NH House Republicans propose cutting STD testing, cancer screening, birth control program
The New Hampshire Family Planning Program provides residents free and low-cost STD testing and treatment, birth control, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, and counseling. (Getty Images)
This story was updated with statements from the governor's office and Lamprey Health Care at 2:46 p.m.
As Republicans in the New Hampshire House of Representative work to trim hundreds of millions of dollars from the state budget, a group of lawmakers has identified the New Hampshire Family Planning Program as a service to cut.
The New Hampshire Family Planning Program provides residents free and low-cost STD testing and treatment, birth control, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, and counseling. It costs the state roughly $840,000 to operate each year, according to state budget documents. It receives almost $1 million annually from the federal government.
This comes amid the lengthy state budgeting process. In February, Gov. Kelly Ayotte proposed a nearly $16 billion budget for the next two years. Now, the state House of Representatives is in the process of reviewing, debating, and amending that budget. Ayotte's proposal relied on optimistic economic projections that predicted a quick comeback from years of lagging business tax revenue. However, the House was less bullish; the House Ways and Means Committee predicted revenues would be hundreds of millions of dollars less than the governor did. Now, the House is working to identify places to cut the budget to fit it to their projections.
During a work session Tuesday, Republicans in House Finance Division III, one of three subcommittees working on that task, identified the Family Planning Program as a place to cut. That subcommittee voted, 5-4, along party lines to recommend the program be eliminated.
'Yes, I understand there are those that feel it shouldn't be cut,' Rep. Maureen Mooney, a Republican from Merrimack who serves as vice chair of the subcommittee. 'All of these are difficult decisions. Considering the situation, considering we have an obligation to work with the money we have, the money that Ways and Means projects, we have to take some drastic measures.'
Mooney emphasized that the state is in 'a very difficult budget year.'
Republicans in the subcommittee did this against the wishes of their Democratic counterparts.
'I think this is devastating,' Rep. Laura Telerski, the House Deputy Democratic leader and the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said. 'I think that just after 53 years of success with a program that this is problematic. We have low unwanted teen pregnancies. We're experiencing right now an outbreak in STDs, and I just think this is not where we need to cut.'
Indeed, New Hampshire has the lowest pregnancy rate — 4.6 per 1,000 — for girls ages 15-19 of any state in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of 2022, the most recent data available. And 2022 saw the highest incidence of gonorrhea and syphilis ever recorded (though chlamydia and HIV incidence remained stable while AIDS decreased) in New Hampshire, according to the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.
The move has also sparked concern from some of the vendors New Hampshire contracted to provide the services.
'We are very concerned about this proposal,' Sue Durkin, Co-CEO of Lamprey Health Care, said in a statement to the Bulletin. We have over 1,000 patients who receive these services. This proposal put their access to reproductive health services, medications, and needed health screenings at risk.'
Before recommending the program be cut, the subcommittee briefly considered simply reducing funding to $5,000 a year in hopes that the Senate would be able to find the funding for the program when it reviews the budget later on in the process. They decided against that course of action.
In order for this proposal to officially be added to the budget, the entire House will also have to vote to approve it. Then, the entire budget will have to be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor with this amendment included for it to become law.
Asked about this proposal, John Corbett, the governor's spokesman, said in a statement to the Bulletin that 'Governor Ayotte has always protected funding for preventative health care services for women and accordingly supported these resources in her budget.'
The proposal has also drawn ire from left-leaning reproductive health groups.
'Eliminating New Hampshire's Family Planning Program is extremely shortsighted,' Kayla Montgomery, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund, said in a statement to the Bulletin. 'This program saves the state in public health costs and ensures Granite Staters with lower incomes receive essential preventive health care like birth control, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings. Health care organizations throughout the state are already stressed, and gutting the New Hampshire family planning program will only worsen health care outcomes in this state.'
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England has sought for years to become part of the program as one of its vendors providing services. However, the state's Republican-led executive council has continually rejected their bids over objections to the fact that the organization also provides abortions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine
ANAHEIM — California Democrats have learned one lesson from last November's national loss to Republicans: Voters want to see them fight. Especially for the working class. Their next challenge is actually doing it. And California Democrats have a prime opportunity to do so in an upcoming budget fight in Sacramento. Part of Donald Trump's appeal is that voters at least feel that he's 'fighting' for them even if it is largely performative. (Exhibit A: Trump's tax plan gives a $300 tax break to families earning $50,000 and $90,000 to a filer making $1 million, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So the word 'fight' was omnipresent in every speech, often in profane ways, at the California Democratic Party's three-day convention that ended Sunday. Speaking of his Republican opponents, California Sen. Adam Schiff told attendees: 'We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower, not now, not ever. We say to bullies, 'You can go f— yourself.'' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a keynote convention speaker, told delegates Saturday, 'We gotta be honest. We're in this mess because some of it is our own doing.' Walz acknowledged that as half of the losing presidential ticket, he may be 'the last person to lecture on this topic, but I'm going to tell you, none of us can afford to shy away from having hard conversations about what it's going to take to win elections.' 'We didn't just lose the working class to just anybody. We lost to a grifter billionaire giving tax cuts to his grifter billionaire buddies. That last election was a primal scream on so many fronts: 'Do something! Do something! Stand up and make a difference.'' America is dubious that Democrats can do something. A CNN poll released Sunday found that 16% of respondents felt Democrats are the party that could 'get things done.' More than twice as many respondents (36%) felt that way about Republicans. 