The studies on this are not in anyway conclusive but, there has been theories that suggest that hte estrogen that women take in hte pill may be getting in the water supply which then enters the male body possibly influenceing the increased rates of prostate cancer in men. A stretch. What else is in our water? Or, drink more beer

Douglas - Exactly, so maybe, if Nutter (I've been trying to be civil, but the idiots have beaten me down) cares aouch about not putting chemicals inher body, how about legislating to crimalize people flushing their pills down the toilet? Not that I'd want such a bill, but this, inationally and globally, is a far more dangerous issue than any factual danger from birth control pills.

If Rep. Notter is so concerned with cancer, why did she vote to lower the cigarette tax? The evidence is clear linking cost to smoking rates and smoking rates to cancer. Also, could she not take the 1 minute that it took me to Google "prostate cancer and the pill" to see that this theory has been debunked? Also, she was proposing abolishing all birth control coverage, not just pills. I expect a bit more intellectual capacity from Merrimack reps than she's displaying.

I agree Patrick. antibiotics are now showing up in water supplies. People dumping unused meds are doing this. Methods to safely dispose of these aren't in place. The once a year collection just doesn't do it. Ask at the various nursing homes how they dispose of meds when a resident leaves or dies. I think our Rep. Notter needs a legitimate issue to get her PR!
As to the cigarette tax it should have been doubled NOT REDUCED!

I think we can all agree that nobody should be forced to take birth control pills. It's too bad this nitwit can't stay on topic.

Could someone try to rationalize just what is wrong with Merrimack, NH Representatives? We had the likes of Rep. Elliot in the last term of the NH House with here crazed idealogy about male/male sex and now this Rep. comes along with more bizarre stuff. Just what is about Merrimack, NH that turns out these types?

The press has once again sensationalized a medical study. This study states that prostrate cancer is higher in countries with more birth control usage and then states it is only SPECULATION that they might be related. These countries with high birth control usage are also the ones with booming escalation in obesity and high fat fast food diets. This is a much more likely cause although without knowing the data it also is speculative.

Rep. Notter also believes that we needn't worry about uninsured cancer patients. The community is there to rally around them and raise the funds needed to pay for their treatment. http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/12058/rep-notter-to-cancer-patients-host-a-bake-sale

Wait, so men shouldn't take birth control pills so they won;t get prostate cancer?

This testimony was for a bill about protecting the Catholic Church's freedom of religion. The Church has a belief that contraceptives are immoral, and thus, anyone employed by the church or its organizations should have to live with that policy. It is the church's religious freedom to implement such a policy. If someone does not like that policy, they can work somewhere else or buy contraceptives themselves, like most honorable people who want such treatment do.

Rep. Notter's question related to a study that showed a correlation between women who take birth control and their sons later developing prostate cancer. The point of my comments was that I believed there was probably some merit to the study, but I had not seen the report, so I really couldn't verify whether it was accurate or not. I explained how I have noticed that with many religious beliefs, science tends to back them up after some time. Thus, with these comments, I was backing up the Church's position that contraceptives are immoral, and likely, for good reason.

Regardless, and even if the study is not accurate, the Obama Administration has no right to use the power of government to force the Church to do something counter to its religious tenets. That is an abuse of power of the highest order and anathema to the reasons this nation was founded.

Rep. Andrew J. Manuse

Rep. Manuse, here is the article I referred to that states that NH has had a more stringent birth control mandate with no religious exclusions and has had that mandate for at least 10 years.

I trust that vasectomies are also being excluded from coverage. Are they?

Vasectomies? I want to know if their insurance covers Viagra. Now that wouldn't be fair, would it?

http://nhhousegop.com/the-left-wants-freedom-of-choice-only-sometimes-by-columnist-david-harsanyi

So the bottom line is we have a bunch of Representatives (?) in Concord as well as Washington that are trying to force their personal, religious agenda on us. What part of representing do they not get?. They (Ms. Notter) doesn't have to use contraceptives just don't stop or prevent me from using them. A question, what is their stance on vasectomies? Maybe further studies will show a correlation between a mans' sperm and cancer. Do health insurers pay for them? Will the Catholic Church’s' insurance cover them? It's contraception.

