To The Daily Sun,
Early in my campaign to replace Ray Howard as N.H. Representative for Belknap District 8 (Alton, Barnstead, and Gilmanton), I was asked to state my primary goals in elected. My answer was that “I view children as a key to New Hampshire’s future, and any policy that is good for the children of New Hampshire is good for New Hampshire”.
My position on the state’s responsibility for protection of children differs significantly from that of my opponent. A couple of examples of legislation proposed during the most recent legislative session, concerning the well-being of children in the state, highlights our differences.
HB-377 is particularly importance given the addiction problems impacting many of our N.H. families, with many struggling families ending up in the court system. The Child Protection Act previously included as one of the aims of the Act (in addition to protecting the safety of the child), to “preserve the unity of the family”. HB-377 changed that language to “determine if the preservation of family unity is in the best interest of the child.” This bill was sponsored by four Republican legislators and passed in the House on a 255 to 115 vote. Preservation of family unity is a worthy goal, but in situations involving abuse or neglect of a child, family unity should never produce a result contrary to the protection of the child, and that child’s best interests. Rep. Howard voted "nay" on this bill; I would absolutely have voted "yes."
An even more surprising vote from Mr. Howard on a child protection bill concerned HB-201, which passed 316 to 55. That bill increased the penalty for child trafficking “buyers,” providing that a person paying for sexual services from a minor or for watching sexually explicit performances from minors is guilty of a Class B felony. In recognition of the fact that buyers and their payments are the driving force behind this type of sexual exploitation, HB-201 was introduced in an effort to discourage sexual trafficking of minors.
Rep. Howard was one of the tiny group opposing this change in the law. Was this some type of assertion of liberty rights, on a misguided theory that adults should be able to view child pornography with impunity? I remember reading of a young woman who had been used for pornography as a child and later suffered terrible psychological problems from her knowledge of all the buyers are out there deriving sick pleasure from her worst moments in life. On a local note, an anti-trafficking organization named Love 146 held a fundraiser which I participated in on Mt. Major a couple of years ago. The story behind the name of the group is very moving, and the organization’s website is very informative. Bottom line: I would have voted to increase the penalties for child sex buyers; Rep. Howard voted against it.
The bills described above are good examples of the very different attitudes held by my opponent and me.
Ruth Larson
(1) comment
No one who is paying attention is going to fall for your garbage propaganda Ruth.
We know which party is for "pedophilia as a sexual preference" and which is for the woodchippers.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.