The House Judiciary Committee has approved legislation to protect abortion rights in Vermont law. The Friday morning vote to send the bill to the full House was 9-2. Rep. Tom Burditt (R-Rutland) was the only Republican to vote in favor of it.
The bill, H.57, had previously been approved by the House Human Services Committee. Judiciary made a number of changes in an effort to clarify its intent.
Supporters say the bill is necessary in case the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the decision that established a legal right to abortion.
Opponents have claimed that H.57 would open the door to unlimited abortion rights — even for late-term abortions. Not so, said legislative counsel Brynn Hare. “Any procedure prohibited under federal law would continue to be prohibited under H.57,” she told the committee.
The revised bill makes clear that its intent is “to safeguard the existing rights to access reproductive health services in Vermont.” It explicitly states that Vermonters have a “fundamental right” to reproductive services — and a “fundamental right” to give birth or seek an abortion. Also, Judiciary removed a provision that read, “A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.”
Rep. Selene Colburn (P/D-Burlington), a cofounder of the advocacy group Vermont Access to Reproductive Freedom, said decisions on abortion should be made between a woman and her doctor. “I’ve spoken to hundreds of women facing this choice,” she told the committee. “What I learned is how unique each person’s circumstances are. This bill preserves the right to choose.”
Before the final vote, Burditt delivered some impassioned remarks. “This is the toughest vote I’ve had in my nine years in the legislature,” the Rutland Republican said. “The people I hang out with politically are dead set against this bill.” He added that he wouldn’t have voted for the Human Services version of H.57, but “it’s not the same bill anymore.”
Burditt added that he wasn’t sure how he would vote on the House floor, but “today I’m voting ‘yes.'” Asked after the hearing what might influence his decision on the floor, he said, “More thought, I guess. It’ll all be between the ears. I think I’ve heard everything I can.”
The bill is scheduled to go before the full House next week.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The Supreme Court can’t overturn a previous case. They can decide a new case differently.
Roe v Wade has already been surpassed by later cases.
The same way dred scott wasn’t overturned at the court level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott…
It was a later, different case that changed things, along with constitutional amendments.
Brynn Hare testified in the Judiciary Committee that late-term abortions are legal in Vermont now and would remain so if H.57 were to become law. Abortion advocates cite the federal ban on partial-birth abortion as though it prohibits all late second and third trimester abortions. It does not. It prohibits a specific type of abortion procedure, but there are other procedures used to abort babies later in pregnancy. D&E abortions, in which the unborn child is dismembered and removed piece by piece; and induction abortion, in which the baby is given a lethal injection in utero and then labor is induced to deliver the dead fetus, are methods of abortion used in the second and third trimesters. Dr. Lauren McAfee testified that she performs these procedures at the UVM Medical Center.
Government, whether state or federal, is not God. Remember the phrase ‘do not mess with Mother Nature’. Follow the statement or suffer the consequences for being weak.
“(D)ecisions on abortion should be made between a woman and her doctor.”
Responding to Sharon Toborg and the cited “federal ban on partial-birth abortions”: Information lacking in her comments are the details of WHY families and physicians choose these procedures… (and it is rightfully confidential until statistics and data are neutralized and collected). When the woman’s or fetus’ lives and/ or well-being are in danger, state and federal bans should have no place at all.
I have been very grateful in recent years to observe how emergency medical interventions can save lives ….
Perhaps one reason that medical ethical choice is a Human Right declared by international law–and certainly shouldn’t be over-ridden by emphatic “public opinion.”
There is a big difference between leaning on current federal statute and defining a State law. Per testimony in committee this bill creates legal means to stifle public education which encourages carrying a baby to term…”A public entity [any employee or office in any branch of government] shall not: … (2) interfere with or restrict, in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, the choice of a consenting individual to terminate the individuals pregnancy. Only abortion is protected in this way. Giving birth does not have such protection. So much for “Reproductive” rights. More like non-reproductive rights.
Extremist Christians terrorize more Americans than any Muslim ever has. The Handmaid’s Tale is not a dystopian fantasy to these sick people, it’s their dream future.
I will always prioritize the well being of living women over fetuses, as do the vast majority of decent people around the world.
Way to go Vermont! Now how do we make sure they are legal AND rare. What is the unmet need for family planning and how do we assure the fewest possible unplanned pregnancies?
I am against late term abortions period!