The House, Thursday, February 15, 2024

Speaker PackardThe motion is to take HB 1419 from the table. A division has been requested. Members will take their seats. This will be a division vote. The motion before us is to remove HB 1419 from the table. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 308 voting Yea, 40 voting Nay. The motion now is Ought to Pass. The question is Ought to Pass. The motion before us is Ought to Pass and Rep. Rep. Harrington asked for a roll call, and it is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is Ought to Pass. We had a debate, and it was cut off, so we are going back to the debate. The Chair recognizes Rep. Tanner.

Rep. Linda Tanner (D - Sull 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill, HB 1419, is about prohibiting obscene and harmful sexual materials in school. When it comes to literature and education, historically, no theme is safe from censorship. Books from serious to violent to fantasy have all been under the knife of censorship, like To Kill a Mockingbird, The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank, 1984 and Huckleberry Finn have all been censored at one time. Certain words, phrases or selected passages of a sexual nature and especially about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, black, indigenous and people of color are often those singled out as objectionable. It is already illegal to distribute obscene material to minors, a felony under RSA 50:2. Educators are not exempt from this law but receive an added layer of due process due to the nature of their work, which may involve areas like sex education instruction, art and literature. Educators found guilty of distributing materials that the court has determined to be obscene are guilty of a felony. Legal issues with criminal and monetary fines should be left up to the judicial system. I want to make it perfectly clear, that educators are not exempt from the current law. HB 1419 sets up a parallel process to challenge materials at the local level that is overly prescriptive and may be unworkable. It has vague standards and arbitrary and stringent deadlines. The vague standards required in this process are determined by whether the identified materials, "predominantly appeal to a prurient interest," and "lack serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic or political value." The amount of time it takes, especially for high volumes of simultaneous challenges, often results in multiple school personnel reading the book or material in its entirety. Teachers and staff do this using additional time on top of their normally assigned school duties. Timelines will be difficult, at best, to meet. HB 1419 makes the State Board of Education the final arbiter to judge, not the process, but the decision of, "community standards." It is fundamental that local community standards should be determined by the locally elected school board by using the local school district policies and procedures. School boards are close to the community whose standards they are representing and directly accountable to their constituents at the ballot box. The appointed State Board of Education is not. School districts should and do have policies and procedures in place and these policies and procedures need to ensure due process to meet parents concerns in a timely manner and in a balanced way. They should preserve local control and insurance compliance with non discrimination laws. Professionally trained librarians and educators are valuable resources to help parents find interesting, informative and age-appropriate materials for their children. They work collaboratively with parents to encourage reading and discussing places, topics and ideas. Parents can remove their child from classes, course material, curriculum, books and media material at school under current law and they have the responsibility of deciding what media materials are best for their child. They have the right and the responsibility to view what their child is reading, seeing on the Internet, receiving on their cell phones or other material. Other parents might make different decisions, have different perspectives and beliefs and these decisions and choices should be equally respected. Censorship can have serious and dangerous consequences. Growing up is hard, especially today with all the outside noise and social media. Kids that are marginalized or feel different often become isolated and believe they are the only ones who feel as they do. They think that no one else is going through or experiencing what they are. They feel alone, fearful of rejection and often succumb to depression. Erasing the existence, voice and experiences of students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning students, survivors of violence and abuse and black and indigenous and students of color by censoring materials in their schools and libraries, takes away their humanity, respect and self esteem. It is important to provide books and materials that open a window on the world for all students so they can see themselves in a future where they can be their authentic self. I urge you to vote against the OTP. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Noble. I'm sorry, does the member yield to a question? No, she does not yield.