►
From YouTube: Proposal 5/Act 22 Forum - 10/17/2022
Description
00:02:11 Opening Statements
00:08:58 Please tell us your understanding of the history of this particular Proposal
00:13:59 Abortion: Is not mentioned in this Proposal language: Why is this significant?
00:20:28 Compelling State Interest
00:26:59 Late Term Abortion
00:40:05 Reproductive Liberty
0044:52 Closing Comments
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
Hello
and
welcome
to
our
ongoing
general
election
coverage
by
Town
beating
television.
So
what
we're
doing
here
tonight
is
one
of
a
series
of
forums
that
town
meeting
TV
is
bringing
you
in
advance
of
the
general
election
coming
up
in
November
town
meeting
TV
election
forums
cover
all
of
the
candidates,
as
well
as
the
bowel
items
that
you'll
see
on
your
ballot
in
November
and
that's
what
we'll
be
covering
tonight
as
one
of
the
most
contentious
ballot
items
that
you'll
you'll
be
seeing.
A
So
I
just
want
to
read
the
language
that
you'll
be
seeing
on
the
ballot
and
sort
of
get
through
what
what
is
proposal
five?
How
is
it
related
to
article
two?
So
what
you'll
actually
see
on
the
ballot
is
proposal
5
to
adopt
whether
or
not
we
should
adopt
article
22
as
part
of
the
amendment
to
the
state
constitution?
A
So
again,
you'll
have
heard
of
this
issue
probably
referred
to
as
prop
5
proposal,
5
article
22.
So
it's
after
a
four-year
process
through
both
the
house
and
the
Senate
and
after
being
signed
by
governor
Scott.
That
proposal
five
is
now
presented
to
you,
the
voters
on
the
November,
8th
ballot
and
in
a
it's
approved.
Then
it
will
become
article
22
of
the
Vermont
state
constitution.
A
So
I
am
joined
here
tonight
by
Advocates
on
both
sides
of
proposal.
Five,
and
so
we're
just
going
to
start
up
and
have
each
of
the
folks
here
tonight
introduce
themselves
and
I
would
like
you
to
also
sort
of
outline
your
general
view
of
act,
22,
article
22
proposal
5
and
how
you
feel
your
personally
and
politically
affected
by
this
issue.
So,
let's
start
over
here:
oh.
B
Sure,
well,
thanks
for
having
us
and
doing
this
forum,
my
name
is
Lucy
lariche
I'm,
the
vice
president
of
Vermont
public
affairs
for
Planned
Parenthood,
Northern,
New,
England
and
Planned
Parenthood
Vermont
action
fund
I
grew
up
in
Wolcott
I
had
French
Canadian
family,
a
big
French,
Canadian
Family,
Catholic
Family,
and
this
is
really
proposal.
5
is
really
important
to
me,
because
I
feel,
like
the
the
provision
of
Health
Care,
is
something
that
we
should
not
be
leaving
to
politicians
in.
B
At
a
time
when
politicians
in
half
of
the
country
are
moving
to
ban
or
severely
restrict
abortion
access,
we
support
Planned
Parenthood
Vermont
action
fund
and
Planned
Parenthood
Northern
New
England
supports
proposal
5
the
reproductive
Liberty
Amendment,
because
it
will
protect
the
full
spectrum
of
reproductive
health
care,
including
abortion
and
contraception,
and
will
ensure
that
important
personal
health
care
decisions
remain
between
patients
and
doctors.
Not
politicians,
vermonters
have
had
this
freedom
for
the
last
50
years
and
passing
proposal.
B
5
will
ensure
that
the
rights
we
have
today
won't
be
gone
tomorrow,
and
the
reason
this
is
so
important
to
me
is
because
I
had
a
firsthand
experience
in
needing
reproductive
health
care.
I
had
an
ectopic
pregnancy
a
number
of
years
ago,
and
it
occurs
to
me
now,
of
course,
that
if
I
were
in
one
of
these
states
where
abortion
was
banned,
I
could
I
may
not
have
survived
that.
C
This
is
something
that
is
larger
than
me.
