►
From YouTube: VICII: PART 1 - Roe v. Wade is Gone Now - What Is Next for the Women and Girls of Our Nation?
Description
From VICII:
On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade. When decided in 1973, the Court decided that the 14th Amendment declaring all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, these born women and girls are therefore entitled to the equal protection of the law and the Constitution. Roe insured that women and girls were guaranteed the same rights as men to make medical decisions in privacy with their doctors and families or in the privacy of their own conscience without the interference of the State, the politicians, family, or church. The Roe decision stated that as moral agents women were to be trusted to make important decisions about their pregnancies, their families, their futures and their destinies on their own.
Join the Vermont Institute of Community and International Involvement as Kurt Mehta, Esq.; Sandy Baird, Esq.; and Justine Snow, Esq. discuss this new reality.
For more information: vicii.org
6/29/2022
https://linktr.ee/townmeetingtv
Town Meeting TV is a free speech forum and the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Town Meeting TV trustees and staff. If you have a different perspective to share, we invite you to join the conversation! Create your own program or cover a community meeting or event. Contact maketv@cctv.org or call 862-3966.
Thank you for tuning into Town Meeting TV! Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and visit our website for more videos and information about how we open the doors to local government using community media. www.Ch17.TV
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
So
tonight
I
wanted
to
begin
the
discussion.
It's
a
very
long
discussion
and
we're
going
to
continue
it
also
on
the
13th.
So
thank
you
all
for
coming,
but
tonight
I
will
start
and
then
we're
going
to
hear
from
kurt
mado
who's,
a
constitutional
scholar
and
also
justine
snow,
a
former
student
of
mine,
a
public
defender
in
florida
and
also
an
expert
on
roe
v
wade.
A
I'm
going
to
begin
by
talking
about
the
original
reasons
that
roe
v
wade
was
put
in
place
in
the
first
place
in
1973,
and
I
have
the
arguments
that
were
presented
at
the
time.
In
fact,
I
have
both
the
tape
of
that
hearing,
in
which
the
court
was
asked
to
decide
the
fate
of
women's
rights.
I
have
a
tape
of
it,
but
I
also
have
a
written
version.
A
At
that
time
there
was
a
young
female
attorney.
Sarah
weddington,
who
argued
the
case
that
that
the
right
to
an
abortion
as
many
other
women's
rights,
many
other
women's
rights
in
order
to
have
children
as
well
and
have
as
many
children
as
she
wanted
was
fundamental,
was
a
fundamental
right
that
was
in
the
united
states
constitution.
A
I'm
always
surprised
that
when,
when
the
the
opposition
to
roe
v
wade
talks
they're
talking
as
if
is
that
the
constitution
has
to
say
something
like
the
woman
has
a
right
to
abortion,
the
court
never
did
say
that
they're
quite
right.
The
court
did
not
say
that
a
woman
had
a
right
to
an
abortion.
Nor
did
it
say
that
a
woman
had
a
right
to
have
a
child.
A
A
It's
it's
in
the
14th
amendment
to
the
united
states
constitution.
Okay,
what
is
the
14th
amendment?
And
I'm
talking
about
this,
because
I
think
that
the
court
in
overturning
roe
fundamentally
ignored
the
14th
amendment.
The
14th
amendment
was
was
established
in
about
1868
and
the
reason
it
was
was
because
black
people
had
been
slaves.
A
They
were
emancipated
during
the
civil
war.
They
had
no
real
legal
status
at
that
time,
but
nobody
knew
what
they
were
were
they
citizens
were
they
property,
and
so
the
14th
amendment
says
the
following:
all
persons
born
or
naturalized
in
the
united
states
and
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
there
are,
are
citizens
of
the
united
states
and
of
the
state
wherein
they
reside.
A
Sarah
weddington
argued,
therefore,
that
the
person
to
be
protected
by
the
constitution
was
the
person
that
was
born
okay
and
that
person,
of
course,
is
the
pregnant
woman
in
the
case
that
we're
arguing
about
and
because
she
is
a
born
person,
she
has
all
the
rights
of
the
citizens
of
the
united
states.
That
means
the
due
process
of
law,
and
that
means
essentially
the
right
to
make
her
own
medical
decisions
in
the
privacy
of
her
own
conscience,
as
well
as
well
as
men
have
the
right
to
make
decisions
about
their
bodies.
