Two Vermont prosecutors among 85 pledging to disregard SCOTUS abortion decision

Wikimedia Commons/drsuparna

LIFE AFTER ROE?: The fate of the unborn across the nation has changed after the U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn the 1973 abortion decision Roe v. Wade. However, some progressive prosecutors and other attorneys across the country have signed their name to a document saying they will not enforce state restrictions on abortion.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s momentous Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision striking down Roe v. Wade, two of Vermont’s government attorneys have joined 83 colleagues from 29 states in declaring they will not prosecute individuals who provide, support or seek abortions.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court struck down the landmark Roe abortion case that had legalized abortion in the United States for the past 50 years. That same day, a nationwide prosecutors network called Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) released a two-page letter declaring that the group’s members will refuse to enforce anti-abortion laws in states.

Two government attorneys from Vermont signed their names to the group’s announcement: Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George, and Deputy Attorney General Joshua Diamond.

“We stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions. As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions,” the group’s letter states.

The prosecutors and other attorneys argue that abortions will “immediately or soon be banned, and potentially criminalized, in at least half of our nation’s states” as a result of the court’s decision, and that “enforcing abortion bans runs counter to the obligations and interests we are sworn to uphold.”

Unlike most other states, Friday’s high court decision will have no effect on abortion in Vermont. The Legislature in 2019 passed Act 47 that protects unlimited abortion for all nine months of pregnancy. That is now the defining abortion law for the Green Mountain State. As a result, prosecutors in Vermont will not have criminal cases to prosecute relating to abortion.

According to the Fair and Just Prosecution website, the group “brings together elected local prosecutors as part of a network of leaders committed to promoting a justice system grounded in fairness, equity, compassion, and fiscal responsibility.”

The group explains why its mission focuses on prosecutors.

“Local prosecutors exercise tremendous control over who will come into the justice system, what charges they will face, and the trajectory of their case,” FJP states. ” Local elected prosecutors, including District Attorneys and State’s Attorneys, are on the front lines of change in our nation’s criminal justice system.”

Diamond released a statement from the Vermont Attorney General’s Office Friday reaffirming the office’s commitment to protecting abortion:

“Despite the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, access to safe and legal abortion remains protected in Vermont and many states across the country,” it states. “Abortion care is health care. The Attorney General’s Office will stand with Vermonters in doing everything it can to protect reproductive freedom. The Office will explore every opportunity to join multistate actions, amicus briefs, and lawsuits while also supporting the passage of Vermont’s Reproductive Liberty Amendment, Article 22.”

In anticipation of the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Vermont Legislature passed Proposal 5 to allow voters to decide this November if the state should create a constitutional right to “reproductive autonomy.” While Vermont currently protects abortions for all nine months of pregnancy, the proposal would enshrine reproductive freedom in the state constitution.

On Sunday, state Rep. Becca White, D-Hartford, tweeted about the ability to have continuous access to abortion in Vermont despite the Supreme Court decision.

new Suffolk University/USA Today poll suggests that Friday’s Supreme Court decision is unlikely to energize U.S. voters come the midterm elections this fall.

“Notably, 76.6 percent of voters said a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would not change the likelihood of them participating in the midterm elections,” Breitbart reported.

Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.

Images courtesy of Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs/Public Domain and Wikimedia Commons/drsuparna

20 thoughts on “Two Vermont prosecutors among 85 pledging to disregard SCOTUS abortion decision

  1. Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) is funded , in part , by George Soros

    That being said , we KNOW where these two persecutors ( intentional) are coming from

    Their advisory council sounds like it fell outta the Obama administration.

    ALL social justice warriors

  2. I think the whole thing will eventually play out as a non event, for the most part. Supreme Court DID NOT BAN ABORTION. Wake up liberals. The Supreme Court blessed the Mississippi law! They DID NOT ban abortion in MS!….they just have the rule that you can’t have one after 15 weeks…which is EXACTLY same as almost all of LIBERAL EUROPE law.. I will predict that when all the State legislatures meet on their own State law…the VAST MAJORITY will put in place the 15 week rule. SO ABORTION WILL NOT BE BANNED. But the few States that DO 100% ban it – will suffer HUGE long term consequences. Their state will be boycotted acroiss the board. Companies WILL leave. people will leave. protests everywhere…companies will not relocate there. At that point -MONEY TALKS….budgets will get hit hard…and in the end, they will not ban it 100%. Logic and finances will prevail.

  3. Could all of this unrest over the Roe v. Wade being overturned be contributed to what might be termed “Constitutional ignorance”? Further, could it be that most of the dissidents of this decision come from generations that haven’t been taught civics and how things are supposed to work at the federal level? They don’t seem to understand that the function of SCOTUS is to interpret laws to examine whether or not they comply with the U.S. Constitution. Overturning Roe v. Wade does NOT make abortion illegal at the federal level but rather returns that issue to the voters of the individual states to decide whether that state will allow it and under what circumstances. This action has actually removed power from the federal government and returned it to to the voters of the states (We The People) where it belongs. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is abortion, commonly referred to as “a woman’s right to choose”, even mentioned. The only place that one will find “women’s rights” being specifically addressed in the document is the 19th Amendment in which women were granted the right to vote. Abortion is not a constitutional right. No matter which side of the debate one stands on, it must be realized that SCOTUS has performed its constitutional duty on this issue. Maybe a refresher course in basic civics should be required before being able to vote!

