As congressional Republicans sought to defund Planned Parenthood last summer, Vermont Lt. Gov. Phil Scott took a different approach. The Republican gubernatorial candidate asked for a tour of the organization’s Burlington Health Center.
“We just sat down and talked about what they do, how they help and the essential services they provide,” Scott told Seven Days last December. “I don’t think we should be spending our time defunding Planned Parenthood. They do really good work for a lot of people in need.”
The goodwill gesture apparently went unnoticed. On Wednesday morning, a super PAC financed by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Democratic Governors Association launched a $132,000 television advertising blitz questioning Scott’s support for abortion rights.
“Two very different choices for Vermont’s next governor,” the ad’s narrator says. “Phil Scott supported restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. And Vermont Right to Life, which opposes all abortion — even for rape and incest — recommended Phil Scott.”
Democratic nominee Sue Minter, the narrator says, is “the better choice” and would be “a governor we can trust.”
According to Scott’s campaign coordinator, Brittney Wilson, the ad is “dishonest and deceitful.”
“Phil supports a woman’s right to choose. Period,” she said. “Phil’s raised two strong, independent daughters and will fight for them and the rights of all women … Phil has always been pro-choice.”
Scott has, indeed, long called himself pro-choice. But he has also supported certain restrictions on abortion. He has, for example, opposed late-term abortions, and sponsored a bill more than a decade ago requiring parental notification for minors seeking the procedure.
In the ad, the Planned Parenthood super PAC cites a September 2012 piece that Seven Days published in collaboration with VTDigger.org fact-checking a claim from Scott’s opponent in that year’s election that he was “against a woman’s right to choose.” The two news outlets concluded that the claim was “mostly false” and that it would be more accurate to say that he supported certain restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.
Here’s what we wrote at the time:
Phil Scott served 10 years in the state Senate representing Washington County before he won election as lieutenant governor in 2010. He has consistently maintained a pro-choice stance — even when he cosponsored a parental notification bill during the 2003-2004 session that would require health care providers to alert parents before performing abortions on their minor-age daughters.
For the 2010 campaign, Scott completed an issue position survey for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in which he described himself as “pro-choice but with restrictions.”
“Because of my beliefs, I find it impossible to answer the question in your survey with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no,'” Scott wrote. “I do support a woman’s right to choose; however, I do not believe it needs to be a ‘blank check’ in order to be effective.”
Scott wrote that he opposes “partial-birth” abortion “because I believe there are many options available to terminate a pregnancy well before that stage of development.” He also said he opposed government funding for abortions because using taxpayer dollars for something many people disagree with is “not an appropriate public policy.”
He wrote that he supports a fetal homicide bill — as long as it’s a “well-written law that carefully defines the circumstances under which a fetal homicide ruling would apply; for example, a car accident caused by a drunk driver in which a fetus was killed.”
According to Wilson, Scott’s position has not shifted since.
The ad also cites a story published by Seven Days last month to back up its claim that Scott was endorsed by the Vermont Right to Life Committee.
Here’s that story:
It is true that the VRLC expressed support for Scott during his primary-election contest with retired Wall Street banker Bruce Lisman. The organization sent a mailer to its members over the summer calling on them to back Scott and Republican lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock.
“While Phil Scott and Randy Brock are both pro-choice, they are on record as supporting some key pro-life legislative initiatives,” the mailer read. “Phil Scott’s Republican Primary opponent, Bruce Lisman, does not support ANY pro-life legislation.”
It continued: “All of the leading contenders for Governor and Lt. Governor on the Democratic ballot are 100% pro-abortion and 100% pro-assisted suicide.”
Creston Lea, who chairs the Planned Parenthood super PAC’s board, declined an interview request Wednesday afternoon. But in a written statement, he said that with abortion rights “under unprecedented attack nationally,” Vermont needs a governor “who will continue to lead the way.”
“Sue Minter has always stood up for safe and legal abortion,” Lea said. “She will be a governor who doesn’t just support women’s health — she will be a proactive leader on expanding access to women’s health care.”
It’s unclear how much the super PAC plans to spend in the final three weeks of the gubernatorial race. According to a campaign finance disclosure filed Wednesday with the Secretary of State’s Office, the group raised $151,450 this week to pay for the ad. Of that, $50,000 came from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and $100,000 from the DGA.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Most people, even those who are pro-choice, do not support Sue Minter’s extreme position that abortion should be legal at every stage of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever – which is, for those who don’t know, the current legal situation in Vermont. In an age when older and older men are preying on younger and younger girls, notifying a parent when a minor girl is scheduled for an abortion is vital – as 38 other states have recognized. But the abortion lobby and Sue Minter want to keep Vermont parents in the dark, allowing predators to get away with their crimes. It is no coincidence that when the State of New Hampshire passed a parental notification law, Planned Parenthood moved their abortion business from Lebanon NH across the river to White River Junction so they could keep New Hampshire parents in the dark too.