A
A
My
argument
has
always
been
from
the
beginning
that
this
is
a
fundamental
human
right
of
women
and
men
to
bodily
autonomy.
We
could
call
it
that
or
the
right
to
make
important
decisions
about
the
course
of
their
life
without
interference
of
the
state,
politicians
or
bureaucrats.
That
is
the
fundamental
right
of
all
persons
born
in
the
united
states.
Our
citizens
of
the
united
states
are
and
are
entitled
to
the
equal
protection
of
our
law.
A
A
I
think
that,
increasingly,
throughout
this
horrible
period,
from
1973
to
the
present
that
many
people
see
the
whole
struggle
between
those
who
would
the
court,
which
has
denied
rights
to
abortion
and
they've,
argued
look
at
there's
no
abortion
mentioned
in
the
constitution.
That's
correct,
that's
correct,
nor
is
appendicitis,
nor
is
you
know,
vaccines
injections
either.
None
of
that
is
also
mentioned.
What
is
the
purpose
of
the
constitution
is
to
protect
the
rights
of
citizens
born
in
the
united
states
or
naturalized
in
the
united
states.
A
That
is
a
fundamental
right
that
the
court
decided
pertains
to
women.
That's
all
gone
though,
and
I
think
largely
the
argument
against
a
lot
has
been
mistaken.
I
think
that
many
even
pro-choice
advocates
have
have
sort
of
not
seen
this
as
a
fundamental
human
right.
They've
seen
it
as
some
right
that
a
person
pregnant
woman
has
to
an
abortion.
No,
she
because
she's,
a
citizen
because
she's
born
has
the
right
to
ask
for
constitutional
protection
of
her
fundamental
rights
to
make
her
medical
decisions
on
her
own.
A
Without
the
appearance
of
big
shots
from
the
government
or
big
courts
or
big
bureaucrats,
it
is
their
fundamental
right
as
it
is
the
fundamental
right
of
males
to
determine
their
medical
best
interests,
free
and
clear
of
the
state.
Okay.
So
I'm
going
to
stop
there
for
a
moment,
but
because
I'm
going
to
I
wanted
to
mention,
I
want,
of
course
the
others
to
talk
al
also,
because
I
want
to
know,
oh
so
then
the
court
made
another
decision
which
I
didn't
want
to
address.
So
the
core
in
denying
this
human
right
returned.
A
The
question
to
the
state
legislatures
now,
they're
arguing,
including
tucker
carlson,
makes
this
argument
every
night
that
that's
democracy
at
work,
that
a
state
legislature
representing
the
people
should
be
able
to
to
vote
on
this.
You
don't
allow
votes
on
fundamental
human
rights
if
it's
the
right
to
speak
the
right
to
go
to
church
or
not
to
go
to
church.
That's
a
fundamental
human
right
outlined
in
our
bill
of
rights.
Nobody
gets
a
chance
to
overturn
them
that
by
a
vote
they
don't
even
human
rights
do
not
get
voted
on.
A
A
So
that's
the
two
elements,
but
the
court
got
away
with
with
this
decision
because
they,
basically
because
they
wanted
to-
is
what
I
think,
but
anyway,
so
maybe
we'll
turn
it
to
kurt
and
then
and
justine
or
the
other
way
around,
because
I
would
love
to
know
kurt's
legal
analysis
and
justine's
legal
analysis
of
what
happened.
But
maybe
we
should
start
with
kurt
kurt
maida,
who
is
a
colleague
of
mine,
an
attorney
and
a
legal
scholar
who
has
a
practice
here
in
burlington?
Go
ahead.
Okay,.
B
B
Which
was
decided
in
1973
and
what
what
the
court
decided
and
and
roe
came
after
a
string
of
cases
in
the
mid
mid,
1960s
late
1960s
that
that
relied
on
the
14th
amendment,
as
you
mentioned
sandy,
specifically
with
respect
to
something
called
substantive
due
process
right
substantive
due
process.
You
know,
I'm
gonna,
try
not
to
make
it
too
boring
here,
but
some
substantive
due
process.
B
You
know
the
way
the
court
looked
at.
It
were
rights
that
were
unenumerated,
which
means
weren't
specifically
listed
in
the
constitution
that
the
court
felt
that
they
needed
to
protect.
So
what
sandy
mentioned
a
couple
of
moments
ago,
you
know
as
fundamental
rights.
You
referred
to
things
like
freedom
of
speech,
freedom
of
worship.
