I thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I bring great joy.…
Rep. Robert H. Rowe (R - Hills 14)I thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I bring great joy. Everyone that is going to speak on this bill, on the override, has agreed to speak less than three minutes and only address issues mentioned in the Governor's veto message. So this will be short. I will address the procedural issue. The others will address substantive. I would like you to turn, if you look at the message, I will read it, "If the legislature works with me on this change and the other limited, common sense changes outlined in this message, I would sign parental notification legislation." As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I run a very open and inclusive Committee. I try to bring everyone to the table, listen to everyone and hopefully bring consensus. This is important and in this bill, I did, but, "If the legislature works with me." The Governor or any of his representatives never showed. Had they showed and given suggestions or amendments, we probably would have accepted them. I don't know what they are, no one came forth. This is one sentence in here that is nothing more than a smokescreen and I'm sorry to see it end there. It's an insult to anyone that tries to work with both parties. I encourage you to vote green. Thank you.
Rep. J. Brandon Giuda (R - Merr 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I was proud to give the majority report on this bill when it passed this body and I'm proud to stand here today to ask you to override the Governor's veto. I can guarantee that the Committee thoughtfully considered every concern raised in the Governor's veto and it is in the bill. We passed this pro-family, pro-parent and
pro-child legislation by a wide margin and I say let's show the Governor that we mean
business. I just want to address the Governor's three issues. The Governor stated that he wanted to see an exception made for victims of rape, incest or abuse. However, this bill already has a broader exception so that a child that is not comfortable with her parent or
guardian being notified for any reason, including rape, incest or abuse, can seek judicial approval by a simple bypass. It's already in the bill and the Governor knows it. That objection is a smokescreen. Further, no U.S. Supreme Court decision on a case such as this
required an exception that the Governor talks about because our exception is already broader. And finally, rape, incest and abuse are crimes. By requiring the involvement of either a parent or a court, these crimes will now be recorded, something that's not happening
now. Second, the Governor wanted to change the language "substantial and irreversible" with regards to a physicians' judgment. He called it "unworkable, complex and too narrow."
Well, Governor the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. Justice O'Connor rejects that exact
language in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, 1992 and said, "The medical emergency definition imposes no undue burden on a woman's abortion right." If it passes the U.S. Supreme Court, it certainly should pass our muster. Finally, the Governor is worried that
abortion providers who fail to comply with the law may be subject to criminal or civil penalties and that the guidelines are unclear. Another smokescreen, a ridiculous
smokescreen. Do we really believe that doctors who've completed higher education can't
comply with the parental notification law? If you believe that, then I'll help you by providing you with the first step. Notify the parent. It's not hard, it's very simple. This excellent bill brings New Hampshire in line with 43 other states that require either notification or some
actually require consent. If you believe that children need their parents involved in these monumental life decisions, then support this bill again and support the override and let's
make it law. I ask you to support the House and Senate position, join the 43 other states in
reinforcing parent's rights and protecting children. Thank you.
Rep. Cynthia Chase (D - Ches 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Respected colleagues, I rise in support of the Governor's veto of HB 329 and I ask you to consider sustaining this veto as well. I have
watched with great interest the email exchanges that have gone on for nearly a week now.
Most messages have come from a mostly small geographical area within our state asking, no demanding, that I vote to override the veto. I cannot do this. It is important to point out
that the vast majority of New Hampshire families provide loving and stable homes for their children. This law does not apply to those families. Children in crisis from such homes will turn to their parents who have provided for and protected them since birth. They do not
need this law. Sadly, not every home is a wonderful home or a loving home. Some homes are
abusive even sexually abusive. Some children are coerced into having sex with family members. Sexual abuse is real. It happens in New Hampshire. It happens in New England
and it happens all over this country. It is not just an inner-city issue. It's not a class issue either. It happens in religious homes and secular homes. It could be happening in your town and even on your street. Here are just three examples that I have personally dealt with in
my professional career. No, I cannot give you any more details. These cases are governed by federal privacy regulations, but here is case one. A girl removed from her home when she was three, was bounced around between several foster homes and a failed adoption. She was
sexually assaulted by a male living in her foster home when she was eight years old. A potential adoptive father raped her at fourteen. Who would this girl report to for permission to have an abortion? Case number two. A young high school student reported that her
father forced her to have sex with him so she would "Know what it feels like." Had she needed an abortion, how supportive would this father likely have been? Case number three. Two brothers, age 15 and 13, were pimping their six-grade sister to make money. The school
found out about it when the school nurse suspected that the young girl was pregnant. Her normally high grades had plummeted and she was becoming anorexic because she thought her stomach was too fat. This is reality; it's not made up horror stories. These stories are real. I have known them. This legislation is about children such as these that need
protection of this legislation. This is not about you good and responsible parents. It's about
the most abused and vulnerable children in our state. I have read several emails where writers express the opinion that this legislation is unnecessary because there are so few of these sexual abuse cases in New Hampshire. To those I would ask just how many vulnerable
girls have to suffer like these girls have in order to protect the illusion that it is an attack on good parenting. Are two enough? Three? Five? Do we still believe in some form of human sacrifice of children? Must abused and vulnerable girls suffer to pay for the manufactured
fears of the many? Those who need your response to this legislation appear to know only half of the story. My fellow legislators, this is the other half. Please join me in sustaining the Governor's veto so that we can protect all of New Hampshire's children. Thank you for your
attention and I will not be taking any questions.
