Media

NARAL Pro-Choice America Applauds Governor Lynch's Leadership

Washington, DC – Today, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch for signing a bill to repeal a dangerous parental-involvement mandate.  In March, New Hampshire legislators voted overwhelmingly to repeal this mandate, which had been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.   

"Like most Americans, New Hampshire residents want teen pregnancy prevented, not punished," Keenan said.  "Teens in trouble should be able to turn to their parents – and thankfully, most already do.  However, if for some reason a young girl can't, responsible parents want to be sure – first and foremost – that their daughter is safe.  This dangerous mandate did nothing to address any of these concerns – and we thank Gov. Lynch for standing for stronger family communication over divisive attacks." 

Keenan also noted that the bill's chief sponsor, state Rep. Elizabeth Hager (R-Concord), serves on the board of directors for NARAL Pro-Choice America.  NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire worked tirelessly to rally support for the repeal.

"We also salute Rep. Hager and NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire for this decisive victory for young women's safety," Keenan said.  "Their leadership made this a huge victory and paved the way for the legislature to consider commonsense proposals to improve family communication and constructively help prevent unintended pregnancy among teens."

In January 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, a case brought by Planned Parenthood against the state of New Hampshire seeking to prohibit the state from enforcing a parental-notification law. The Supreme Court chose not to rule explicitly on either of the significant constitutional questions at issue in the case. Instead, the Court restated its precedent that abortion restrictions must contain an exception to protect women's health, then decided the case on essentially technical grounds and returned the case to the lower courts to determine whether a narrow injunction could cure the law's constitutional defect.  The lower court stayed the case pending consideration of the repeal bill passed by the House in March. 

Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032