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Back in 2020, the ACLU Deputy Director for Transgender Justice led the charge to ban the book, Irreversible Damage. He said stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on. Caving to the pressure from the movement against this book, Target promptly removed it from their shelves. Amazon refused to run ads for the book's publisher and the American Book Sellers Association apologized for their violent distribution of the book. A few years ago, the family of Dr. Seuss found themselves posthumously defending him against claims that he was racist. After significant pressure, the publisher ultimately decided to stop producing six of his books. Last week, the Congressional Weaponization Committee released what is being referred to as the Amazon files, which showed that the Biden Administration was pressuring Amazon to censor books they disapprove of. This, after we had already learned that they were colluding with big tech to censor speech they disapproved of. Now that I have presented these examples of actually book banning and the direction from which that comes, let's focus on our public-school libraries. We've had several book challenges over the years, many of which do not even compare to the books now being discovered. Each time I'm shown a book, it gets worse. In a book called Queer, a Graphic History, there are cartoon like depictions of threesomes, bondage and sado-masochism. In a book called Let's Talk About It, young readers are encouraged to visit online adult chat rooms and to watch porn. The book says a great place to research fantasies and kinks safely is on the Internet. There are tons of people in communities out there who share your interests and have all kinds of advice. The online world is also chock full of pornography. Professionals and amateurs alike sharing their sexy adventures online. It goes on to say there's nothing wrong with enjoying some porn. It's a fun sugary treat. The book also encourages a young reader to take and send dirty pictures, including the advice that before you start sending your naughty masterpieces around the world, take some time to get friendly with photo editing software or apps. I'm fairly certain that parents are assuming the exact opposite of this as being taught to their children. These books are in New Hampshire public high school libraries along with many others promoting sexual assault, rape, cutting, suicide, prostitution, drug and alcohol use and more. The majority of students in high school are minors, some as young as 14. As a society, we have always protected the innocence of minors, always. Those opposed to this bill say it would violate a child's first amendment rights to restrict them from reading the sexually explicit books in their school libraries. Those opposed to this bill argue that kids need a wide variety of material. Sure, but does it have to be obscene? Would they object to the book I mentioned earlier? Irreversible Damage being part of a high school's collection? There is no campaign in New Hampshire to ban these books. No one has gone after Target or Amazon to stop selling them. No one is trying to stop the publishers from producing them. That would be book banning. These books are available for any parent to purchase for their child. Defense of this material reflects poorly on our public schools. The text and images would get you banned on social media for violating community standards. Parents and taxpayers being asked every year to shoulder a heavier tax burden for their schools need to be able to trust these institutions. Many districts have a reconsideration policy, but this bill would allow a neutral set of eyes to consider an appeal from parents. I urge you to support it. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardWe already have a roll call. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1419. This is a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1419. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Paige for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. David Paige (D - Carr 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I look around this chamber at my colleagues of all political stripes and believe that no member of this body supports the dissemination of harmful materials to our children. But if I know that this bill creates a vague standard for defining obscenity using highly subjective determinations of materials appropriateness. And if I understand that this bill is built around a fundamental contradiction that we define the term harmful to minors based on prevailing community standards, but that our locally elected boards, who are accountable to their voters at the ballot box, no longer have the say here. Mister Speaker, if I believe that it is entirely inappropriate that a group of political appointees on the State Board of Education get to tell my community what our own community standards are. And, finally Mister Speaker, if I know that this body will have the opportunity to consider bipartisan legislation that addresses the concerns around due process for parents, raising concerns while still preserving local control, then would I press the red button so a better motion may be made? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Quaratiello for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Arlene Quaratiello (R - Rock 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that HB 1419 has been misrepresented as a book banning bill because real book banning involves the government completely suppressing material and making it unattainable by anyone anywhere, something that this bill does not do. If I know that HB 1419 employs an objective standard for identifying materials that are harmful to minors and that this legal precedent provides clear guidelines that have been used in courts for over 50 years and that this bill also includes a minimum process by which parents can object to material. If I was disturbed by the examples that have been given and the words that were just read from books currently held in public school libraries. If I know that students go to school to learn and if I believe that they learn nothing of any value from this type of material, would I now protect children's mental health from harm and press the green button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 1419. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 162 voting Yea, 187 voting Nay, the motion of Ought to Pass fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Mel Myler (D - Merr 9)I'd like to move to Indefinitely Postpone, thank you, and I'd like a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Indefinitely Postpone on HB 1419. Rep. Myler has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone on HB 1419. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 187 voting Yea, 162 voting Nay, HB 1419 is Indefinitely Postponed.

Speaker PackardRep. Seibert moves Ought to Pass. The Chair recognizes Rep. Simon.

