Good Afternoon Madam Chair & members of the committee:
I oppose the passage of this amendment and ask the committee to consider the following in their deliberations.
Under the proposed language of this amendment, making medical choices fundamental to the “human condition” if adopted would mean that an unborn child would possess the same right as the mother with respect to health care decisions concerning its own interests.
While acknowledging the absolute right to have uninhibited control over our own medical care, that right must be equitably applied to all, including the unborn child whose rights under the law must also be safeguarded. We cannot support the noninvolvement of the state regarding medical treatment imposed on another without their consent or their rights being represented.
Outside the context of abortion the unborn child possesses broad legal rights in American property, torts, and criminal law. The legal status of the unborn child is commonly recognized as a person entitled to equal protection of the law. This is demonstrated in wrongful death laws and unborn victims of violence laws for example. Thirty-eight states that have fetal homicide laws have recognized the baby in the womb as a human being who possesses the same fundamental rights of every human being. Without representation of the unborn child, this amendment would perpetuate inconsistent treatment of the unborn in the law
The unborn have met the criteria for being a human being by virtue of the following:
Has a distinct and separate DNA
Meets the biological criteria for being a living entity
Is undeniably human per the human genetic signature
And is an individual organism guided by their own genetic code
These facts are established by science and confirmed in scientific journals, and other relevant authorities.
The scientific evidence shows that the unborn is a living individual, the same kind of being as us, only at an earlier stage of development. Each of us was once an embryo or fetus, just as we were once infants, toddlers, and adolescents. Just like our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be!
Since the unborn child is a human, its right to have medical decisions made on its behalf is inviolate also and that right must not be violated.
Given the language of this amendment, the person in the womb’s very existence deserves and requires consideration and defense. If you’d deny that child such a right, then the author of the amendment seeks to legitimize murder.
I strongly urge the committee to vote against this amendment. Don’t ask the voters to decide whether any individual should have the constitutional right to end the life of our children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren. No such so-called “right” appears in our US constitution or the constitution of any other state, nor should it. Please vote NO on CACR14.
Phyllis Woods
1 Barry Street
Dover, NH 03820
The following area citizens, who are unable to attend this hearing, have requested to have their names attached to this testimony.
- David Abbott
- Donna Bassett
- Brenda Cameron
- Mary Ann Cooper
- Sheila Cronin
- Chris Deutsch
- David Deutsch
- Barbara Dunnington
- Tom Dunnington
- Steve Easler
- Sheila Elia
- Jane Ferrara
- Mike Ferrara
- Anne Fortin
- Jim Fortin
- Martha Haley
- Claude Malo
- Elaine Malo
- Steve Morgan
- Valerie Morgan
- Mark Racic
- Jim Rogers
- Lloyd Roseveare
- David Scott
- Guy Eaton
BY PHYLLIS WOODS
***********************************
Here is the text of the Bill -Skip:
CACR 14 – AS INTRODUCED
2020 SESSION
20-2600
06/10
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14
RELATING TO: reproductive medical decisions.
PROVIDING THAT: the state shall not infringe or unduly inconvenience the right of reproductive medical decisions.
SPONSORS: Rep. T. Smith, Hills. 17; Rep. Hamer, Hills. 17; Rep. Sofikitis, Hills. 34; Rep. Horrigan, Straf. 6; Rep. Ellison, Merr. 27; Rep. Grassie, Straf. 11; Rep. Frost, Straf. 16
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
—————————————————————–
ANALYSIS
This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution provides that the right to make reproductive medical decisions is inviolate and prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from infringing upon or unduly inconveniencing this right.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type
20-2600
06/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING CONSiTUTIONAL AMENDMENT
RELATING TO: reproductive medical decisions.
PROVIDING THAT: the state shall not infringe or unduly inconvenience the right of reproductive medical decisions.
Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the
Constitution of New Hampshire be amended as follows:
I. That the first part of the constitution be amended by inserting after article 2-b the following new article:
[Art.] 2-c. [Right of Reproductive Health.] The right to make personal reproductive medical decisions is inviolate and fundamental to the human condition. Neither the State nor any political subdivision shall infringe upon or unduly inconvenience this right.
II. That the above amendment proposed to the constitution be submitted to the qualified voters of the state at the state general election to be held in November, 2020.
III. That the selectmen of all towns, cities, wards and places in the state are directed to insert in their warrants for the said 2020 election an article to the following effect: To decide whether the amendments of the constitution proposed by the 2020 session of the general court shall be approved.
IV. That the wording of the question put to the qualified voters shall be:
“Are you in favor of amending the first part of the constitution by inserting after article 2-b a new article to read as follows:
[Art.] 2-c. [Right of Reproductive Health.] The right to make personal reproductive medical decisions is inviolate and fundamental to the human condition. Neither the State nor any political subdivision shall infringe upon or unduly inconvenience this right.”
V. That the secretary of state shall print the question to be submitted on a separate ballot or on the same ballot with other constitutional questions. The ballot containing the question shall include 2 squares next to the question allowing the voter to vote “Yes” or “No.” If no cross is made in either of the squares, the ballot shall not be counted on the question. The outside of the ballot shall be the same as the regular official ballot except that the words “Questions Relating to Constitutional Amendments proposed by the 2020 General Court” shall be printed in bold type at the top of the ballot.
VI. That if the proposed amendment is approved by 2/3 of those voting on the amendment, it becomes effective when the governor proclaims its adoption.
VII. Voters’ Guide.
AT THE PRESENT TIME, the New Hampshire constitution does not specifically guarantee the right to make personal reproductive medical decisions.
IF THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, the right to make personal reproductive medical decisions will be guaranteed by the constitution and the state and its political subdivisions will be prohibited from infringing upon or unduly inconveniencing this right.