A House committee approved a bill last week that would exempt employers from providing health insurance coverage for contraception if the employer has a religious exemption.
HB 1546 amends a 12-year-old state law that requires employers to cover contraceptives if other medications are covered under the health insurance provided.
“It is unconstitutional for government to force religious institutions to pay for products that they object to on religious grounds,” bill co-sponsor State Rep. Andrew Manuse, R-Derry, said in his testimony to the Constitutional Review and Statuatory Recodification Committee, which passed the bill on Feb. 23. “This effort has nothing to do with the merit of contraceptives, as I personally do not object to their use. I do, however, object to the idea that government can force a religious organization to pay for procedures or services that they find objectionable according to the teachings of their religion.”
My effort to amend HB 1546 with religious and conscientious exemption language is to ensure the religious liberties of religious organizations are protected under Law as required by our constitution. It is unconstitutional for government to force religious institutions to pay for products that they object to on religious grounds. This effort has nothing to do with the merit of contraceptives, as I personally do not object to their use. I do, however, object to the idea that government can force a religious organization to pay for procedures or services that they find objectionable according to the teachings of their religion. Additionally, this religious exemption will not prevent doctors from prescribing contraceptives to patients, either as use for birth control or as use for other ailments. In the first case, a patient working for a religious organization may have to pay for the birth control out of pocket, while a patient working for a religious organization would likely be covered for other uses of contraceptives that don’t involve birth control or contraception. Again, this bill is about religious liberty. Government should never have the power to force a religion to violate its own teachings. That is truly the worst sort of religious oppression–the very type that people fled from when they established this country.
Contrary to some of the misinformation circulating in Concord, a state-run health insurance exchange bureaucracy operating on behalf of the federal government is a bad idea, is not required by any federal regulation, and would be an expensive strain on our state budget.
At the centerpiece of President Obama’s health care legislation is a mechanism known as an exchange — i.e., a new federal or state bureaucracy to be set up to administer the rules and regulations regarding health insurance under the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The federal government had hoped each state would set up its own exchange and manage the regulations for it while assuming the operating costs of the new regulatory agency.
The law can’t require states to set up an exchange. It provides that the federal government will set up and fund a state-level exchange if the state government chooses not to. The majority of states around the country have balked.
The debate in New Hampshire centers on Rep. Andrew Manuse’s House bill prohibiting a state-run exchange.
I think Rep. Manuse has things about exactly right.
House Bill 1393, sponsored by Reps. Ken Weyler and Andrew Manuse would eliminate this subjective and separate line item on the parcel card for “view” because the premium paid for a an attractive view is reflected in the price paid for properties with similar views.
To be clear, with this bill, WE ARE NOT allowing people to opt-out of “smart meters,” per se, because the device itself does the same thing as a “dumb meter.” Instead of a meter reader coming to your house, the electricity reading of the full house will be sent wirelessly to the company 7-10 times a day once a smart meter is installed. What the bill WILL DO is require people to opt-in to the installation of “load control devices,” which enable a remote control of your heating or air conditioning systems, for instance, as well as the technology (called a “gateway board”) that reads electrical use data for specific enabled appliances inside your home, such as your heater, air conditioner, refrigerator, and so on. While some people might want this technology, and this bill does not prohibit them from installing it, other people DO NOT want this technology, and this bill would protect them. For those folks, a smart meter gateway device constitutes an unreasonable search of the inside of their homes. This is not a “reasonable” invasion by any stretch of the imagination. These folks should not be subjected to such invasions of their privacy. The bill Sen. Forsythe and I have written will ensure they are not subject to such privacy-rights violations, without their consent.
House Bill 1297 would effectively stop Obamacare in New Hampshire by prohibiting state officials from implementing or aiding the federal government in implementing a state exchange.
Let’s keep up our promises to voters by passing this law and prohibiting the state of New Hampshire from creating a state exchange that could be the nail in the coffin of the New Hampshire Advantage.
If the press is planning to blow out of proportion dissent from the Democratic Party, which was handily defeated for its irresponsible ideas, then of course it will appear like there is a lot of dissatisfaction out there from people who want to spend more money that isn’t theirs. But from those whose money Republicans have protected this term, we have heard a lot of gratitude–not that doing our jobs the right way deserves any, because we are public servants after all. Government should always be responsible to the people and should make sure it is protecting the basic rights of all citizens, who are its masters. At the same time, it should never pick winners and losers in a fixed marketplace and subsidize dependency. That’s what we’re up against. Regardless, the good people of New Hampshire have got nothing other than responsible government from Republicans this year, despite the loud cacophony from those Democratic and progressive Republican policy makers whose policy was already rejected by voters and will be again.
HB 1242, an act relative to membership dues paid by towns, is a simple transparency bill that requires cities and towns to explain to their residents what dues for special affinity groups their tax dollars pay for.
HB 1242 would simply require a community to publicize how much money it contributes to the New Hampshire Municipal Association and similar groups, which are private lobbying firms. Citizens have a right to know how their own money is being used against them.
HB 1367, an act relative to the issuance of administrative inspection warrants, amends RSA 595-B to protect homeowners from unwarranted searches of their property after they have attempted to protect the sanctity of their homes.
Specifically, HB 1367 clarifies RSA 595-B:2, paragraph II, which defines what “probable cause” means as a condition for officials or agents to prove prior to their receiving an administrative inspection warrant from a court. If this bill passes, a court will not consider a property owner’s refusal to allow officials or their agents into his or her home, without additional facts justifying the inspection, as probable cause to justify a warrant.
It is my hope that this committee will pass HB 1375, an act relative to access to firearms by persons convicted of nonviolent felonies, which will allow nonviolent felons whom have served their time in prison to reclaim their right to bear arms to defend themselves, their families, their properties and the state. This will also help bring New Hampshire law in line with Part 1, Article 18 of the constitution, which requires proportional penalties to fit the crime they are meant to correct.