So
when
you
say
what
is
your
personal
attachment
to
this
issue,
my
personal
attachment
is
the
importance
of
maintaining
the
freedom
that
vermonters
have
had
since
the
early
1970s
to
make
their
own
reproductive
Health
decisions
along
with
their
medical
provider.
C
A
D
My
name
is
Norman
Smith
and
thank
you
for
inviting
me
here
tonight.
I
was
born
and
raised
in
St
Johnsbury
when
I
saw
the
proposed
amendment.
I
was
really
concerned
about
the
vagueness
of
it
and
the
unintended
consequences.
The
term
personal
reproductive
autonomy
has
never
been
defined.
In
fact,
when
I
asked
my
legislators
if
they
could
Define
and
tell
me
what
the
the
amendment
meant,
they
really
couldn't
do.
That
I
did
that
in
my
town
meeting.
D
So
there
are
problems
inherent
in
this
proposal
and
I
feel
it
should
be
defeated.
There
are
a
lot
of
regulations
that
we
have
in
the
medical
field,
and
this
is
an
area
where
there
can
be
some
possibilities,
but
with
this
amendment
there
is
there's
not
going
to
be
any
possibilities
to
pass
any
laws
or
do
any
kind
of
regulations
that
may
be
reasonable.
That
vermonters
may
find
reasonable.
I
know.
Ann
has
some
information
about
what
vermonters
and
people
really
think
about
abortion.
This
would
have
authorized
abortion
through
nine
months
of
pregnancy
and
I.
D
E
I'm
representative
van
Donahue,
from
Northfield
I'm
on
the
health
care
committee
and
I
got
involved
as
a
volunteer
spokesperson
for
vermonters
for
good
government
working
on
this,
because
I
am
a
strong,
strong
believer
in
the
importance
of
our
process.
Our
Democratic
process
and
I
really
felt
that
the
amendment
being
proposed
probably
does
not
represent
the
will
of
vermonters.
Obviously
we're
very
pro-choice.
E
That
is
something
that
90
percent
of
Americans
do
not
support.
It's
the
one
area
of
broad
consensus
in
America,
87
percent
of
Californians,
who
themselves
have
a
law
that
does
not
permit
elective
abortion,
post
viability.
So
to
me,
it's
it's
really
important
that
people
understand
what
they're
voting
on
and
not
be
misled
by
some
of
the
statements
out
there
that
are
suggesting
that
we're,
like
some
other
state,
where
there
are
restrictions
when,
in
fact,
because
of
our
court
rulings,
we
don't
have
restrictions.
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
all
for
for
those
introductions
and
so
now
we're
gonna
sort
of
dive
deeper
into
what
proposal.
5
is
all
about
and
sort
of
starting
with
the
history
of
this
particular
proposal.
So
in
the
state
of
Vermont,
Constitutional
Amendments
need
to
be
reviewed
over
the
course
of
four
years
in
both
the
house
and
the
Senate.
So
what
was
the
impetus
that
brought
this
amendment
to
bear?
C
C
That
changes
in
this
with
changes
in
the
Supreme
Court
that
this
the
law,
the
law
of
the
lam
rovi
Wade.
There
was
a
real
possibility
that
it
could
be
overturned.
So
we've
started
this
process
before
the
Dobbs
decision
in
before
it
was
overturned
and
that,
in
fact,
decisions
about
abortion
rights
would
revert
to
the
states.
C
E
As
as
history,
it's
not
going
to
be
very,
very
different.
I'm,
really
appreciative
that
representative
Pugh
pointed
out
that
that
this
has
been
underway
for
some
time,
because
there
are
ads
running
now
saying
we
responded
to
the
jobs
decision
and
this
actually,
the
jobs
decision
is
more
being
used
as
a
as
a
mechanism
to
build
momentum
for
something
that
doesn't
really
relate
to
the
jobs
decision,
because
in
fact
it
doesn't
really
relate
to
Roe
v
Wade,
which
is
not
what
protects
writers,
vermonters
rights.
E
As
representative
Pugh
said,
we've
had
it
for
50
years,
because
our
own
Supreme
Court,
before
Roe
v
Wade,
had
found
the
the
right
I
think
again.
Vermonters
aren't
necessarily
aware
of
that.
