|
|
|
|
 HelloReturn to index of stories... |
Hello. I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to this "Week-in-Review" Edition of New Hampshire Outlook. Making news this week: The US Supreme Court puts NH's Abortion Law in legal limbo. The Governor delivers his first State-of-the-State address, the Legislature tackles a Smoking Ban and tougher Sex Offender Laws -- and, the battle to keep ballots SECRET. Here to talk about all this and more from the State House in Concord: Tom Fahey from the Union Leader, & Colin Manning from Foster's Daily Democrat. And, here with me in Durham, James Pindell from PoliticsNH.com. |
| Abortion Ruling Return to index of stories... |
We begin with the Big Shocker this week. The US Supreme Court -- sidestepping a major ruling on Abortion -- giving NH a chance to "save" its parental notification law. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte -- who argued the case before the court, had this to say: |
| State of State/Lynch Return to index of stories... |
Governor Lynch delivered his first State-of-the-State address Wednesday. touting accomplishments from this past year -- listing Priorities for this year and Praising lawmakers for putting party politics aside. There was a topic for everyone. Q JAMES: This was his first overtly political speech of the new year. Overall Impression. Q TOM/COLIN: A lot of FAMILIAR themes. Repeated Call for lawmakers to REPEAL the statewide Property Tax. Will he get his WISH? Is there support for REPEAL. If listen to Sen Gatsas answer NO. Q JAMES: One Republican said the Gov's SPEECh sounded like a campaign platform for another run???? Another said his speech mirrored the REP agenda. Q Not Much CONTROVERSY. Any issue --on the list we can expect HEALTHY debate on. Anything GLARING in its OMMISSION from the speech?? Q Not many CRITICS? Many said clearly a different feel from last state of the state with Gov Benson??? |
| Governor Medicare Return to index of stories... |
The Governor Also took aim at the Federal Government more than once in his address: Last week NH stepped in -- saying IT would pay for prescriptions that should have been covered by the federal Medicare program. This week, the Bush Administration ordered INSURERS to provide drugs for those caught up in the MEDICARE confusion. Q JAMES: Sounds like Congress is looking to REIMBURSE states that incurred problems. NH not alone. GOOD STRATEGY for Lynch. FEDERAL GOVT makes a good whipping post? Q TOM/COLIN: Governor LYNCH also CRITICIZING the federal Government on issue of FUEL costs -- saying the GOVT failed to provide assistance to vulnerable families. |
| Lynch Sex Offender Return to index of stories... |
Toughening the State's SEX offender Laws -- is another priority for the Governor: Tough Child Protection Laws have broad support in the Legislature as well. But, at a public hearing Tuesday -- lawmakers heard testimony from those who take issue with a 25-year prison term for first-time offenders Q TOM/COLIN: This has broad bi-partisan SUPPORT, but as we just heard not everyone gives it a RINGING endorsement????? Q JAMES: Politically -- difficult to OPPOSE a bill with an aim of protecting children. Q TOM/COLIN: TESTIMONY also raised concerns that TOUGH sentences might encourage OFFENDERS to kill victims -- get rid of the witness. Q Committee expected to report this out FAVORABLY???? |
| Smoking Ban Return to index of stories... |
Cigarettes -- another burning issue at the statehouse this week. The push to BAN smoking in NH restaurants and bars is picking up momentum in the Legislature. |
| photo id voting Return to index of stories... |
Will the push to "tighten" Voting Rules make our "secret" ballots -- not so secret? A bill before the House calls for certain ballots to be flagged and later removed if there's evidence of improper voting. The Secretary of State's Office -- among those Crying FOUL over these so-called provisional ballots. Q JAMES: What's this all about?? And, would this do away with the secret ballot as opponents suggest?? Q TOM./COLIN: It's being called by some a SOLUTION in search of a problem??? Is Voter FRAUD.a big issue in NH? Q Would this make voting and registering more difficult? Q JAMES: Who's PUSHING to tighten voting rules? Is there a party AGENDA for tightening voting rules are being led by Republican lawmakers. Q Who is this targeting. Q How would this negate a Person's PRIVACY? Measure calls for ballots to be flagged when a voter shows up without proper ID and signs an affidavit to certify residency. Are we talking STUDENT voters?? q How would this delay RECOUNTS?? Would this lower voter participation??? Q What happens NEXT? Q Meausure to require PHOTO ID before voting.less controversial. ** Critics say real goal of measure is to make it harder for people on the margins of society to vote. Is that a VALID arguement? ===================== |
| UNH football Return to index of stories... |
The UNH Football Team treated to accolades at the State house this week. A special proclamation was presented to the Wildcat Players & Coach just prior to the Governor's state-of-the state -- recognizing the team for putting NH on the college football map making 2005 a year to remember -- and ending their seaon ranked # 1 in the nation. Q TOM/COLIN: did you follow the Team this year?? * Sen D'Allesandro who used to play football for UNH eading the proclamation. Speaker Scammon says he used to watch D'Allesandro play Q JAMES: Everyone loves a winner. HATS off to the WILDCATS for a memorable SEASON. |
| Goodnight Return to index of stories... |
My thanks to Tom & Colin at the State House in Concord and, James here in Durham. And, thank you for watching. I'm Beth Carroll. I'll see you next time. |
