Follow by Email

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Abortion waiting period, denied. Comments Accepted here from any side...

“It is the obvious which is so difficult to see most of the time. People say 'It's as plain as the nose on your face.' But how much of the nose on your face can you see, unless someone holds a mirror up to you?” ― Isaac Asimov, I, Robot

This article appeared in the Telegraph but someone deleted peoples comments; I'd personally like to point out that the Rep. quoted is Sylvia Gale a woman of questionable ethics as found by DCYF, a 24 hour waiting period for an abortion procedure wouldn't be dangerous to anyone's health except maybe her campaign funding ... 

Abortion is a procedure that actually does kill people, sometimes mothers, always the fetus. Pro-life or Pro-choice if ethical and of sound mind - should not be against a 24 hour waiting period, it would help some and bring NH into the main stream as shown by Rep. Jeannine Notter, R-Merrimack. There is no informed consent, when the procedure and complications are hardly if at all described, and the follow-up care is not done in any of the facilities in this state, to see how the patient is doing. 

This article appeared in the Telegraph today 3/14/13 my comments are in italics...

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Abortion waiting period measure crushed in Statehouse

CONCORD – A proposed 24-hour waiting period before a woman could get an abortion failed badly before the House of Representatives on Wednesday. 

The 229-121 vote to kill the measure, HB 483, brings the House full circle; in the previous two years, it championed nearly a dozen anti-abortion bills. In fact, last year the House passed this proposal twice, once even attaching it to a popular business tax cut that the state Senate and then-Gov. John Lynch badly wanted. 

Rep. Sylvia Gale, D-Nashua, said as written this would have put more restrictions on abortion than any other medical procedure.

“This is indeed an anti-abortion bill that would create intentionally ideological obstacles to a woman’s procedure and could in fact be dangerous to a woman’s health,” Gale said. 

Seriously what an idiot.  oophs sorry read on...

Rep. Jeannine Notter, R-Merrimack, said this bill would have New Hampshire join the mainstream since 28 states now require women to wait a specific amount of time and 35 states compel all women to have some counseling. 

“We can benefit them by helping them learn the facts before making a decision that leaves far too many women victimized,” Notter said. Supporters argued that informed consent is required for any doctor’s work on a patient. 

“This bill is a common sense solution that protects a person’s right to know just like any other medical procedure,” Rep. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, said. 

But Rep. Peter Sullivan, D-Manchester, said the information supplied to patients was biased against abortion providers. 

 “Very simply, this bill interjects theology into a place where medical science should prevail,” Sullivan concluded. 

Sullivan, either your  illiterate or an arse; click on the word for the definition of theology This bill is NOT theology vs. medical science, it is commonsense.  Proposed by a reasonable person; for instance you get medical advice, it could have severe complications (most of which is not disclosed) - you leave talk to someone a friend, relative, you do a google search and then you make your decision.    

Over the past two years, the GOP-dominated House passed numerous anti-abortion bills over to the Senate, where Republicans had a 19-5 advantage. 

The Senate rejected most of the bills but passed into law over former Gov. Lynch’s vetoes measures to require a child notify a parent before getting an abortion and also to ban late term or so-called partial birth abortions that already were illegal under federal law. 

So-called? Really oh written by a guy, late term and partial birth abortions are far from so called, they are heinous and intolerable in a civilized society. However, while it was going on here, illegal under federal law it was largely ignored by the NH Judicial Branch and/or law enforcement for a while.

Kevin Landrigan can reached at 321-7040 or Also, follow Landrigan on Twitter (@Klandrigan).


  1. I'm really quite surprised to see former Nashua DCYF Office Manager Sylvia Gayle speaking up against this Bill. One would think she would be all for a woman's right to know all the aspects of abortion. A waiting period that just might stop a woman from getting an abortion, seeing as fewer children would be born for DCYF to scoop up and make money off of.
    Isn't she also the Executive Director at NH Commission on the Status of Women? So what is she doing for Women?
    Just as you stated, people get second opinions on medical procedures, so why not abortions? Abortion is supposed to be considered a medical procedure, but in all reality it's Murder. The murder of an unborn child who will never get to experience life outside the womb, because for some ungodly reason it's okay by the Govt's standards to murder an unborn child. Who will it be legal to murder next? Old people? Disabled people? Or just anyone?

  2. I am not sure what the 15-year-old document about Rep. Gale is supposed to prove: it certainly doesn't prove any wrongdoing on her part. And, she won her appeal.

    1. Whether Gale won the appeal or not, it still shows how Gale has her hands in too many of the States pies.
      Being on the Board of the Nashua Health Center and working for DCYF at the same time, for any of us little people, would surely show a conflict of interest, but not for Sylvia Gale. Well known to all the Judges and everyone else she works with on a daily basis. Being on the board just furthered her agenda. Did anyone in their right mind honestly think she would lose? Just like Maggie Bishop, never held accountable, but still climbing the ladder to an even higher power.

  3. Whether Gale won the appeal or not, the document referenced shows how the average person would conceive Gale had her hands in too many of the States pies.
    Being on the Board of the Nashua Health Center and working for DCYF at the same time, for anyone else who did not receive support from DHHS to run for office, it would have been shown publiclly, as the conflict of interest it is. Instead Sylvia Gale, slandered candidates running against her with unsupported accusations and used undisclosed resources to receive support that linked those candidates own sites back to her slander campaign, hardly ethical while typical in politics.

    Gales actions are well known to the Judges and everyone else she
    works with on a daily basis. Being on the board just furthered her agenda under the direction of Maggie Bishop to create a needless intrusion into peoples lives.