 Welcome to the Vermont State House. Welcome to the second public hearing on Proposal 5, the proposed Right to Personal Reproductive Liberty Amendment to the Vermont Constitution. The purpose of a public hearing is for legislators to listen to Vermonters. So that you know who you're talking to, I'm going to introduce the members of the House Human Services Committee. Listening remotely, we have Representative Topper McFawn, and then we have Representative Carl Rosenquist. To my left, at the top of the table, we have Representative Dane Whitman, followed by Representative Taylor Small, and Representative Dan Noyes, and the Vice-Chair of the Committee representative Teresa Wood. I am Anne Pugh, I am Chair of the House Human Services Committee, and to my left is Representative James Griffar, Representative Jessica Bromstead, Representative Ray Garifano, and Representative Kelly Paella. We are members of the House Human Services Committee, and we are welcome all of you to the public hearing. As I said, this is the second public hearing. The first public hearing was held in the last biennium, and 50 people spoke at that hearing. This year, 70 individuals are signed up to speak. Following the usual and customary process for signing up to testify, signing up to testify, names were taken in the order in which requests were made on a first come, first served basis. In response to the health and safety protocols that COVID requires, this is a hybrid hearing. There are people who signed up to speak in person, and there are people, others who are going to speak on Zoom. There are individuals in the well of the House, and there are individuals who are watching us on YouTube and viewing us. The expectation for all of us in this hearing is that we all respect the decorum of the House. This is not a play. This is not a sporting event. We are here to listen and to be quiet. People testifying will have two minutes to make their remarks. They will get a 10-second warning from Representative Fraguar. It has been our practice in these public hearings to alternate between people who signed up either as supporting or opposing passage. Of the 70 participants, we had 46 who indicated that they support, and about 23 who indicated that they oppose passage of this amendment. So we will, in order to not stack the deck in terms of having all on one side or another, we're going to continue that pattern and go to two who support to one who is opposed. Again, I really want to welcome you to a public hearing, and we are here to listen, and I'm looking forward to that. And with that, our first witness, which will be via Zoom, is Paul Menon- Paul, I'm sorry, Menon-Ello, and followed by Donald Grenier. Paul, are you here? Yes. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Should I begin? Please begin. Good evening. My name is Paul Menon-Ello. I'm a retired obstetrician. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of Prop 5. Throughout my professional career, I have never encountered a woman who's sought to become pregnant and expect to make a decision on whether or not to have an abortion. It would not be unusual when I was practicing obstetrics that during the course of a day, I would need to comfort a woman who had a non-viable pregnancy and who would shortly be experiencing an abortion, then go across the hall to comfort a woman who had an unplanned pregnancy who would need to decide whether or not to continue with that pregnancy. We have to approach these discussions with empathy. We need to be able to try to put ourselves in the shoes of the woman who is confronted with making these vital decisions. The core conflict surrounding abortion is the issue of personhood. One should developing fears be considered a human being. Is it science role to define personhood? No one is denying that a fertilized egg, a zygote, is human tissue. But should it be considered a human being? Need to be clear that an embryo is not an unborn child or baby. It is an embryo. A fetus is not an unborn child or baby. It is a fetus. An embryo is a human organism during that period extending from conception to approximately eight weeks after fertilization while a fetus is a human organism developing from the end of the eighth week. Well, is it government's role to define personhood? We live in a religiously pluralistic society. Some individuals believe that a fertilized egg is a person while others do not and believe that the fetus is not fully human until it takes its first breath. Our founding fathers had the foresight to build into the Constitution a formal separation of church and state. The government needs to respect this religious and spiritual beliefs of all of its citizens or residents. No individual or religious institution has a monopoly on morality. Vermont laws help assign individuals to become health care agents for a person who is incapable of making their own health care decisions. During a pregnancy, the mother is the best person to consider all of ramifications needed to make a medical decision affecting a given pregnancy even if it means removing life support. Laws which limit mothers... Please wrap up. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mangelo. Please feel free to email the rest of your remarks. Donald Grenier and on deck after Donald is Michael Kell. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Very good. I'm going to begin now. My name is Donald Grenier. I'm a registered nurse who's been born and raised in Vermont. I live in Rutland and I am part of the LGBTQIA community. I'm here to talk about why the Reproductive Liberty Amendment is important to me as a health care worker. And to point to that, the reason why I'm here today is Provision 3 in the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics. The nurse promotes, advocates for, and protects the health, rights, and safety of their patients. The Reproductive Liberty Amendment was solidified autonomy for our patients here in Vermont and further embed human rights into our state's constitution. The amendment would protect every person in Vermont's right to become pregnant, carry a pregnancy to term, choose or refuse contraception, choose or refuse sterilization, and choose or refuse abortion care. With the current state of political affairs in our country, it is important that we take this extra step to make sure that Vermonters have the right to make their own reproductive decisions. I do not believe that a decision on health should be made by politicians in Washington and rather should be made between a patient and their care team. A vote for the Reproductive Liberty Amendment is a vote towards healthcare liberty and towards patient autonomy. Thank you, that is all. Thank you. Michael Kell followed by Gretchen Rothstein. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Yes, I'm deferring to my wife at this time. She's here with me. Hello. Our brains need to form beliefs. So how is it that a common set of accepted rational scientific facts can lead to different moral judgments? New York Times, June 19, 2005, The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazanigo. We are all aware of the continuity and potentiality arguments having to do with when life begins versus a fertilized egg going on to become a person. This is deserving the rights of an individual. However, of late, as new information arises, there is a need for us to, quote, vet our beliefs and not maintain them after receiving corrective information. This is from Annie Duke. Thus, what's the science? Diane N. Irving, MA, PhD, February 1999 Princeton Education. Adamantly maintains that fertilization itself refers to the initiation of a new human being made from two human parents. She is emphatic that the zygote is the beginning of a new human being producing specifically human proteins and enzymes. The issue is therefore not when does human life begin but when does the life of every human being begin? Science says that the human embryo is formed at fertilization and is a whole human being, not just a blob of the mother's tissues. It is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment It is an actual human being with a potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities. It is already potentially a girl or a boy. Scientific fact, it is... Thank you very much. And please feel free to submit the rest of your written comments. Bruce Lee Clark, followed by Matthew Strong. Bruce Lee. Hi, my name is Bruce Lee Clark. From Bennington and I'm a retired United Methodist minister and a legal services attorney. I also taught for more than 20 years at Southwest Tech in Vermont's only pre-law program. I am asking for the adoption of the reproductive liberty amendment by this body and its eventual adoption by the people of Vermont. The proposition is a straightforward amendment to Vermont's constitution guaranteeing our human liberty in an area of reproductive health. To put it simply, it recognizes that human sexuality in all of its facts is fundamental to being a human being. As a United Methodist pastor, I worked with a number of pregnant mothers and couples who were going through the process of making difficult decisions regarding their pregnancies and their choices to be a family. Many were also trying to weigh difficult choices around different types of contraception, obtaining vasectomies or reversing the same, as well as many other personal decisions. My role was not to tell them what to do, but to assist them in making the difficult decisions they faced. What none of these people needed was the strong arm of the state shaping their private choices. They needed advice from their doctors and the assistance from me, their pastor, if they chose it. The passage of this amendment to our state constitution will guarantee a liberty that we already possess. Our founders were not in a position to recognize all of the different rights and liberties we now understand as fundamental to being a human being, but they did recognize the possibility that change might be occasioned by newer times and fuller understandings. They gave us a means to amend our state constitution. Now is the time to affirm the liberty to make our own decisions about our own lives without future politicians or others interfering. Please vote yes on the proposition. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we have Matthew Strong and Mary Garrish. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. While this can sometimes be an emotionally charged issue, I've been really encouraged to hear the calm logic and reason of other witnesses. And it's important to flesh out the most important ramifications of this monumental and transformative constitutional amendment using our best efforts of reason and logic. Many legal experts have already noted that even in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court would rule in a manner that overturns Roe v. Wade, there would be no impact on Vermont's current laws. Vermont state law currently goes well beyond Roe v. Wade and would require no changes or alterations. Statewide poll conducted by Vermonters for Good Government in 2020 found a majority of Vermonters identify as being pro-choice. But when asked specific questions, the majority actually favor common sense regulations such as parental notification and a petition from voters is currently on its way to committee members and other House representatives to express those views. Article 22 would effectively remove legislators from the ability to change or pass Vermont state law in regard to personal reproductive autonomy. It is important to note this risk for future legislators. Removing legislators ability to react to changes in federal laws, Supreme Court rulings, scientific advancements, and cultural shifts mean we could be setting ourselves up for unintended consequences that we can't comprehend because we don't know what they are. As a result, being mindful of the stuff that could happen two years from now or 10 years from now or 100 years from now, we need to be mindful of ramifications there. And we urge you not to pass Prop 5. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. And Mary Garrish, very handy. It's not letting me start my video. I'm sorry. This is Mary Garrish. Oh, there we go. Okay. No. Sorry about that. Okay. Let's try it again. Huh. Well, not sure what you want me to do. I keep getting a message saying that the host asks you to start your video. And when I say start, it doesn't start. Thank you, Mary. Why don't you, sorry that we can't see you. And while we prefer that, why don't you continue to speak? Okay, I will. I would prefer to be able to actually look into people's faces, but this is fine. Um, that is a Lakota traditional greeting. We are all related. That's totally relevant to why I'm here to testify today. My name is Mary Garrish. I'm from Bennington. I grew up in Detroit. And for those of you younger folks in the room, back alley abortions and pothanger abortions were a real thing that killed people that I knew when I was growing up. But there's a wider perspective to this entire issue. And that is the issue of human rights and the right to healthcare and the right to live a life of dignity. There are a lot of issues aside from abortion that are crucial both for marginalized peoples and for everyone else in terms of their right to healthcare. As we all know, there has been a tragic history in our country and our state of sterilization of peoples who are considered unworthy to have children. For example, people who are disabled, people who are indigenous, people who are at the fringes of the economy. We have allowed without this amendment our state to potentially change a law or just not enact a law that will allow forced sterilizations. How is that even possible in our day and age? Well, we know that it was possible in the 70s when they were sterilizing my people on the reservations. So I'm asking you to follow the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and to give each of us the right for reproductive freedom, whether it is being able to have children, not being able to have children, or whether it is pursuing our gender identities and to allow organizations to help us to do that. Please, please support human dignity and the intersection of human rights in this amendment. Thank you. And now we have Carrie Handy followed by Samantha Hills. I've got my audio. Let's see, start video. It looks like your picture is just going on. Sorry about the delay. I'll start. My name is Carrie Handy. I'm a member of the Vermont Family Alliance. Our group came together because of what we see as, frankly, an alarming trend of erosion of the rights of Vermont parents to make decisions in the best interests of their own children and their own families, according to their own values. And I think Proposal 5 is exactly the kind of threat that concerns us. Proposal 5 is very broadly worded. Why? It could have been written to ensure that future courts would be certain of its intent, but the legislators who wrote it are on record as saying they would expect the courts to decide when disputes arise regarding its application. Why do this intentionally? What exactly is meant by reproductive autonomy? And why are there no age restrictions? Will minors be free to act outside of their parents' jurisdiction in matters related to reproductive autonomy, however that might be defined in the future? And how will that be defined? No one knows. Hypothetically, a minor child could be legally entitled to obtain anything from an abortion to puberty blocking hormones to gender change surgery without parental consent, involvement, or even notification. Could a minor child consent to engage in sex with an adult for the purpose of achieving a pregnancy or to act as a surrogate? Where are the protections for children and the safeguards for parental involvement? We should all be very concerned about the risk of putting such a vaguely worded open-ended amendment into our Constitution, but parents especially should be alarmed at the implications for them. Vermont's families are already struggling under a burden of state domination when it comes to importing values and making decisions in their own best interests. Strong families make strong communities, and they need to be deported, not further disempowered. Abortion rights are already well protected in Vermont, but Vermont's families and children's increasingly are not. Please don't support this ill-conceived amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much, Carrie Handy. And now we have Samantha Hills, followed by Gina Zulman. Gina Zulman. Hello. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak today. My name is Samantha Hills. I am a resident of Springfield, Vermont, and a small business owner. I moved to Vermont in 20... Oh, my notes just went away. No! Oh, goodness. Of course. It has to be technology. I moved to Vermont in 2018 from Arizona. Reproductive rights were a big reason for our move. I have a chromosome abnormality that puts me at great risk for miscarriage and stillbirth. In Arizona, if I was given an in-chem compatible with life diagnosis, I would have had to have a mandatory ultrasound, a 24-hour wait period. And since my issues could only be diagnosed through invasive testing after 10 weeks, I would have but one clinic in the entire state that would help me. I moved to Vermont specifically because I knew that Vermont would never torture me on the worst days of my life. I have been pregnant 11 times and have miscarried eight times. I am blessed to have three healthy children, and I have never needed abortion care. I am lucky. I am in support groups for my balance translocation, and daily people with my conditions share their stories. Most members are from other countries, are shocked and sickened to hear of the struggles of the American members that what we have to go through for proper care. They don't understand why abortion is political. I have my third child because I moved here and felt safe to try again and felt I would receive proper care if the worst was to happen. One of my children shares my balance translocation, and I want them to feel that freedom when it is time for them to start a family, if and when it feels right. Their right is not secure in the rest of the country. And definitely not as we wait to see if Roe falls. But please make Vermont a protected place for reproductive rights. Make it a safe place for me and my child. And please pass the reproductive liberty amendment. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Samantha Hill. We have Gina Zellman, followed by Pete Gamair. Hey, can you hear me? All right. I am here tonight to enthusiastically voice my support for the reproductive liberty amendment. I am a nurse practitioner and a volunteer with Vermont Access to Reproductive Freedom, which is an abortion fund serving Vermonters. And I've had the privilege of taking care of people seeking abortion for the past decade. As a healthcare provider and a Vermonter, I care deeply about the health and well-being of my community. My patients are the expert in their own lives. And like each of us, they are doing their best to navigate life's challenges. When people choose to terminate a pregnancy, they are often at the intersection of many difficulties at once. Many folks have children at home and are making the choice they feel will best support their families. Others are struggling with money, employment, substance use, or housing. Still others are in the middle of pursuing a degree or are navigating abusive relationships. It is impossible to capture the diversity and breadth of their stories, but there is a single commonality. Each individual has the ability to choose the outcome of their pregnancy. The choice when and if to parent is intensely personal. It's heavy and complex for some, certain and easy for others, but it must be made without interference by politicians. It is my hope that each of us, no matter our stance on this amendment, desire a world where people are able to parent under circumstances that allow them to raise safe, healthy, and joyful children. The passage of Prop 5 with protections for contraception and abortion access is a necessary step towards this goal. It allows my patients to start a family, to take care of the family they have, or pursue their careers and passions. This issue impacts each and every one of us. Everyone loves someone who has had an abortion, whether you know it or not. As we witness repeated attempts to dismantle Roe v. Wade on the national scale, it's clear that now is the time to pass Prop 5, ensuring that generations of remonters are able to receive the fundamental reproductive healthcare they deserve. Thank you. I see it in my time. Thank you very much, Gina. We have Pete Gomair, followed by Dottie Ricks, and Dottie, you are in the room, so feel free to please come and get ready to sit up here. Pete, how are you coming? Good evening. Please start. Yes, thank you. Madam Chair, the legislature writes laws, and in the case of Prop 5, the Senate proposed a very ambiguous amendment to the Constitution. On April 9th of 2019, in response to Representative Rosenquist's question about this ambiguity and the potential to mislead the public, Senator Lyons testified, no, I think the reproductive liberty is broader. It will allow the Supreme Court interpretation going further on those things coming up in the future. I think that the article allows for a more expansive look at reproductive liberty. Do we now write constitutional amendments covering unknown technologies to specifically legalize them? Now, was this deliberate? Was it lassitude or indifference? Was it negligent? Was it the intent to create a license for every imaginable act and technology, as well as those we can't even imagine now? For a minimum, it is legislative malpractives. And please, please, vote against Prop 5. It is poorly crafted, and it is anything but good government, and I'll cede the rest of my time. Thank you. Thank you very much, Pete. And now we have Dottie Ricks, followed by Howard Cohen. Well, I came prepared. In case one gives out, I've got another one. Good evening, committee members, and thank you for having us at this hearing. My name is Dottie Ricks. Regardless of my accent, I am a proud Vermonter for over 30 years as a resident of Berrytown. Hey, Topper. I'm testifying in support of the Reproductive Liberty Act, Proposition 5. This bill affirms the State of Vermont's commitment to citizens' rights of privacy, to a person's right to make healthcare decisions with their healthcare provider, and to safely go reproductive choices for all Vermonters. Among the reasons I want this bill passed is so that Vermonters never have to face the horrors we did as young people. We cannot go back to those frightening times. Abortions did not begin with Roe v. Wade, but Roe v. Wade did end the cycle of death due to botched illegal procedures. Repressive legislation will not end abortions. It will only return us to that horrific cycle of death. As we watch Roe being gutted in state after state by a politicized Supreme Court passing Proposition 5, we'll make one step in assuring that at least Vermonters can have safe legal reproductive choices regardless of what happens nationally. As representatives of all of us, I ask that you put aside your personal and religious beliefs and instead support your constituent's constitutional rights of privacy, keeping an invasive and repressive governmental presence out of our private lives and decisions. Our brave little state has been a leader in so many areas and we stand on the cusp by passing this legislation of leading our nation in support of constitutional rights. By passing this legislation, you will support privacy and constitutional integrity. Please vote yes on the reproductive liberty amendment. Thank you. Thank you. And next we have Howard Cohen followed by Carol Kaufman. Hi, thank you for giving me a little bit of time to express my views. My name is Howard Cohen. I live in Bennington, Vermont. I am the rabbi emeritus of congregation Bethel, which is also located in Bennington. I support the reproductive liberty amendment and I hope you will too for three reasons. These are not presented in order of importance as they are all equally important to reasons why I support the reproductive liberty amendment. Number one, I firmly believe that each of us should be able to make our own decisions in life, no matter who we are, where we live, or the amount of money we have. Number two, as the father of two daughters, I firmly believe that they along with everyone else should have the freedom to plan their futures and choose for themselves whether and or when to have children. Similarly, important reproductive health care decisions should be guided by their health and well-being concerns. Third, as a rabbi steeped in Jewish textual knowledge and wisdom, it is important for me to say that the Jewish tradition and law upholds an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy which includes abortions. In conclusion, Vermont can set an example for what is possible with the fate of Roe v. Wade hanging in the balance, state level productions, protections are vital to safeguarding access to reproductive health care. Amending our state constitution is the best way to protect reproductive freedom in Vermont in the long term. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we have Carol Kaufman followed by Corinne Owens and Corinne, I believe you're in the building. If so, please come forward to get ready. Howard, I'm sorry, Carol Kaufman. Welcome, Carol. Thank you. My name is Carol Kaufman. I'm with Vermont Family Alliance and I reside in Addison. I would like to request the response and writing to the following questions. Will Proposal 5 set Act 35 as the de facto standard allowing any surrogate to usurp the role of parents guided by unknown processes and adults whether surrogates are protected? Does individual in Proposal 5 apply to minor boys and girls? Does reproductive autonomy extend further than abortion? Can minors be transported across state lines into Vermont to access these constitutional protections? In order for voters to fully understand the implications of Proposal 5, will you agree to collaborate on a recorded webinar to address these concerns with a panel of legal experts? My concern is that Proposal 5 actually sets Act 35 as the established precedent for reproductive autonomy in the state of Vermont with respect to minors and parental responsibilities. Act 35 allows the minor to consent to receive outpatient treatment without apparent or legal guardian authorization covered by state Blue Cross Blue Shield with no parental alliances such as choosing trusted mental health providers. Act 35 and now Proposal 5 leave minors outside of the protection of the family and courts without due process, without case reviews, without reserve records, and beyond. Disabled minors and minors served by DCF have mandated processes and protections. Act 35 and now Proposal 5 have none. Proposal 5 in conjunction with Act 35 leaves parents with no legal recourse and will effectively allow unknown surrogates to usurp the role of parents in guiding children through their sexual and reproductive changes they will experience. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we have Corrine Owens and followed by Corrine. We have Noah Dexter. Can you hear me all right? We can. All right. Thank you. My name is Corrine Owens and I am a high schooler from Mount Mansfield Union High School. I came here today in hopes of adding a younger perspective into this discussion specifically because this amendment will directly affect for Monthers as soon as they reach the age of consent two years before they're actually legal adults. There is a disconnect in how our culture views teen reproductive autonomy. Our laws tell 16 year olds that they are legally mature enough to consent to and engage in sexual activity. At the same time we are telling these teens that they are still children and not prepared to make any lasting decisions about their bodies or futures. This contradiction has been used time and time again to force teenagers into unwanted and unethical positions. Some are denied abortions and forced to carry out a pregnancy bringing children into the world when they themselves are still children. On the flip side there are even some teens who are forced to have abortions when they want to carry a pregnancy to term. Regardless of the situation teenagers are not being supported in their transition into sexual activity and instead are being criticized, ignored and denied proper care. Many who argue against this amendment say that they are fighting to protect children. Well so am I. We need to protect Miners from having their limited bodily autonomy manipulated and turned against them. We need to prepare Miners from being forced into situations they do not want and do not feel prepared for. We need to protect Miners from being ignored and abandoned when they are in need of support. By passing this amendment we can eliminate the opportunity for these situations to arise. As soon as a Miner is mature enough to his consent to sex they are mature enough to know what they want from it. They are mature enough to deserve reproductive liberty and passing this law will ensure they get that right. This is why I am here today. This is why I am asking you to pass this amendment. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much Corrine. Now we have Noah Dietzer followed by Anisa Lamberton. Can you see me? Good evening. Okay good evening. Thank you Chair Pugh. My name is Noah Dietzer from St. Albans. I'm speaking tonight in favor of the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. An individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is essential. That's the language in the text of Prop 5 and that's language that I completely agree with. Reproductive health decisions including abortion are often highly emotional and difficult and adding restriction on top of that difficult choice is an unconscionable burden. We must enact Prop 5 for the safety and well-being of future generations. As this committee knows reproductive health care is health care and health care decisions should be made by an individual and their qualified medical provider. To deny someone health care on the basis of religion or ideology especially ideological beliefs that the affected person does not subscribe to themselves is unconscionable. Yet every day women are denied health care in this country. Many lawmakers often men are making unilateral decisions against women being able to seek fundamental health care services. It's nonsensical to assume that someone or groups of people outside of the medical profession are somehow better equipped to make medical decisions on behalf of individuals than those individuals themselves. We've seen draconian legislation go into effect in Texas and many other states have passed similar restrictions. Vermont has the opportunity to be a safe state when so many others are becoming less and less safe by the day and we must take action now to guarantee reproductive autonomy. You'll notice that many of the speakers you've heard tonight speaking in opposition to reproductive liberty are not medical professionals. It's common sense. Health care policy should not be dictated by the way with people who have zero medical knowledge. I unapologetically support the reproductive liberty amendment and I urge you to pass Prop 5. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Now we have Anissa Lamberton followed by Steve Finer. Steven Finer. Hello, thank you. It is the duty of the legislature to write proposals that agree with the people's intended interpretation. Prop 5 language is intentionally vague and left up to judicial interpretation. It neither properly represents pro-choicers nor pro-lifers nor vermonters in the spectrum between. I am a person who has lived the spectrum and asked you to vote no on Prop 5. Supporters use fear over past and upcoming court decisions to promote Prop 5. Yet its sponsors have intentionally written this amendment to produce the same result waiting on an unelected judge to decide the fate of citizens. Sponsoring Senator Jenny Lyons said in part it will allow for the Supreme Court interpretation going further on those things coming up in the future. Norman Esquire, Norman Smith Esquire while serving on the Vermont Supreme Court's probate court oversight committee testified opposing Prop 5 in which he stated it could include future options such as human cloning, designer babies, human embryo trafficking. Pro-life and moderate pro-choice vermonters also reject constitutional rights to elective abortion up to the time of birth and beyond to future options which Prop 5 promises. Cynthia Browning, former Democrat representative and pro-choice moderate voted no on Prop 5 stating everyone knows that the fetus is not nothing. Thus I urge you to vote no on Prop 5. It is not sound governance and not the intended interpretation of the people, pro-choice or pro-life of Vermont. It is designed for judicial power which is a travesty to our representative governmental process and to Vermont citizens. I stand with supporters of vermonters for good government and ask you to vote no on Prop 5. Thank you. Thank you. We have Steven Finer followed by Felicia Cornblow. Good evening. My name is Steve Finner and I am a resident of Barry City. Some of you may remember me as the now retired lobbyist for organized labor and academic unions. However, I have long been a supporter of parental and reproductive rights and served as Vice President of the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Bangor, Maine over 50 years ago. My testimony today is rooted in my unitarian universalist faith which affirmed reproductive rights and rights of reproductive justice in a statement of conscience in 2015. When the United States decided Roe v. Wade, no one anticipated the vicious attack on that decision which would take place and has continued since. Now we are faced with the strong possibility that approximately half of the U.S. could soon greatly restrict abortion rights and other reproductive and health services. Vermont can set an excellent example of what protections and safeguards are possible. Amending our state constitution is the best way to assure ongoing protection of reproductive freedom. I hope this committee can move us in that direction by your passage of the Reproductive Liberty Amendment also known as Prop 5. I thank you for your service and for this opportunity to lend my voice to this proposal. Thank you very much, Mr. and now we're followed by Felicia Cornblough and then Lynn Caulfield. Good evening. I speak as a professor of gender history and American Jewish history at the University of Vermont, although I am not speaking today for the university or for my departments. In my view, the RLA spells nothing but progress. It will protect access to abortion no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court or even the future Vermont legislature might do. It will protect the rights of people in same-sex couples like me, as well as trans and non-binary people from government intrusion into our reproductive rights. And it will protect all of our monitors from involuntary or coercive sterilization, a practice that was once common in institutions for people who were considered disabled and in jails and prisons. I want to spend the rest of my time speaking as an historian of American Jews and as a practicing Jew myself. This weekend, Jews read the portion of the Bible that is the source of the Jewish legal approach to reproductive rights. That's why this coming weekend is designated as repro Shabbat by the National Council of Jewish Women. It is from Exodus chapter 21 that we derive the legal preference for the life of the pregnant person over that of the gestating or the potential life they carried. In the generally disputatious world of Jewish legal commentary, there's remarkable agreement on this point. Even people who were Orthodox or so-called Haredi Jews agree that if a woman's life is in danger, she must end her pregnancy. It's an obligation of hers because the pregnant person's life matters more than that of the fetus. Of course, the Bible didn't anticipate today's politics and doesn't offer a direct endorsement of the RLA, but modern sources across a wide spectrum of Jewish opinion would endorse the RLA. In sum, one of the many reasons to vote for the RLA is Vermont's long history of respect for multiple faith traditions. As we separate church from... Yes, we must separate laws based on a particular reading of religious texts from the views of people with different readings of those texts. Thank you. We have Lynn Cofffield followed by Diana Whitney. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. And we can see you too. Woo-hoo! I am Lynn Cofffield. I am a registered nurse and an ultrasound technician. I live in Monkton and I'm building homes for refugees here. You hear the heartbeat of an unborn baby that will beat 54 million times before birth. An epitaph to the death of conscience. We want the right to kill, says the voice for choice. Reproductive autonomy is just an oxymoronic euphemism for killing your unborn child. By definition, reproductive has to do with the process that produces offspring, a feature of all known life, except humans in Vermont. Autonomy is the capacity of an agent to act in accordance of objective morality. Well, murder isn't moral. Children are no longer precious, valued, loved and nurtured. We are already below population replacement. And if we continue to annihilate the next generation, our future and heritage, there will be no more human race. Proposal five assaults the conscience of healthcare providers and, yes, lawmakers who have sworn in oaths to do no harm. This unjust law will have no conscience protection for healthcare providers who do not want to participate in the aborting of a precious life. I have had the privilege of going on medical mission trips to developing countries. The woman there would be horrified that we want to kill our offspring. They long for the life in their womb. What has seared the conscience of our lawmakers to the point of wanting to enshrine abortion on demand up to the moment of birth into our state constitution? They will have to give an account for being complicit in the leading cause of death last year, abortion. More recently, they have tried to hide their grizzly trade by mailing abortion pills to a woman's mailbox. Thanks, FDA. Home abortion puts women at risk for nausea, vomiting, severe cramping, uncontrolled bleeding, and death to say nothing about the trauma of expelling your dead baby and having to dispose of it. Women have told me they would never do it again. Ultra sound is a window to the womb. There is no difference between this. Okay. Thank you, Lynn. And now we have Diana Whitney and followed by Melinda Moulton. My name is Diana Whitney and I live in Brattleboro. I'm a writer, teacher, and advocate for survivors of sexual violence. But I'm here tonight as a mother of two daughters, a mother who believes in gender equity and reproductive freedom for all people. When I was 19, a sophomore at Dartmouth College and a varsity athlete, I got pregnant accidentally and I found myself in crisis. I was scared and lonely but fortunate to have access to high quality healthcare and compassionate medical providers. With the support of my parents and boyfriend, I had a safe abortion at eight weeks and I was able to stay in school. Although I grieve the loss and I needed time to heal, I never regretted having that abortion. I was a teenager and I knew I was not prepared to raise a child. I believed then, as I do now, that every child should be wanted and that no person should be forced to carry an unintended pregnancy to term. I grew up, got married, and had two healthy beautiful babies who are now teenagers. Teenagers who fear their bodily autonomy is in jeopardy in our country. They know about my college pregnancy and they know that when I was 40 and they were little, I got accidentally pregnant again and I had to make a difficult health decision with the help of my doctor. Due to a chronic pelvic condition and the need for surgery, I decided to terminate the pregnancy at six weeks via a safe medical abortion at home. I am so grateful that I lived in Vermont where I had the dignity and the liberty to consult with a skilled provider about my healthcare. I believe all Vermonters should have the same dignity and freedom and I ask you to please pass the reproductive liberty amendment to ensure that they do thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Diana. And before Melinda comes, I want to take this opportunity to remind all of us who are testifying that if you were testifying in the well of the house, there are no props, there are no pictures, and there's no backgrounds. And so I would ask, just as we expect that of people who are testifying in person, that we ask that for people who are testifying online to have bland backgrounds or your home and to not have props and pictures. Thank you. Now we have Melinda Moulton followed by Deb Kutcher. My name, can you hear me? Okay, thank you. My name is Melinda Moulton from Huntington, Vermont. I am here today to continue my lifelong battle to protect the rights and lives of women across this country. I have witnessed the pain, suffering, and humility that women have experienced because of cruel, inhumane, and selfish control over their bodies. But one experience lives deep within my mind's eye and that is my mother's story. Sixty-four years ago when I was eight years old, my father and mother divorced. My mother became pregnant by a man who abandoned her when he heard the news. What I remember is that my mother left for what she said was an operation. In fact, she was going to a woman's hospital where women went to give birth in secret without anyone ever knowing. Well, something went horribly wrong at the woman's hospital and my mom died three days before Christmas. I learned many years later that my mother had a baby and gave her up for adoption. After the birth, the unqualified doctor performed a hysterectomy which went wrong. My mother developed peritonitis and over a five-month period she withered away, got pneumonia, and died. I was 12 when she died. She was just 40 years old. She left behind four motherless children ages six to 16. Another memory that has seared in my brain is the night that my mother was rushed to the hospital because she was found bleeding on the floor of our bathroom. Years later, I learned from my aunt that my mother succeeded to abort a pregnancy and it resulted in internal damage to her body. She spent two weeks in the hospital to heal. My mother's life was horrifically compromised because she did not have access to a safe and legal abortion. Let me be very frank. Women will always choose their own reproductive destiny. And the reality is it will either be at the dangerous end of a coat hanger or it will remain safe in the capable and trained hands of a professional. For our daughters and our granddaughters we must ensure it remains the latter. Vermonts can stand proud with wisdom, compassion, intelligence, and commitment to equality by passing the top five. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Melinda. And now we have Deb Kutcher followed by Tracy Donahue. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi. I'm urging you to vote no. I'm prop five. It's vague and broad but the premise is to push abortion on demand through all nine months up to including birth and infanticide. That is murder. Abortion is not healthcare and women deserve better. Abortion doctors admit that most late term abortions are done in healthy babies. Often fetal abnormalities are misdiagnosed. Even if a baby's born with abnormalities there are people who want to adopt them. There's no medical reason to perform a third trimester abortion. Doctors will induce or perform a C-section if there's medical necessity. A first pregnancy termination leads to a greater chance of breast cancer. According to Hush Documentary women under 18 who had abortions past nine weeks of pregnancy showed an 800 percent increased risk of breast cancer. Abortion increases risk of psychological disorders, increases risk of premature birth, and increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy in subsequent pregnancies. And having multiple abortions has an exponential risk factor for premature birth ectopic pregnancy in breast cancer. In most cases women do not want to have an abortion. They just need love and support. There are several pregnancy help centers throughout the state that provide free charged services that assist them beyond birth. I know many women who have had abortions and regret it for many years afterwards and one woman I knew about a month after her abortion was planning her own suicide because she just couldn't live with grief knowing that she had killed her baby. What are we doing? This is insanity. Anyone who votes on yes on this proposal proposal has blood on their hands. Vote no. If you push Prop 5 through Vermont will turn into a Gosnell state of death. Do the right thing and vote no on Proposal 5. Thank you. Thank you, Deb. Now we have Tracy Donahue followed by Judy Stern. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. And I'll start video. Okay. We're all set. Thank you. Hi, my name is Tracy. I live in Brattleborough, Vermont and I'm speaking tonight in support of Prop 5. As a young person I experienced an unplanned pregnancy and I had an abortion. With my hindsight I described my 19-year-old self as naive and very inexperienced and in a relationship that only I was committed to. I became pregnant after my boyfriend removed the condom I asked him to use during sex without my knowledge or permission. Without my partner's support I sought out an abortion and I was relieved to find a women's health center in the city where I lived. They were caring and helpful and gave me the option to have the procedure done at a private clinic that had fencing all around the property so that I would be free from harassment and threats from extremist protesters. I was relieved to have the abortion in a safe place and I recovered within a week. In turn I gained the strength, the clarity and the independence that I needed to end the relationship with my boyfriend who broke my trust. Reproductive freedom means that I can plan my future and actually have some control over it. I can decide for myself whether it be childless or decide to become a parent how many children I'd have and who I would parent with. Reproductive freedom means that I have control over my body and the final say on whether to carry a pregnancy to birth and that I can make my decisions while weighing my health the respect and trust in my relationship resources like family and community support and my employment and finances my and my partner's maturity and capacity to parents. Reproductive freedom means that I am a person worthy of basic human rights including bodily autonomy rights that most men have always had. It means that politicians will not discuss my body like an object or make my reproductive decisions for me for political gain or any other reason. I'm a woman and I believe that reproductive freedom and access to abortion are the biggest factors in women's fight for equality. Please help Vermont become a catalyst for other states in protecting reproductive freedom. Thank you. Thank you Judy. Thank you Tracy. Now we have Judy Stern followed by Shanara Johnson. Good evening. My name is Dr. Judy Stern. I'm from Clarendon, Vermont and I'm here to express my strong support for PROC-5. For nearly 30 years I worked in the field of reproductive medicine at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center where I ran the in vitro fertilization laboratory. In that capacity I learned that decisions concerning reproduction include those to prevent but also those to promote pregnancy. Without reproductive liberty we run the risk of losing access to needed reproductive health care. At DHMC I watch daily as people made difficult decisions about reproduction. Decisions included those about how best to ensure a healthy singleton pregnancy from IVF, what to do when a pregnancy was difficult to obtain and how best to proceed in cases of fetal diagnosis or otherwise complicated pregnancies. None of these decisions were easy. Patients struggled. They questioned themselves and their health care providers but they relied on their freedom to make the necessary decisions according to their own value systems their needs and their abilities. In my role at the fertility clinic I also became aware of the all too common situation that a wanted pregnancy will result in miscarriage. Miscarriage can be particularly heartbreaking for people who've had trouble conceiving to begin with. It can also be medically dangerous when the miscarriage leaves products of conception in the uterus that become infected. Also heartbreaking is when a pregnancy implants outside the uterus in tissues that can't support it. A condition known as ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is deadly if ignored and not treated quickly and there is nothing that can be done to save these pregnancies. We need providers who understand these conditions who are trained and experienced in and available to deal with these reproductive problems. We need providers who will treat these conditions without hesitation. Please remember that pregnancies are complex and that black and white decision making around medical procedures can be dangerous. Even deadly for patients. Health care providers must retain the ability to make clinical decisions specific for each patient. I strongly support Prop 5 and ask that you support it as well. Thank you. Thank you. And now we have Senara Johnson followed by Randall Perkins. Hi I'm Senara Johnson. A recent poll shows that 71% of Americans including many who approach choice want restrictions on abortion. Prop 5 or article 22 offers no restrictions whatsoever. It's vague language will allow abortion up to the very moment of birth and beyond if the baby happens to survive the ordeal. I'd like to refute three myths about abortion. Myth number one it's just a clump of cells. At 16 weeks old a fetus starts sucking his thumb to soothe him or herself. A baby born at 21 weeks of gestation is considered viable today. A fetus is clearly a human being a person and with personhood comes rights most notably the right to live and be born. This also debunks the slogan my body my choice because it's somebody else's body that you're dealing with here not yours. Myth number two late term abortions basically never happened. I hear that a lot from Democrat representatives and that's actually not true. According to state abortion reports from 2018 the last year we have data on Vermont had 20 late term abortions at 20 weeks 21 weeks or later. In Pennsylvania that number was 457 in the entire U.S. We have about 10 to 15,000 late term abortions per year. Myth number three it's healthcare. It's not healthcare to be defined as healthcare abortion would have to be medically necessary. Many say rape or incest are reasons to abort or if the life of the mother is at risk. Fact is these cases make up only one to two percent of abortions and yes rape and incest are horrible acts that can destroy the life of a person but does that mean we should destroy the life of another person? Does that make it any better? Please wrap up. So I ask you to please say no to Prop 5. Thank you. Thank you. Randall Perkins and we have in person Elizabeth Deutsch. Go ahead. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Randall Perkins and I am a resident of Manchester Center. I strongly believe an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course. Each of us should be entitled to make decisions about our health free from judgment or assumptions. No political or moral entity should have the power to dictate if and when someone becomes a parent what kind of birth control they decide to use or whether someone decides to seek abortion care. While I don't have a personal story to share I do have decades of personal knowledge about students, adults, single parents and couples with children as well as years of volunteering for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. I have listened to stories from people who are in school and unintentionally become pregnant single mothers who are struggling to support small children and no they do not have the emotional or economic means to support another child. Women who were raped by a relative as well as a cherished friend unmarried who became pregnant and chose to raise that child. Each of these people with their own sets of circumstances deserves our respect to make their own decisions about their life course. I believe it is vitally important to protect reproductive freedom in Vermont because right now approximately half of the United States is on the verge of banning or the restricting abortion rights. With 49 years of Roe v. Wade and Jeopardy the Reproductive Liberty Amendment will safeguard reproductive rights for all Vermonters. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight and for the important work you do on the Human Services Committee. I urge you to pass the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Now we have Elizabeth Deutsch followed by Martin Green who I believe is at the state house as well. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to testify on this critical issue. My name is Elizabeth Deutsch. I am a labor and delivery nurse from Heinsberg, Vermont. I have over two decades of experience in patient care and currently work with pregnant people to help them give birth safely. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Childbirth remains a risk to the health of people carrying the child. 800 people die every year from giving birth in the United States. That number does not include the vast number of people who become seriously ill but survive childbirth. Childbirth is far from a benign endeavor. When to take this risk should be the choice of the person who will be taking the risk. It is a personal decision to be made by the patient and their provider. The Reproductive Liberty Amendment would ensure that every person in Vermont who is capable of becoming pregnant would have access to safe healthcare. Abortion is healthcare and it is more important than ever to keep it safe, legal and accessible. On December 1st, the Supreme Court heard arguments seeking to overturn Roe Wade and put the fate of reproductive choice in the hands of individual state legislatures. If that happens, approximately half of the United States could soon ban or significantly restrict abortion rights and other reproductive and sexual health services could be on the line. We have a responsibility to protect healthcare wherever possible. Over the last 25 years, more than 50 countries have changed their laws to allow for greater access to abortion, at times recognizing the vital role that access to safe abortion plays in protecting women's lives and health. That the U.S. is seeking to restrict access to this essential healthcare service is moving our country backward and further marginalizing communities who are already suffering. Forcing people to carry an unwanted pregnancy as a human rights violation. In Vermont, we can protect healthcare and human rights by passing the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. I am also the mother and stepmother of four 20-something young adults who deserve the bodily autonomy I had when I chose to become a parent. I'm here tonight for my children and my patients. I urge you to pass Prop 5, the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Martin Green, please take a seat followed by Amy Bolger. My name is Martin Green and I'm from Morrisville. It is appropriate but ironic that we are speaking to the Human Services Committee because proponents of Prop 5 seem to refuse to recognize the humanity and inherent dignity of the preborn child in the womb. She is a unique human person fully deserving of the right to life and equal protection of the law. Prop 5, however, would provide zero legal protection for her and with no restrictions or regulations on abortion whatsoever. Prop 5 would permit her life to be destroyed at any point and for any reason. This is terribly wrong. And how is it possible that a school nurse must obtain permission from a parent before giving Tylenol to a minor student while Prop 5 would provide no requirement for parents to be involved, give consent, or even be notified before their child is subjected to a procedure as unnatural and dangerously invasive as a surgical or chemical abortion. If Prop 5 is ratified, girls and women will continue to suffer from potentially lethal medical complications and the devastating long-term emotional anguish and psychological damage caused by abortion. This is not healthcare. Call it what you will but chemical abortion pills are not medication. Medication is always meant to help and heal people. Abortion always hurts and destroys them. Finally, with such vague wording and the possibility of all sorts of interpretation, how does Prop 5 make allowance for a father's choice? For example, when the mother is choosing to have an abortion, will he have the liberty to insist that their child not be killed? Will his personal reproductive autonomy and life force be denied or infringed when his choice is for their child to live? Prop 5 is unnecessary and would harm women, children, men, and families. That is why I earnestly implore you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you. We have Amy Bulger followed by John Snowbridge. Amy, go ahead. I think you're on mute. Okay. Great. Good evening. Thank you for having me here this evening. I'm Amy Bulger from South Burlington and I unequivocally support the proposed amendment In December 1977, I was 18, a college freshman, and I was deeply madly in love for the very first time. Unhappily, I was facing an unplanned pregnancy following a broken condom. My now husband, David, and I talked, both agreeing that abortion would be my best choice. The second person I confided in, though, was the campus nurse who blew my mind wide open when she said, no abortion services were available in my home state of Maine. The closest clinic was in Boston, two states away. I was overwhelmed and I was scared. And yet I had many resources and advantages, a loving support of partner, two parents who listened and agreed to help a car. Unlike so many people seeking to terminate a pregnancy, I did not have to think, for example, about how I would pay or about leaving a child or a family member alone or about losing days at work, perhaps even losing my job. Still, I felt fear and apprehension and I felt very much alone. Happily, this particular life event ended well. I experienced top-notch health care followed by deep sleep in an adjoining hotel room with those wonderful parents right next door. And then I returned to Maine to go forward with the rest of my young life. Then I felt thankfulness and relief, never regret. How fortunate was I to have exercised the freedom and privilege to safely and responsibly act on a formative life choice. Now, I feel grateful for always having had opportunities to optimize my sexual and reproductive health, helping me live a fulfilling life. Please support Prop 5. So at least here in Vermont, others might choose as I have to experience safe and legal reproductive health care. Thank you. Thank you. Now, we have John followed by Carolyn Moore. Welcome, John. You need to unmute yourself or be unmuted. Thank you. My name is John Schnoemer. I'm a Catholic priest. I'm serving in Lamoille County. And I just want to thank you for your time tonight and for hearing us and hearing our input. I want to speak against Prop 5. And I want to speak because I studying the language is so vague. It's been mentioned many times again before. And it just seems as making this constitutional amendment, it would not allow the people of Vermont to actually have a real understanding to define what personal reproductive autonomy is. It seems like that would be defined then by somebody else, court of law or lawyers, when this is about the people of Vermont. Its lack of clarity would, I think, is what can John. Parental rights would be violated. Doctors rights. I'm the chaplain of the Catholic Medical Association here in Vermont. And unfortunately, they would lose their rights for conscience. And I think that is also a great concern for me as well. Finally, in working and counseling people, I've counseled a number of people who have had abortions women and men that have been part of that decision. And it has been a heartbreaking thing. Sometimes decades later they realize the pain that they've carried with them. And they're looking for some way to heal in some way to process that. They realize sometimes not immediately but decades later that this was a terrible decision that they wish they had not made. And with respect to those who have had abortions, I just want to speak to that for a moment and ask you to not pass proposition five. Thank you. Thank you. We now have Carolyn Moore followed by Rebecca Zepto. Hi, my name is Carolyn Moore and I am from South Burlington. I'm here today to ask that you vote in favor of the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. My husband and I found out at 12 weeks gestation that our first pregnancy was not compatible with life. Its brain was protruding through a massive hole in the back of its skull. Its kidneys were riddled with cysts. We made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy and do further testing. We found out that we were carriers of a genetic mutation that results in a condition called Meckle-Gruber syndrome. A rare and fatal condition not able to be diagnosed until the end of the first trimester and that there was a 25% chance that each subsequent pregnancy would have Meckle-Gruber. Out of my six pregnancies I wound up having three beautiful healthy children but also sadly had three pregnancies with Meckle-Gruber syndrome. With the support and guidance of my genetic counselor and OB team I terminated those three pregnancies. Each decision to terminate was incredibly difficult and heartbreaking. Those were pregnancies that we wanted. We shared our Meckle-Gruber diagnosis and the decisions to terminate those pregnancies with only a select few family members and close friends. We grieved in silence afraid that others would judge our decisions. Afraid that instead of compassion we would be faced with scorn and disgust. I am here today because I am not ashamed. It was a medical decision clean and simple. Shame and judgment have no place in medical decisions and neither do politicians. It should be left up to the individual and their medical provider. Everyone deserves the right to make their own medical decisions. Please pass the reproductive liberty amendment and protect Vermonter's reproductive rights. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We have Rebecca followed by Elizabeth McManus. Rebecca, you need to take yourself off mute. Thank you. Hello. My name is Rebecca Zitlow and I'm a resident of Burlington, a mother of two daughters and a professor of constitutional law. As an expert in constitutional law, I can affirm that the language of Prop. 5 is not vague and overbroad. The language of Prop. 5 is very clear and any court would understand what it means. Therefore, I urge you to support Prop. 5. Prop. 5 would require that all laws that restrict reproductive liberty use the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. This strict scrutiny is a well understood test that courts often apply to restrictions on other individual rights. For example, restrictions on free speech under the First Amendment and to laws that distinguish on the basis of race. This is a high bar but it would still allow states to regulate abortions. For example, the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and upheld laws requiring written consent to abortions, regulations of facilities and physicians performing abortions and parental consent requirements with judicial bypass. The amendment also clearly recognizes the autonomy and dignity of people making choices about their reproductive lives. It strikes a balance in favor of that liberty which is essential to that dignity and autonomy and to women's equality. As well as being a constitutional law professor I am the mother of two daughters who are now young adults. As an older mother I want to highlight the fact that Prop. 5 would protect women like myself who required the use of reproductive technology to become pregnant. When I decided to have my children I was free to make that crucial decision which is essentially important to our lives. I want my daughters to have that same freedom. Please vote yes on Prop. 5. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Rebecca. We're going to jump to Elizabeth McMannis followed by Christine Zakai. Hello, can you hear me? I guess we can. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth McMannis and I am a senior at the University of Vermont majoring in social work. I currently serve as an intern to the policy team at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. Both personally and professionally I believe that Prop. 5 is critical. The Prop. 5 reproductive liberty amendment would protect every Vermonters right to make their own reproductive decisions like whether to become a parent use temporary or permanent birth control and seek abortion care. Each of us should be able to make our own decisions in life, no matter who we are, where we live or the amount of money we have. Reproduction, reproductive decisions included. These are also essential protections for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. The reason someone might need access to an abortion are vast and are all too often only we hear a single narrative. There's a strong correlation between domestic and sexual violence and the reproductive health and well-being of women. Reproductive and sexual coercion is a form of violence that involves behaviors intended to exert control over an intimate partner's reproductive health, including contraceptive abuse and pregnancy. This form of violence has the power to persist for years and if the abuser decides to use their rights to a child as leverage. The right to access an abortion and gain bodily autonomy can restore power to survivors of violence. Survivors of intimate partner violence face a number of barriers in their lives, but access to reproductive health care should not be one of them. For this and many other reasons, I wholeheartedly support Prop 5 and believe it is imperative that the state of Vermont unequivocally ensure that everyone has the ability to make reproductive health care decisions for themselves. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We have Christine Zachai followed by Faith Alberti. Please go ahead, Christine. Thank you. I'm Christine Zachai. I'm from Montpelier. I own a philanthropic advising firm and I'm a mom of a tween and a teen. Recently, we had a long drive in the car and you all probably know how good time in the car is for talking. We ended up talking about the pending Supreme Court decision that will likely overturn row and strip hundreds of millions of Americans of the right to make their own health care decisions. The right the people have had since I was born in 1973, which makes me a dinosaur according to my children. My kids were honestly horrified to realize that it was even possible that it was even a thing to be able to take away such incredibly personal health care decisions from people. Tonight, I would like to share their perspective as the first generation that is about to come of age in a post-row world. My 12-year-old would like to share these thoughts with you. The government is supposed to help people live their best lives possible. It's not fair that in some states, people are going to have to travel hundreds of miles for health care because no one is allowed to take care of them where they live. The government should be making things more fair, not less fair for people. And my 14-year-old shared this. This is really important. People who are pregnant should be able to make the choice that works for them and only they know that, not the government. I can't imagine teenagers being forced to become parents just because they made a mistake. Vermont needs to make sure people have the right to health care they need regardless of what's happening in Washington, D.C. Please, I ask you, on behalf of my children and the other members of Generation Z whose access to health care will now depend on what state they live in, we ask you to pass the reproductive liberty amendment. Thank you kindly for listening. Thank you. Tranget Faith is not here, so Catherine Blakely. Oh, hi. My name is Catherine Blakely. I go to Spalding High School. I'm a senior there. And I'm very passionate about abortion because ever since I was little, I was diagnosed with sickle cell anemia. And I know what it's like to feel incapable. I've had people tell me my whole entire life what I can and cannot do with my body. And I believe every time when we tell a woman you shouldn't have an abortion, you should. And that's all I want to say. Thank you very much and please support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We have Sally Ballin followed by Edward Chase. Thank you. Go ahead. Please go ahead. Am I up? Yes, please go ahead. Oh, okay. Sorry, it wasn't certainly. Thank you. My name is Sally Ballin. I'm from South Burlington. I'm an educator, a writer, and a mother and grandmother. I'm speaking this evening in support of the amendment to protect the liberty of Vermont women who have enjoyed complete privacy in their family life decisions for 50 years. Since 1972, when the Vermont Supreme Court struck down our state's abortion law a year before the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, Vermont women have had entirely have had this freedom. The main reason the amendment is so necessary now is because times are changing and things are getting risky for women. It's possible we will lose the protection of Roe this year, and we have a state statute that is vulnerable to amendment. The essential question in this never-ending debate, public debate over women's pregnancies is who decides? Who is making the decision that governs a woman's body? Should it be the legislature, Congress? Should it be the courts, the church, the neighbors? It should be none of the above. The when life begins and when is the fetus viable and all these questions are have many different debatable answers. There are medical answers, legal answers, theological answers. But the essential question is who's making the decision? And of course it should be women. Vermont women should continue to be free to make their own decisions without interference from any other person or institution or entity as has been the tradition for 50 years in this state and it must continue. I hope you'll vote to continue and trust women to make their own best decisions. Thank you so much for your time and your service and your good work. Thank you. It turns out Everett Chase is not here so we're going to Jordan. Ian. Gia. Sorry. Giaconia, it's okay. And followed by Sarah Crossman. Don't worry about it. Ready to go when you all are. Go ahead. All right. Well, thank you all. Appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is Jordan Giaconia and the Public Policy Manager for Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. And I'm here to express VBSR's strong support for Prop 5, the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. For the purposes of today's testimony, I'm not really going to be speaking to the public health and ethical imperative to preserve reproductive liberty for all Vermonters but rather the economic benefits and in short of Vermonters able to make decisions about their own reproductive health including whether become a parent use temporary or permanent birth control seek abortion care is a Vermonter with greater control over the economic well-being. And not having enough money to care for a child or support another child is the most common reason people give for wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. And Vermonters are really justified in being concerned about the financial consequences of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. The responsibility of raising a child born after being denied an abortion falls disproportionately on women. Women are commonly already experiencing economic hardships at the time they seek an abortion. And they're also denied and those who are denied a wanted abortion are more likely to be enrolled in public-saking programs. But I also want to point out that there's a lot of positive benefits to reproductive liberty as well. In fact states that have adopted policies that afford women more control over their bodies are also states where they have more opportunity in the labor market. So for example, those living in states with stronger reproductive health care have higher earnings and report less occupational segregation. So pretty much whether demographic groups are sort of segregated into specific careers. Compared with women living in states that have more limited reproductive health care access. Women in states with strong reproductive health care climates are also less likely to work part-time providing them with higher earning potential more robust benefits such as paid leave and paid sick days and more upward mobility in the workplace. And also have more access to reduced job lack or the lack of labor mobility between jobs. And that includes transitioning between occupations and from unemployment into unemployment. So in closing together these findings really paint a very clear picture that shows that a person's ability to access the full range of reproductive health care services is strongly tied to their economic well-being. And for that reason we strongly support Prop 5 and encourage you to pass it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Carol Crossman. And I want to make sure that Peter Anderson if you are in the room if you could get ready to testify next and we'll start with Carol Crossman. Yes. Do you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay. Good. Thank you. My name is Carol Crossman. I'm from Warren, Vermont. I am a retired nurse 35, 40 years in practice. I support the reproductive liberty amendment because important medical decisions should be guided by a patient's health and well-being and not by a politician's beliefs. I am 79 years old and I experienced a tragedy in my youth 56 years ago when I was raped and forced to give up a baby for adoption. No woman or young girl should have to suffer making this awful decision. At the time there were few or no options either in a legal abortion or give the child away. Reproductive health decisions are very personal and private protecting personal reproductive liberty in Vermont. In the Vermont Constitution we'll preserve this right no matter what happens in Washington DC. Approximately half the U.S. could ban or greatly restrict abortion rights and other vital sexual health services. Young people especially need these services so they can make the right decisions in their life with family planning and contraception. Please wrap up. I applaud the Vermont legislature for this amendment and hopefully protecting this freedom in Vermont. I am proud to be a part of this action. Thank you. Thank you. And Peter Anderson if you would please take a seat. And followed by Peter is Fauna Wilson. Good evening. In 1973 Roe versus Wade the Supreme Court attempted to balance that's the key word balance a woman's right to privacy with the state's compelling interest in protecting both pregnant women and the life of the unborn instead of granting an absolute right to abortion in any way at any time. Granted it's difficult work balancing competing interests but that's how democracy works. For 49 years Vermonters have tirelessly tried to get the Vermont legislature to acknowledge that it has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of the unborn and pregnant women. But the legislature has insisted on preserving unlimited unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. To their shame they have refused to regulate the practice of abortion to protect women. Refused to allow parental notification for minors having abortions. Refused to grant protections to the unborn even in the third trimester. Refused to acknowledge unborn babies as human beings with a right to life. They have legislated away the unborn's rights. They have convinced themselves they're not complicit in the destruction of human life by using euphemisms for babies like products of conception and terminated pregnancies. They've refused to find any compelling state interests in 49 years. This year alone your committee has before it seven bills asking the legislature to acknowledge their compelling interests in protecting pregnant women and unborn babies. Will these bills die in your committee? Where have you been? 49 years and all this state can do is come up with proposal five. Please wrap up. Vermont can do better than that. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now have Fauna Wilson followed by Timothy Counts. Hi, my name's Fauna Wilson. I'm an advocate from Burlington. I support the reproductive liberty amendment because I'm keenly aware of the need for this liberty. As a mother and as someone who's had two abortions I know how crucial it is to have a choice. Frankly, the emotion, thought, social pressure, potential familial religious or financial pressures, etc. They go into making such a decision are great enough of a burden to bear without political pressure. Passing this amendment is necessary because it ensures that the financial, mental, emotional and physical health of both parent and child are not at risk due to political intrusion. I urge you on behalf of the current women and future women to pass proposal five. I urge you to set an example in this country to lead and giving women the constitutional rights they have always deserved to lead and making this country great for the first time. I urge you to help heal the fear in women's hearts as we watch our right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the line in this country once again. I'd like to thank the committee and the other speakers that spoke in support of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have Timothy Counts followed by Francis Levitt. My name is Timothy Counts and I'm a resident of Arlington, Vermont. If what you are truly seeking through this constitutional amendment is the right to have an abortion at any moment during pregnancy with no restrictions whatsoever that was already passed as age 57 in 2019. It was declared loudly then that age 57 would protect abortion at any moment with no restrictions in Vermont even if Roe versus Wade is overturned. So the question must be asked why a poorly written constitutional amendment that does not even use the word abortion? A law is to be obeyed. A constitutional right is to be protected at all costs and it informs law and court decisions. In attempting to cement what you are calling a right to even a late term abortion that is already protected by law you will be taking away the rights of others and putting other rights in jeopardy. This includes legalizing prostitution putting children and teens and vulnerable women and men at greater risk of human trafficking opening up Vermont to the legal possibility of pedophilia according to the president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Conscience rights being stripped away from medical professionals opening up our state to strange biomedical tests and sales including baby body parts. The question of how pro-life citizens could run for public office and swear to uphold the Constitution. The rights of pregnancy resource centers could be endangered. Told they must legally speak the same way about abortion that they do about parenthood and adoption and the freedom of religion and freedom of speech of religious leaders could be endangered. In other words by passing prop five you will be creating two classes of remonters those who agree with anything goes at any time abortion and those who disagree. Those who disagree will slowly and legally have their rights chipped away and probably their voice taken away as the laws catch up with the new Constitution. You've already denied the rights of the unborn and now you are trying to remove the rights of those who will speak for and advocate for the unborn. Vote no. Thank you. Francis Leavitt and followed by Charles Wilson who I believe is in the well of the house. Well we're going to while Francis Leavitt is trying to get on we're going to ask Charles Wilson if you are in the well of the house you signed up to testify. Okay we will move to Bill Shubart and followed by Katerina Campbell. Hello thank you my name is Bill Shubart I live in Heimsburg and I'm a regular columnist for Vermont Digger. Abortion has been available in Vermont since Roe v. Wade was settled. I was formerly the chair of Fletcher Allen Health Care now UVM Health Network. My chairmanship was well after the merger of two Catholic hospitals to Gosbrion and Fannie Allen with Mary Fletcher. Out of that merger came a tacit agreement between our hospital and Planned Parenthood regarding access to abortions for Vermont women who needed them. That agreement ensured that abortion was safe and legal. More important however Prop 5 is vital to the privacy and well-being of all Vermonters. The assumption that the reproductive liberty amendment is just about abortions is wrong. Opponents will try and make it so. It's about privacy and Vermonters right to manage their own choices with regard to family planning health and well-being. It's also about settled federal law. In the 1965 case of Griswold versus Connecticut the case that made contraceptives legal Justice William O. Douglas writing for the 72 majority described a penumbra of rights emanating from the Constitution of which privacy was one. A right to marital privacy was an integral part of a more general right to privacy built on several other rights explicitly defined. In short the government has no right or compelling public interest in what happens in family planning. It's the sole purview of the family and their chosen medical and spiritual advisors. Every woman I know personally who has had an abortion struggled emotionally and intellectually with her decision and chose abortion out of necessity in considering the impact of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I urge you to pass the reproductive liberty act and thank you for your time consideration and hard work. Thank you. Katarina Campbell followed by William Ardolino who I believe is in the well of the house as well. Willie. Good evening. My name is Katarina Campbell and I'm a Burlington resident and community organizer. I come tonight to speak in favor of Proposition 5 and on behalf of my birth mother who suffered greatly at the intersection of poverty and lack of reproductive freedom and resources. I am the child of a 15-year-old girl named Edna, an indigenous Brazilian who was falsely adopted into a wealthy household where she was used as an indentured servant. At age 11, she ran away. She became pregnant with my half-sister at 13 and again at 15 with me. At the time, she was living under a bridge. Though very clever, her choices were limited as she never learned to read and write. I am the product of an emergency C-section that almost killed her. I wish my mother was not forced to carry two pregnancies to term under the age of 15 and could have focused instead on getting herself out of poverty. I value my mother's life in my life simultaneously and recognize her well-being, reproductive sovereignty, and care as bound with my own. My support of her and of our collective right to reproductive autonomy does not signal a lack of regard for my own life but a cherishing of her life as equal to mine. I cannot undo my mother's suffering or reinstate her right to choice but I can support our communities here. For me, Proposition 5 makes me feel protected and able to end cycles of trauma in my lineage. As an Indigenous person and member of our disability community, Prop 5 makes me feel protected from the horror of forced sterilization and assures me that, unlike my mother, if I do choose to have a child, I can be confident that it will be my choice at a time when I am well-resourced and ready to parent in this world. I feel so honored to be testifying here so we can make history and protect our people in this powerful and loving way. Thus, in closing, I sincerely ask that you pass Proposition 5. Thank you so much and good night. Thank you. William Ardolino, followed by Jenice Ide. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. Thank you for your services. Could you speak closer to the microphone? My name is Will Ardolino and I'm here to testify against Proposal 5. I believe in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and I believe that this proposal may be fighting against that and its nature. I think that when John Locke and the Founding Fathers provided the Constitution to us as Americans that life being the first part of that sentence was the most important part and I believe this proposal is drawing a line. A line that's dangerous for us as humans to say that a baby inside a person is not a human being yet and to say that we have the right to remove that person's life without their consent is inhumane at its best. And I just I believe that when two people come together to make a baby, a soul is born part of that person, two souls come together and now something new is entered into the world. The woman doesn't become or know at least from my experience whether she's pregnant or not for at least three to four weeks. If you plan to see it in the ground three or four weeks a long time for that person to grow and that soul to survive. So to just remove that from the earth, from the world what's next? What will our lives be affected in a way that now we can be removed from this planet without recourse? And then we can get into it's our responsibilities as people to say if I want a child then I will meet somebody and we can discuss that and coming back to something that's a second guess I think is wrong for us to protect in the sense that yeah. Thank you very much. I do want to add that I think it's important that it's people have their rights and we protect those who have. Thank you, I'm sorry. We have a genus I'd followed by Sidney Parton. Sidney are you in the house? Okay, to get ready and do we have genus I'd there? Yes, my name is genus I'd I live in Danville. I'm a retired registered nurse. I was a student in the mid 60s before abortion was legal. My OBGYN clinical experience was in New York City at New York University Hospital. One entire wing of that unit was devoted to septic abortions. That is illegal abortions gone wrong. If people think that restricting legal abortion will restrict abortion, they're mistaken. Throughout history, women have tried to abort unwanted pregnancies by any means possible. Mostly dangerous procedures. My plea is to protect legal abortion. We cannot go backwards on this issue. And I'd like to say I thank the committee for your hard work and your late nights. And I'm really impressed. Also, I would like to say that testimony has been really articulate tonight and I appreciate that. And my third comment is, I don't know why old white men are involved in this issue at all. It really baffles me. So thank you. Thank you very much. Sid, are you in the well of the house? Okay, we will go to the next person, Joe Patrici, on Zoom, followed by Gene Sylvia. Joe, we're waiting for you. Okay, I'm sorry. I just realized that the light's in here way too bright, but I'll go ahead. My name is Joe Patrici. I know this is a very complicated issue and a very difficult issue. I'm an advocate for the vulnerable and a woman who is facing an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy is certainly vulnerable. Her voice is very powerful in Prop 5, but I see that there's no voice for the most vulnerable, the unwanted and unplanned child to be. And come on, folks, it's simple biology. You can call it a fetus, an embryo, but it doesn't, in the least, diminish the fact that we all know that nine months after conception, a child won't be born again. A child will emerge into the world. So there's not just one person involved in this decision. When you look at it like this, there's two people involved in the decision, and there's no voice for one of them. The essence of my problem with Prop 5 is this. To foster the rights of the mother, the total expense of the unborn, unwanted child to be is predatory in the face of the defenseless. Dehumanizing an unwanted child for convenience of abortion cannot be justified. It should not be so easy to victimize unwanted child who did nothing wrong. Ask not to be born by a mother who can simply decide without question to eliminate and end their life at any point during the pregnancy term, including during delivery. However, I can't think of a more divisive issue. I know my opinion can be discounted because I am a male, but this is not only a gender issue. It is a human being issue. This is an issue of multitudes. Is a back alley abortion okay? No. Can an unwanted pregnancy be a ticket into poverty? Yes. Is there an easy answer to this? No. That's the very reason the response cannot be simplistic and must be integrated addressing as many complexities. The authors wrote this spearing that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. Even if it is, states can write their own laws for abortion, which Vermont has already done. I urge Vermonters to reject Prop 5. Our Constitution gives us a fundamental rights. Let us not make one of them the right to terminate innocent life without restriction. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to be followed. Jean Sylvia followed by Rebecca Parrot. Please go ahead. You're up, Jean. We're ready for you. Hi, I don't seem to be on the there I am. We can see you. Okay. So my name is Jean Silva. I'm a retired physician. I live in Winooski, Vermont. What is going on? And okay. And I really support the religious not the religious, the reproductive liberty act. It's vitally important to our women in this in this state and women in this country that may need a safe place to go. I realize what an economic situation reproductive freedom is when I was in college where I went to an affluent school. Girls that got into trouble were able to go off, have reproductive health care safely came back to school when I went their lives. When I was a few years later, a medical student at Cook County Hospital, I saw something entirely different. I saw people so desperate, so absolutely desperate to not have a pregnancy that they weren't prepared for. That they would risk all and some died and some were permanently maimed, vital organs perforated, chemicals injected, where they shouldn't be injected and that that should never happen to anybody ever again. So I'm hoping this reproductive liberty amendment will also increase access to reproductive care other than abortion, but certainly give people the right to safe abortions. The other point I want to make is that being pregnant in this country is dangerous. We have the highest maternal mortality rate of all the industrialized nations We also have a situation where homicide is the most common cause of maternal death. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. And now we have Rebecca followed by Michelle Moran and followed by Sandy Haas. Michelle, you're on deck unless Rebecca is not here. Rebecca is not here. Michelle, we're... Hold on. Okay. Michelle, you're after Rebecca. Rebecca got online. Thank you, Rebecca. Hi all. Sorry, having some internet connection issues. My name is Rebecca Parade. I'm an OBGYN. I live in Manuski, Vermont and I work at UVM and CVPH in Plattsburg, New York. And I want to speak in favor of the protection of reproductive freedom. I think this is one of the most important things that I deal with day to day. The personal relationship between physicians and patients around reproductive decisions, whether that's people deciding that they want to start a family or that they don't want to start a family is really something that, unless you are that person in that moment, nobody should be passing judgment on. And even now, without these sort of protections in place, I think that the patients that I serve in our community already face obstacles to their reproductive freedoms and their autonomy around the decisions that they're making around reproductive health. And so anything that we can put into place to protect people going forward, I'm in full support of and I think is in the best interest of the health of the patients in our community. Thank you. Thank you very much. Michelle, we're welcoming back Michelle Moran, followed by Sandy Hosh. Thank you, Michelle, for your patience. What happens when an elective medical procedure becomes a constitutional right? None of us knows because it has never been done before anywhere. Could a medical provider decline to provide an elective procedure if it is considered a constitutionally protected right? Would a medical provider have a right of conscience to opt out of performing it? And what if in the medical, the doctor's medical judgment, this constitutionally protected procedure will cause physical or psychological harm to this patient at this time and that it is neither medically indicated nor likely to improve the patient's health, would the person exercising this new constitutional right even be considered a patient or does that person become a consumer and the medical provider a mere order-taker at the drive-through window? A medical procedure or treatment that has become a constitutional right will, in all likelihood, become the standard of care for all healthcare professionals, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, mental health counselors, and others. Not only will those who attempt to opt out or recommend against it for medical reasons be subject to job loss and discriminatory hiring practices, they will risk being subject to malpractice and other claims with the likely outcome that they will lose their licenses for certifications. Vermonters are facing serious consequences if we amend our constitution in this way. Elective abortions, sterilization procedures, transgender treatments, and countless unknown other things will be considered part of a right to reproductive autonomy and we will all be expected to approve of these personal choices. Vermont needs more healthcare providers, not fewer, but if this passes, if this passes, don't expect primary care doctors and others to move here from other states. Those who are here would be well advised to move out as soon as possible. Those of us left behind will surely have regrets. Please vote down Proposal 5. Thank you, Michelle. We have Sandy Haas, followed by Dorothy Kyle. This is Sandy Haas. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. I'm sorry, my computer crashed about five minutes ago. My name is Sandy Haas and I was proud to be a member of this committee when we passed Proposal 5 last term. I'm here tonight to share my lived experience from the era before Roe v. Wade. Legislatures across the country are passing laws to take us back to the 1960s when abortion was a crime. Women's rights have become a political issue, just as our Constitution protects the rights of racial and religious minorities. We must protect women's reproductive rights. In chatting with people last term, I realized that most women are too young to even remember life in the 1960s. As one of the oldest baby boomers, I recall that decade vividly. I first learned about abortion from the TV show The Defenders in 1962. That's when I understood that only the most courageous doctors in this country were willing to perform the procedure. Women who could not find a willing doctor often hemorrhaged. Some even died from abortions performed by criminals. I was lucky. I never had a failure of contraception, but I did worry every single month. Many of my friends were not so fortunate. One college classmate was flown to Mexico by her mother to ensure that her abortion was done by a doctor. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed a law legalizing abortion in the state of California where I lived. We all breathed easier after that. When this committee was drafting the contraception bill last term, the Department of Health told us that nearly half of all pregnancies in Vermont are unintended. We worked hard to increase access to the most effective forms of birth control, but we know there will always be contraceptive failures. Women's health and safety must be protected. I urge you to pass Proposal 5. Thank you. Dorothy Kyle, followed by John Calar. John, I believe you are in. Did anybody else phone in it? Sandy, you are still on. Thank you. Dorothy Kyle is next. Thank you. Go ahead. And there I am. I was trying to unmute and start my video. My name is Dorothy Kyle. I live in Warren. And I've been thinking back to my teen years, the 1950s, long before Roe v. Wade. And I see how fortunate I was to have had parents with the connections and the money to arrange for a safe abortion in New York City with a practicing OBGYN who helped families like mine weather the storms of their teenagers raging hormones. How many more doping teenagers in love were there who didn't have my advantage? How many were impregnated by family members were raped? How many left home alone and frightened to have their babies? How many housewives were there who already had more children than they could afford? How many died at the hands of illegal abortionists? Roe v. Wade, the fear and the stigma out of those years except for the loud voices of the pro-life movement which has been the drum to overturn that human rights affirming Supreme Court decision of 1973. We cannot allow them to take us back to the dark years pre-Roe. Proposal five, a constitutional amendment allows Vermonters an opportunity to preserve this freedom no matter what happens in Washington, D.C. This does not change any current Vermont statue it simply upholds the will of Vermonters that an individual's right and personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine their own life's course. Please pass this critical constitutional amendment. Thank you. John Clark followed by Robin Chestnut-Tangermann. Good evening. Thanks for having me. John Clark, I'm an old white lawyer from Brookfield, Vermont. 