Why did NHPR Leave out the 'Sex'? - Granite Grok

Why did NHPR Leave out the ‘Sex’?

NHBR Banner logoTodd Bookman, writing for New Hampshire Public Radio, left something out of his report on HB1319. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ed Butler (D- Harts Location) modifies RSA 354: A to include a definition of transgender and adds the words “gender identity” in the statute in twenty-nine places.

That’s how many times the law lists those things against which thou shalt not discriminate.

Bookman notes that the “New Hampshire statute currently bars discrimination based on factors including age, race, religion and national origin.” But that’s not how they appear in the statue in any of the twenty-nine relevant occurrences.

Todd or his editor felt the need to use the words ‘factors including‘ so they could leave a few things out including the word sex.

Call me cynical, but why? What possible reason could a progressive faction like NHPR have for deliberately excluding not just a word but the word most intimately associated with the subject of the piece?

That’s a rhetorical question.

The current statute includes age, sex, race, color, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, religion or national origin.

The sentence appears nearly thirty times in both the existing statute and the proposed amendments in HB 1319 to which they link the article so is it safe to say they couldn’t have possibly missed it?

That’s also rhetorical.

You can make your own judgment about why they left out marital status or mental disability. Or why the never point out that gender identity is already protected from discrimination according to both the State Supreme Court and the State Human Rights Commission created and empowered by RSA 354: A, the statute Butler’s Bill seeks to amend.

 

Update: Corrected count to twenty-nine in paragraph one.

>