But it has to be at least…3x the size.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to go through and address your concerns to the best of my ability.

1. Private and charter schools are the reason for public education quality decline- First, charter schools are public schools. They are free to the students living in the district in which they are located. Limits to acceptance in a charter school is based on fit and available space. Charter schools are born out of the push to make public education better.

Private schools make public schools worse if the school district or town decides to provide education vouchers/school choice. These options allow parents to take their tax money out of the public school and supplement that with their own funds to send their kids wherever they send them. I am aware of this and would like to do some more thought and research around how to address this issue when accepting students into my school.

However, without vouchers, sending a child to private school actually improves the financial standing of a school district. If I send my child/children to a private school, my tax dollars stay with the public school. Now there’s the same amount of money divided among less children.

2. “Politically founded” - thank you for saying that because it’s brought more attention to how I put out information. For the record “progressive education” is “an educational movement that gives more value to experience than formal learning”, it has nothing to do with the progressive left. A democratic school indicates how the school is run, not a political ideology. The school is run by the students, teachers, parents, admins, and surrounding community voting on the decisions relating to how the school is run. It is not at all a political affiliation.

3. Advocate for public school change- I have, a lot. And, it sounds like you have found success in moving the ball forward, and I commend you and appreciate you for that. I, however, am obviously not as effective or strong as you are, and so I hit my head on the brick wall that is bureaucracy enough that I had to tap out. I am glad there are people like you out there doing the work, because all education is important. I had to find a different way to make change.

4. “Money Grab” - this will be started as a 501c3 non-profit. There is no money grab. In fact, I have a distinct feeling that this will cost me far more money that I ever draw as a paycheck in the future. Also, part of the reason it is a non-profit is so that I can get grant funding to drastically reduce or eliminate tuition for folks that typically cannot afford private school. I think the lack of diversity and accessibility of private education is a huge problem and one that I am deeply hoping to address.

I hope that clarifies some of my perspective. I am 97% sure it won’t change anything about how you are feeling about this post or the school, but that’s okay. I really do welcome the feedback because your pushback helps me reflect on my own position, so that I can hopefully be and do better.

I’m in, but only if we call it The Center for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too

That area has been industrial for a long time. Residential uses creeped up on it. Not saying I'm for or against.

> Why should a doctor have to be put on trial for doing what they think is best for their patient? Does a legal body have a better understanding of the medical issues involved?

At no point did I say that the doctor should have to defend it, or be put on trial. They shouldn't. But if anyone has to defend the decision to do something out of medical necessity, it should be, you know, the medical professional who said it was necessary?

>Can you explain to me why the situation would be different at 24 weeks as opposed to 18 weeks? The same processes and procedures are in place, regardless of time frame.

I asked a question about why we couldn't restrict abortions after 24 weeks if they were never done for elective reasons after 24 weeks. I'm not sure how 18 weeks is after 24 weeks. Last I knew, 18 weeks was before 24 weeks, so anything that happened at 18 weeks would not then be covered by restrictions after 24 weeks. Unless my math is way off.

>Does the reason why a fetus is not viable matter? Would the situation be any different if the cause was the genetic anomaly as the report stated? Is it okay to let the woman die if drugs are involved? Again, why does the time frame matter? Pregnancies can be lost at more than 24 weeks for many reasons, including natural ones.

Declaring the fetus not viable would be permitted. As long as it was truly not viable, and not like Iceland where they consider Down's syndrome a legitimate reason to terminate. Yes, the situation would be different if there was an actual genetic anomaly and not substance abuse. No, it's not OK to let a woman die because of drug use but literally nobody is making that argument except as a straw man. And again, that case was at 17 weeks, I specifically asked about a ban after 24 weeks.

>What you are missing is the idea that getting more people involved in a personal and highly traumatic decision - people who are less qualified to make that decision at that - will only make problems worse. Why do you think more restrictive states have higher fatalities?

Again, if a doctor says it's medically necessary, and that's all that's needed, who else is involved in that decision? And states that are more restrictive tend to have lower quality healthcare, and less access to healthcare, in general, that states that are less restrictive. Surely that could contribute to higher fatality rates, no? Or if they magically made abortion unrestricted up until the moment of birth, no questions asked, (as you want), would they suddenly not have higher fatality rates despite no other changes to healthcare quality and access?

I will ask the question one more time, since I still have not gotten an answer. If nobody is going to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks for elective reasons, why is it a problem to restrict abortion access to only non-elective reasons after 24 weeks?

Everything you've provided as a citation or example, thus far, would either be elective, didn't happen after 24 weeks, or is hypothetical.

Does nashua politics have deep pockets is the real question?

>Way too close to the Merrimack river as well.

