House Votes to Require

Parental Notification of Abortions

Amended March 17, 2011

Bill Would Reinstate Requirement

Repealed 4 Years Ago

CONCORD, N.H.--The New Hampshire House passed a bill Wednesday would require teenage girls to notify their parents before getting an abortion.

New Hampshire had a parental notification law on the books until four years ago, but it was never enforced because of lawsuits against it.

The law was repealed in 2007. Supporters of the bill said parents need to be involved in their children's health decisions.

"Removing parents from children's health choices strips away fundamental rights from the mothers and fathers across New Hampshire," said Deputy House Speaker Pamela Tucker.

But opponents said parents already have rights; they just need to exercise them.

"If they haven't nurtured the relationship with their teenager by now so that the teen can come to them when they talk about personal and intimate details, this law isn't going to make that happen," said Rep. Candace Bouchard, D-Merrimack.

The bill passed by a vote of 256-102. It would require that parents be given 48 hours' notice before a girl younger than 18 has an abortion.

The bill also seeks to address concerns raised in a federal court ruling from 2003. It would allow a minor to receive an abortion without a parent in the case of medical emergencies.

Supporters of abortion rights said the law could delay needed health care.

"Young women know best," said Piral Olivo of NARAL Pro Choice New Hampshire. "They turn to a parent when they can, and if they cannot, we don't want them to be delaying health care. We want them to be getting the help that they need."

The bill would also allow a minor to get a judge to sign off on an abortion without parental consent, which opponents said raises the issue of court costs. While Gov. John Lynch has expressed strong concerns about the proposal, supporters are optimistic.

"This isn't really about abortion," said Kevin Smith of conservative group Cornerstone Action. "It's simply about a parent's right to know when their young daughter could be having a major medical procedure, so we are happy they passed it, and we look forward to the Senate passing it, as well."

More than 40 states have some form of parental notification or consent laws related to abortion.

__________________________________

House Passes Bill to

Legalize Medical Marijuana

Similar Bill Vetoed two Years Ago

CONCORD, N.H.--People with debilitating or terminal illnesses could possess and use small amounts of marijuana legally under a bill passed by the New Hampshire House.

The House voted 221-96 without debate Wednesday to legalize possession of less than two (2) ounces of marijuana if the drug is for medical purposes. The legislature passed a medical marijuana bill two years ago, but Govenor John Lynch vetoed it. The House voted to pass the bill over Lynch's veto, but it fell two (2) votes short in the Senate.

Last year, the House voted to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, but Lynch said he would veto that bill, too, and the Senate killed it.

_____________________________

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice

urges repeal of the Death Penalty

At the June 18th, 2010 hearing of the Death Penalty Study Commission former NH Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau urged the commission to recommend repeal of New Hampshire's Death Penalty. The text of his testimony follows:

On the Death Penalty in New Hampshire by Joseph P. Nadeau

It has been my good fortune to serve as a judge in New Hampshire for thirty-seven years. For thirteen of those years I was presiding justice of the Durham District Court. I served as a justice of the Superior Court for eighteen years, nine of which I spent as chief justice. And I at on the Supreme Court for six years before retiring in December of 2005. I am proud of our judicial system and the effort of judges in all our courts to treat people fairly and equally, and to protect their individual rights.

While serving as a judge, I rarely expressed my opinion on capital punishment privately, and until now I never expressed my opinion publicly. Nor did I let my personal opinions influence my judicial decisions. In fact, in 1998 I presided over the capital murder case of Gordon Perry, and on every motion filed on his behalf challenging New Hampshire's capital punishment statute; I ruled he had not established that the law violated our constitution.

Last week, I appeared before the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Death Penalty, whose members I commend for their willingness to undertake the important and challenging task assigned to them by the legislature. My purpose in speaking to the commission was not to talk about facts and statistics or trials and cases but to address the moral issue of death as punishment.

The way we have been dealing with the death penalty for years is to talk about enacting laws, adopting procedures, establishing practices and providing mechanisms, as if by creating an elaborate process we could somehow sanitize the death penalty and thereby ignore the moral issues that capital punishment presents. We cannot.

I appeared before the Commission to answer one straightforward but complex question. Do I believe the systematic killing of another human being by the state, in my name, is justified?

My answer to that question is, No.

During my tenure as a judge, I met many people with strong opinions about capital punishment. Through most of that period, over two thirds of those polled in the United States regularly supported the death penalty. Some people I respect still do. So you would think that anyone looking for answers based upon public opinion or strongly held view should have an easy task.

What is the problem, then? In the face of these odds, why do we continue to struggle with the acceptability of death as punishment? I believe one reason we engage in this process is that no matter what some people say publicly about capital punishment, deep inside many are not as certain as they proclaim.

I believe another reason is that our thinking evolves, as people, technology. and societies progress. And what is acceptable at one time in our history may become unwelcome at another. If that is true then, we are encouraged to re-examine our core principles and to consider whether death continues to be an acceptable punishment in New Hampshire.

I have great respect for the offices of the Attorney General and Public Defender and for the integrity and competence with which the attorneys in those offices handle homicide cases. The primary source of my continuing concern about the death penalty, however, is not New Hampshire's limited capital murder experience but my own professional exposure to criminal justice issues.

There is no question that people who commit murder must be punished and should be removed from society. Life in prison without parole does both. It is interesting to note that two states, New Hampshire, which has not employed the death penalty since before Pearl Harbor, and North Dakota which does not condone capital punishment, did not need death to achieve the lowest murder rates in the nation every year of this century.

_________________________________