Voters give GOP seven seats held by lawmakers who voted for abortion bills, Global Warming Solutions Act

By Guy Page

Make that seven Democratic/Progressive Vermont legislators highly ranked by Planned Parenthood whose seats were “flipped” by voters in favor of Republicans Nov. 3. And, all six House members also supported the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Vermont Daily reported Nov. 16 that Republicans picked up the seats of six 2019-2020 lawmakers who had been strongly endorsed by the Planned Parenthood of Vermont Action Fund: Sen. John Rodgers (D-Essex Orleans), and Reps. Robin Chesnut-Tangerman (P-Middletown Springs), Dave Potter (D-Rutland-2), Carl Demrow (D-Orange-Caledonia), House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-Grand Isle) and Chip Conquest (D-Newbury). All but Conquest, who did not seek re-election, lost to Republicans in the Nov. 4 general election.

All but Johnson were named PP of VT Action Fund “champions” due to their 100% rating, Johnson, who as Speaker did not vote on the key bills on which the ratings were based, nevertheless received an endorsement.

Guy Page

Upon further review, one more defeated Democratic lawmaker should be added to that list.

Although lacking a perfect 100% rating, Democrat Charen Fegard of Berkshire scored highly with 97%. She voted for both H.57, a state law providing unlimited access to abortion, and Prop 5, a proposed Constitutional amendment providing the same. She, too, was forced out of office by voters, who chose Republican Paul Martin in her place.

The two abortion bills weren’t the only controversial legislation in which the House members listed above voted in lockstep. Every House member listed above also voted to override Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of H.688, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Rodgers voted against H.688 in the Senate.

The recount requested by Johnson is scheduled to be held Nov. 20. Only two lawmakers with low PP ratings were replaced with pro-legal abortion candidates: Bob Bancroft of Westford, who was defeated, and Linda Myers of Essex Junction, who declined to run for re-election.

In the upcoming session, the Legislature is likely to vote again on Proposition 5, the proposed constitutional amendment granting “reproductive autonomy” to all Vermonters regardless of age and circumstances. It is premature to predict how the lawmakers who replaced the six PP-endorsed legislators will vote on abortion.

In the Senate, Rodgers lost to Republican Russ Ingalls. Ad advertisement for Ingalls in the Oct. 28 Barton Chronicleproclaimed, “I am Prolife.” Republican Joseph Parsons, who won the election for the seat held by Conquest, told Vermont Daily via email this week that “because the wording of the amendment is so broad, that in my view, it permits late term abortions for purely elective reasons, I see myself voting against the proposition.”

The electoral losses came after a 2019-2000 session in which abortion was the centerpiece of legislative action. Planned Parenthood ‘Champions’ were selected for complete loyalty to the organization’s position on H.57, a law requiring total access to abortion, and Prop 5, a proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine reproductive autonomy as a human right – regardless of circumstance and age.

“At a press conference held in the State House on Jan. 22, 2019, Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson, President Pro-Tempore of the Senate Tim Ashe and other Vermont legislators joined representatives of Planned Parenthood to declare that abortion would be the centerpiece of the 2019 legislative agenda,” Mary Hahn Beerworth, executive director of Vermont Right to Life, said today. “Johnson and Ashe made good on that promise by allowing enormous amounts of legislative committee time, state resources, public hearings and numerous hours of floor debate to dominate the session with passage of both H. 57 and Proposal 5.”

During contentious rollcalls on abortion legislation, Planned Parenthood publicly stated it was closely watching the votes of all legislators and would take appropriate action. It may be that the hundreds of pro-life Vermonters who attended public hearings, only to have the Legislature vote against their wishes, were doing the same.

“Public hearings on both pro-abortion issues filled the State House with hundreds of pro-life Vermonters who objected to the promotion of unlimited, unregulated abortion throughout pregnancy,” Beerworth said. “I am not disappointed that both Johnson and Ashe are now out of office.”

A Planned Parenthood press statement appearing in the Nov. 11 World newspaper did not address the losses, but instead focused on the election of pro-legal abortion candidates at the state level, including Gov. Phil Scott, Lt. Gov. Molly Gray, Attorney General TJ Donovan, Secretary of State Jim Condos, and Treasurer Beth Pearce.

Read more of Guy Page’s reports. Vermont Daily is sponsored by True North Media.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Jared C. Benedict

3 thoughts on “Voters give GOP seven seats held by lawmakers who voted for abortion bills, Global Warming Solutions Act

  1. Well done, Willem.
    It is the constant pressure from the voters , some of whom are victims of Seven Days and Vt Digger Censoring, that has caused this huge eruption of the voters’ actions.

    The voters will have the last word; and I believe there will be more on the way in two years.

  2. That’s great, maybe Vermonter’s are starting to wake up with all the foolishness
    coming out from under the ‘ Golden Doom ” …….Yes, doom !!

    Let’s start bringing Vermont back to Vermont’s lifestyle, not NY or CA…nonsense
    an agenda’s ……..

  3. GUY,
    Great piece of research.
    They fell on their swords. Serves them right.
    VTDigger and SevenDays have been censoring by not allowing comments, because they ran 10 to 1 against GWSA.
    They likely are in favor of rigging elections as well, such as with programmable voting machines.
    Anything for the CAUSE.

    Vermonters told legislators, with their votes: We, sucked-dry people, do not have the money for any implementation of the un-Vermont, inane GWSA folly.
    Vermont is tiny flea on and elephant’s rear

    EAN estimated in 2015, it would cost at least ONE BILLION PER YEAR to implement the foolish VT CEP, a holdover of disgraced Shumlin



    California: California has had a GWSA law since 2006, which resulted in:

    – Rapid increases of electric rates and gasoline prices
    – Huge DUCK-curves, due to midday solar electricity surges
    – Unwise/untimely/political/ideological shutdown of gas plants, which resulted in rolling blackouts, when, during a multi-day heat wave, solar disappearing in late-afternoon/early-evening (DURING PEAK HOURS), and not reappearing until mid-morning THE NEXT DAY, while all that time wind was minimal.
    – A host of rules, regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges, and penalties to enforce behavior modification programs

    With high levels of weather-dependent wind and solar, huge storage (multiple TWh) would be required.
    That storage would cost several trillion dollars, if materials could be found to build such capacity. It would need to cover:

    1) Single and multi-day heat waves over large areas
    2) Wind/solar lulls throughout the year, as frequently occur in New England
    3) Short-term and seasonal variations.

    The ADDITIONAL environmental impact on millions of acres with wind and solar systems, would be enormous all over the US.

    It would be much better to build millions of PASSIVHAUS-style buildings all over the US.
    They would need only 1/3 the energy of the current energy hogs.

    Vermont: For Vermont, the only thing that makes any sense is to stop “emulating” California.
    Vermont should immediately scrap GWSA, and concentrate on:

    1) Energy conservation
    2) Energy efficiency
    3) Building net-zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses and other buildings, by the thousands, each year. See Appendix
    4) Provide incentives to buy vehicles that get more than 35 mpg, EPA combined; the more above the limit, the greater the incentive.
    5) Charge annual fees, paid at time of registration, on existing and new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg, EPA combined; the more below the limit, the greater the fee.

    The above 4 items would save money for Vermonters, and make the state economy more competitive
    Most of the other energy measures are just expensively subsidized hogwash and behavior modifications that would not make one iota of difference regarding climate change.

Comments are closed.