AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Odds & Ends
Budget battle puts communities on notice
State House Dome, by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, August 29, 2015
THE BUDGET stalemate between Gov. Maggie Hassan and Republican legislative leaders shows no signs of resolution as we enter the third month without a two-year operating budget for New Hampshire government.
Last week the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee was the stage for the continuing drama, with Republican members reminding department heads and other state officials that they would not be in a financial bind if Hassan had not vetoed an $11.35 billion spending plan.
Hassan praised the committee for approving emergency funding for the parks system to allow continued operation beyond the latter part of September, but said other actions — such as denying $3 million for road and bridge construction projects this fall — were “motivated by politics and not the best interests of New Hampshire's people and economy.”
What many had expected to be a flash point — setting property tax rates for cities and towns, which the Department of Revenue Administration does every year beginning about now — will not be a bargaining chip for either side.
What each town or city receives in state aid affects what the community's property tax rate will be.
State aid offsets local expenses and reduces what has to be raised from property taxpayers.
The bulk of the state aid is education adequacy grants with the formula set in law, which is not impacted by the budget stalemate and continuing resolution. State aid also includes road and bridge aid, distributions from the rooms and meals tax and various other smaller amounts.
In a letter to municipal, school and county officials earlier this month, Department of Revenue Administration Commissioner John Beardmore noted their concerns that property tax rates would have to increase or spending be reduced mid-year if the amount of state aid varies from what is used to set the rates in the coming months
“The Department's assumption has been that the total estimated State Aid appropriations will be close to appropriations contained in the final Legislative budget, which is very close to the amounts appropriated last fiscal year,” Beardmore wrote.
The amount of state aid included in the vetoed budget — $1.114 billion — is nearly identical to what communities received in the 2015 fiscal year budget — $1.117 billion.
“It is clear to me policymakers share the expectations that regardless of how the state's operating budget is resolved, State Aid will be provided over the full fiscal year in an amount similar to the amounts noted above, and they do not expect discussions regarding the state's operating budget to disrupt the local property tax rate-setting process,” Beardmore said.
More detailed information will be provided by DRA staff in the coming weeks, the commissioner told municipal, school and county officials.
The next significant step in the budget showdown is likely to be the Sept. 16 vote to override Hassan's veto. There is little chance Democrats will vote to override their governor so the veto is expected to stand barring a last-minute compromise.
GOP leaders have long said they wanted to wait until the 2015 fiscal year budget figures are released at the end of September before serious negotiations begin.
Republicans have everything to gain by waiting, while Democrats have much to lose as long as Hassan does not say what she intends to do: run again for governor or seek a U.S. Senate seat.
With Hassan not saying what her future holds, Democrats who want to move up the electorial ladder are frozen in place, and there is less and less time to mount a campaign, especially for U.S. Senate or governor.
For years, Libertarians have sought an easier path to the general election ballot, but have met resistance from the two major parties.
Years ago, a third party could gain access to the general election ballot if its candidate for governor received 3 percent of the general election vote.
That was changed more than a decade ago to allow third parties to appear on the ballot if their candidates for governor or U.S. Senate received 4 percent of the general election vote or by collecting signatures of registered voters equal to 3 percent of the prior general election vote.
A law that took effect in July prevents a third party from collecting the signatures prior to Jan. 1 of the election year.
The Libertarian Party, along with the American Civil Liberties Union NH, sued, saying the change would make it nearly impossible to collect enough petitions to make it on the ballot.
Last week U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled the law “prescribes a reasonable and nondiscriminatory ballot-access restriction that is justified by the State's interest in requiring political parties to demonstrate a sufficient level of support within the State.”
During the 2000 and 2012 election cycles, the Libertarian Party was able to collect the nearly 10,000 and more than 13,600 signatures necessary to get on the ballot, but began that process in 1999 and 2011, said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire.
“To use a metaphor, this signature-collection process is like a marathon that's hard enough just to finish, and this law now demands that the Libertarian Party run the marathon in less than two hours — all while the major parties are campaigning,” said Bissonnette. “The LPNH is disappointed by the court's decision. This law limits voter choice and stacks the deck against candidates who — like roughly 40 percent of Granite Staters — don't belong to a major party.”
He said the LPNH is considering whether to appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, noting a recent decision in Rhode Island federal court ruled in favor of the third party on a similar time-restricting law.
