Right on vote, wrong on reason
My appreciation to Mr. Desrosiers’s May 12, 2015, letter to the editor about my vote on HB 670 titled, “Health Care Freedom of Conscience Act.” The bill came out of committee as ITL (Inexpedient To Legislate) so my “no” vote was in fact supporting the bill against the negative report from the committee. Mr. Desrosiers is also correct that my position is that no one should be forced to violate their conscience defined in the bill: “Conscience” means the religious, moral, or ethical principles held by a health care provider, a health care institution, or a health care payer. Mr. Desrosiers also correctly stated that the primary issues being addressed, but not by name, are abortion and fetal stem cell procedures. . . [Full text]
The New Hampshire House of Representatives has tabled (suspended the legislative process) HB 1653, which was proposed to ensure freedom of conscience for medical professionals in the state.
Wesley J. Smith has critized the wording of New Hampshire bill HB1653 because it “obliterates the fiduciary nature of the doctor’s role by allowing medical professionals to abandon patients for virtually any reason.” He urges that the bill be revised.[Second Hand Smoke] New Hampshire currently has no protection of conscience legislation.
The House Judiciary Committee in the New Hampshire state legislature has approved a protection of conscience bill by a vote of 12-5. [Seacoast]
A protection of conscience bill has been proposed in New Hampshire, one of only three states that lack protective legislation for health care workers. House Bill 1653 offers protection for individuals, though not for institutions. It is opposed by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Association. [Nashua Telegraph]