According to EVERYTOWN for Gun Safety in 2023 the following gun safety bills were not passed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives: 
HB32- would have prohibited guns in schools or on school grounds. New Hampshire is one of three states where guns continue to be allowed on school grounds and buildings. 
HB59 – would have required background checks on all gun sales, which NH does not have. Instead, we still have a loophole allowing persons who are prohibited by law from owning guns to buy them with no background check and no questions asked. That would be from unlicensed sellers, which includes gun shows and online purchases. 
HB106 – would have made “Extreme Risk Protective Orders” available in New Hampshire. This would have been a temporary restriction to a person’s access to guns should a civil court judge determine they are a serious danger of using a gun to hurt themselves or others. The bill surprisingly passed in both chambers last year, but the governor vetoed it. This bill would have helped in identifying warning signs before any possible gun violence tragedy took place. Did you know? Almost 90% of gun deaths in NH are by suicide.

Something else a lot of us probably didn’t know, gun violence costs NH $2.2 billion each year. Of that amount, $22.4 million is paid by us, the taxpayers. Also, here in NH during any average year, 141 people die from guns. Nationally, the number is just under 50,000, a year!

Now, moving along to 2024 a new gun violence prevention bill is making its way through the NH Senate. SB577 would require a 72-hour waiting period between purchasing a gun and then taking possession of it. The goal of the proposed bill is for those people who may find themselves in a state of intense agitation or anger some extra time to “cool off.” In that 72-hour waiting period, gun violence to themselves or someone else could, quite possibly, be avoided. 

There are some exceptions to the bill; corrections and police officers, hunters, and members of the military. An exception for those who are in fear for their safety and have a restraining order and those who have voiced fear for their personal safety to police. 

Right now, the bill is being heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee will eventually schedule a vote on whether to recommend the legislation to the full Senate.

Could 2024 be the year when NH finally begins to take gun violence prevention seriously? 

In honor of Martin Luther King Day, on Monday, here is a selection from my book, GENOCIDE: The Shameful, Unspoken History Of Crimes Against Humanity In The United States.

---

Martin Luther King Jr. was born on Jan. 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. He was educated during the time of segregated public schools, graduating at the age of 15 from high school. While at Morehouse College in Atlanta, King studied law and medicine, receiving a BA degree in 1948. It was then on to Pennsylvania to study theology at Crozer Theological Seminary. There he was elected president of the primarily White senior class. In 1951, he received a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Crozer, prompting him to pursue graduate studies at Boston University. In Boston, he received his doctorate in 1953 and a degree in systematic theology in 1955. 

        It was in Boston where King met a young student from New England Conservatory of Music named Coretta Scott. They married in 1953 and had four children.

        Returning to Montgomery, Al., King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, while continuing to advocate for civil rights and equality for all Black people. He believed in non-violent, peaceful protests. King had become a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). 

        Rosa Parks, a secretary for the local NAACP chapter, had refused to give up her bus seat in Montgomery to a White person on Dec. 1, 1955. While that refusal got her arrested, activists were busy organizing a bus boycott. The Montgomery bus boycott lasted more than 380 days, placing economic strains on both business owners and the bus system. During this time of boycott, King was arrested, his home firebombed in Jan., 1956 and he had become a target for White supremacists. On Dec. 21, 1956, the Supreme Court declared laws requiring segregated bussing as unconstitutional. 

Between the years 1957 and 1968, King travelled around the country and the world, speaking about civil rights, civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. He lectured more than twenty-five hundred times, meeting with activists, political and religious leaders. In 1957, King and other civil rights activists, founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). This group is committed to gaining full equality for Black people through nonviolent protest.

       In 1958, King survived an assassination attempt. On Sept. 20, he was signing books at a department store in Harlem when a woman named Izola Ware Curry asked if he was indeed Martin Luther King. When he answered in the affirmative, Curry proceeded to stab him in the chest with a letter opener. The attack left King even more determined to advocate for nonviolence, stating, “The experience of these last few days has deepened my faith in the relevance of the spirit of nonviolence, if necessary social change is peacefully to take place.” 