Net metering
The next big fight between small power generators and the major electric utilities will be over what is known as net metering.
If you have an electricity-producing solar array, you receive credit for the electricity generated but not used that goes onto the power grid.
Currently, small generators are compensated for what they do not use but the total amount of electricity is capped at 50 megawatts. Other states cap the amount as a percentage of total usage, like Vermont at 15 percent. The 50 megawatt cap is about 2 percent of New Hampshire's total.
The cap is allocated among the utilities based on usage. Liberty Utilities hit its cap last month; Eversource is close to what it has to accept.
Only Unitil has some room to grow but several large proposed projects could mean the overall cap will be exceeded.
The NH Sustainable Energy Association pushed a bill this past session that would have raised the cap to 6 percent and now the group wants members and supporters to push the Legislature to raise the cap in the upcoming session.
Major utilities have been fighting any increases in net metering caps across the country and are not expected to support the increase here.
Watch for this fight to erupt in the next session beginning in January.
Last week the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee was the stage for the continuing drama, with Republican members reminding department heads and other state officials that they would not be in a financial bind if Hassan had not vetoed an $11.35 billion spending plan.
Hassan praised the committee for approving emergency funding for the parks system to allow continued operation beyond the latter part of September, but said other actions — such as denying $3 million for road and bridge construction projects this fall — were “motivated by politics and not the best interests of New Hampshire's people and economy.”
What many had expected to be a flash point — setting property tax rates for cities and towns, which the Department of Revenue Administration does every year beginning about now — will not be a bargaining chip for either side.
What each town or city receives in state aid affects what the community's property tax rate will be.
State aid offsets local expenses and reduces what has to be raised from property taxpayers.
The bulk of the state aid is education adequacy grants with the formula set in law, which is not impacted by the budget stalemate and continuing resolution. State aid also includes road and bridge aid, distributions from the rooms and meals tax and various other smaller amounts.
In a letter to municipal, school and county officials earlier this month, Department of Revenue Administration Commissioner John Beardmore noted their concerns that property tax rates would have to increase or spending be reduced mid-year if the amount of state aid varies from what is used to set the rates in the coming months
“The Department's assumption has been that the total estimated State Aid appropriations will be close to appropriations contained in the final Legislative budget, which is very close to the amounts appropriated last fiscal year,” Beardmore wrote.
The amount of state aid included in the vetoed budget — $1.114 billion — is nearly identical to what communities received in the 2015 fiscal year budget — $1.117 billion.
“It is clear to me policymakers share the expectations that regardless of how the state's operating budget is resolved, State Aid will be provided over the full fiscal year in an amount similar to the amounts noted above, and they do not expect discussions regarding the state's operating budget to disrupt the local property tax rate-setting process,” Beardmore said.
More detailed information will be provided by DRA staff in the coming weeks, the commissioner told municipal, school and county officials.
The next significant step in the budget showdown is likely to be the Sept. 16 vote to override Hassan's veto. There is little chance Democrats will vote to override their governor so the veto is expected to stand barring a last-minute compromise.
GOP leaders have long said they wanted to wait until the 2015 fiscal year budget figures are released at the end of September before serious negotiations begin.
Republicans have everything to gain by waiting, while Democrats have much to lose as long as Hassan does not say what she intends to do: run again for governor or seek a U.S. Senate seat.
With Hassan not saying what her future holds, Democrats who want to move up the electorial ladder are frozen in place, and there is less and less time to mount a campaign, especially for U.S. Senate or governor.
For years, Libertarians have sought an easier path to the general election ballot, but have met resistance from the two major parties.
Years ago, a third party could gain access to the general election ballot if its candidate for governor received 3 percent of the general election vote.
That was changed more than a decade ago to allow third parties to appear on the ballot if their candidates for governor or U.S. Senate received 4 percent of the general election vote or by collecting signatures of registered voters equal to 3 percent of the prior general election vote.
A law that took effect in July prevents a third party from collecting the signatures prior to Jan. 1 of the election year.
The Libertarian Party, along with the American Civil Liberties Union NH, sued, saying the change would make it nearly impossible to collect enough petitions to make it on the ballot.
Last week U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled the law “prescribes a reasonable and nondiscriminatory ballot-access restriction that is justified by the State's interest in requiring political parties to demonstrate a sufficient level of support within the State.”