They're,
not
aware
that
it's
unlimited,
because
the
legislature
never
passed
any
bills
until
a
few
years
ago,
when
an
unlimited
right
was
put
into
statute.
But
that's
what
would
be
locked
into
the
Constitution
by
this
step.
A
So
this
actually
relates
the
next
question.
Sort
of
relates
to
something
that
representative
Pugh
brought
up
with.
Is
that
the
fact
that
abortion
is
then
actually
mentioned
in
the
proposal
or
in
the
language
of
article
22
at
all,
so
from
your
let's
start
over
on
this
side
to
begin
with,
so
from
your
perspective,
is
it
significant
or
why?
Why
is
it
not
mentioned?
Why
is
it
significant
that
abortion
is
not
mentioned
in
the
language?
It.
D
Is
significant
because,
although
most
of
the
discussion
has
related
to
abortion
and
I
think
that's
been
the
case
on
both
sides?
Beyond
that,
we
don't
really
know
what
a
personal
reproductive
autonomy
is
to
say.
This
is
going
to
protect
people
to
have
contraception
or
to
have
a
child
nobody's
going
to
declare
it's
unconstitutional
or
illegal
to
have
a
child.
That's
not
going
to
happen
so
I
mean
a
lot
of
these
arguments.
D
I
think
are
rather
spurious,
so
I
mean
to
leave
I
mean
if,
if
the
intent
was
to
protect
abortion,
it
should
have
said
that
if
it's
not
to
protect
abortion,
I
guess
representative
Pugh
is
being
honest
and
saying.
Oh,
this
is
supposed
to
protect
other
things,
but
we
really
don't
know
what
are
the
other
things
there
are
that
can
be
protected.
E
So
yeah
and
I'll
I'll
just
add
you
know
I
I
heard.
Actually
it
was
representative
Pugh
on
an
earlier
radio
conversation
saying
everyone
knows
you
can
look
it
up
in
the
dictionary
if
you're
wondering
what
it
means
and
so
I
did
and
it
actually
doesn't
appear
in
the
dictionary
but
I
found
in
the
the
New
Oxford
Law
Dictionary.
It
says
that
there
are
disparate
views
as
to
what
it
encompasses
and
what
it
means,
and
very
unusual
just
three
days
ago
is
driving
into
town.
E
I
was
listening
to
NPR
and
they
had
a
reporter
talking
about
an
award
that
someone
had
won
for
protecting
a
reproductive
autonomy
and
she
defined
it
as
including
the
right
to
safely
raise
your
child.
Hadn't
occurred
to
me
as
coming
under
that,
but
that's
how
much
we
we
don't
know
and
yet
are
putting
into
our
into
our
constitution
on
issues
that
ought
to
be
a
part
of
public
policy
decision
making
in
the
legislature.
A
C
It
would
protect
reproductive
Livery
Amendment
would
protect
every
vermonter's
right
to
make
their
own
reproductive
Health
Care
decisions,
whether
to
become
pregnant
when
to
become
pregnant,
to
use
temporary
or
permanent
birth
control,
to
carry
a
pregnancy
to
term
or
to
seek
abortion
care
and
the
words
and
the
language
of
this
amendment
were
chosen
very
carefully.
In
fact,
the
language
personal
reproductive
autonomy
comes
directly
from
U.S
Supreme
Court
cases.
C
For
example,
reproductive
autonomy
includes
a
bundle
of
rights
that
come
from
cases
decided
before
and
after
Roe,
v
Wade
reproductive
autonomy,
as
I
said,
includes
the
right
to
choose
or
refuse
contraception
the
right
to
choose
or
refuse
sterilization
the
right
to
become
pregnant,
as
well
as
the
right
to
choose.
Abortion,
Einstein,
V,
Baird,
I'm,
saying
this
to
the
two
lawyers
in
the
room
and
anyone
who
might
be
listening.
Einstein
V,
Baird
Griswold
be
Connecticut
Skinner
via
Oklahoma,
Planned,
Parenthood,
V,
Casey
and
Roe
v,
Wade.
C
A
D
That
you
were
looking
like
you
wanted
to
respect.
