The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has okayed the mail-order dispensation of an abortion-inducing drug. The American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) sees no reason to celebrate. The following statement, including the heading, was published in the AAPLOG email newsletter.Continue reading “Pro-life physicians on mail-order chemical abortion: “reckless””
Today, the New Hampshire Executive Council voted 4-1 to reject family planning contracts with three abortion providers, while approving on 3-2 votes similar contracts with agencies that do not perform abortions. The Council gave thumbs down to the same abortion providers in September, on the same contract proposals.
The 4-1 vote was along party lines, with Republicans Joe Kenney, Janet Stevens, Ted Gatsas, and Dave Wheeler prevailing over Democrat Cinde Warmington. On the 3-2 votes, Councilors Gatsas and Wheeler were in the minority, according to The New Hampshire Union Leader.
A majority of the councilors saying no to the abortion providers aren’t doing so because they have a problem with family planning programs. Their issue is with the abortion side of the providers’ business. They know that giving x number of dollars to an agency for a specific task frees up other agency resources for other tasks.
“Shameful,” says the VP of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. “We are outraged,” tweeted the NH Women’s Forum.
The Council’s vote appears to be consistent with state law, as passed in the trailer bill to the state budget that went into effect on July 1 (HB 2, chaptered final version, section 91:36; see subsections 3 and 4):
Any contract awarded to a family planning project shall contain all of the following provisions: (1) that no state funds shall be used to subsidize abortions, either directly or indirectly; (2) that the family planning project will permit the commissioner of the department of health and human services, or his or her designated agent or delegate, to inspect the financial records of the family planning project to monitor compliance with this section; (3) that at the end of each fiscal year, the commissioner shall certify, in writing, to the governor and council that he or she, personally or through a designated agent or delegate, has reviewed the expenditure of funds awarded to a family planning project under this section and that no state funds awarded by the department have been used to provide abortion services; and (4) that if the commissioner fails to make such certification or if the governor and executive council, based on evidence presented by the commissioner in his or her certification, find that state funds awarded by the department have been used to provide abortion services, the grant recipient shall either: (a) be found to be in breach of the terms of such contract, grant, or award of funds and forfeit all right to receive further funding; or (b) suspend all operations until such time as the state funded family planning project is physically and financially separate from any reproductive health facility, as defined in RSA 132:37.Chapter 91:36, HB 2 as enacted by New Hampshire Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Chris Sununu, 2021
The PPNNE spokesperson has averred that there are no unanswered questions about how PP spends taxpayer money.
According to Kevin Landrigan’s Union Leader report, Governor Sununu expressed hope that the Council will reconsider once the statutorily-required audits are complete. Landrigan quoted the governor as saying “The fight isn’t over yet,” to which Councilor Kenney reportedly replied, “I believe it is.”
In advance of the vote, the Public Policy office of the Diocese of Manchester in an email had urged readers to contact their Councilors to urge a “no” vote on contracts with abortion providers PPNNE, the Equality Center in Concord, and Lovering Health. “Keeping state funds separate from abortion activities is an important public policy-– a policy that is especially appropriate in the context presented by these particular contracts, because abortion unquestionably should not be thought of simply as an element of family planning.”
New Hampshire Right to Life also issued a public heads-up before today’s Council meeting. “Soon after the Executive Council members decided to uphold the law in mid-September, the NH abortion providers announced increased prices for family planning services on their poorest clientele…. The abortionists thought they could bully NH taxpayers into subsidizing their abortions by increasing prices for other services….As a public service, NHRTL responded to the price increases at abortion facilities for their low-income clients by publishing an interactive map with a list of health care centers and other helpful organizations for women and their families.”
If you’d like to send your councilor a polite message about the votes, here’s contact information.
Family planning contracts are back before the New Hampshire Executive Council. Several of the contractors are abortion providers, although the contracts in question are not for abortion “services.” Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the Equality Center, and the Joan G. Lovering Center are up for contract renewal.
You can find contract details on the Executive Council website. Click on the hyperlinked item 9j on the agenda for the 9/15/21 Council meeting.