You
know
going
to
the
church
or
wherever
you
go
to
pray
to
assemble.
You
know,
publish
you
know.
These
are
enumerated
rights
in
that
the
bill
of
rights.
B
The
first
ten
amendments
to
the
u.s
constitution
specifically
mentioned
these
rights.
You
know.
Thus
they
are
enumerated
and
those
are
protected.
The
you
know,
the
the
the
fifth
amend
the
fifth
amendment
to
the
constitution,
basically
guarantees
that
the
federal
government
won't
take
any
action
that
will
limit
these
rights
and
part
of
the
14th
amendment.
B
The
listed
rights
in
the
constitution
free
respect,
press
religion
speech
is
they
had
to
largely
rely
on
on
state
constitutions
themselves
as
well
as
well
as
state
laws,
because
the
the
you
know
what,
if
they
went
to
a
federal
court
federal
court,
said
well
the
fifth
amendment.
You
know
that
only
guarantees
the
the
federal
government
from
not
taking
action.
B
So,
let's,
let's
kind
of
move
back
to
the
present
here,
so
the
14th
amendment
in
the
late
1870s,
there
was
a
descent
by
a
justice
field
in
something
called
the
slaughterhouse
cases,
which
established
this
concept
of
substantive
due
process,
which
are
fundamental
rights,
as
sandy
mentioned
that
weren't
specifically
mentioned
in
the
constitution
that
needed
to
be
needed
to
be
protected
and
preserved
for
the
american
people.
So.
B
From
there
to
100
years
later
and
in
the
late
1960s
there
was
this
notion
of
of
a
right
to
privacy
as
a
substantive
due
process
right
that
the
justices
in
the
1960s
court
supreme
court
felt
was
necessary
to
protect,
and
then
they
felt
that
that
was
a
fundamental
right.
So
you
had
things
like
contraception
that
was
legally
guaranteed.
Then
you
know
for
unmarried
people,
no.
C
B
A
A
He
stayed
in
long,
and
so
he
knew
it
was
coming.
He
stayed
in
long
enough
to
issue
a
dissent
and
then
he's
off
the
court
tomorrow
at
noon
anyway,
justine
this
is
justine
snow.
As
I
mentioned
a
student
that
graduated
happily
for
me
from
burlington
college,
except
then
she
went
away
to
florida,
she's
a
public
defender
in
florida,
and
she
has
thought
about
this
issue
many
times.
Justine.
D
Hi
sandy,
thank
you
for
having
me
again.
I
always
love
joining
on
wednesday.
Nights
brings
back
good
memories.
Yeah
I
mean
just
backing
up
with
kurt
says:
that's
really
what
the
opinion
comes
down
to.
It
is
a
213
page
opinion.
Just
you
want
some
light
reading,
essentially
what
it
seemed
like
the
court
went
through
is:
if
it's
not
an
enumerated
right,
they
then
decided.
D
Obergefell
b
hodges,
which
was
the
gay
marriage
case,
he
straight
said
in
his
concurring
opinion
that
he
also
felt
those
cases
were
decided
wrong
and
that
those
were
not
included
in
this
right
to
privacy
and
so
that
the
supreme
court
should
go
back
and
correct
those
opinions
as
well,
and
so
that's
something
to
look
out
for
in
the
future.
Based
on
now
this
case
being
precedent
to
rely
on
for
future
opinions.
A
Okay
with
that,
I
might
mention
something
else.
I
want
to
read
you
something
from
the
original
argument
of
sarah
weddington,
because
these
are
these
were
the
enumerated
rights
that
she
did
say
were
enumerated
when
it
comes
to
the
private
matters
of
marriage
and
the
family.
She
says
the
court
has
in
the
past,
held
that
it
is
the
right
of
the
parents
and
of
the
individual
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
will
send
their
child
to
private
schools.
Whether
or
not
their
children
will
be
taught
foreign
languages,
whether
or
not
they
will
have
offspring.
A
Remember
the
eugenic
cases
when
they
decided
certain
people
couldn't
reproduce
and
then
the
right
to
marry,
which
was
the
loving
case
and,
in
the
loving
case
it
overturned.
The
laws
in,
I
think
virginia,
which
did
not
allow
black
people
to
marry
white
people
anyway.
These
issues
of
marriage,
the
family
and
sex
have
all
been
considered
as
part
of
your
fundamental
rights
to
make
these
decisions
yourself
without
the
overbearing
nature
of
the
government
and
politicians.
