Committee recommends “interim study” for assisted suicide; Senate vote expected May 16

HB 1283-FN, New Hampshire’s assisted suicide bill, is scheduled to go to the Senate floor on May 16 after the Judiciary Committee recommended on a 3-2 vote that the bill be sent to interim study. If the Senate adopts that report, assisted suicide will have no chance of being legalized this year.

I’ll be asking my senator to kill the bill by any means available. A straight “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL) recommendation from the committee would have been good to see, but interim study would achieve the same result.

What does “interim study” mean?

With interim study, a legislative subcommittee would meet in the fall to have one or more “study” sessions. The committee would then file a report on whether or not they recommend future legislation on the same topic.

We all know that whatever an interim study committee says, there will be more assisted suicide legislation down the road if HB 1283 fails. Its advocates won’t quit. Neither will I.

Unlike legislation in many other states, a New Hampshire bill can’t be killed in committee. The committee’s vote is only a recommendation to the full chamber (in this case, the Senate).

Next step: contact your senator

You can contact your senator anytime between now and May 16 to ask for a vote to kill HB 1283-FN. That could be either an ITL or Interim Study motion. The important point: kill the bill. Make your opposition to assisted suicide very clear.

I’ll be sending out a newsletter to subscribers a few days before the vote as a reminder. I hope calls and messages to senators are starting already, building to a flood of courteous and clear messages right before the vote.

I usually recommend brief messages. I still do. If you have a story or personal concern about treating assisted suicide as public policy or medical treatment, though, put it in writing or create a short video to share with your senator. Personal stories, not party affiliation, will be critical in determining how the vote goes on this bill.

If I hear of any rescheduling of the vote, I’ll post that to the blog’s Facebook page immediately.

Resources

These points bear repeating:

• HB 1283-FN relies on dishonest language that doesn’t belong in New Hampshire law, since the bill does not recognize the direct intentional taking of one’s own life as “suicide.”
• It would turn suicide into a form of medical care, giving insurers and other third-party payers an incentive to favor it over authentic care, which is likely to be more expensive.
• It reinforces an attitude of “better dead than disabled.” 
• It undermines suicide prevention outreach to vulnerable individuals.

The New Hampshire Coalition for Suicide Prevention (zerosuicidesnh.org) is a broad coalition of New Hampshire residents and organizations. Their blog is thought-provoking, and one post in particular summarizes their view of HB 1283: “Advocate for Suicide Prevention and Palliative Care, Not End-of-Life Options.“

Worth looking for: Cornerstone Action has posted a number of reels and links on their Instagram/Facebook pages from New Hampshire residents testifying against the bill from various perspectives.

_{Header image: pexels.com}

This week: hearings on Safe Haven and abortion statistics bills

On Tuesday, April 30 (today, as I write this), the New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on HB 1607, updating the Safe Haven law. I’ve just signed in online to register my support. You can do likewise on the Senate’s remote sign-in page. Once the sign-in page closes, it’s not too late to email the committee members using the “email entire committee” link on the committee’s web page.

On Wednesday, May 1, the House Health and Human Services Committee will hear SB 461, the abortion statistics bill with a stinger nestled inside it. Conversations with pro-life allies have shown me that few people share my concern about the bill. I signed in online as “neutral” and added this for committee’s edification (I hope): “An abortion statistics collection law is long overdue in New Hampshire, but I don’t see any reason why the Fetal Life Protection Act must be undermined in order to achieve that goal. I strongly support a statistics law; I oppose repeal of RSA 329:49. I hope the committee will consider amending SB 461 accordingly. Thank you.” You can sign in online with your own opinion at the House remote sign-in page.

Senate committee to take up assisted suicide bill April 24

EDITED to reflect venue change announced on General Court website.

New Hampshire’s latest assisted suicide bill will have its hearing at the Senate Health and Human Services committee on Wednesday, April 24, at 10 a.m. in room 103 of the State House in Concord. HB 1283-FN passed the House earlier on a 179-176 vote.

Here are some reminders about the bill and the policy behind it, followed by the details you’ll need in order to weigh in on the measure.

Points to ponder

• HB 1283-FN relies on dishonest language that doesn’t belong in New Hampshire law.
• It would turn suicide into a form of medical care, giving insurers and other third-party payers an incentive to favor it over authentic care, which is likely to be more expensive.
• It reinforces an attitude of “better dead than disabled.”
• It undermines suicide prevention outreach to vulnerable individuals.
• No amendment can “fix” this bill. HB 1283-FN needs to be voted “inexpedient to legislate.”

