 Welcome viewers to our ongoing program focus coming to you from Channel 17 Center for Media and Democracy here in Burlington, Vermont. This is town meeting TV. We're on remote now and because we're still going to the coronavirus pandemic. So my guests. Welcome Sharon Toburg. Welcome back Sharon Toburg. Oh, thank you, Margaret. Yes, to be here again. Yes, you did two programs with me in 2019. And you are the policy analyst for the Vermont right to life committee. www.vrlc.net. And we are addressing this ongoing question. What does abortion belong in Vermont's Constitution. That's the title we agreed upon Sharon. And so this is actually part six of the program, which we did, we didn't have any program at all in in the first pandemic year 2020. Sharon, is it okay with you if I read article 22 chapter one of Vermont's Constitution to start us off. Oh sure that would be the constitutional amendment that has been proposed here in the state of Vermont so why don't we share it with the viewers. Okay. So article two. Oh no it's article 22 of chapter one of Vermont's Constitution that an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course, and shall not be denied or punished unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Okay, first of all Sharon. Let me clarify is it is article two right it's article two of chapter one. It is proposed to be article 22 of chapter one of the Vermont Constitution. That is the language that will be added to the Vermont Constitution. If the voters approve it when they vote on it in November of 2022. Okay, so this will be and correct me if I'm wrong Sharon this will be added to the Constitution, if the voters vote on this particular language. Yes, the Vermont legislature in 2019 took up both a piece of legislation which I was here discussing previously, when I was on your program, called age 57. That legislation put into Vermont statute that abortion is legal unrestricted unregulated throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. That legislative initiative came out of some meetings held between a Planned Parenthood the ACLU some key legislators who met with the Attorney General and staff from the Attorney General's office for months throughout the summer of 2018 to create this language for legislation to put that put abortion into Vermont statute, as well as to follow up with this constitutional amendment. The main purpose of this constitutional amendment is really to prevent any future legislature from changing what was passed in age 57, which became known as act 47 of the legislature. The legislature voted in 2019 for unrestricted unregulated abortion. The legislature rejected every proposed amendment that would have a limit limited abortion, including limits on late term abortion, requiring a parent to be notified of a minor was seeking an abortion health and safety regulations for abortion facilities. There were many more amendments that would have put limits on abortion throughout pregnancy, they were all rejected by the legislature. So, that language went into Vermont statute, and now what they're trying to do is amend the Vermont Constitution to make sure that a future legislature cannot change the law on abortion in Vermont. Sharon, let's go over the language because the word abortion is not in this proposed amendment at all. No, the word abortion is not in the amendment. There is also sort of a purpose section that was passed along with this proposal, abortion is not included in that purpose section either. Even though Vermont right to life and the ACLU and the Legislative Council said it would be advisable to include abortion in there. That language was not included. But it is very clear that this is an abortion amendment. And that it is intended to protect what was put into Vermont statute that is unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy. And is there any anything in the Vermont statute that protects the onborn or however people wanted to call it the nine month journey that the fetus, the impregnated seed takes to produce a human being. Is there any, is there any language in the Vermont, is there anything in the Vermont statute that protects the onborn. There's nothing. In fact, it is very clear from case line Vermont that a fetus has no rights until it is born alive in the state of Vermont. That is, the child has to be born and has to take a breath before it's considered a person with rights in the state of Vermont. The nature rejected adding such language to Vermont statute that would protect a fetus at any stage of development. And one other issue separate from abortion to is, there's no protection for a woman who wants to carry a child to term, who is a victim of a crime that causes the death of the fetus we've had instances here in Vermont. This is in Bennington, where a woman who was pregnant with twins viable twins was struck by an impaired driver. She lost the twins both both the babies died. And the news reports said, nobody died in that car crash, because these twins were not born alive so they didn't count in the eyes of the media and they don't count in the eyes of Vermont law. And they won't ever be able to count. If we pass this constitutional amendment. In the language of this concept of this proposed constitutional amendment. It says an individual individuals without saying whichever sex the individuals right to personal reproductive autonomy. What is personal reproductive autonomy. Well, personal reproductive autonomy does not have a fixed definition. Over the past decades, it has come to include things such as the right to choose or refuse sterilization, the right to choose or refuse contraception, the right to choose or refuse abortion. It encompasses how people become pregnant, but it doesn't have a fixed definition. And every time there is a new court case dealing with a reproductive rights issue. The definition can be expanded to include something else. That's one of the things that is so troubling about this amendment is while we all understand that it doesn't that mean abortion and sterilization and contraception. It's essential that courts could interpret it to mean many, many more things things we haven't even thought about. And one point you just made is it does not reference gender. Just about all of the reproductive rights cases that have been heard by courts thus far, have centered around women's rights. But this is gender non specific. So the debate over this amendment in the legislature during the testimony in the legislative committees. It was repeatedly said that various terms and this amendment is going to mean what the courts determine that it means what the courts decide it means, particularly, as