Rep. Matthew Simon (R - Graf 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, language is a powerful tool. With it, we can use words to construct ideas, invoke emotions, activate the imagination and shape not only the way millions of people think, but also what they believe. That a well-crafted message can accomplish this is evidenced by the existence of a multi billion-dollar marketing industry. HCR 11 and abortion messaging in general gives us a master class in this. With just a few simple phrases, supporters have been able to effectively shape the conversation and, in many cases, have captured people's imagination around this issue. For example, they say that abortion is safe, essential reproductive health care, a private medical decision between a mother and her physician. These are all attractive propositions that when taken at face value, I would agree with, wouldn't you? Now, as this resolution puts it, abortion is essential to protecting an individual's freedom to control their own body, life and future. It's an appealing conceit that one could actually control these things. After all, life is full of dangers and difficulties. It's riddled by fear and uncertainty and in it there is no lack of pain, toil or tragedy. If abortion could actually eliminate these problems, then abortion would afford a kind of freedom to those who get one that has otherwise been unknown to mankind. Without question, abortion would not only be a good, but one might argue, it would border on the miraculous. So, if that was the actual reality of abortion, then I would not oppose it. However, I've never been able to shake off the idea that these statements do not accurately reflect what an abortion is. That perhaps these phrases are simply empty platitudes. For all the carefully crafted language of HCR 11, a document that is designed to appeal to our sense of empathy and fairness, it seems to me that there is one very small but significant detail missing, the direct object of the abortion. The human child. The human child that is the result of the reproduction that has already occurred. So, if a human child is the result of reproduction and abortion is the ending of that very same reproduction, then I am left with this haunting thought. Are we killing innocent human children to solve our problems? Are we killing innocent human children to mitigate the dangers and difficulties of life? Are we killing innocent children to assuage our fears and uncertainties? Are we killing innocent children under the misconception that has the power to remove pain and toil from our futures? Mister Speaker, I am convinced that the answer to these questions is a resounding yes. When I look at this resolution, every word seems to confirm it. It jumps out at me from every line. One of the central tenants of HCR 11 seems to be that abortion is necessary to avoid poverty and hardship and ensure an unencumbered life defined by pleasure. Even if this were true, which it isn't, tell me is this all that it means to be human? Looking into our past, starting with our own parents and tracing our family lines back to the dawn of humanity, is there anyone here that can say with any level of confidence that there was no one in your family history who ever endured poverty so that you could be here today? That none of them ever sacrificed when it was inconvenient? That none of them delayed pleasure or for seasons of their life encumbered themselves for the sake of their descendants? Aren't we grateful for this? Don't we honor them for the sacrifices they made, which we are the beneficiaries? Don't we owe the same life-giving selflessness to the next generation? But some will say, surely these people are too little to actually be people. Let me ask you, when do we become people? When do we cease to be a potential medical procedure for our mothers? Mister Speaker, here's what I know. I know that when my father's sperm and my mother's egg connected in that literal flash of light, my life began just as yours did for you, did it not? If within weeks of that moment your light had been snuffed out, what would that have meant for you? Would you have just been put on some sort of pause? As though ready to join the world, people suddenly told you oh not yet, we're not ready for you yet. So, you simply hung around the waiting room until your mother got pregnant again at a convenient time? Or Would you just be dead? The next time your mother got pregnant, if we sought for you, would we have found you? Or would the child that emerged from the womb be a totally different person? I do not oppose abortion out of any desire to control women's bodies or to assert myself into legitimate medial decisions that occur between a woman and her doctor. But I will stand up and speak when I read that 5 million women have used this abortion medication, which the resolution describes as safe and effective. And I know it has caused the death of at least one person every time it has been used. When I know in fact that is its very purpose. I stand up here knowing that I will once again have to endure a cold shoulder, eye rolls, angry tweets, character assassination attempts and calls for my seat. But these things are less than nothing to me because when I look into the depth of my daughter's eyes I see my children's, children's children's children and with them myriads of others. Mister Speaker, I can see them, but not now. I can behold them, but not near. Nevertheless, the glory of God their Creator shines upon them from generation to generation and in the warmth of His love and light, I love them. So, I stand. Mister Speaker, as a member of this House and therefore as a person who has been endowed with authority, and Mister Speaker as someone who has been asked to give my support to a resolution that calls it a good to direct the power of the sword in the form of a pill against those of us too young to have ever have done anything good or evil, paying the price for our problems with their lives, would we declare without equivocation or shame that we will build a better world with a mountain of their dead bodies? What choice do I have Mister Speaker? Other than to ethically and emphatically vote no. I urge my colleagues to press the red button so a better motion can be made.