       Curry, eventually diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, died in 2015, after having spent the rest of her life going from various psychiatric hospitals, residential care facilities and nursing homes.

       In April 1963, King led a large-scale protest in Birmingham, Al., which led to his arrest. It was while he was in jail that he wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” a civil rights manifesto. Today, this manifesto of his philosophy and strategies is required reading at many universities worldwide. In addition to organizing drives in Alabama to register Blacks to vote, he led the peaceful 1963 March on Washington. It was here he gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech before a crowd of 250,000 people. That same year King was named Time magazine’s “Man of the Year.” In 1964, at thirty-five years of age, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest man at that time to have done so. He gave the prize money, ($54,123) to advance the civil rights movement he so passionately believed in. 

       Working with fellow civil rights and religious groups, King helped in the organization of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. This was a non-violent political rally showcasing the continuous inequalities Black Americans faced nationwide. The event was attended by roughly two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand people and is considered to have played a significant part in the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Aug., 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, assuring the right to vote to all Black Americans. The intention of this bill was to prevail over legal barriers at state and local levels that were preventing Black Americans from exercising their right to vote, which was guaranteed to them by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1870. It was signed into law by Pres. Lyndon Johnson.

       Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. He was in Memphis, Tenn. to support a strike by sanitation employees, when he was shot and killed as he stood on the balcony of a motel. Soon after his death, Pres. Johnson declared a national day of mourning. And so ended to soon, the life of a man who sought by peaceful protest only, equal human rights for Black Americans, those who were disadvantaged economically and victims of injustice.

       In 1983, Pres. Ronald Reagan signed a bill declaring every third Monday in January as Martin Luther King Day. This came about after many years of campaigning by his widow, Coretta Scott King; Congressional members; and other civil rights activists. The federal holiday was first celebrated on January 20, 1986.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Last November I wrote an article about New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary voting status. Not included in the article was the brief information about a state law enacted in 1976 requiring NH to hold its primary a week before any other state’s primary. Should the secretary of state ignore that requirement, he or she would be breaking the law. 

Iowa, which holds a caucus, not a primary, would not be affected as the law does not include any states that use the caucus system. 

Seeking to add an amendment to the state’s constitution, the NH State Senate voted 23-0 on March 30, 2023 approving an amendment enabling NH’s primary will continue to be held first during a presidential election. The amendment would add the following language to the state constitution: “The secretary of state shall ensure that the presidential primary election be held seven or more days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election.” Unfortunately, this amendment has not gone any further in the House. 

NH state senators have recently placed on a “fast track” to approval an amendment to the state’s constitution meant to safeguard the future of the status of NH’s presidential primary. On Jan. 9, 2023, the Senate Election Law Committee approved an amendment to preserve the state law requiring NH to hold the first in the nation presidential primary by adding it to the state’s constitution. 

What is needed now is for the NH House to vote and approve, by at least 60%, the proposed amendment. If approved, the amendment will then appear on the ballot in Nov. for voters to have the final decision. 

Whether you approve or oppose this proposed amendment to the state constitution but would like to express this sentiment to your representatives, you can reach them here.

They’re baaack! Or did they ever really go away? 

Anyway, the New Hampshire legislature is back in session and the Senate Republicans are continuing in their hell-bent mission of destroying the public school system. This past week the Senate Education Committee held hearings on two bills whose main goals is to seriously increase the school voucher program:

SB 442-FN aims to expand the voucher program by allowing any student who is denied a transfer to another school or district a voucher regardless of family income. This is just another attempt at universal vouchers as it has no requirement for the family to show the public school was somehow failing to meet the student’s educational needs.

SB 522-FN-A creates a school voucher program for Pre-K ages 2 ½ through age 5 for low-income families. This bill would stop an existing program that already provides support for high-quality childcare to low-income families through the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Instead, this existing program will be replaced  with a new program through the NH Dept. of Education. 
NH does not offer universal PreK to public school families. This bill would get rid of the high-quality childcare program which had previously been established through the DHHS. Another attempt at expanding school vouchers. 

