Governor Chris Sununu’s nomination of Gordon MacDonald to be New Hampshire’s next Chief Justice of the NH Supreme Court has some abortion advocates concerned.
But what they are saying, should concern you.
They are implying that New Hampshire’s constitution protects abortion.
Does that mean that by approving last year’s Question 2, a state constitutional amendment on privacy, voters actually enshrined a right to abortion in the state constitution?
Cornerstone was afraid of that conclusion, which is why the Cornerstone Action PAC opposed Question 2. We’ve seen how courts in other states have used privacy amendments as an excuse to overturn restrictions on abortion and abortion funding. If Question 2 had had abortion-neutral language, our position would have been different.
Recently, the Concord Monitor published an “Our Turn” column by two former volunteers and board presidents of NARAL Pro-Choice NH. The abortion advocates write regarding MacDonald, “We need to know if he agrees that the state has an extremely limited, if any, role in circumscribing that right. And we need to know how MacDonald interprets the right to privacy and the limits of government under N.H.’s state constitution and whether he is prepared to uphold state laws or constitutional amendments intended to codify a woman’s right to choose abortion.”
Who knew that there might be a state constitutional amendment “intended to codify a woman’s right to choose abortion”? What else could the abortion advocates be talking about, if not Question 2?
Question 2 passed handily, supported by voters with legitimate concerns about informational privacy. It’s part of the New Hampshire constitution now. Whether it will be misused and abused as abortion advocates hope remains to be seen.