| bass Return to index of stories... |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: NH Democratic Party, 225-6899 BASS CALLS FOR BAN ON HIS OWN BIGGEST SOURCE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS "We ought to consider abolishing Leadership PACs ... I guess the most unpopular idea I have is abolishing Leadership PACs. " -- Charlie Bass, "Washington Journal," 1/17/06 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Congressman Bass has taken over $286,553 from Leadership PACs - more than he has taken from any other industry or interest. CONCORD, NH - Congressman Bass's hypocrisy on ethics reform reached new levels yesterday, as he called for a ban on the very political contributions that make up his own largest source of campaign funds. On C-Span's "Washington Journal" program, Bass declared that Congress "ought to consider abolishing Leadership PACs" - a proposal that he then called a potentially unpopular idea with other members of Congress. Leadership PACs are a tool that powerful members of Congress use to raise money for rank-and-file members, who they can then exert influence over. But Bass didn't mention that these Leadership PACs have given him almost $300,000 - more money than any other industry or interest throughout his entire career. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Bass has taken $286,553 from Leadership PACs since he first ran for Congress - an amount that ranks higher than any of the other 19 industries and interests categorized. "Sorry, Charlie - if these funds are so corrupt that they must be abolished, then why have you taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in them?" asked Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan. "Congressman Bass likes to pretend that he is a reformer when election-year rolls around, but in reality he has taken tens of thousands of dollars from corrupt Republican leaders like Tom DeLay and hundreds of thousands from the very industries he is supposed to regulate. Maybe that's why he keeps voting for issues that his constituents strongly disagree with, like privatizing Social Security and protecting gasoline companies from MTBE cleanup costs." ______ C-Span Washington Journal Archive: http:/www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30 Center for Responsive Government, Profile of Congressman Bass: http:/www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?CID=N00000423 Taken $14,233 from Tom Delay: Keene Sentinel, 1/18/06. |
| abortion Return to index of stories... |
AP-NY-01-18-06 1049EST By JOHN DISTASO Senior Political Reporter 2 hours, 15 minutes ago Concord — Both sides claimed victory in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on New Hampshire’s parental notification statute yesterday, but they also realized that a final verdict has yet to be rendered. When the Legislature passed the law mandating that parents must be notified before their minors can obtain abortions, it purposely did not include a broad health exception because, proponents said, such a loophole would have effectively nullified the law. At the Supreme Court last November, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte argued that while the entire law should be upheld, if there is a constitutional question about a small fraction of cases involving health emergencies, then the Legislature intended that the law should be applied in all other cases. Ayotte said yesterday that with the case now remanded to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for a probe of legislative intent on the exception question, the record is clear. She said she hopes the law will ultimately be upheld with a “narrowly crafted” court-imposed exception for emergency cases only. The law’s opponents, led by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said the legislative record contains no evidence that the law’s sponsors and supporters were amenable to a narrow emergency health exception. Rep. Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, said news media quotes from supporters clearly show “their intent was not to include a health exception at all, of any sort, because they certainly had the opportunity to put in any kind of health exception they were willing to accept. They were willing to accept no health exception.” Norelli said such evidence should lead the lower court to strike down the law. This “open question” of legislative intent on a health exception, as the U.S. Supreme Court called it yesterday, is at the heart of the next step in the case. Overturning the appeals court, the Supreme Court held, “If enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrow declaratory and injunctive relief.” The court said it now expects from the lower court “either an injunction prohibiting unconstitutional applications or a holding that consistency with legislative intent requires invalidating the statute.” The court, in its 10-page ruling, noted that in the past, it struck down a Nebraska parental notification law entirely because it contained no health exception. But the difference is, the court said, the parties in the Nebraska case “did not ask for, and we did not contemplate, relief more finely drawn.” Ayotte, on the other hand, presented a backup argument to the court. “Our first position was that the law should stand as is,” she said, “but we did make the argument that if the court was going to consider what our law needed to have a specific emergency exception, that rather than strike down our entire law, the case should be remanded. “Really,” she said, “the court did adopt our secondary argument.” The court said it agreed with Ayotte “that the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale.” The opinion said the state never argued with “the factual basis of this litigation: In some very small percentage of cases, pregnant minors, like adult women, need immediate abortions to avert serious and often irreversible damage to their health.” Denying young women in such situations immediate access to abortions would be unconstitutional, the court has said and both sides agree. But the court also said, “Only a few applications of New Hampshire’s parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute’s unconstitutional application.” Ayotte said the decision was “limited to an emergency health exception, not a broad health exception.” She said she will ask the lower court to review legislative records, “and the question will be whether the Legislature would have decided not to pass the law at all had it