While this next bill has nothing to do with school vouchers it’s an attempt at playing “gotcha” with educators:

SB 341 creates a vague and impractical standard requiring an educator to respond “completely and honestly,” in writing, to any parent’s question. The drawback? The bill doesn’t define what “completely and honestly” means. 
Really? Just one more unnecessary burden looking to be placed upon public school teachers. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to cause division rather than focusing on real solutions.

What the Legislature should be focused on is for every public school student to feel connected, included, safe and welcome in the school community. That there are sufficient certified teachers and paraeducators, keeping class sizes small, resulting in individual attention for students. Also enough available guidance counselors and nurses. 

The Legislature needs to focus on how public schools can encourage the interests of students by meeting their educational needs which could include “hands on” learning. In order to accomplish that, the Legislature must finally honor its constitutional requirement (obligation) to provide an equal opportunity for a public education for every NH student. Whether these students live in towns with a high or low property tax base, they should be afforded a vigorous education. 

With a 14-10 Republican Senate majority in Concord, parents (and grandparents) of public school students need to voice their concerns and preferences, then be sure to vote!

Two bills will be coming up for a vote soon in Concord, HB396 and HB619. Both pieces of legislation are an attack on the rights of LGBTQ people. HB396 would permit segregation based on "biological sex" rather than gender identity in schools, prison settings, and other spaces, violating the rights and safety of transgender people under state and federal law. This move will only increase discrimination, harassment and probable violence they already face.

HB 619 would prohibit certain healthcare for transgender youth, by unfairly targeting and discriminating against transgender and gender non-conforming people in violation of New Hampshire law. This healthcare, better known as gender-affirming care, is widely recognized as the only evidence-based approach to addressing the physical, mental, and emotional needs of transgender youth.

On the flip side, there are two pieces of legislation meant to further advance LGBTQ rights. HB368 would assist in easing the process of changing a person’s gender on their birth certificate while assuring their identification documents are affirming, precise and valid.

HB264 is meant to protect patients and providers from civil lawsuits. All across the country we have seen many elected officials make efforts to dangerously restrict access to crucial gender-affirming healthcare services and resources. Additionally, attempts are being made to criminalize this care that is being made available across state lines.

If you would like to urge your representative to vote against HB396 and HB619, while telling them to support HB368 and HB264 please contact them here. Takes only a moment to do . . .

On Aug. 16, 2022, Pres. Biden signed into law the "Inflation Reduction Act." This law represents the largest investment in addressing and combatting climate change in our nation’s history.

Here in New Hampshire the “Solar For All” grant program is designed to assist low and moderate income NH households get connected to community solar projects. This connectivity enables these households to either arrange for access to or become stakeholders in the proposed solar program. This is another option for people who are concerned about the environment and want renewable energy but are unable or don’t want to place solar panels on their homes. 

Recently, the NH Dept. of Energy put in a request for a $70 million federal grant to widen these community solar programs for low and moderate income households. An expectation of roughly sixty grants are to be awarded. This funding will assist in lowering utility bills, speed up decarbonization (reducing carbon dioxide emissions), and possibly bring about more desperately needed, affordable housing. 

Community solar project developers would be able to team up with consumers who are qualified for NH’s Electric Assistance Program. This project is only available to customers of Eversource, Liberty, and Unitil. Households that are located closest to proposed solar panel groupings will be given the opportunity to participate first. If chosen, consumers will also have the opportunity to decline participation. Consumers are chosen based on their electric assistance eligibility and zip code, with their utility company doing the choosing. These consumers would receive a credit on their monthly electric bill. If there turns out to be more qualified households in the proposed area than there is availability, utility companies are expected to indiscriminately choose from these households. 

NH Dept. of Energy has opened up the application process for solar developers who are planning these community solar projects. The applications are due to the state by Feb. 29, 2024.  

On August 9, 2022, Pres. Biden signed the “CHIPS and Science Act” into law. This will be one of the largest investments, nearly $280 billion, in technology research and development in our nation’s history. In a nutshell, this law will protect access to semiconductors which are used in the manufacture of everyday products such as refrigerators and vehicles. It will also ascertain more domestically made semiconductors are readily available for our military. Currently 90% of semiconductors are made in Taiwan. Also included is $39 billion in subsidies to domestically manufacture chips. 

