 Welcome, Jim. Good. I'm Ann Huy. I'm chair of the House Human Services Committee, so that you know who you're talking to. Why don't we just say our name and what part is the country? I mean, what part is the country? It feels like a country. It feels like a country. One little holiday to start. I'm Mary Beth Redmond, and I live in Essex. Carl? Oh, sorry. Carl Rosenquist represents the town of Georgia. I'm Jessica from the town, and I represent part of Shelburne and St. George. I'm from all over the state. I'm Sandy Koss. I live in Rochester. I represent three more towns in that neighborhood. Oh, I'm sorry. You already said you. OK. I'm Theresa Wood, and I represent Waterbury, Bolton, Huntington, and Beale's Wharf. Good morning. I'm Zane Moise. I represent Wolcott, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Belvedere. I'm Janice Gregoire, Fairview, Flatcher, and Baker and Kelly Payattler, one here, Weston, and Jamaica, and Lynn Collins, right? So, Janice, you're talking to people from all over the state, and thank you very much for being here for a mental health advocacy day. And I understand you have some things that you want to say to us. Yeah. No, I'm going to start with you. Yeah. Jenna would just like to share her story about where she is now, but I just wanted to give a little brief history about where she's been, and she also has traveled, right? Jenna is 28 years old and has a two-year-old daughter. As a child, you had many ear infections, so she has a hearing loss. She has some scoliosis. She's been diagnosed with PTSD, a neurodevelopmental disorder, and ADHD. With her family, they traveled quite a bit. They moved about eight times to Janice before she was a teenager. She, the family, survived a fire in their home and lost everything about her personal illness. Jenna left home probably when she was about 15, 16, traveled down to Louisiana where she met a young man and they got into drugs together. She was with this young man for about four or five years, right? And then came back home to live in Vermont with her mother. Her mom and dad divorced after 27 years of marriage. He was a verbally abusive father, not toward Jenna or the children, but toward your mom. My mother, because she had an affair with him and this is only for her. And I didn't know he could drink for many years. He quit when I was a baby. I was born as a way back then. But you're having a boy or a girl, so I was the youngest out of three, the only girl. So when you came back to Vermont, you connected up with the father of your baby, Robert, who also is a drug abuser. And together they sort of cult-served and landed up delivering her young daughter, Teresa, who absolutely is the cutest little thing you've ever seen. And Teresa had to be weaned with methadone when she was born. On one occasion, when they were shooting up Rob, shot Jenna, and you lost a part of it. I lost two of my fingers. Yes, I would like to speak out to young teens one day about drug abuse. And it's the scariest thing I never thought that would happen to me. It's an ideal that a lot better than I thought. I tried to hide it for the longest time. So after I lost my daughter, I got into Washington County for help. I volunteered to do it to get my daughter back. I was robbed, cared more about drinking in the springs and drugging. And I lost my fingers. So he stopped going to visit. And then I moved in with my mom. And then I started overnight and worked my way back up. So hopefully next month, I'll have full custody. She looks. Congratulations. Congratulations. She's worked very hard, very hard. So I was in a home. One developmental home. That just looked at me like I was a paycheck. Didn't treat me really like I was a person. Didn't do much for me. And I do have a license, but I have no car. And I'm also security. So I mean, it's tough to live nowadays. But I am very grateful to have a home. And a very warm, loving environment. I could not be more happier than to be put wherever you were. At first, I didn't want to go. I thought I wanted to stay where I was. And even though it was not a match, it just didn't meet Jenna's needs. And so we worked very hard to find another placement. And I remember the day that we went to look at it. We were here. Yes. And what did you say? I said that she had a great aura. And I felt a good connection with her. I like doing art. I like cleaning and doing material. I want to do it and material decorating one day. So she just made a whole different world of art walls. And while I used to live here, I used to always tell you, oh, your place is clean. You have too much stuff. There's too much stuff on the walls. And just, you know, it's like, oh, there's somebody who likes to decorate like that. Oh, I like to decorate. So what's the best thing about being at Maria's? You have who with you? My daughter. Oh, fabulous. Yes. And it's our home. And we are family. So it's important for you to continue with getting the services that have gotten her where she is today. Yes. Because in the beginning of all this, support, I didn't know what it meant. And it's very important to me. Because along the way, I lost a lot of my supports because I've accomplished so much. But DCF had asked me if I was done with them. But I was going to continue working while I'm at home. And yes, I would really like to, because I'm not ready for those supports. And it's nice to be able to, if I need to get a hold of somebody to