“The Reproductive Liberty Amendment would guarantee ALL people in Vermont the right to become pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term; choose abortion; choose or refuse sterilization; and to choose or refuse contraception.”

“People on both sides of the debate over abortion know that “reproductive autonomy” is publicly understood to be a way of referring to an unlimited abortion license, that is, elective abortion permitted through the entire nine months of gestation and pregnancy up to and including the process of birth.”

The lack of clarity and definition in Proposal 5 leaves the words ‘personal reproductive autonomy’ open to interpretation.  Taken broadly, these words can encompass…polygamy, pedophilia, child pornography, rape, infanticide, abortion through nine months by minors without parental notification, human trafficking, and prostitution.  It is the duty of the legislative body to write proposals in a way that does not force the people of Vermont to trust that a judge agrees with the people’s intended interpretation of ‘personal reproductive autonomy.”

Vermont medical examiners view the loss of a fetus after 20 week gestation as a death and they will issue a birth and death certificate to the parents.  In addition, Vermont also has specific regulations around the burial of an unborn child after 20 weeks gestation. (link) However, the language in Article 22, if adopted, would prevent ANY protections for an unborn baby until birth.  At just 22 weeks gestation, a fetus can feel pain and is capable of living independently of his or her mother.  Science and technology have advanced to the point where babies can routinely be saved earlier and earlier in pregnancy.  Article 22 ignores the science and medical advances.

“Everyone knows that the fetus is not nothing,” former Representative Cynthia Browning (Democrat) of Arlington, Vermont.  Browning, who is pro-choice, voted against the proposed amendment on the House floor.

Reproductive rights are not limited to abortion.

According to Planned Parenthood of Vermont’s spokesperson, Proposal 5 “will open up a range of different questions for future lawmakers.....for years to come.”

Vermont law currently prevents, in statute, any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy and allows no rights or protections for an unborn child until birth.

Proposal 5 is a wedge between parent and child that creates risks for a life-time. Most urgently, Proposal 5 and those who support it are, willingly or unwittingly, supporting harm to parental legal rights, parent-child relationships, and child safety. The generational harm will be devastating to a healthy Vermont.

The phrase “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child” represented communities unified to build schools, serve on school boards, carpool to activities, fundraise, provide after school care, and even chauffeur kids home when temporarily forgotten by parents. Back in its conception, parents didn't fear exclusion from the village.  If Proposal 5 is approved by the voters of Vermont, parents will be excluded from overseeing their minor children regarding personal reproductive rights.  Proposal 5 will transfer parental rights to a world of unknown adult influencers hidden in the world of confidentiality.     Proposal 5 violates parental rights and responsibilities as described and upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1998, “Parental rights and responsibilities are defined as those ‘rights and responsibilities related to a child's physical living arrangements, parent child contact, education, medical and dental care, religion, travel, and any other matter involving a child's welfare and upbringing.’  Id. §  664(1). Rights and responsibilities are comprised of ‘physical responsibility,’ and ‘legal responsibility,’ defined as ‘the rights and responsibilities to determine and control various matters affecting a child's welfare...includ[ing] but... not limited to education, medical and dental care, religion and travel arrangements.’  Id. §  664(1)(A).”

Despite the strong pro-choice sentiment in Vermont, more than half support establishing health and safety regulations for abortion clinics (54%), requiring a doctor or clinic to inform women about fetal development and alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure (55%), and requiring a physician or clinic to notify a parent or legal guardian before performing an abortion on a minor (53%), and agree that it should be a crime in Vermont for someone to hurt or kill an unborn child in the womb, either

“(The term) isn’t actually defined, and is far broader that just those categories – open to very broad future interpretation in ways not imagined or intended currently,” Donahue said in a statement to CNN.

This proposal takes away the voice of the Vermonters.  The people of Vermont deserve to know what they are voting for and to have a voice in the future of their state government.  As such, I urge you to reject Proposal 5.  The lack of clarity and definition in Proposal 5 leaves the words ‘personal reproductive autonomy’ open to interpretation.  Taken broadly, these words can encompass…polygamy, pedophilia, child pornography, rape, infanticide, abortion through nine months by minors without parental notification, human trafficking, and prostitution.  It is the duty of the legislative body to write proposals in a way that does not force the people of Vermont to trust that a judge agrees with the people’s intended interpretation of ‘personal reproductive autonomy.”