Two members of the Office of Legislative Counsel sat in with the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on Tuesday morning to discuss a bill that would impact abortion and sex change policies, especially as it pertains to the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade.
A young NYC woman and activist for pro-life causes, Savannah Craven, is making rounds across New England to speak about the topic of abortion. On Saturday she attended the Right to Life March, and on Monday evening she will speak at UVM.
The community most heavily in favor of Article 22 was Norwich in Windsor County, a wealthy bedroom town for Dartmouth College staff and professors and medical professionals at the nearby hospital. Voters there went about 12-1 in favor.
There are signs that the election asteroid impacted on Republican candidates, and pro-life Republicans most of all. And that the asteroid could well be named “Article 22.”
There is one word in this article that every Vermonter should shudder at, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. I’m calling it the legislative sleeper cell. The word is “unless.”
Vermont’s Article 22 is infinitely more open-ended in its possibilities than the proposed Michigan amendment. The unforeseen, and perhaps unintended, consequences of passing Vermont’s Article 22 cannot be overstated.
The NPR story describes the opening of a late-term abortion providing clinic following the passage of new laws by that state’s legislature expanding access to such abortions, even after the unborn child is able to survive outside the womb.
In order to counter misinformation by supporters of Proposal 5/Article 22, Vermonters for Good Government created a website page dedicated to published legal opinions and observations by Vermont attorneys who hold Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, pro-Proposal 5, and anti-Proposal 5 positions.
Pro-life and moderate pro-choice proponents who support abortion in instances in which the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of fetal “incompatible with life” diagnoses are supporting a mythical “medical necessity.”
Roe does not need to be “codified” in Vermont; abortion is legal here in Vermont and always will be. But Article 22 is not Roe; on the contrary, it is so extreme that it would contravene the very Roe decision it purports to protect.
The “right to choose” (as well as the “right to die”) — are thus completely at odds with our religious and halachic values. Legislation and court rulings that enshrine such rights concern us deeply on a societal level.
Late term abortions will be a fundamental liberty right under Article 22, and any attempt to burden that right will have to pass the “strict scrutiny” test. Legal scholars know how difficult a test that is.