  4. Just another example of our two tiered justice system. The first being a lenient and compassionate model for liberals and progressives and the other more harsh and severe for conservatives.

  5. All that the court did is put the choice in the hands of the citizens who elect their legislatures. If they don’t like the stand or votes that their representation presents, get rid of them at the poles or keep them but it is the voters decision now.

  6. This comes as no surprise. Most of these prosecutors don’t prosecute most crimes anyway, so why should they change their ways. Progressive Liberalism will be the downfall of our country unless we try to drain the swamp at the poles.

  7. Vermont has already passed an extreme pro abortion law. The feds merely have said states must decide on abortions..The prosecutors are posturing for the left..

  8. Remember when you go to the polls in August to vote for Lt. Governor….

    So called Republican Senator Joe Benning, who headed a bunch of RINOS to denounce President Trump, has voted for this twice and stated during a debate on Saturday that he is voting for it again.

    Greg Thayer is running in the primary against Jersey Joe…

    Greg is totally opposed to the slaughter of The unborn.

    Greg has great credentials and is a Vermonter that has been crossing the state exposing critical race theory that is being taught in our schools.

    Please…let’s elect conservatives to office.

  9. If our state prosecutors are unwilling to follow federal laws of their choosing, simply put, they are breaking the law. They should be fired, prosecuted, or likely both.

  10. “Abortion care is health care..”

    How sick is this.
    Abortion is murdering your own baby, this is murder not healthcare.
    How healthy is it for the developing human being to be murdered?

    This is going to be the issue that divides this nation into blue states and red states where one values human life and the other side sees it as “healthcare” to murder your own child.
    And it can’t come fast enough.
    These people are evil and sick beyond description.
    What they are “protecting” is the abortion INDUSTRY that donates heavily to the Democrat Party.
    Nancy’s face said it all.. the loss she feared: OF MONEY

  11. Good to know – From this point forward, I only intend to follow the laws I like. Think I’ll go shopping in NH to pick up a few dozen things Vermont doesn’t like.

  12. Re: “We stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions.”

    But is deciding to abort an unborn child a mere ‘personal medical decision’, when two humans, the mother, and the unborn child within her, are affected? And what gives these prosecutors the authority to make these decisions? Do they accept any accountability?

    So, our society can’t afford the ‘resources’ to consider the life of an unborn child? Is that it? Not enough money to consider the well-being of an unborn human being? No consideration for individual circumstances? Just do it, and forget about it? When Mississippi chose to secede from the union over slavery, it did so because ‘the institution of slavery (was) the greatest material interest of the world’. So, now we consider unborn children the mere property of the mother – it’s a financial decision?

    Why is there a legal way to kill an unborn baby and an illegal way? Why is abortion not considered murder, when killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide? Suppose the murdered pregnant woman was considering an abortion at the time she was murdered?

    Why isn’t a ‘Guardian ad Litem’ appointed when the taking of an unborn child’s life is considered? What’s the difference between denying these rights to an unborn child or to a slave?

    These are complex and difficult questions. And now we have these two ‘omnipotent moral busybodies’ to act on our behalf, not just to make systemic budgetary decisions, not just to act as judge and jury, but to be God almighty.

    There’s no hubris there… is there?

  13. Vermont law allows abortions during the entire term of pregnancy, except the last day when delivery is scheduled to take place.

    That law likely is the most extreme in the world.

    In the entire world, there are only 8 countries that have longer abortion periods than 3 months.

    Regarding a very-late-term abortion, I assume, a physician would first have to kill the fetus, while in the womb, and then remove it, even by C-section, if needed.

    Because, if the fetus were still alive after removal, and then killed, it would be infanticide, which likely would involve messy legal issues.

  14. So if these prosecutors don’t follow the law of the land then what good are they, I guess
    the hyperbole about abortions being ” illegal ” per the SCOTUS ruling is pure BS, all that
    was stated, it goes back to the ” STATES” to control and that’s where it belongs, apparently
    these two liberal hacks need to read the Constitution, let me know where it states abortion.

    And as we all know Vermont is still a killing field, nothing has changed, just ask the loser of
    a Governor, when will Vermont wake up?

    Hopefully, the younger generation will stand up to this nonsense as they are the ones that will
    be willing and able to carry on their generation’s offspring, not all these grey-haired dried-up old
    hags that are protesting, the seventies are gone.

    To all the pro-abortion crowd, just think if your ” mother ” had aborted you, you are a pack
    of fools, abortion isn’t birth control, it’s taking a life, if you don’t want to get pregnant then
    keep your pants on !!

    • The adage is to hold an aspirin between your knees.
      Is that even taught anymore?
      Just asking.

  15. Oh, brother. Such pathetic virtue signalling. Bucking to become progressive superstars.

  16. How brave. Vt had codified it. I can’t see how either one would even get into a situation in which they’d have to ignore the ruling. Idiots.

  17. Ummm, I don’t believe SCOTUS made any decision regarding abortion. Their ruling simply places the legality back to the states where it belongs. These two prosecutors are tilting at windmills.

Comments are closed.