Updated at 6:17 p.m.
The Vermont House on Tuesday approved Proposal 5, sending the question of whether to amend the state Constitution to guarantee sexual and reproductive freedoms to voters come November. The vote was 107-41.
Prop 5 would amend the state constitution to guarantee Vermonters access to abortion, contraceptives and other reproductive care. Having overcome the final legislative hurdle in a yearslong process, the final call now goes to voters in November. It’s expected to pass, with 70% of Vermonters supporting abortion access, according to Pew Research Center.
Proponents of the amendment say it’s an essential step as state legislatures around the country pass laws to roll back abortion access, and the future of federal abortion case precedent lies in the hands of a majority-conservative U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment would make it nearly impossible to roll back access in Vermont down the line, should the political tides of the state legislature change.
Rep. Jessica Brumsted, D-Shelburne, said that, thanks to state and federal legal precedent, she has been able to make her own reproductive choices throughout her life.
“But now, I realize I had taken all of this for granted,” she said on the floor Tuesday. “Could it be taken away?”
With the state of national politics being what it is, she argued, yes.
“I could travel across state lines and have different laws to follow,” she said. “It actually scares me to think of my daughter and my three sons, who travel quite a bit, might not have the same rights that I grew up with — that we would actually go backwards.”
Tuesday’s vote was years in the making. Alongside Act 47 (or H. 57), a bill that statutorily guaranteed abortion access in the state, Vermont lawmakers first introduced Prop 5 in 2019. To amend Vermont’s state constitution is, by design, a multiyear process, and Tuesday’s vote was the final legislative step before the question goes to the ballot. Prior to Act 47, Vermont law was silent on the issue of abortion, reverting instead to the legal precedent established in the state Supreme Court’s 1972 Beecham v. Leahy decision.
In a phone call with VTDigger Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, said that Prop 5 is part of lawmakers’ “short- and long-term plan on how we could protect the rights that we currently have.”
And while Vermont’s current state leaders are by and large in favor of preserving abortion access, Krowinski said, “I don’t think we should be taking anything for granted, especially in the time that we are in right now.”
Opponents, on the other hand, say a constitutional amendment’s permanency is the exact reason such a step should not be taken, and that the issue should instead be handled with legislation. What if, in the future, Vermonters disagree with the language? Many opponents of the measure also are inherently opposed to abortion.
Before voting no on the proposal, Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, said in a Tuesday floor speech that her issue with Prop 5 was that “it takes a deeply ethical dilemma that divides good people … and it chooses the most absolute extreme of one side of a debate” and enshrines it in the state constitution. In retrospect, she said, legislators’ perspectives on the issue may change.
“Good people have, in the past, made grievous mistakes and violated human rights, whether through imperialism or slavery or eugenics,” she said. “Perspectives of time make us recognize the evil, but in their time, they were in accord with their society’s values.”
Lawmakers on Tuesday were not, in fact, making the final call on Prop 5, but were deciding whether to put the question to Vermont voters in November. Before voting yes, Rep. Felisha Leffler, R-Enosburgh, said that Tuesday’s vote was “not whether you agree with someone else’s choice to have an abortion.”
“My vote today is two-fold in purpose. One is to affirm that liberty from one’s government is a value of Vermonters. This is a foundation of not just our state, but our nation,” she said. “My vote is also to provide my constituents and all Vermonters with the ability to directly vote on this matter in November. Choice and liberty are foundational in governance, morality and individuality.”
Outside of the Legislature, pro-abortion access organizations applauded the outcome. James Lyall, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, in a Tuesday statement, emphasized the timing of the vote, during what he called “an all-out assault on abortion rights at the state and federal levels.”
“(W)e can safeguard abortion rights in our state while sending a clear message, that the American people overwhelmingly support the right of individuals to make reproductive healthcare decisions for themselves — including decisions about contraception, abortion, prenatal care, and childbirth — and will not tolerate having this right taken away,” Lyall said.
Planned Parenthood Vermont Action Fund Vice President of Public Affairs Lucy Leriche said in an afternoon statement that, “It is critical that we ensure that the rights we rely on today won’t change tomorrow.”
Should the proposal prevail in November, Vermont would be the first state to make such an amendment to its state constitution. Leriche said in her Tuesday statement that she hopes the move would “pave the way for other states to do the same.”
With the proposal on its way to the ballot, now begins campaign season. Already on Saturday, the Vermont for Reproductive Liberty Campaign hosted a series of campaign events to rally support for Prop 5.
Mary Hahn Beerworth, executive director of the Vermont Right to Life Committee, told VTDigger in an interview that she was not surprised by Tuesday’s vote, but that Act 47 and Prop 5 have served as a “wake-up call” to the anti-abortion access base. Now, hers and other anti-abortion access groups will begin organizing, campaigning and door-knocking.
“We’re not afraid of the fight at all. In fact, we relish in it,” she said. “We’re getting a tremendous amount of response in our office. … We’re signing up new members. We’re getting in money.”
As for a legal challenge to the proposal, though, she said she “(doesn’t) think there’s a path forward.”
Correction: An earlier version of the photo captions incorrectly referred to Proposal 5.