What's even more absurd is that gynecologists in practices OWNED by Catholic hospitals routinely PRESCRIBE birth control!

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE PILL WAS AVAILABLE IN THE LATE
SIXTIES. IF THIS IS TRUE THAT THE PILL IS THE CAUSE OF PROSTATE CANCER,
THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE MEN IN THEIR 50'S AND OLDER WHO ARE
SUFFERING FROM THE DISEASE? WHAT DID THEIR MOTHERS DO TO HAVE
CAUSED ALL THESE PROBLEMS?

If I'm not mistaken, I think the issue to provide for birth control being covered came about as a result of women finding out that the insurers were covering viagra. Justification was supposed to be due to erectile dysfunction. So rather than take it away from men we got covered. 'nough said!

I don't agree in forcing birth control, but I DO AGREE with the choice. The risks are assessed by a DOCTOR, along with a pamplet, which ususally comes with the pills, I know it came with mine. We make the choice. We know smoking 'might' cause cancer, but we can still smoke, we know that bad food can hurt our bodies and it's pumped out by the billions, it is a CHOICE, pure and simple.

Rep. Manuse,
Honey you are so very off-base it's troubling. We are a secular Nation. This point is very important, so pay attention now: Yes, everyone is free to practice their own religion without interference from the government, however they must remain within the confines of our laws & our society. i.e. Muslims are not allowed "Honor" killings, Mormans are not allowed multiple wives, Catholics are not allowed to keep birth control from their employees. It is NOT the governments job to enforce the tenets of ANY religion. The Catholic Church should "police" their OWN people and leave the rest of us alone. I am a US citizen who abides by it's laws...NOT the Catholic Bishops version of Catholicism.

Example: In KY, the Catholic-run hospitals just merged and/or bought control of most of the hospitals in that area. If you are an employee or patient you must abide by Catholic edicts or go to Indiana? We're not Catholic, why should we be penalized? If it's the only "act" in town, why should I be treated any differently than any other patient or employee? And if they can dictate which prescriptions/treatments/whatever they will allow...then what will be next? Who voted them into the legislature?

It's actually a very simple issue if you take out the political histrionics & rhetoric.....

Once again, Republican legislators use a "6 degrees of separation" rationale to explain their policy positions, a necessity since they lack the intellectual desire to know what the hell they're talking about ... before they talk about it.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON THE POLITICIANS. SHOULD WE GO BACK TO USING COAT HANGERS AS A CONTRACEPTIC, BECAUSE THAT IS USED TO PREVENT A CIRCUMSTAMCE OR A SITUATION THAT IS NOT CONDUSIVE TO SOME WOMEN

What is next? Allowing "faith-based business entities" exemption from wage and hours laws, and industrial-safety regulations on the specious grounds that "government is imposing its values on churches." In too many states, church-run schools are not held to state curriculum or teacher credentialing standards, and the products of these "religious academies" are equally sub-standard. If the "Christian" (and I doubt very much that Jesus of Nazareth would claim them among followers of his philosophy) right-wingers are allowed to circumvent the law of the land, then Muslim communities SHOULD be allowed to impose whatever variant of Sharia upon their members and employees.

Conservatives have turned into lying troglodytes.
DO they really think women are going back in THEIR closet?

Reps. Notter and Manuse are at far greater risk of developing breast or prostate cancer as a result of ingesting milk and meat from animals that are fed a steady diet of hormones and from vegetables and fruits grown in fields using manure from those dairy and meat animals. Would they like to require that foodstuffs sold in the state must be organically grown and raised? Just sayin.....

So, I wonder if these legislators would say that a Jehovah's Witness group should be allowed not cover insurance for blood transfusions because it's against their religious principles? Or if a Christian Science group refused treatment for <insert disease here> because they don't believe in modern medicine. What about the fundamentalist religious groups who say that it's OK to let their children die rather than treat diabetic shock? Should they be allowed to choose their coverage cafeteria-style, just because? Or what about religious inclusions? Should peyote and marijuana be covered as treatment for those who believe that these will cure their ailments (and there are that religiously believe so)? You either include all religious exemptions (additive and subtractive) or none. I vote for no religious exemptions.