“An act relative to end of life options,” says the title of the bill. The last assisted suicide bill in New Hampshire, in 2020, used the words “patients’ rights.” Then and now, sponsors and supporters are not happy to hear the term “assisted suicide” used instead. Suicide is the deliberate taking of one’s own life. Prescribing and dispensing a drug with the intention of facilitating that act is assisting suicide. Hence, the act so carefully authorized in HB 1283-FN is indeed assisted suicide.

HB 1283-FN has a provision (“Death certificate” section, paragraph II) that the death certificate for a person whose suicide is committed with medical assistance shall not list “suicide” as cause of death. HB 1283-FN is a mandate to health care providers to falsify death certificates.

It’s also a gilt-edged invitation to insurers to treat assisted suicide as medical care. Compare the cost of palliative care for a patient – possibly a complex regimen of which pharmaceuticals are only one element – with the cost of a lethal dose of drugs. The insidious financial pressure toward the cheaper option would be overwhelming for insurers and patients alike.

It’s no coincidence that among the most passionate opponents of HB 1283-FN are people living with chronic debilitating diseases or irreversible disabilities. They know they are the patients who are most vulnerable to pressure. Lisa Beaudoin, longtime advocate in New Hampshire for the rights of disabled persons, wrote about the bill in an op-ed published in February. “Physician-assisted suicide is insidiously becoming normalized as a legitimate option instead of doing the hard work of creating safe, equitable end-of-life care….In April 2023, four disability rights groups filed a CA lawsuit alleging California’s 7-year-old End of Life Option Act, originally designed to allow terminally ill people to end their life, puts people with disabilities at greater risk of being coerced into seeking assisted suicide because we know from the research that healthcare providers undervalue life with a disability.”

Representatives of veterans’ groups were among more than a thousand people who registered opposition to the bill before its House hearing. Recall the words of a representive of the State Veteran’s Advisory Committee: “this bill scares our members right out of their socks.” We’re all familiar with efforts to reduce the appalling rate of suicide among veterans. Those efforts arise from the belief – the fact – that each human life is valuable and worth caring for. HB 1283-FN would turn that belief on its head. It would establish as a matter of public policy that the value of life is situational and subjective.

And this is what the bill’s chief sponsor at the House hearing called a “conservative” measure.

No, thanks.

Preparing for the Senate hearing

The goal is a committee recommendation of “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL).

You can refer to this blog’s Legislative Tool Kit page for more information about contacting elected officials and about procedures for hearings. Always be polite, and never let them say they didn’t hear from you.

Your presence at the hearing will make an impression. We saw at the House hearing what can happen when people show up to try to stop bad legislation. Let’s keep up the effort. Expect a crowd. Seating may be limited. If you can’t stay for long, try to be there for the first hour, beginning at 10 a.m.

This hearing’s scheduled to be in room 103 of the State House.

The members of the Senate Health and Human Services committee are Sens. Regina Birdsell (R-Hampstead), Kevin Avard (R-Nashua), Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro; also Senate President), Rebecca Whitley (D-Hopkinton), and Suzanne Prentiss (D-West Lebanon).

You can sign in at the hearing on sheets that will be available near the door of the hearing room. You’ll be asked to provide your name, address, the name of any group you’re representing – and don’t forget to put a check mark in the “opposed” column. Even if you don’t give any oral or written testimony, your name on that sign-in sheet will have an impact.

You can sign in online to register your opposition to the bill right now. The online form will be available through the day of the hearing. Go online to the Senate’s “remote sign-in” page and follow the instructions. You may attach a written statement if you wish, but you don’t need to provide one in order to sign in. You may also email testimony to the committee members via the link on the committee’s page.

Links to my earlier coverage of HB 1283-FN: Assisted suicide bill draws a crowd, Assisted suicide bill scheduled for House vote, House passes assisted suicide bill

Out of nowhere, a stats bill – with a problem

I once (maybe twice) said that if New Hampshire legislators ever passed an abortion statistics law, I’d never show up at the State House again, out of sheer gratitude at the victory. Someone seems determined to see if I was serious.

How did we get a statistics bill so late in the legislative session?

I had thought any future deep dives into legislation would come via this blog’s newsletter, but this one calls for lengthy comment. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney (and neither are most of our legislators): a bill introduced by abortion advocates has been amended into a stats bill, only with the abortion advocates’ language still in there. I confess I never saw that coming.

SB 461 as introduced was meant to weaken the Fetal Life Protection Act (NH RSA 329:44, with RSA standing for “revised statutes annotated”). RSA 329:49, just a few lines down from FLPA, says that nothing in the law shall be construed to create a right to abortion. I take that to mean that FLPA leaves pre-24-week abortions legal, but doesn’t create any “right” that can be expanded by a court, as long as RSA 329:49 stays in effect. SB 461 started out as a simple repeal of RSA 329:49. It was sponsored by a who’s who of New Hampshire abortion absolutists, led by all ten Democratic state senators.

So where’s the problem?

