by Guy Page
Recent testimony before a State House committee suggests a proposed constitutional “right to reproductive autonomy” includes a man’s right to sue to prevent an abortion, a new video by Vermonters for Good Government reveals.
“The potential unintended consequences of this amendment for Vermonters haven’t been fully considered by the legislature, and further public input is clearly warranted before legislators vote.” Vermonters for Good Government spokesperson Annisa Lamberton said.
“Legislators beware! Don’t wake up the day after the election only to find you’ve made a horrible mistake – inventing a right you never intended to create and suffering electoral consequences from voters on both the left and the right as a result,” said Executive Director Matthew Strong.
REP. CARL ROSENQUIST: “It would seem like they would be in conflict if the man wanted the child to be born and not be aborted and the woman said, “No, we’re going to abort the child.” That would seem like a conflict.”
INDI SCHOENHERR (ACLU): We believe it is the woman’s right to do what they want with their body. I think that’s the stance we would take on that. The reproductive autonomy of the gestational parent would come first.
ROSENQUIST: “Who says they come first?”
Vermonters are being told Proposal 5, the so-called Reproductive Liberty Amendment, will preserve a woman’s right to choose, following the guides of Roe v. Wade. What the vague language Proposal 5 does, however, is give the father of an unborn child a “right to personal autonomy” equal to that of the woman, testimony suggests.
Prop. 5 reads as follows: “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.”
This right applies to everyone equally, men and women, young and old. How this would work in practice was explained during a recent hearing. A spokesperson from the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, in testimony before the House Human Services Committee, was asked what happens when the man’s right to reproductive autonomy conflicts with that of the woman under Proposal 5. The full exchange is as follows:
REP CARL ROSENQUIST (R-GEORGIA): Can you explain to me what a biological man’s right to personal reproductive autonomy looks like, and what the ACLU would do to defend that right, and what happens when a man’s right to personal reproductive autonomy conflicts with a woman’s right to personal reproductive autonomy regarding the same unborn child? Whose right prevails, and under what legal, constitutional basis under Proposal 5?
INDI SCHOENHERR (ACLU): … Each case is unique, and the facts are decided— The case is, is— Each case is unique as I’m saying, and the facts of those cases vary, so I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment or, like, come up with a theoretical example of where— where these reproductive liberties would be in conflict.
REP ROSENQUIST: It would seem like they would be in conflict if the man wanted the child to be born and not be aborted and the woman said, “No, we’re going to abort the child.” That would seem like a conflict.
INDI SCHOENHERR (ACLU): We believe it is the woman’s right to do what they want with their body. I think that’s the stance we would take on that. The reproductive autonomy of the gestational parent would come first.
REP ROSENQUIST: Who says they come first? [The language of Proposal 5 does not clearly specify a hierarchy of rights. Under Proposal 5 there is no distinction of priority of “an individual’s right.”]
REP PUGH (COMMITTEE CHAIR): My understanding is that when rights are in conflict, we go to court, and that is the role of the courts to decide, or a judge. So, what I’m asking – would I be correct in responding to Representative Rosenquist to say, what you are presenting is a conflict of rights. And where historically this country has gone when there are conflicts of rights is we go to court, and we have confidence in the courts’ decisions. Would I be correct in that response?
INDI SCHOENHERR (ACLU): Yes. That is the correct response. Yes.
Vermonters for Good Government have turned this exchange into an abbreviated video, to highlight the potential unintended outcome of Proposal 5.
Prop 5 doesn’t give a woman the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. If challenged, it gives that decision – on a case-by-case basis — to the courts, and the language of Proposal 5 gives the man an equally protected right of personal reproductive autonomy to the woman.
Proposal 5 elevates the personal reproductive rights of the father to the same plane as that of the mother. And, where those rights conflict, a judge or a jury will decide whether the mother will carry the baby to term or not.
You can watch the new Vermonters for Good Government video here:
https://youtu.be/eFPH2ojknxA
You can watch the full exchange on YouTube here (12:29 – 16:07): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByeURWyyq5E
Vermonters for Good Government, a 501c4, was formed by individuals across the political spectrum to oppose the inclusion of Article 22/Proposal 5 in the state constitution. For more information, contact either: Spokesperson Annisa Lamberton: LearnMore@VermontersForGoodGovernment.org, or Executive Director Matthew Strong: Matthew@VermontersForGoodGovernment.org.
Source material for this article includes a Vermonters for Good Government press release.