known that in a small category of cases, the law could not be enforced. It is our position that the Legislature would have passed this law even had it known that it may not be enforced in the context of true medical emergencies.” She said another key point was the Legislature inclusion of a “severability clause,” which she explained, means that “if any application in this act is not found to be valid, we want the rest of the act to be enforced and remain valid. In our view, that is one of the best measures of legislative intent.” But Norelli said a severability clause cannot apply to something that is not in a law in the first place. ”As a legislator, I believe we are the ones who should write the law,” she said. The state wants the court “to actually craft and add language that defines what the health exception is,” said Norelli. “But the only appropriate place to do that is in the New Hampshire Legislature.” Print Article | Email a FriendSite Search AP-NH--Scotus-Abortion Reax, TOPS N.H. reactions to Supreme Court's ruling on abortion law CONCORD, N.H. - Groups on both sides of the fight over New Hampshire's parental notification law see partial victories in today's Supreme Court's decision. Rather than ruling directly on the law, Justices unanimously agreed to ask a lower court to reconsider whether the entire law is unconstitutional. The 2003 law requires underage daughter to inform their parents that she is going to get an abortion, making no exceptions for health emergencies. Phyllis Woods, a former Dover legislator, and sponsor of the law, says she's glad the justices upheld the premise that parents have the right and the authority to be involved in abortion decisions. Pro-choice group Planned Parenthood wishes the court had struck down the law, but is gratified by the court's agreement that the law makes it difficult for some young women to get an abortion. Governor John Lynch, who is pro-choice, says he's pleased by the court's message that the health and safety of young women must be protected. AP-NY-01-18-06 1305EST AP-NH--Scotus-Abortion Reax, TOPS N.H. reactions to Supreme Court's ruling on abortion law klmbywfn XX UPDATES with pro-choice reax XX CONCORD, N.H. - A former lawmaker who sponsored New Hampshire's parental notification law says she relieved by the Supreme Court's decision today send the law back to a lower court. Former Dover legislator Phyllis Woods called the ruling a victory for the day. New Hampshire's parental notification requires a minor girl to inform her parents 48 hours before she gets an abortion. The law makes no exception to protect the minor's health. In a rare unanimous decision, justices agreed that the New Hampshire law could make it too hard for some ill minors to get an abortion, but at the same time they were hesitant about stepping in to fix the statute. Woods says she's glad the justices upheld the general premise that parents have the right and the authority to be involved in abortion decisions. Pro-choice advocates also are calling the ruling a victory. Liza Dube, political director of NARAL Pro-choice of New Hampshire, says the justices' ruling reaffirms what pro-choice groups have said all along, that a minor's health and safety needs to be protected and is of primary importance when any kind of abortion legislation is crafted. AP-NY-01-18-06 1224EST CONCORD, N.H. - Groups on both sides of the fight over New Hampshire's parental notification law see partial victories in today's Supreme Court's decision. Rather than ruling directly on the law, Justices unanimously agreed to ask a lower court to reconsider whether the entire law is unconstitutional. The 2003 law requires underage daughter to inform their parents that she is going to get an abortion, making no exceptions for health emergencies. Phyllis Woods, a former Dover legislator, and sponsor of the law, says she's glad the justices upheld the premise that parents have the right and the authority to be involved in abortion decisions. Pro-choice group Planned Parenthood wishes the court had struck down the law, but is gratified by the court's agreement that the law makes it difficult for some young women to get an abortion. Governor John Lynch, who is pro-choice, says he's pleased by the court's message that the health and safety of young women must be protected. Supreme Court dodges major abortion ruling WASHINGTON - The U-S Supreme Court says a lower court was wrong in striking down a New Hampshire abortion law. But the high court has avoided a major ruling by calling for an appeals court to reconsider the law, which calls for a parent to be told before a daughter under the age of 18 ends her pregnancy. The Supreme Court was unanimous in ruling that the lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law. The law makes no exception to protect the minor's health. Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been a key swing voter on abortion rights, and wrote what may be the last opinion of her career. =========== AP-NH--Parental Notification-Timeline Developments in New Hampshire's parental notification law March 2003 - Lawmakers try for the third time in as many years to require girls younger than 18 to tell their parents or a judge before having an abortion. The House voted 187-181 to pass a parental notification bill. May 2003 - Gov. Craig Benson, father of two teenage girls, speaks in favor of the legislation, saying that responsible parents must be included in one of the most important decisions their daughters might face: whether to get an abortion. The Senate passes the bill 12-11, with some changes. The House votes to accept the changes, 197-176. June 2003 - Benson signs the bill into law, which requires abortion providers to notify at least one parent at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor. It's the first law regulating abortions in New Hampshire since the Legislature - under Benson's predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen - repealed three criminal abortion statutes dating to 1848. "We are giving parents their rights back," Benson said. The law was to take effect on Dec. 31. November 