Agenda for 9/15/21 Council meeting (see item 9j)
The recently-passed state budget has some specific language about contracts with abortion providers. See pages 13 and 14 of HB 2, signed into law earlier this year. A couple of highlights: no family planning funds may be used for abortion, directly or indirectly (emphasis added); and the state may inspect contractors’ records to ensure compliance. At this point, there hasn’t been time for any such audit.
If you wish to register your opinion on these contracts or contractors, contact information for Councilors is available on the Council’s website. On the same page, you can click on each District number to see a list of the District’s towns.
If you wish to attend the Council meeting, note that it will not be held at the State House this time. District Five Councilor Dave Wheeler is hosting the September 15 meeting at St. Joseph’s Academic Center in Nashua, 5 Woodward Ave., next to St. Joseph Hospital. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a Louisiana law requiring an abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. The case was June Medical Services v. Russo. The vote was 5-4, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing for a majority that included Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Chief Justice Roberts.
Justice Breyer concluded his opinion by saying that the Louisiana law placed a “substantial obstacle” between a woman and an abortion, thus making it in violation of the 1992 Casey decision. Anything that happens in the wake of an abortion – hemorrhaging, for example – is apparently none of the Court’s concern.
Breyer also cited the 2016 Whole Women’s Health decision, regarding a Texas law, in striking down Louisiana’s statute.
Separate dissents were filed by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The Louisiana law did not affect the legality of abortion itself, did not shutter any abortion facilities, and did not address the right to life. It was supposed to be strictly about women’s health. Women’s health lost. The June Medical decision, however Justice Breyer views his handiwork, is about the rights of abortion providers, period.
Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote
The standard of care (so to speak) for abortion excludes the need for the abortion provider to have hospital admitting privileges in case a patient suffers a complication. Any medical professionals who take issue with that can complain to the Justices.
Don’t bother with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Go straight to Justice Roberts. He agreed with the decision, but not for the same reasons as his fellow majority Justices, each of whom is well-known to be abortion-friendly. He concluded that the Louisiana law had to be overturned because the Court had ruled in 2016 that a similar Texas law be overturned. Stare decisis, don’t ya know. “The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health [the Texas case] was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”
One wonders if this guy would have voted against Brown v. Board of Education back in the 1950s, since it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, the “separate but equal” case that kept racial segregation in place for decades. Brown was a unanimous decision. Can you imagine a dissent like the one Roberts released today? The question today is not whether Plessy was right or wrong…
I’m trying to imagine the Chief Justice as he tried to figure out how to agree with the majority without looking like he agreed with it. He could have just signed on to Breyer’s opinion without comment, as did the women on the Court. But no. He wanted to make sure everyone knew his hands were tied by stare decisis.
He could have arrived at a different conclusion if he had cared about a glaring procedural question in the case: the standing of the plaintiffs. Did abortion providers as a group have any business bringing the case, without a single named patient’s rights having been violated? The Court today said yes. A different conclusion by Justice Roberts would have changed the outcome.
I wish I could take credit for a Facebook post from an acquaintance of mine, posted a few minutes after the June Medical decision was released: “Are there any statues of Justice Roberts? Asking for a friend.” With nothing to pull down, I’m left with objecting to his concurrence.
Excerpts from four minority views
Justice Clarence Thomas dealt with the issue of standing at the very beginning of his 20-page dissent. “As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own.” [emphasis added]
Thomas’s dissent didn’t rest on procedure alone, though. Earlier Court decisions on abortion “created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.”
Next up was Justice Samuel Alito, opening his dissent – respectful dissent, of course – by blasting his colleagues’ reasoning. “The majority bills today’s decision as a facsimile of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt [striking down portions of a Texas law in 2016]…, and it’s true they have something in common. In both, the abortion right recognized in this Court’s decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way.”
The most recently-confirmed Justices weighed in as well. June Medical is hardly a case where either one was called upon to rule on the right to life, but their dissents bear consideration nonetheless.
Justice Gorsuch: “The judicial power is constrained by an array of rules. …Individually, these rules may seem prosaic. But, collectively, they help keep us in our constitutionally assigned lane, sure that we are in the business of saying what the law is, not what we wish it to be. Today’s decision doesn’t just overlook one of these rules. It overlooks one after another….To arrive at today’s result, rules must be brushed aside and shortcuts taken.”
