Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
New Hampshire Bill Would Cut Planned Parenthood Tax Funding | LifeNews.com
New Hampshire Bill Would Cut Planned Parenthood Tax Funding | LifeNews.com
In light of a slew of new videos showing officials at local centers of the nation’s largest abortion business helping sex traffickers, a New Hampshire legislator has filed a bill to cut off state taxpayer funding.
Rep. Robert Willette, a Republican from Milford, says the state should save the $700,000 a year it sends to the Planned Parenthood abortion business for family planning efforts and has filed House Bill 228-FN, which will receive a hearing this afternoon before the Health Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee.
Willette told the Union Leader newspaper Planned Parenthood “is not as pure as white” and that taxpayers should not be forced to fund an agency that does abortions. The legislation would prohibit the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services from entering into a contract with Planned Parenthood or any other abortion business.
Reps. Lawrence Kappler, David Bates, John Cebrowski, Warren Groen, and Jon. Richardson have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, but Planned Parenthood officials are hitting back and making claims the bill would cost the state money because the funds have supposedly been preventing pregnancies.
Kary Nealle Jencks, New Hampshire director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, told the newspaper 15,800 patients came to its centers in 2010 at the six locations it maintains throughout the Granite State in West Lebanon, Claremont, Keene, Manchester, Derry and Exeter. She said she believes the bill, which has come up before, will be defeated again.
“In 2009 and 2007 it was rejected in the House because it casts a wide net,” Jencks said. “With this we are looking at the state being prohibited from contracting with Dartmouth-Hitchcock, community health centers and denying the use of federal family planning money. It casts a wide net and basically has the potential of shutting down the largest academic research hospital.”
The Union Leader indicates Planned Parenthood received about $700,000 in state taxpayer funds via Federal Title 10 money the Health and Human Services Department doled out to the state in 2010.
Recent sting operations have revealed Planned Parenthood center staffers were willing to provide assistance to alleged operators of a sex trafficking ring — ranging from helping them arrange abortions for the underage girls they said they were victimizing to showing them how to avoid scrutiny and skirt parental involvement laws. The videos covered Planned Parenthood centers in Richmond and also other centers in Roanoke, Charlottesville, and Falls Church.
Today, a new video reveals staff at a New York City Planned Parenthood abortion business going further. While staff at the Planned Parenthood centers in other states offered to arrange abortions or STD testing for the sex traffickers and guided them in how to keep the actions from authorities, staff in New York tell the Undercover “pimp” he can pose as a guardian to get discounts for his underage sex workers. The abortion center staff assure him they will see underage girls as young as 13 who have been victimized by the sex traffickers.
Live Action also filmed Planned Parenthood staff helping sex traffickers in New Jersey – and the nurse who aided the alleged traffickers there has already been fired and the state health department is looking into the problems further.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has already received the full, unedited footage of the Planned Parenthood expose’ videos and he told CBS 6 WVTR in Richmond that they are “shocking.”
In light of a slew of new videos showing officials at local centers of the nation’s largest abortion business helping sex traffickers, a New Hampshire legislator has filed a bill to cut off state taxpayer funding.
Rep. Robert Willette, a Republican from Milford, says the state should save the $700,000 a year it sends to the Planned Parenthood abortion business for family planning efforts and has filed House Bill 228-FN, which will receive a hearing this afternoon before the Health Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee.
Willette told the Union Leader newspaper Planned Parenthood “is not as pure as white” and that taxpayers should not be forced to fund an agency that does abortions. The legislation would prohibit the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services from entering into a contract with Planned Parenthood or any other abortion business.
Reps. Lawrence Kappler, David Bates, John Cebrowski, Warren Groen, and Jon. Richardson have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, but Planned Parenthood officials are hitting back and making claims the bill would cost the state money because the funds have supposedly been preventing pregnancies.
Kary Nealle Jencks, New Hampshire director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, told the newspaper 15,800 patients came to its centers in 2010 at the six locations it maintains throughout the Granite State in West Lebanon, Claremont, Keene, Manchester, Derry and Exeter. She said she believes the bill, which has come up before, will be defeated again.