2003 - Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and others file a federal lawsuit, saying that the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect a woman's health. December 2003 - Two days before the law goes into effect, a federal judge declares it unconstitutional, saying it lacks the health exception. November 2004 - The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston agrees that the law is unconstitutional. May 2005 - The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear a state appeal seeking to reinstate the law. New Hampshire officials argued that the abortion law need not have an "explicit health exception" because other state provisions call for exceptions when the mother's health is at risk. They also asked justices to clarify whether laws restricting abortion can be thrown out before someone is harmed and broad the harm must be to trigger a constitutional challenge. November 2005 - Attorney General Kelly Ayotte argues case before the U.S. Supreme Court, along with lawyers for the Bush administration and Planned Parenthood. Jan. 18 - The U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously that the lower court was wrong to strike down the law in its entirety and returns the case to federal appeals court to consider the constitutionality of particular parts of the law. |
| Tonight at 7:30 Return to index of stories... |
Monday on New Hampshire Outlook: Join us Monday at 7:30 only on New Hampshire Public Television. =============================== Tonight on New Hampshire Outlook: Join us tonight at 7:30 only on New Hampshire Public Television. |
| STATE of state Return to index of stories... |
CONCORD, N.H. - In his first state-of-the-state address today, Governor John Lynch praised lawmakers for setting aside partisanship to get things done. Speaking in the Statehouse, Lynch highlighted efforts to help New Hampshire flood victims, get medications to the poor, securing money for fuel aid and saving the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Lynch also listed priorities for his second year in office. The governor says he wants to put much of the state's surplus -- an estimated 50 million dollars -- into savings. And he repeated his call for lawmakers to repeal the statewide property tax, a key component of the school funding plan adopted last spring. On the economy, Lynch plans to create a Jobs Cabinet to recommend ways to streamline state services, get wireless access across the state, combat high electric rates and provide affordable housing to workers. AP-NY-01-18-06 1047EST |
| SEX OFFENDER Return to index of stories... |
CONCORD, N.H. - Members of the public can have their say today on a bill that would toughen penalties for sex offenders who prey on children in New Hampshire. A public hearing will be held today on the Child Protection Act, which would allow prosecutors to seek a 25-year prison term for first-time offenders. It also would restrict how close to parks, schools and children's centers convicted offenders could live. The bill, which also would require offenders to wear G-P-S monitoring devices after their release from prison, has strong support in the House and Senate. Turnout at the hearing is expected to be so large lawmakers have reserved the 400-seat Representatives Hall. AP-NY-01-17-06 0636EST For Immediate Release: Contact: Pamela Walsh Tuesday, January 17, 2006 271-2121 491-7124 Governor Urges Legislature to Pass Tougher Child Protection Laws Gov. Lynch, Attorney General, Lawmakers Proposed Legislation to Increase Penalties, Registration Requirements for Sexual Predators CONCORD - Gov. John Lynch today urged members of the House Criminal Justice Committee to support legislation, which he proposed, to give New Hampshire among the toughest and most comprehensive child protection laws in the nation. "People who prey on children are the most dangerous criminals in our state, targeting our most precious and our most vulnerable citizens. Children need protection, and New Hampshire parents need help keeping their children safe. With your support for this bipartisan legislation, we will have among the toughest and most comprehensive laws in the nation protecting our children against sexual predators," Gov. Lynch said. "It's time to send for us to send a clear message: If you prey on children in New Hampshire, we will send you to prison - and we're going to keep you there for a long time," Gov. Lynch said. Gov. Lynch worked with the Attorney General, police chiefs, county prosecutors, victims' advocates and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to develop HB 1692, sponsored by Rep. Peter Batula and Sen. Joe Foster. "In developing this legislation, I had several goals - to protect the young victims of these crimes; to deter criminals from committing these acts; to ensure that sexual predators received the tough penalties they deserve; and to lessen the chance of sexual offenders preying on new victims," Gov. Lynch said. MORE PAGE 2 Under the legislation's 28 provisions, prosecutors will be able to seek a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for someone who molests a child under the age of 13; a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in the most egregious child assault cases with permanent injuries; and a mandatory minimum sentence of 35 years for the second-degree murder of a child. A second offense in any of these cases would be subject to a sentence of life in prison without parole. In addition to the new sentencing provisions, the legislation also: * Allows for civil commitment of sexual predators who have been convicted, found not guilty by reason of insanity, or found incompetent to stand trial. * Requires the Department of Corrections to implement a GPS monitoring system of sexual offenders by July 1, 2008. * Increases the number of offenders who will be required to register. * Enable local communities to prohibit sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare facility or park where children regularly gather. * Requires offenders to register more often, and report their work addresses and descriptions