During the 2000 and 2012 election cycles, the Libertarian Party was able to collect the nearly 10,000 and more than 13,600 signatures necessary to get on the ballot, but began that process in 1999 and 2011, said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire.
“To use a metaphor, this signature-collection process is like a marathon that's hard enough just to finish, and this law now demands that the Libertarian Party run the marathon in less than two hours — all while the major parties are campaigning,” said Bissonnette. “The LPNH is disappointed by the court's decision. This law limits voter choice and stacks the deck against candidates who — like roughly 40 percent of Granite Staters — don't belong to a major party.”
He said the LPNH is considering whether to appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, noting a recent decision in Rhode Island federal court ruled in favor of the third party on a similar time-restricting law.
Net metering
The next big fight between small power generators and the major electric utilities will be over what is known as net metering.
If you have an electricity-producing solar array, you receive credit for the electricity generated but not used that goes onto the power grid.
Currently, small generators are compensated for what they do not use but the total amount of electricity is capped at 50 megawatts. Other states cap the amount as a percentage of total usage, like Vermont at 15 percent. The 50 megawatt cap is about 2 percent of New Hampshire's total.
The cap is allocated among the utilities based on usage. Liberty Utilities hit its cap last month; Eversource is close to what it has to accept.
Only Unitil has some room to grow but several large proposed projects could mean the overall cap will be exceeded.
The NH Sustainable Energy Association pushed a bill this past session that would have raised the cap to 6 percent and now the group wants members and supporters to push the Legislature to raise the cap in the upcoming session.
Major utilities have been fighting any increases in net metering caps across the country and are not expected to support the increase here.
Watch for this fight to erupt in the next session beginning in January.
2. Potpourri
Local links to marijuana dispensaries
Bow doctor, Feldstein on board of ‘Temescal Wellness’
Capital Beat, by Allie Morris, concordmonitor.com, August 29, 2015
Bow doctor Gary Woods has never smoked marijuana. He’s not even sure he knows what it smells like.
“People don’t believe that,” Woods said with a laugh, explaining he graduated from the University of California, Berkeley. “I was a really geeky, nerdy physics major. My nose was in the work.”
But now, Woods, 73, is up to his eyeballs in marijuana. He sits on a small board that guides one of the three organizations selected by the state to dispense medicinal cannabis.
While none of the new dispensaries plan to call Concord home, the capital area still has strong ties to the state’s first foray into medical marijuana.
Woods, along with Concord resident Lew Feldstein, sit on the five-member board of Temescal Wellness.
The organization has plans to open a cultivation site in Manchester, where it will actually grow its pot plants, and operate a dispensary in Lebanon. Temescal is still deciding on a final location for the second dispensary it is licensed to operate, in a region that covers the Seacoast and Lakes Region.
Both men were approached and asked to join the Temescal board, they said. And while Woods signed on for the science, Feldstein said he’s in it for the societal aspect.
“I was quite interested because of the degree of change it represented for the state,” said Feldstein, a former president of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. “It’s like a window into something new . . . watching communities work their way through something that is at the edge of what’s been accepted.”
In that way, Feldstein equates the state’s move to medical marijuana with its recent push to legalize gay marriage. The policy changes leave many people feeling wonderful and relieved and others angry or isolated, he said. “You learn a lot from watching how we work through these changes.”
And Feldstein has a front-row seat.
Recently, residents from across the state have spoken up at public forums held in towns where the medical marijuana dispensaries and grow sites plan to set up shop.
For Woods, who represented the state in the American Medical Association for nearly 20 years, it’s about getting past the social domain, and into the scientific – studying the medicinal benefits of marijuana and the genetics of the plants. He hopes marijuana will get reclassified federally, from its schedule one status alongside drugs such as heroin and LSD, which could open the door to further study and potential funding by federal grant dollars and agencies.
“My hope is that as we work along, that legislators, the public and also the nay-saying physicians will at least be open-minded,” he said, “and look at this from the scientific perspective, and look at the potential social good.”
So, what’s it like actually operating some of the state’s new medical marijuana dispensaries?
Thus far it’s been lots of paperwork, and attention to minute detail getting the organization off the ground, the men say. Most of the work has been setting up the business, a hybrid nonprofit entity.