50 years ago the Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views and so was Vermont's and nearly 80% of Vermonters fundamentally do not agree with the views being inserted into our Constitution by proposal five. Proposal five is not a woman's rights bill. It is not an abortion's rights bill. It is an infanticide bill. No one is being deprived of abortion in Vermont. Everyone here agrees that all these rights already exist but we need to affirm them because of all the big bad things that happen in the 50s but every woman in Vermont can already abort their babies up until birth right now and no one's compelling them to have a child. So despite the histrionics the CDC reports that 18 abortions were performed in Vermont after 21 weeks in 2019 alone the scientifically accepted date of viability is 24 weeks although many would argue 22-21. Late term abortions are the definition of infanticide and this bill would make it this proposal would make it up to 40 weeks. This would be the most extreme law in the world supporting abortion in the name of protecting women. This legislature has refused to recognize fetal personhood at any age protecting men who beat women into miscarriage or protecting drunks who kill mothers unborn children. You have ignored Patricia Blair and women like her in the in the false claim of protecting women's rights. What about a late term child? A majority of Romaners and Americans oppose late term abortions 80% nationally per a recent AP poll 63% against midterm abortions. This legislature has a duty to protect children. Roe said the law of the land stated clearly the pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy she carries an embryo and later a fetus. If one accepts the matter of definitions of the developing young in the human in human uterus the science shows us 21 weeks. Roe said viability not 40 weeks. There's another life here. Thank you, John. Robin Chestnut Tangerman followed by Kate Cross. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Robin Chestnut Tangerman from Middletown Springs greetings to the committee. Thank you for your patience and for holding this forum. With highly charged and ultimately personal issues such as reproductive freedom discord is to be expected. This evening I would like to share a moment of unexpected agreement in hopes that we can find more of them. As a legislator in the previous biennium I was engaged in a spirited but respectful debate with a constituent who was adamantly opposed to this same bill then and to abortion in particular. I shared my perspective with him that I was simply advocating a person's right to make their own reproductive choices and that as a legislator and as a human being that is not my choice. I do not have the right or the moral authority to tell a woman that she must bear a child any more than I have the right to tell her that she cannot bear a child. Exactly he said this is between her and God. Exactly I said that is her choice not yours or mine. Long pause. I don't know whether he was persuaded or not but I am certain that the legislature should not be making the decision whether a woman must or cannot bear a child. Prop 5 ensures that the decision remains where it belongs with the individual. Please support it. Some will argue that the language in Prop 5 is too vague or overly broad and thus open to judicial interpretation. I would remind them that that is exactly the job description of the judicial branch. The legislature makes laws. The executive enforces them and the judiciary interprets them. That is the strength of our system. The conditional the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech is equally broad and vague and continues to be interpreted even 233 years after ratification. I urge you to support Prop 5 and its constitutional guarantee of individual freedom. Thank you. Thank you very much, Robin. Now we have Kate Cross followed by Eileen Hubbard. Good evening. My name is Kate Cross. I am originally from Rutland, Vermont and now live in Shelburne. I am a mother of two healthy young boys and a wife of 24 years. This is a difficult topic. You'll learn why in a moment. I work in marketing for a high tech firm and serve in my local government. I thank you all for your service. I am here to speak in favor of reproductive liberty. I am here to share with you that not all women choose to have an abortion as planned. Some like me require an abortion to save their own lives. 12 years ago, due to a botch test in my geriatric pregnancy, I was over 35 years of age then. My life was endangered by an infection because of the test. My fetus, 24 weeks' gestation was damaged and could not survive. I underwent an emergency procedure to end my pregnancy. If I were unable to have that procedure, I may not have, I may have lost my life which would have left my five-year-old son an orphan and my husband a single dad. Without protection of a woman's right for reproductive freedom, this law would make procedures like the one that I had illegal. This was a terrible loss, as you can tell for me and an emotional scar that I will never heal from. That said, I am thankful that I was able to receive the right for that medical care. I ask that when you consider Prop 5 that you remember my story and allow women like men to have access to the full spectrum of healthcare that they require. Thank you for listening and for your service. Be well. Thank you. Eileen followed by Carrie Brown. Hi, I'm sorry. I don't know why I'm so yellow here. We're waiting for you. Okay. Last year the Vermont legislature passed a resolution sincerely apologizing for past legislators actions which allowed state sanctions eugenic policies and practices referring to the 1931 sterilization law which targeted certain groups of people including those with intellectual disabilities. We look back with 2020 so to speak vision and we wonder how these policies could have ever been considered acceptable, but they were. I'm sure promoters of the sterilization laws were convinced they were doing something good, something heroic that they had blinders on. A 2012 study by J.L. Natali and others estimates that about 74% of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted in the United States. A study by Dr. Brian Skaka of Mass General and others estimates that in recent years there has been a one-third reduction in Down syndrome births in the United States due to abortion. In Vermont, they estimate abortion is reducing Down syndrome births by 58% and in Europe the births have been reduced by half. Imagine a whole group of people being targeted and wiped out by abortion simply because they have an intellectual disability. This is eugenic abortion. The General Assembly last year resolved that they recognize further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanctioned eugenic policies. A good first step would be to recognize that Proposal 5 will enshrine eugenic abortion into the Vermont Constitution. It will give the state's stamp of approval to eugenic abortion. In this legislature, if this legislature passes this amendment and Vermonters approve it by referendum in November, it will only be a matter of time before future legislatures are apologizing for our eugenic policies no matter how good our intentions may be now. Please take off the blinders and reject Proposal 5 a.k.a. Article 22. Thank you. Thank you. We have Carrie Brown followed by our last person who is justifying this evening, Julie Mackamant. Good evening. My name is Carrie Brown. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont Commission on Women. The Commission's been working to advance rights and opportunities for women since 1964 and we have a clear policy supporting the right to reproductive liberty and it's linked to economic well-being that I'd like to read for you now. The Vermont Commission on Women affirms that every woman has a natural and unalienable right to choose whether and when to bear children, the right to educational, medical and counseling services to make that choice wisely and the right to the appropriate support in order to create a secure economic future based on that choice. The proposed amendment would guarantee people the liberty and dignity to determine their own life's course including the right to decide whether and when to bear children. The ability to decide this is one of the most important factors in a woman's economic well-being over the course of her lifetime. Having control over the timing of children allows women to increase their own education, make better investments in their early working career choices and create better outcomes for their children. Women's access to reproductive health care including abortion is tied to increased labor force participation, higher earnings, more advanced careers and better financial conditions for their children and families. On the other hand, lack of access is linked to higher likelihoods of falling into poverty, receiving public assistance and raising children alone in single parent households in the future. Increased access to reproductive health care can even be credited for helping to reduce the gender wage gap. One analysis showed that access to the birth control pill by younger unmarried women in the 1960s and 1970s increased their hourly earnings by 8% by the time they were 50 years old. The same analysis included that the pill can account for 10% of the reduction of the gender wage gap in the 1980s and 30% in the 1990s. The liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course, including whether and when to have children is one that should be guaranteed to every person in Vermont. Thank you very much for your work on the proposal and for your time. Thank you. And now could we hear from Julie Mackerman. Hi, my name is Julie Mackerman. I live in Poundall. I'm your last speaker, the one who will carry you across the finish line tonight. I am the secretary of the Bennington Branch of the American Association of University Women. Our board and branch members urge you to pass the reproductive liberty amendment. For almost a century, Bennington has been an active branch of AAUW, a national organization founded in 1881 to open doors for girls and women to pursue higher education, even then understood as a crucial step toward ensuring their economic security. We support national AAUW's position that women should be guaranteed the right to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health. As for women, this liberty undergirds all others, especially for low income women, access to reproductive health, including contraception and abortion is often the key to breaking a cycle of poverty. Early and unplanned pregnancies can present a significant barrier to women in their pursuit of a college degree and career. A woman's decision to drop out of school or not to enroll in college because of an unintentional pregnancy may have ramifications on her earning power over the years and her eventual retirement income. Women who defer their education and career due to an unplanned pregnancy often face daunting odds when they try to pick up where they left off. Today we confirm the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down or debilitate the protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. We argue that stripping the choice of whether to go through with a pregnancy from a woman and handing it over to the government as a directive is a violation of her rights, including her fundamental right to make choices regarding her health and economic well-being. Vote yes on this amendment. The finish line. She has been crossed. Thank you, Julie. We actually, someone who was on the list earlier who was not here when we called is now on and Jennifer Coleman Jen Coleman is here. Hello. Thank you so much for taking me. I have heard many people tonight supporting this legislation who seem to think abortions will no longer be legal if this isn't passed. That is just not true. One of the main aspects of this legislation is to extend the legal abortion time to the day of delivery. That is what is upsetting most of us who are calling in tonight against this proposition. However well intended to benefit women, this will not only harm unborn women but also endanger the mental well-being and perhaps physical health of women who choose to abort their babies late in their pregnancies. These ramifications are difficult to measure but they are real. Actions always have consequences. If a woman does not want to continue her pregnancy after the current number of weeks for legal abortions, the most humane and civilized option is to give the baby up for adoption. When our society makes life and death decisions out of convenience instead of conscience, our society is heading for disaster. I agree with Supreme Court Justice John Roberts when he queried recently how much time does it take for a woman to decide to kill her unborn child? Waiting until the last trimester to make that decision to abort a baby, one who can now live outside the womb is homicide. This legislation that is being proposed does not exist in any other state. Why would we want to bring this kind of stigma on Vermont? To say that disagreeing with this proposition is tantamount to passing judgment on women or endangering their reproductive rights is inaccurate and meant to draw people away from the real issue. On the contrary, this is a matter of being humane to vulnerable human beings, human beings in their last trimester inside their mother who can live and breathe. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, everyone. Everyone who testified today, people who were listening on Zoom and I particularly want to thank everyone who was here in the well of the House for respecting the solemnness and the decorum of the House. It makes me very proud to be a Vermonter. I want to, for those of you who don't know the process, if Prop 5 were to pass the House, what that means is that you, each one of you who are sitting in these seats and who are listening on Zoom, the decision about whether or not Prop 5 should be added to the Vermont Constitution would be your decision. You would have the voice. And so I want to make sure that you know that if it passes the House, it does not mean that Prop 5 goes into the Constitution. Rather, what that vote means is that it is your decision, the decision of the voters of Vermont. And again, I want to say thank you and this ends the public hearing on Prop 5, the Reproductive Liberty, Proposed Reproductive Liberty Amendment.