Thank you, Mister Speaker. I will be very brief.…
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Wayne MacDonald moves that the House concur. Rep. Peternel is recognized to speak.
Rep. Katy Peternel (R - Carr 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I will be very brief. Honorable colleagues, over lunch I spoke with New Mexico Senator David Gallegos. They attempted similar legislation last year and another attempt will be voted on again this July. The impetus for the similar New Mexico bill was a baby who had been discovered in a dumpster. The baby's mother bagged the child, put it in a trash bag and it was tossed into the dumpster and covered with more trash. A dumpster diver heard the infant cry and called the police. That baby is still alive today. How much more humane would it have been for that baby to have been deposited in an infant safety device? It is a miracle that the baby was discovered at all, let alone recovered alive. If we continue to deter and block parents from surrendering their babies alive, babies like this one will simply disappear. We will have more babies like the Eckersley baby in Manchester. More babies like Mattilyn Kitner in Somersworth who was suffocated in a meth den. Not one opponent of the exclusionary rule will answer the question of what will happen to the next Dauphinais baby when his parents cannot safely surrender him? The answer is really unspeakable. Infants are the most vulnerable people in our society. If we continue to hunt down and prosecute parents who use our safe havens, these babies cannot get up and go to another state with better safe haven laws. All of us in this room are their last and only line of defense. An exclusionary rule is the only way to allow our safe haven law to work. Other states are coming to grips with the same issue and New Mexico is looking to New Hampshire to lead the way in protecting the mother in order to protect the infant. Please support the motion to concur on HB 1607.
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Wayne MacDonald is recognized to speak.
Rep. Wayne MacDonald (R - Rock 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I will try to address a number of questions and concerns that have been expressed about HB 1607 during its journey through the House and the Senate. As it has been indicated, HB 1607 expands safe haven surrender protections for infants by 1) allowing the use of an infant safety device for surrender of a child. 2) Expanding the age from up to 7 days to up to 61 days of age, and 3) clarifying protections for the surrendering individual to preclude using any information directly gained from the act of the child's surrender to be used as evidence of a crime or wrongdoing. The question has been asked why is such a bill needed? Our current legislation is two decades old and needs to be updated, specifically to span the age limit in line with other states and to promote the anonymous surrender of children to ensure their highest and best chance of survival. The other question is does this method of surrender actually save lives? The answer is yes. While it is difficult to know how many, because of a lack of official statistics and confidentiality rules, there have been some notable examples that were covered in local and national media. What we do know is that by reinforcing the protections and widening eligibility criteria, even more children would likely be saved. Now, the other question is aren't we letting criminals go free by not investigating and pursuing prosecution for wrongdoing? I know this is a huge concern and probably the biggest. This is a matter of weighing a child's life against the single avenue of evidence. This concept is routinely applied in the law to ensure needed protections are in place. Yes, it is a tradeoff, but the life of a child is well worth it. We only need to look at the case of Danielle Dauphinais, an abusive mother in New Hampshire who was arrested as a result of a child surrender to understand the value of this exclusionary rule. She used the safe haven law because she thought she could do it anonymously. The resulting prosecution sent a very different message that could very well dissuade the next Dauphinais unless we act to protect these children. Notably, the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supports the exclusionary provision as an effective harm reduction measure. They've also clarified the exclusionary provision does not preclude prosecution. What it does is restrict prosecutors from using the specific avenue for evidence and requires them to use other evidentiary sources and tools. In their February 29th letter to the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee, the association stated, "The safe haven exclusionary rule proposed here is similar to the drug overdose good Samaritan law that was enacted in 2015. That protects both the victim of an overdose and a witness who requests medical assistance. The goal of the exclusionary rule proposed in HB 1607 is simple, to incentivize medical care and intervention rather than prosecution. Harm reduction is sound, humane public policy." Another question is the surrender process safe? Previously, our safe haven law allowed only for direct surrender to an individual. By introducing the option of an infant safety device, sometimes called a baby box, parents may be encouraged by the extra layer of anonymity. The infant safety device is a rigorously tested mechanism that is designed specifically to safely accept delivery of a child, is located inside a facility that is staffed 24 hours a day, such as a fire station or a hospital, and it's equipped with an alarm that promptly notifies personnel that a child has been surrendered. These devices have been in use across the country since 2016 with no issues. No infant safety device in any state in America has ever harmed a child in any way. And, finally, what is the threat picture for children in New Hampshire? Each year in New Hampshire there are thousands of cases related to child abuse or neglect and these are just a percentage of the true picture. Many of these cases are fueled by drug and alcohol abuse. New Hampshire ranks among the highest in both drug and alcohol use. Children are often the forgotten victims. Many living in seriously degraded and neglectful circumstances. Giving parents a wider window and removing every potential barrier to surrendering unwanted children could provide desperately needed safety and protection for children unable to speak or care for themselves and for this reason we ask that you concur.
