 Welcome viewers to Channel 17, Center for Media and Democracy, here in Burlington, Vermont. I'm your host for Focus, Margaret Harrington, and viewers, let's welcome our special guest, Mary Han Beerworth, Executive Director of Vermont Right to Life Committee. Welcome, Mary. Thank you very much for having me, Margaret. Thanks for coming, Mary. Happy to be here. Happy to be here. And I am also, we're continuing our series within the Focus series on the title for our program is the Vermont Abortion Law is Bad Legislation, Part 3. And we had formerly titled it, the longer title is H57, the Vermont Reproductive Rights Healthcare Bill is Bad Legislation, Parts 1 and 2. And this is Part 3. So, Mary, bring us up to speed on what is going on with this now law. It is now enacted into law to the surprise of a number of us. Governor Phil Scott did sign the bill endorsing what is, without a doubt, the most radical anti-life legislation in the country now. So, they have codified into state statute not a single consideration for an unborn child throughout nine months of pregnancy. And we have an unlimited, unregulated abortion business now with no parameters around it, no regulations of any kind. But, Mary, they say that this was always permissible in Vermont. And this is just codifying the law. Is this true? That's in its own way. That is true. It's codifying. There was no law on the books. What happened in the legislative session, however, was they were repeatedly offered opportunities to make some common sense amendments to the initial, the H57 language. And they were resoundingly rejected. So, amendments were offered. There were over 14 roll call votes. They were offered an opportunity to agree that parents of a minor daughter ought to be notified before a surgical procedure like an abortion is performed on her, rejected Patricia Blair, who lost her twins, unborn viable twins to a driver who was impaired, had been repeatedly impaired and on the road, begged that we join 38 other states in passing a fetal homicide law so that someone who intentionally destroys the child you wanted and you chose to have tried anything to do with abortion, just protecting a woman from violence or abuse or negligence, rejected. Laws to put parameters and regulations on the clinics themselves, the abortion clinics, rejected. And it went on and on and on. So they had a process where they had an opportunity to say, let's join with other states that have made these common sense proposals and enacted them into law. And this state refused to do so. We go further in one other way, Margaret, and that is that there are parameters on public entities even speaking about pro-life and alternatives to abortion. It's quite radical. It is radical. And, Mary, let's go back to the rights of the unborn child. Like, what are the rights are actually being taken away by this law? It's now codified into state statute that there's no protection for an unborn child, so that the right to an abortion is paramount. And, of course, now we're looking at going even further and putting H57, which is now law, in language in our Constitution, that will take the unlimited, unregulated parameters of the no parameters of H57 and ensconce it into the Vermont Constitution, which is like putting it in granite, because it'd be very difficult to ever get that out. Do we want to look at the text of this? Yes. And if people can take a look at the screen, they'll see that the entire language wraps around personal reproductive autonomy. And that is a very wide open phrase, and it is super protected by the language that would have to rise to a compelling state interest. And we've already established that there's no compelling state interest in our investment in an unborn child. Well, what do you mean, who has established that there's no compelling state interest in the rights of an unborn child? Well, let's say a case went to court after we have, if this proposal five, this amending our state Constitution to embrace abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, is passed into law. And a court case comes up, someone who's been injured, somebody whose boyfriend has abused them and killed the unborn child, and they take their case to court wanting that child to be, the charges filed against this man to include the death of a child. Well, they will have to go, a judge would go back and look at what is in law at the time. And in law at the time now is a codified H57, and that would, I believe, lead to a judge saying there's no compelling state interest. This is what the state has decided it wants. So we're building that legislative history for the court when we pass something like H57. And then my purpose, of course, in being here is to try to outline some of the problems with allowing a constitutional amendment. We would be the only state in the country to do so. This is an initiative of the abortion industry, which I would like very much to get into, driven by the state's largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood. Okay. So let's get into it. All right. Exactly. Well, I've been at this for a long, long time. And our motto is to uphold the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. And in that, we have chosen to focus on the life of an unborn child, because there's so little defense of that life, and the life of a newborn, potentially with disabilities being left to die, which is infanticide, and euthanasia at the end of life when our most vulnerable elderly could be at risk for feeling pressured into ending their own lives. At every turn, the enemy of common-sense reasonable legislation is Planned Parenthood. They not only have their roots in the Eugenics Project here in Vermont. They are the single largest provider of abortions in the state of Vermont, in the United States of America, and in the world. And as just recently, they fired their president for not being an abortion activist enough. That's what we see play out in the state house. In fact, a rally kicked off this legislative session. This is very disheartening. But we sent a new lobbyist in to listen. And the kickoff was a rally cry. It was right in the state house. They were watching the movie, Reversing Row. And their cheerleader came in and said, who loves abortion? And the whole crowd said, we do, we do. And that's the kind of sort of callous disregard for human life that most people who call themselves pro-choice don't understand is that's taking them further than they would likely go. Now we know that there's a lot of people who follow Planned Parenthood, but is that a comfortable fit who loves abortion? That's part of their Shout Your Abortion campaign. So that was the kickoff event. And we watched with dismay as our beautiful testimony on behalf of life was just disregarded at every turn. So you had something like two minutes to testify? Well, we had day-long testimony before the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. And we had time in front of the House Human Services Committee. And we brought in experts. We had testimony from around the country on both subjects about how dangerous H57 was and also how dangerous Proposal 5 would be. Now it's important for listeners to know they'll have a chance to vote on Proposal 5 in 2022. But the work begins now because certainly a personal reproductive autonomy doesn't sound like abortion. It doesn't sound like the taking of a human life. It sounds like a personal reproductive decision-making process. But the intent is very clear. We asked the committees to specifically put the word abortion in the language, and that was rejected. So, but no, we had Bioethics Defense Fund came in to talk about Proposal 5. I mean, they did it by speakerphone. But they're very clear that this could lead to parent embryos experimentation on the smallest of unborn children. It's wide open for a judge to decide. Everything we brought up as a potential problem was said, well, we'll leave it to the courts. We'll just leave it to the courts. It's mind-boggling that you're describing this legislative session with people shouting abortion. High-fiving and cheering and pink shirts. And it was so dismaying for those who are pro-life, but also for those who are some of the members of the House who are pro-choice, but just don't see it as something to cheer about. There's a huge understanding of what the problems are that a woman faces when she's unexpectedly and unintentionally pregnant. And they feel like they need to let her have this other choice as well. But this is not how they see the issue. They have regard for that life, and especially as that the life increases in size by the second and third trimester. So people need to understand those later term abortions are happening here in Vermont. Planned Parenthood will do abortions up to 19 weeks of pregnancy. Now, viability is edging closer and closer to 21 weeks, 22 weeks. The smallest baby was just born recently, like at 0.8 ounces, and she's gone home from the hospital. So, and then it go further at the UVM Medical Center, which is another tie-in to Planned Parenthood. Yes, please tell us about the changes at UVM Medical Center, which happened a year ago. Is that so? In 2017 and September, we got wind of it in January of 2018. But the former CEO of Planned Parenthood became a member of the Board of Trustees at the UVM Medical Center. And at the same time, there was a push to provide more services. Now, their inheritance at the UVM Medical Center came from the Catholic hospitals, the Fannie Allen to Gosbrion, and they had an agreement that they would not engage in elective abortions, just in those very rare, rare circumstances where a woman's life might be at stake. And that policy, they eliminated it. And now, they've hired three late-term trained abortionists at the UVM Medical Center. And one of them came down repeatedly to testify at the State House and described how she did those late-term abortions. And it's a horrifying Margaret. It really is. And it's very sad. We know that unborn babies, science is telling us that unborn babies can feel pain. They actually feel excruciating pain because those nerve endings are so raw. They're so undeveloped. They don't have the thicker skin over those nerve endings. And so it's just... it's horrifying to contemplate how close we are doing abortions to the day of viability. And you bring right here the baby, the unborn baby, and with the language that was thrown out in age 57, no fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall have independent rights in Vermont. And as my former guest, Sharon Toburg, explained, it doesn't matter that that language was taken out. It doesn't matter. And the chair of the Human Services Committee, Representative Ampue from South Burlington, made that very clear in committee. She said, we understand we're taking this out, but does everyone understand that it makes no difference? So they're very clear about that. There's no desire to protect that life at any stage. So, Mary, there are many directions we can go here with this, but I would like to focus on the sanctity of life that you describe, and that is not scientific terms. So, but in the scientific terms, it is that... explain it to us. It simply is science. Sometimes we're accused of being religious or moral majority or some of these terms. No, it's based on science. The Vermont Right to Life Committee was formed on the idea that the first right we are guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence is the right to life. And now we back that up with the science that undeniably tells us life begins at that moment of conception. And it's a beautiful story. In fact, National Geographic does a whole beginning of life story, and it's all science. It's science telling us that that little heart is beating regularly at just 24 days after conception. That everything that an unborn child will ever need in its life, DNA-wise, is there instantly. Color of your eyes, skin color, hair color, eye color, male, female, blood type. It just needs a little time to grow. And so this sudden hostility sort of separating mother from what naturally would be her child. I mean, that's her child. And somehow we've made an antagonistic situation here where choice comes in and we have a mother turning against her own unborn child. And we are very, very sympathetic with the pressures that come to bear on that mother. And it's usually, and we know many, many women who've had abortions and they know they can come to us and they know that they can feel very comfortable because we understand. In fact, many of our board of directors are women who've had abortions. And they almost invariably will say to you at the end of the story that they need to tell, that they've carried around for years and years and years, they almost invariably say, I just felt I had no choice. Which is so sadly ironic since we're screaming pro-choice and cheering. It's a terrible day. The day you have an abortion is a terrible day. It's not something to celebrate. And we hear the lifelong regret that comes in. Often they call me on the day they had the abortion or the day the baby was due and they say, wow, my baby would be five. And it's just an ongoing sadness. So we bring that to the table and try to defend that life and try to bring reason in common sense. We brought women to both of the hearings, the public hearings, but as well as the hearings in the State House who have had abortions to plead their case, that they didn't feel they were given options, that abusive boyfriends were pressuring, that finances came into play. But it was just moved no hearts. It moved no hearts. Planned Parenthood is a dominant player in the State House. They have federal and state funding that allows them to do a lot of private fundraising at election time and they have a lot of influence over the legislators. In fact, there were letters that were sent out to the members of the House that they were watching every vote, every comment, and every amendment and would be scoring that at election time. They insist on 100% compliance with their agenda. It's frightening the way it happened, Mary, that when the election came up in November 2018, it was an issue. Nobody knocked on doors here in Chinden County and said no fetus, no fertilized egg, no embryo will have independent rights in Vermont. I mean, nobody was talking like that at all. And yet when people who had voted for progressives and Democrats communicated with their representatives, they said, what do you think that a fetus has independent rights and wanted to get into that? It just wasn't an issue in this last election in Vermont. And all of a sudden it became the centerpiece of the legislative agenda. And that is what they repeatedly said. Very dismaying for us was the Senate pro tem who said abortion makes women equal people. And this leaves us so heavy hearted that that could be even a consideration. How does that make women equal? How does it make women equal to have the legal right to kill your unborn child that's not something a man can do? I don't understand. I really don't understand. And some of the language I just don't think they hear. It borders on what we were talking about earlier is the eugenics project in the Green Mountain State. Let's talk a little bit more about the eugenics project. And I have the statement regarding the University of Vermont and eugenics from E. Thomas Sullivan, the president, June 21, 2019. And he apologizes within this kind of... I believe it is appropriate to state unequivocally that the eugenics survey of Vermont, 1925 to 1936, supported by UVM on its campus, contributed to the stereotyping, persecution, and in some cases state-sponsored sterilization of members of certain groups, sanctioned by law in the state of Vermont in 1931. The destructive impacts of eugenics have been through generations a deeply painful experience. And yet, Mary, we have this abortion law right now, which is the product of Planned Parenthood. And let's talk about the eugenics and Planned Parenthood. Well, this is my subject. I've studied and I've very, very, very much relied on Nancy Gallagher, who she and Kevin Dan stumbled across the eugenics project records at the UVM Medical Center. And you can find their information. UVM has devoted an entire website to the eugenics project. So you can poke around in there and find out how diabolical it was. They targeted families for extinction. And it was Henry Perkins, who was a zoologist at UVM and a follower of Darwinism, just believed that he wanted the race of thoroughbreds. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said very similar things. She also just, they referred to human beings as human weeds and imbeciles and defectives. And they thought whole generations of families needed to be sterilized out of existence. They had one thing in common. All the families that were targeted, the families didn't know they were being targeted, but these sort of up in their high places decided which families were going to be eliminated. And they would come into the town where these folks lived and gather information and try to round them up and find something that they could arrest them for or put them in a reform school for and then eventually your condition of release was voluntary sterilization. So that's an attitude toward human life that is shockingly disdainful of your fellow man. It's the one thing they all had in common besides being, breeding large families. I mean, they were folks that were the Abenaki Indians, the French-Canadian Catholic families. They had large families. That was one of the problems. But the really big thing they had in common was they were poor. And instead of coming into town to see how they could help with a job or assistance of some kind, they were targeted for sterilization. Now the interesting part in this book, and it's very briefly touched upon, but it's very important, is that Henry Perkins was not only driving the engine of the state eugenics project here in Vermont. He was also on the American eugenics society. He was vice president. And when Nazi Germany was exposed and the failure of these eugenics projects was exposed. I mean, they tried to say it was somehow in the breeding of DNA, but it wasn't proving itself out. I mean, wealthy families had just as much alcoholism and problems, and so the science was on the way. I mean, people were not buying it anymore. He personally took it upon himself to introduce Margaret Sanger to the American eugenics society. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was not considered somebody you wanted in polite companies. She had quite a scandalous background. But he convinced them that her birth control review, which became Planned Parenthood, was the wave of the future. And so there's a direct connection to that. So a very big stronghold here in Vermont. The roots to Planned Parenthood are very powerful. So they go all the way back to those moments in history in the eugenics project. And today, Planned Parenthood has more clinics per capita than any state in the United States. We have 12 Planned Parenthood clinics here in Vermont. Our neighbors to the east, New Hampshire, I think, has five, and Maine has four. And we have 12. So they have deeply entrenched into our thinking is the idea that still, that we need to eliminate certain populations, I believe. Yes. And abortion is presented by Planned Parenthood. Is it not as birth control? Right. So that is their goal, is that abortion is just another method of family planning. One abortion is testified at the State House after she finished discussing the late term abortion procedures. She said, but we have other methods of family planning as well. And that comes as a surprise to a lot of people who might see abortion as a sad necessity in some terrible cases, but never think that it should be a method of family planning. I mean, the reproduction has already happened. And so there's now time for us to consider that life. And it's so ironic, Margaret, because we're sitting here in a state that has such concern for such interesting causes and important causes. But I did a little research. We have salamander crossing guards in Addison County. We have people saving turtle eggs down in the southern part of the state. And on and on it goes, and you can't move a bird's nest that has an egg in it. So these ironies just keep coming up. Where on the scale can an unborn baby be placed? Where can we say that we recognize this human life? Because it's important that we say and repeat, an unborn child is a child already living on this planet. And an abortion ends that child's life. So we watched it was with great dismay. Great dismay, absolutely no consideration. Not only for the unborn child, but very little consideration for the woman either, either. A young teenage girl would benefit in most cases by letting somebody know she's got a problem. Notifying parents is one of our big agenda items. And especially that's important in the day and age of me, too. Because an abortion is covering up a potential crime if we're not... One thing I always like to point out is the first thing this young girl's father is going to ask is who's the father of this baby, right? But when we get a secret abortion, that goes away. So there's many, many issues. It was an overwhelming session. We could not seem to bring reason to the state house. Well, Mary, you describe it as a secret abortion, and yet it is condoned and performed by... by, say, the abortionist... It would be Planned Parenthood. And perhaps paid for by the state. Right, that's exactly right. So somebody knows just not the people who care the most. Yeah. I know. It's an ironic situation for us. Once upon a time, we had a better balance in the state house. But the other thing that's amazing to me is we have a number of progressives and Democrats in the state house who are very concerned about the eugenics project in Vermont and want it to never happen again. And as you just read, UVM has apologized. But now they've moved into elective abortions right into the later weeks of pregnancy. And someday I believe they're going to have to apologize to a number of people. It's... And to the women that... And all the babies that have been aborted. Ironically, also the hospital has a day of mourning for those who've lost their children to miscarriage. But what about the ones who've lost their babies in abortions? So... So, Mary, it is a social shift, is it not? This abortion law and probably, possibly the abortion amendment. And it's a social push and shift. And could you go into that about how it will impact how children are educated in schools? And there can be no interference now from anyone about the legality of abortion. And in fact, that abortion is the way to go. Right. It's going to be a real challenge. And we will be looking for people to challenge the law. So if you're in a situation, if you're working for a public entity and if you're being told that you can't discuss alternatives to abortion with anyone or recommend maybe going to a pregnancy care center rather than Planned Parenthood, or... And it doesn't even say if you work for a public entity that you have to be on the job. I mean, is your speech restricted after hours? So these things are all a great concern to us. It's a startling in a state that embraces free speech. So what they did in this last legislation, and God forbid, hopefully they don't do it in the Constitution, but they lifted abortion out of everything else so that nothing pertains just to the one procedure abortion. It's if a business came down and had the power and influence to just say those regulations can apply to everyone else, but not to us. And that's basically what they did. So Planned Parenthood came down. They're in the business of abortion. They testified they do 1,100 abortions a year here in Vermont. 1,100 abortions out of the 1,200 or 1,270 that are done. So it's nearly entirely their business. And they came down to lobby in favor of protectionism for whatever they want to do. So they don't use physicians. They won't have to use physicians. There can be no regulation from the state. Well, also this is an angle that is terrifying, in fact, that the medical professionals will not be there to perform the abortion. Well, they will use people who are trained. So they use nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants, but not necessarily a physician, a OBGYN. It's astounding, it really is. But in the law now, is it codified that it should be a medical professional who is performing the abortion? So they have their own standards, and that's what they deflected to, was that Planned Parenthood has their own standards and the hospital has their standards. But a bad actor could move here, and what would we have, what tool in the toolbox would we have to put them out of business? So there are bad abortionists. There are dangerous abortionists out there. And if they did target us and come here, we have passed a law that does not let us interfere with that business. Okay, you have passed, there has been a law passed by the, no. No, no, no. So right now the legislature was falling back on the fact that Planned Parenthood has its own standards and the hospital had their standards, okay? But the law itself does not allow for any standard for, let's say, someone wanted to move here outside of those two networks and set up an abortion business. They could, and we would, as of now, have no tools to inspect, investigate, or put them out of business. Mary, there are so many. We'll finish this part three now and you can come back. We'd love to come back. But leave us with some, will you have a petition? You will be able to find very soon on our website a petition where you can sign your name against the passage of Prop. 5. And we will then put you in a network where you can get updated information about talks that will be occurring all around the state. We will be speaking out. We will be bringing in those experts that spoke in the legislature and we'll be taking them to counties around the state. So stay tuned and thank you for this opportunity. I really appreciate it. And Mary, thank you so much for being here and this is a common ground that we have with communicating with all Vermonters and we're listening to you and thank you so much for being here. Well, thank you for having me. Appreciate it. Thank you, viewers. Thank you, Channel 17. Until next time. Goodbye for now.