Prop 5 serves interest groups, not parents, kids or taxpayers

by Vermonters for the Common Good

Yesterday, the Vermont House advanced Proposal 5, a proposed Constitutional amendment to guarantee a so-called right to “personal reproductive autonomy,” which includes abortion.

While portrayed by advocates as a simple proposal to preserve abortion rights in case Roe v. Wade is overturned, the reality is much different. Unlike Roe v. Wade, Prop 5 protects late-term, anything goes abortion.

“Prop 5… It’s serving judicial power. It’s serving special interest groups. It’s not serving the state of Vermont. It’s not serving parents. It’s not serving the minors of our state, and it’s certainly not serving taxpayers,” said Annisa Lamberton, spokesperson for Vermonters for Good Government. “It would place Vermonters’ futures, not in their own hands as purported, but in the hands of unelected, unaccountable, judges, who will decide its meaning,” she added.

If Roe v. Wade is struck down, abortion will remain legal in Vermont, even without Prop 5.

Proposal 5 effectively elevates a man’s rights in the reproductive process onto same legal level as a woman’s. And, where those rights come into conflict, it will be up to a court – not the woman — to decide what happens.

This scenario and the need for judicial remedy was confirmed in testimony before the House Human Services Committee by a spokesperson for the ACLU. (You can watch the Vermonters for Good Government video of that testimony here:

This is just one of many unintended consequences the vague and frankly bizarre wording of Proposal 5 could unleash on Vermont. Others include eliminating parental rights in regard to children seeking abortion, sterilization, or gender therapy; unfettered taxpayer funding for a variety of medical procedures related to reproduction and sexuality; future forms of eugenics such as genetically modified “designer babies,” and creating a legal mandate for nurses and doctors to participate in procedures they may deem medically unwise or ones they morally oppose (or else they could be fired with no legal recourse). 

For all these reasons, we believe Vermont voters should and will reject Article 22 on election day, and Vermonters for Good Government will ensure that every Vermonter has the facts they need to make an informed decision about this poorly written Constitutional Amendment before it becomes the law of our land.

For interviews, contact:

Official Spokesperson; Annisa Lamberton:

Executive Director; Matthew Strong:


Vermonters for Good Government, a 501c4 nonprofit organization, was formed by individuals across the political spectrum to oppose the addition of Article 22/Proposal 5 in the state constitution.

Learn more about the grassroots work of Vermonters for Good Government HERE:

Categories: Commentary

Tagged as: , ,

13 replies »

  1. In addition to serving special interest groups, Prop. 5 also serves Satan, very nicely I might add.

  2. I’ve said it before and will keep saying it… women & the state will no longer be able to force men into commitment, marriage or child support payments by lying about their fertility or stealing sperm, (as the NBA had to warn players about because it does actually happen.) Big win for men and men’s rights here, ladies. 🙂

  3. I get your point, and I’m staunchly against this Proposition – but by the same token of course, men aren’t “tricked” into fatherhood or child support – when they “choose” to have sex or be promiscuous, there are consequences. Pretty sure it still takes to two to conceive, & if men don’t want to become fathers, they can opt to keep their drawers up THEMSELVES until they can accept responsibility, or they can use birth control themselves.

    Conversely, women have the exact same choices to avoid parenthood under the vast majority of circumstances.

    Yeah, women are being duped big time & can’t realize it, but BOTH genders are guilty of being reckless, immature, irresponsible, potentially promiscuous, & unaccountable for their “choices”.

    And the nanny state promotes it all & slaughters babies in the process.

    • Kathy, watch some Oprah Winfrey. Women lie about fertility ALL THE TIME and cheer each other on for doing it. The NBA had to warn players about women stealing used condoms or cheeking BJ’s. There are cases where young teen boys were raped by 30 something teachers who conceived and were forced to pay back & current child support when they turned 18. If the genders were reversed and a man lied about having a vasectomy or “stealthed,” the removal of a condom and got a woman pregnant, feminists would and have argued that it becomes non-consensual and therefore rape. Women currently hold ALL the power when it comes to reproductive rights, and in the hysterical push to guarantee abortion in the face of a non existent threat here in VT, they’re going to accidentally level the playing field, and it’s going to be most entertaining.

  4. I totally get it, & I always believed that it was inherently wrong to begin with to make abortion a “women’s” rights issue, for it is not. It is a human right’s issue as it involves three individual persons – the man, the woman, and the baby. If this prop passes, and things go as you predict, I’ll be happy as well.

    All I am saying is that promiscuity in general by either gender (being defined as either or both not not willing to happily or responsibly or maturely accept the consequences of sexual intimacy) is a bad idea all around. Hence Jesus in the N.T. (for those of us who purport to be Christians) directed both men and women to be sexually moral all times.

    I guess I’m just being a proponent of teaching both male & female children from the time they are young that there are inevitably consequences from one’s decisions & behaviors. That being said, the left has told all since the 1960’s that: “if it feels good, do it.” So if takes the State to create true equality between the genders as you say, so be it. I’m down with that and the responsibility it may force.

    • I actually agree with all of that, and don’t get me wrong, I also think abortion is murder at some indeterminant point, legally the heartbeat makes sense as it’s used for death certificates. it’s a terribly stupid amendment addressing a non issue and for me, the unforeseen consequences will be horrific on one side, and satisfying on another. I do think I am making the best argument there is to dissuade the average female liberal from voting this in, but who are we kidding? It’s a guarantee. I have lived here most of my life, and increasingly feel like I will one day need to move away from the insanity. Have a great day, and thanks for the positive response in the face of a provocative post.

      • The heartbeat could make sense, but all current “heartbeat” bills are using electrical activity in a non-existent heart, no valves, no chambers, not because it comports with our belief of when death occurs (the stopping of the heart) and conversely, when it might begin. These bills are only about preventing all abortions, not providing for reproductive choices that take into account the mother, the father, and the fetus (it’s not a baby or a child until its viable at the very earliest).

        This prop exists because heartbeat bills and others have regulated abortion not to protect anyone’s rights or health or autonomy, but to regulate it out of existence. And the result is that women are suffering life-threatening abortions because physicians cannot act to save their lives until it becomes critical even where the fetus has no chance at viability.

        This is what happens when you f*$$ with women too much.

  5. I get all you stated as well, and maybe your tact might just work, who knows? If it does: EXCELLENT & kudos to you for a brilliant strategy……My guess is though that these psychopaths in this legislature will simply “tweak” the bill and throw it back out again to the voters the following year. They seem to be truly guided by evil and bent upon destroying this state…one of what was one of the last refuges from the crime & drugs & the plethora of social & spiritual ills that plague our country. What a damn shame this all is.

  6. Here’s the tagline: “It’s a big win for Men’s Rights.”

    It will cause serious cognitive dissonance among the feminist left.

    Spread the word. Run with it. LOL.

  7. I’ve lived in Vermont all 69 years and so did my mother, grandmother, great grandmother and great great grandmother and I don’t believe anyone of them would want this amendment to our Vermont constitution to pass!!!! So please let’s make sure it doesn’t!!!! For our children and our grandchildren let’s make sure it doesn’t pass!!! It took many steps to get it here- I believe if we can break the democrats back and vote them out as well as vote this down, they won’t be able to bring it back!!!! Please have hope and faith-and pass it on.

    • My grandmother, great grandmother, and grand grandmother didn’t want gays to be able to marry. Just because our predecessors held fast to their beliefs doesn’t mean I should too.