Let me state upfront that most ‘Fact-checkers,’ those of leftish media entities in particular, are not much different than so-called ‘non-partisan’ groups set up by Democrats. They exist to mislead people by reinforcing a progressive narrative. So I provide these observations about this report with a large grain of salt, even though ( in this case) it tends to favor my potions on the issues presented.
PolitiFact has awarded a recent New Hampshire Democrat Party Ad with the distinction of being ‘Mostly False.‘ This would be important if not for the fact that almost everything Democrats actually believe is false to begin with, but let’s play along and see why, in this case, “mostly” proves both PolitiFact and myself correct.
The Mostly False declaration matters because the actions of the Republican Majority and of even Speaker O’Brien himself, do not at all match the narrative being hoisted by Ray Buckley and his merry band of income plunderers at the New Hampshire Debt-o-Crat Party.
“Bill O’Brien’s Tea Party legislature tried to repeal kindergarten and compulsory education,”
Members of the House Education committee, made up of 13 Republicans and four Democrats, recommended killing the bill with a 12-3 vote, and once it reached the House floor Feb. 23, 2011, representatives voted 213-134 to shoot it down, including 126 of 260 Republicans who voted against the bill.
There is actually more evidence that the “anti-gay marriage bigots” in the New Hampshire Democrat Legislature denied gay couples their so-called “right” to marriage. That’s a fact. Gay Marriage failed in the Democrat Majority NH House. Only on the second vote, after a number of “Democrats” were “convinced” to not vote against it–by not voting at all, and a few more were strong armed into voting for it, did it finally pass.
In its original form, H.B. 542 included provisions proposing to repeal attendance requirements in public schools. But, that proposal drew heavy criticism and the House Education committee amended the bill to focus on objectionable material in the classroom.
So the bill the house passed…
As it stands now, … makes no mention of compulsory education or attendance requirements.
The legislative process, controlled by Republicans, produced a Bill that has nothing to do with the attack being made and yet New Hampshire Democrats are still making it. Why?
“The Planned Parenthood part of the claim may be closer to the truth.”
There was a bill to stop taxpayer money from going to Planned Parenthood. I agree with this. Planned Parenthood does not need the money and by not providing it we have protected the right of conscientious objection. There can be no conflict if there is no public money. People who disagree are more than welcome to donate all the private money they want to Planned Parenthood. I would call this a “Choice.”
The fact check states that the original bill was doomed in committee. Only after a compromise amendment did the “TEA party” controlled legislature find reason to support it.
The Republican Super-Majority Senate (probably also TEA Party to the left when it needs to be?) set it aside to die a quiet death. So yes, the legislature tried to make a case for stopping the flow of taxpayer dollars–which might better be spent on other priories–to a business that does not need them. I’d like to see the Democrats who claim we need different spending priorities to defend giving taxpayer dollars to an organization that does not even need them instead of using them for other more pressing local priorities.
Eliminate Insurance Coverage for Birth Control
Democrats think that you should pay for other peoples birth control so why not insist you or your employer provide similar coverage to pay for it even if it could make your premiums higher (tax by mandate), regardless of any objections you might have to just having to pay more.
H.B. 1546, the bill referenced in the ad, didn’t start as a birth control proposal. Initially, it intended to re-codify laws relating to religious groups, including membership, donation and corporate powers. But, after O’Brien and several other House Republicans reworked it, the bill provided an exemption for groups with religious objections from providing insurance coverage for birth control and contraception.
I would like Democrats to defend their position here, because Democrats talk about rights the way gangsters talk about rights. If they want it, they have a right to it. Gangsters use intimidation and illegal threats of force against your life and property to get their way. Democrats use intimidation to codify threats of force against life and property into law, to get their way. When that doesn’t work they try to find an unelected judge to declare in their favor, and whenever possible legislate from the bench in violation of separation of powers and the Federal and State Constitutions.
In this instance, the bill became a defense of a religious right of conscience. The TEA Party and Speaker O’Brien want people who have a religious objection to contraception, to not be forced by law to pay for that coverage. The New Hampshire Democrat Party is claiming that Republicans want to eliminate insurance coverage for birth control.
PolitiFact calls this mostly false. I call it an opportunity to ask why New Hampshire Democrats want to use the police power of the state to force people to do things in opposition to their religious beliefs? And why are they misleading voters and willing to lie to them to get their votes?
Not just once, but repeatedly.
You are reading “NH Democrat Party Ad Mostly False?” by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com Home
Steve Mac Donald