Selle: S.37 should concern all Christians and citizens of integrity

By Dr. Andrew Selle

A bill before the Vermont State Senate should concern all Christians and all citizens of integrity. 

S.37, “An act relating to access to legally protected health care activity and regulation of health care providers” is the worst piece of legislation I have seen in my forty years as a Vermonter. That’s a strong statement considering the plethora of misguided actions that have come out of Montpelier during that timeframe. S.37: 

  • Targets Christian crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs have done such outstanding work in our state for many years. Because they do not offer abortions or refer clients to get them, the bill dubs them “limited-services pregnancy centers”and explicitly grants authority to the Attorney General’s Office to investigate and bring civil suits against them for any advertising that “misleads the public.” Bear in mind that this supposed threat of false advertising is entirely bogus, since these centers make it perfectly clear that they do not offer abortion services. These highly-regarded organizations are committed to integrity and truth—even while enduring a barrage of lies against them. 
  • Promotes abortion as the only (or at least, the best) option for unwanted pregnancy. At the same time that S.37 places CPCs in the legal crosshairs, it explicitly shields abortion providers from legal action and ensures that those abortions will be fully funded by insurance companies. It gives a heavy emphasis on the abortion alternative. Furthermore, “S.37 is unconstitutionally biased in favor of abortion by requiring UVM and the Vermont State Colleges to develop an ‘abortion services readiness plan,’ rather than an ‘abortion and pregnancy services readiness plan’” (Mary Beerworth, Executive Director of Vermont Right to Life). 
  • Promotes the transgender juggernaut: As the Vermont Daily Chronicle article states: “This year, S.37 and H.89 propose to codify gender-affirming care as the only type of care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria and incongruence that will be shielded from ‘abusive litigation’ from other states, the only type of care that will be fully funded by insurance companies — making gender-affirming care a priority over all other types of healthcare — and shields practitioners from increases in malpractice premiums…. Meanwhile countries in Europe are now reassessing and changing their standards of care due to negative impacts of exclusively gender-affirming care.” We have to wonder how future generations will condemn us for failing to protect our children, in the way we now look back to institutionalized slavery with revulsion. 
  • Attacks religious liberty and free speech, which are enshrined in the First Amendment. Okay, you S.37 proponents, just come out and say it! Tell us what motivates you. How about, “We hate the fact that so many pregnant women go to these centers, see ultrasounds of their babies, and are convinced to carry their babies to term. We hate the fact that Christians boldly speak what they believe and try to live consistently with those convictions, and they do so by loving children and the mothers who bear them. We want to cripple their work and enrich the overflowing coffers of abortion providers.” If they actually said that I’d oppose their opinion, but I’d respect them for their honesty! 

My hope, of course, is that S.37 supporters will be honest with us, and if their motivation is something other than the baldly stated paragraph above, let’s hear it. Maybe we’ll find areas of agreement leading to better and more fair legislation. But my greatest hope is that they will abandon S.37 as hopelessly flawed, then get to work protecting the vulnerable women and children that the CPCs are sacrificially serving. 

The author is a retired counselor and conciliator living in Vermont. 

Categories: Commentary

7 replies »

  1. We are fortunate there are only 600,000 or so Vermonters. Aside from CA and NY it may take a while to taint the rest of the barrel.

  2. The US Constitution and federal law TRUMP (so to speak) any state laws. Some of these illegalities not only violate our rule of law but some have been further clarified, when taken up by the judiciary, by the United States Supreme Court.

    Lots ‘o Luck, Communists. You cannot prevail as much as you desire.

  3. I would hate to have to wait for justice for the young girls who had their uteruses or breasts removed and then changed their minds in Vermont. I’m sorry you can’t change your mind but we will add your name to the growing list of young women that are now sterilized, feeling hopeless and possibly suicidal. Their only option is to wait for the Supreme Court? The doctors lied to them —-you can’t go back. You can never go back. How can a law stand if they lie to you???How can Article 22 stand if they lied to you????

  4. And look how they try covering it up—S.37–they are trying to take away any liability from providers who perform these gender surgeries where people change their minds. The providers will do the reversal surgery but these people won’t be like before any surgeries.These people will have to live with it for the rest of their lives!!!!—the damage they will never be fixed completely and poor body image is what’s in their face every morning. They’re sterile too. And the providers get paid thousands of Vermont taxpayers dollars. How is that justice???That’s S.37…..Again they lie!!

  5. I wrote to Sen Irene Wrenner and requested that she vote NO on S.37 (even though I knew that she was one its sponsors). I knew what her response would be, but I did not expect the following comment:

    “I cosponsored S.37 because deceptive advertising has no place in pregnancy care, no matter which organization is providing it to women who are in the vulnerable place of carrying another life within them.”

    Irene Wrenner
    Senator, Chittenden North (Milton, Fairfax, Essex, Westford)
    802 338 2247 (c)

    I found it interesting that she stated that a woman was carrying ANOTHER LIFE WITHIN THEM.

    So I responded back about her words and asked how she could justify passing Article 2 – Prop 22 if she was acknowledging that the woman is carrying a life within her. She did not respond to me.

Leave a Reply