I’ll leave finer minds than mine to ponder how that squares with Gorsuch’s recent opinion that sex includes gender identity under Title VII.
Justice Kavanaugh, you may recall, got a confirmation vote from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) only after assuring her that he would respect Roe. Not a promising commitment. But in his brief dissent in June Medical, he agreed with one of Justice Alito’s points, that the factual record behind the case was incomplete. There simply weren’t enough facts in the record for him to be willing to throw out a duly enacted state law.
effect on new hampshire
New Hampshire has no requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges, or even that they have any medical credentials whatsoever. In the last quarter-century, women’s health has never been enough of a concern to change that. June Medical therefore doesn’t overturn anything New Hampshire has on the books.
What will happen is that attempts to rectify New Hampshire’s situation will face an even steeper uphill battle than before.
Edited to clarify that the overturned law was “supposed to be” strictly about women’s health.
With a nod to Cornerstone Action, and with full disclosure that I’m a Cornerstone communications consultant, let me link you to this morning’s headline from the Cornerstone blog: “Title X Grantees Announced.” Among the recipients of this federally-disbursed family planning money, with no messy intermediate stop at the New Hampshire Executive Council: Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
From Cornerstone’s post:
[The federal Department of Health and Human Services] has announced grant awards for Title X family planning funds for the grant period of April 1st 2019- March 31st 2020 and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England will be the recipient of $600,000 of taxpayer money.
As you may recall, President Trump’s new rule was rumored to prohibit federal taxpayer dollars to go to organizations that promote and administer abortion as a form of birth control.
…Not satisfied with federal dollars, Planned Parenthood continues their fight to secure your state taxpayer dollarshttps://www.nhcornerstone.org/latest-news/title-x-grantees-announced/
This round of 90 family planning grants for fiscal year 2019 does include some recipients of an abortion-free persuasion who had not received Title X money before, and it includes as always a lot of federally-qualified health centers which do not perform abortions. But please, don’t let anyone tell you that abortion providers have been cut out of Title X. It just ain’t so.
Quick review: Title X [that’s Roman numeral ten, not letter X] is a federal program that funds “family planning” efforts. Title X funds, while federal, are usually block-granted to states, and the states decide which contractors can most effectively carry out the Title X requirements. Abortion is explicitly excluded from Title X activity.
That’s how it’s usually (not always) done in New Hampshire, with the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) receiving the federal money, then seeking bids from contractors and submitting the resulting contracts to the Executive Council for approval. It’s common for up to eleven contracts to be awarded in New Hampshire, with each contractor covering a different part of the state. Most of the contractors are federally-qualified health centers, but three are abortion providers: the Equality Center in Concord, the Lovering Center in Greenland, and PPNNE.
Each of those abortion providers solemnly swears as part of the Title X contract that none of the money will be used for abortion. That’s the extent of the firewall. To my knowledge, no one has figured out how to divvy up the money between the abortion and non-abortion use for the utilities, equipment, office space, and staffing of a facility.
Therefore, taxpayers wanting to divest completely from involvement in the abortion industry are out of luck. You’d think a $23 million agency like PPNNE could figure out a way to separate out abortion from authentic health care: separate facilities, staff, accounts. But no. You’ve got civil rights, but the right not to subsidize abortion providers isn’t on the list.
There are two New Hampshire grantees in the latest round announced by the feds: the state HHS department, which will get $800,000 for Title X, and PPNNE, which has a $600,000 grant all to itself.
The state HHS grant for Title X will go through the usual state contract bidding process, ending with an Executive Council vote that will probably hand over the money to the usual contractors. (I’m guessing a 4-1 vote, but don’t hold me to that.)
The PPNNE Title X grant, on the other hand, goes directly to PPNNE. Does that mean PPNNE won’t reach for more money from general funds in the state budget, now being drafted? Big fat “no.” Check out this Concord Monitor article from last weekend.
Don’t blame one political party over another. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around. You can start by letting the President know what you think of the handouts from the federal HHS department. It’s an executive agency, and he’s Chief Executive.