Press Releases


Entries in Cornerstone (30)


Cornerstone Statement on New Hampshire House Vote on HB 437

HB 437 was an honest, honorable attempt to recognize one man/one woman marriage as a necessary relationship in society.  Proponents of genderless marriage point to polls, but today they rejected an attempt to get the only poll that counts: a question on November's ballot so that all voters can decide.


Ultimately, it will be our children that will pay the price for failing to pass HB 437.  For instance, genderless marriage ends the biological link between parents and children.  In the future, parenting will just become a contract between two people; the gender roles of a mom and a dad will be irrelevant.  This violates the right of the child to know their biological mother and father.


There are also real long-term economic consequences to the breakdown of traditional marriage.  Such costs include dependency of children on government services like Medicaid, increases in substance abuse, and an escalation of juvenile delinquency.  These costs in New Hampshire have been conservatively calculated to be nearly $100 million a year and, nationally, the cost is $100 billion a year or $1 trillion over a decade.


Cornerstone is disappointed that these consequences of genderless marriage were not given their full consideration.  Yet, this vote does not change the fundamentals of marriage anymore than a law that bans the force of gravity.  Cornerstone will continue to bring the good news about genuine marriage between one man and one woman to any public discussion.


Cornerstone Applauds New Hampshire House Members Who Voted On the Side of Life Yesterday



Informed medical consent is every woman's right - unless, in New Hampshire, she is contemplating abortion. Cornerstone congratulates the members of the New Hampshire House who voted yesterday  to rectify that dangerous, ridiculous situation by supporting The Women's Right to Know bill, HB 1659. Women considering abortion don't need to be patronized. With accurate information, choice has real meaning. Opposition to informed consent for abortion is troubling, particularly when such consent is routine for other procedures. No abortion provider's routine or business model can possibly be more important then a patient's right to know the facts about a decision she needs to make. Pro-choice senators and Governor Lynch would do well to consider that informed consent is no threat to Roe v. Wade. If it were, then twenty years of informed consent laws in various states since the Casey decision would have brought down Roe by now. Instead, in thirty-one other states, abortion remains legal while informed consent laws are in effect. The Women's Right to Know bill still has a long way to go here, but we're gratified at the progress it made yesterday.


Cornerstone is also grateful to the New Hampshire House members who voted yesterday to shut the door on an inhumane late-term abortion procedure that blurs the line between abortion and infanticide. Partial-birth abortion is gruesome, requiring the partial delivery of the fetus before it is killed, and it is dangerous to women as well. Keeping this barbarity outside our borders is a good decision. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that abortion rights are safe even if the partial-birth abortion procedure is outlawed, since other abortion methods are available. Pro-life and pro-choice New Hampshire residents should be able to agree on this one. To those who claim the law is unnecessary because no one in NH performs the procedure, we reply that we are skeptical about that, since no reliable statistics exist about late-term abortion in New Hampshire (or early-term abortions, for that matter). HB 1679 is simply a civilized act to adopt.



CONCORD, NH, 3/7/12 - Cornerstone Action endorses two pro-life bills expected to be voted on by the New Hampshire House this week.

            House Bill 1659, the Women’s Right to Know Act, will finally put women’s health on a par in the eyes of the law with the right to choose abortion. Thirteen co-sponsors signed on to this carefully-drafted bill that will require abortion providers to get documented informed consent from a patient before an abortion takes place. Far from attacking Roe v. Wade, the Women’s Right to Know bill is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court rulings dating back twenty years to the Casey decision.

            House Bill 1679 would make partial-birth abortion illegal in New Hampshire. This late-term procedure, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being put to death, is barbaric and unnecessary. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal partial-birth abortion ban. A federal Administration could decide not to enforce the federal ban, making a state-level law desirable. With other abortion methods available, and in view of the fact that partial-birth blurs the line between abortion and infanticide, New Hampshire has an interest in preventing this procedure from gaining any traction in this state.

            Opponents of a partial-birth ban claimed during a hearing on the bill that such procedures are not performed in New Hampshire. Unfortunately, that cannot be verified, since the state does not require reporting on methods used by abortion providers.

            Informed consent has not impaired the practice of medicine with respect to other procedures, so the Women’s Right to Know bill should pose no problem for health care providers who are genuinely concerned with women’s health.

            Under both bills, a woman’s right to choose abortion is protected. The bills were drafted with the assistance of experts in constitutional law, and neither bill seeks to pick a fight with the Supreme Court.  New Hampshire’s abortion providers work virtually without regulation. In fact, under Roe v. Wade, numerous reasonable regulations with respect to women’s health and safety are permitted, and many states have enacted legislation accordingly. We welcome these efforts to move New Hampshire’s laws into the 21st century with respect to women’s health and abortion.

            Cornerstone-Action is the legislative and issue advocacy arm of Cornerstone Policy Research. Cornerstone Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit education and research organization dedicated to the preservation of strong families, limited government and free markets.



On January 31, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a charity founded to promote breast cancer research and prevention, announced its decision to cease providing grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates. Describing PP as "a longstanding partner", the Komen foundation nonetheless put grants on hold pending the outcome of a Congressional investigation. The Komen charity recently adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.

We note that the Komen decision was not affected by PP's abortion business. Even so, we're glad that even temporarily, Komen's work for women's health is no longer entangled with the business of the nation's largest abortion provider. Numerous agencies that provide breast health care and screenings, without also providing abortions, would be happy to apply for Komen grant money and put it to work promoting women's health.

We flatly disbelieve any assertion that the Komen decision will interfere with cancer screenings by PP. According to CBS News, PP said the Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before. That amount, covering PP affiliates all over the country, is less than the public policy expenditures by just one PP affiliate: Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, whose 2010 annual report shows $822,481 spent on "public policy." Any decision to deny cancer screenings as a result of a loss of Komen funds is a business decision by PP to make women's health a secondary concern. Women seeking health care deserve better from their providers.

The response of PP supporters has been interesting, particularly on social media. There has been no acknowledgment from PP, either formal or informal, that Komen has the responsibility for good stewardship of its funds, and that it is legitimate to take a wait-and-see approach while a Congressional investigation is pending for a potential grant recipient. Instead, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accuses Komen of submitting to "bullying."

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has made a good decision, and pro-life women can finally participate in its activities without fear that  donations will be sent to the nation's largest abortion provider. We encourage all who applaud this decision to participate in a Komen event, and to let the foundation know the reason. We also note that any dollar spent on a publicity campaign by PP to pressure Komen is a dollar that is not going to promote women's health.


Cornerstone Action Applauds the Passage of HB 228 Which Will Stop the Flow of NH Taxpayer Dollars to Abortion Providers 

A bill that will end the practice of sending NH taxpayer dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

CONCORD - Cornerstone thanks the New Hampshire House for adopting HB 228. We are especially grateful to Rep. Warren Groen (R-Rochester) for his courageous leadership on this bill. A majority of House members have made the common-sense declaration that no NH resident should be compelled to subsidize abortion providers. This is entirely consistent with Roe v. Wade. The bill respects the conscience rights of everyone in NH who opposes abortion, while leaving abortion rights intact.

When NH's financial resources are stretched so thin, this is hardly the time to send state money to agencies that have enough money to provide abortions as well as health care to their patients. Abortion providers have the choice between doing business without state involvement, or of establishing separate businesses to keep abortion segregated from health care. This has worked in Texas and would work in NH.

The principal abortion provider in our state, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE), has objected to the loss of state funds for family planning services at the same time it is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on marketing and "public policy" work. If PPNNE chooses to put marketing above health care, that is their business decision. Let them make it without the support, direct or indirect, of NH taxpayers.