Parental consent laws are designed to make it harder for women to have abortions because other people want to control their bodies and their lives and this is precisely the effect that they have. Most women young enough to be covered by these laws already discuss their decisions with their parents – the only ones who wouldn’t are the ones who fear for their safety in some way – physical, psychological, their economic and social well-being – often from violent fathers – and then end up having to bring unwanted pregnancies to term. If you want to protect young women from sexual predators, then protect young women from sexual predators. But how dare you suggest that limiting some of the most vulnerable people’s access to essential health services in any way ‘protects’ them.
In addition, your assertion that allowing women to have abortions “for any reason whatsoever” is “extreme” is demeaning and offensive – as if some women’s reasons to have an abortion are more valid than others – as if women, more than men, need to have their health decisions policed and regulated because they cannot be trusted. I applaud Vermont for having some of the most progressive abortion laws in the country and I fear how women’s prospects would be denigrated with a Republican – a party that has spent at least the last 40 years fomenting misogyny (as well as racism and classism) for political gain – as Governor.
I would comment not on the abortion issue as others are but on how Minter and her supporters trample the truth and want to scare the voters to vote for her not for Scott. They expect the voters will blindly follow their lies.
Do you want a governor who tries to listen and do what is right for Vermont or do you want a Governor who is getting 40% of their funding from outside Vermont. Who will make a decision based on what is best for Vt?
I support Planned Parenthood BUT WHY are they spending $132,000 on television ads against Scott ? Do they have so much money that they couldn’t find better uses for these bucks ? Aren’t there really hard anti-choice politico’s who should be defeated ? Aren’t there states that have done their best to eliminate a woman’s choice where these funds would be better used ?
I don’t get it.
Sliming a good man for political advantage is not something I can stomach. My husband and I have both supported Planned Parenthood both financially and philosophically for many decades, but if this is what you choose to do with our generosity, our donations will screech to a halt.
Michele goes high but you, Planned Parenthood — go low.
Disgustingly disappointed.
One of many reasons why I’m doing my part in voting out all Republicans this election cycle. Straddling the abortion line by throwing out vague platitudes to look moderate but all the while giving a wink and a nod to his single topic anti abortion allies isn’t going to work anymore for Scott. We can see through this limp wristed approach Vermont Republicans and soon enough they will be doing another “autopsy” on another elections cycle to find out where they went wrong. More than a little pathetic to watch.
I am deeply dismayed by the sudden attempt by Planned Parenthood of Vermont to portray Phil Scott as someone who would attack a womans right to have an abortion. The announcer, Vicki Hart of Burlington, then attempts to vilify him by calling him just a “typical Republican.” This is politics of the lowest order.
For the record, we “typical” Republicans in the Vermont State Senate have voted to support the principles of Roe v. Wade in a resolution that has been offered at the commencement of each biennium. Phil Scott also voted for that resolution when he was a state senator. Sue Minter knows that. Sue, I know you cannot control the Planned Parenthood PAC, but allowing this ad to continue running without challenging it places an obstacle in front of any claim to be able to work across the aisle. I respectfully ask that you publicly disavow that ad.
Senator Benning, you seem to think being “”pro-choice” is about nothing more than saying you’re opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
But, as we’ve seen around the country, even with Roe standing as law, anti-choice Republican state legislatures have done their very best to make that constitutional right meaningless by enacting a series of measures that limit that right in many ways, making abortion virtually inaccessible for many women in those states.
A politician, like Phil Scott, can claim to be “pro-choice” because they know a Republican can’t win in Vermont unless they are seen as socially moderate.
But real “pro-choice” politicians don’t support legislation designed to make it harder for some women to control their own bodies – be that teenage girls, women struggling with difficult late term issues, or poor women who can’t afford it.
Real “pro-choice” politicians don’t get recommended for office by anti-choice groups.
And real “pro-choice” politicians don’t endorse a Presidential candidate like Marco Rubio who opposes all abortion rights (including no exception for rape or incest), who were willing to close down the government over Planned Parenthood Funding, and who pledge to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the very “Roe v. Wade” decision that he claims to support.
Planned Parenthood is doing a public service by alerting Vermont voters to the contradictions in Phil Scott’s “pro-choice” claim. The fact that Republicans are protesting and squealing about it just shows that they know how tenuous to be “pro-choice” really is.