What is HB 591?
House Bill 591 is AN ACT relative to the determination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child. This bill revises the standard for determining parental rights. The bill also repeals the court’s authority to award visitation to a stepparent or grandparent in a proceeding to determine parental rights and responsibilities.
Why is it so important for New Hampshire families?
New Hampshire courts should enforce orders that provide for frequent and continuing contact between each parent and their minor child or children in a divorce proceeding jointly sharing the responsibilities of child-rearing and encouraging the love, affection between the children and the parents involved regardless of marital status.
Unless a court makes an explicit finding that such contact is not in the best interest of the child, strictly based upon circumstances such as one parent interfering with visitation time, parental kidnapping, neglect, or abuse, there should always be joint parental rights and responsibilities encouraged, as close to 50 percent parenting time for each parent as is possible given the parties availability and logistics, because it is always in the best interest of the child or children.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT SHARED PARENTING IN OUR STATE.
Letters to the Editor
What is HB 591?
YOUR CHILDREN ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE....
JOIN US IN SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 591; SHARED PARENTING HOUSE FLOOR VOTE!!!!!!!!
STATE HOUSE FRONT STEPS
CAPITOL STREET, CONCORD NH.
JANUARY 4TH 2012
"PASS HB-591 CHILDREN DESERVE BOTH PARENTS"
"PASS HB-591 KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS"
I have read with dismay about NH House Bills 1148 and 1457, having to do with evolution and science. It is appalling that anyone would even consider not accepting the evidence for evolution in New Hampshire in the 21st Century.
I give a talk called UnIntelligent Design—Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not. This addresses the continued efforts of the religious right to get "Intelligent Design" taught as though it were science in American public school classrooms. My presentation is simultaneously scientifically accurate and very funny.
In my talk, I look at five parts of the human body that are designed very poorly, and show other animals that got better body parts, leading one to ask "So who does the Creator like better -- us, or squid?" I also dispose of “irreducible complexity” by showing eyes in the rest of the animal kingdom at many different levels of complexity, all of which work. I start by talking about men's testicles, which means that everybody pays attention. I deliberately use humor as a means of puncturing bad arguments. The presentation is highly accessible to a non-scientific audience and aims to provide talking points to people who want to support teaching evolution. In fact, this is one of the few talks on this subject that directly addresses the fact that "Intelligent Design" is a political pressure group, not a scientific theory.
People who wish to support the teaching of evolution need good political-style talking points in order to succeed in the political arena, which is where Intelligent Design/Creationism is succeeding. My talk fills an unfilled niche in that it is deliberately short, easy to understand, easy to remember, and very funny, all while debunking Intelligent Design. It is accessible to a lay audience, though the science in it is unimpeachable.
I have a D.Phil. in zoology from Oxford University, and have taught college human anatomy and physiology for the last seventeen years, so I know my evolution, and know my anatomy as well.
I have given this presentation to college groups, humanist groups, and even churches all over the country, to enthusiastic reviews. I have also given two radio interviews, one for WBAI in New York and one on NPR/PRI.
Here's the link for the NPR interview.
I would love to give this talk in New Hampshire this winter. Do you have any suggestions?
The national debt is currently over $15 trillion and is equal to 100% of our GDP. As if our current financial crisis isn’t dire enough, President Obama is seeking an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit spending. The fiscal insanity in Washington must be stopped now!
Career politicians have shown again and again that they are incapable of implementing sound fiscal policy. Unfortunately, a Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary to force Congress to do what it best for our country and what it is incapable of doing on its own. The recent failure of the so-called “Super Committee” to reduce our deficit is a prime example of Congress’ inability to resolve this matter.
Fortunately, Republican presidential candidates have been discussing the need for a balanced budget. As the First-in-the-Nation fast approaches, we must demand that those who wish to serve as our President lay out concrete plans on how they will balance our budget. It is easy for one to say he or she supports a balanced budget. But without the details, those words are empty.
The media would make this election a choice between Obama, the champion for the 99%; and, Romney, one of the greedy 1%. And, Romney's spending $10s of millions to defeat Gingrich will be evidence.
This country is in a desperate situation; but, you would’t know it listening to most politicians. The debate about the "payroll tax cut" is an example of how public attention is diverted from the real issues. Democrats claim that this tax cut is good for the economy; and, Republicans don't want to collapse the economy, so they let it pass. Instead of funding Social Security retirements for future years, this money is now consumed by current workers. The only debate is about how to pay for it.
Democrats would "tax the rich" instead of deducting payroll contributions; Republicans point out that the rich will move their money abroad. So, now, they want to tax home purchases; but, with this, there will be fewer homes purchased. Eventually, they will tax employers and there will be less profits, lower tax receipts, fewer employees. The real issue is that diverting funds in this way turns our insurance plan, dependent on our contributions, into a social welfare program, dependent on tax receipts. In effect, we no longer "own" our share of the Trust Fund; rather, we are now dependent on the politics of the Federal Budget process. 40% of this budget is borrowed from Social Security, public employee pension plans and other bond holders.We are in a vicious circle of spending, debt and bail-outs; but, big spending cuts may damage the economy as well.
So, politicians in both parties put off budget decisions. We haven't had effective leadership for a dozen years. Romney, Perry and Houseman will give us more of the same policies; and, Paul, Bachmann and Santorum will generate intense political resistance. Gingrich is only candidate who has freed enterprise with tax cuts, limited government by balancing the budget and fostered civic virtue through entitlement reform. Newt Gingrich has changed the dynamics of this election and he will change the policies and politics of governance.