of their cars. * Increases penalties for failing to register. * Creates new penalties for people who interfere with the registration of a sexual offender. * Requires the Department of Safety to verify offenders' addresses. In a letter to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee today, Gov. Lynch also expressed strong support for legislation facilitating the development of multidisciplinary child protection teams and Child Advocacy Centers as an important complement to the efforts of the child protection legislation. "We need to do everything we can to prevent child abuse and neglect. We also need to ensure that children who have been victimized are given the best possible environment and surroundings in which to make reports, receive counseling, obtain medical treatment and learn about prevention," Gov. Lynch wrote. "We have learned that an uncoordinated approach to investigation and treatment can often cause our children more difficulty and confusion." The child protection teams and Child Advocacy centers will help ensure coordination between the Department of Health and Human Services, law enforcement officers, medical practitioners, mental health specialists and social service providers. SB 370 would allow these agencies to develop written protocols for multi-disciplinary child protection team investigations. "This legislation will ensure coordination between the to facilitate the most helpful treatment, in the right environment, which minimizes the potential for any further trauma to children," Gov. Lynch wrote. # # # Pamela Walsh Communications Director Office of Gov. John Lynch 271-2121 pamela.walsh@nh.gov =============== By TOM FAHEY State House Bureau Chief 4 hours, 5 minutes ago Concord — The Child Protection Act drew praise from police and prosecutors yesterday, and warnings from others that it is not a cure-all. The bill, HB 1692, would allow prosecutors to obtain a mandatory minimum 25-year sentence for child molesters, restrict sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds and child care centers, and require them to register their address with police every six months and within five days of moving to a new address. It would also require a GPS monitoring system to be in place by 2008 for use by convicted offenders after release from prison. Gov. John Lynch urged passage of the bill, saying sex offenders who prey on children “are the most dangerous criminals in our state, targeting our most precious and vulnerable citizens.” Leaders in the House and Senate are also behind the bill, which several speakers said would be among the nation’s toughest. If a child under 13 is murdered during a sexual attack, the bill would allow a minimum term of 35 years in prison. It provides for civil commitment in cases when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity or not competent to stand trial. It also allows a judge to require someone to register as a sexual offender in crimes not involving sex assault if he feels the move would protect children. The bill also includes a provision that allows police to tell a school principal when a student under 18 has been convicted of a serious sexual offense. Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte, police and county prosecutors urged the Criminal Justice Committee to pass the 28 provisions in the bill. “This is a unique New Hampshire approach” to the problem, Ayotte said. But those who work with victims and offenders said it will take more than a get-tough law to make a difference. Annie Farnsworth, vice chairman of the New Hampshire Women’s Lobby, was among those who said the state needs to improve the one-year treatment programs offered at state prison. “You are not going to change that kind of distorted and deviant thinking in a year,” Farnsworth said. Linda Griebsch of the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said harsh sentences against offenders may make some victims hesitate to lodge a complaint or to testify under oath. The vast majority of sexual offenses are committed by individuals the victim knows, she said, and can often be family members. Rockingham County Attorney James Reams argued for the get-tough approach. He said lawmakers should consider the lifetime effect their crimes have on children. With a multi-pronged weapon in the hands of the state, he said, “the worst case scenario is sexual offenders stop coming to New Hampshire.” Michael Iacopino, president of the state Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, said the bill gives too much power to prosecutors by letting them determine who gets the mandatory 25-year sentence. That sentencing power should be reserved for judges, he said. Noting that county attorneys who prosecute most cases run for office every two years, he said, “There will be political pressure on these elected officials to be tough on crime. We need to be smart about crime.” Prime sponsors of the bill are Rep. Peter Batula, R-Merrimack, and Sen. Joseph Foster, D-Nashua. Print Article | Email a FriendSite Search |
| End of Life Return to index of stories... |
HOUSE BILL 656, intended to clarify state laws covering terminal illness and injury so that New Hampshire never has its own Terry Schiavo case , is up for a vote today. Though the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-5 to recommend the bill’s passage, it still needs work. House members should send it back to committee, where troublesome definitions can be rewritten. The bill’s authors tried to set specific guidelines for determining when lifesaving treatment could be denied an incapacitated person. But the bill as worded might allow relatives to pull the plug on senior citizens suffering any number of ailments commonly associated with old age. The bill defines “permanently unconscious” as “a lasting condition, indefinitely without improvement, in which thought, awareness of self and environment, and other indicators of consciousness are absent as determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by the attending physician or ARNP.” The definition is too clumsy and should be narrower and more precise. The bill also