I am an “undeclared” voter, in the parlance of New Hampshire’s election laws, which means I’m not registered with any political party. I get a hefty pile of political ads in the mail every day during election season, as both major parties try to win my vote. Check the facts, they urge me.
I recently got a mailer from the state Democrat party attacking a state senate candidate, Gary Daniels, who happens to be a friend of mine. The mailer informed me that Daniels was coming to take away my reproductive rights.
I know the candidate and his voting record, so I was skeptical of the mailer right off the bat. But right there in tiny print on the front was that challenge: check the facts.
Fact number one: the first claim printed on the mailer cited a “vote” that Daniels never cast. He was not a member of the legislature at the time the bill in question was introduced. The claim on the mailer is false.
“Opposes reproductive health care”
The footnote to the claim that Daniels “opposes” someone’s idea of health care points to HB 685 from 2020. Gary Daniels, while he is a former senator, was not in office in 2020. The incumbent in that seat is Shannon Chandley, whose party is responsible for the false claim that Daniels voted on HB 685.
Chandley voted in favor of the bill. That is not to her credit.
HB 685 was an abortion insurance mandate. It was not about reproductive health care. It was about violating the conscience rights of people who would rather not be involved in abortion, even tangentially, by providing insurance for it. It was about equating abortion with maternity care. As Governor Sununu pointed out in his veto message, it was also about violating the federal Weldon Amendment, which would have cost New Hampshire millions of dollars in federal funds for human services programs in New Hampshire.
(The Weldon Amendment prohibits federal funds from going to states that discriminate against any health care entity which does not pay for or provide abortions.)
A vote for HB 685 doesn’t look like support for health care to me. It looks like opposition to conscience rights.
“Opposes doctor-patient confidentiality”
The mailer goes on to proclaim that Daniels “opposes doctor-patient confidentiality” with another footnote, this one for HB 629 (2016).
HB 629 was an abortion statistics bill. Not only was it written to protect patient confidentiality, it was written to protect provider identity as well. That was how the bill made it through the House on a voice vote, before it was tabled in the Senate after an effort to pass it failed on a 12-12 vote.
Representing Cornerstone, I was present for every hearing and work session on HB 629 between the time the bill was introduced in January 2015 until it died on the table in the state senate sixteen months later. I know firsthand how great a role confidentiality played in the lengthy negotiations about the bill.
To say that support for abortion statistics is “opposition to doctor-patient confidentiality” is a lie. Period.
“Opposes access to contraception”
The footnote on the third claim made on the anti-Daniels mailer (“opposes access to contraception”) takes us back to a 2015 bill, SB 42, “relative to employee notification of contraceptive coverage” in employer-provided health insurance. This was an attempt to hang a scarlet letter on companies that were exempt from the Obamacare contraceptive mandate following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. (I wrote about the bill at the time: Will the Senate throw a Hobby Lobby tantrum?)
This bill was so poorly received in the state senate that it was tabled and killed on a voice vote. It never made it over to the House.
The only roll call vote on the bill was on a proposed amendment that was rejected on a 12-12 tie. Daniels voted against the proposed amendment because he understood the underlying bill.
There’s no truth that the vote on SB 42 was about “access to contraception.” This bill was all about annoyance with the Supreme Court and with anyone who objected to the contraceptive mandate.
“Now, more than ever…”
In bold print, the anti-Daniels mailer tells me that “now, more than ever, we need to come together to protect state-level reproductive health.”
Let me fix that for them.
Now, more than ever, we need to come together to respect each other’s rights of conscience.
Now, more than ever, we need to come together to put women’s health ahead of politics, and start reporting abortion statistics including maternal morbidity and mortality. Forty-seven other states have figured out how to do that with aggregate data that protects patient confidentiality.
Now, more than ever, we need to reclaim the authentic meaning of rights and health.
And while we’re at it: now, more than ever, we need to call out a party when it fabricates a vote in an effort to smear a candidate. Just because there are footnotes doesn’t mean the information is accurate or reliable.
I suspect Gary Daniels is not the only candidate whose pro-life record is going to be misrepresented. Do your local candidates a favor: if you hear an accusation about “opposing contraception” or “opposing doctor-patient confidentiality,” call for documentation. If what you get in reply are references to HB 685, HB 629, and SB 42, now you know what they really mean.
The party that created that mailer will have to find another way to attract my vote.