House lawmakers passed a controversial abortion bill out of committee Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after 58 members of the public testified for and against the legislation. The bill now goes to the House Judiciary Committee.
The House Committee on Human Services passed H.57, which enshrines a woman’s right to an abortion in state law, by a vote of 8-3 after two hours of debate.
The panel approved two changes to H.57 in response to 58 public comments made Wednesday evening. Twenty-eight speakers favored the bill; 30 opposed it.
Rep. Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, asked that the committee remove a sentence that declared “a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.”
The measure passed by a vote of 6-5 to remove the statement after a debate about how far the bill should go in codifying the definition of personhood under Vermont law.
Vice chair Rep. Sandy Haas, P-Rochester, proposed a substitute amendment stating that an unborn fetus does not have independent rights under Vermont “criminal law.” The substitute amendment failed.
A proposal by Rep. Jessica Brumsted, D-Shelburne to clarify that the bill would not circumvent a 2003 congressional act that outlawed the “partial birth abortion” procedure—a form of late term pregnancy abortion—passed unanimously.
Lawmakers said they proposed the changes after hearing from Vermonters over the past three weeks.
The bill, which would make abortion a fundamental right under state law, was introduced with broad support in the Statehouse last month.
Proponents have said the bill defends a woman’s right to choose in the event the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade is overturned. Critics said the legislation’s language would allow people to have late term and “partial-birth” abortions.
The bill as amended passed out of committee with only three dissenting voices: ranking member Rep. Francis McFaun, R-Barre Town; Rep. James Gregoire, R-Fairfield; and Rep. Carl Rosenquist, R-St. Albans.
Before the final vote, committee chair Rep. Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington, stressed that the legislation does nothing more than codify what has been the law in Vermont for the past 40 years.
“I know that people disagree with the fundamental aspects of this bill, but as we have crafted this bill, it does not change what is currently the policy, the legal context, in Vermont,” Pugh said. “It does not craft any new law.”
Rosenquist said it was for that very reason he would vote against the measure.
“That is the same reason that many of us feel it is unnecessary because you have just stated it doesn’t change anything,” he said.
