[A] proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to protect “personal reproductive liberty,” saw vehement opposition — and support — at a Wednesday public hearing at the Statehouse.
Much of the testimony was a repeat of arguments made at a February public hearing on H.57, a bill of the same intent.
While the bill would codify the reproductive freedom that already exists in Vermont, the amendment would set it in stone. If passed, it would make Vermont the first state to protect the right to abortion in its Constitution.
Democratic lawmakers introduced the proposal to protect a women’s access to safe and legal abortions following Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, which some observers said puts the landmark court decision, Roe v. Wade, at risk of being overturned.
Fifty people gave testimony Wednesday night, two minutes each, alternating between those for and against the amendment. Hundreds more who did not testify filled the chamber, most wearing either pink, in support of the proposal, or green, in opposition.
Sam Lednicky of Burlington said for her as a lawyer, the constitutional amendment is even more important than the bill that passed the House.
“In Vermont we have very little case law, so all us attorneys have to do when we’re deliberating cases is read the plain language of the Constitution and the plain language of statutes,” Lednicky said. “As a civil liberties advocate, I think it’s very important to have a more expansive Constitution to rely on when the federal Constitution isn’t.”
But the amendment’s opponents worried about the ways allowing late-term abortions could be a slippery slope to eugenics. Kathleen Lynch, a nurse in Burlington, said having a son with Down syndrome made that concern more acute for her. She said she feels considerable silent judgement from her coworkers for opting out of participating in abortion procedures.
“How are we supposed to reconcile me being expected to care for the most vulnerable premature infants in one room while a pre-born baby a few weeks younger is being dismembered in the adjacent suite?” Lynch said. “This happened to me last week.”
Many supporters of the change reminded the committee about the unsafe abortions that happened before Roe v. Wade, and that they fear a return to those days if the case is overturned.
“Reproductive rights are health care,” said Elizabeth Deutsch of Hinesburg. “This is not a philosophical discussion, or a religious one. This is about access to safe health care. The United States has the worst maternal death rate in the developed world … A woman must have the freedom to manage her own reproductive health care.”
Roland Laverty, a fifth-grader from Essex, spoke, like many other opponents of the bill, about the documentary “Unplanned.” He said watching an abortion procedure “creeped [him] out,” and made him glad he hadn’t been aborted himself.
“Not only do my teachers tell me to stand up for what I believe, they tell me the words you choose matter,” Roland said. “People call babies that are inside their moms fetuses, but they’re still babies.”
Michelle Fay of St. Johnsbury said the concern that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe as soon as this year made it more urgent for Vermont to take up the amendment.
“If the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned, the ability to access safe, legal abortion will be determined by the states,” Fay said. “Vermont currently has no law permanently protecting these rights. Given the threat to these rights at the federal level, it’s important to protect those rights here in Vermont.”
Kathleen Grange of Graniteville said that vasectomies and other types of sterilization were included alongside abortions under the “reproductive liberty” guaranteed in the amendment, which she said left her worried about what else the amendment could be construed to protect.
“I’ve read and reread the proposed language to be added to the Vermont Constitution, and I don’t know what it means.” Grange said. “I read an article the other day about a professor who tells his students … ‘you can’t be proven wrong if nobody can figure out what you mean.’ Man’s words are slippery, but an abortion is forever.”
Rep. Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington, chair of the Human Services committee, before the hearing adjourned reminded those attending that if the House passes the proposal, it still has to be approved by the House and Senate in the next biennium and then put to a vote in the general election in November 2022 before it is finalized.
“I want to thank each and every one of you that came and had the courage to speak in a public hearing,” Pugh said. “Please know that your comments will impact what comes next.”
