Connect with us

New Hampshire

U.S. Senate GOP blocks bill proclaiming congressional support for abortion access • New Hampshire Bulletin

Published

on

U.S. Senate GOP blocks bill proclaiming congressional support for abortion access • New Hampshire Bulletin


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate gridlocked over reproductive rights on Wednesday, when Republicans blocked Democrats from advancing a measure that would have expressed support for abortion access.

The failed 49-44 procedural vote was just one in a string of votes Senate Democrats are holding this summer to highlight the differences between the two political parties on contraception, in vitro fertilization, and abortion ahead of the November elections.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote to move the bill toward final passage.

“This is a plain, up-or-down vote on whether you support women being able to make their own reproductive health care decisions,” Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during floor debate. “It doesn’t enforce anything. It doesn’t cost anything. It’s actually just a half-page bill, simply saying that women should have the basic freedom to make their own decisions about their health care.”

Advertisement

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said that women and their doctors, not politicians, should make decisions about abortion and other reproductive health choices.

“This is our current reality, but it doesn’t have to be our future,” Klobuchar said. “This is a pivotal moment for America: Are we going to move forward and protect freedom, which has long been a hallmark of our nation, or are we going to go further backwards in history – not just to the 1950s but to the 1850s.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow urged support for the legislation, saying women should be able to make decisions about their own health care, lives and futures.

“That’s what this vote is about and we’re not going to give up until we have those freedoms fully protected,” Stabenow said.

No Republican senators spoke during debate on the bill ahead of the vote.

Advertisement

The two-page bill would not have actually changed or provided any nationwide protections for abortion access.

The legislation, if enacted, would have expressed a “sense of Congress” that abortion rights “should be supported” and that the nationwide, constitutional protections for abortion established by Roe v. Wade “should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

The Biden administration released a Statement of Administration Policy earlier in the week, backing the bill.

“Today, more than 20 states have dangerous and extreme abortion bans in effect, some without exceptions for rape or incest,” the statement said. “Women are being denied essential medical care, including during an emergency, or forced to travel thousands of miles out of state for care that would have been available if Roe were still the law of the land. Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time.”

Trio of bills offered, blocked

The blocked procedural vote on Wednesday came just one day after Democrats went to the floor in an attempt to pass three other bills on reproductive rights through the fast-track unanimous consent process.

Advertisement

That involves one senator asking “unanimous consent” to pass legislation. Any one senator can then object, blocking passage of the bill. If no one objects, the bill is passed.

The maneuver is typically used to approve broadly bipartisan measures or for lawmakers to bring attention to legislation without moving it through the time-consuming cloture process that can take weeks in the Senate.

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto on Tuesday tried unsuccessfully to pass her bill, which would have barred the government from preventing travel “to another state to receive or provide reproductive health care that is legal in that state.”

Forty Democratic or independent senators co-sponsored the legislation.

During brief floor debate, Cortez Masto said the bill “reaffirms that women have a fundamental right to interstate travel and makes it crystal clear that states cannot prosecute women – or anyone who helps them – for going to another state to get the critical reproductive care that they need.”

Advertisement

“Elected officials in states like Tennessee and Texas and Alabama are trying to punish women for leaving their state for reproductive care, as well as anyone who helps them, including their doctors or even their employers,” Cortez Masto said. “Why? Because for these anti-choice politicians, this is about controlling women.”

Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith objected to the unanimous consent request, saying that while members of the anti-abortion movement “most certainly do not oppose any individual’s freedom to travel across this great country,” they do have concerns the measure would hinder prosecution of crimes, like human trafficking.

Bill would ‘take us backward,’ Budd says

Republicans blocked a second bill, sponsored by Murray, that would have blocked state governments from preventing, restricting, impeding, or disadvantaging health care providers from providing “reproductive health care services lawful in the state in which the services are to be provided.”

The bill was co-sponsored by 30 Democratic or independent senators.

“When I talk to abortion providers in Spokane, where they see a lot of patients fleeing restrictive abortion bans from states like Idaho, they are terrified that they could face a lawsuit that will threaten their practice and their livelihood, just for doing their jobs, just for providing care their patients need – care that is, once again, completely legal in my state,” Murray said. “We are talking about people who are following the law and simply want to provide care to their patients. This should be cut-and-dried.”

Advertisement

North Carolina GOP Sen. Ted Budd objected to the request, arguing the bill “would make it easier for unborn life to be ended.”

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision brought renewed hope to Americans who believe in the sanctity of each and every life, including life in the womb,” Budd said. “But this bill would take us backward.”

Following Budd’s objection to passing the bill, Murray said his actions “made clear” that GOP lawmakers “have no problem whatsoever with politicians targeting doctors in states like mine, where abortion is legal.”

“I think that pretty much gives the game away,” Murray added.

Grant program

Democrats also tried to pass legislation from Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin that would have established a federal grant program to bolster the number of health care providers who receive “comprehensive training in abortion care.”

Advertisement

That bill had seven Democratic or independent co-sponsors in the Senate.

“For our top-ranked medical schools, a post-Roe reality sowed chaos as students and their instructors wondered how future doctors in our state would have access to the full slate of training necessary to safely practice obstetrics and gynecology,” Baldwin said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, an OB-GYN, blocked the request, saying that the federal government “should not be spending taxpayer dollars to encourage medical students and clinicians to take life when their principal duty, their sacred oath, is to protect life and to do no harm from conception to natural death.”

Repeated attempts throughout 2024

Democrats sought to advance legislation on access to contraception and in vitro fertilization despite the 60-vote legislative filibuster earlier this year, and failed to get the necessary Republican support each time.

In early June, Democrats tried to advance legislation that would have protected “an individual’s ability to access contraceptives” and “a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.”

Advertisement

A week later, Democrats tried again, this time with legislation that would have provided a right for people to access IVF and for doctors to provide that health care without the state or federal government “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements.”

Collins and Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote to move the bills toward a final passage vote.

Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt attempted to pass an IVF access bill through the unanimous consent process in mid-June, but was unsuccessful.

That measure, which she co-sponsored with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, would have blocked a state from receiving Medicaid funding if it prevented IVF.

The legislation, which had three co-sponsors as of Wednesday, didn’t say what would happen to a state’s Medicaid funding if lawmakers or a state court defined life as starting at conception.

Advertisement

That’s what led IVF clinics in Alabama to temporarily shut down earlier this year after the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos at IVF clinics constitute children under state law.

The Alabama state legislature has since provided civil and criminal protections for IVF clinics.



Source link

Advertisement

New Hampshire

Hillary Clinton to return to New Hampshire | Fox News Video

Published

on

Hillary Clinton to return to New Hampshire | Fox News Video


Hillary Clinton is returning to New Hampshire next month to headline the state’s Democratic Party’s annual spring fundraising dinner. A progressive leader criticizes the party as ‘tone-deaf’ for inviting Clinton, stating she’s ‘yesterday’s news.’ Fox News contributor Joe Concha weighs in on Clinton’s perceived comeback tour and discusses President Trump’s recent remarks about John F. Kennedy Jr.’s political ambitions.



Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

NH lawmakers approve bill that would make judges’ job evaluations public

Published

on

NH lawmakers approve bill that would make judges’ job evaluations public


A bill that would add elements to judicial performance evaluations for all state judges and make those evaluation reports public, cleared the New Hampshire House along party lines Thursday.

The bill’s backers, including Rep. Bob Lynn of Windham, former Chief Justice of New Hampshire Supreme Court, promoted the new requirements as a way to “invigorate” judicial performance, and said fully disclosing the reports is crucial.

“I have to emphasize this provision in the bill as well as the other provisions of the bill were adopted in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” Lynn said

Under the bill, which was written with input from Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, all judges – including part-time judges and retired judges who sometimes hear cases – would undergo evaluation at least every three years. Evaluations would include courtroom observations and analyses of how efficiently they process cases. Right now, judicial performance reviews remain confidential unless a judge receives two consecutive subpar evaluations.

Advertisement

The proposal comes at a time of tension between the judicial branch and lawmakers, spurred by recent court rulings finding the state isn’t meeting school funding obligations, and by judicial branch spending and management practices.

Democrats who criticized the new judicial evaluation bill say it goes too far and that the legislature should resist the urge to meddle in court operations.

“Many of us have been frustrated by recent activities coming out of the judicial branch – this is probably a bipartisan sentiment,” said Rep. Mark Paige of Exeter. “But to the extent that this bill appeals as a means to scratch your judicial frustration itch, consider other available remedies.”

Democrats also argued that making judicial reviews public could pose safety risks in an era of increased political violence including against judges.

“Publication would do real harm, inviting harassment of judges as violent threats against U.S judges have surged 327 percent since last year,” said Rep. Catherine Rombeau of Bedford, citing research from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

Advertisement

But Republicans disputed such arguments, and said public reviews are also one of the few tools lawmakers have to make sure judges are performing their duties effectively.

“Judges are appointed once and serve until the age of 70,” said Rep. Ken Weyler of Kingston.

“All employees, including judges, benefit from constructive evaluation.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New Hampshire

AI posts, selfies, and dank memes: The very online politics of NH’s Joe Sweeney

Published

on

AI posts, selfies, and dank memes: The very online politics of NH’s Joe Sweeney


The New Hampshire State House, where tradition often reigns supreme, is scarcely more technologically savvy than a couple of still cameras streaming hearings to YouTube.

But like a lot of places these days, political power — and attention — there is increasingly shaped by what’s happening online.

And while plenty of New Hampshire lawmakers maintain busy Facebook feeds and X accounts, perhaps no public official better exemplifies the high speed, high volume, digital-ready approach to politics than Republican Rep. Joe Sweeney.

As the House’s deputy majority leader, Sweeney’s job is to make sure fellow Republicans show up in Concord and support caucus priorities. In many ways, it’s about as old-fashioned as political work gets in 2026. And to see Sweeney in action is to observe a politician who still embraces plenty of his party’s traditional priorities.