Just a thought:
Why do religions get to opt out, under current law, for their church-only employees?
(As opposed to the current issue of employees of church-run secular organizations like hospitals & universities....) These people are allowed to be discriminated against, because the church is against birth control? In our secular society, it's legal and covered by most other employers, so why does the church get out of that just because these people work in a church-only environment? So what? They STILL are citizens of this Country and should enjoy the same rights & privileges....

Not only that...but explain to me again WHY churches are tax-exempt?

Rep. Notter asked a question regarding a medical study to a colleague during a hearing. She did not make a conclusive statement, and she did not testify on behalf of the study. She simply asked a question regarding a study.

Rep. Notter is getting paid $100 a year to go to Concord and take a stand for what she believes is right for the people of this state. And what has she gotten in return? She's gotten viral videos that take her words out of context, and she's got this "news" story about how she simply asked a question in a hearing.

As is often said, reasonable people can disagree. If you disagree with Rep. Notter, that's fine. But there is no reason to call her an idiot and no reason to compare her to mentally ill people. That's outrageous. She's putting herself in the public sphere, and some of you despicable people think it's cute to attack her from behind a keyboard.

She has done a lot of good work in the State House, and she is currently standing up to defend religious liberty. To suggest that she is trying to uphold "white men's power" is ridiculous. If any conservatives used the language and tactics the left has used against Rep. Notter, they would be crucified as sexist bigots.

I suggest that Merrimack voters examine the real issue at hand: religious liberty. Don't be distracted by the side show attacks on a good woman.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have figured out that they can divert attention away from their failed records by bringing up the issue of contraception. As anyone asked why Mitt Romney was barraged with questions from Democrat George Stephanopoulos in a recent debate about contraception? Why did HHS issue a contraception mandate? To get everyone to talk about contraception not our national debt which has increased 42% under the Obama administration or $5.00 per gallon gas this summer because we have no energy policy. Based on the over 40 comments on this story it looks like their little gamble has paid off.

Rep Notter echos the concerns of many around the state and the nation on what we put into our bodies whether it is a type of food or drug or anything else for that matter. It would be naive to believe that the food or drug industries wouldn't hire K Street lobbyists to get exemptions from regulations that are supposed to protect the public. Why wouldn't anybody have the right to question whether a food or a drug is safe?

Nobody is going to loose their right to contraception in this state or anywhere else for that matter. House Resolution 29 is nothing more than a statement, that is all that it is. Has anybody heard about the plan to put Merrimack in CD 2? There is a hearing on that Tuesday 11.30AM at the State House if anybody cares.

The larger point that Rep. Notter was making is beware of unintended consequences, and after reading many of the posts here, I think that point is worth considering. Many posts contain emotional points about who can opt out, what can and should be covered or not be covered etc. Some posters appear anxious about the topic as if something was going to be set in stone--never to be changed--and we’ll be doomed to live with it. I agree somewhat with that sentiment.

However, I think this is the natural result when govt. gets involved, meaning that an entity, can decide, arbitrarily, what’s to be covered and what’s not, based on any capricious reasoning available. In some cases, that reasoning come from the left, as in this case (i.e. insurance must cover birth control). In other cases, from the right. People have strong beliefs here. These may not be met when the decision isn’t up to the people, but rather up to some unelected administrator.

Regardless of what side you’re on, left/right, pro/con, I ask: If it’s OK to have the coercive power of govt. used to support your side, are you equally agreeable when it is used to support the other side? To put it in stark relief, consider this: are you OK falling in line with President Palin’s--or better yet, HHS Sec Palin’s--arbitrary decisions?

To me, it’s not a matter of birth control per se. It’s a matter of keeping the individual sphere protected from the coercion of the state. Birth control now, what next?