A funny thing happened when SB 461 got to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Along party lines, the committee replaced the original language of SB 461 with language establishing a program to collect abortion statistics. The original sponsors expressed vehement disapproval, to no avail. The Senate passed SB 461 as amended on a 14-9 party-line vote, with Democratic Sen. D’Allesandro absent.

So there’s an abortion statistics bill on its way to the New Hampshire House, with a hearing coming up in the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs (HHS) committee sometime soon.

There’s just one problem with that. The amended version of SB 461 still repeals the statute saying that nothing in the law creates a right to abortion. Abortion absolutists might be apoplectic about seeing a statistics bill in the works, but the original goal of SB 461 is well on its way to being realized.

I don’t ascribe bad faith to the senators (all Republicans) who supported SB 461 as amended. There are strong advocates for women’s health in that group, and health is what abortion statistics laws are about. I just can’t figure out why we need to undermine FLPA in order to get an abortion statistics law.

That’s why when I sign up online to register my opinion on the bill when it goes to House HHS, I’ll probably sign in as “neutral.” I’ll add a written statement as simple as I can make it: I am pro-stats, while being against repeal of the statutory provision that nothing in RSA 329 creates a right to abortion. That ought to be what House HHS hears over and over again: yes to stats; no to repealing RSA 329:49.

Such nuances are lost on abortion absolutists who oppose the bill as passed by the Senate. They’ll probably be lost on the journalists who will report the support/oppose numbers from the online sign-ins. They might also be lost on some pro-life allies. So be it. I’m uneasy about leaving pro-abortion language nestled inside what is meant to be a pro-life bill.

What does it mean to collect abortion statistics?

As has been the case since long before this blog came into being, New Hampshire does not report any statistics to the Centers for Disease Control about induced abortions – how many occur, how many are late-term, how many are for eugenic reasons or for maternal health, how many women experience complications, how many minors are brought across state lines for abortion, and so on. This sets New Hampshire apart from the 47 other states who provide aggregate data to the CDC, which every few years publishes an Abortion Surveillance report in the interest of public health.

“Aggregate” means that the data is NOT personally identifiable. No woman’s name is handed to the state or to the CDC. SB 461 as amended starts out with that assurance. Any claim you hear that SB 461 would name-and-shame women is nonsense.

I recall a 2020 state senate campaign where an incumbent senator was accused of being opposed to doctor-patient confidentiality – because he supported a statistics bill. Again: nonsense.

What is and isn’t in SB 461 as amended

SB 461, ignoring the troublesome provision I cite above, is actually a pretty stripped-down stats bill, which makes the reaction of abortion advocates that much harder to take seriously.

It doesn’t call for any reporting to the CDC. It requires abortion providers to give their abortion data to the medical facility in which the abortion is performed, which in turn will report the information to the state Department Health and Human Services, which will then provide a report of statistical data to legislators annually.

It calls on abortion providers to note the date and place the abortion was performed, the age and state of residence of the pregnant patient, gestational age of the fetus, method used to perform the abortion, and any prescription written for the purpose of inducing abortion. That’s it. At least SB 461 as amended would be an attempt to learn how many abortions take place under the direction of “health care providers,” independent of the anecdotal information handed out by lobbyists.

No mention of penalties for failure to report. No mention of maternal race or ethnicity which might help policymakers pinpoint communities where there are disproportionately poor post-abortion outcomes. No mention of collecting information on morbidity and mortality correlating to abortion.

And still, abortion advocates are crying foul. It’s enough to make one wonder if women’s health is really what they’re concerned about.

I wish SB 461 as amended were something I could support with a full-throated cheer, even with its bare-bones requirements. But with the repeal of language that says nothing in the law shall be construed to create a right to abortion, I just can’t. Yes to stats, no to repeal of RSA 329:49.

Side note: opponents of abortion stats were fans of Covid stats

I reported in 2021 that House Democrats called for collection of statistics on Covid infections. They were seeking information on the extent of infections, not personally-identifiable data that would violate patient privacy.

As I wrote back then, “That’s something to keep in mind the next time an abortion statistics bill is introduced. The same ‘Democratic leaders’ (and any likeminded Republicans) calling for COVID-19-positive stats ‘which wouldn’t invade personal privacy’ could explain their aversion to abortion stats subject to the same privacy protections….Maybe COVID will prompt some reconsideration about what it takes to collect and report aggregate public health data that protects individual privacy.” Maybe such reconsideration never happened, but it should.

header image by Pexels.com

Podcast: the Catholic Bookworm

My thanks to Kiki Latimer, who welcomed me to “The Catholic Bookworm” podcast to talk about Pro-Life Journeys. Kiki’s long experience as a pregnancy care center director made this a rewarding conversation for me – and for listeners as well, I trust!