A unique part of the business model is that it can’t start bringing in income until it works through all the state requirements and makes all the necessary investments. You “build the facility, plant the crop, oversee growth, hire staff to sell it, dispense it, and incur all those costs before you have begun to bring in some income,” Feldstein said.
Temescal was able to get a bank account, sometimes a stumbling block for businesses that deal in medicinal cannabis, which is still classified as illegal federally.
One of the most striking aspects so far, Feldstein said, has been the staff hiring process. Medicinal marijuana is a relatively new field, so applicants with two to four years experience are considered senior.
“In some fields, you would say ‘Jeez, that’s a rookie,’ ” Feldstein said. “On the other hand, here that may represent a substantial amount of experience. Those two to three years, think about as dog years, one year equals seven.”
The state originally approved medical marijuana in 2013. And some, including the proposal’s prime sponsor Sen. John Reagan, have criticized the state, saying the process is going too slow.
While sympathetic to patients who have been hoping to get their hands on medical marijuana for years, both Feldstein and Woods praised the state procedures they said ensure every move is cleared, from security at the buildings to businesses registration.
“I hugely appreciate the care the state is taking on this, even though it may seem slow and deliberate,” Feldstein said. “The state’s care, in the long run, I think will serve us well.”
‘News to us’
Efforts by the New Hampshrie Democratic Party to fend off criticism that it’s in the bag for Hillary Clinton hit a major snag this week. Reports surfaced that the NHDP is partnering with the Clinton campaign on a joint fundraising agreement for the 2016 general election.
As explained by the Center for Responsive Politics, these committees allow multiple “candidates, PACs or party committees to share the costs of fundraising, and split the proceeds” – allowing the entities to more easily accept “mega-contributions” from donors. Republicans pounced, labeling the partnership a sign of favoritism.
While Party Chairman Ray Buckley said the same offer is open to the rest of the field – “State parties can sign such a fund-raising agreement with each of the candidates and I’ve told them all I’m willing to sign one for them” – other Democratic campaigns said they were, until this week, in the dark about such a proposal.
“News to us, have not heard anything about that,” Jim Webb spokesman Craig Crawford said in an email Thursday, when asked whether this offer had been extended to the former Virginia senator’s campaign.
Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley’s campaign also said the party had not communicated directly with them about such a deal.
The campaigns for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee did not respond to emails seeking comment.
While it may make for bad optics, these kinds of fundraising deals are not necessarily unique to this year or to the Democrats in New Hampshire.
As earlier reported, Clinton’s camp is moving to set up similar agreements with state parties across the country. And in New Hampshire, both Republicans and Democrats have used joint fundraising agreements with the state parties to bolster their general election war chests in the past.
“This agreement allows state parties to raise money for the 2016 General Election – to be competitive up and down the ballot, regardless of who ends up being the nominee,” Buckley said. He added, “We saw from 2014 that a strong, grassroots effort is what makes the difference in a swing state like New Hampshire, and we are committed to making sure that we repeat and expand those victories in 2016 – from president to State House.”
Union on defensive
State employees scored a win recently, when Republicans offered to fund their pay increase as part of a budget compromise.
But last week, the largest state employee union went back on the defensive.
The state recently announced that the health benefit plan for retired state employees faces a $10.6 million shortfall. Lawmakers will soon be making moves to fill the gap, and some potential solutions include upping the premium contributions for retirees, expanding the amount of retirees who pay.
The State Employees’ Association is saying not so fast. “It is unacceptable for the state to raise out-of-pocket expenses solely on the backs of our retirees,” said SEA President Richard Gulla in a statement. “The majority of state retirees cannot afford these proposed changes.”
The average state employee pension is about $12,000, he said, and changes already made to the health plan put some citizens “in the position of having to choose health care over groceries.”
“We stand ready to work with the state to explore solutions and look at all options; not just those that shift the burden to the retirees,” he said.
It looks like the pay raise isn’t the only debate state employees will be having this fall.
Looking ahead
∎ The Sununu Youth Services Center will again come up for scrutiny Monday, as lawmakers resume work on a plan that could turn a piece of the center into treatment for youth with mental illness and drug addiction.
∎ Gov. Maggie Hassan will be in Canada early next week, attending a conference among the New England state governors and leaders of the eastern Canadian provinces.
