'Sick and twisted' executive councilors deny healthcare to NH women: Letters
Jan. 13 – To the Editor:
I’m struggling to understand what kind of sick and twisted ideology would compel four Executive Council members to withhold vital health care from thousands of low-income and marginalized New Hampshire women. Even Republican Governor Sununu supports funding for the Lovering Health Center, Planned Parenthood, and the Equality Health Center, yet those four Republican councilors have thumbed their noses at him and to the thousands of women who depend on those providers for their health care.
The councilors' unconscionable decision will result in unintended pregnancies, more abortions, preventable illness, and early death for women all across our state. What kind of cruel and demented person would want that? Apparently, four Republican Executive Councilors, that’s who.
More: Republicans again reject New Hampshire family planning clinic contracts
I wish it were in my power to deny those four councilors their health care, to see how they like it. Unfortunately, it is not in my power, nor should it be in their power to cause so much pain and suffering for so many, based on a depraved ideology.
Jim Mastro
Dover
The way anti-abortion lawmakers treat women is a disgrace
Jan. 13 -- To the Editor:
There they go again! Rejecting a woman’s control over her body, pushing back against a law of the land, Roe v Wade! The elected men who are making these decisions should be shown the door. What a disgrace. Planned Parenthood and other women’s clinics want to take care of women. Imagine that!
Georgia Bennett
York, Maine
Janet Stevens, Republican councilors vote to harm women's health – again
Jan. 12 – To the Editor:
Republican Executive Council member Janet Stevens and her fellow Republican forced-birth enthusiasts once again – for the third time – rejected contracts for health services due the Republicans' apparently unsatisfied need to make women in need of medical care suffer.
The Death Cult Four claimed they needed more information from the health care providers in order to deem them worthy, even though the Governor and the rest of state government has given their blessings to the contracts. The Republican Attorney General says the proposed contracts comply with state law. The cultists say they need more information. But when asked what information they need, they remained silent.
As the story points out, public health officials have said patients likely will end up forgoing treatment or seeking it at hospitals that are already overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic (another medical issue the cultists seem to care very little about). The silence of Counselor Stevens and her fellow travelers speaks volumes. They. Just. Dont. Care.
Eric Kane
Exeter
Vote in your home of record. Period
Jan. 15 -- To the Editor:
In the Foster's article, "Bill aims to extend in-state tuition," Representative Timothy Horrigan, a Durham Democrat, argues that college students in the state should be able to vote without incurring residency requirements. Why is that Mr. Horrigan? It is equivalent to claiming out of state residents should be able to vote in our local elections.
The word, "domiciled," needs to be removed from our political vocabulary. Either one is a resident of the state of New Hampshire or one is not a resident of the state of New Hampshire. Vote in your home of record. Period.
Randal Heller
Barrington
I guess six days of a paper is better than none; I'll miss Saturday print
Jan. 15 – To the Editor:
As a 43 year subscriber to the Portsmouth Herald I was very disappointed to read that a Saturday paper will soon no longer be delivered (beginning March 5). I do not have access to reading it online and even if I did, I probably would not as I like to hold it my hand and read it with my first cup of coffee. I disagree with Andrew Chernoff trying to put a positive spin on eliminating the Saturday paper stating it will be a more connected experience for the advertisers and readers.
More: Digital-only Saturday papers coming to Portsmouth Herald, Foster's Daily Democrat March 5
Near the end of the article the Executive Editor Howard Altschiller stated this is needed to have a sustainable future for local news. Given this, I guess 6 days of a paper is better than none, but I will miss it.
Susan Emery
Kittery Point, Maine
Some suggestions to move McIntyre building redevelopment forward
Jan. 15 – To the Editor:
What's next for McIntyre? The previous city council took three steps forward, resulting in approval for its design by the National Park Service. The present council must not take four steps backward.
The speediest approach is to pay off Redgate-Kane to walk away so that Portsmouth can hire a contractor willing to execute this National Park Service.-approved plan, since Michael Kane has adamantly stated that he will not build the People's Plan.
More: New mayor meets with Redgate/Kane. Will Portsmouth's new council reach a deal on McIntyre?
To defray the costs of a pay-out, we could create something akin to a legal defense fund. When we wanted lighting for the Memorial Bridge, instead of burdening the taxpayer, Rep. Peter Somssich administered a fund consisting of voluntary donations to finance the lighting. We could use this as a model. If we stay with Redgate-Kane, we risk losing the opportunity to acquire the McIntyre building, since the NPS may not approve a bait-and-switch if we withdraw our approved plan to allow Michael Kane to submit something else.
An alternative course of action could be, if legally possible, to renew our relationship with Redgate-Kane, conditioned on them agreeing to build the approved People's Plan.
If they refuse and the NPS allows us to submit a new design, we could stipulate that if Redgate-Kane's new plan is rejected by the NPS, we would terminate our relationship with the developer. We cannot remain with Redgate-Kane indefinitely if it means continuing to pay to maintain an empty building. If we do stick with Redgate-Kane, we could still use a voluntary fund to help finance architectural enhancements to minimize costs to the taxpayers.
Christina Lusky
Portsmouth
Which side are you on when it comes to voting rights?
Jan. 16 -- To the Editor:
It’s really disappointing and frustrating that we have two Democratic and 50 Republican Senators who refuse to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Many of these legislators define themselves as moderates. Basically people who don’t want to buck the system or their Party or upset their financial donors. I know many of you have read MLK’s statement written 60 years ago that the white moderates were the “great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom.”
History has a way of repeating itself—and we live in such a moment. I grew up in the South and I was a child when the civil rights marches were occurring. You wonder when you live in a moment in time when something monumental is occurring in the history of your country what side you will be on. This is that time. People who care about voting rights for all need to make their voices heard.
Donna Pare
Stratham
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: 'Sick and twisted' GOP councilors deny healthcare to NH women: Letters
