by Dr. Daniel Bean
Should Article 22 not pass, Vermont will still have abortions and even late-term abortions. That is guaranteed in our current laws, and has been since 1970s.
All the talk about Roe vs Wade decision changing this is false. What Article 22 is intended to do is to enshrine late-term abortions, right up to birth, in our Constitution. Once there it will be almost impossible to change or remove. Voting NO will allow for future changes to the period for abortions.
Vote NO to keep our options available in the future, and not leave them up to our Supreme Court. Almost 90 per cent of Americans do not want Late-Term abortion.
There are other ramifications to Article 22.
Currently, institutions (hospitals, clinics, etc.) may establish conscientious protection statements to allow employees to decline to perform abortions for religious or other reasons, and medical associations, etc. may establish best practices policies. Article 22 could be used to force doctors and other health providers to perform abortions and sterilizations, and other medical procedures, even against their best medical judgment.
Article 22 will prohibit any entity from having such provisions or making such decisions. It could even be used to force the closure of pregnancy counseling agencies such as CareNet or Aspire, etc. since their counseling might result in a decision not to abort. Under Article 22 this decision would be up to the courts to decide.
If Article 22 passes and becomes part of our Constitution abortions will become a “constitutional right”. All the procedures covered by Article 22 will be subject to payment by tax payer money.
As a “constitutional right” the cost of this to the budget may not be limited during budget considerations. The cost must be met. There does not appear to have been any consideration by the legislature of potential future costs during their debate of Article 22.
Since any decisions regarding the interpretation will be made by the five members of the VT Supreme Court they could very well extend those payments to cover out-of-state patients. The legislature did not meet its fiduciary responsibilities in writing this bill.
Article 22 avoids using terms such as “Woman/women,” “abortions,” “choice,” “age limits.” The phrase “individual’s right” is a legal term indicating no age limit applies; it is anyone from birth to death. That wording choice strips parents of their role as guardian of their children. Article 22 will deny them the right to know of, or act against any choice a child may make about their “reproductive” status.
“Personal right,” on the other hand, implies anyone of legal age only and protects the underage from exploitation. Making an informed decision about changing sex, or gender orientation is an irreversible decision and must be made with as much information as possible. Article 22 actually prevents this exchange of information to its fullest extent. The word “individual” was a deliberate choice by the legislature.
In October 2021 the Legislature issued an apology for the passage in 1931 of the Vermont Sterilization Law which provided for the sterilization of individuals deemed unfit to procreate. VT was not alone, there were 30 other states with similar laws. All have since been rescinded, some as late as the 1970s.
If Article 22 is enshrined in the constitution and it is later deemed desirable to change parts of it, that may well be impossible. It would require another amendment. Vote No on Article 22 and retain our rights to control our laws and not allow the courts to become our lawmakers.
The author is a Shelburne resident and Biology Professor Emeritus.