Vermont’s state Constitution is more difficult than most to amend, requiring majority support from two consecutive cohorts of state legislators, then approval by the voting population. That’s why it’s “more meaningful” when amendments like this year’s pass, Gov. Phil Scott said Tuesday.
Town-by-town results for the measure, known as Proposal 5 or Article 22, revealed a broad base of support for the state constitutional amendment, even in conservative areas.
Abortion was on the ballot in this week’s midterm elections and the results were emphatic: Voters, even in conservative states, want abortion rights over abortion bans.
Article 22, also known as Proposal 5, will guarantee the right to “personal reproductive autonomy.” Poll after poll has shown strong support in Vermont for abortion rights generally as well as for the ballot initiative in question.
The Vermont Women’s Health Center, founded 50 years ago, was the first place in the state to provide legal, elective abortion. It survived a ballot referendum, a fire and an onslaught of out-of-state protesters.
Language in Article 22 leaves the door open for future restrictions, legal experts say. But it’s unclear how that language might be put to the test.
The city has erupted in controversy after a volunteer committee fought over abortion rights. Members say there’s more to the story.
Congressional contests aside, the priciest campaign this year is the one over Proposal 5, also known as Article 22. The spending blitz continues apace.
Can one person kill another person because that second person’s existence is going to be a burden to the first person for the next nine or fewer months?
I don’t believe that the statement that Article 22 will force health care providers to perform abortions is truthful. I believe that this is a fear tactic.
The part about “compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means” refers to a specific legal standard known as the “strict scrutiny test.” This standard provides the strongest possible protection by limiting the government’s ability to infringe on a given right.
The result of legislatures restricting access to reproductive health care, including abortion, is a large overall increase in maternal morbidity and mortality.
The University of New Hampshire survey also asked Vermonters about gun laws, safe injection sites and trust in local law enforcement.
Why would pro-choice Vermonters even consider opening this legal can of worms when by voting no on Proposal 5 their rights would be totally secure under existing Vermont law?