defines “near death” as “an incurable condition caused by injury, disease, or illness which is such that death is imminent and the application of life-sustaining treatment would, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as determined by the attending physician or ARNP, only postpone the moment of death.” That could describe many cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses. The bill allows withholding of lifesaving treatment if a person “lacks the capacity to make health care decisions” and is either “near death” OR “permanently unconscious.” As is, HB 656 tilts in favor of ending life. It gives guardians more discretion than necessary, presuming they will have in mind the best interests of the patient. But they might not. The bill must not be passed until it is more narrowly tailored. Print Article | Email a FriendSite Search CONCORD - 9:30 a.m., HB1318, prohibits HHS from providing services to illegal immigrants, House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs, LOB205. |
| Ballot Return to index of stories... |
T oday, the House is scheduled to vote on one bill that would require voters to present a photo ID to get a ballot and another that calls for adding an identifying tag to the provisional ballots of people who lack proper proof of residence or citizenship. The bills are being promoted as good-government measures to guarantee honest elections. But they would create a hardship for people who lack cash and a convenient source of transportation. The bills would work to lower voter participation that is among the highest in the nation. The elderly, minorities, students and the poor would be hurt the most. The sponsors of the reforms say they are needed to eliminate or deter election fraud. But that problem, at least in New Hampshire, is minuscule to non-existent, according to Secretary of State Bill Gardner, whose office opposes the legislation. New Hampshire is famous for having an informed electorate, terrific voter turnout and scrupulously honest elections. The bills are unnecessary and should be defeated. We've seen no comparable New Hampshire data, but the University of Wisconsin, in response to similar proposed legislation, took a look at which of that state's residents have drivers' licenses and which do not. The results were eye-opening. The study found that 83 percent of Wisconsin's white residents had licenses, and thus a photo ID, but only 48 percent of blacks and 47 percent of Hispanics did. The study also found that 23 percent of Wisconsin residents had neither a driver's license nor another photo ID. The great majority were women. --- Statistically, minorities, the poor and the elderly, particularly older women, are much more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. That helps to explain why the half dozen or so state campaigns to tighten voter registration rules, including those in New Hampshire, are being led by Republican lawmakers. Our state's bill would require that voters lacking drivers' licenses, passports or other government-issued photo IDs get a state non-driver identification card. But the cards cost $10, and getting one requires a trip to a motor vehicle licensing station. These are only open Monday through Friday, and journeying to one during working hours is time-consuming, costly and difficult for someone without transportation. The bill that calls for the tagging of the provisional ballots of voters who show up without acceptable identification papers is another solution in search of a problem. It, too, would have the unintended consequence of discouraging voting. Tagging provisional ballots would make it possible to link each vote with the person who cast it if that vote was challenged. But in small communities in particular, the tag would effectively trumpet a provisional voter's choices. Balloting, for them, would no longer be secret, which could lead many to forgo voting. New Hampshire's presidential primary is once again under attack from rivals who say the state is too rich and too white to represent the American electorate. So making it tougher for minorities and the poor to vote is the last thing the state should do. This session's "crackdown on voter fraud" was apparently prompted by a fear that one or more people had voted twice. But the answer to that, if it is happening, is simple. New Hampshire election officials could adopt the Iraqi system and dye voters' fingertips purple. In fact, why stop at a finger. Dye the whole hand. To any lawmakers who read that last sentence and began drafting more election legislation - stop writing. That was a joke. The system works just fine. It's in no need of change. ------ End of article ======================== Another View: Don’t take away the right to vote in New Hampshire By JANE ARMSTRONG Commentary 9 hours, 56 minutes ago THE NEW HAMPSHIRE House of Representatives votes today on a bill that would do away with the secret ballot, a cornerstone of democracy in America. In a misguided attempt to protect the vote in New Hampshire, the House Election Law Committee has introduced several bills that will result in denying the vote to hundreds if not thousands of honest New Hampshire citizens. There is no history of illegal voting in New Hampshire according to the Attorney General’s office. It received 50 complaints after the 2004 election. Forty-eight were found to be not fraudulent and two are unresolved. With 683,672 ballots cast, that hardly indicates a problem. When questioned by the Election Law Committee, the office couldn’t produce any cases from previous elections. Along with the elimination of the secret ballot, the House Election Law Committee has proposed bills that add new requirements for voting and photo IDs that go far beyond those of other states or the federal government. It would require voters who have already proven that they are qualified to register to vote to produce additional identification in order to be able to vote. Many people speak of voting as if it were a privilege that has to be earned. In fact, according to the Constitution, voting is a fundamental right of all American citizens