3. Forrester Falsehoods
Forrester column on budget crossed the line
by Ray Buckley, concordmonitor.com, August 29, 2015
Whether Sen. Jeanie Forrester’s recent opinion piece (Monitor Forum, Aug. 26) was motivated by her continuing desire to do Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s political dirty work or by Sen. Forrester’s own political ambitions, the fact remains that her piece was as false as it was offensive.
It is entirely expected that over the course of developing a budget for our state there will be disagreements over priorities. But Sen. Forrester crossed a line with her toxic political rhetoric that has no place in any civilized budget discussion.
While Sen. Forrester is correct that there have been regular budget meetings with the governor and legislative leadership of both parties, I understand that Sen. Forrester has been conspicuously absent, despite her role as Senate Finance Committee chairwoman.
Not only has Sen. Forrester made it perfectly clear that she has no interest in good-faith budget negotiations, but she’s now launching outrageous political attacks to distract from the shortcomings of the fiscally irresponsible Republican budget.
The Republican budget would set up our state’s economy for failure by creating a $90 million budget hole in order to enact unpaid-for corporate tax cuts at the expense of critical priorities for our people and businesses, such as higher education, transportation and addressing the heroin crisis.
Gov. Hassan and Democrats in the Legislature have made clear that they are particularly concerned that the Republican budget falls short on combating our state’s heroin epidemic, and the governor’s compromise proposal includes an additional $5.7 million to help address this critical public health and safety challenge.
Linda Saunders Paquette, a leading advocate in the fight against substance abuse, recently wrote “When it comes to combating New Hampshire’s growing substance abuse epidemic, Gov. Hassan’s proposed budget compromise is clearly better for both sides than the alternative, or in this case, alternatives.” Meanwhile, Sen. Forrester had the audacity to question the commitment of the governor and Democrats in the Legislature as they fight for additional funding to address this pressing public health and safety challenge.
Public health and safety officials have made clear that the single most important action we could take today to combat the heroin epidemic is to reauthorize our state’s successful Medicaid expansion program, and treatment providers have indicated they are waiting to expand programs and facilities until they have certainty that Medicaid expansion will be reauthorized.
Yet Sen. Forrester refuses to reauthorize Medicaid expansion today for no reason other than partisan politics.
Instead, Sen. Forrester continues to push for a plan that would create a $90 million hole in the state’s budget for years to come, undermining critical economic priorities like holding down college tuition, combating substance abuse, maintaining our roads and bridges, and protecting access to quality, affordable health care.
Sen. Forrester and Republican leadership openly acknowledge that they don’t even know if their irresponsible plan would create economic growth.
But it’s hardly a mystery what unpaid-for corporate tax cuts would do to our state. All we need to do is look at what’s happened in states like Kansas, where these Koch Brothers policies have already played out.
Experience shows that unpaid-for corporate tax cuts don’t produce economic growth, just rivers of red tape and deep cuts to critical economic priorities.
Not to mention that the irresponsible budget Sen. Forrester is pushing even raids dedicated funds, a clear and undeniable violation of Forrester’s own campaign promises to her constituents.
And while Sen. Forrester even tries to attack Gov. Hassan on funding for mental health services, it was Forrester and her Republican colleagues who suggested that the Department of Health and Human Services should simply violate the state’s landmark mental health settlement.
Sen. Forrester’s overheated political rhetoric serves only to harm efforts to pass a responsible budget.
I urge Sen. Forrester to stop trying to score political points, and instead negotiate in good faith so we can pass a budget that truly meets the needs of New Hampshire’s people, businesses, and economy.
4. Creating Jobs in NH
Matching worker skills with needs of small businesses
by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, nashuatelegraph.com, August 30, 2015
"Our company has openings and would like to hire and expand, but we can't find workers with the right skills for the job." Time and again I hear variations on this challenge from small business owners who are ready to expand their businesses and invest in New Hampshire workers. Monday morning in Manchester, I will join with Sen. Kelly Ayotte to convene a field hearing of the Small Business Committee to explore ways to equip our workers with the skills to fill the high-quality, high-paying jobs that our small businesses are creating.
The challenge is to create a win-win for the Granite State economy: A win for workers, who gain access to jobs that will help build a prosperous middle class, and a win for our small businesses, which are able to grow and keep their competitive edge in the global marketplace.
