Cathy Dodge: What kind of hard-hearted system are we creating with Proposal 5?

This letter is by Cathy Dodge, of West Danville.

As this series draws to a close, I want to touch on one topic that remains glaringly omitted so far; the white elephant around the entire conversation of the pros and cons of Article 22. That is the subject of children’s rights.

In abortion discussions we talk about our children and babies as if they were some kind of commodity bought and sold on the local market. It strikes me that we have become more in touch with our self interests and out of touch with our humanity and quality of life. We are dehumanizing children under our care, by not recognizing their humanity in utero — whether ours or someone else’s, and trying to present them by whatever our latest fad lifestyle wants to make them. Seems like we might have some God-egos we need to deal with. Or do we want to live in a bankrupt culture of poverty and victimization? We are talking about our next generations, who are personalities and individuals with their own inalienable rights. When do their rights “kick in” and override everyone else’s interests?

What kind of government are we forming when we incentivize women to have babies, genetically test them to see if they fit into the lifestyles we want, and if not we’ll just get rid of them? Have we created a model for our child-bearing women so that they’re encouraged to be promiscuous and enjoy unrestricted sexual lifestyles, and who cares whether we get pregnant or not — we can just abort them? Or whether we have babies and they don’t turn out to be exactly what we want so that’s another reason to kill them, or change their sex, or appeal to the welfare system for support, or move the father out of the picture? Or avoiding responsibility and maintaining population control are the results? What kind of hard-hearted women and their support systems are we creating? When a woman says “my body, my choice” she is literally saying she takes no responsibility for any repercussions to herself or her baby caused by her actions.

We are living under a double standard when our governor is concerned about incentivizing young professionals and inviting more to move into the state. Seems counterproductive if we’re going to encourage abortion to remove babies from the up-and-coming generations so we have to go somewhere else to find them.

Proposal 5/Article 22 is deliberately broad, and also extends to protect minor children’s decisions to have abortions or obtain gender hormone change therapies without parental consent. Without a clear and workable constitutional amendment for consideration by voters, Proposal 5/Article 22 as drafted is extremist and suspect, and does not belong in the Vermont State Constitution. — John Klar, farmer, attorney and Republican candidate for the Vermont House

In no way, has this series been all inclusive. It has been intended to show how many problems are blatantly obvious without a deep dive. This proposed change to the Vermont Constitution is a terribly written and thoughtless law, directed at opportunities for governmental overreach in so many of our public sectors. If we, as the people voting in November, let this happen, we will have given up Vermont’s uniqueness and resilience as the people of this State.

Image courtesy of Public domain

6 thoughts on “Cathy Dodge: What kind of hard-hearted system are we creating with Proposal 5?

  1. This right here is why that lovely young Hispanic Republican woman just won down in Texas.

    She ran on that and won.
    People are disgusted with the depravity of todays Democrats.
    They are voting to take out the trash.

  2. Just more of the leftist pushing that life is worthless.. and they wonder where
    the mass killers get their sadistic view of life of others… it’s the moral decline
    by design of the hate filled left. No gender no value

  3. As someone who struggled along with my spouse to conceive, I cannot tell you how my heart aches over the possibility of this constitutional amendment passing. We ultimately adopted a wonderful son whose mother chose to carry to term instead of aborting. Her generosity and caring for her son led to the adoption which has been a blessing for all involved.

    This amendment is pure evil because it indirectly allows for the murder of an unwanted and unloved newborn without consequence. If you vote for this amendment, then you agree with this. Simple.

Comments are closed.