say, you know, get a hold of the Marines, so somebody that will pick up their phone and lots of people, their phone up south the time. So it's accomplished my sobriety as well. Because it's good to have a bind off, you know, being around those kinds of people that I used to hang out with. My best friend, since a kindergarten, did talk to me for a couple of years because of my addiction. And now she's back. And I'm able to call her on top of their social sites. Good friends. Yes. And Jenna is in treatment. She has a full companion of treatment providers. She's working with the MAT team, which is the medically assisted team. And so she uses Suboxone, regular checks. She has a nurse that's just her nurse. She has a psychiatrist, therapist. Psychiatrist and ever since the team. Yeah, Dr. Burrell's parents. You've had an incredible history. Have you come here today and talk to us and share your story is really incredible. And that you're living with your daughter and that you are not taking drugs is fabulous. Takes a lot of hard work. And I think I can speak for everyone on this committee that we will remember your story when we and how services were important and are important to you, that when we make our recommendations for the budget, that we will keep you in mind. It took a lot for me to come here. She wasn't going to come. I had a hard time. I get a lot better of overcoming my anxiety of being around a lot of people and crowds. And you're not going to have to come around because you've got a room full of people in here. So, Jenna, thank you so much. Thank you very, very much. Just knowing from who's sitting around the room, individuals hold very different perspectives and views on this legislation. And some of you may disagree with what is being said. I appreciate your disagreement, but you need to keep that to yourself and not on the sidelines. Thank you very much. And why don't we start with Dr. Naska? Thank you. Thank you. And we have, I believe, Representative Rosenberg to thank them for being here. Thank you. Thanks for allowing me to be here. Of course. And Carol, and another rep from our county. My name is Joe Naska. I'm a pediatrician. I work in Franklin County, Vermont, Georgia. I've been practicing in pediatrics since 1991 in Vermont. I'm on the clinical teaching faculty of the Department of Pediatrics at Medical Council to rotate through the office. I'm board certified by the Academy of Pediatrics. I've been president of the medical staff at Northwest Medical Center. I've chaired the Department of Pediatrics at Northwest Medical Center. I have active privileges at Northwest at UVM, and I'm a counselor for Franklin County. They'll be at Vermont Medical Society. So I've been doing PEDs for a long time, and I asked Senator Rosenquist if I could, or, excuse me, Representative Rosenquist if I could justify your committee. So, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. You get a promotion card now. Or, you know, she's great. I just need to look at it. Anyway. As you said, there are very many diverse opinions on this bill, and I would ask that the, as the bill moves through its process, that you respect that diversity of opinion. Many of us that work in health care come to our life's work through some strong ethical, moral, religious convictions, and work in health care is hard. You know, we're on call 24-7. We're there for everybody. We're there for each other. Recently, my best friend had a heart attack on Sunday morning, and he was quickly taken to the Medical Center. He was taken care of, and he was surprised by how well it all worked on and off schedule. And I think we try hard in health care to make it work. You know, for a lot of us, abortion, and as this bill moves through, and I think the issue of infanticide needs to come up, this is really a difficult position for many of us. I would ask that as the bill moves forward, you provide some sort of a clause for conscious protection, that people in health care who work and feel very differently have some cover for their own conscience, and will providing, or not providing, care be considered obstructive. I know the bill has language about obstruction, and as my concern, one of my concerns is that UVMMC gets bigger and begins to take care of more and more of the health care in Vermont. It becomes one care. Will it be one provider? And if they have policies that say, you know, this is our policy, will somebody who feels differently about that have an opportunity to say, my conscience doesn't allow me to participate in this. So I ask you please to respect the diversity, if I could. After Carl and I spoke, I opened my mail, and as it would happen, this article from the mail clinic came up, and I thought I'd share at least the cover with you. It's about infant surgery. So things have progressed in health care to the point that surgeons are now able to provide surgery for the infant inside the mother. So this is where we're at in the world of medicine. I think what maybe concerns many of us is that the bill states that line 18C, a fertilized egg embryo or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law. Many of us who work in health care spend a lot of time arguing with insurance companies about prior authorization and getting things done for our patients. I can't imagine the discussion that we would be having about infant surgery. And I think if I was the main counter in the insurance company, I would