Letter: Article 22 was the last straw for me

This letter is by Lynn Kuralt, a candidate for state representative in the Windham-4 district.

We all have a story to tell about why we believe what we do about abortion — it either unites us or divides us and sometimes even motivates us. When Prop5/Article 22 was released, this was the last straw for me. I cannot stick my head in the sand and be silent about what this ambiguous and weakly worded change to our Vermont Constitution may allow. Unborn children cannot speak for themselves, therefore I want to give them a voice.

I was already deeply disturbed to learn that current Vermont law embraces unrestricted abortion after viability and until moment of birth (Act 47). It’s unbelievable that we allow this while we proudly and legally protect 215 plants and animals. Additionally, I read about Maryland’s Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022 (MD Senate Bill 669) which was, thankfully, defeated. However, it didn’t stop there as now Michigan is considering a similar bill along with California Gov. Newsom (see CA Bill AB2223) which he signed on Sept. 27. This shockingly prevents coroners from investigating deaths “related to or following known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion,” including deaths of babies during the “perinatal” period — which is up to 28 days after birth — if the death is “due to causes that occurred in utero.” What does that mean? Infanticide? If we vote to include Article 22 in our state constitution will something like this come to Vermont’s doorstep?

Consider this: Article 22 is without the words “women,” “abortion” or “pregnancy.” Also, it includes no reference to age, no conscience clauses, no restrictions whatsoever. Would it be interpreted to include more than the assumed “women’s reproductive rights”? How about “men’s reproductive rights”? Common sense tells me the wording is so ambiguous that it can and will be spun to endorse whatever sexual trend becomes popular — and it won’t be the people who interpret it, it will be lawyers and our courts.

What if this strangely and vaguely worded article gets into our constitution — will it then become a “right” so that our taxes would pay for a person’s “reproductive autonomy,” whatever it may be?

Let’s send this one back to the Legislature. The words just don’t add up to V-e-r-m-o-n-t.

Lynn Kuralt
Candidate for VT Representative
Windham 4 District
Lynn4Windham4.com

Image courtesy of Public domain
Spread the love

7 thoughts on “Letter: Article 22 was the last straw for me

  1. And as a republican voter in an activist fighting to keep real conservative republicans in office I am fought on a daily basis because I denounce people the claim to be republicans selling the republican party out on a daily basis.

    Who in there right mind is supporting senator Joe Benning to become lieutenant governor?

    Joe Benning is one of the most evil people I have ever seen running in Vermont politics calling himself a republican while he supports governor Phil Scott and Joe Biden along with the rest of the rinos that are involved in our state government calling themselves republicans.

    Benning says there are Scott republicans and then there are republicans…

    I’m not sure what a Scott republican is but when you look around the state of Vermont I know I don’t want to become one of them..

    We have far too many people running for offices of republican in the state of Vermont supporting article 22 and the destruction of the family unit in our state..

    The following are people who do not align with republican principles:

    Phil Scott
    Joe Benning
    Butch Shaw
    Dave Weeks
    Patty McCoy

    And I’m sure there are a whole host of others across the state of Vermont that would be happy to sell out the republican party as is being evidenced on a daily basis by promoting erica Redic as a republican in their announcements.

    This deception has definitely affected the dots I’m going to place on my ballot next to the names in the republican party.

    I’m not going to vote for someone claiming to be a republican willing to sell out my moral values…

    Not only has Joe Benning voted for prop 5 twice he has stated he will be voting for article 22 and that means if it wins it’s placed in the constitution of the state of Vermont… It’s pretty sad what’s happening to our beautiful state…

    Vermonters are being sold out by the deceit of some in the republican party..

    If you search Joe Benning you can see many articles where he refers to republicans as white supremacists and insurrectionists and racists.

    It is narrative like his that has promoted patriots across America who want to keep American values to be referred to as domestic terrorists.

    Who in their right mind is going to vote for a political candidate who is willing to destroy them for his own personal financial gain and arise to power?

    There are choices we can make to send a message to the republican party in the state of Vermont that we will not accept violations of the rules of our party nor will we elect people who don’t align with our values.

    I’m encouraging everyone to write in Anya Tynio… For congress since she was the only person in the primary that was truly a republican according to party rules

    I’m also encouraging everyone to write in Gregory Thayer of Rutland Vermont for lieutenant governor

    We can salvage the state by doing the right thing in spite of the direction our party is trying to take us.

    Please visit http://www.GregoryThayer.com

    Everyone should spread the word among friends and family, in the community, and on social media.

    Ballot MUST be filled out EXACTLY:

    “Gregory M. Thayer of Rutland”

  2. so, who here among the commenters has provided for the needs of a child not of their social, biological or other in- group?

    Diapers to age of potty training– $4,000
    Immunizations to age five (preventing a 50% chance of death)– $6,000
    Child care to age five– $25,000
    Meals to age 18– $24,000
    Child protective services to deal with abuse– $25,000
    Private education (can’t trust public schools!) $128,000

  3. At some point I hope people will begin to understand the political ploy of legislative titles. The Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). And now – The Reproductive Liberty Amendment – ‘… unless there is a compelling State interest’.

    Healthcare is no more affordable today as a result of the ACA. Inflation is actually exacerbated by the IRA. And there is nothing about Reproductive Liberty specified in Article 22.

    Vote NO on Article 22.

  4. Vermonter’s real Vermonters, don’t let this boondoggle pass, article 22 is just that,
    a boondoggle, and ambiguous at best, more nonsense and certainly doesn’t need to
    be in Vermont’s Constitution, just as this nonsense isn’t in our nation’s Constitution!

    They have an agenda, don’t be part of it, Vote No on article 22 !!!

  5. The elephant in the room: “Unborn children cannot speak for themselves, therefore I want to give them a voice.”

    Indeed, Article 22 says nothing about this point. In fact, Article 22 says nothing except for the fact that the final analysis of any reproductive argument will be based on ‘a compelling State interest’.

    The question for Vermonters to consider is, should an unborn child have constitutional protection? And if so, when does that protection take effect, and what limitations are there to that protection?

    Article 22 abdicates our responsibility to come to decision on this matter.

    Again, Vote NO on Article 22.

    • Yes Jay, It is Reproductive Tyranny, as clear as the words on the proposal. Reproductive decisions will be limited to what is within the “State interest.” Are the people asleep, or do the people in Vermont understand the deception that is all through Act 22? Soon we will know.

      • Constitutional rights are for people, not government. If article 22 passes, the government, meaning the courts will also have rights. The state or the government should not have any say in the right that isn’t even outlined in article 22. Like the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights, the right professed is “to keep and bear arms”. The government has always tried to have a compelling interest in this amendment and they did. Legislatures all over the country passed unconstitutional laws restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. While the 2nd amendment specifically states who and what the right is, this is not so in article 22. Numerous court cases will expend millions of dollars trying to figure out what right does anyone have under article 22. If the state has a compelling interest, there is no right until the courts say what that right is or who has a right. Does an unborn baby have rights to be left alone until birth? Vote no on article 22, no one knows what it means or what rights it confers and the state has no business in defining by politics, what that right will be.

Comments are closed.