This commentary is by Judy E. Stern, a resident of Clarendon.
In November, Vermonters will vote on whether to add the Reproductive Liberty Amendment to the state Constitution. This amendment, which has already passed the legislative hurdles in the state’s House and Senate, will enshrine reproductive rights, including the right to contraception, plan a family, seek or avoid sterilization, and obtain an abortion.
In the face of the likely overturning of the Supreme Court’s 50-year precedent in Roe v. Wade, passing this amendment has become essential.
Abortion has often been identified with choice, but the focus on choice of elective termination, important though it is, can miss the fact that many abortive procedures in gynecology and obstetrics are essential aspects of health care.
Medical procedures are needed for a pregnancy that is miscarrying and requires evacuation of the uterus to avoid infection. They are needed for those with ectopic pregnancies in which a conceptus has implanted outside the womb, where it can rupture and result in death. A wanted pregnancy can miscarry late in the pregnancy, or the fluid sac around the fetus can break, resulting in infection if not dealt with quickly.
In geographic locations where abortion is illegal, many of these procedures become difficult to obtain or completely unavailable. This can result in a health care system in which physicians feel they have to double-check the law and second-guess their decisions during an emergency before providing lifesaving care.
Even where there are abortion exceptions in such regions, these exceptions must be specifically justified and may require documentation that is not readily available. People can become seriously ill or die as a result.
Laws that outlaw abortion can also have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult to obtain treatment for infertility, treatment that enables those who cannot conceive on their own to conceive a desired pregnancy. In my professional career, I was director of an in vitro fertilization laboratory and I am well aware that IVF would be difficult to perform and potentially illegal in a state where restrictive abortion laws are in place.
Laws enacted, such as the recent Oklahoma law that states that “pregnancy … begins at fertilization,” make it highly likely that patients desiring pregnancy will lose ready access to IVF, or that the IVF treatment they have access to will be curtailed and less successful as a result of the restrictive law.
Concerns that the practice of IVF in those states could result in fines, imprisonment or other punishment are currently being voiced by IVF clinics in at-risk parts of the country.
What I’ve been saying is that, while many people think primarily about abortion when they think of reproductive freedom, this view is myopic. Reproductive freedom relates not only to abortion services. It also relates to a diverse array of other medical treatments that both protect the lives and health of patients and encourage creation of families.
That is what is meant when we say that reproductive liberty protects and saves lives.
In the face of the loss of protections afforded by Roe, essential medical care must be protected. Although the law in Vermont currently permits abortion and related procedures, and IVF can be comfortably performed in the state, we cannot be sure that a changing legislature and changing times will keep these protections in place.
The proposed amendment to Vermont’s Constitution will add a layer of protection that reinforces assurances that currently available access to care will be maintained.
Vermont must pass the Reproductive Liberty Amendment and protect the health of patients in this state. We must vote yes in November.