A
So
that's
where
we
stand.
Let
me
just
say
one
thing
now
about
where
it
does
stand.
It
does
not
mean
at
this
point
that
abortion
is
criminalized
and
by
the
way
I
want
to
ask
a
question
when
you're
talking
about
criminalizing
abortion.
What
has
been
the
case
before
roe
was?
There
was
only
one
part:
one
party
that
ever
was
criminalized
in
an
abortion
case.
A
That
was
the
doctor
a
doctor
here
in
vermont
up
until
72
in
a
vermont
case,
the
doctor
could
not
perform
an
abortion
if
a
woman
did
it
herself,
there
was
no
crime,
that's
when
in
vermont,
essentially
that
law
against
doctors
was
overturned
and
therefore
there
was
a
vacuum
in
1972
in
the
jackal.
In
our
case,
there
was
virtually
a
vacuum
because
abortion
was
decriminalized
right.
A
So
so
at
that
point
in
vermont
there
were
no
laws
against
abortion
at
all
and
that-
and
it
was
in
that
vacuum
that
people
like
me
and
others-
sally
ballen,
who's
here
and
other
people
formed
the
vermont
women's
health
center
and
became
the
first
legal
abortion
providing
service
in
the
country.
I
believe,
okay,
so
anyway,
any
thoughts,
questions,
yeah,.
B
I
mean,
I
think
you
know
what
justine
said
towards
the
you
know
at
the
the
end
of
her
piece.
It's
it's
really
critical.
You
know.
I
know
it
may
come
across
by
some
people
as
alarmist,
but
you
know,
and
and
just
to
be
clear
about
that-
is
that
what
justine
mentioned
was
that
justice
clarence
thomas
who,
who
wrote
a
concurring
opinion
specifically
mentioned
the
the
possible
need
to
revisit
some
of
the
other
cases
that
were
based
on
this
substantive,
due
process
right
of
privacy,
that
they
need
to
be
revisited.
A
A
Because
fetuses
are
not
born
they're,
not
therefore
defined
by
the
14th
amendment,
as
persons
born
persons
have
the
right
to
due
process
and
the
right
to
be
protected
by
the
constitution.
You're
absolutely
right.
The
fetus,
the
embryo
inside
a
woman's
body
is
not
at
this
moment
a
person
under
the
laws
of
the
united
states.
B
A
A
A
That's
it.
I
don't
think,
there's
anyone
that
I,
although
no
no
there
are
people
who
would
criminalize
the
woman
for
having
an
abortion.
That
has
never
been
the
precedent
in
this
country.
Never,
however,
these
people
are
so
intense
on
controlling
women's
bodies.
They
might,
in
certain
states,
pass
a
law
that
punishes
the
woman
for
doing
an
abortion
by
herself
or
buy
them
by
one
of
these
pills.
A
They
might
I'm
just
going
to
talk
about
the
status
again
of
life
before
row
and
in
vermont
before
the
the
sally,
correct
me,
beecham
versus
leahy
right,
that's
the
name
of
that
case
correct
beecham
versus
leahy.
At
that
time
there
was
one
person
who
committed
a
crime
if
they
did
an
abortion,
and
that
was
the
doctor.
It
was
never
a
crime
for
a
woman
to
do
it
herself.
A
D
Sandy,
I
do
just
want
to
jump
in
prior
to
row.
There
were
four
states
that
did
criminalize
women
for
abortions,
arizona,
delaware,
idaho
and
oklahoma,
and
from
my
understanding,
some
of
the
trigger
laws
in
some
of
the
states
do
criminalize
women
for
seeking
an
abortion
attempting
to
seek
an
abortion
or
getting
an
abortion.
A
A
It
is
a
civil
liability
penalty
that
they
could
be
sued
for
monetary
damages,
so
it's
pretty
restrictive
too,
but
it's
not
yet
a
crime
anywhere
that
I
know
of
I
mean
it
might
have
been
before
roe
in
certain
states,
but
that
was
not
the
case
here,
but
the
doctor
was
criminalized,
which
of
course
made
women
go
crazy
and
find
other
ways
to
get
abortions
and
they
died.
It
was
the
second
cause
of
death
of
women,
and
obviously
these
I
don't
know
what
to
call
these
people.
A
F
I
don't
think
they
really
care
about
the
fetus
either.
