Letter: Absurdity of Prop 5 should give us pause

This letter is by V. Curtis Hunter, of Bolton.

Prop 5 is framing abortion as the exercise of reproductive freedoms and rights, but is the absurdity here not giving you pause?

The legislative majority has declared through Prop 5 that this constitutional amendment is needed because Vermonters’ reproductive rights are at risk. Since when are reproductive rights at risk in Vermont? The fact is they are not. The right to reproduce is not limited and the amendment will not change that fact.

To quote the amendment: “ensure that every Vermonter is afforded personal reproductive liberty”; and those reproductive rights “shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest.”

So, the convoluted logic behind Prop 5 is this: We will have protected our endangered rights to reproduce by ensuring that the result of sexual liberty can be exterminated if we have second thoughts. Is that about right?

In another current bill, The Vermont legislative majority has considered “delayed purchase” as a needed restriction on the exercise of our Second Amendment rights. The thinking here by the legislature is that the law may protect against an impulse to shoot someone. If that same thinking is applied to Prop 5’s prohibition on infringement to harm another person or create an unwanted outcome, then should Prop 5 have a provision for a “waiting period” before we have a sexual encounter that may result in pregnancy?

How about a law requiring a 20-year waiting period before we exercise our right to abort our mistakes — you know, just to see if he/she/it might have turned out to be a person we didn’t want dead?

Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan voiced he disagrees with a federal court decision upholding a state’s right to ban second trimester ‘dismemberment’ abortions. Our elected AG says it is “a plain affront to Roe v. Wade – depriving women of basic healthcare rights.” (Donovan said this on Twitter August 19.) This view appears to be an exercise in ruling Vermonters rather than representing us.

Mr. Donovan, like our legislative leadership, is out of touch with Vermonters as the majority of us favor limits to late term abortion. Many of us support a woman’s right to choose. But abortion to the moment of birth? This is like arguing for the right to eat but extending that to eating each other. Does the logic of this — the affront to humanity — not give you pause? Is this what we want?

The freedom to reproduce? Is that really the issue? We are asked to agree that, once the freedom to reproduce has been exercised, the elimination of the result is to be enshrined in our Constitution. The abolitionists went to great lengths to get us to change our minds about slaves being people, not property. Aren’t human reproductive results people? Don’t human lives, once started, also deserve the protections accorded the rest of us? This initiative to change our Constitution is bad law. Let’s vote no.

V. Curtis Hunter
Bolton, Vt.

Image courtesy of Public domain
Spread the love

5 thoughts on “Letter: Absurdity of Prop 5 should give us pause

  1. This amendment needs to be shouted down, loud and clear right up until November 8, 2022. Can you imagine what kind of sinister mind could dismember the body of a baby inside the whom and what type of person would allow it to proceed? I think the AG and all of the deranged supporters of this atrocity should be forced to witness such a horrible event. In this world with numerous preventative means to avoid pregnancy, this cabal of righteous progressives and disillusioned democrats with a few RINOs thrown in would allow and support a slaughter to correct an inconvenient pregnancy in the name of reproductive rights. This is more of the Orwellian new speak from elitists who have no shame or conscience. This is birth control by abortion. Shame on these people. They should look at themselves in the mirror before they trash our beautiful Vermont Constitution.

  2. “…depriving women of basic healthcare rights.”
    Trying to recast the murder of a child at birth as a basic health care right is a clear indication of the deprivation of our government. This is merely evil; call it what it is.

    • Evil is exactly what it is! It can be likened to the practice of sacrificing children “in the fire” to the pagan god Baal as described in the Old testament. God decried the practice through the prophet Jeremiah saying, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (Jer 15:9).

      The Golden Dome has become like one of those “high places”. Deeming the murder of God’s most precious creations a constitutional right goes well beyond any acceptable standard of morality. It should be vigorously opposed by everyone who has a sense of common decency. Everyone who is opposed to this travesty should examine their representatives’ voting record and then vote accordingly in the next elections.

  3. This language is so broad and so limitless and so undefined that it is a liberal lawyer’s dream. Every “right” imaginable can be shoehorned into lawsuits if it passes. Radical leftists will ask the courts to help them invent all sorts of “rights” in areas we cannot imagine. Look carefully at the language. The word “abortion” is not used. Neither are there underage restrictions. This language extends to MUCH much more than just abortions. Either our legislators who voted yes for this atrocity are massively ignorant, or pernicious and depraved beyond comprehension. Read the language carefully. If your eight-or nine-year-old male child wants to transition to female, he can do so under this language and you, as a parent, can’t stop him. Adults who are not the child’s parents can influence and groom these children. Planed Parenthood and the ACLU were among the groups who helped write this language. That tells you all you need to know about the intent behind it. It means much, much more than just abortion up to the moment of birth. It can open the door to an argument for infanticide. Read the language! Show me the restrictions that would prevent this from occurring. California has already taken the first step in that direction. Why not Vermont? In November of 2022, you must vote this proposed Amendment down. God help Vermont if we do not. We will have cursed ourselves.

Comments are closed.