According to the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy, the advanced manufacturing and high-technology sectors are now the leading drivers of our state's economy, paying higher wages and dramatically increasing exports. These dynamic industries are rapidly adopting new technologies, often requiring skills that schools don't yet teach and labor markets don't yet supply. To address the shortage of skilled workers, we need to build - and generously fund - a workforce development infrastructure that is as nimble and dynamic as our state's leading industries.
New Hampshire faces big workforce challenges, including replacing baby boomers who are rapidly reaching retirement age, as well as training and retaining talented workers to fill the estimated 43,000 new jobs in STEM fields - science, technology, engineering, and mathematics - that will be created in our state over the next five years.
The good news is that we are stepping up to this challenge - and we know what works. Our K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions are placing a sharp new emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) coursework, and encouraging community college and university students to pursue STEM majors and careers.
The seven independent colleges of our New Hampshire Community College System are working aggressively to equip Granite Staters with critical, in-demand job skills, including in STEM fields. More than 27,000 students annually pursue a broad range of associate degrees, certifications, and specialized training.
Next month, New Hampshire Granite State community colleges will complete the fifth year of a $20 million competitive grant from the federal Trade Adjustment Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program to bolster training in advanced manufacturing skills. Nashua Community College, in cooperation with local and regional manufacturing companies, has used $1.6 million in TAACCCT funding to renovate its Precision Manufacturing training laboratory, and another $2.5 million to fund a new curriculum, Advanced Manufacturing by Innovation and Design. Nearly 8,000 Granite State students have received training thanks to TAACCCT funding, with participation by more than 100 industry partners. Hiring rates for graduates are near 100 percent in most of the degree programs.
Manufacturing is making a comeback in the Granite State, creating a surge of new job opportunities. These jobs typically do not require a traditional college degree, but they do require specialized skills and advanced training. For our state to keep a competitive edge both nationally and globally, we need to bolster our workforce development infrastructure, including creative public-private partnerships, to equip our workers with the skills that businesses need in order to grow and flourish. This can be a big win-win for the Granite State.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is the senior U.S Senator from New Hampshire and the senior Democratic member of the Senate's Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
AND NATIONALLY
5. Whose Body Is It?
The Republican Conception of Conception
by Thomas B. Edsall, nytimes.com, August 26, 2015
The battle for the Republican presidential nomination has produced an unexpectedly intense burst of attacks on women’s reproductive rights, not only on the right to abortion, but also by implication on some of the most commonly used methods of contraception.
The shift to an aggressively conservative posture stands in direct contrast to the party’s previous five presidential nominees, all of whom sought during their campaigns to play down social issues.
In the current Republican presidential contest, 16 candidates have staked out positions against abortion; the exception is George Pataki, former governor of New York, who is pro-choice.
More significantly, a majority of the most prominent candidates — Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee, for example — have said at one time or another that they oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest, a view rejected by all previous party standard-bearers from George H. W. Bush to Mitt Romney.
In doing so, these six candidates not only pit themselves against a decisive majority of the electorate, but against a majority of Republican voters.
A 2011 Gallup survey found that 59 percent of self-identified anti-abortion Republican-leaning voters agreed that abortion should be legal “when the pregnancy has been caused by rape or incest.” A 2013 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that in the country as a whole 10 percent of voters thought that “abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions.”
Equally salient, 15 of the current Republican presidential candidates, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, contend that life begins at conception.
This stance exposes all 15 to a politically costly debate over contraception, in which they would have to choose between alienating their anti-abortion backers or the estimated six-plus million women using intrauterine devicesand the roughly three million women who have taken the morning after pillin the past year following unprotected sexual intercourse. The potential political fallout from a threat to contraception can be seen in the fact that half of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the United States in 2008 were unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports reproductive rights.
Virtually every major group opposed to abortion takes the position that lifebegins at fertilization. Any method of contraception that “may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur,” in this view, amounts to the termination of a human life. Anti-abortion organizations have received support from a number of doctors and researchers who share their belief that life begins at fertilization.
Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, outlined this position in an email responding to my inquiry:
Every human being begins life at Stage 1a — the beginning of the process of fertilization. According to the manufacturer, one of the methods of operation of the IUD is to prevent implantation of an already created human being. This results in the death of that human being. Most reasonable people recognize this as an abortion. The morning after pill is basically a megadose of regular birth control pills. The manufacturers of these products state that they work some of the time by inhibiting implantation. Thus, yes, it is an abortifacient.