“In 2009 and 2007 it was rejected in the House because it casts a wide net,” Jencks said. “With this we are looking at the state being prohibited from contracting with Dartmouth-Hitchcock, community health centers and denying the use of federal family planning money. It casts a wide net and basically has the potential of shutting down the largest academic research hospital.”
The Union Leader indicates Planned Parenthood received about $700,000 in state taxpayer funds via Federal Title 10 money the Health and Human Services Department doled out to the state in 2010.
Recent sting operations have revealed Planned Parenthood center staffers were willing to provide assistance to alleged operators of a sex trafficking ring — ranging from helping them arrange abortions for the underage girls they said they were victimizing to showing them how to avoid scrutiny and skirt parental involvement laws. The videos covered Planned Parenthood centers in Richmond and also other centers in Roanoke, Charlottesville, and Falls Church.
Today, a new video reveals staff at a New York City Planned Parenthood abortion business going further. While staff at the Planned Parenthood centers in other states offered to arrange abortions or STD testing for the sex traffickers and guided them in how to keep the actions from authorities, staff in New York tell the Undercover “pimp” he can pose as a guardian to get discounts for his underage sex workers. The abortion center staff assure him they will see underage girls as young as 13 who have been victimized by the sex traffickers.
Live Action also filmed Planned Parenthood staff helping sex traffickers in New Jersey – and the nurse who aided the alleged traffickers there has already been fired and the state health department is looking into the problems further.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has already received the full, unedited footage of the Planned Parenthood expose’ videos and he told CBS 6 WVTR in Richmond that they are “shocking.”
Haley Approves Agency Bailout
Haley Approves Agency Bailout :: FITSNews
S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley and her “Republican” allies on the S.C. Budget and Control Board (B&CB) approved a nine-figure taxpayer-funded bailout for one of her cabinet agencies on Tuesday – although it remains to be see whether this controversial decision will stand.
It also remains to see how Haley’s Tea Party base will respond to its so-called heroine signing off on deficit spending.
Led by Haley, the B&CB voted on Tuesday to permit the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to run a $100 million deficit during the current fiscal year. The board also pledged another $125 million to the agency in the event it is unable to get its house in order by the end of June, which is when the current fiscal year ends.
S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley and her “Republican” allies on the S.C. Budget and Control Board (B&CB) approved a nine-figure taxpayer-funded bailout for one of her cabinet agencies on Tuesday – although it remains to be see whether this controversial decision will stand.
It also remains to see how Haley’s Tea Party base will respond to its so-called heroine signing off on deficit spending.
Led by Haley, the B&CB voted on Tuesday to permit the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to run a $100 million deficit during the current fiscal year. The board also pledged another $125 million to the agency in the event it is unable to get its house in order by the end of June, which is when the current fiscal year ends.
The Truth Bites "NH"Seriously here again do NOT GET CAUGHT UP IN THE RHETORIC
The Truth Bites "NH"
Seriously here again do NOT GET CAUGHT UP IN THE RHETORIC
In response to the article below: New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation
Check out this article and let’s talk about a complete "waste of time" this session with legislators enacting laws that are already on the books!
For example:
HB 1585 relative to enforcement of orders regarding parenting plans, which would establish an expedited hearing process for motions to enforce parenting plans. Essentially the parents are seeking more timely intervention in the cases where the custodial parent is non-compliant with court ordered visitation rights...so they say
Hello Stephens you’re a lawyer right?? Missed the facts again no wonder you're not practicing.
1st there is this thing called an "Ex Parta Motion" for relief = done or made at the instance
2nd NH RSA 461-A:11 Modification of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. –
I. The court may issue an order modifying a permanent order concerning parental rights and responsibilities under any of the following circumstances:
....
