Statement by Vermont Right To Life
Since the shocking leak of US Supreme Court documents suggesting that the Court might overturn Roe v. Wade, several pro-abortion candidates for office have issued false and misleading statements about abortion and the effect Proposal 5/Article 22 would have in Vermont. Prop 5 goes beyond Roe v. Wade and beyond abortion. Vermonters should not be hoodwinked by this disinformation campaign.
Here are some examples:
David Zuckerman, candidate for Lt. Governor, made several false claims about later-in term abortion today on the Morning Drive talk show on WVMT.
Contrary to Zuckerman’s assertions:
- There are numerous physicians who perform later-term abortions for purely elective reasons See https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
- Vermont law says no health care provider can be sanctioned in any way for performing an abortion, even late-term elective abortions
- Abortion is routinely offered to parents as an option at any stage of pregnancy when faced with a diagnosis of Down Syndrome. It is estimated between 67 – 74 % of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted in the United States.
Governor Phil Scott, in his press statement yesterday, stated that:
“In November Vermonters will have the ability to codify that right [to abortion] in our state Constitution when Prop 5 is on the ballot. So at the end of the day the fundamental rights and liberties of all women will be defended, protected and preserved here in Vermont.”
BUT… The language of Proposal 5 does not mention “women” nor does it mention “abortion.” Governor Scott is misleading Vermont parents as the word “individual” in the language may well include extending the right to make “personal reproductive choices” to minor children without parental involvement.
Kitty Toll, candidate for Lt. Governor: (press statement):
“With so much at stake, we must guarantee every Vermonter the right to reproductive liberty by supporting Proposition 5 at the ballot box in November.”
BUT… “Reproductive liberty” is undefined and the average voter in Vermont will have no idea that their “liberties” will be defined by the courts.
Molly Gray, candidate for US House: (press statement):
“The Vermont Senate’s passage of Proposal 5 is a critical step in the process of amending our Vermont Constitution to ensure that no matter what happens nationally, the right of every Vermonter to personal reproductive autonomy is protected.”
BUT… If Roe v Wade should be overturned, abortion would remain legal in our State. Vermont has one of the most radical abortion laws in the world. Vermont’s statute (Act 47) allows unlimited, unregulated abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Furthermore, Vermont legalized abortion (Beecham v. Leahy) a full year before Roe v. Wade was originally decided. A constitutional amendment is not needed to “protect” abortion in our State, regardless of what happens at the federal level.
Abortions performed after the legal limit are crimes which should be prosecuted.
No one is “pro abortion”…no one wants to have an abortion and no one wants someone else to, they just want to choose the best option for their body and their life and not to have the government make health decisions for them. Like some people don’t want the government to force them to get a vaccine.
Your argument is somewhat semantical. However, the stance of some of us is that abortion should be kept within the limits of Roe vs. Wade and laws should be enforced. That is my own stance.
Try Birth Control or being responsible. Over ONE MILLION babies are slaughtered annually & states such as NY & California are not even included as they don’t report.
Women don’t wake up pregnant, sorry…..BOTH men and women make “CHOICES” before they conceive.
Three “choices” & you’re out:
1.) Birth Control
2.) Abstaining until prepared to accept any consequences
4.) Y’rout! Just like in Baseball. See?
You haven’t heard about the “abortion fetish” obviously.
What about the life of the unborn baby, whose DNA was formed from the moment of conception? What about THEIR bodies?
There are questions of rape, statutory and otherwise.
Yes, many questions.
Typically, a pregnancy resulting from rape is quickly determined and a significantly different circumstance from the considerations under the current ‘carte blanche’ Vermont laws allowing abortion at any time up until birth, for any reason, or for no reason.
Coincidence the “leak” occured at the same time as 2000 Mules is released and Durham’s filings are closing in on Hillary & Obama. Liberal outrage is a distraction and will backfire bigly since targetting children (born and unborn) is evil and they are exposing themselves daily now.