No,
I
don't
think
they
really
want
to
control
women's
sexuality.
I
don't
know
I
absolutely
love,
but
you
know
for
for
that,
for
them
to
assert
that
abortion
is
didn't
exist
before
there
was
a
constitution
is
totally
ridiculous.
Women
have
controlled
their
their
entire
family
and
reproductive
lives
since
the
beginning
of
time.
Exactly.
C
F
G
H
A
I
I
A
A
A
A
B
Texas
basically
stated
that
if
they
could
detect
embryonic
activity
or
fetal
cardiac
activity
at
that
point,
that
was
considered
quote
unquote
a
person
and
the
woman
was,
you
know
not
capable
of
making
that
decision
on
her
own
or
with
her
doctor
any
longer.
So
I
mean
you
know,
I'm
not
I'm
not
taking
a
side
here.
I'm
just
saying
the
other
side
is
essentially
stating
exactly
what
pete
is
saying
that
you
know
this.
This
is
essentially
killing
a
potential
person
or
a
person.
We.
A
H
B
G
B
B
B
A
Have
no
idea
because
at
that
point
the
court
had
decided
that
it
was
a
fundamental
human
right
of
women
and
girls
to
make
that
decision
in
their
own
conscience.
They
are
moral
agents,
they
are
capable
rational
human
beings.
Those
are
the
only
people,
women
and
girls
involved
in
this
decision
and
that's
what
they
decided
in
row
and
they
merely
overturned
that
right
and
disempowered
women
all
over
this
country
and.
A
G
I
think
that
the
that
argument
about
the
fetus
being
considered
considered
a
human
being
is
very
pertinent
because,
because
of
because
of
you
allow
abortions,
then
you
can
allow
people.
Then
you
can
allow
people
to
kill
anybody
that
they
want
to.
They
buy
a
lot
by
allowing
abortions
of
a
fetus
as
a
person
and
and
the
fetuses
are
protected
and
it's
and
then
it
gets
into
the
absolute
rightful
right
to
life.
We
don't
have
an
absolute
right,
an
absolute
right
to
life.
Obviously,
since
we
go
to
wars
at
the
drop
of
a
hat
right,
you're.
B
C
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
Well,
I
think
maybe
we
should.
I
could
ask
some
of
the
people
that
I
know
I'm
involved
in
that
struggle
too,
but
there
are
people
here
that
are
really
more
deeply
involved.
I
think
at
this
point
like
sally
or
beth
sacks,
so
maybe
what
are
your
thoughts
about?
That
mark
has
his
hand
up
as
well.
Oh
and
mark
mark
estrin,
you
mean
I
don't
okay,
fine
mark.
J
E
E
So
as
much
as
effort
should
be,
you
know
deployed
to
allow
people
to
have
access
to
to
an
abortion.
We
should
also
when
it
comes
to
the
to
the
new
american
community
emphasis.
I
mean
put
an
emphasis
on
contraception
and
means
to
avoid
going
to
that
place
where
you
can
be
in
trouble.
I
also
have
a
question
which
is
technical.
E
E
A
A
D
Just
just
clean
has
a
comment
yeah,
so
I
just
want
to
go
to.
I
think
it
was
mark's
question
about
coming
together
and
offering
homes
first,
I
want
to
say,
as
someone
in
a
state
where
abortion
is
probably
going
to
be
very
dangerous,
soon,
that's
a
dangerous
statement
to
make
on
a
recorded
system
out
loud,
and
I
just
want
to
explain
why
there
are
organizations
nationwide
that
do
that
they
are
called
abortion
funds.
D
If
you
are
looking
to
help
people
in
that
way,
come
to
vermont
and
get
abortions,
you
can
join
or
donate
to
an
abortion
fund.
You
can
go
to
abortionfunds.org,
they
are
trained.
They
know
how
to
move
people
secretly,
where
these
people
are
not
later
going
to
be
criminalized
or
sued
in
their
own
states,
when
abortion
becomes
criminalized
in
a
state
and
someone
leaves
the
state
to
get
an
abortion
there's
a
very
high
risk
that
they
can
later
be
criminalized
sued.
D
Let's
all
get
together
and
help
people
who
want
to
travel
to
vermont
get
abortions,
but
there
are
ways
to
do
that
with
people
in
organizations
that
have
been
preparing
for
this
for
years,
because
they
saw
this
coming
and
that's
abortionfunds.org.
