Article 22 would prevent late-term abortion regulation, open door to gender assignment rights, former U.S. attorney says

By Guy Page

Former US Attorney Christina Nolan on October 26 told WVMT’s Morning Drive call-in radio program that if Article 22 passes on November 8, the State of Vermont will “lose the ability to regulate late term abortions” for the health of the mother. 

Nolan also said that “on its face, it may not be just about abortion. It may be about anything relating to reproductive rights like gender reassignment.”

Article 22 has been approved by two consecutive Vermont Legislatures. The final step for ratification into the Vermont Constitution is a simple majority ‘yes’ vote by statewide referendum. It is printed on all of the mailed ballots for the November 8 general election. 

Highlight: “Roe v Wade says in the second trimester [of pregnancy] you can regulate abortion in the name of the health of the mother. So, that means requiring physicians to have certain licenses, certain qualifications, requiring that abortions be performed in certain types of facilities that meet certain standards…. So, I think we need to vote NO on [Proposal 5/Article 22] because we don’t know if we’ll be able to regulate for the health of the woman going forward under the language of this amendment. We’re going to lose the ability to regulate late term abortions, which I don’t think we should give up, and we already have Roe v. Wade rights in Vermont, and they’re not going away.” 

Highlight: “Roe v Wade was about abortion in the first trimester. This constitutional amendment is about something entirely different. It talks about “reproductive autonomy.” That’s a different right. Nobody knows exactly what it is, but on its face we can be sure it’s abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, which I am not for. I am for early term abortion rights, but not late term. On its face, it has no age restrictions. So, it applies to people of all ages, including children…. And on its face, it may not be just about abortion. It may be about anything relating to reproductive rights like gender reassignment. These are things we should know. These are things voters should know. This should not be a black box for voters going into the election. So, if you’re pro choice and you believe in the Roe v Wade rights like me, I would vote NO on this amendment. Pro choice people should vote NO. You already have those abortion rights in Vermont.” 

The preceding quotes were excerpted from the interview by Vermonters for Good Government. Video of Nolan’s full comments on Proposal 5 from the WVMT interview can be seen here.

Categories: Life&Death

2 replies »

  1. Vermont’s Constitutional Double Whammy:

    Prop 5/Article 22 is so singular in its target and infinitely broad in scope, it may be a moot point, even if passed, because there is no reference to ‘severability’ (a clause in a given law providing that any portion of the law deemed to be unenforceable does not affect the validity of the rest of the law’s provisions).

    Does, for example, Prop 5/Article 22 give authority for any individual, regardless of age, to the personal reproductive autonomy central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course? Is gender reassignment a reproductive liberty?

    Vermont’s statutes are loaded with parental rights laws, especially legislation involving the termination of those rights. Essentially, I suspect, with the passage of Prop 5/Article 22, we are going to see a plethora of court cases in this regard. It’s no wonder, then, that the VT ACLU supports Prop 5/Article 22. Its members, and many attorneys for that matter, will surely be busy in the days to come.

  2. Prop 5/Article 22: We continue our discussions concerning the tension between a woman’s bodily integrity vs. the life of her developing child. This Prop 5/Article 22 initiative is an attempt to settle it with law…that is to impose one position, bodily integrity, over the other, the life of the developing child. Is it prudent to impose law on such an unsettled issue? We spent decades wrestling with property rights vs. slaves as property then tried to force a solution on those who hadn’t yet been convinced. It didn’t turn out well. If the citizens haven’t produced a settled consensus maybe it’s premature to intrude into this deliberative process with laws. When we try to force people to comply, don’t we undermine their law abiding civic cooperation? “Submission” is not a civic virtue. It’s the source of revolt. The advocates for a woman’s’ bodily integrity and those for the life of her developing child are not done with their attempts to convince each other. Wouldn’t intrusion be government overreach? This Prop 5/Article 22 initiative is a mistake.

Leave a Reply