Chris B.
Maybe you need to be informed by other sources than Limbaugh, Beck & Fox "News". Dem.s are NOT the ones who made an issue out of this silliness, have no reason to. The GOP did. GOP candidates are having trouble finding positions to set themselves apart from Obama & each other in any electable way. They jumped on this non-issue to say that the Dems. are "Waging a war on religion" (sound familiar?) and therefore hope to appeal to the religious-right. (After all that is the tea-party, religious-right base to which they are trying to appeal) From the beginning the Dem.s have been in "reaction-mode" to GOP attacks; and at least for me, I've been bemused by the seriousness this NON-issue has taken.... The "religious freedom" argument too is a ploy & a "red-herring" set out to paint the President as anti-religion and un-American. Actually the President has been SO accommodating to religion that it prompted an Op-ed in the Huffington Post recently from Barry Lynn (Director of Americans United for Separation of Church & State) In which he called Obama's faith-based initiative "pretty much identical to the deeply problematic one created by President George W. Bush" That doesn't sound like war on religion to me.
I don't know Rep. Notter personally, and I'm guessing that you don't either. The snippet of video may indeed have caught her on an "Off" day and out of context. What WAS caught however is concerning, and should be to you & other NH residents as well.

PS:
In our secular nation, churches & other religious groups are simply interest groups. Like the NRA, Farm Lobby, Teachers Lobby....

Obama made a mistake, in my humble opinion, making ANY accommodations for them at ALL. They already have a "waiver" to NOT supply birth-control to any employees of their strictly religious affiliations (i.e churches & the sort....) WHY should they get ANY further waiver for those secular institutions they run which work with other-than-Catholics? (i.e hospitals, universities....) Others who run these same sort of institutions don't have that same waiver opportunity.

Isn't that flying in the face of our intent towards separation of church & state? No church affiliation shall be seen to be "endorsed" or promoted over any other in our country....we are SECULAR. (Allowing freedom to practice you own religion without fear of persecution by the "ruling" religion.)

Therefore, the Catholic church, or the Morman church, or the Christian Scientists, Protestants, Farm Lobby, or whatever, should be treated equally. As any other institution. Contraception is legal, a preventative-health issue & simply should be included in ANY health care requirements by ALL institutions.

Sounds more to me like a back-door attempt to make the Affordable Health Care Act into a hollowed-out husk. If Institutions can pick-and-choose what they will cover, then what's next?

PPS:
Christian Scientists are against blood-transfusions aren't they?
So can they keep it away from their employees too?

Which group is it that doesn’t believe in vaccinations?
So those are not to be covered by their insurance?

How about the folks who believe that ANY intervention of medical professionals is “against God’s will” ? Yikes.

Whew.
I know.... it’s starting to get silly isn’t it?
But sometimes it helps to take the argument to it’s logical extreme to get a better look at it.....

It all seems to be silliness.
Unfortunately these people are, or want to be, in positions of power to make & maintain our laws.

THAT’S the scary part.
We need to keep informed and watch them all with a wary eye, while taking all rhetoric with a TON of salt.
Participating in our Democratic process, keeping dialogues open, while making our wishes known.

Frankly, from what I’m hearing, we need to keep an eye on Rep. Notter & most of the GOP candidates. Personally I think we have a better chance of sensible, rational & inclusive legislature from Obama.

Since the repub reps like to follow along with their out of state buddies' crazy ideas, who will be the one to introduce Virginia's latest assault on women ?

Can we all agree she is not fit to hold office? 1 term maybe too much.

This sounds like just the kind of study that Michelle Bachmann would like to quote - because it is nonsense!

Scary. Another nut case trying to force her beliefs on others. She should not be in office. Does she realize that most Catholics use and want to continue using birth control? And does this rep eat meat? Take medicines?

jeanine, i was a parishoner at st thomas's in riverside when father charles sheldon was there. he was such an inspirational priest . his family's story was so heart breaking and thay were a family who gave so much for our country. ilike you i have always been pro life. i helped the local pro life center and father charles helped one of my friends in the 80's find salvation and happiness after her heatbreaking abortion of her baby. is father okay? are you still in contact with him? hope to hear from you. peggy steidel

Sure surprised to hear this. Have had prostate cancer for 20 years and part of my treatment involves periodic courses of an anti-androgen plus estrogen, the idea being that estrogen 'fools' the cancer into thinking that I am a woman. It is testosterone that I have to avoid. There are many thousands of men who follow this regimen. Glad that Ms. Notter doesn't represent anybody in THIS country.

Malcolm, unfortunately, Ms. Notter DOES represent the residents of Merrimack, but I hope that voters do not vote for her on Election Day. She does not have the intellectual capacity to critically understand the issues.