Abortion Advocacy Group Targets N.H. State Reps

New Hampshire’s new fetal homicide law has drawn the attention, ire, and cash of an experienced, well-funded political action group dedicated to packing legislative bodies with abortion advocates.

From WMUR’s John DiStaso:

PUTTING GOP ‘ON NOTICE.’ The nationwide political action committee EMILY’s List has long played a significant role supporting Democratic, pro-choice women candidates in New Hampshire.Now, we’ve learned, the group is announcing a plan to expand its effort down the ballot into state legislative races in the Granite State and elsewhere.

…“Republicans in the New Hampshire Legislature have amassed a shameful record of voting to turn back the clock on women’s rights,” EMILY’s List Executive Director Emily Cain said in a statement provided to WMUR.“These legislators have recklessly passed legislation that limits the reproductive rights of women, have attempted to repeal the existing law that provides buffer zones to protect women, and have attempted to put in place an abortion ban after just over 21 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. That is why EMILY’s List is recruiting an historic number of strong, pro-choice Democratic women leaders in 2018 to hold these Republican legislators accountable for their out-of-touch agenda.”

As though Republicans are consistently pro-life, but that’s an issue for another day.

“Limits the reproductive rights of women” apparently means in EMILYspeak “respecting the right of women to carry a wanted child to term.” Likewise, in EMILYspeak, “recklessly” apparently means “after twenty years of carefully crafting compromise language that included input from bereaved families.”

They’re right about attempting to repeal the buffer zone, but the only thing the zone’s about is restricting the First Amendment rights of peaceful pro-life witnesses. Legislators have attempted – not hard enough, but at least attempted – to respect the Supreme Court’s McCullen decision, while keeping in place laws against violence, assault, disorderly conduct, and trespassing (among other things).

EMILY’s List objects to abortion limitations that don’t have exceptions for rape or incest. You won’t be surprised to learn that EMILY’s List also objects to limitations that DO have exceptions for rape or incest. EMILY’s List has no room for women conceived in violence.  So much for “protect[ing] women.”

Watch for EMILY’s List-endorsed candidates on the municipal as well as state levels. Last time Joyce Craig ran for mayor of Manchester (which she’s doing again this year), her EMILY’s List endorsement didn’t say a word about abortion advocacy or First Amendment suppression. Instead, the endorsement was about Craig’s history of community service. That was shrewd. Make no mistake, though: EMILY’s List does not get involved in a race unless its leaders imagine, however wildly, that abortion is at stake.

If EMILY’s List endorses a candidate, you can be confident that the candidate will oppose First Amendment rights for peaceful, non-confrontational pro-life witnesses. You can rest assured that the candidate will oppose abortion statistics laws and any attempt to make New Hampshire less Gosnell-friendly. EMILY’s List candidates will oppose any effort to assure protection and care for children who survive attempted abortion. They will oppose parental notice when pregnant adolescents seek abortion.

The measures listed in the preceding paragraph do not touch on any right to life for unborn human beings. They are all consistent with Roe v. Wade and its judicial progeny, at least so far. Even so, abortion advocacy groups want to oust legislators who support such measures. Even if a legislator supports the First Amendment rights of peaceful witnesses but does not recognize the nature of a human being in utero, she or he won’t pass muster with EMILY’s List.

Welcome to the master class in abortion extremism.


I am not a PAC (some people have to be told)

I find it impossible to write about the life issues without also writing about politics, politicians, and public policy. I am not registered with either the Federal Elections Commission or the New Hampshire Secretary of State as a political action committee. I don’t see a problem there. A fellow blogger is discovering that in his case, there IS a problem. He is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to straighten things out.

Noted with alarm: this item from the Wall Street Journal weekend edition of September 7.  To summarize briefly, an Ohio man named Ed Corsi started a political web site in 2008. He blogged. He sponsored meetings. He made flyers and distributed them. He spent money to maintain his site, hold the meetings, and print those flyers. That’s what nailed him, apparently. A local GOP official who was also a member of the board of elections accused Corsi of not printing disclaimers on his flyers as required by law for PACs. Corsi was spending money to influence elections, said the accuser.

Not coincidentally, the GOP official in question had been the subject of criticism from Corsi. Until his own ox was gored, the official apparently was not moved to apply the PAC law to a blog.

This blog isn’t “registered” with anyone aside from WordPress, the blog platform I use. It certainly isn’t a money-making operation yet. It is, however, frankly political. Politics, culture, and the right to life are inextricably linked. I didn’t link them myself.

Does that make me a “political action committee”? Somehow, I doubt that the first advocates of campaign finance reform had writers in mind – even opinionated writers. Imagine the writers of the Federalist Papers, anonymous (“Publius”) even though their identities are now known to history, being hauled into court for not having disclaimers on their appeals for ratification of the Constitution. Granted, they were promoting ballot questions rather than candidates. The principle is the same: writers supporting one side or another in a political question should not have to register with the government.

So I’m not registering. I’m writing. And I’m keeping an eye on the Corsi case.