Edmunds: Distraction & the Invisible Agenda

Editor’s note: in her op-ed below, the author refers to “Sec. 1. under PURPOSE.” The entire first section of the section is published below. Emphasis added by editor.


(a) This proposal would amend the Constitution of the State of Vermont to ensure that every Vermonter is afforded personal reproductive liberty. The Constitution is our founding legal document stating the overarching values of our society. This amendment is in keeping with the values espoused by the current Vermont Constitution. Chapter I, Article 1 declares “That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights.” Chapter I, Article 7 states “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people.” The core value reflected in Article 7 is that all people should be afforded all the benefits and protections bestowed by the government, and that the government should not confer special advantages upon the privileged. This amendment would reassert the principles of equality and personal liberty reflected in Articles 1 and 7 and ensure that government does not create or perpetuate the legal, social, or economic inferiority of any class of people. This proposed constitutional amendment is not intended to limit the scope of rights and protections afforded by Article 7 or any other provision in the Vermont Constitution.

by Lynn Edmunds

If I wanted to overthrow the protections bestowed on you by your constitution, I would first need a polarizing issue like abortion to hide behind.

Next, I would use the political party in power to introduce their particular posture on the matter, knowing full well they could pass such a proposal.

It does not matter which side of an issue is used to create the division necessary for distracting
those about to lose their constitution, only that they cannot see beyond the tools of the agenda used to procure it.

Neither side can see what is happening when they are engaged in a blame game of drama and conflict against each other, yet the real prize will be taken equally from both sides in the end. This is because they do not realize how they are being played against each other for the liberty they both hold dear; however, the invisible enemy knows full well the real objective.

It’s difficult these days to know your enemy, especially when they are invisible to the naked eye. But should we assume just because Proposal 5, Article 22 was passed by the House and Senate all we must do now is vote yes or no without reading and understanding the language of the text?

Sec. 2. Article 22 of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution is added to read:

Article 22. [Personal reproductive liberty]
That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

​If you read the entire proposal before you vote, you will see it contains two great unknown quantities.

The first question is, what justifies a compelling State interest?

The second is found in (Sec. 1. under PURPOSE), who are the privileged, that government should not confer special advantages to?

I suspect the privileged would not be allowed equal rights under this amendment, whoever they are?

The food fight over abortion rights is only a distraction to divide us into two camps, knowing the majority in the legislature could pass a proposal in support of reproductive rights in Vermont.

But the language of this amendment is the real prize sought after no matter which side of abortion rights you are on, if we fail to recognize this, nothing will remain sacred!

Do you feel this amendment affords you more protection, or does it simply give government more options for your control?

It might be a good idea to read the proposal before you vote!

Categories: Commentary

7 replies »

  1. The creators of this amendment wanted to guarantee abortion rights to women, but didn’t want to appear to be granting special rights to only women. So they left the language ambiguous. But this creates the problem of guaranteeing rights to men, such as the right to opt out of fatherhood, and specifically, the ability to refuse to pay child support. This would be a reasonable interpretation of the amendment sans “state interest.” When asked, sponsors claim the amendment won’t allow men to opt out of child support, which both women and the state have interest in maintaining. The state interest clause is the loophole for making sure that women maintain their full power over birth and children, and the state won’t have to pay for it. It will be interesting to see how this conflicts with the indentured servitude amendment should they both pass.

    • ” and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Regardless of sponsor’s claims, or our interpretation of the above sentence, it will be the Vermont Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court that define the words. This amendment is dangerous and unnecessary. It will carry a great cost, in dollars and anguish to all Vermont’s citizens.
      It allows the ‘State’ to supplant individual freedoms enshrined in both the Vermont and US Constitutions.

    • Well said. It will also give them reproductive liberty to castrate your boy at 8 years old and give your daughter a mastectomy because she wants to play base ball.

      It was NOT a coincidence that the entire porn world switched to step father and daughter sex, step sister and brother, step mother and son. It is MASSIVE and on going. Why would anyone to that? What would be the consequences. Nobody wants to even discuss this.

      Consequences are exactly what was intended. Ruin the family. State take over. Get rid of God, 10 commandments. Don’t honor God or your parents. the all might state is now your God.

      Ain’t marxism a blast?

      You’d think someone would have to be crazy to suggest such evil things, but if you study history, and the Bible….this ain’t new. We’ve just got “smart phones” and the high propaganda priests of the Silicon valley pulling the strings. Complete idiots.

  2. The fact is we will not know exactly what this law means until it is litigated. I suspect that it may end up being broad enough to cover situations unforeseen by the people who drafted the law.

    The fact is that VT courts generally do not take the original intent into account in most cases.

  3. Of course they have no idea what it means!!!! That is by design.

    We aren’t even having a reasonable discussion about the matter, it is purposefully narrated and orchestrated to promote hate, division. AND what people aren’t getting is to have complete sexual control of your minor child.

    Christians should not be yelling murder! murder! They should be forgiving those who committed abortion, because 80% were lied to, well they were all lied to, but 80% believed the “science” they were given.

    If this bill passes, it will be the bill the completely makes abortions illegal, so pro-life people can relax.

    See, they have misnamed what is in the womb. By their definition of POC (product of conception) it also means the following.

    a) no more prenatal care, it’s only POC
    b) no more child support, as they didn’t create a child, just POC
    c) men will only be on the hook for an abortion, as its a POC (PPP is ecstatic)
    d) no more preemie baby care, because it’s only a POC

    There will be no discussion about this, there will be massive propaganda, MASSIVE.

    Who is the father of lies?

    This is the most sinister bill against, women, children, family, responsibility…..

    God works in mysterious ways.

    We could all easily agree on this topic, everyone, if the truth were revealed, if we had compassion by act and word for those with unplanned pregnancies (50% of the Vermont population). It would help if we had affordable housing…..but that won’t happen, too much money to be made keeping Vermonters on welfare and subsidized housing, along with programs that don’t foster marriage, but single parents.

    There is some sinister stuff going on, we need to be smarter than snakes and more innocent than doves. We need to lead with forgiveness. Can you imagine the burden? Forgiveness is ours, we only need to ask. Lord help us we know not what we are doing.

  4. To me the worst part of Article 22 is that it is an amendment to our state constitution. Once passed we will have to live with it since amending or removing an amendment is extremely difficult. This amendment is about late-term abortions. While our current law on abortion allows for late-term abortions it is claimed that none are currently being performed in Vermont. But, since it is only a law and can be changed if the 68% pro-choice Americans/Vermonters join with pro-lifers it could be changed – that worries abortionists. But if Article 22 passes, then late-term abortions will be enshrined in our constitution. That is why Article 22 was written as it is. It was designed to prevent the stoppage of late term abortions in the future. The wording of Article 22 was very carefully done to achieve this objective. And, the wording in the amendment is such that it prevents any limits at all on abortion in Vermont. It even prevents our legislators or the voters from changing it. There are many other problems with Article 22, enough so that careful readers of it should be forced to resort to more research before voting. But the above alone should be enough to vote NO on Article 22.