I said in the area of people who can't get pregnant. The courts will decide what what it means for reproductive autonomy for people who can't get pregnant. And when you're going when you're going into the difference between a man and woman in this. What about the rights of the, the male in in the abortion question. Although those are some good questions. I'm going to know until some of these issues work through the courts if this amendment becomes part of our Constitution. Of course, it men can't have abortions but do they have a right to not be fathers in some way. Do they have a right not to provide child support under this amendment. That's a question if they. We really, we really don't know what it means for men. There have been cases at the federal court level of men who say, I, I deserve a right to choose just like a woman can have a right to choose an abortion I deserve a right to choose not to be a father. Those cases have not been successful. Child support has continued to be required, but we're entering very new territory here. There is no state in the country that has this type of amendment in their Constitution. And we're really don't know what the courts might do with it and how the definition of personal reproductive autonomy might expand in the future. Sharon, we are a nation of laws. And when you say the courts, the courts will decide on based on what laws regarding reproductive rights. Well certainly they will look at what the legislature did with age 57, where they said, we reject any limits on abortion. Some interesting language in this proposed amendment about a compelling state interest. That is a legal term that is used to hold courts to the very highest standards when they are evaluating whether a regulation or law would be permissible under this constitutional amendment. And one thing they will look at is they will look and see, okay, the Vermont legislature in 2019 did not find it to be compelling to protect an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy. They did not find it compelling that a parent be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion. It was not compelling to have health and safety regulations for abortion facilities. So those are some factors that will play in. There are some people who think based on that language about a regulation to further a compelling state interest, they think that that's in there to allow there to be regulation, when in reality, it is in there to prevent as many regulations as could possibly be thought of. And of course we do not know what a Vermont court will do with this, but we do know at a national level but the Supreme Court and federal courts have done. And for instance, I know many people are familiar with the debate that was held some years ago over the partial birth abortion procedure. A living unborn child is mostly delivered, leaving just the head inside the woman's body and then the child is stabbed in the back of the head with scissors and the brain's removed to kill the child. That was outlawed by the US Congress, even our very own pro choice Senator Patrick Leahy voted in favor of that law. It was challenged in the courts, and it was upheld by the US Supreme Court, but it was not upheld under this very high compelling state interest standard. It was upheld under a much lower standard, the, what is called undue burden standards. So there are these different levels that courts look out to decide whether something's allowed and and when you think of something like a partial birth abortion. So it's not something that's been upheld as a compelling state interest. So the. So when we think about what might be a compelling state interest, it's going to have to meet a very, very, very high threshold, and most abortion regulations have no chance of meeting that threshold. Can you bring up the term pro choice. Does this amendment speak to the pro choice community in a comprehensive way. I think we have to recognize that there are a lot of people who consider themselves pro choice but who do not support age 57 and do not support unregulated abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The vote was held on age 57 there was a Democrat representative who was very supportive of many regulations and and she said, you know, the fetus is not nothing. What the abortion lobby what the Planned Parenthood abortion lobby wants to see in statute and in the Constitution the idea that the fetus is nothing and deserves absolutely no consideration. And that abortion should not be regulated in any way, because of that. But I think most people even if they're pro choice can recognize that the fetus is not nothing. And particularly when we're talking about viable children who would live but if they were born at the stage of development. It brings to mind all of the progress that's been made medically in prenatal care in the past century that come to mind today about what some people would call rescuing children who are at risk in in the in the womb of the of the mother. Well, there was I saw a story recently there were a set of triplets born at the UVM Medical Center, and they were born at 22 weeks, and all three of them lived and were released from the hospital and are doing well. The UVM Medical Center performs elective abortions at 2221 weeks, seven days gestation. So that's a day before these twins were born they perform elective procedures then, and they will continue to perform abortions throughout pregnancy. They have an ethics consultation and consideration. Sometimes they don't. But on the one hand you have a set of triplets born at basically the same stage as the time they are doing abortions it just doesn't make sense. How can children be worth protecting and saving in one instance but they're, they're just nothing in another instance. And that brings to mind the what is, what is you as a as a representative that the policy analyst for Vermont right to life. What do you mean by right to life. Well, Vermont right to life believes in upholding the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death, and we oppose abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. These are the organizations that deny the right to life. So that that is our organization's position. But we work with a lot of people who as I said can consider themselves pro choice but are just really up all that the thought that in Vermont, you can have an abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. The other one other item to recognize is that we have some legal precedent here in Vermont around abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion. The state of Vermont is paying for abortions for women who qualify for Medicaid. It