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Seth King is recognized to speak against the recommendation. One moment please. Representative MacDonald, does the member yield for a question? The member yields. You may inquire.
Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Representative. We have heard that there is no other state in the nation that has a language such as in the Senate amendment for the exclusionary rule, as you put it. Do you know why that is the case?
Rep. Wayne MacDonald (R - Rock 16)I think at least one reason for that is the fact that no other state has used police to investigate and prosecute a parent surrendering a baby, but we have in New Hampshire, and this is the reason we need to concur with the Senate. We need to encourage parents in crisis to safely surrender their baby and this can literally save lives.
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithSorry about that Representative King, you are up.
Rep. Seth King (R - Coos 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker and esteemed colleagues. A lot of time has already been spent on trying to sell us on the baby box idea. We are already sold on the baby box idea. When this came before us a couple of months ago, we split the bill in two, we voted on the baby box 373-1 with overwhelming support. It's the exclusionary rule that was extremely divisive. We killed it here. I spoke before the Judiciary Committee on the other body against adding the exclusionary rule. We had representatives from the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice speaking against adding the exclusionary rule. Unfortunately, it was added in a strictly partisan manner and then when it went before the entire body, it was also passed on a strictly partisan manner. So, you might be asking why are you going against your party on this issue? I would say I'm not going against my party on this issue, I'm standing with all the other Republicans around the country who have passed safe haven laws and did not add an exclusionary rule. Okay, there are 22 states that have passed the safe haven boxes. We've got a few blue states like Maryland and New Mexico. We've got some purple states like Maine and Montana, but the overwhelmingly majority of them are deep red states. We are talking Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, okay? The Republicans in those states could have easily passed an exclusionary rule without any help from the Democrats. So, we can't blame the Democrats on killing the exclusionary rule. The Republicans around the country have decided that they didn't need to add an exclusionary rule in order to get the benefits of the baby boxes, okay? It's the New Hampshire Republicans that have decided to add this language, much to my chagrin because I also supported the baby box idea. So, what I recommend is this year we do not concur. In six months, the sponsors of the bill can bring back the baby box bill. Hopefully, they will not include that extra part of the exclusionary rule and it will sail through both bodies and get signed in the corner office and we can all go our merry way, but this exclusionary rule is just, it's just way too far. I cannot support and I know there are many New Hampshire citizens who would feel very uncomfortable about giving de facto immunity to baby rapists. So, please vote to nonconcur.
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. Rep. Mark Pearson is recognized to speak for the recommendation.
Rep. Mark Pearson (R - Rock 34)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I will keep my remarks only on the subject of the exclusionary rule. Consider two parallels. A police officer believes in a particular dwelling, there are items proving the bad guy is a bad guy. So, the police officer goes in there and takes those items. The judge throws them out because there was no warrant. Well, we'd like to pin it on the bad guy, but I think we realize the sanctity of our homes from unwarranted police invasion overrules this. I think it is a freedom issue. Secondly, a court case in
this state, a judge demanded a physician violate the doctor/patient confidentiality to obtain needed information and if you, like me, are a fan of reading through rules of evidence, you'll discover in 502 in the footnote it was reversed upon appeal because the state had not done due diligence to get the information they needed in ways other than violating doctor/patient confidentiality. And, again, to me this is a freedom issue. So, what we have is the greater good of that baby being spared over one way of pinning things on the bad guys. Things that the state can do with a rigorous policing action. So please vote yes. Vote green. Vote for the babies.
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the motion to concur on HB 1607. I hear a division vote requested. Who requested a roll call? Rep. Kristine Perez requests a roll call and is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. While you are finding your seats, a reminder that if you are not at your seat, you can't second anything. Save the energy and don't wave your arms when you are walking down the aisle. It doesn't count. I don't see you. Let's go people. Find your seats. Now is the time for all good members to be in their seats, except if you are doing PI's. The question is on the motion to concur on HB 1607. Rep. Weber is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that parents may safely surrender a baby today in a number of different ways. And if I know that I do not want to potentially allow 61 days of child abuse and then giving a get out of jail free pass to that abuser, would I now vote no on the concur motion?
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRep. Lynn is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that parents willing to leave their babies with a stranger or in a box are very likely involved in criminal activity against their child. And if I know that right now such parents who use our safe haven law can expect to be arrested as a result of surrendering their baby. And if I know that unless this changes, there is no real incentive to use the safe haven law. And if I know that HB 1607 grants use immunity only and does not grant what's called transactional immunity. That is somebody that surrenders their baby can still be prosecuted if they've abused the child based on evidence independent of the surrender. And finally, if I know that forcing a violent, abusive parent to keep his or her baby will result in very bad outcomes for the child, then would I now press the green button to pass this life saving bill? Thank you.
Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the motion to concur on HB 1607. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, press the green button. Opposed, press the red. 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. 185 in the affirmative, 174 in the negative, the motion is adopted.