[T]he Senate on Thursday gave overwhelming approval to a proposed constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights in Vermont.
By a vote of 28-2, senators moved Proposal 5 forward for House consideration. The amendment, which is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States, eventually will go to Vermonters for a vote if it clears several more legislative hurdles.
Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden and chair of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, said the amendment is a “narrowly crafted proposal” that will “affirm the right to abortion as it currently exists in our state” in the event that federal law on the issue changes.
“Vermonters value the liberty and dignity to determine their own life course,” Lyons said.
The two votes against the proposal came from Sens. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, and James McNeil, R-Rutland. McNeil said the vote was “easy for me” due to his opposition to abortion in most instances.
“I do believe in women’s rights, but I also believe in the rights of a fetus – an unborn child,” McNeil said.
Proposal 5 and H.57, an abortion-rights bill that passed the House earlier this session, are reactions to political and judicial changes at the federal level including the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.
There’s concern that those changes could jeopardize the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973.
“We know that Roe v. Wade is tenuous,” Lyons said. “It’s not going to take long before the Supreme Court turns it over. So it’s important for us to have in place our own constitutional amendment that ensures, going forward, that we have reproductive liberty.”
Proposal 5 would amend the state constitution to say that “an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
In language supporting the amendment – but not part of the proposed constitutional change – Proposal 5 also says that “enshrining this right in the constitution is critical to ensuring equal protection and treatment under the law and upholding the right of all people to health, dignity, independence and freedom.”
In her introduction of Proposal 5 on the Senate floor, Lyons amplified those themes by tying abortion rights to economic well-being.
“Personal reproductive decisions implicate many freedoms of opportunity, including the opportunity to pursue education, to plan a family and to choose how to live one’s life,” she said. “Without the autonomy to decide for oneself about when to have a family, many women and many men become stuck in lifelong struggles for success.”
Though the abortion debate has spurred extensive, often-emotional testimony in the Statehouse this session, there was relatively little debate before the Senate vote.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, said he was supporting Proposal 5 because he has always supported Roe v. Wade. Benning recalled signing a resolution in support of the Supreme Court decision when he was a freshman senator.
“My rationale was quite simple – the belief that one has the right to privacy includes the right that we are supporting here … the decision for reproductive rights,” Benning said. “That’s not just abortion. It includes the question of whether or not I should be entitled to a vasectomy. It includes decisions about my family life and how I wish to proceed.”
Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex-Orleans, said he considered voting against Proposal 5 because the Senate last year approved gun legislation that he opposed. Rodgers contends those votes interfered with his constitutional rights.
“I will, however, remain consistent and continue to support all Vermonters’ constitutional rights and freedoms,” Rodgers said.
After the vote, several supporting senators gathered for a press conference that featured Annabelle Hill, a University of Vermont student who said she felt a “palpable shift” in 2016 – the year Donald Trump was elected president.
“Everyone I knew started making appointments for more permanent forms of birth control. They were scared then, and they are still scared today,” Hill said.
She said she attended the first Women’s March soon after. “But marching isn’t enough,” Hill said. “It is legislation like this that will make the difference.”
“The rights we’ve spent generations fighting for could disappear as soon as this year,” Gallagher said. “If Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the ability to access safe, legal abortion will be determined by the states.”
Despite the fanfare attending Thursday’s Senate vote, the process of amending the state Constitution takes years. A majority of the House must concur; then, the matter would be taken up by both bodies again in the 2021-2022 legislative biennium.
If both the Senate and the House approve the measure again, then the amendment would be submitted for voter approval. Proposal 5 currently contains an effective date of November 2022.
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said Thursday that the House will be taking up Proposal 5 and scheduling a public hearing on the matter. She sees the amendment and H.57 as companion initiatives and is pushing for both to move forward.
“The bill and the constitutional amendment go hand-in-hand to guarantee Vermonters’ access to reproductive liberty in statute and in the Constitution,” Johnson said. “I expect the House to begin work vetting the constitutional amendment promptly and look forward to seeing both of these bills cross the finish line this year.”
Asked about H.57, Lyons said her committee will “take a look at the bill and see what’s needed from our side of the Legislature.”
Vermont Right to Life Executive Director Mary Beerworth said her organization, which has opposed both H.57 and Proposal 5, will be active when the constitutional amendment moves into the House.
“It is to our advantage that the language is as sloppy as it is – it’s a Pandora’s box of problems,” Beerworth said. “The term ‘personal reproductive autonomy’ is not defined.”
She also noted that the word “abortion” was not included in the proposed amendment; Beerworth called it “the constitutional right that shall not be named.”
“I hope that we’ll have a little more fair process in the House and people will feel more comfortable raising questions and getting into definitions,” Beerworth said.
