New Hampshire has a buffer zone law. It allows abortion clinic managers to prohibit access to public spaces around their facility. To violate free speech rights. It exists in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a similar law in Massachusetts. And Last week NH House Democrats rejected legislation to repeal the unconstitutional law.
Ellen Kolb, writing at Leaven for the Loaf, has details.
On a vote of 14-4, the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL) on HB 124, which seeks to repeal the buffer zone law. The full House will take up the bill at a date yet to be determined.
With Republican Support
Ellen reports that two Republicans on the committee supported the move to kill the repeal effort. Republicans Edward Gordon (R-Bristol) and Joe Alexander (R-Goffstown). With Democrats controlling the House, the Left holds majorities in every committee. These changes have little hope of advancing. For those keeping score at home in preparation for 2020, Gordon and Alexander have sent you a message. The first amendment, even reinforced by Supreme Court precedent, means less than pandering to liberals.
More from Ellen.
All Democrats on the committee were joined by Republicans Edward Gordon (R-Bristol) and Joe Alexander (R-Goffstown) in voting to kill the repeal effort. Voting against the ITL motion were Republicans Kurt Wuelper (R-Strafford), Gary Hopper (R-Weare), Barbara Griffin (R-Goffstown), and Mark McLean (R-Manchester).
What a Fool Believes
If you want to know what Democrats in New Hampshire think, let Timmy Horrigan, Democrat Rep from Duh, Duh, Duh, Durham speak.
“This is a church-state issue,” added Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D-Durham), saying he had documentation that one particular religious entity, the Catholic Church, opposed the buffer zone. “I am a Roman Catholic myself.” His one-religion claim probably comes as a surprise to people like Rev. Don Colageo of Immanuel Lutheran Church in Manchester, who has frequently led prayer vigils at an area abortion site. Further, said Rep. Horrigan, “There isn’t a First Amendment right to provide counseling or advocacy if you’re not licensed.”
While we have likely devoted a few words on these pages to the issue of ‘church and state ‘ (as in Jefferson’s Danbury Baptist letter and the ‘Separation’ thereof), Horrigan invoking it should invalidate his premise. As Josh Moore reminds us here,
For well over a century, Jefferson’s letter was invoked in numerous Supreme Court hearings and decisions. Each time his letter was referenced, the entirety of his letter was used, until a Supreme Court case in 1947 called Everson vs. Board of Education. This would the first time since Jefferson’s letter was used in these cases, where his letter was NOT used in its entirety but was only used to reference his “wall between church and state” quote.
Cherry Picking Precedent
Separation of Church and State as a legal concept (and legal precedent) only exist because the US Supreme Court invoked it. The same body that in 2014 declared that buffer zones could not simply prohibit these First Amendment expressions.
The only thing more amusing than this blatant contradiction is Horrigan declaring that counseling and advocacy are not protected first amendment speech if the state does not license them.
These expressions take many forms. Religious leaders, friends, family, even total strangers engage in advocacy and counseling everywhere, every day. Is Mr. Horrigan telling us that the New Hampshire Democrat Majority position is that New Hampshire should be a ‘May Issue’ state with regard to free speech? Because his statement makes entirely no sense otherwise.
And while New Hampshire’s law has never been invoked, we appreciate Democrats saying stupid things in the course of defending a law they want (because of their fascistic hunger to control speech and thought) but can’t enforce.