By this logic, a presidential candidate seeking to live up to the standards set by Sedlak and others in the anti-abortion community must then agree that the IUD and morning after pill cause abortions.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disputes this argument. Instead of addressing the question of when life begins, it maintains in a paper, “Emergency Contraception and Intrauterine Devices are Not Abortifacients,” that “pregnancy is established only at the conclusion of implantation of a fertilized egg.” In other words, contraceptive devices that act before implantation do not end a pregnancy because the pregnancy has not begun.
The Department of Health and Human Services has a similar definition of pregnancy: “Pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 contraceptive methods, from male condoms to spermicides. Strict abortion opponents object to four of the 20 — two “morning after pills,” Plan B and Ella, and two intrauterine devices, ParaGard and Mirena — in the belief that these methods prevent eggs that have been successfully fertilized by sperm from implanting on the wall of the uterus.
On March 25, 2014, in the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since “owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point,” these companies may refuse to provide coverage for these four means of contraception.
There is disagreement about whether IUDs interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. The University of Michigan health care site, designed to provide comprehensive information to college students and faculty, says “Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow),” adding that the copper IUD “makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow.” The Columbia University website addressing the question “How does an IUD work?” states that
The exact mechanisms are not fully understood, but the IUD may work by stopping sperm from reaching the egg or by changing the lining of the uterus to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall.
I wrote Kate Connors of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to ask, “What does ACOG say about the contention of pro-lifers that IUDs can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?”
She replied, “This is where things get a little murkier. The copper IUD may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, although this is rare. Generally, it works by killing and blocking the sperm.”
Even if the copper IUD prevents implantation, Connors added, “based on the law and on medical science, this is not a pregnancy. IUDs do not disrupt if it is implanted.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among women between 15 and 44 usage of the IUD grew from less than 1 percent in 1995 to 6.4 percent in 2011-13. The Kaiser Family Foundation reportedeven higher usage, 10.7 percent, in 2011-13, when the number of women in this age group reached an estimated 62 million.
When I asked some of the prominent Republican candidates to detail their positions on contraception, they were reluctant to get into specifics. I sent an email with these basic questions to the candidates:
Does X believe that life begin at the moment the egg is fertilized? Or does he/she believe life begins when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall (implantation)? Does he/she believe use of the intrauterine device (IUD) results some or all of the time in abortion? Does he/she believe the morning after pill results in abortion?
Kristy Campbell, spokeswoman for Jeb Bush, wrote: “Yes on supporting exceptions for life of the mother, rape and incest. He supports the 20-weekPain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” As governor of Florida, she wrote,
Bush defunded Planned Parenthood and took additional measures to protect innocent life by passing a partial-birth abortion ban, fighting for a constitutional amendment requiring parental notifications and doing everything possible to promote adoption.
AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, responded to my inquiry with: “The governor is 100 percent pro-life. He acknowledges what science says, and that is that an unborn child is that — a child, and deserving of protection.”
Rick Tyler, spokesman for Ted Cruz, senator from Texas, replied without elaboration: “Life at conception, no exceptions.”
Anna Epstein, spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina, sent a link to a video of a Jan. 15, 2015, speech Fiorina gave at the Heritage Foundation in which the candidate did not address the specific question I asked.
Alex Conant, communications director for Senator Marco Rubio, and Chris Schrimpf, spokesman for John Kasich, governor of Ohio, did not respond to repeated inquiries.
In public statements, Rubio and Ben Carson have attempted to have it both ways. The two declare that they believe life begins at conception. At the same time, Rubio and Carson have endorsed the use of IUDs and the morning after pill despite the view prevalent in the anti-abortion community that these contraceptive devices are abortifacients.
It will be interesting to track their responses when challenged by social conservatives as the campaign progresses.
Even more interesting will be tracking the voting intentions of women as Nov. 8, 2016, approaches. In 2012, Mitt Romney won among men, 52-45, but lost the election because women, 53 percent of voters that year, backed Obama 55-44. Romney carried married women by a relatively modest 7 points, 53-46, but he got crushed among single women, 67-31.
To win the presidency, Republicans clearly need to improve their numbers among women, but their approach on reproductive issues appears likely to make that goal difficult.
Further compounding the hurdles facing Republicans are the party’s current drive to defund Planned Parenthood, and the sustained effort to reduce the number of abortion clinics in Republican-controlled states.
