Tag Archives: prolife

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.

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)

Norma McCorvey, R.I.P.

A few days ago, Abby Johnson on her Facebook page called for prayers for Norma McCorvey, who was very ill. I am now hearing that McCorvey has died at age 69, having lived for 44 years in the shadow of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that bore her pseudonym.

McCorvey went public, affirming her real identity and refusing to embrace being “Jane Roe.” Eventually, in the midst of a tumultuous life, she repudiated the Court decision and became pro-life.

On a visit to Texas last year, I went to Mass at a small chapel  in downtown Dallas. The pastor turned out to be the man who had ministered to McCorvey when she professed the Catholic faith. Rather than talk about her, he demurred: “Leave her alone. She’s been too much used.”

Too much used. The attorneys who represented her in Roe can take some credit for that. For the briefest of overviews about McCorvey and the court case that thrust her into American history, read Live Action’s post from earlier this year, 7 Things You Didn’t Know About Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade.

I think of her as one of the voices to trust whenever I hear an abortion advocate say “trust women.”

“I realized that my case, which legalized abortion on demand, was the biggest mistake of my life….but now I’m dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”

“[I]t doesn’t make any difference what religion you are, or how young you are or how old you are, I think if they get up and go to these abortion mills, and stand there – and they don’t have to do anything, they can just stand there and pray, I think that would make a lot of difference. We have to be seen in numbers.”

May she rest in peace.

 

On Party Unity: a Tale of Two Bills

The New Hampshire House voted a few minutes ago to kill a “right-to-work” bill. My Facebook and Twitter feeds are noisy with the cries of RTW advocates who are upset that SB 11 failed on the Republicans’ watch. Right-to-work is in the state GOP platform. Republican leadership in legislative and executive branches promoted the bill.  It failed anyway, by 23 votes.

*Yawn.*

No one who has seen pro-life bills fail in the New Hampshire House under Republican majorities can be shocked when “party unity” fails.

Many of today’s House members were in office last year when the House voted 167-116 to kill a bill (HB 1627) to protect children born alive after attempted abortion. There was a Republican majority in place then, too, under the same Speaker who holds the position today.

One difference between today’s vote and last year’s: protecting children born alive after attempted abortion was not a leadership priority. Unlike with RTW, there was no press conference by the state GOP calling on reps to pass HB 1627. Unlike with RTW, the Speaker didn’t hand over the gavel to another rep so he could go on record supporting HB 1627.

I happen to think RTW legislation is a good idea, and I’m sorry today’s bill lost. But surprised? Shocked?

Please. Without party unity on the fundamental right to life, party unity on anything else seems irrelevant.

I’m hanging on to what the state of New Hampshire insists on calling my “undeclared” voter registration. Any candidate who wants my vote knows how to earn it.


 

Observations from this week’s hearings, part 1: post-viability restriction

{Edited to correct an error in  my notes and to respect the privacy of a member of the public. I regret the errors.]

Eugenics is back, as if it ever left, and free speech is just too dangerous to take seriously. That’s what a less optimistic soul than I might have concluded after sitting in on this week’s New Hampshire House Judiciary hearings on bills to limit post-viability abortions and to repeal the buffer zone law.

First up was the post-viability bill. I’ll address the buffer zone repeal bill in a separate post.

Rep. Keith Murphy is leading a large group of co-sponsors in trying to prevent abortions of preborn children capable of life outside the womb. With his bill, he has bent over backwards to find common ground between people who recognize the right to life from conception and people who defend abortion up until birth.

Provider, woman, child: striking a balance of interests

HB 578 says that once a woman’s preborn child reaches 21 weeks’ gestation, the physician for the abortion-minded woman must determine whether or not the child is viable. The physician, the medical professional, more than likely the abortionist, makes the determination of viability.

Think about that: the abortion provider would get to decide on viability. And still, the New Hampshire Medical Society sent a lobbyist – a retired OB/GYN – to object to the bill. Dr. Barry Smith said, “The New Hampshire Medical Society does not take a position on abortion, but we do take a position on interference with the practice of medicine.” Dr. Smith was also representing the New Hampshire section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

I’ve heard from Dr. Smith and the Medical Society before at hearings on life-issue bills. For a group that takes no position on abortion, it sure is consistent in its opposition to regulation of the procedure.  Dr. Smith said that HB 578 was based on “bad science that would harm New Hampshire women.”

The bill includes an exception for procedures necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

Finally, the bill provides that if the viable child survives the abortion procedure, the child shall receive care.

So woman, child, and provider each get consideration in the bill.

Legal considerations: no new ground here

Rep. Murphy in his opening statement said that the bill as written is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Danforth decision, which was handed down in 1976. This is hardly cutting-edge legislation, except in a place like New Hampshire where abortion providers enjoy political protection.

I can see that HB 578 is also consistent with Roe v. Wade itself, in which seven black-robed sages declared that states could assert an interest in “potential” life later in pregnancy.

“If not viability, when?”

Rep. Murphy showed the committee photographs of children born prematurely, ranging from 21 weeks’ gestation to 26 weeks, and where he could find them he added photos of those same children later in their lives.

Surely, he told his colleagues, you agree these children deserved care. To abort children at the same gestational age “strikes me as brutal and inhumane.”

He pointed out that any claims that post-viability abortions don’t happen here are not supported by hard evidence, since New Hampshire has no abortion statistics reporting law. How can we know that such abortions aren’t occurring?

