Lawmakers take offensive against abortion alternatives

Seek between Sen. Ruth Hardy and UVM student about proposed action against CPCs at 33:20.

By Guy Page

Vermont lawmakers are taking a four-pronged offensive against people who seek to offer alternatives to abortion in post-Article 22 Vermont. 

Restricting speech on crisis pregnancy centers – H254 would “prohibit crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) from disseminating any advertising about the services or proposed services at the center if the management of the center knows or, by the exercise of reasonable care, ought to know it is untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of services provided or  delay time-sensitive medical care or both.”

A violation would be considered an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce and subject to the enforcement actions authorized for such under current law.  Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark already has said she will pursue complaints against CPCs.

The bill is sponsored by Burlington Progressive Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. (She is the daughter Barre diversity, equity and inclusion committee chair Jo-Ellen Mulvaney, who earlier this year demanded member William Toborg resign because of his pro-life views. He refused and she was publicly chastised by city council members.)

Vermont’s eight crisis pregnancy centers are completely privately-funded and offer both counseling, ultrasounds, and tangible assistance to expecting mothers. Plain language on the CPC’s websites and social media state they do not perform or advise performing abortions. 

Banning legal action against abortion – H89, passed last week by the Vermont House and now in the Senate, thus defines ‘Abusive litigation’: “Litigation or other legal action to deter, prevent, sanction, or punish any person engaging in legally protected health care activity” [abortion or transgender services]. For example: a parent or other interested person (instate or out) seeking a restraining order to prevent an abortion would be guilty of ‘abusive litigation’ and liable for a successful countersuit. 

In the past, such suits were merely unsuccessful. Under H89, they would be actionable.

No vote allowed on conscience protection for health care providers – When Rep. Anne Donahue (R-Northfield) last week proposed an amendment to H89 on the floor of the House that would have granted conscience protection to health care providers unwilling to participate in abortion or transgender services, Acting Speaker of the House Emily Long ruled the proposed amendment “not germane” – that is, not relevant. No vote was allowed. Donahue is a vocal pro-life lawmaker and former spokesman for an organization opposing Article 22. Jill Krowinski, the Speaker of the House, is a former lobbyist and executive VP for Planned Parenthood of New England, the state’s largest abortion provider.

A bill requiring conscience protection has been introduced into the House but is not expected to reach the floor, either.

Encouraging harrassment of crisis pregnancy centers – In a February 14 meeting of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee (see video above at 33:20), Sen. Ruth Hardy urged a UVM student to explain the direct actions they intend to take against crisis pregnancy centers. When the student explained they intend to “storm” the CPCs and deplete their resources (apparently with many visits by abortion supporters posing as expectant mothers seeking help), there was no effort by Hardy to discourage the activity or inquire about its legality. 

Categories: Legislation

19 replies »

      • Perhaps, at some point, as this sentiment for reproductive liberty manifests in limiting life itself (yes, a euphemism to be sure), their extremism will become an abject loathing for all human existence. After all, those who advocate this point of view will begin to realize that they too are living, that they too are a danger to the planet through their mere existence – domestic terrorists all. As their overwhelming guilt begets a resentment for having been born in the first place – to be forced to suffer the slings an arrows of outrageous fortune – their focus will be internalized. It’s not just the abortion movement that inspires their behavior – they are the same people who emphasize assisted euthanasia.

        Perhaps we should stop resisting them, do our best to avoid their dystopia, and let them have their way.

        Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Mathew 5:5

  1. All they gotta do is not carelessly sleep with men they don’t actually like enough to reproduce with, but that would make it inconvenient to easily obtain resources & affirmation. Such a conundrum. Good thing they can always adopt, abandon, or murder, free of conscience & consequence. Absolute harpies.

  2. This is Communism showing its naked face. They have unchecked power and they think they can do whatever they want. The Vermont and national Constitutions are being kicked to the curb. hey have carved the First Amendment right out of the Constitution. Is there any similar requirement that Planned Parenthood tell women the truth about the unborn life developing inside them? Hmmmm?

  3. It appears this legislature is making a successful end run around their earlier apology (courtesy Becca Balint) for the involuntary sterilizations performed during the years of the Vermont Eugenics Program: 1930’s and 40’s. The current laws are much more effective because they encourage and protect voluntary participation. Whether it’s abortion or sterilization via hormones and/or “gender confirming” surgery, the results are the same: population reduction. I have to say the question that vcurtishuntergmailcom asked is right on the money.

  4. Well, now two bills have been prioritized by the Democrats and Progressives that aim to open the doors to out-of-state people who wish to get abortions, assisted suicide and transgender surgery here, while doing nothing for actual Vermonters….except raise our taxes….

  5. Thank you for including the video from that testimony from the Senate H&W Comm., as I wasn’t totally clear about the purpose of CPCs. It only took me about a minute of listening to the woman presenting to understand why the pro abortion folks are against them. They attempt to assist women that do not want an abortion. Obviously, they are a TOTAL opposite of Planned Parenthood, and accused of giving false medical information! That’s when I had to shut it down.

  6. Progressives want abortions to be allowed to the fourth trimester………..most folks call that infanticide………….

  7. Re: Health and Welfare Committee hearing on Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs)

    What I find most concerning about this Senate Health and Welfare Committee hearing is the curious absence of testimony from any of the CPCs, or the people who have or have considered using a CPC service, who will be affected by this legislation.

    If anyone in this Health and Welfare Committee hearing, or anyone currently representing or advocating for a CPC, can speak to the absence of that testimony, it would be greatly appreciated.

    And I’ll presume up front that if no one in this hearing, or anyone advocating in favor of CPCs, responds, it will suggest that either no one from a CPC was invited to testify, or that no one from a CPC accepted an invitation to do so.

    In other words – silence is implied consent.

    • Pregnancy Resource Centers, PRCs which are also called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, CPC by Pro Abortion Activists. Clear opposition to PRCs reside in bills S.37 and H.254.

      Here is the link to the PRC response to S.37, there is also written testimony provided describing the mission and scope of what community PRCs provide.

  8. Oh Lord! …help me with this. My conspiracy theory obsession is kicking in. Two recent developments are suspicious… 1. We have a serious bubble of sentiment pushing the idea that we can deal with criminals shooting folks by going after the implements — let’s get rid of guns and bullets etc. Right? And
    2. Now we have a constitutional guarantee to retroactive protection of our reproductive rights…with our new extended meaning for these rights we can now kill any unwanted outcome from your successful use of that right…Do I have that right? OkOkOk now help me with the logic here. We have a argument that we should focus on the IMPLIMENTS use in an act, Right? AND we’ve retrospectively extended the meaning of “reproductive freedom” to clean up unwanted outcomes of our acts. Does this new freedom and the attention to implements suggest that we should next be considering laws to get rid of the testicles and penises involved in unwanted pregnancies?

  9. Hmmmm…. liberals want to be able to kill their unborn children at any point of gestation. Conservatives love humanity to the point where they will protest in freezing weather, raise money support crisis pregnancy centers, etc. hoping a mother will choose life for her child. Why? All life is precious, and we are called to love each other and love our neighbor as ourselves. Born and unborn.

  10. The Vermont public schools could help if they taught biology. Apparently young women taking the very common abortion pills are “freaking out” when they see the fully formed little ones coming out! Yes, that’s where we are folks! Females freaking out when they see the abortion pill baby. Will there be a way that alternatives can be discussed legally? A State of Ignorance.

  11. The second American Revolution is nearing at a faster rate than previously expected… actions by any government like these only insure its inevitability.

Leave a Reply