This commentary was written by Robert Fireovid of South Hero. Fireovid is a farmer and has held managerial positions in General Electric, Black and Decker, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The proposed constitutional amendment on abortion known as Proposal 5 or Article 22 goes to voters this fall.
I’m a former board member of the Family Planning Council of Western Massachusetts (now Tapestry Health). I have always supported and worked for women’s access to safe, humane and affordable abortion. An early abortion can be a humane way of sparing a woman and child from difficult, life-long consequences of a “mistake.” I celebrate living in a state where it’s legal for women to choose abortion. However, I am voting “no” on Prop 5/Article 22 because it is both unnecessary and highly problematic.
Vermont law, Act 47, passed in 2019, already ensures that women have access to abortions. Further, the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade has absolutely no impact on this right in Vermont. In other words, a woman’s right to an abortion is already protected in Vermont, and amending our constitution is entirely unnecessary.
Now I’m not in any way a religious person. However, I stand with the majority of people, women included and not just people of faith and not just people who are pro-life, who feel that abortions carried out in the third trimester of pregnancy are morally and medically wrong, unless there is an unusual complication affecting the life or health of the mother.
There’s nothing in Vermont’s Constitution that addresses taking a life — not capital punishment and not assisted suicide. These matters are handled through state laws. It’s one thing to legalize abortion through legislation, which Vermont has thankfully done. But our Constitution is not the place to confer the right to end the life of anyone, including an unborn child, at any time and for no reason (or any reason). The constitution is not the place for this, and even though I am adamantly pro-choice, I cannot support it.
For many people, being unnecessary and inappropriate are sufficient reasons enough to vote “no” on Article 22, but here’s another reason: The language of Proposal 5 (Article 22) is extremely nebulous. It does not specifically mention abortion, women or pregnancy, but rather speaks to a brand-new, vague concept of a right to “reproductive autonomy,” which would apply equally to men as well as women, and even to children. We don’t know what this new right to reproductive autonomy is, or what behavior it would entitle anyone to engage in. Well-funded special interest groups and their attorneys might exploit such an open-ended opportunity in court to the detriment of most citizens. I don’t want our state constitution amended so as to allow undefined social experimentation.