He asked a rhetorical question that no Judiciary member was willing to challenge directly. “If not viability, when? Do you support abortion until birth?”

Opponents lean on eugenics

Well, yes, there is support for abortion until birth. The fear of disability permeated the room as one opponent of HB 578 after another testified against the bill. Gentle and clinical terms floated in the air: Tragic anomalies, said Dr. Smith.  Tragic circumstances, said Devon Chaffee of ACLU-NH.  Severe congenital abnormalities, said another Dr. Smith (J.J. Smith of the New Hampshire Public Health Association).  Lethal abnormalities, said Renee Novello, M.D., a Lebanon OB/GYN and abortion provider. (I’m not giving away any secrets there; she was candid about the scope of her practice.)

One phrase was unuttered yet deafening: better dead than disabled. 

(Forgive this brief digression: I confess that I take that personally. I have a medical condition which is easily treated now, but was considered a much more serious problem more than a half-century ago. In view of the mid-20th-century treatments for my “anomaly,” I’m glad I went undiagnosed until I reached adulthood.)

Does the bill call for extraordinary measures to care for a child with severe problems who survives attempted abortion? Here is the language of the bill (emphasis added):

No physician shall perform or induce an abortion upon a woman when it has been determined that the unborn child is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for a child born as a result of the abortion. During the performance of the abortion, the physician performing it, and subsequent to the abortion, the physician required to be in attendance, shall take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice, consistent with the procedure used, to preserve the life or health of the viable unborn child; provided that it does not pose an increased risk to the life of the woman or does not pose an increased risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the woman.

Reasonable steps, good medical practice, with the determination of viability in the first place made by a physician and not a legislator. “Extraordinary” is nowhere in there.

One physician, to his credit, testified in favor of the bill. He did so after hearing several of the tragic-anomaly speakers. He said if early preemies get care – he did not say “extraordinary” care – they can survive. This was Richard Johnson, MD, a New Hampshire surgeon. He tossed a respectful bridge across the chasm separating advocates of the bill from opponents by acknowledging that Dr. Barry Smith had been his mentor and had delivered one of his children. “We disagree on the bill.”

Susan Clifton  testified about her grandchild born with Trisomy 14. No one had to tell her about the challenges facing families birthing and caring for children with disabilities, even lethal ones. Even so, she was there to support HB 578. Abortion for imperfection was apparently more than she could swallow.

Sister Mary Rose Reddy of Rochester kept her testimony brief and to the point. “Disabilities don’t make a child unfit to live. Abortion is a travesty.”

Vote not yet scheduled

There were so many speakers that the next hearing, buffer zone repeal, was pushed back by 45 minutes. Judiciary is chaired this year by Rep. Joe Hagan (R-Chester), who was considerate of everyone in the standing-room-only crowd while keeping his eye on the clock.

The date for a committee vote on HB 578 has not yet been set. It will go to the full House, where an ought-to-pass motion on a similar bill last year (HB 1625) lost by three votes, 148-151.

If HB 578 fails, New Hampshire will continue to be one of the only places in the world where preborn children may be “terminated” at any point in pregnancy. It will continue to be a place where there is no duty to care for children who survive attempted abortion.

Don’t tell me about a “pro-life” party. Let’s see how this bill fares. Let’s see if House leadership takes a position on it. Can a majority of representatives agree that viable children deserve protection? Is this a common-ground bill? If it isn’t, can there be such a thing?

 

Wednesday hearings: repeal buffer zone, prohibit post-viability abortions

The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee will have hearings on Wednesday, February 1, on two bills: HB 578, to prohibit abortions of children of gestational age 21 weeks or more who are determined to be viable, and HB 589, yet another attempt to repeal the useless, unenforced buffer zone bill.

Room 208 of the Legislative Office Building is the location for the hearings. That’s on State Street in Concord, behind the State House. The hearing for HB 578 begins at 10 a.m., and the hearing for HB 589 begins at 11 a.m.

The sponsors of both bills would be grateful for your support at the hearings, whether or not you choose to speak publicly. If you want to testify on one or both bills, fill out a pink card for each bill you want to speak about. You’ll find those cards in the committee room. There will also be sign-in sheets for people who want to register their opinion (pro or con) without offering testimony.

If you email the committee in support of these bills (HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us), copy your message to the chief sponsors: Rep. Keith Murphy (rep.keithmurphy@gmail.com) leads the team on the post-viability abortion bill, and Rep. Kurt Wuelper (kurt.wuelper@leg.state.nh.us) is chief sponsor of buffer zone repeal.

I’ve been writing about the buffer zone law ever since the idea was floated in 2013. Peruse these posts for a review.

As for the post-viability ban, remember that in New Hampshire, abortion is currently legal throughout pregnancy. There is a parental notification law, but that’s about parental rights, and it cannot stop a minor from getting an abortion since there is a judicial bypass provision. We have a partial-birth abortion ban, which simply prohibits a particular abortion method (pulling the child partway out of the mother’s body before killing the child).

Rep. Murphy’s bill to prohibit post-viability abortions provides for the mother’s health, gives wide latitude to the abortion provider to confirm gestational age and viability, and provides that a born-alive child shall receive care. It’s hardly a challenge to Roe v. Wade. In this state, though, with the legislature’s strong pro-abortion bias (remember, the Republican House last year couldn’t even pass a bill to require care for children surviving attempted abortion), it’s pushing the envelope. Good. The envelope needs pushing.