'If you ask people today what a Democrat is, they say it is 'a deer in the headlights,'' Walz said. 'We've got to find some goddamn guts to fight for working people. … Nobody votes for roadkill.' 'That means having the guts to break down the power structures that are there. We know who's strangling our politics.' Lorena Gonzalez, president of the 2.3 million-member California Labor Federation, warned that Democrats shouldn't become 'Republican lite' by adopting their positions. She invoked the Depression-era song written by Florence Patton Reece, 'Which Side Are You On?' 'Are you on the side of the billionaires and the tech bros and Elon Musk and the Republican Lites?' Gonzalez said. 'Or are you on the side of working people, men and women who make this state work, who continue to go to work every day, hardworking people. Are you on the side of unions?' Case in point: It sounds hollow to hear California Democrats rail on Trump and congressional Republicans for their budget that would cut health coverage for 8.6 million Americans (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) when California is considering cuts to its most vulnerable citizens to close a $12 billion budget deficit. Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revised budget proposal i ncluded cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which provides care to low-income elderly and disabled people. Those providers, who are predominantly women of color, earn about $17 an hour. The typical provider would lose about $20,000 in pay annually under the proposal, according to union leaders. These are the 500,000 workers who bathe, dress and take care of 850,000 frail Californians — our parents, children and siblings. Many providers are one paycheck away from homelessness, union organizers say. Such a pay cut 'would be devastating,' Cynthia Williams, an Orange County in-home provider since 2008, told me. If the cuts were passed, her family would likely have to move and use the local food bank even more. She cares for her disabled-veteran sister and her daughter, who is blind and disabled and has a gastric condition that requires her to have four or five small meals a day. 'So that (salary reduction) would cut down on what I would be able to do. Providing four or five meals a day would not be an option,' Williams told me. 'We don't need to keep milking the poor to give to the rich,' she said. 'We need to make sure that Democrats care for the people that are the most vulnerable.' Union leaders, whose members are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns, say they are watching how Democrats handle this proposed cut. At a rally Saturday outside the Anaheim Convention Center where Democrats were meeting, United Domestic Workers Executive Director Doug Moore directed a message 'to our Democratic lawmakers. This rally is not just a protest. It's a warning. 'Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities and the caregivers who support them is not leadership, it's shortsighted cowardice,' Moore told rallygoers. 'Every Democrat inside this convention hall, this is your moment. Your integrity matters now more than ever. You can't claim to stand for justice, equity, working families in your speeches, then turn around and vote for budget cuts that hurt the very people who make this state function. 'It is time for you to have the courage to stand with us — or else. We are watching. We are the people who got you in the office.' California Democrats are looking for ways to stave off those cuts. Behind closed doors, Senate Democrats are considering several plans that would raise revenue from wealthy corporations to plug the budget deficit. One idea is to tax large corporations that do business in California but do not provide adequate or affordable health coverage to their employees and pay their workers so little that they must rely on Medi-Cal. It would require employers to pay a tax for each worker; details on the proposal are still being crafted. Other Democrats in the Legislature are privately discussing a proposal that would close the 'water's edge loophole' that would require corporations to report all their worldwide profits, not just the profits they claim were earned in the U.S. This proposal could enable California to collect taxes on its rightful share (an estimated $3 billion) of those total profits. Now, the percentage of national sales that occur in the state is the percentage of profit subject to corporate tax in California. Twenty-eight states plus Washington, D.C., require a version of water's edge reporting, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Polic y, The short-term question: Will Gov. Newsom veto this because he is concerned about being tagged as someone who 'raised taxes' — even if it is on wealthy corporations — if he runs for president in 2028 when his term ends? The long-term question: Whose side are Democrats on?
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Iconic Hollywood filmmaker David Mamet dishes on why he was 'kicked out of the left'
One famed filmmaker and playwright spoke to Fox News about his transformation from a "brain-dead liberal" to his journey into constitutional conservatism. Film director and playwright David Mamet, known for writing the stage play "Glengarry Glen Ross" and its film adaptation, opened up about his political values during a Thursday interview on the "Brian Kilmeade Show." Mamet discussed how he got "kicked out of the left" about 25 years ago and what led him to discover his right-leaning values. He noted his past comments referring to himself as a "brain-dead liberal" and urging for political civility in an article he wrote, resulting in many of his leftist peers losing contact with him. "I didn't know any Republicans, so I didn't understand what conservatism was," he said. "Then I got kicked out of the left, and I started researching what the constitutional conservatism was about, and I got very, very interested and very excited about it — here I am now." Mamet noted that he became disillusioned with the Democratic Party and its values, explaining how he thought that the party did not best represent American workers and had become the "party of the elites." "I discovered my conservative beliefs because I discovered everything I thought and believed about the Democratic Party was false," he said. Amid a tumultuous period in American politics, Mamet expressed optimism about the future following President Donald Trump's election victory in November 2024. "America is self-correcting again, as we saw in the election," Mamet said. "And the red states are thriving." Referring to his vast theater experience, Mamet also touched upon the media and entertainment's focus on "social consciousness." "Black people are people too, gay people are people too, but the problem with that is, everybody knows that," he said. "So we don't want to come to a theater or a movie to get lectured to, right? Our wives will do that — so in order to keep their place, the idea of a meritocracy crumbled in the media, so the awards and safety, or the illusion… was awarded to those who could scream the loudest." Mamet released his book "The Disenlightenment: Politics, Horror, and Entertainment" on June 3, which details his musings about politics and culture.