They
will
direct
you
to
any
in
the
area
and
they
will
tell
you
how
you
can
assist,
and
so
that's
where
I
just
want
to
direct
people
to
that.
As
far
as
what
we
can
do
next,
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
that.
D
Currently,
there
are
lawsuits
that
are
being
put
in
place
because
florida
has
an
express
right
to
privacy
in
our
constitution,
and
so
roe
was
decided
under
this
right
to
privacy,
florida
codified
that
in
our
constitution-
and
so
currently
we
do
have
that
protection
for
us
right
now.
I
don't
know
how
long
it
will
last,
because
the
florida
constitution
can
change
a
little
bit
easier
than
the
federal
one,
but
so
I
did
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
and
that
different
states
are
gonna.
D
It's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
state
battles
is
what
I
see
in
the
future
because
of
the
federal
opinion,
and
the
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
is
these
three
judges
who
were
put
in
place
were
put
in
place
by
a
president
who
wasn't
elected
by
the
popular
vote,
and
so
that's
a
concern.
Is
we
have
somebody
who
wasn't
elected
by
most
of
the
country
who
put
someone
in
who
put
three
people
in
who
have
now
made
a
decision
who
affects
the
whole
country?
D
A
A
I
mean
vermont
right
now
has
hasn't
sally,
hasn't
codified,
the
right
to
reproductive
making
on
the
part
of
women
and
girls,
hasn't
that
been
codified
into
the
law
and
isn't
there
talk
of
prop
5,
which
will
be
a
constitutional
amendment?
I
think
sally
or
beth
maybe
know
that
better
than
I
do
do
you.
Where
are
you?
A
Well
again?
I
guess
they
don't
maybe,
but
I
do
know
that
there's
going
to
be
that
this-
that
the
legislature
last
year
passed
a
law
which
codified
roe
at
least
into
the
law.
I
know
also
that
there's
proposition
5,
I
think,
which
wants
to
make
a
constitutional
amendment
to
the
vermont
constitution,
which
allows
women
to
seek
abortions.
J
Well,
I
justine
was
commenting
on
my
proto
proposal
here
and
I
don't
really
understand.
Maybe
you
can
clarify
supposing
either
I
as
a
householder
or
a
group
of
us
we
have
17
here,
became
publicly
open
house
to
and
for
offering
transportation
and
and
housing
to
people
in
need
who
come
to
vermont
for
abortions.
I
don't
understand
what
then,
what
what
the
danger
is?
What
would
I
be
charged
with
aiding
and
abetting
a
crime?
It's
not
a
crime
here
right,
it's
not
a
crime.
J
D
It's
people
who
are
assisting
so
if
I
live
in
a
state
where
abortion
is
illegal
and
anybody
who
helps
me
can
be
charged
with
a
felony
like
alabama,
and
my
friend
drives
me
to
vermont,
and
you
have
this
post
on
on
facebook
or
on
here
or
on
some
type
of
social
media.
That
says:
hey
anybody
seeking
an
abortion
in
vermont,
we
have
a
little
underground.
Railroad
here,
come
stay
at
any
of
our
houses.
D
That's
all
online!
So
when
my
friend
and
I
go
back
afterwards,
they
can
trace
that
trail
and
use
all
of
that
in
a
prosecution
of
us
or
my
friend,
or
a
civil
suit
of
us,
because
it's
all
out
there
and
that's
why
it's
so
important
and
there's
nothing
wrong
with
wanting
to
help.
And
I
think
that's
great
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
so
necessary
for
the
next.
However
long
this
is
going
on
that
people
are
helping
that
people
are
offering
those
resources.
D
But
it's
important
to
do
it
through
those
organizations
that
have
trained
for
this
and
that
are
prepared
and
know
how
to
do
this
in
a
way
where
there's
not
going
to
be
a
trail
and
where
people
aren't
going
to
be
endangered
legally
or
criminally
in
the
state
that
they
are
coming
from.
And
so
that's
where.
I
hope
that
clarifies
that.
I
This
is
this
is
another
thing
that,
unfortunately,
is
being
promoted
about
children
being
allowed
to
decide
or
their
parents,
even
that
at
the
age
of
10,
that
they've
been
born
into
the
wrong
body
and
want
to
change
their
reproductive
system
and
remove
perfectly
healthy
body
parts.