say, well, I don't need to live in Vermont, and the infant has no rights in Vermont, we're not gonna cover that. So I think there's a lot of questions that get raised by this. I have personally cared for an infant during my residency who was, quote unquote, in this abortion. She was aborted downstairs. A nurse saw that she was breathing, brought her upstairs, and we cared for the intensive care that she survived. Viability, we had grand rounds last year. We've always considered viability at 24 weeks gestation. There's evidence now for 22 and 23 weeks gestation. So I think you need to consider that issue of viability. I don't think we wanna move from abortion to infanticide. And I would just ask you to please respect other people's conscious as you move forward. With the child that was born part of an abortion, what was the outcome of that? I don't know how far along was that child? She would have been a late second trimester abortion and she survived through her care in the intensive care and I don't know, I'd leave her to train. I was thinking about tests when I have a 19-year-old boy who's about to graduate from high school this year. He was born at just over 26 weeks gestation. He weighed just over a pound and he was born at U of M and I cared for him for the 19 years and he's wonderful, you know, full speed ahead. Senior in high school, couldn't pick him out. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Thanks so much. Dr. Gibson. I'm going out, I'll do it. Did you have written, if you have written marks, if you do not, that's fine. But if you do, please give it to me. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Excuse me, I have a little bit of a sore throat so I may take six, six of water while I speak. As long as it's bottled water, you can't drink the water. Oh, really? There's a bottle of water in here with it. Okay, thank you. So good morning, Chairperson Pugh, Vice Chair, Haas, Rankine Mentor McFawn and members of the House Committee on Human Services. I am grateful to all of you for the opportunity to be here today to show my support for Bill H57, an act relating to preserving the right to abortion, which would codify abortion rights in Vermont law. My name is Dr. Ericka Gibson and I'm a pediatrician specializing in adolescent medicine at the University of Vermont Children's Hospital. In my day-to-day work, I am the director of adolescent medicine at Union Children's Hospital, where I see patients in the adolescent medicine specialty clinic. The majority of those patients are those sufferings with severe eating disorders. I'm also a suboxone prescriber. I'm also the medical director of our Transgender Youth Program. I work at Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility and on the Pediatric Hospital ward. I also have grant funding to work on a variety of adolescent health issues including TU pregnancy prevention, prescription opioid abuse prevention, and adolescent well care here in Vermont. Previously, to coming to Vermont, I worked at Columbia University Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, where I had appointments in both the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School of Public Health. Today, I am speaking to you as a physician, as a member of the executive board of the Vermont chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and as a member of Vermont Medical Society. I'm not here to express views of the University of Vermont Medical Center. As you already may know, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Vermont Medical Center both strongly support minor's rights to confidential sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion. Many other professional medical organizations also support access to confidential abortion care for minors. These include the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Guncologists, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and many others. I have spent the majority of my medical career focusing on adolescent sexual and reproductive health care, including prevention of unintended teeth pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Access to safe, confidential abortion services has also been part of that work. I believe that abortion is part of the full spectrum of reproductive health care and it should be treated as the normal and common experience that it is. I come before you today to describe how minor's rights to confidential sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion are essential to the health and well-being of the young people that we care for. I feel that age 57 should codify current practice with regard to abortion care in this state and no changes should be made to the status quo. Confidentiality in adolescent and young adult health care is clinically essential, developmentally expected, and is an important element in protecting the health of individual young people and our public health. Decades of research have found that privacy protection encourages young people to seek essential health care and speak openly with their health care providers. Likewise, other research shows that if patients are not assured confidentiality, they actually avoid seeking health care or involving trusted adults in their decision-making. Many state and federal laws, as well as ethical guidelines, require confidential protection and support the rights of adolescents and young adults to receive confidential health care