Do
you
really
think
that
a
law
would
be
passed,
saying
that
you
can't
have
your
child
or
that
you
you
have
to
be
sterilized,
I
mean
these
are
not
things
that
have
to
be
protected
against,
I
mean
there's
already
law
and
and
I'm
sure
that
our
Vermont
Constitution
and
our
Federal
Constitution
would
protect
those
rights
already.
So
we
don't
really
need
this
amendment.
B
B
I
guess
my
only
point,
and
we
also
have
along
the
books
right
in
Vermont,
where
disabled
people
can
be
sterilized
so
actually
and
we
have
actually
a
you
know
a
history
of
this.
We
also
make
decisions
about
who
can
and
part
of
that
is
about
making
decisions
about
who
can
carry
a
child
and
who
can
who
we
are
going
to
allow
to
reproduce.
So
it's
actually
not
true.
E
For
example,
I
think
it
raises
a
lot
of
issues
that
ought
to
be
discussed
as
part
of
a
legislative
proposal.
For
example,
how
do
you
balance
against
two
different
types
of
Rights
and
I?
Guess
that's
going
to
really
lead
into
the
the
next
question
so
I'll
hold
off?
Maybe
you
want
to
add
to
it.
That's
fine.
A
All
right,
yes,
that's!
Let's
go
to
the
next
question,
which
is
about
the
language
of
compelling
State
interest
and
I
hope
that
you
can
help
us
sort
of
unpack
this
term
and
so
I
think
that
we
started
I,
don't
remember
which
side
we
started
last
that
last
time
we
started
I
think
on
this
side,
so
we'll
we'll
start
with
Lucy
and
Anna.
What
is
compelling
State
interest
yeah.
B
Sure
so,
legally,
a
compelling
State
interest
is
the
strongest
protection
that
we
have
to
protect,
Reproductive,
Rights
or
any
rights
for
that
matter.
Without
it,
we
would
be
much
less
protected.
A
compelling
State
interest
is
a
directive
to
the
courts
to
use
the
highest
standard
of
review
in
order
to
prevent
interference
or
restrictions
on
personal
reproductive
autonomy.
B
D
I
mean
what
it
means
is
that
the
legislature
must
have
a
very,
very,
very
good
reason
for
adopting
any
kind
of
Regulation
or
or
statute.
There's
a
balancing
test
that
the
court
will
have
to
do
again.
It's
a
Vermont,
Supreme
Court
that
will
be
doing
this
balancing
test
and
a
result.
Any
kind
of
legislation
or
regulation
that
in
the
field
of
personal
reproductive
autonomy,
is
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
adopt.
D
Now,
maybe
that's
the
intent,
but
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
cases
where
it's
not
such
a
bad
idea
to
have
some
regulations
right
now.
It's
wide
open.
We
passed
act
47
and
now
the
government
can't
even
regulate
abortion,
and
so
maybe
the
legislature
will
think.
That's
not
such
a
great
idea
after
they
see
what
happens,
but
this
amendment
is
going
to
make
it
incredibly
difficult
to
change
that
law.
E
Something
just
just
briefly,
I
think
it's
important
to
notice
it's
it's
the
only
place
where
it
would
actually
appear
as
language
in
the
Constitution.
It's
actually
a
court
developed
principle
and
that
sort
of
locks,
the
court
in
and
again
I
think
that
was
the
intention
to
make
it
sort
of
lock
in
an
extreme
position.
C
Yeah
go
ahead.
I
can't
talk
to
strict
scrutiny
because
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
but
I,
can
talk
to
what
is
currently
happening
in
Vermont
and
in
Vermont
there
are
there
isn't
there
is
not
the
only
institution
that
is
providing
abortion
care
in?
That
is,
the
medical
is
the
medical
center
and
doctors
and
medical
providers
have
to
operate
under
strict
medical
ethics,
and
the
hospital
itself
has
outlined
publicly
in
the
legislature
publicly
in
the
newspaper.
C
E
In
place
fusional
right,
if
this
passes
it
will
be
a
burden
on
that
woman.
So
you
know
they,
they
are
rare,
but
they
do
happen
and
even
California
restricts
abortion
to
non-elective
does
not
permit
non-elect
I
mean
restricts
it
to
to
non-elective
abortion.
Uvm
standard
is
its
own
standard,
it
can
drop
it.
