhetoric, has chosen not to challenge it.” [emphasis added]
  • The omnibus Texas law was a direct response to the Gosnell case in Pennsylvania – in effect, a Gosnell prevention act. It’ll be interesting to see if that comes up in tomorrow’s oral arguments.
  • With the recent death of Justice Scalia, observers with more time than I for Court-watching have suggested that a 4-4 split is likely in this abortion-law case, which would leave lower-court decisions intact. Any decision in the case is weeks or months away.

I’ll be looking to scotusblog.com for updates on this week’s arguments.