in certain situations, particularly related to sexual and reproductive health, mental health, and substance use. It should be noted that when agreeing to confidential health services, a clinician needs to take into account whether a young person has the cognitive and emotional ability to understand the nature and risks of a proposed treatment and is capable of making an informed decision and a rational choice. It is ironic to note that in some states, pregnant and parenting teens are allowed to fully consent to their own care and the care of their fetus or child while they are not allowed to make the confidential choice to choose an abortion if they so desire at the same age. While I routinely offer confidential health care to my patients, as appropriate, the majority of young people that I care for do involve a trusted parent, a guardian, or an adult, another adult in sexual and reproductive health care decisions. As you heard in previous testimony, we also know that most minors faced with an unplanned pregnancy will voluntarily disclose to a parent or a trusted adult. As clinicians caring for these young people, this is one of the first questions we ask them when they are faced with a challenging decision. What adults can you rely on for support in your decision-making? How can we help you to communicate with them? What can we do to help? In terms of unplanned pregnancy, we know that every pregnancy is unique and every individual's decision about their pregnancy is deeply personal. We also know that some young people do not live in supportive and functional home circumstances. They may choose not to involve parents in abortion decisions due to adverse home situations, including family trauma, instability, household substance abuse, or physical, or sexual abuse. Many of the issues that we now recognize as adverse child experiences or ACEs. Young people may also choose to keep a decision about abortion confidential due to fear. Fear for their own safety. Fear of disappointing parents or damaging relationships with them. They may fear judgment, shame, or rejection. They may fear being forced to continue a pregnancy. In addition, some may not even feel close to or even live with their designated parent or guardian. While federal law guarantees a minor's right to an abortion, in some states parental involvement laws require that a minor either notify a parent or guardian or obtain parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion. 40 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that there must be a waiver process available to minors who do not or cannot involve a parent in their abortion decision. A process known as judicial bypass. Some of the research on the adolescent experience with the judicial bypass reveals the following. Adolescents experience the bypass process as a form of punishment for their sexuality, pregnancy, and abortion decision. The process includes logistical burdens, unpredictability, and humiliation resulting in traumatic experiences for some. This combined sense of punishment, humiliation, and internalization of abortion stigma can be associated with isolation, emotional suppression, long-term psychological distress, and hesitancy to seek health care. Such a negative experience is highly consequential for adolescents going through a critical development period, particularly for adolescents that have little support from their parents. It is particularly hard to understand why we would force a young person to go through a judicial bypass experience in light of the scientific evidence that there is no association between abortion and risk of depression, suicide, or other emotional harms. In summary, the majority of young women are capable of understanding the consequences of abortion and do not need state-mandated parental involvement or judicial bypass to make the decisions that are right for them. Those of us that are experts in the field of adolescent medicine feel that most young women are mature enough to decide whether to carry a pregnancy or seek an abortion. And we know that most seek out advice on their own from parents or trusted adults. In addition, we feel that mandated parental notification, consent, or judicial bypass can actually be more harmful to adolescent health than seeking an abortion. I want to thank the Vermont's House of Leadership, especially House Human Service Committee Chair, Rep. Pew, for being the lead sponsor of this bill. On behalf of my patients, AAP Vermont and the Vermont Medical Society, I respectfully ask the Vermont House of Representatives to pass age 57 to ensure that abortion rights and minor's rights to confidential abortion services are protected in Vermont. Thank you. You have to use all your questions. I guess I'd be curious what, why would you not want to protect the woman's right up to the point of viability, but beyond that, some considerations taken to that an abortion wouldn't just be an option for a woman unless there was some specific medical reason for it. I think it's just very complicated. The situation's varied per the individual and it's for that individual and their care providers and all the supports they have to help make those decisions themselves. But if anyone else is interfering. If I could just follow up. I mean, it seems to me with this bill, we're taking it beyond the protections that women currently have provided by Roe versus Wade and are essentially codifying the right