We
would
have
no
ability
to
do
anything,
and
it
is
likely
that
the
court
itself
would
find
that
as
an
unconstitutional
standard,
and
then
the
state
would
not
be
able
to
act
once
this
has
passed
and
the.
C
A
I
think
that
that
kind
of
leads
into
this
next
question
and
so
that
we're
going
to
probably
be
able
to
dig
into
that
Deeper
by
actually
addressing
the
question
head
on,
which
is
around
this
term
of
late
term,
abortion,
which
you
see
a
lot
in
like
signs
up
on
people's
yards
and
in
advertising.
So
it's
a
lot
a
term.
A
That's
used
a
lot
in
arguments
about
this
act
and
I'd
love
for
you
all
to
sort
of
clarify
for
us
what
that
term
means
and
does
it
relate
to
the
proposed
amendment
and
and
if
it
doesn't
relate
you
know
what
are
you
know
tell
us
about
the
terms
that
you're
using
and
why
you're,
using
those
terms
and
how
it's
different.
So,
let's
start
over
here,
I.
D
Think
anyone
understands
the
term
late
term.
Abortion
means
the
abortion
of
a
viable
fetus,
a
baby
who
could
survive
outside
the
womb.
So
when
we
say
that
the
amendment
will
result
in
late
term
abortions,
we're
saying
that
those
will
be
possible
under
the
terms
of
the
of
the
amendment
that
will
be
very
difficult
to
even
restrict
something
like
that.
D
So
so,
and
the
proponents
say
this
doesn't
happen
in
Vermont,
but
nothing
prevents
someone
from
coming
into
Vermont
and
establishing
a
late
term
abortion
clinic
there
are
no
laws
or
regulations
that
would
prohibit
that
if
the
legislature
tried
to
prohibit
that
first
of
all,
they've
already
passed
a
law
that
says
they
can't.
So
that's
where
some
of
the
difficulty
is
here
and
I
know.
A
lot
of
this
is
poo
pooed
by
the
doctor
and
by
the
doctors
and
by
the
the
supporters.
D
But
the
fact
is,
we
don't
know,
and
so,
when
you
don't
know,
if
there's
something
that
you
don't
know,
should
we
be
adopting
this
amendment
for
all
these
different
scenarios
that
we
can't
tell
whether
they're
going
to
happen
or
not,
because
once
we
adopt
this
amendment,
it's
going
to
be
very
incredibly
very
difficult
to
change
it
or
to
repeal
it.
It's
going
to
take
another
four
years
session
for
two
two
year
sessions
to
adopt
it,
and
so
it
ain't
going
to
happen.
A
E
Just
just
to
say,
yeah,
we
we
know,
we
know
it's
legal.
Now,
it's
legal
under
statute,
it's
protected
under
our
own
Constitution
for
all
but
significant
restrictions.
It's
not
a
compelling
interest
test,
which
is
what
would
really
make
it
pretty
near
impossible
to
ever
regulate
in
the
future,
but
this
locks
it
in
that's
the
problem
it
locks
it
in
late
term
is
a
colloquial
expression
and
I.
Think,
as
my
partner
said,
is,
is
pretty
well
known.
B
Yeah
I
I'd
like
to
dig
into
this
a
little
bit
because
there's
a
lot
to
unpack
here,
late
term,
abortion
first
of
all
is
a
political
term.
It's
not
a
medical
term.
There
are
abortions
that
happen
later
in
pregnancy
and
people
who
use
the
wording
late
term
abortion.
This
is
language
that
is
divine
designed
specifically
to
shame
patients
and
and
should
restrict
access
to
reproductive
Health
Care.
The
amendment
would
protect
every
vermonter's
right
to
make
their
own
reproductive
decisions
without
the
interference
of
politicians.
It
really
is
that
simple.
B
We
don't
need
politicians
playing
doctor
with
our
health
care.
This
idea
that
the
amendment
would
make
abortions
later
in
pregnancy,
a
common
occurrence
is
really
actually
pretty
absurd
and
Preposterous.
The
Vermont
Department
of
Health
has
the
statistics.