Rep. Kathleen Souza (R - Hills 43)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you colleagues and I want to say thank
you for your patience with this bill over the years. Thank you for your support for this bill
over the years. We think we have it just right. We are very pleased with it. It meets all constitutional requirements. It meets the Governor's previous off-stated concern. It provides for young women in bad circumstances who do not want to go to their parents. The judicial
bypass is about the strongest in the country. The wording on the health has been perfected. It is acceptable to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's acceptable to all the other states that have it
with no problems. The time has come for this bill. Again, I thank you for your patience with
it and let's do the right thing. Get it into law now. Thank you so much.
Rep. Candace Bouchard (D - Merr 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The Governor's veto message clearly states he supports parental notification and would sign notification legislation if reasonable,
common sense changes were made such as it is not unreasonable not to exempt victims of
rape or incest or abuse. It is unreasonable and it is also cruel for the victim of the abuse to have to notify her abuser. HB 329 does not stand up and protect the fundamental right of
the teenage girl to be free from violence and have access to safe healthcare. We have a moral obligation to protect teens in a violent home. This bill fails to do that. This bill potentially protects the abuser and I know in my heart that is just wrong. It is not reasonable to
criminalize medical providers. HB 329 also has a criminal penalty, a misdemeanor for
medical providers and very vague language. Given how we have tried to protect the doctor/patient relationship with Lyme disease, this is a very harsh approach that singles out
abortion. HB 329 may appear constitutional, but the real test of the judicial bypass will come with implementing it. What if a young woman knows or is related to the clerk or the security guard at her closest court? How is a young woman in Keene going to have
confidential access when the court is housed in city hall? I am concerned that our court system is just not up to the task of providing the kind of confidentiality that is required. This is not easy to do. Even the big urban court systems have had problems. In fact, that is
why the Illinois' parental involvement law was challenged and is not being allowed to be in force. It will be the state's responsibility to ensure the teen has confidential access to the courts. Another thing to consider is the standard for a judge to exempt a teen from notifying
a parent does not include rape, incest or abuse. The lack of clarity means that a teen that has been abused in some way could be forced to notify the abusing parent. Our courts were not asked how they would implement this policy of 24/7 confidential access and I don't think
it will be easy for them to do and it will be costly for them to do and there was no money put in the budget for this provision. If New Hampshire were to have a parental notification law, it should honor our state's commitment to limited government and our tradition of
reasonable common sense laws. As elected members of this body, we have an obligation to pass reasonable common sense laws that can be implemented. You may agree with the title and the intent of HB 329, but it is the language we are voting on. The Governor stated in his
message that he would sign a parental notification law if his concerns are addressed. A bipartisan amendment was offered in the Senate and would have addressed the Governor's concerns and there is a starting point. In the House, hearing the public hearing in the House, many people addressed the problems with the judicial bypass and other issues that were brought up in the Governor's veto message. Voting to sustain the veto is not a vote against parental notification, but a vote to work with the Governor for a law that is right for New Hampshire parents and protects teens and violent homes. A teen potentially having to notify her abuser is just morally wrong. HB 329 is dangerous and extreme public policy and it is questionable whether it is constitutional so please vote to sustain. Thank you very much.
Rep. Warren Groen (R - Straf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have a news bulletin. Two women came to Judge Judy and stood before her. One of them said, "Judge Judy, this woman and I live in the same house. I had a baby while she was there with me. The third day after my child was born this woman also had a baby. We were alone. There was no one in the house but the two of us. During the night this woman's son died because she laid on him. So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. The next morning I got up to nurse my son and he was dead. When I looked closely at him though in the morning light I saw that it wasn't the son that I had born. The other women said the living son is my son, the dead one is yours." But, the first one insisted, "No the dead one is yours, the living one is mine" and so they argued before Judge Judy. So Judge Judy said, "This one says my son's alive. The other says no your son is dead." So Judge Judy said, "Bring me a knife." So they brought a knife to the judge. She then gave an order to cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other. The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said, "Judge Judy please give her the living baby. Don't kill him." But, the other said, "Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two." Then Judge Judy gave her ruling. "Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him. She is the mother." Then all of America heard the verdict that Judge Judy had given and they held her in awe because they saw that she had wisdom from God to administer justice. It's apparent that some of you recognize this story and that I have been playing fast and loose with the name of the judge. For over 3,000 years, we have been talking about the wisdom of Solomon and this is why. But, still after 3,000 years we are still struggling with the issue of the ownership of children. Some want to own children for the purpose of raising them and others say they own them and it is their prerogative if they want to take knives and cut them in pieces. This law doesn't cut the legality of abortion. I wish it did, but it doesn't. It is only about the sharing of information with responsible parties, the parents and of course we have all talked about the bypass. Now comes the Governor talking of rape. It's not about rape, it's about parental rights. But, if the Governor wants to talk about rape, let's talk about rape. I'd ask you to consider this. There is my wife and she is pregnant from a normal love relationship. There is my sister as a result of rape. Which of these children deserves to die? The answer is obvious isn't it? Now, if we go forward with this solution and my sister needs to have an abortion, now we have two victims. We have my sister who has been raped and we have her baby that is now dead. Before we had one perpetrator, the rapist over here and now we have two perpetrators. One of them is my sister who affected the death of her child. Only the government can come up with a solution that solves a problem by creating twice as many problems. My question is this for you Governor and for those who support you in this. If as a result of pregnancy that results from rape someone must die, let's kill the rapist. Mister Speaker, let's override the veto and pass this reasonable law.