By Brent Addleman | The Center Square
Vermont voters will decide in November whether women will maintain the right to retain their body autonomy when it comes to reproductive rights, Gov. Phil Scott said.
Gov. Phil Scott
Prop 5 will appear on the general election ballot, the governor announced in a Facebook post, and if ratified by voters the measure would enshrine reproductive liberty in the state’s Constitution.
“Vermont has a long tradition of supporting a woman’s right to choose,” Scott wrote in the social media post about abortion. “These decisions are deeply personal and belong between a woman and her health care provider, free from government interference.”
Scott said Vermont “solidified the right to choose in law” and now the people will have the chance to “further protect that right in our Constitution.”
If ratified by voters, abortion would remain legal within the state.
“It is more important than ever to make sure the women in our state have the right to make their own decisions about their health, bodies, and their futures,” Scott said. “In light of the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, I thank members of the General Assembly and other advocates for their foresight and work to bring this question to the November ballot.”
Prop 5, if enacted, would amend the Constitution to read, “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieves by the least restrictive means.”
Yes…the choice is clear, a woman’s bodily integrity vs the death of a pre-natal human. In the 1860’s the choice was the sanctity of our property rights vs “humans?” being our property. Momentous decision facing us…that first time, at the catastrophic cost of blood we came down against humans being property and opted to limit property rights…where will we come down this time? …bodily integrity or dead people? Do we have sufficient settled consensus to even consider legislation about this issue? No matter how it comes out we are going to require submission by one side or the other. Legislation requiring submission from an impassioned minority (the losers) never turns out well.
Gov Scott:
Question: “Protected” as in the same manner the 2nd Amendment issues are protected by the opposing warriors, such as Baruth, LaLond and others to include you at times?
Which is it, Gov; where will the dart land?
This comedian……..is banned…the truth is tough for hear..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhWlzOrsSUU&t=4s
Coming from the man who invited the CCP into our State House February 2019 for some backslapping and money deals. The man who supports 10% Joe Biden, the most corrupted criminal treasonous SOB ever to darken our country. One day, Phil will be facing judgment for his dirty deeds – hopefully soon.
Vermont’s Governor shows his true leftist colors, let’s see the state is in high debt, and taxes
retirees are moving, new college grads are leaving for greener pastures, and now Vermont’s
Governor believes killing off the unborn ” future ” Vermonter’s is a great idea, yeah sure, and
the ” My Body ” BS line, is just that, BS.
If it’s your body, maybe try using your brain and not just your ” Pleasure Zone ” and then kill
your offspring as a whoops…………. So for the mindless, lookup ” Contraceptive “, it’s easier
than having your offspring killed and your body mutilated.
But then again, you bought the line ” My Body “………………. idiots !!
>>>”If it’s your body, maybe try using your brain and not just your ”Pleasure Zone.”<<<
So…what about that 12 year old child who was raped? Think SHE used her "pleasure zone"?
and sadly what are they teaching 12 year olds in school? To experiment with their sexuality?
The gold standard used to be, (it still is but nobody says it anymore) don’t have sex out of wedlock. Sex is for marriage.
Suddenly STD’s would plummet, unwanted pregnancies would plummet, abortions would plummet, families would be stronger, fewer divorces, fewer broken families……
But somehow the Vermont school system things Drag Queen Story hour is the road to the promised land, go figure.
Oh…that was part of the 10 commandments, foundational material of Western Civilization that we took out of our schools.
Yeah, cause teaching people not to steal, cheat, envy what others have is controversial.
It’s doubtful that the governor can even define what a woman is let alone talking about protecting her rights. He can’t even comprehend that a human life begins at conception.
“If ratified by voters, abortion would remain legal within the state.”
Ahh….. and if voters do not ratify ? Oh, abortion would remain legal within the state.