As
representative
Donahue
just
mentioned,
the
this
possibility
exists
right
now
and
has
existed
in
Vermont
for
the
last
50
years,
and
we've
also
seen
a
similar
environment
with
gestational
limits
and
viability.
Bands
in
other
states
that
have
been
in
effect
and
still
this
isn't.
This
has
not
been
a
practice
in
Vermont
at
all,
so
nationally.
B
Abortions
happen
later
in
pregnancy,
like
for
the
whole
country.
These
abortions
compromise
about
one
percent
of
all
the
abortions
performed
a
small
number
of
abortions
that
happen
later
in
pregnancy
in
Vermont
are
not
elective.
There
are
no
elective
abortions
that
happen
later
in
pregnancy.
In
Vermont,
there
are
certain
screenings
in
genetic
testing
that
cannot
be
done
until
the
second
trimester
of
pregnancy.
B
So
people
often
don't
learn
about
serious
medical
complications
until
this
time,
the
UVM
Medical
Center
is
the
only
healthcare
provider
in
Vermont
that
performs
abortions
Beyond
21
weeks
and
six
days
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
rare,
but
when
it
happens,
the
hospital
has
a
process
of
review.
As
representative
Pugh
was
mentioning,
that
includes
an
Ethics
panel,
a
geneticist
and
all
other
providers
and
Specialists
that
are
involved
in
the
patient's
care.
Together
they
identify
options
in
the
best
course
of
treatment
for
the
patient,
to
shame,
patience
to
shame
these
patients
is
cruel.
B
A
Yeah
yeah
I
want
to
give
you
a
chance,
maybe
to
respond
to
this,
and
especially
you
know.
Lucy
is
saying
like
this.
This
doesn't
happen
now,
and
it
could
happen
now.
So
it
seems,
like
you
know,
saying
that
it's
going
to
happen
after
the
proposal
doesn't
seem
fair
I
mean
what
are
your
thoughts
there.
E
Well,
first
of
all,
I
have
never
said.
We've
never
said
that
for
some
reason
it
would
make
it
more
common
I,
don't
think
it
would
make
it
more
common
I
think
it
would
draw
people
to
Vermont,
and
we
know
as
a
fact
that
there
are
people
who
leave
Vermont
now
for
elective
and
nobody's
talking
about
essential
abortions
or
health
involved
abortions.
We're
talking
about
elective
abortions,
for
reasons
other
than
need.
E
Those
people
are
referred
by
UVM
out
of
state
when
they
don't
meet
their
own
internal
ethics
standards.
There
are
providers
who
advertise
in
Vermont
for
Vermont
women
to
come
and
locking
this
into
our
constitution
would
make
it
a
place
that
more
people
might
come
nobody's
saying
it
would
increase
the
number,
but
we're
only
2
talking
about
electively
chosen
third-term
abortions
with
viable
infants.
It's
that
simple.
E
This
would
lock
them
in
and
as
other
states
as
is
pointed
out,
other
states
are,
you
know,
pushing
back
and
it
will
make
it
the
the
place
where
you
can
access
it
and
that
Vermont
will
not
be
able
to
respond
by
saying.
Oh
uvm's
policy
is
unconstitutional.
Now,
oh,
this
has
happened.
Oh
people
are
coming
here:
there
won't
be
an
ability
for
the
state
to
ever
respond
because
we
will
have
locked
ourselves
out
of
the
conversation.
Okay.
B
That
well
I
just
want
to
say
that
what
what
our
opponents
are
suggesting
here
is
that
we
should
leave
the
door
open
to
restrict
abortion,
people
who
gets
abortion
and
at
what
point
they
get
an
abortion
and
that
somehow
we're
going
to
have
like
a
little
government.
You
know
hovering
craft
in
the
exam
room,
looking
over
the
doctor's
shoulder,
second
guessing
their
medical
profession
and
their
their
professional
opinion
about
how
to
best
care
for
a
patient.
B
What
I
want
to
say
to
that
is
that
that
is
dangerous
and
that
we
know
that
in
states
that
have
that
allow
government
regulation,
through
gestational
limits
or
through
viability,
bans
that
the
maternal
mortality
rates
are
high.
Our
maternal
mortality
rates
and
our
health
outcomes
for
for
pregnant
people
in
Vermont
are
very,
very,
very,
very
good.