Advertisement

“Let the voters see that we oppose income taxes now and forever,” Sweeney proclaimed from the House floor earlier this month.

But Sweeney didn’t stop at merely pledging to oppose income taxes inside the walls of the State House. Soon after, he also posted the video of himself doing so to social media. Sweeney isn’t the first — or only — state politician bent on cultivating an online presence. But his position of power in the Republican Party means he is well-positioned to amplify what he chooses. It could be AI-generated graphics promoting nuclear power, photoshopped images supporting ICE, or Sweeney himself talking straight into a camera.

According to Sweeney, to succeed on social media in politics, it’s best to keep messages short, sharp — and sometimes trollish.

“It’s kind of this perverse incentive to present that sort of profile online, because that’s what’s going to get people engaged,” Sweeney said in an interview last week.

Facebook is one of several platforms where Rep. Joe Sweeney maintains a robust online presence.

Politics as personal

At 32, Sweeney came of age in politics and on the internet. He started earning paychecks for political work in 2012, on the campaign of former Congressman Charlie Bass. Sweeney was a University of New Hampshire student at the time, and won election to the New Hampshire House that same year. Back then, he courted voters on social media with an earnestness that seems far removed from the politics of 2026, welcoming voters of all stripes to reach out and support his candidacy.

Advertisement

“I am running as a Republican, but I promise to represent all of my Salem constituents when elected,” a baby-faced Sweeney said in a YouTube video from that race.

A lot has changed for Sweeney since then. He’s now a top Republican lawmaker in Concord, vice chair of Salem’s town council, and also operates Granite Solutions, a political advocacy and fundraising group.

According to filings with the state, Granite Solutions’ purpose is “Electing Fiscal Conservatives in New Hampshire.” It essentially operates as Sweeney’s personal PAC, raising money, running ads, pushing policies, and urging lawmakers to sign pledges.

As New Hampshire PACs go, Granite Solutions is not exactly flush with cash: It’s reported raising about $60,000 over the past few years. Notable receipts include a $10,000 donation from a trust connected to Joe Faro, the developer of Salem’s Tuscan Village; a contribution from Churchill Downs, which owns the casino at the Rockingham Park Mall; and a smattering of Concord lobbyists.

A state lawmaker running what amounts to a one-man political advocacy organization is unusual, to say the least. But Granite Solutions also serves to boost Sweeney’s personal brand.

Advertisement

Last week, after Sweeney debated tax policy on WMUR’s political talk show, he sent an email to the Granite Solutions’ mailing list, urging people to stream the debate and donate to Granite Solutions.

Sweeney says he sees the work of his personal political committee as an extension of his public service: “I view Granite Solutions as supporting the economic agenda of Republicans in the state.”

‘Until the voters don’t want me’

The GOP fiscal agenda — from tax cuts to eliminating red tape for development projects — is a steady focus for Sweeney.

On other political issues, his social media-forward approach can serve to capture attention, more than enact measurable change. When lawmakers debated higher education funding last year, Sweeney strenuously alleged that undocumented students were depriving eligible Granite Staters from admission to UNH. After university officials released data that undercut his claims, Sweeney moved on.

Last fall, Sweeney told reporters to expect him and other Republicans to target specific state judges for misconduct. But such plans never materialized.

Advertisement

There was also Sweeney’s push to impeach Democratic Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill over her use of a state email account to assist a legal challenge to a voter registration law — even though the New Hampshire Attorney General had cleared Liot Hill of any wrongdoing. Just hours before a public hearing on Sweeney’s impeachment effort, he scuttled the bill without bothering to show up for the hearing.

To hear Sweeney tell it, when his political ideas lose traction, he’s willing to let them slide.

“Some things can start off with a lot of fire and passion and then as it goes through the system it just sort of dies out,” he said.

But as Sweeney’s shown in Concord, and as a town councilor, he can also push policies that others see as provocative or radical — or even theatrical. When Salem’s town council and budget committees were at odds over the town budget, Sweeney proposed eliminating the budget committee altogether.

“I thought it was the most ridiculous proposal I’ve ever heard. It was a bad idea, said Steve Goddu, a Republican who sits on Salem’s budget committee, and generally considers Sweeney a political ally. “It was a bad idea, and sometimes we make bad ideas and suggestions, and I think this was just his folly on this one.”

Advertisement

But not everybody who’s been on the receiving end of Sweeney’s politics, folly or otherwise, is as forgiving. Liot Hill says she had to waste time and money to prepare for potential impeachment proceedings that she always saw as frivolous, and believes Sweeney’s style of politics is destructive.

“There is a price to our politics when politics becomes more focused on spectacle than on substance and really it’s really the public that pays,” Liot Hill said.

Sweeney, for his part, says he sees himself pursuing his approach to politics — in real life and online — for the foreseeable future.

“I have an ability to create solutions for folks. I have an ability to sort of understand things and kind of communicate with people on it, Sweeney said. “I feel this responsibility to continue to be involved until the voters don’t want me to be involved anymore.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending