25 Days

HR 29 is a message to federal health care officials that they drop the mandate on contraception coverage.

There has been much debate on this topic. Some people see this as an attack on religious freedom but I believe that this is about health care, simple. I particularly like this explanation in an article on Jezebel.com: 

The specific medical care that a woman needs is between her and her doctor, and if human beings are covered by a medical plan, then human bodies should be covered by that medical plan, regardless of what we do with those bodies. Full stop. Also, kindly stop thinking so much about what I do with my body. It's creepy.

There's a simple mathematical formula I remember learning in school. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

So if access to health care is a right, and contraception is health care, then shouldn't contraception be a right too?

Josh Davenport and Adam Schroadter both voted against this basic right.

26 Days

The New Hampshire legislature introduced a bill this year that would effectively legalize discrimination in our state. 

HB 1264 reads: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person, including a business owner or employee thereof, shall be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request is related to the solemnization, celebration, or promotion of a marriage and providing such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges would be a violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith. A person’s refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such person.

This means that if a business owner objects to a marriage on moral grounds, that business owner can refuse to provide services to that couple.  And to be clear, this bill does not specify that it would need to be a homosexual couple--- a business owner could refuse to serve a biracial or mixed faith couple also.

Adam Schroadter and Josh Davenport both supported this bill.

So much for "Live Free or Die."

27 Days

The New Hampshire Legislature passed a new Voter ID law this year-over the veto of Governor Lynch. The issues with voter ID laws across the country have been widely reported and this law is no exception. 

From the Governor's veto message:

"This bill is unnecessary.
Any changes to our voting procedures must ensure a person's constitutional right to vote is protected. This bill does not meet this test."

You can read this op-ed in Seacoastonline and this article in the Huffington Post for a little more background on this law.

Adam Schroadter and Josh Davenport both voted in favor of this bill which one judge described as "at odds with state law and would have a "clear, harmful effect" on the voting rights of college students and others." 

28 Days

Adam Schroadter and Josh Davenport both voted in favor of diverting tax payer money to private and religious schools.

This bill would hurt Newmarket schools.

This statement sums up my thoughts about HB 1607:

"The net effect is that the bill will support parents who already send their children to private and religious schools or who home-school their children. In short, legislators who vote for this bill are enhancing the liberty (choice) of a small minority of citizens and residents rather than promoting the greater good, including our nation's commitment to equality of educational opportunity." (You can read the full text here.) 

From Governor Lynch's Veto Message:

"Diverting public funds to private schools and downshifting costs to cities and towns is the wrong policy for our state and taxpayers, and is the main reason I have vetoed this bill and SB 372. But I have other concerns as well.

HB 1607, like SB 372, will also allow private, non-profit corporations to determine where public education dollars are spent. This bill does not identify those organizations beyond requiring that they be non-profits, register with the state's Charitable Trust Division and comply with applicable state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The bill also fails to establish a system of accountability for these private entities. I believe that the executive and legislative branches should determine where public school money is spent, not a private corporation."

"I strongly believe that any tax credit program enacted by the legislature must not weaken our public school system in New Hampshire or downshift additional costs onto local communities or taxpayers. Accordingly, I am vetoing HB 1607, and the nearly identical SB 372, because they do not meet that test."

See the progression of this bill here. 

This bill wouldn't support public education and wouldn't help Newmarket.

29 Days

It's been widely reported that State Legislatures across the country have been introducing bills that would restrict women's control over their own bodies. Bills limiting availability to contraception, fertility, and yes, abortion have been have been popping up all over the country and New Hampshire is no different. HB 217 is one of those bills.

HB 217 prohibits violent offenses against fetuses. Now you might read that description and think, duh, what's wrong with that? Hopefully this excerpt from Governor Lynch's veto message will explain it:

I support legislation that would establish these criminal penalties for the death of a fetus, provided that criminal liability is triggered only if the fetus was deemed to be "viable" and that the legislation was based upon sound medical science. HB 217 fails to meet that standard. This bill would make it difficult for New Hampshire residents to obtain fertility treatments and unreasonably restricts a woman's rights during pregnancy. For these reasons and because this bill fails to contain a "viability" standard, I am vetoing HB 217.

Further, the definition of a fetus that is contained in HB 217 is ambiguous concerning whether or not the embryo stage is fully included or excluded. This ambiguity could affect the availability of reproductive medical treatments that are offered to women and men that assist in building families. HB 217 also does not provide sufficient protections when a woman is already pregnant. Because the medical treatment exemption is conditioned on the "request" of the pregnant woman or her legal guardian, it is not clear that an emergency room physician will be able to perform emergency treatment upon a pregnant woman brought in unconscious following a car accident or stroke, especially if there is no legally appointed guardian.

Josh Davenport and Adam Schroadter both voted in favor of this bill that would make it difficult for New Hampshire families to obtain fertility treatments.

30 Days

During this project, I've started highlighting different pieces of legislation that have gone through the New Hampshire House of Representatives----some of it has become law, some of it hasn't. HB 1, in particular, is complicated and many votes were taken. You can view the history of the bill here and view voting records here.

The run in 2010 that led to the takeover of the House by the Tea Party Republicans brought a fight over the state budget. I understand that the Republicans in Concord believed that they had a mandate to reign in spending and get a handle on the budget. 

I'm sure that many people will argue that the budget cuts are necessary, but when I start to look at some of the programs the budget drastically cuts or eliminates, it leaves me perplexed. I don't understand how we can cut services to some of our most vulnerable citizens, particularly when the economy is in the toilet. 

Here is one example:
Adam Schroadter and Josh Davenport both voted against funding for the Head Start Collaboration to help young, at-risk children better succeed in school.

This is one program they thought we could do without. 

What do you think we can do without?

31 Days

Adam Schroadter and Josh Davenport both voted in favor HB 1659 which "would require pregnant women to wait 24 hours and certify they have been given information on fetal development before getting an abortion. Women would also be required to receive explicit information about the fetus and to view pictures and a video on the issue. Violating the law would be a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison."

Not only would this bill restrict a woman's right to obtain a safe, legal medical procedure, but it would also force doctors to provide false information to their patients. Yes, you heard me, it mandates that doctors LIE to their patients. To see exactly what I mean by this read the following articles at AddictingInfo and the Chicago Tribune and Seacoastonline.

You might be "pro-choice." You might be "pro-life." But maybe we can all agree that the women of New Hampshire shouldn't be lied to.

Thank you to Marcia Moody for fighting to protect the women of New Hampshire by voting against this bill.