The entire reason for this constitutional amendment is to make is much more difficult to overturn the misguided law. Those who demand unlimited access to abortion know full well that their position will eventually be challenged by the general public when it wakes up to the absolutism of the law. This amendment is the result of that fear.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, except for mutilated babies who can’t speak up. This Article has no place in our Vermont Constitution. There is no right to murder babies. Can’t we not elect this guy again? What are the differences between Phil Scott and a progressive? There are none.
What are the differences between the VTGOP and Vermont Dems……?
At least you know where one side stands….the other is a complete poser.
The “compelling state interest” standard is the highest standard you can set to direct the court to protect “reproductive autonomy.” The language is designed to PREVENT the court from finding an interest in unborn human life, even until the moment of birth. Your right to free speech does not have such a high standard…..
governor phil scott, he preaches tolerance. OH, we can do better than this. Yet he advocates for the murder, a violent ripping apart of innocent, defenseless beings. Beings that are brought into this world by at least one loving human being whose vessel is borrowed to carry this innocent miracle of existence to it’s fruition as a living human being. How can anyone with a clear conscious destroy a helpless being? What if this being were you?
And if it were your 10 year old daughter who was violently raped an impregnated you would feel the same way? Highly unlikely! Or how about your wife, or sister, who the doctors told her if she carried then her own life would be in jeapordy?
“Vermont voters will decide in November whether women will maintain the right to retain their body autonomy when it comes to reproductive rights, Gov. Phil Scott said.” He must have missed biology class. The baby is another body, 100%. If someone bothers my body, does the governor then say I should have a right to kill them? Like for example when he ordered everyone to where masks that did nothing but bother people’s bodies? Phil, please try thinking before speaking.
This ruling if passed will totally ban all abortions of any type in the United States.
Then there will be a big party for life.
You can’t on one hand say, “we need to save the life of this preborn baby” by spending massive money in intensive care delivery room.
And then in the next room, “this is just a bunch of fetal tissue”.
There is no science, there is no common sense and there certainly is no morality with this proposition put in front of Vermonters. Show the sonogram to a three-year-old and they can tell you what it is. It belies all common sense.
Eventually it will ban ALL abortions across the nation because it goes too far AND gets to the heart of the matter. What is in a pregnant woman’s womb?
The pro-life movement will have Vermont to thank….God works in mysterious ways…..
The Constitution protects the smallest minority, even really short people who weigh less than 10 lbs……
the mob will eventually lose, they are going against God, Science and Nature. Don’t follow …moloch, that is so yesterdays news..
Neil,
Is this the line in Prop 5 which will cause the ban?
“shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieves by the least restrictive means.”
So who has autonomy, the mom or the state? Just like PAS, the state is empowered to determine what lives are worth protecting and what are not. I am glad the framers understood the danger of the state being supreme. Imagine the Second Amendment having such a clause. No surprise coming from the far left and it shows their colors completely. They don’t give a rip about the rights of the baby or the mom. It is all about the state being supreme in all things.
Does the state not have a “compelling” interest in preventing the murder of an infant at birth. Obviously, the governor and the majority of legislatures have no interest. Imagine that. They would rather protect their voters than a totally defenseless human.
Not really.
It’s by what their claim to have these “rights”…..they are only looking at one side of the coin, with rights, come responsibility. This ruling will definitely be challenged, that’s the first thing. And then we’ll get into the definition of what is within a pregnant woman’s womb.
Some people are so used to manipulating and getting their cake and eating it, they want it both ways and that doesn’t cut it.
ie
Example #1
a) It’s just a clump of cells.
b) If so, then men can’t be, nor can the state be responsible for supporting and raising this “clump of cells”
Example #2
a) In hospital room number 203 they are spending 1/2 million dollars to save a preborn baby
b) In hospital room number 666 they are aborting a clump of cells, that is older than the preborn baby in room 203.
What you bring up about this bill is truly horrifying, it says the state has control of people’s literal lives. This bill is so truly messed up, it will bring about fundamental change across the United States. There is no country that even considers this reasonable, this is how protected our propaganda bubble is. Sad state of affairs.