to abortion up to the point of delivery. This is from my understanding. It's not codified that way now. It's just not addressed. So that's my understanding. That's not my understanding of the bill. What it says. That it goes beyond. I'm sorry. If that's not my understanding of the bill that it goes beyond that point. And I was asked just to testify about the minor's rights to be able to make a decision. So I can't comment on that, but maybe some of the previous folks that have been called, we will testify and we'll provide the information course at the end and one of the things she can address. I'm wondering what her opinion was. I don't see if you basically are addressing just the parental notification issue. We can speak on the comment. The rights to confidential services, yes. Thank you. I don't, on rights or whatever. So it's just about every aspect of life. The minor doesn't have the rights to do anything but on and off supervision. So something as important as this, why wouldn't writers support them having to notify? And I realize, I'm gonna say this, notify parents, but there are cases as you said, parents are the problem or there's other issues. But we do have a legal system. We have guardians who can point and then it gets that a child on their own at 12, 13 years old really don't have the capacity to make these decisions of something that they don't own. So that's a lot of questions in one. Let me address them. So it's rare to have pregnancies in that age group for one. Secondly, a child is never on their own in these situations. They're in the care of an educated and skilled team that often reaches beyond just an individual provider. And again, the majority of young people do engage with their parents in making these decisions. And it is very important as clinicians for us to assess whether someone has, again, as I stated in my testimony, the cognitive and clinical capacity who make these decisions. If we were ever worried that they did not, then we would have larger discussions with other people on our care teams within our organizations and potentially involve family if necessary and feeling that we should. James. So I always judge things and say, I would do it this way, right? So you said like if there was questions about the cognitive ability, you personally, I bet, would say, well, we have questions. We've got to put the brakes on this. But can you understand the concern among other people that there are people in every field who don't live up to the standard that we think they should live? So they may not. The ability to not speak. The child wants this, and we're gonna do it because that's what, and you may not have an agenda for somebody else somewhere who has an agenda. And they're like, no, we're gonna do this. And I'm an adult and I also speak. So the fear of people that say, well, maybe we need somebody on the outside of that process to say, let's slow down like supervision. You know what I'm saying? You know what I mean? Yeah, I understand your point and I agree that's a possibility in my experience that's a rare possibility. Thank you. Dr. Hitchley, thank you very much. And thank you for guiding me in your testimony. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sharon, Joker, Sharon, are you here? I am here. Oh, have I pronounced your name correctly? Toeboard, yes. Toeboard. I see that you have written a testimony. I do, I would have sent it to you ahead of time, but it didn't get finished very early last night. I was gonna say this morning. If you wouldn't find leaving it with Julie, we'd appreciate that. So that people who aren't here can be able to. Good morning. My name is Sharon Toeboard. I'm here to testify on behalf of the Vermont Right to Life Committee on age 57. The Vermont Right to Life Committee was founded in 1971, and our mission is to achieve universal recognition of the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death. In pursuit of that mission, the RLC through peaceful legal means seeks changes in public opinion, public policy, the law and individual behavior that respect the right to life and reject abortion, euthanasia, and other actions that deny the right to life. I'd like to begin this morning by offering some additional information relating to points that have been made by others who have testified here before your committee already. With regard to the Born Alive rule, which has received much discussion, the Vermont District Court ruled in 1988 that Edward Ramkey could not be charged with manslaughter even though he kicked his pregnant wife in the abdomen, fractured on the skull, injuring the brain, and causing the death of his unborn daughter. In another case, the Vermont Supreme Court similarly ruled that a fetus is not a person under Vermont statute. However, both courts indicated that the legislature is free to amend Vermont law to extend the definition of person to include a viable fetus. Numerous states have enacted some sort of fetal homicide legislation. Vermont has not, but that does not mean that they can not. Are babies sometimes born alive instead of dying as a result of abortion? Yes, we heard about one case here already this morning, and there's actually a website called abortionsurvivors.com that talks about the stories of many people who are alive today, grown adults, living wives like you and I who were born as a result of an attempted abortion. And Dr. Lauren McAfee in her presentation entitled