This effort includes legislation effectively closing such clinics by requiring, in the case of Texas, that “a physician performing or inducing an abortion must, on the date the abortion is performed, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed,” and that abortion facilities must meet the “minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers”; requiring women to undergo (sometimes invasive) ultrasoun
The conflicts over reproductive rights within both the Republican Party and within the social conservative movement are inevitable. They result from the fact that the ideological purity — the moral absolutism — of the anti-abortion movement conflicts with the far more complex views and the pragmatism of the electorate, including many conservative Republicans.
For decades, the Republican Party found political success fighting a rear-guard action against the sexual and feminist revolutions. What remains to be seen is whether the flare-up of pronounced anti-abortion stands and objections to key forms of contraception represent a deepening determination on the right to fight to the bitter end or whether they are more like the burst of flame in a match just as it is about to go out.
Forensic Analysis Shows the Real Planned Parenthood Scandal Is the Videos Themselves
A review finds evidence the sting videos had been “manipulated” and “deceptively edited.”
by Zoe Carpenter, thenation.com, August 27, 2015
On Tuesday, the Center for Medical Progress—an anti-abortion group that has little to do with actual medicine—released the eighth in its series of undercover videos purporting to show that Planned Parenthood officials have profited from illegal sales of fetal tissue. The videos have prompted protests at clinics across the country, congressional investigations, and inquiries at the state level. They’ve also sparked a renewed effort to cut off government funds for the organization, whether Medicaid reimbursements or other sources of state and federal money. Four more videos are reported to be coming, with the last slated to hit close to the deadline for funding the federal government.
The latest video, like the ones before it, does not expose any clear evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. Nor have any of the state investigations. On the other hand, a new forensic analysis of five of the videos has found evidence that they have been “manipulated” and “deceptively edited,” according to a letter sent Thursday by Planned Parenthood to congressional leaders. The review, conducted by the research firm Fusion GPS and verified by independent video and transcription experts, concluded that the videos—even the long versions CMP claims are full-length—“do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict,” and so are not reliable as evidence in a legal context or in a journalistic sense.
Analysts identified at least 42 places in the videos where content had been edited out, though the splices are not apparent to a casual viewer. The shorter tapes had been “severely” altered, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson said Thursday on a conference call with reporters, in at least one case so that a question from one of the undercover anti-abortion activists was linked with an unrelated answer. One video was edited so that a Planned Parenthood staffer in Texas speaking about lab protocols to keep tissue intact seemed to be speaking about changing abortion procedures to do so. Transcripts provided by CMP were “sloppy at best,” and at worst represented “wishful thinking” about what was said, according to Simpson. Quotes, including at least one highlighted in the media, were improperly attributed.
Because the unedited footage is not available, it’s hard to know the full extent of the manipulation. The audio compression that occurred when the videos were uploaded to the web also made analysis more difficult. But it is clear that in order for a congressional inquiry to be credible, investigators would have to obtain the original, unaltered material. The bottom line, said Simpson, is that “Anytime someone has made undisclosed changes to an audio or video file, that renders the file unreliable.”
The forensic analysis should clarify that the scandal is not Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation for medical research. It’s the surreptitious campaign undertaken by CMP to attack the healthcare provider, possibly in collusion with some members of Congress. Some Democrats have already asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate CMP for fraud and other misconduct, but the Justice Department has not indicated whether it will.
The evidence of manipulative editing probably won’t quiet the cascade of anti-abortion outrage provoked by the videos. Politicians looking for a reason to call for defunding the organization or to launch investigations will continue to do so. In campaign season, the occasion to rile up the evangelical base is a gift. So far, Ted Cruz is the shrewdest opportunist. On Tuesday, he spoke on a conference call with pastors from around the country and asked them to use the pulpit to build support for dragging the Planned Parenthood debate into upcoming negotiations over a must-pass budget bill; considering his lackluster poll numbers, Cruz appears to be hoping that another government shutdown will shake the shadow of Donald Trump.
At some point the charade will end, practically speaking: it’s hard to imagine how members of Congress could argue for the integrity of their investigations if they don’t obtain unaltered videos, and it’s unlikely that the original footage contains any of the evidence against Planned Parenthood that the heavily doctored versions lack. But that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen anytime soon.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment