This letter is by Carol Kauffman, president of the Vermont Family Alliance. She is a resident of Addison.

Vermont Family Alliance agrees with Senate Judiciary Chair Sears that legislative intent is clear and will play a prominent role in future court challenges, referencing the H89 legislative intent.

With Chair Sears’ focus on H.89 and S.37, he disregards the intent of Article 22 which should supersede current shield bills.

Article 22’s intent, “(b) The right to reproductive liberty is central to the exercise of personal autonomy and involves decisions people should be able to make free from compulsion of the State.”

Article 22 reproductive rights are not determined by state government or state standard of care guidelines such as protected in H.89 and S.37. Only federal legislation and courts can trump Article 22.

Act 47/H57  is in line with Article 22 intent, “This bill proposes to recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice and to prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy.”

Now S.37 is set to restrict Act 47/H57 with an amendment prohibiting a hormone pill able to reverse an abortion. Is this not government infringement on the fundamental right of the freedom of reproductive choice?

It may be a false security for the Vermont state government to personalize a shield bill to protect its reproductive overreach. Colorado has an upcoming lawsuit. Colorado healthcare clinic sues state over law banning use of hormone that reverses effects of abortion pill

H.89 and S.37 by exclusively protecting the one direction “gender-affirming” health care model and prohibiting so-called “conversion therapy” are government interference and loss of reproductive liberty choices,  because patients are denied information about a care model that could allow them to resolve their dysphoria without damaging their fertility and bodies.

Legislative Counsel Michele Childs needs time to research and understand what she is recommending to state legislators,  “So I have to read a little more about conversion therapy, but I’m trying to understand the connection between conversion therapy and reproductive liberty.” (see pdf)  That statement is disconcerting at its best.

Neither H.89 nor S.37 represents the November 2023 super majority vote, “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 achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Article 22 should compel each legislator to vote no on S.37 and H.89.

Carol Kauffman
Vermont Family Alliance