[A] proposed constitutional amendment protecting “personal reproductive autonomy” is headed to the House floor.
Proposal 5 on Friday survived an attempt by three Republican lawmakers to keep the bill in the House Human Services Committee. Rep. Francis “Topper” McFaun, R-Barre Town, argued that the amendment’s language is too vague and will be subject to court interpretation.
“There are too many unintended consequences, in my mind, that come out of this,” McFaun said.
But a majority of the committee sided with Chair Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington, who said “decisions about reproduction are best made between an individual and their physician.”
Pugh also noted that the amendment eventually will go before voters if it clears through several more legislative hurdles.
“The ultimate outcome of this process is, this brings it to the people of Vermont,” Pugh said. “So if I am wrong, if I am in the minority of the people of Vermont, they will speak.”
Proposal 5 is following a similar path as H.57, a bill that would prohibit governmental entities from interfering with access to abortion. Both measures were proposed in response to concerns that the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973 may be imperiled by recent federal political and judicial changes.
H.57 received House approval in February but has not yet come up for a Senate vote. Proposal 5 passed the Senate earlier this month.
Proposal 5 would add the following language to the state Constitution: “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.”
Prior to Friday’s vote, the Human Services Committee heard testimony from Norman Smith, an Essex Junction attorney who also was speaking for the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare. Smith argued that Proposal 5’s failure to define “personal reproductive autonomy” could lead to human cloning and “designer babies.”
Smith also claimed that the word “autonomy” could be used to “undercut criminal prohibitions related to age of consent or sexual assault if a minor girl sought to become pregnant with the assistance of a man over the age of 18.”
Brynn Hare, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, disagreed with Smith’s assessment. She noted that the proposed constitutional amendment preserves a “compelling state interest” to infringe on reproductive autonomy if necessary.
“The state has a compelling interest in prohibiting sex with a minor, and Proposal 5 … is not going to somehow override our statutory rape clause,” Hare said.
Hare also disagreed with McFaun’s contention that Proposal 5 could be used to compel a hospital or other provider to offer abortion services upon request. The Constitution “acts as a check on state power” only, Hare said.
“It wouldn’t have an effect on a private institution, a medical facility, an individual,” she said.
McFaun’s motion to keep Proposal 5 in committee was supported by Rep. Carl Rosenquist, R-Georgia, and James Gregoire, R-Fairfield. Both lawmakers said they were concerned about the amendment’s potential effects on unborn children.
But eight other committee members said Proposal 5 should go to the House.
Rep. Marybeth Redmond, D-Essex, said she wouldn’t personally get an abortion due to her religious beliefs, but she supports Proposal 5.
“I am petrified with what is happening in this country around the rights of women,” Redmond said.
Rep. Jessica Brumsted, D-Shelburne, said “individuals and their physicians should have the right to make decisions about their health care in general.”
“I’m really supportive of bringing this to the people,” Brumsted said.
That vote, if it happens, is still several years away.
If a majority of House members concur with the proposed constitutional amendment, it will be subject to another vote in both the Senate and House in the 2021-2022 legislative biennium. Only then would the amendment be warned for a public vote.
Proposal 5 currently contains an effective date of November 2022.