We
have
great
health
outcomes
and
it's
because
we
don't
have
this
kind
of
government
intervention
in
a
place
where
the
government
has
really
no
expertise.
All
right.
Just.
A
E
I,
don't
know
the
data
for
California
I
didn't
know
that
they
had
a
higher
a
maternal
mortality
rate
in
childbirth.
It
would
surprise
me
if
that
was
accurate,
and
they
they
in
fact
have
a
viability
test
that
the
doctor
determines
it's.
The
Doctor
Who
judges
that
it
is
a
viable
infant
and
therefore,
if
it's
for
an
elective
purpose,
it
should
not
go
forward.
So
this
is
not
anybody
going
into
and
making
the
medical
decision
about,
viability
and
I
just
want
to
repeat.
We
are
not
talking
about
restrictions
on
abortion
all
over
the
place.
E
Our
own
Supreme
Court
has
made
it
clear.
We
can't
do
that.
We're
only
talking
about
the
very
late
term
abortions
that
are
not
necessary
for
health
and
that
involve
a
viable
fetus,
that's
that's
it
and
we
could
carve
them
out.
We
could
have
carved
them
out.
There
was
a
refusal
to
look
at
any
kind
of
amendments
which
indicates
a
clear
intent
to
not
carve
them
out,
even
when
elective
I,
don't
think,
vermonters
want
that.
C
Talking
about
things
that
don't
happen,
things
that
haven't
happened
in
Vermont
passage
of
this
of
of
prop
5
article
22
will
not
change,
will
not
alter,
will
not
expand
anything
about
the
way
abortion
is
currently
provided
in
Vermont
and
I
trust,
our
health
care
providers,
I
trust
the
medical
ethics
board,
I
trust
on
the
medical
practice
board
and
ethics
to
infect
people.
Doctors,
doctors
would
lose
their
license
if
they
could
do
if
they
did
certain
things
and
I
really
feel
that
much
of
this
is
egregious
misinformation
and.
E
Yeah
yeah,
because
trusting
in
the
medical
profession
is
not
the
issue.
The
medical
profession's
hands
will
themselves
be
tied
by
a
constitutional
right
act.
49
already
prohibits
the
medical
practice
board
from
doing
anything
that
would
interfere
with
access
to
abortion.
Doctors
cannot
lose
their
licenses
for
giving
a
woman
a
constitutional
right.
Even
if
and
in
fact
the
medical
practice
I'm.
Sorry,
the
medical
ethics
board
would
probably
be
itself
found
to
be
unconstitutional
as
creating
a
barrier
to
a
guaranteed
right
in
the
Constitution.
C
C
C
E
Yeah
and
then
we're
gonna
move
on
to
the
next
question.
Yeah
I
mean
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
that
a
court
is
not
is
hardly
going
to
find
something
as
a
compelling
State
interest.
All
of
a
sudden.
If
the
legislature
wants
to
intervene
because
uvm's
policies
aren't
constitutional
when
it
found
that
it
was
not
an
interest
at
all.
You
can't
create
a
legislative
history
saying
this
is
not
a
state
interest
to
protect
a
viable
infant
in
the
womb
and
then
suddenly
reverse.
D
A
Okay,
all
right,
let's
I,
think
that
we've
sort
of
gotten
to
the
point
where
it's
we
might
not
get
further
on
that
question
and
I
think
that
maybe
moving
to
this
next
question
sort
of
gets
to
a
lot
of
questions
on
the
minds
of
vermonters,
which
is
you
know?
Why
are
we
talking
about
reproductive
Health
Care
as
a
constitutional
matter?
So
what
is
the
benefit
of
making
a
constitution
sort
of
maybe,
in
light
of
some
of
the
questions
that
have
been
coming
up
about,
you
know?
A
B
Yeah
sure
so
we
are
talking
about
it
as
a
constitutional
issue,
because
when
the
Dom's
decision
came
down
and
robe
was
overturned,
that
it
became
clear
at
that
point
we
knew
we.
Everyone
knows
that
the
decision
to
regulate
abortion
then
Falls,
to
States,
and
in
order
to
protect
this,
this
right
that
vermonters
have
had
for
50
years
long
term
for
future
generations
and
to
provide
peace
of
mind
for
moms
for
grandmothers
for
people
who
have
who
have
children.
B
E
Over
here
sure,
I
think
we
all
have
to
remember
that
our
Supreme
Court
50
years
ago
already
determined
this.
This
wasn't
right
in
Vermont,
it
didn't
say
you
couldn't
have
any
restrictions
at
all,
but
it
established
it.
So
so
the
Dobbs
decision
didn't
suddenly
change
things
in
Vermont,
so
I
think
that's
important.
E
I
think
that
I
agree
that
this
would
not
change
anything.
You
know
the
next
day.
What
it
would
change
would
be
our
ability
to
to
give
protections
if
we
started
having
problems.
I
had
something
else,
I
meant
to
say
in
response:
oh
I'm,
sorry
that
that
you
referenced
in
your
question:
I'm
recalling
about
doctors
being
forced
to
do
abortions,
which
of
course,
would
not
be
would
not
be.
D
And
I
I
think
that
the
and,
in
addition
the
problem
is
again,
this
is
so
open-ended
we're
trusting
that
all
these
things
are
going
to
happen.
We're
trusting
that
the
medical
center
is
going
to
continue
with
these
ethical
Provisions.
We're
trusting
that
they're
going
to
do
the
right
thing,
we're
trusting
that
the
court
will
do
the
right
thing
and,
and
by
putting
this
in
the
Constitution
we
we
are
now
locking,
locking
this
in
and
making
it
virtually
impossible
to
make
any
kind
of
changes.
A
B
Quickly-
and
it
has
to
do
with
compelling
this-
the
Constitutional
Amendment,
the
Constitution-
is
about
it's
a
limit
on
government
Authority
and
government
power.
It
cannot
compel
the
UVM
Medical,
Center
or
individual
Physicians,
as
representative
Donahue,
just
mentioned
from
from
performing
like
from
following
their
own
ethics
practices
and
their
own
standards
of
practice
with
and
having
conscience
protections,
which
they
do.
It's
a
check
on
government
power,
okay,.
E
So,
just
to
correct
the
law
on
that
I
mean
in
fact.
Yes,
it's
a
check
in
the
government
power.
It
also
can
apply
to
entities
not
to
persons
not
to
individuals
but
to
entities.
So,
yes,
our
hospitals
in
this
state
could
be
found
to
be
breaking
the
constitution
in
violation
through
their
own
policies,
and
there
would
not
be
something
that
we
could
do
about
it.
Planned
Parenthood
in
New
Hampshire
has
a
post-conscience
protection
for
doctors,
saying
that
it
would
violate.
E
A
D
I
urge
people
to
vote
against
this.
It's
open-ended,
it's
unclear,
it
could
be
applied
to
private
action
and
it
it
the
cons.
One
of
the
major
concerns
is
that
it
will
allow
an
enshrine
and
lock
in
late
term,
abortion
of
viable,
fetuses
and
I.
Think
that's
wrong
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
what
vermonters
want
all.
B
Right
and
over
here
I
would
say
that
to
the
people
watching
this,
if
you
remember
one
thing,
it
is
this
proposal:
5
will
ensure
that
important
personal
health
care
decisions
remain
between
you
and
your
health
care
provider,
not
politicians.
It's
that
simple
vermonters
have
had
this
freedom
for
the
past
50
years.
Passing
proposal
5
will
ensure
the
rights
we
have
today
won't
be
gone
tomorrow.
Every
person
in
every
pregnancy
is
different.
Would
you
rather
navigate
your
pregnancy
with
your
doctor's
expertise,
or
would
you
want
a
politician
telling
your
doctor
what
to
do.
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
and
for
these
thoughtful
I
think
this
was
a
great
example
of
a
really
divisive
issue
where
we
had
a
conversation
where
we
put
the
things
on
the
table
and
were
able
to
talk
to
each
other
in
a
courteous
manner.
So
thank
you
and
I
hope
that
everybody
watching
at
home
learned
something
today
and
we
encourage
you
to
go
home
and
vote
on
November
8th
or
before.
If
you,
you
should
have
received
your
ballot
in
the
mail.