Oh don't worry, Saint Gobain has gone out of their way to make sure that river will be toxic for the next 50,000,000 years

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am always open to feedback and gave yours some thought. You brought up California and I’ve only been there once on vacation for 2 weeks. Still, made sure that this plan did not originate there, and it decidedly had not. Still, lending credit to your idea, I thought carefully about where I might be able to bring this school back to. It turns out, I was born in NH, was raised in NH, got my undergrad and graduate degrees in NH, and have lived here the vast majority of my life. Now, I did spend a couple years in Kittery and about 10 months in upstate New York but that only makes up about 7% of my life so I feel like I can’t really bring it back to those places either. So then I thought you were suggesting I just relocate to California, but NH is my home, and my whole life is here so unfortunately the cons of moving far outweigh the pros. Thank you for giving me something to think about, I’m sorry I couldn’t find a way to better incorporate your suggestion.

Why should a doctor have to be put on trial for doing what they think is best for their patient? Does a legal body have a better understanding of the medical issues involved?

Can you explain to me why the situation would be different at 24 weeks as opposed to 18 weeks? The same processes and procedures are in place, regardless of time frame.

Does the reason why a fetus is not viable matter? Would the situation be any different if the cause was the genetic anomaly as the report stated? Is it okay to let the woman die if drugs are involved? Again, why does the time frame matter? Pregnancies can be lost at more than 24 weeks for many reasons, including natural ones.

What you are missing is the idea that getting more people involved in a personal and highly traumatic decision - people who are less qualified to make that decision at that - will only make problems worse. Why do you think more restrictive states have higher fatalities?

Definitely agreed there

There’s no reason for this to be allowed anywhere near residential

Our town has it for free-maybe check n see if yours does too?

> She has the abortion first. She is now required to defend the decision she and her doctor made while still dealing with the loss of her child.

Why? Why would she have to defend it? If it's "between the doctor and the patient" as you describe, wouldn't it be on the doctor to defend it, since they were the one who said it was necessary? The only case in which a woman would have to defend it if it was necessary is if a medical professional said it wasn't and she wanted it anyway, which is the definition of elective.

In the case you cited, it never once mentioned if it was medically necessary or not, or if she had consulted with a physician. If it's not medically necessary, that's elective, again.

>She must get approval for the abortion, which can take time and lead to unnecessary complications. As has happened.

Can you explain to me how that situation at 18 weeks would have be affected by restrictions after 24 weeks? I'm not sure I see the connection there. Even at 22 weeks, if your water breaks, you're probably going into labor. I know because it happened to my wife.

>She risks death for herself or the fetus. If the fetus dies and she lives, she still risks arrest. As has happened.

I'm sorry, are you equating losing a pregnancy due to methamphetamine use with a medically necessary abortion? And again, how would losing a pregnancy at 17 weeks be affected by restrictions affecting pregnancies past 24 weeks? I seem to be missing something here.

I think we're actually doing fine but that's just me.

NH is not in any risk of changing much. We're too out of the way.

Nope, fucking yuppies coming in and wanting to start new schools when NH is already has one of the top public school systems in the country. This mentality is the same that tries to shut down shooting ranges, cut down woods to build housing developments, and complains after their house is built that the other construction in town is “destroying the towns natural beauty”.

Thanks 🙂

Yeah , Nashua is bad enough without them adding that mess to essentially the middle of town. Way too close to the Merrimack river as well.

Bob Sherwood landscaping in Dover

Jeez talk about an overreaction lol

Perfect, thank you!

As long as his job is no way a police or security position. Cops that break the law should not be the ones enforcing the law.

The Wendy's on South Willow Street in Manchester, maybe all of them, also dispenses it through the cool, Deka (Dean Kemen) designed, soda dispenser.

Try to get screened stuff. I've gotten compost from an area farm which obviously took yard waste (leaves) for some of their "brown." I had bits of glass, pieces of children's toys, wire, etc mixed in. I felt like I had put trash into my garden.

The rest of my sentence answers that exact question, but I'll expand on that anyway:

Say a woman is forced to have an abortion to save her life. There are only a few ways this could go:

1. She has the abortion first. She is now required to defend the decision she and her doctor made while still dealing with the loss of her child. As has happened. And while the charges were eventually dropped under public outcry, the whole ordeal should never have happened in the first place, and the door remains open for it to happen again.

2. She must get approval for the abortion, which can take time and lead to unnecessary complications. As has happened.

3. She risks death for herself or the fetus. If the fetus dies and she lives, she still risks arrest. As has happened.

The point being, if you make it illegal after a set point, there must be a procedure to determine if a pregnancy is an acceptable candidate for termination, a procedure to determine if an unexpected termination was deliberate or not, and a punishment if a termination happens when it wasn't pre-approved. Forcing a grieving woman through this procedure with no fore-knowledge of whether or not she will be punished for something out of her control is the very antithesis of justice and humanity.

Edit: to expand further: This restriction also results in higher death rates for both women and infants, so if the goal is to save lives, it fails.

i’ve seen a lot of people recommending deet for repellent, and that is definitely the most effective, but try not to get it on your skin much, especially if it is a high percentage