(b) If the court finds repeated, intentional, and unwarranted interference by a parent with the residential responsibilities of the other parent, the court may order a change in the parental rights and responsibilities without the necessity of showing harm to the child, if the court determines that such change would be in accordance with the best interests of the child.
coupled /or with
NH RSA 461-A:4-a Judicial Enforcement of Parenting Plan. – Any motion for contempt or enforcement of an order regarding an approved parenting plan under this chapter, if filed by a parent, shall be reviewed by the court within 30 days.
Source. 2006, 251:1, eff. Aug. 4, 2006.
Common sense applies here ... possibly, heres a novel idea have the courts actually do their jobs and instead of sending a lack lustrous program like DHHS/DCYF down the parents back, (one that has again failed the federal audit) if one parent was suppose to have visitation start fining the person not doing what they are suppose to do! Maybe then the courts could open up to 5 days a week and get up to date with their computer systems.
The administrative offices of these courts in NH could also get their act together and apply some structure across the board so that hearings are actually done consistently across the board in all areas of the State. Just a thought ...
Seriously here again do NOT GET CAUGHT UP IN THE RHETORIC
In response to the article below: New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation
Check out this article and let’s talk about a complete "waste of time" this session with legislators enacting laws that are already on the books!
For example:
HB 1585 relative to enforcement of orders regarding parenting plans, which would establish an expedited hearing process for motions to enforce parenting plans. Essentially the parents are seeking more timely intervention in the cases where the custodial parent is non-compliant with court ordered visitation rights...so they say
Hello Stephens you’re a lawyer right?? Missed the facts again no wonder you're not practicing.
1st there is this thing called an "Ex Parta Motion" for relief = done or made at the instance
2nd NH RSA 461-A:11 Modification of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. –
I. The court may issue an order modifying a permanent order concerning parental rights and responsibilities under any of the following circumstances:
....
(b) If the court finds repeated, intentional, and unwarranted interference by a parent with the residential responsibilities of the other parent, the court may order a change in the parental rights and responsibilities without the necessity of showing harm to the child, if the court determines that such change would be in accordance with the best interests of the child.
coupled /or with
NH RSA 461-A:4-a Judicial Enforcement of Parenting Plan. – Any motion for contempt or enforcement of an order regarding an approved parenting plan under this chapter, if filed by a parent, shall be reviewed by the court within 30 days.
Source. 2006, 251:1, eff. Aug. 4, 2006.
Common sense applies here ... possibly, heres a novel idea have the courts actually do their jobs and instead of sending a lack lustrous program like DHHS/DCYF down the parents back, (one that has again failed the federal audit) if one parent was suppose to have visitation start fining the person not doing what they are suppose to do! Maybe then the courts could open up to 5 days a week and get up to date with their computer systems.
The administrative offices of these courts in NH could also get their act together and apply some structure across the board so that hearings are actually done consistently across the board in all areas of the State. Just a thought ...
New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation
New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation - Page 1 - Kathleen Parker - Townhall Conservative
Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.
How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.
This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. New Hampshire HHS Commissioner John Stephens endorsed the idea, and a bill sponsored by state Rep. David A. Bickford (R) heads to committee Tuesday.
Gressitt is hoping for a domino effect if the bill passes in New Hampshire.
The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.
Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.
First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.
Gressitt contends that denying a child his parent out of vindictiveness is a form of child abuse, but Bickford, a non-clinician, says he isn't ready to go that far. He explained to me that the bill supposes some parents may block access to hide abuse and that, therefore, the case warrants investigation.
He did say, however, that should there be a finding of psychological or emotional harm - a form of abuse - then the custodial parent could be prosecuted, referred for needed treatment, or lose parental rights.
I feel your cringe. Who wants government bureaucrats breathing down parents' necks to see who got little Johnny for the weekend?
I'm happy to lead the chorus saying family matters are none of the state's concern - let the adults hash out their visitation schedules. But abuses of this mannered approach assume qualities not always present in some adults and often leave non-custodial parents (usually fathers) bereft and angry.
Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate - that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.
While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.
Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.
While fathers' organizations long have pushed for stronger visitation enforcement, there are also some 3 million non-custodial mothers in the U.S., according to David Levy, CEO of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit group that advocates for shared custody. Levy applauded the New Hampshire bill, saying that the proposed bill codifies the idea that it's important for children of divorce to continue to have both parents.
