Connect with us

Published

on

A Vermont bill supporting abortion is being attacked as “the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world.”

A bill introduced with the support of 90 out of Vermont’s 150 House lawmakers asserts that “every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” US News reported.

As noted by the Catholic News Agency, the bill says that “a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.”

“It’s important to codify what is currently allowed in Vermont,” said Democratic Rep. Ann Pugh, one of the bill’s sponsors.

“My understanding is that the majority of Vermonters support what is current practice in Vermont. And what this law does is to codify, or put in statute, what is current practice,” she said, according to Vermont Digger. “If we need to make changes, that is what the legislative process is about.”

Gov. Phil Scott, who supports abortion, said that the bill might not be in its final form.

The legislation has “a long way to go to get through the Legislature, so we’ll see where it all comes out,” he said.

On Wednesday, critics attacked the law during a hearing.

“This bill isn’t protecting all women’s rights,” said Patricia Blair of Bennington, who lost twins after a car accident in 2010. “It’s only protecting the rights of women who choose death for their children.”

Sharon Toborg of the Vermont Right to Life Committee was concerned about the bill’s apparent embrace of late-term abortions.

“While most Vermonters do consider themselves pro-choice, that does not mean that they support unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for individuals of any age as H.57 proposes,” Toborg said.

She also raised concern about the bill’s prohibition against any public entity interfering with a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

“Such terms as ‘interfere with’ or ‘deprive’ or ‘restrict’ are undefined in the bill, so it is unclear what the true impact of this legislation might be,” Toborg added.

The bill has already lost one supporter.

Rep. Patrick Seymour, a Republican, said he would prefer the bill have limits on late-term abortions, and said he did not think the law was even necessary.

Although some people have criticized him for changing his position, he said, “I’ve gotten significantly more people congratulating (me) for my switch.”

In an Op-Ed in National Review, Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism said the Vermont bill is even more concerning than similar bills in Virginia and New York that have received more media attention. He labeled it “the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world.”

“Vermont’s goes all the way to creating an absolute right to an abortion, at any time in the pregnancy and for any reason, with no limitations as to method,” he said, noting there is no language “about distinguishing non-viability of the fetus from viability.”

“There is nothing mentioned about what to do with a born baby that survives abortion,” he wrote.

Advertisement
14 Comments
  • Cindy says:

    I agree with all of the previous comments.

    I was told 23 years ago that I would have to terminate a pregnancy because it was stuck in the Fallopian tube and not viable. I was reassured that this termination process was not abortion, but in MY mind, it was. I agonized and prayed for three weeks that God would make the pregnancy viable or cause a miscarriage. In the midst of all this, I was having internal ultrasounds a couple of times per week. On what was to be the last ultrasound, the technician found the baby implanted in the uterus where it was supposed to be. It was just a tiny heart mass beating, but it was there and alive and viable at 6 weeks! I found out the heart is the first to be developed in a baby, and if I remember correctly, it is beating at like 3 weeks even before it is fully developed, My reoccurring pain and high hormone count was coming from the fact that there were two babies trying to make their way to the uterus. Unfortunately, the other one never developed and was reabsorbed by my body. However, if I had listened to my doctors, I would have terminated that pregnancy and would not have my beautiful 22 year old daughter today, who is inspiring her students teaching high school English this year as a new teacher at a time when we have a tremendous teacher shortage.

    Personally, I’m totally prolife. However, I do understand the need for termination if a mother’s life is biologically in danger, not her mental state,, and in the case of rape. I’ve never been raped, and will never assume how that affects victims. Even though I’m totally prolife, I don’t think a rape victim should be required by law to carry the child of her attacker if she cannot mentally go through it. I’ve heard of women that carry the child of their attacker full term, and I applaud them, but I think we have to give victims of sexual assault the option. Imagine actually being raped, then carrying the rapist’s child in your body for 9 months. Then going through labor and delivery for your attacker’s child. I can see how this would be like being victimized all over again. And if you deliver that child, then you experience the guilt of placing your child up for adoption or trying to raise it while trying to cover up the truth of its father. I would like to say that I would not terminate the baby of a rapist, but I’ve never had to face that issue myself, so I truly can’t say I wouldn’t abort. I hope that neither I nor my daughters are ever faced with that horror, but I cannot judge anyone who make the difficult decision to abort the child of their assailant.

  • Dorothy Paul says:

    I don’t care what they care it … in or out of the womb … IT IS STILL INFANTICIDE and nothing the lawmakers say can change that barbarism.

  • Dorothy Paul says:

    I meant to say call it … not care it.

  • Al says:

    The NE states are as crazy as Chicago, CO, WA, CA, and OR. Those states tend to breed crazy kooks. Drugs, hate, illegal aliens, and murdering babies are their motto.

  • CF
    >