[Source: Cornerstone Policy Research Center]

One day after changing their minds on a “reconsideration” vote to pass Genderless Marriage, the House will now be “reconsidering” the Bathroom Bill!!
4052269_m
Representative Kathleen Taylor, of Franconia (
kathleen.taylor@leg.state.nh.us, 823-8158) having voted against the bill yesterday, filed for reconsideration of the measure this morning allowing the vote to be taken again and possibly reversed, much like the genderless marriage bill.

As was apparent by the vote yesterday (172-157), many of the legislators had already left for the day when the vote was taken.  The supporters of this bill apparently believe that they will have the votes to OVERTURN this when the full House meets again on April 8.

CPR Executive Director, Kevin Smith, issued the following statement to the press:

“What an egregious act to reconsider this vote when there has been so much public outrage over this issue.  We thought we had seen the end of the House’s assault on New Hampshire families after they voted to change the definition of marriage yesterday, but apparently that was not enough for them.  Now, instead of focusing on issues like the budget or putting people back to work, the legislature will once again be  focusing on genderless bathrooms and genderless marriage.  It is such a bizarre corruption of priorities – it simply defies logic.  New Hampshire citizens have a right to be outraged over these developments.”

“Furthermore, I guess this is how this House operates – when they do not like the outcome of the first vote, they simply press the “RESET” button until they find enough representatives to change their votes.”

Cornerstone will have additional information regarding this vote and other votes on Monday.

FAQ Answer: House rules allow any Representative who votes on the prevailing side of an issue, can ask for “reconsideration” of that vote after the vote has been taken.

Ok, so the headline was SnowRevolt’s, not the chairman of the state GOP, but hey, if it made you laugh, it was definitely worth it.


For people who think I have been too tough on the Democrats by accusing them of ruining New Hampshire, to understand my criticism you don’t need to look any further than the recently proposed HB415 “Bathroom Bill” as well as Governor Lynch’s attempt to raid the Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Associating Plan to understand my criticism. These actions serve as reminders of the radical agenda being pushed by the Democrat Leadership in Concord that threatens to damage New Hampshire’s special quality of life and government structure.

This week a house judiciary subcommittee voted along party lines to advance the Bathroom Bill to the full committee. The legislation, which makes changes to existing laws, grants universal access to public restrooms based on individual’s preferred “gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual.” This would allow an individual to legally choose if they would like to use a men’s restroom or women’s restroom based purely on their own personal preferred gender – regardless of their actual biological gender.

The Democrat’s Bathroom Bill is a radical assault on personal privacy that poses, at the least, an undue level of discomfort on users of public facilities and at the worst a mischief risk for families who utilize public restrooms facilities across New Hampshire. It’s about time that Governor Lynch shows some backbone and stands up to the extreme liberals that dominate the Democrat leadership in the New Hampshire House and Senate. He should publicly denounce and commit to veto egregious pieces of legislation like the Bathroom Bill before they reach his desk.

A second example of the Democrats disastrous agenda is Governor Lynch’s attempt to take money from the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Plan and use it to balance the budget. The fund consists of premiums and payments from doctors that were intended to provide stability to the medical malpractice insurance market. In the event that the plan was to have a surplus, New Hampshire regulations clearly states that it shall “repay members for assessments previously levied.”

Legal opinions can’t make this kind of expropriation justifiable. This is private money, not state revenue, and any attempt by the Governor to use it to fund the operations of state government amounts to nothing more than the theft of private property. If they are to succeed in these efforts to pocket this money from New Hampshire’s doctors what is to stop them from taking money from other groups to balance future budgets?

John H. Sununu