Right to life as a “niche ideological issue”

Political parties, like fire, make good servants and awful masters. I’ve discoursed on this at some length elsewhere, so I’ll try to keep this brief.

The most recent edition of the New Hampshire Sunday News featured an op-ed column from a gentleman well-known in New Hampshire political circles. He’s supportive of many Republicans, and he has his own communications consulting firm. His essays are often featured in the Union Leader/ NH Sunday News.

His recent column touted the announced goals of the Republican majorities in the state Senate. The headline cheerfully blared “Senate GOP puts NH families first”. The column went on to list the policy priorities announced by leaders of the Senate majority at a recent press conference.

Economic issues came first, including a balanced state budget that protects both vulnerable populations as well as taxpayers (there’s overlap there, but I’ll let that pass for now). Then came the rest of the cars on the agenda train: targeted education aid, respect for parental rights and children’s education options, lower electric rates, improved broadband access, solutions to homelessness and housing, improving the state’s mental health services system, and protecting the environment.

I see laudable goals, some of them overdue, even if they might give small-government conservatives fits. But did you notice something missing? The columnist has you covered. “Absent from their agenda are niche ideological issues and special interest appeals.”

I assume that one of those “niche ideological issues” dismissed by the columnist and the Senate is the right to life.

Tough luck, ladies and gentlemen. The minority party has already introduced legislation to lock abortion into the New Hampshire constitution and statutes. There’s also a bill to repeal the Fetal Life Protection Act altogether. The right to life is on your agenda whether you like it or not. If you think stressing the economy is going to get you past that fact, take a look at the last election.

Voters who are both Republican and pro-life might want to remind their party that they don’t fit into a niche. They can be grateful for the timely reminder from the columnist that no one can count on a political party to defend the right to life during State House debates. Count instead on individuals willing to buck their party in order to defend that basic right, without which all the other policy goals are just so much vote-buying.

NH Sunday News link (possibly paywalled): https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/patrick-hynes-senate-gop-puts-nh-families-first/article_42286be4-e93e-51e1-97af-87046e9e3339.html

Header image by Piro/Pixabay

Assisted suicide bill gets House hearing February 12

A New Hampshire assisted suicide bill will have its first public hearing on Wednesday, February 12, at 1 p.m. Like several other 2020 bills affecting the right to life, HB 1659-FN will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee in Representatives Hall.

If you don’t think assisted suicide should be considered a form of medical care, the committee needs to hear from you. Coming to the hearing will be worthwhile, if only to sign in against the bill. There’s a strong coalition coming together to fight HB 1659-FN, so you’ll be in good company.

One of the things that bothers me about this bill is its abuse of the English language. The bill allows for “a prescription for lethal medication which will allow the patient, if the patient chooses to do so, to self-administer and thus control the time, place, and manner of death.” Five pages later, this: “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law.”

Go figure.

For a summary of the problems the bill would cause, let me direct you to Cornerstone Action’s post “Caring, Not Killing.” (Full disclosure: I’m a communications consultant for Cornerstone.) In brief:

• Assisted suicide laws exploit medically vulnerable individuals.
• Passing an assisted suicide law sends a confounding and false message to anyone considering suicide: your life is only as valuable as you think it is.
• Passage of an assisted suicide law, however carefully drawn, will open the door to wider use. There is no way to make assisted suicide into a form of “medical care” without opening it up to anyone who wants it, with or without a terminal condition.

Read the full post here.

I will attend the HB 1659-FN hearing on Cornerstone’s behalf. Come say hi and pick up a sticker.

The N.H. Coalition Against State-Approved Suicide will have these stickers available at the hearing on HB 1659-FN.

“Life is a Fact, Not an Opinion”

Ever had one of those days when you thought your audio recorder was working, and it turned out it wasn’t? That happened to me the other day when I was supposed to be covering a New Hampshire GOP press conference for a blog to which I’m a contributor. Among the speakers was a retired state rep, Dan Itse, who gave a pro-life speech of rare passion for a party event. I went home eager to transcribe it, and…nothing. (Note to self: store electronics in an inner pocket on 20-degree days.)

Fortunately, GraniteGrok.com posted video, preserving the speech. The Honorable Mr. Itse was inspired – more like goaded – by remarks from the Governor of Virginia indicating acceptance of the idea of infanticide for children surviving abortion. Mr. Itse takes a different view.

Ladies and gentlemen, my friends, you’re probably wondering why Governor Northam was so overjoyed at that legislation in Virginia. I believe that it was because it ratified what he had probably been doing for years. His voice was one of experience, not conjecture….New Hampshire must send representation to Washington, D.C. that knows life is a fact, not an opinion. If we can’t do that, then God save us.

Read the full speech at GraniteGrok.

Because This Isn’t Settled

The team at the national March for Life has invited people to post their own reasons for marching for life, using the hashtag #whywemarch. Check that out on Twitter and you’ll find some good material. Here’s my contribution, recorded in Concord just before the New Hampshire March for Life on January 12.

https://leavenfortheloaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/WhyWeMarch2019.mov

Why do I march? To let my elected officials close to home and in Washington know that debates over the right to life aren’t settled and aren’t over. We have work to do and we’ll keep at it.

The New Hampshire march took place under a beautiful blue sky on a 15° day. Afterward came the customary post-march gathering on South Main Street, where volunteers from Christ the King Parish had wonderful soups and sandwiches for everyone. Keynote speaker at the gathering was Neil Hubacker, whom I know through my work as a communications consultant with Cornerstone Action. I loved his theme of “Meeting the Unexplainable with the Unexpected,” illustrated by examples of New Hampshire people doing low-key things in pro-life ministry that are making a difference in people’s lives even if the headlines aren’t there. Encouraging stuff!

Photos & video by Ellen Kolb

 

Why I’m Voting No on Question 2

As if the November 6 ballot didn’t have enough on it, a pair of proposed amendments to the New Hampshire constitution will be on there, too. One of them, Question 2, is about privacy. My opinion, for what it’s worth: I’m going to vote No.

There’s one way to get my vote on “privacy” language in the state constitution: make it abortion-neutral. Something like “nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion.”

Such neutrality is not written into Question 2, which says An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent. 

I know the sponsors’ intentions are good. They mean for the amendment to address “informational” privacy. That doesn’t change the fact that there’s been too much nonsense in other states from courts that have determined that a state constitution provides more protection for abortion rights than does Roe v. Wade, sometimes on the basis of privacy language in the constitution.

Anyone concerned with the right to life has known for more than 40 years how “privacy” has been torqued out of shape to accommodate abortion policy. Cornerstone Action (for which I’m a consultant) has contacted attorneys who reviewed the language of Question 2 and confirmed that there’s cause for concern. More from Cornerstone on Question 2 here.

I wrote about a related story over on DaTechGuy blog a few weeks ago. On the first day of its 2018-19 term, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a 2014 Tennessee ballot measure that put abortion-neutral language into the Tennessee constitution. Why was the ballot measure needed? Because a Tennessee court found in 2000 that the state constitution somehow provided a right to abortion broader than Roe.

It took 14 years for Tennessee voters to rectify the court’s error.

I have had earnest discussions about Question 2 with New Hampshire legislators and attorneys. Some see no need for concern. They can’t imagine any New Hampshire judge reading something into a constitutional amendment that sponsors didn’t intend. Others disagree.

Remember, judges in New Hampshire are nominated by a governor who calls himself pro-choice.

That’s my opinion. Yours may vary.  See you at the polls.