Now for the NH part. . .

BAE Systems in Nashua is located in a 110,000 square foot Microelectronics Center (MEC) which produces technology for the Dept. of Defense (DoD). This is just one of the US subsidiaries of BAE Systems an international aerospace, defense and security company with services and products for air, land and naval forces. They also offer advanced electronics, security and customer support services. 

Thirty-five million dollars in federal funding has recently been earmarked to update the MEC building, which develops advanced semiconductor technology. This funding will also go towards purchasing newer and more efficient manufacturing tools, increasing their technical personnel, production capacity and ability to provide national defense programs. Additionally, the country’s onshore supply chain will be made stronger. Demand has also increased for microelectronics to industries such as satellite communications which will now have the ability to be met.

As of this writing BAE now needs to submit to a comprehensive due diligence process and a final negotiation process over its terms before the agreement is finalized. 

In the meantime, thank you Pres. Biden for recognizing our nation’s need to move forward by bringing manufacturing opportunities not just to NH, but to the nation as a whole! 

During the first century of the newly formed United States, there was no such thing as a “ban” on abortion. Then in 1847, physicians came together and created the American Medical Association (AMA), which became the (male-dominated) authority on all things medical. Included in that oversight were nurses and midwives, the practice of obstetrics. 

By 1880, abortion was restricted in all states, except to save the life of the mother. By 1910, abortion had become illegal in every state, except if a doctor deemed it necessary. To be clear, at that time 95% of physicians were men. Now, with the criminalizing of safe abortions, the procedure became secretive and unsafe. In 1930, nearly 2,700 women lost their lives to illegal and unsafe abortions. 

In 1955, physicians who attended a national conference on abortion legalization called for reform on abortion laws. Those who attended felt the laws needed to be readdressed, permitting physicians more leeway in providing abortion services. They noted public health would improve along with easier access to reproductive health care for women of all economic conditions.

During the 1950’s into the early 1960’s, a drug called “Thalidomide” was given to an estimated several hundred pregnant women to help ease negative symptoms of early pregnancy. Unfortunately, it caused terrible birth defects which brought about even stronger support for reforming abortion laws. 

Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Washington repealed their bans on abortion during the years 1967 through 1973. During that time, thirteen other states enacted laws now permitting abortion in the cases of abnormalities in the fetus, incest, rape or a danger to the patients mental or physical health. 

During that time, in 1969, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) was the first national group whose specific function was to work towards the legalization of safe abortion. 

In 1973, by a vote of 7-2, Roe v. Wade was ruled by the United States Supreme Court that the process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abortion. For the first time, a woman’s constitutional right to privacy was now recognized by the (at the time) all-male Supreme Court and protected in all fifty states. A safe abortion was now legally made available nationwide and it was the business of no one but the patient and her physician.

Between then and 2022 when the current Supreme Court overturned the 1973 decision, many different cases (some very dangerous to women) from several states have been brought forward and some have successfully chipped away at Roe v Wade. On June 24, 2022, voting 6-3, the Supreme Court overturned nearly fifty years of women’s rights to safe, private reproductive care. 

Here in New Hampshire there is a state law from 2021 banning abortion after 24 weeks. The exception to this law is the life of the mother or a fatally defective fetus. 

On Monday, Dec. 11, Rep. Amanda Toll (D-Keene) introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve abortion rights in NH’s state constitution. The amendment would read that women would have the right to abortion services before the 24th week of pregnancy. After the 24 weeks, if a physician deemed the procedure as necessary, NH could not stop it from taking place. This amendment would go to the voters in Nov. 2024.  

Rep. Toll is to be commended for her work to constitutionally preserve safe abortion rights for all NH women. 

As an aside, pregnancy begins with a penis and in my timeline research about the on-going struggle for this particular right for women, NOT ONCE did I come across any elected official, male or female, coming up with legislation to regulate that!

Perhaps it’s time to do so . . .