So
this
thing
that's
being
voted
on
and
and
the
other
thing
which
I've
read
legal,
legal,
legal
writings
about.
If
the
federal
government
decides
to
say
that
abortion
is,
is
illegal,
no
matter
what
vermont
does
in
this
constitutional
bill
it
it
won't.
I
The
problem
is
very
vague:
you
have
to
read
it
and
unfortunately,
it
encompasses
way
more
than
just
a
woman's
right
to
reproductive
to
an
abortion.
The
2019
law
specifically
stated
abortion.
The
the
bill
that
we're
voting
on
in
the
fall
says
it
gives
a
right
to
any
person
to
be
able
to
decide,
get
reproductive
autonomy
and
it
doesn't
have
an
age
limit.
So
literally
a
10
year
old
could
say
yeah.
I
don't
really
want
a
uterus,
so
please
remove
it
and
that
that's
the
the
unfortunate
thing
that
I
think
this
bill
encompasses.
A
C
F
F
A
B
B
Comment
just
to
make
you
know,
I
think
if
there
is
a
government
that
is
more
I'll
say
you
know,
use
the
terms
anti-abortion
that
comes
down
the
line.
You
know
at
the
federal
level
I
mean
they
could
incentivize
states
to
limit
access
to
abortion.
I
mean,
if
you
think
about
you,
know
how
did
we
get
to
a
drinking
age
of
21?
B
It's
not
in
the
constitution,
but
the
federal
government
get
doles
out
money
to
states
to
be
part
of
this.
You
know
21
regime
having
a
speed
limit
of
55
miles
per
hour.
At
one
point,
the
way
they
were
able
to
do
that
was
the
the
federal
government
gave
money
to
states
for
highway
funds
if
they
participated
in
that.
B
E
But
the
government
said
I
think
I
heard
that
on
public
radio,
that
you
know
they
will
try
to
assist
in
which,
in
some
ways
you
know
the
states
or
the
individuals
and
states
that
have
trouble,
because
they
cannot,
I
mean,
oblige
the
states
to
you
know
to
be
pro
abortion,
so
they
will
help.
I
don't
know.
A
Well,
there's
there's
suggestions
as
to
the
federal
government
right
now:
it's
a
democratic
government,
maybe,
but
it
certainly
it
could
change
and
probably
will
by
the
way
in
november.
Probably
it's
my
feeling
at
least
based
on
evidence
that
the
democrats
are
not
in
great
shape
for
november.
So
I
think
we
very
well
could
get
a
republican
congress
and
maybe
even
republican
state,
legislatures
and
republican
governors.
A
A
In
the
discussions
around
the
environment
around
the
population
and
making
sure
that
women
and
girls
have
the
ability
to
participate
fully
in
society,
and
that
means
having
control
of
the
over
the
number
of
children
that
they
want
and
that
they
can
afford,
and
that
does
not
hamper
them
for
being
full
citizens
and
participants
in
our
society.
We
can't
allow
this
to
happen.
A
D
I
just
want
to
add
one
more
resource
for
those
of
you
in
vermont.
You
probably
don't
need
it
at
this
time,
but
if
we're
talking
about
things
going
south
in
the
future,
no
pun
intended
there
are
still
male
abortion
pills
available.
You
go
on
the
website
aid
access.org,
and
you
can
order
male
and
abortion
pills.
You
don't
even
have
to
be
pregnant.
You
can
just
say
that
you
are
living
in
an
area
where
you
fear
abortion
is
about
to
become
illegal
and
they
will
mail.
A
I
totally
agree,
but
they
might
try
to
criminalize
that
too.
You
know,
and
they
certainly
by
the
way,
would
criminalize
people
who
are
practicing
medicine
without
a
license,
so
be
very
careful
like
they
criminalize
lawyers
for
practicing
law
without
a
license,
so
be
very
careful
about
giving
out
medical
advice.
A
Okay,
anybody
else
have
any
final
thoughts.
Well.
Well,
I
mean
thank
you
all
for
joining
us
and
remember
we'll
be
with
you
again
in
a
couple
weeks.
Next
week,
we're
going
to
be
discussing
a
more
local
issue
on
the
sixth
we're
going
to
welcome
megan
emery,
a
city
councilor
from
south
burlington,
who
will
be
describing
for
us,
the
expansion
of
our
airport
and
what
the
effects
of
that
expansion
are
going
to
be
on
our
neighborhoods
and
on
our
city
and
region.