is likely if this constitutional amendment passes, we will be paying for many more abortions we will be paying perhaps for in vitro fertilization surrogacy. So whatever kinds of reproductive procedures that are determined to be covered by this it's very likely they will have to be included in any state medical program that is put forth by the state. It's interesting that court decision that requires Vermont to pay for abortions. And the judge said, unlike other states, the state of Vermont does not prefer childbirth to abortion. So that is the public policy stance that is in age 57 and is in this proposed constitutional amendment that there's no difference really between childbirth and abortion. It's the same thing that it doesn't really matter whether you do one or the other. So it's, it's very upsetting, as I said to a lot of people who aren't as pro life as I am and don't share my fully pro life views but still recognize as I said that a fetus maybe deserves some consideration and that the health and safety of women deserve some consideration. What, what, what are the things that will happen if this amendment is passed and is part of the Constitution. You know, I think really your imagination is the limit. We've seen federally recently that the Biden administration has removed limitations on fetal experimentation, and the use of fetal tissues in research. So there's a pop. There's possibilities there that that fetal tissue could become used more here in Vermont for research that there could become a market for it that women could proceed with a pregnancy just for that purpose really because they are going to have this right to do what they what they want reproductive autonomy will encompass the right to become pregnant for whatever reason you you want to. There's also questions around, particularly with young people with minors we are seeing a lot of moves towards using cross sex hormones and minors with for transitioning purposes. And those that is will be free from regulation free from parental notification free from any parental involvement at all there won't be any requirements that the parents be involved. And, you know, the truth is, we really don't know. We're told that personal reproductive autonomy means a limited number of things, but that is just today and as the courts go through cases and people come forward with challenges. It's, it's going to start meaning a much more broader set of things. In your opinion, with within the United States Constitution with with our, the definition of right of right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does that include protection for the onborn child. So the Constitution does, it's actually the Declaration of Independence that was the liberty and pursuit of happiness. So that language isn't in the Constitution. I'm not a legal expert. I don't know if there's an argument to be made that language in the US Constitution could protect unborn children. So I guess my answer to that is, is I don't know. It is interesting to note that one of the rationales being put forward for passing the constitutional amendment is because we can't be sure what will happen at the US Supreme Court level with the Roe v Wade decision. But what a lot of people in Vermont aren't aware of is that Vermont had legal abortion, even before Roe versus Wade, we had a state court decision that said abortion was permissible, even before Roe v Wade. And we also now as I said have enacted the act 47 the unrestricted unregulated abortion bill, and that is in Vermont statute so regardless of what the happens at the national level. The abortion rights are already in Vermont law. This constitutional amendment is not needed to secure abortion rights now. As I said, its purpose is to prevent any changes to Vermont law in the future. And I think that's, it's not a good rationale, in my opinion, because we don't know what's coming in the future. When Roe v Wade was passed it, the age of viability of an unborn child was much further along science has pushed it back for weeks and weeks and we're going to continue to see changes and what this constitutional amendment will do will prevent us from addressing those changes legislatively with a with a democratically elected legislature. Well, thank you Sharon you seem to, to give us an all encompassing view, knowing that you represent right to life, which is, which you have expressed very well about your belief in the value of the unborn child. And this is also a question of social values. And what, what is a value like is is a is a, a, a unborn child. Is that something of value to to the state, and can and should it be protected. And I think that those are questions that we do have to answer before we make this amendment to the Constitution in which we will in the voting booth right it will be in the first on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2022. After it has been ratified and adopted by the people when ratified and adopted by the people of the state that that's when we ratify and adopt it in that vote, November 22. There will be a vote in November of 2022, assuming that the Vermont House of Representatives passes proposal five again, which we certainly expect that they will. The Senate passed at the second time here in April. Yes, my understanding is they'll be waiting until next year the next part of the legislative session to take it up. And if they pass it, the voters will vote in November of 2022. And given our, what we the question that we're addressing does abortion belong in Vermont's Constitution. Can you wrap up our discussion right now and, and tell me your opinion of that in. And we'll go out with that. Well, not surprisingly, I don't think it belongs in the Vermont Constitution and I think you hit it. And they said what, what do we value. And this amendment says we don't value unborn children at at any stage of pregnancy, and we don't value their mothers because we won't allow even health and state safety standards around the issue of abortion. So I think there's a lot of values that we hold that run contrary to this proposed amendment. So I'm hoping that some pro choice voters will look at it and say no, no Vermont should not have abortion in its Constitution. Thank you very much Sharon Togorg for your discussion with me today on this issue. And I appreciate your, your knowledge of the issue and all and the understanding that you bring to all the repercussions of the law. So thank you for inviting me to be on your program Margaret. Yes, until next time Sharon Togorg and thank you channel 17 Center for media and democracy. And on happy spring, happy Mother's Day, second Sunday in May. Thank you. Goodbye for now.