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of HCR 11, a resolution condemning medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, the first pill of medication abortion. In 1991, New Hampshire was the first state in the country to pass a resolution, which was also HCR 11, urging the US FDA to conduct clinical trials on mifepristone and to encourage its use due to the significant medical value. This was a bipartisan vote because, as we know, New Hampshire had enjoyed for so long broad bipartisan support for abortion. I introduced this resolution because of the significant threat we face right now as a country, including here in New Hampshire. The US Supreme Court has its first abortion case since they overturned Roe v. Wade, and the decision is expected in June. The case was brought forward by anti-abortion activists and could removed mifepristone from the market everywhere, including in states where abortion is legal, like here in New Hampshire. The case ignores science and is entirely based on anti-abortion bias. In fact, just last week, two studies cited as justification to restrict mifepristone were retracted. Here are the facts. Since the FDA approved mifepristone over 20 years ago, 5 million people have used mifepristone, a prescribed drug, a prescribed drug for a variety of purposes. Mifepristone is the first pill of medication abortion and is only available up until the 11th week of a pregnancy. Mifepristone is also used for miscarriage management. We continue to hear stories of women in states where abortion is banned being unable to get miscarriage care because the medication mifepristone is the same one used for abortion. We should not have Granite Staters facing those same threats. Another use of mifepristone, the one mentioned in a committee report, as something we can all agree on for today's vote is for ectopic pregnancies. But I want to be clear, the US Supreme Court's upcoming decision will impact mifepristone overall, not pick and choose which medical procedures are available. In other words, patients who have an ectopic pregnancy can be affected by the supreme court case. Mifepristone is extremely safe, safer than Tylenol for example. It is effective and its approval should not be affected by the whims of bad actors across the country. We should oppose these tactics to pass a de facto nationwide abortion ban. If mifepristone is banned, the results could have major implications that go far beyond abortion care. We should all be able to agree that one judge in Texas shouldn't have the authority to undermine the entire drug approval system. We have the opportunity today to send a message to Washington, but even more important, to send a message to our constituents. Where do we, as the New Hampshire House, stand on medication abortion? Do we support abortion early in pregnancy, specifically abortion up until the 11th week? If we do, the vote is easy, and we pass this resolution in a strong bipartisan vote. I've heard many colleagues speak about our current abortion ban, promising not to change it. Today all of us can demonstrate that we will fight against restrictions on abortion early in pregnancy. We can show that we will do everything in our power as a legislature to protect Granite State patients who need medication abortion, health care for uterine fibroids, medication for miscarriage management and a critical medication for ectopic pregnancies. I urge you to join me and support the Ought to Pass motion on HCR 11. Mister Speaker, I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us Ought to Pass on HCR 11. Rep. Simpson has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HCR 11. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Peternel for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Mister Speaker, if I know that the committee attempted to amend HCR 11 to support the use of mifepristone as medically indicated for use in ectopic pregnancy, certain uterine anomalies and large fibroids. If I know that mifepristone used with the intention of causing an abortion has an almost 100% fatality rate to the child in utero. If I know that 4 million women have been convinced to take this drug because they bought the lie that if allowed the gift of life, their children would prevent them from equal participation in social and economic life. If I know that prescribing mifepristone to survivors of rape and domestic violence to avoid detection, protects the perpetrator from detection and punishment. And if I know that the legislature should oppose the weaponization of resolutions that seek to tip the scales of justice and distant circuit courts, would I now vote to overturn the Ought to Pass motion and press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Seibert for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Christine Seibert (D - Hills 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that HCR 11 is in line with what this body did in 1991 when they passed a resolution to urge the FDA to conduct clinical trials for mifepristone due to its significant medical value. And if I know that the US Supreme Court currently has a case that could take mifepristone off the market, including here in New Hampshire. And if I know that mifepristone is also used for uterine fibroids, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriage management and medication abortion only up until the 11th week of pregnancy. And, finally Mister Speaker, if I know the decision would affect patients that need to have access to lifesaving health care, would I now press the green button and vote Ought to Pass HCR 11? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HCR 11. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 196 voting Yea, 151 voting Nay, the motion of Ought to Pass passes.