The Dignity of the NH House

 

The NH House Calendar is published weekly on the NH General Court website. It's a weekly update on what is coming up for the House: voting on legislation, committee meetings, fiscal notes, amendments, and notices. It's a serious publication about the business being conducted in the People's House. 

When a voting session is coming up, the Calendar will list the bills that will be voted on, in the order in which they will be dealt with. In the listing of each bill is a report from the committee that the bill was assigned to, and their recommendation on whether the House should pass the bill or vote it "ITL" which means inexpedient to legislate. The report is a short summary from the majority viewpoint of the committee. There may also be a minority report written by those who disagreed with the majority. These reports are traditionally businesslike summaries of why the majority finds the bill to be worth supporting or worth rejecting. They are not, traditionally, a place for ideological hand wringing and hysteria. This year is not  traditional.

I confess - I'm a nerd. I'm a geek that reads the House calendar. (The Senate, too). I'm a nerd that's been reading the calendar for about a decade, which is how I know that this year is different. 

HB 441, requiring The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be placed in all public schools. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

Rep. Ralph Boehm for Education. This bill requires the school board or board of trustees of a charter school to place a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in all public schools and in every classroom where civics is taught. This is not needed, as the USA has our own Bill of Rights. If anything, the US Bill of Rights should be in our classrooms and not a declaration made by another governmental agency that includes non-democratic believing countries. In addition, NH public schools currently have the right and authority to make local policy regarding issues such as the United Declaration of Human Rights without the need for another statutory directive from Concord. Lastly the bill is yet another unfunded Part I, Article 28-a constitutional issue. Vote 17-3.

This is pretty straightforward. You can see what the intent of the bill is. The majority of the committee doesn't support the bill. In a normal year, the summary would consist of what the bill would require, and a sentence or two about why the majority doesn't support it. It would not, in a normal year, consist of a rant about the Bill of Rights and the UN. This is partisan bleating, and has no place in the House Calendar. And as you'll see, this is by no means the worst from the April 2 Calendar. 

"HB 544, relative to the propagation of divisive concepts. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMEND MENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Terry Roy for the Majority of Executive Departments and Administration. This bill is an anti-racism piece of legislation that would prohibit the teaching racist ideology to students and employees of state schools. It would also bar mandatory racist ideology training to employees of state agencies and businesses who contract with the state to provide services to or on behalf of the state. The committee heard testimony that these trainings and teachings do currently occur in New Hampshire and seem to be becoming more of a trend both here and nationwide. The committee also heard testimony that the teaching and training of the concepts prohibited by this bill cause disharmony, resentment and hatred. The majority agrees. The bill does not prohibit teaching about racism and its negative effects throughout history on the people of New Hampshire and the United States. The majority believes teaching about actual history including institutional racism that has existed and the steps we have taken to eradicate it are important aspects of a proper education and a healthy and diverse workplace. The bill, simply put, prohibits teaching that one race is at fault in perpetuity for challenges and disadvantages faced by another race. The majority acknowledges that racism still exists and that we must always be on guard against it to challenge it whenever it rears its ugly head but the majority also believes in the inherent good of each individual Granite State citizen and in the greatness of this state and of the United States of America. Of all the nations on Earth, it is the United States that provides the most opportunity and legal protections to minorities of every race, creed and religion. Vote 10-9."

A bill that would prevent teaching about racism and sexism is labeled as "anti-racist." There's a big campaign by the liberty/radical right segment of the House to push this bill, which is based on a Trump Executive Order that was cancelled by the Biden administration. In their view, teaching that racism still exists is "racist." I watched the hearing that Rep. Roy describes, but his take on it is very different from mine. Some paid hucksters from out of state were very vocally in favor of the bill, but no one else was. One of the sponsors, Rep. Keith Ammon, introduced the bill, but didn't exactly speak eloquently about it - and didn't stick around for the rest of the hearing. 

The representative who wrote this majority report is known to have a Gab account. Gab is a social networking site for extremists and white supremacists. Two of the bill's three sponsors are members of the Free State Project, a group of libertarians who have moved intentionally to NH to take over the state government. Free Staters are supposed to be devoted to the cause of "liberty" but in their case, freedom means the right for white guys to have arsenals of firearms. Free speech is something they like very much for themselves, but they don't want anyone else to have it, especially if they use it to criticize white guys. This is not a calm, fact based summary of the committee's view, it's just an ideological word salad. Representative Roy is the Vice Chair of the Executive Departments and Administration Committee. 

More on HB 544 https://susanthebruce.blogspot.com/2021/02/from-libertarianism-to-authoritarianism.html

HB 295, relative to initiating amendments and corrections to birth records. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Gerri Cannon for the Majority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. RSA 5-C:87,V, enacted in 2005 to allow sex changes, didn’t include how changes to birth records would be made. This bill as amended standardizes information required by the NH Vital Records office and city or town clerk’s offices when sex change amendments to birth records are requested for NH born citizens. The bill reduces the time, effort and costs required to process applicant requests by requiring a licensed health care provider’s notarized statement that in their professional opinion the individual’s gender is male or female and can be reasonably expected to continue as such for the foreseeable future. The original birth certificate will be retained by the clerk and vital records offices and a new birth certificate with the gender changed to male or female will be issued to the requestor. Vote 11-10.

