Director’s Report: February 12th, 2024

Director’s Report is back! It’s a busy week coming up in the 603! Listen, stay engaged, fight for liberty!

Last week, we asked you to contact your reps about HB1002, a bill that would add a $25 hourly fee for right-to-know requests. The bill was reconsidered Thursday and sent back to the committee. 

Please contact the House Judiciary and tell them to ⭐OPPOSE HB1002.

Talking points:

  • The primary purpose of government is to protect our rights. The justification for taxation is the shared cost of the protection of rights. We have a right to public records. We do not pay fees for rights.
  • This is as absurd as having to pay a fee for the right to the Second Amendment because the government sometimes has to prosecute gun crimes.
  • NH has no other mechanism for transparency like some other states do.
  • The real purpose of this bill seems to be cutting down the amount of RTK requests. In other words, the real purpose is to put barriers in the way of government transparency.

✉️ Email the committee

Legislative Update
Week of Feb. 12th, 2024

Thursday, February 15th, N.H. House SESSION

⭐ SUPPORT – HB1677
This bill expands the Education Freedom Accounts (EFA), making anyone is a failing district eligible. Last week, there were several votes on EFA expansions. Based on the results of those votes, we feel that the following representatives are key in passing this critical bill. Please call and email them and tell them to support HB1677 and help children in failing school districts. I’ve linked to their contact pages.

Rep John Sytek
Rep Travis O’Hara
Rep David Milz
Rep Joseph Guthrie
Rep Jim Fedolfi
Rep Karel Crawford
Rep Dan Wolf

Thursday, February 15th, N.H. Senate SESSION

⭐ OPPOSE – SB559
This bill seeks to redefine the term “vaccine” because, according to the current definition, the state of NH illegally purchased the COVID-19 “vaccines.” According to this proposed definition, any “vaccine” that is approved by the FDA will be approved for the NH Vaccine Association purchasing program. The FDA approval can include the conditional approval of emergency use authorization, which has a significantly lower safety threshold than licensure vs. full licensure, which requires clinical trials. The bill is “Ought to Pass” out of committee. Please contact your senator today and tell them to oppose this bill. 
Senate Roster
Who’s My Senator?

Two Dangerous Bills Came To Our Attention

Both of these bills have already had public hearings, but they are still in committee. We need your help to email the committee members and inform them of the dangers in both bills.

⭐ OPPOSE – SB417, relative to out-of-home placements of children.

I-a.  The welfare of the child is the primary factor to be weighed when determining if a parent is fit to parent that child.  In determining whether a parent is fit to perform his or her parental duties, the court may consider the following factors, in addition to any other relevant evidence presented:

(a)  The unique needs of the child and whether or not the parent is adequately prepared to address those needs;

“Unique needs” is an incredibly broad and subjective term that should never be used in law. So if a parent refuses to transition their child, does that qualify as not meeting their “unique needs”?

My biggest option is the following section (I-g)

(g)  The results of the department’s evidence-based safety assessment of that parent, their home, and any other adults in the home.  A parent’s failure to cooperate with the department’s assessment or to provide any records necessary to such a determination shall be weighed against the fitness of that parent.

As an example of the consequences of this section, currently, if Child Protective Services comes to your house, you do not have to cooperate with them without a warrant. This section says that your refusal to cooperate can be used as evidence against you.

⭐ OPPOSE – SB459, relative to the presumption of harm under the Child Protection Act.

This bill rewrites the definitions and the purpose of the child protection chapter. Traditionally, abuse and neglect definitions were narrowly tailored to be something that could be observed or measured. The new purpose and definitions create a brand new category of “harm.”  The nebulous term “psychological” Is inserted into the purpose, and the definition is so broad that they could take any child for almost any reason.

At best, if you are accused of psychological neglect, you have two doctors arguing over something that can not be measured.
At worst, the state psychiatrist or psychologist is the one that judges trust over the medical professionals that you have hired. 

The way to prevent potential harm to your happy and healthy children via the state is to get involved now. Tell the committee to stop expanding the reasons children can be taken from parents. We need measurable and objective metrics for such extreme action.

Both bills are in the Senate Judiciary.
✉️ Email the committee


Leave a Comment

Share to...