Recently I discovered, through my AARP magazine, that there are several states who have “work-off” programs where senior citizens, who own property, can work to offset some of those property taxes. Naturally, having never heard of this type of program, I was curious, did a little research and this is what I found. . .

Here’s a few examples of “work-off” programs: There’s a county in South Carolina where, for just a few hours a week, seniors sixty and older, can trade time and skills performing light duty work, usually for the county, in exchange for a small financial reduction in their property tax. The compensation would be minimum wage and applied to what the homeowners County tax would be. Or in the city of Aiken, again, people sixty and older who live in the city, could work for different city departments. They would accrue an amount based on the current minimum wage and apply it to their city property taxes. 

In Massachusetts, where many cities and towns have established these “work-off” programs, seniors have acknowledged not only the financial help but also the benefit of getting out and being around other people for a few hours. There are two programs, one is available to homeowners sixty and older, the other is available to any Veteran property owner. Those who qualify are able to lower their tax bill by up to $1,500, volunteering in their communities.

Colorado’s Larimer County, has similar “work-off” programs for senior homeowners who can be compensated up to $500 in exchange for work.  

Kittery Maine, has a $750 cap on their “work-off” program, however, 220 participants saved a total of $105,427 in 2022. Property owners must be sixty or older, with only one applicant per household, per year. Compensation (based on minimum wage) is applied directly to the property tax.

In the school district of Avon Grove, Pennsylvania, residents who own property, are sixty and older, can volunteer in the districts schools. They must have put in fifty hours by the end of the school year which earns them a $650 property tax rebate. Volunteers assist in the school offices, libraries and cafeterias. 

So far, the following states have some form of this program; Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Washington state. Texas will be next to participate. 

How about New Hampshire? 

It’s a question with no real, definitive answer, but it needs to be asked. So here we go . . .

According to the Planned Parenthood website: “At Planned Parenthood our mission is to ensure all people have access to the care and resources they need to make informed decisions about their bodies, their lives, and their futures. Founded in 1916, Planned Parenthood is a trusted health care provider, educator, and passionate advocate here in the U.S. as well as a strong partner to health and rights organizations around the world. Each year, Planned Parenthood delivers vital sexual and reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of people.” 

Here in New Hampshire, there are currently five Planned Parenthood (PP) health centers; Concord, Derry, Exeter, Keene and Manchester. These health centers offer services for birth control, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases along with cervical and other cancer screenings. PP also makes available for schools and communities programs, resources and tools designed to assist people in making informed choices concerning their own sexuality and relationships. There are compassionate and dedicated medical and support staff able to counsel and talk to patients concerning subjects that are of no business to others and giving them the support they need. Planned Parenthood is a registered non-profit.

For the fifth time in three years, on Nov. 29, the Republican majority in the Executive Council voted against the health and well-being of women yet again. The state’s health dept. put in a request for $1.3 million in contracts for Equality Health Center in Concord, Lovering Health Center in Greenland and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. This funding was to help those of low income or those with no health insurance. Naturally, this vote against the funding would negatively affect mostly women. 

According to Patricia Tilley, Director of NH’s Public Health Services, the contracts were for an 18 month period and would have helped an extra 5000 residents obtain services for family-planning. Despite it being illegal, Executive Council Republicans are oh, so worried that money MIGHT be used to provide abortions. State auditors and health officials have stated abortions are not what that funding has been used for in the past. Federal and state laws forbid abortions being funded by government dollars.

The Republican Executive Councilors who voted against the health and well-being of women were Ted Gatsas, Manchester; Joseph Kenney, Wakefield; Janet Stevens, Rye; David Wheeler, Milford. The single vote in favor came from Cinde Warmington, Concord. Wheeler, who apparently still hasn’t been schooled in certain state and federal laws, still felt abortions should not be financially supported by taxpayer money. Even though, at the risk of being redundant, it is illegal to do so. Wheeler also expressed concern that more money would result in more people showing up to these family-planning centers (oh, the horror of it all. People needing help). That COULD lead to some of them (women, of course) receiving a referral for or an actual abortion. 

Do the voting actions of these four Executive Councilors negatively affect you or someone you know, a friend or family member? Please remember that the next time their name appears on your election ballot.