Rep. Gina Galfetti
I pulled up under the long shadow of the Golden Dome with some extra loud AC/DC music blaring “It’s a long way to the top if you wanna Rock n Roll.” I couldn’t help but laugh as I considered the parallel to what seemed like the insurmountable odds it would take to shoot down some of the dark legislation that looms on the horizon.
Working in the State House for the past few weeks has been a real education. I learned that many deals are brokered in hallways, and people trade alliances in exchange for signatures for co-sponsorship of bills.
While many of the bills one is asked to sign are seemingly innocent on the surface, one must be careful to think of the bigger implications that a signature has. For instance, will my signature give the other side an opportunity to say that something has tri-partisan support? Or will my constituents have a problem with its implementation? These are the pitfalls that a legislator must navigate while walking on the political tight rope.
You have to pick your hills to die on, and H.89 was no exception. I do not expect that all of my constituents will agree with my vote of yes on this bill. But if I live to fight another day in a battle of greater consequence, I know that my vote was the proper one. When you are a member of the “super minority,” you have to play your cards very carefully to gain any ground, and H. 89 was a prime example of knowing when to fold ‘em.
H 89. Is a bill that will extend protection to health care providers that perform, consult on, or otherwise advise or assist in abortion and gender affirming surgeries, from lawsuits brought by other States where such practices are illegal. I stand strong in the opinion that if the people of Vermont and the district I represent have spoken, as they did in the case of Article 22, my hands are pretty much tied. Article 22 had won its place in the Vermont Constitution, and at this point it was not up to me to vote no to protecting medical providers. Furthermore, I believe that the bill will have little actual effect, since the situations it protects against are very unlikely to arise in real life. And finally, some of the provisions of the bill may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution; we’ll let the courts determine that if the situation arises.
One must remember also that in the matter of legislative sausage making, nothing is ever cut and dried. H.89 had passed through its second reading the previous day after an amendment offered by Representative Anne Donahue was deemed to be non-germane. This simply means that the words she wanted added to the bill were not in line with the intent of the bill, and the amendment could not be considered. Representative Donahue had proposed that doctors who had conscientious objections to performing or participating in such medical treatments would also be protected by law from any sort of legal or retaliatory action.
Representative Donahue is one of the most capable legislators in the House and I am a great admirer of her decorum and knowledge, as well as her spine. She had sought to bring balance when one side’s interests were protected and others were left with their flanks exposed.
She had undertaken this task with a dual purpose. One: she wanted to bring balance to the law; and 2: she wanted to call attention to a bill she had submitted sessions ago that had been left to wither and die on the wall of the committee room. This again is the process if the Chair decides that a bill should not be taken up by the Committee—it hangs in limbo on the wall, potentially for eternity. By proposing the amendment to H. 89, perhaps she could draw attention to and interest in the bill she wrote that had stalled.
And that is exactly what I saw happen. For immediately after she proposed the amendment and it was shot down, I witnessed a fellow freshman legislator approach Representative Donahue and say that he would support a bill to the effect of her amendment if she put one in. Representative Donahue plainly informed him that she already had and the shock washed across his face as she told him it had been left behind and was mouldering on the wall of the Health Care Committee room.
I am still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to understanding how the system works in Montpelier, so it was with a bit of apprehension that I settled into seat 6 and awaited a roll call vote on H.89. This was not my first roll call, but it would be the first time I knew I was probably going to tick off some of my supporters. There are those who might duck out and hide in the restroom to avoid going on the record, but I am not a coward and in this job you can’t please everybody every time, so I sat up at attention as Representative Taylor Small called for a roll call, knowing that my vote would be recorded, and I would own it.
Soon enough the clerk called out “ Galfetti of Barre Town?” “Yes,” I answered, forever placing my name in the House Journal in favor of H.89. I stand behind this bill and am happy to explain my vote, but I make no apologies, since conviction and spines are in short supply in Montpelier.
This will not be the last time that I am confronted with making a difficult choice, but as Bon Scott had screamed in the morning while I drove my truck to “work” to sit beneath the hallowed dome, “It’s a long way to the top…”
This was not my hill to die on, and I look forward to gathering my strength for my charge against the UN Affordable Heat Act, and on that day I fully expect that I will go down with guns blazing, like the last scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid!
Gina Galfetti is a Representative for the Washington/Orange District and can be contacted at: 802.461.3520 or ggalfetti@leg.state.vt.us