Rep. Mark Pearson for the Minority of Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs. This bill seeks to erase the reality of biological sex from government records. The minority believes that sex is an objective fact of human life. The notion that sex is merely an arbitrary social construct is patently false, and the state of New Hampshire should not endorse that view by passing this bill. While transgender people have a legal right to live according to their identity and conscience, accurately listing a transgender person’s biological sex on his or her birth certificate does not impose upon that right. The minority also notes with concern that a New Hampshire school board recently used a similar 2019 law, relative to driver’s licenses, to justify integrating biological males and females in school athletics. The minority notes that denying the reality of biological sex is increasingly leading to cruel impositions by the government on female athletes who do not share the beliefs of extreme gender activists. The minority believes that birth certificates should accurately note what they always have noted: facts, not feelings; real data, not self-perceptions. Prince Harry may have come to love America, his new home, and might even want to become our President one day, but his birth certificate correctly notes he was born in London, and is therefore constitutionally disqualified from being President, whatever his feelings on the matter. A healthy woman may perceive herself to be entitled to healthcare benefits from Medicare, but her birth certificate correctly says she’s 59, not 65. A guy may wish his biological parents were two famous movie stars and would feel better about himself were their names listed on his birth certificate, but they are not his parents. Anyone may craft various instruments to reflect that with which they identify, but the birth certificate is correctly not one of those instruments. Usable data for individuals and groups are gleaned from birth certificates so they must be accurate with changes made only if the original certificate had factual errors. Birth certificates should reflect objective facts.

Rep. Mark Pearson is not just a state representative, he's a clergyman. He's Canon Pearson, the minister at Trinity Church in Kingston, NH, a Charismatic Episcopal Church. This majority report is bonkers. He goes from railing about birth records to transgender athletes, and for reasons that passeth understanding, drags poor Harry Windsor into his bizarre diatribe. This is most assuredly not what a committee report from the NH legislature should look like - especially a report written by the Chair of the prestigious Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee. 

HB 434, prohibiting the use of public funds for abortions. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Marjorie Smith for the Majority of Judiciary. This bill prohibits the use of public funds for the purpose of performing or assisting in an abortion which is not necessary to save the life of the mother. This bill also prohibits school-based health clinics from distributing drugs classified by the FDA as emergency contraception. The reality is that no public funds are being used in New Hampshire to perform abortions. State insurance does not cover abortion care and the Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal insurance for abortion. This bill seeks to prevent something that is not happening. It potentially eliminates the full range of reproductive health care options from being taught to medical students and physicians. It would prevent NH’s public colleges and universities from providing all options to students including information about or referrals for abortion care. Vote 11-10.

Rep. Kimberly Rice for the Minority of Judiciary. The minority understands that tens of thousands of NH citizens find abortion totally immoral and want no part in it. The use of tax dollars makes every citizen a participant in that use. Since money is fungible, any tax money given to abortion providers pays, at least in part, for abortion itself. Similarly, when our schools or other institutions refer to abortion, our tax dollars support abortion. Since the NH Constitution explicitly says that there is no substitute for, nothing that can compensate for, our conscience rights, we believe any government money for or in support of abortion violates the conscience rights of our citizens and should, therefore, be totally stopped.

Here, we have the minority report from Rep. Rice who claims she knows what tens of thousands of NH citizens think. Quick reminder: the state's population is only 1.3 million. NH voters have always been mostly pro-choice, except for the radical patriarchy that Rep. Rice represents. Again, this is not calm and reasoned reporting from a committee, this is prissy, finger-wagging, faux-piety. Rep. Rice isn't just a rank-and-file radical, she's in leadership. This report is from the House Judiciary Committee, but she's also the Chair of the House Children and Family Law Committee. 

After the insurrection in January, we learned a NH Police Chief had attended the rally that led to the sacking of the Capitol. State Rep. Rosemarie Rung was horrified, and posted about it on social media. The Speaker of the NH House, Rep. Sherman Packard was furious, and removed Rep. Rung from her committee assignment, accusing her of "acting beneath the dignity of the House." Story here.  Rep. Rung is a Democrat. Speaker Packard is a radical Republican. 

Speaker Packard has defended openly anti-Semitic posts from his caucus on social media. He's allowed members of his caucus to behave badly in committee hearings. He appears to be a weak leader who has no control over his people, which is why they feel free to write up committee reports like these. In years past I would have said these reports are beneath the dignity of the House - but regrettably, they are completely in keeping with the dignity of the Packard House. 

Check out the April 2 House Calendar here.