I am upset about your Feb. 4 editorial, "Abortion counseling bill would help girls." It is written as if you have no knowledge that for over 30 years, high-quality abortion counseling has been provided for all women seeking an abortion at the major clinics in the state. It is another example of the Monitor's superficial and hastily drawn opinions.

Thirty years ago, I was employed as a health worker at the Feminist Health Center in Concord. My responsibilities included counseling each woman who was there to have an abortion. I was trained by the clinic to offer these services, which were designed to be educational, supportive and confidential. The clinic insisted that anyone considering an abortion have this counseling, and it still insists on it.

Your editorial starts with the premise of do no harm. If you believe this, why would you support a bill that intrudes into the lives of minors by codifying the counseling that has existed for decades? It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

The prime sponsor of this anti-choice, invasive legislation, Sen. Kathy Sgambati, acknowledged that the services offered all these years are excellent: There is no one complaining about them.

Asked why there would be a need for the state to get involved in these counseling sessions, Sgambati stated that she wanted to assure that these services would stay excellent. Since when does the state getting involved in the private sector assure excellence?

Sgambati has vast experience in designing programs and policies that aid people in situations where help is either non-existent, not accessible or not working. For the 10 years I was in the Legislature, Sgambati and I and hundreds of others worked together to help protect New Hampshire's most fragile populations. Not once did she present to the Legislature something that the state should spend time, energy and money on to keep a private program continuing that was already working well.

This bill would mandate what would be covered in a counseling session for adolescents who were considering abortion. That would mean that I, as a licensed mental health professional, would have to adhere to what the state would deem important to discuss with my client and keep a special form that would indicate I had done so. If this is not an intrusion into the most private of relationships, then what would you call it?

Are you saying the state knows better than a mental health professional what to talk about with a minor considering an abortion? Would the next legislation be that you support mandating codification for adoption counseling? Pregnancy counseling? Where would you or the sponsors of this bill draw the line?

I have many other objections to this bill, including penalties if the provider or clinic doesn't conform to the regulations, cost to the clinics to accommodate this additional licensed professional and the political nature and motivation for this bill.

The reason, however, that the New Hampshire Medical Society, mental health care professionals generally, most members of the reproductive rights coalition in the state, many legislators and hundreds of other individuals all oppose this bill hinge on government getting further involved in the lives of women who are minors - minors who are already able to access high-quality counseling.

I am concerned about where you get your information and how little time you put into such an important and highly emotionally charged issue of public policy. It is a serious disservice to your readers.

(Carol Moore lives in Concord.)

By CAROL MOORE

For the Monitor

By CAROL MOORE

For the Monitor