State Representative Beth Folsom of New Hampshire recently penned an op-ed for the New Hampshire Journal, boldly calling out Planned Parenthood for meddling in the legislative process and the media for its blanket acceptance of “egregious, bad faith mischaracterizations” made by opponents of HB 625, a pro-life bill she sponsored.
As previously reported by Live Action News, New Hampshire’s governor recently signed a budget package preventing state funds from supporting abortion facilities. The package also contains a restriction on late-term abortions after 24 weeks (six months), which is the gestational age considered the ‘age of viability’ at which a premature baby could reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb. However, thanks to advances in technology, babies born as young as 21 weeks have survived with proper medical care. The six-month abortion restriction further specifies that an ultrasound must be performed prior to every abortion in the state in order to accurately date the pregnancy. The mother is not required to view the ultrasound.
The Act is groundbreaking legislation in that state, as Folsom called it, “the Granite State’s first protection for preborn children at any stage of pregnancy.” Folsom identified herself as “the prime sponsor of the original bill behind the [Fetal Life Protection] Act” and described herself and her female co-sponsors as being “humbled and proud to watch as our state finally passed long overdue, basic protections for the preborn.”
She continued, “I’ve been saddened to see the egregious, bad faith mischaracterizations that some opponents of the bill have resorted to.” She reported being disappointed in but unsurprised by the mischaracterizations because “Democrats, both in New Hampshire and around the country, are increasingly unashamed about the fact that they oppose any restrictions, whatsoever, on abortion up to the moment of birth.” She offered as evidence the fact that “[e]lected Democrats in New Hampshire have opposed every single late-term abortion restriction for years, regardless of the specifics of the bill,” even though Americans overwhelmingly support restrictions on abortion after the first trimester.
“About a week ago, New Hampshire Democrats seem to have realized their blatant abortion extremism was not resonating with voters. Instead, they have suddenly fixated on the Act’s ultrasound requirement as a pretext for their opposition,” she stated. Folsom decried the hypocrisy of such a stance, given that “ultrasound requirements are the norm” before abortions in New Hampshire and throughout the U.S. She specifically cited one New Hampshire abortion facility’s assertion that its staff already provide ultrasounds before every abortion to ensure that women “are in a safe place to have an abortion.”
Folsom went on to specifically call out what she believes was direct intervention by Planned Parenthood to foster opposition to the bill by blatantly lying about its contents. While her opponents originally called the ultrasound requirement redundant, “that was before someone – presumably Planned Parenthood – sent out a memo to pro-abortion advocates around the state. Overnight, abortion advocates in New Hampshire have changed their tune and begun to characterize routine ultrasounds as new, extreme, bizarre, and costly procedures.”
Folsom decried “yet another false claim” made by abortion advocates, who “spread the deliberate lie that the bill mandates ‘transvaginal’ or ‘vaginal penetration’ ultrasounds.” It does not.
Folsom’s claims are easily verifiable, as a July 1st article published by SeacoastOnline quoted Democratic State Senator Tom Sherman as wrongly claiming, “So you take a poor person, someone who is from a low socioeconomic background, and you tell them that they have to go have an ultrasound transvaginally. That means inserting a wand into the vagina, up to the level of the vaginal fornix, which is right next to the cervix, because the legislature and the governor tells them they must do it.”
Folsom set the record straight about the criminal penalties accompanying failure to properly date the pregnancy via ultrasound, writing that “performing an abortion without an ultrasound will only be a crime in one situation: where there is a ‘substantial risk’ that the child is at least 24 weeks old.” (emphasis added) She added that “the Act certainly does not mandate ‘vaginal penetration’ — a piece of political propaganda so unashamedly malicious that it is saddening to hear it in New Hampshire.” In addition, this claim makes little sense in light of the fact that abdominal ultrasounds are typically used beginning around the 10th week of pregnancy.
Folsom closed by asserting, “I know that it would serve little purpose to call on opponents of this Act to tell the truth. But I do call on the media to stop reporting the uncontested claims of abortion extremists as fact. Democrats have been allowed to distort the real nature of this debate for too long.”
“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!