But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.
Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."
Such is the mess we have made of our lives.
In the best and least of all worlds, the deterrent effect of such a scenario would make visitation abuses less common and enforcement unnecessary. That way, only the bad guys lose. Or gals, as the case may be.
Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.
How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.
This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. New Hampshire HHS Commissioner John Stephens endorsed the idea, and a bill sponsored by state Rep. David A. Bickford (R) heads to committee Tuesday.
Gressitt is hoping for a domino effect if the bill passes in New Hampshire.
The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.
Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.
First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.
Gressitt contends that denying a child his parent out of vindictiveness is a form of child abuse, but Bickford, a non-clinician, says he isn't ready to go that far. He explained to me that the bill supposes some parents may block access to hide abuse and that, therefore, the case warrants investigation.
He did say, however, that should there be a finding of psychological or emotional harm - a form of abuse - then the custodial parent could be prosecuted, referred for needed treatment, or lose parental rights.
I feel your cringe. Who wants government bureaucrats breathing down parents' necks to see who got little Johnny for the weekend?
I'm happy to lead the chorus saying family matters are none of the state's concern - let the adults hash out their visitation schedules. But abuses of this mannered approach assume qualities not always present in some adults and often leave non-custodial parents (usually fathers) bereft and angry.
Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate - that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.
While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.
Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.
While fathers' organizations long have pushed for stronger visitation enforcement, there are also some 3 million non-custodial mothers in the U.S., according to David Levy, CEO of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit group that advocates for shared custody. Levy applauded the New Hampshire bill, saying that the proposed bill codifies the idea that it's important for children of divorce to continue to have both parents.
But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.
Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."
Such is the mess we have made of our lives.
In the best and least of all worlds, the deterrent effect of such a scenario would make visitation abuses less common and enforcement unnecessary. That way, only the bad guys lose. Or gals, as the case may be.
Fighting for grandparents’ rights
Fighting for grandparents’ rights - Londoner - Ontario, CA
Arthur Esdaile hasn't seen his grandchildren in nearly four years.
He was laying in a hospital bed at University Hospital in 2007, bedridden by a severe flu, when the 70-year-old grandfather got a visit from his son and two grandchildren.
"The two kids were very concerned about me," Esdaile says. "They both made me up a homemade get well card."
Esdaile had no idea that would be the last time he'd see Ashley, now 15, and Andrew, now 13.
He says his son completely cut him out off without so much as an explanation, denying him the chance to ever see his two grandchildren again.
Arthur Esdaile hasn't seen his grandchildren in nearly four years.
He was laying in a hospital bed at University Hospital in 2007, bedridden by a severe flu, when the 70-year-old grandfather got a visit from his son and two grandchildren.
"The two kids were very concerned about me," Esdaile says. "They both made me up a homemade get well card."
Esdaile had no idea that would be the last time he'd see Ashley, now 15, and Andrew, now 13.
He says his son completely cut him out off without so much as an explanation, denying him the chance to ever see his two grandchildren again.
Grandparents lobby for Kansas child-custody bill - KansasCity.com
Grandparents lobby for Kansas child-custody bill - KansasCity.com
WICHITA | One grandparent told of how her grandchildren lived with her for four months after they were taken away from their mother, only to be traumatized by state agents who came to the grandmother’s home and forcefully removed the children from her, too.
The children were put in foster homes, and granddaughter later was molested and got pregnant in foster care, the grandmother told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/08/2640801/grandparents-lobby-for-kansas.html#ixzz1DOhBNw5q
WICHITA | One grandparent told of how her grandchildren lived with her for four months after they were taken away from their mother, only to be traumatized by state agents who came to the grandmother’s home and forcefully removed the children from her, too.
The children were put in foster homes, and granddaughter later was molested and got pregnant in foster care, the grandmother told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/08/2640801/grandparents-lobby-for-kansas.html#ixzz1DOhBNw5q
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)