who are 18 or over. As an organization founded by the women who fought for more than 70 years to secure the vote for women, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire is sensitive to any attempts to prevent eligible American citizens from voting. In the 85 years since women were granted the right to vote, we have studied voting and found that laws that obstruct the right to vote result in qualified citizens not going to the polls on election day. New Hampshire is far more restrictive than most states when it comes to registering to vote. Bills proposed by the Election Law Committee would make registering and voting even more difficult than it already is. This, despite the fact that New Hampshire has no record of election fraud. Bills before the House would require photo IDs that go beyond the federal ID requirements. HB 347 would require an indication of citizenship on a driver ‘s license even though our New Hampshire Department of Transportation has already rejected that partly because of the possibility of discrimination against non-citizens who live in this country legally. Another bill, HB 345, requires citizens eligible to vote to produce additional identification to get a ballot on Election Day despite their previous qualification. There is no provision made for those who may have lost or forgotten the correct identification, and without it, voting would be denied them. Even more serious is the bill doing away with the secret ballot. To avoid the rules that govern 48 other states, New Hampshire chose to have same-day registration. This means the state has to offer citizens the opportunity to sign affidavits saying who they are and where they live if they register on Election Day. The affidavits are signed and sworn under the severe penalties imposed for election fraud. The Election Law Committee has proposed that those affidavits and ballots be marked so that challenged ballots can be withdrawn after the election. Any person can make a challenge for any reason to local election officials instead of to the state’s legal authorities. Despite our country’s traditional belief that people are innocent until proven guilty, these challenged voters would be considered guilty until they can prove their innocence. If they can’t prove themselves innocent, their ballots will be withdrawn and not counted for the election. The League of Women Voters of New Hampshire wants the citizens of this state to stop and think carefully about what is being proposed. New Hampshire does not have a record of election fraud. We are a small state that has chosen to have election laws that set us apart from other states. Now, for no reason, we are being asked to impose such severe restrictions on our citizens’ rights that many eligible voters will be discouraged from even trying to vote. New Hampshire has a lively history of political involvement and a greater than average turnout for elections. Politics is part of our state’s culture. The League of Women Voters of New Hampshire urges legislators to respect the fundamental honesty of our citizens and our democratic traditions and reject these bills. Jane Armstrong is president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire. Print Article | Email a FriendSite Search All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2006. |
| smoking & deadly force Return to index of stories... |
Milford Senator Peter Bragdon has proposed changing the law so a person under attack could respond with deadly force, even if an escape route is available. The only exception under the current law involves deadly threats made in a person's home. Bragdon, a Republican, says his bill would make it clear that people have the right to defend themselves without first having to retreat. Senate Majority Leader Robert Clegg, says Bragdon's proposal could prevent a future tragedy. But law enforcement authorities worry the bill goes too far. Bedford Police chief David Bailey wants to keep the law as it is. Associate Attorney General Ann Rice says changing the law increases the potential for deadly encounters in the streets. She says deadly force should only be used in self defense when there is no other reasonable alternative. CONCORD, N.H. - Supporters of banning smoking in New Hampshire's public restaurants and bars told a legislative committee today that lawmakers have a duty to protect the public's health. They told the House Commerce Committee that banning smoking in eateries and bars won't infringe on smokers' rights. They said second-hand smoke is a health hazard to workers. Opponents argued the choice should be left to the facility owner and not mandated by government. SMOKING BAN Smoking ban backers say citizens' health at issue nmljaystffls CONCORD, N.H. - Supporters of banning smoking in New Hampshire's public restaurants and bars told a legislative committee today that lawmakers have a duty to protect the public's health. They told the House Commerce Committee that banning smoking in eateries and bars won't infringe on smokers' rights. They said second-hand smoke is a health hazard to workers. They noted that the ban would not apply to private clubs. Opponents argued the choice should be left to the facility owner and not mandated by government. They said workers don't have to take jobs at places that allow smoking. Current law allows smoking in restaurants with fewer than 50 seats. Larger restaurants have to install ventilation systems, dividing walls or come up with other ways of keeping smoking and non-smoking sections apart. Hampton Republican Sheila Francoeur sponsored the bill, saying she's concerned about the health of employees. The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, which lobbies for the state's hotels and restaurants, isn't taking a position on the bill because its members are divided over the issue. =================== Smoking ban backers out in force Crowded hearing dominated by one side By LAUREN R. DORGAN Monitor staff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 18. 2006 8:00AM Two dozen supporters of a proposed ban on smoking in New Hampshire restaurants and bars made their case at a House hearing yesterday. Opponents numbered in the single digits. Restaurant owners, doctors, mothers and musicians testified for the bill, arguing that secondhand smoke is something wait staff and customers shouldn't have to breathe. Those speaking against the bill included one restaurant manager, one legislator and two members of a libertarian group, making the case that a ban would be excessive state intervention. Whether the turnout reflected the state's divide on the issue is impossible to gauge. Ask someone on the pro side, and it does; on the con, absolutely not. This much is true: For the first time in the history of smoking ban proposals, New Hampshire's restaurant trade association is not fighting the ban. Recent surveys have found the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association's membership is evenly divided, leaders of the group said, and one found that a wide majority support a ban. After the hearing, the bill's lead sponsor predicted that it will clear the commerce committee. "I think that bill has the best chance that it's ever had on the floor of the House. Having been the majority whip once, I won't try to guess what that vote might be,"Sheila Francoeur said. "I think it has an excellent shot." ---ADVERTISEMENT--- Yesterday's meeting may not have been a circus, but the hearing room was the Legislative Office Building equivalent of a clown car. About 60 people crammed into a space with seats for 20; people spilled out into the hallway. The vice chairman of the commerce committee, who led the hearing, said he'd never seen so many pink slips, passed in by people wanting to put in their two cents. Meanwhile, Francoeur, the committee's chairwoman, found herself in two unusual spots: testifying before her own committee and supporting a smoking ban. "Some of you, and other members of the House, have reminded me that I have spoken against similar legislation on the floor of the House," said Francoeur, a Republican from Hampton. "After all, I do not have a reputation up here as a reformer." She said that now that all the other New England states have passed smoking bans, the issue has changed. "This is no longer an economic issue. This is a health issue," Francoeur said. "Let's face it, secondhand smoke kills." Greg Connolly, a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, showed up to bolster her first point. He said that Massachusetts restaurants saw little change in business after that state passed a ban. Now that the smoke has cleared in Bay State bars, he said, he can no longer teach students to measure indoor air pollution there. "Unfortunately, I have to send my students to New Hampshire now," he said. Doctors and other health professionals made the case that secondhand smoke is hazardous. Cigarette smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer and triggers asthma attacks, they said, citing a wide range of studies. But not everyone agreed. "The irrefutable evidence that secondhand smoke is a risk is not irrefutable," said Calvin Pratt, of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. He said a statistical breakdown of studies on smoking bans shows that more studies find bans are bad for people's health. Pratt's colleague at the Liberty Alliance, Don Gorman, argued that the question is really about freedom of choice. "Nobody put a gun to your head and says you have to go into this restaurant," he said. Plus, he asked, if business really wouldn't suffer after a smoking ban, why can't restaurants be left to go smoke-free on their own? Parker Ryan, owner of the Widow Fletcher's tavern in Hampton, agreed that restaurants and bar owners should be able to decide for themselves. New Hampshire relies on revenue from cigarette sales, he said, so it's hypocritical for the state to forbid restaurants from partnering with smokers. His own restaurant is smoke-free. Ryan left the hearing before he got a chance to speak because he was frustrated at the one-sidedness of the debate, he said. John Troy, a bassist and singer, said that he quit smoking and was followed by the state of Massachusetts, where he lives. "It would be safe for you to assume that I have played in smoky rooms," he said. "To walk into a smoky room now is to go back in time to the Dark Ages." He told of accepting a recent series of gigs in New Hampshire and finding his host a smoky establishment. He felt sick the next day, and his wife threw out his clothes. He cancelled the rest of his trio's dates. "Until the air clears, if you want to see my show, you're going to have to come to Massachusetts,"he said. Shawn Joyce, president of the Margarita's restaurant chain, said that if it were up to him alone, all of his restaurants would be smoke-free - but that a ban is necessary nonetheless. The argument that restaurant employees can choose where to work is untrue, he said. He worked his way through college pulling 12-hour shifts in smoky restaurants, he said, even after he got asthma. Many restaurant workers are in the same boat, he said. "They work where they can make a living," he said. ------ End of article By LAUREN R. DORGAN Monitor staff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| key: State Politics / Government Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 1/20/06 HOST: Beth Carroll Length: 26:00 minutes Hello. I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to this "Week-in-Review" Edition of New Hampshire Outlook. Making news this week: The US Supreme Court puts NH's Abortion Law in legal limbo. The Governor delivers his first State-of-the-State address, the Legislature tackles a Smoking Ban and tougher Sex Offender Laws and the battle to keep ballots secret. Here to talk about all this and more from the State House in Concord: Tom Fahey from the Union Leader, and Colin Manning from Foster's Daily Democrat. And, here with me in Durham, James Pindell from PoliticsNH.com. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Beth Carroll NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Tom Fahey\The Union Leader, Colin Manning\Foster's Daily Democrat, James Pindell \PoliticsNH.com |