Updates on Family Planning Services at UVMMC, given on February 15th, 2018, stated that the UVM Medical Center would offer elective abortions through 22 weeks, six days of pregnancy, and abortions later in pregnancy with the involvement of the ethics committee. This was to be in line with their colleagues in the neonatal intensive care unit who offer full resuscitation for neonates born at 23 weeks and beyond. McAfee noted that before 23 weeks, outcomes are variable, so resuscitation is offered in some, but not all cases. I doubt a child born alive as a result of an abortion would be among those who would receive such care. And while Dr. McAfee in her testimony last week indicated that she always makes sure to kill the fetus in utero by injecting it with a drug to stop the heartbeat or by clamping the cord, which causes the baby to suffocate, this committee needs to be aware that one, that does not always work, and also that not all abortionists follow her procedures. And of course, if this legislation were to become law, an abortionist could not be required to follow those procedures. And I would refer you also to website abortionprocedures.com where Dr. Anthony Levettino, an OBGYN who's performed over 1200 abortions, describes various abortion procedures that take place throughout pregnancy. And while testimony from your January 23rd hearings does not appear to have been recorded, so I didn't have the opportunity to listen to it, so excuse me. We will get back to you in terms of everything. It's always recorded, and it is not recorded. Put any request, and it didn't seem to be available, at least at the time the request was made. I was told by someone who was in attendance that there seemed to be some doubt about the reality of partial birth abortion. Here I agree with Dr. McAfee who noted both in her 2018 presentation and here in this committee last week that partial birth abortions are prohibited by federal law. They are defined in Title 18 of the US Code and it is an abortion where a fetus is intentionally delivered deliberately and alive partially before the abortionist takes an over-enaction to cause the death of the child before finishing delivery. Congress voted to prohibit partial birth abortion in 2003. The legislation was supported by pro-life and pro-choice lawmakers, and even Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a pro-choice senator, voted in favor of the ban on partial birth abortions. Planned Parenthood challenged the law, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. In her testimony last week, Meagan Gallagher, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, encouraged past of age 57, claiming it represents the people of Vermont's position on abortion. It does not. While most Vermonters do consider themselves pro-choice, that does not mean that they support unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for individuals of any age as age 57 proposes. In a poll commissioned by Vermont Right to Life in 2000, 59% of Vermonters called themselves pro-choice, but only 11% said abortion should be illegal all the time. 72% of Vermonters in that poll said excluding abortion. It should be a crime in Vermont for someone to hurt or kill an unarmed child in the womb, either intentionally or through negligence. 72% also supported requiring a physician or clinic to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a daughter who is under 18 years of age. While this polling data is from some years ago, a May 2018 Gallup poll also demonstrates that being pro-choice does not equal support for the full agenda of the abortion lobby. It found that 48% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice, but only 13% said abortion should be generally legal in the last three months of pregnancy. And in 2011, the most recent year that Gallup asked the question, 71% of respondents supported a law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent, not just notification, for any abortion, even though 47% of respondents considered themselves pro-choice. Age 57 would prohibit abortion regulation and legal homicide laws favored by Vermonters. Many legislators have questioned why this bill is being proposed now when it does not change the legality of abortion in any way. And I think we need to look beyond the first section of the bill, which has gotten most of the attention here in this committee. There are provisions that could potentially represent significant changes. However, such terms as, quote, interfere with or deprive or restrict are undefined in the bill. So it is unclear what the true impact of this legislation might be. For instance, many states have passed provisions requiring women to be given information about beetle development and alternatives prior to having an abortion. I would consider this an effort to make sure women are making an informed decision. However, the abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood challenge these provisions in court, calling them a restriction on abortion. And since we don't have definitions in this statute, there's no way to tell where the law comes down on those things. So the question is, would the bill make providing such information an actionable event? Would school counselors be prevented from informing the student about alternatives to abortion? Would our public schools and municipal libraries be forced to remove books that present a polite perspective or describe beetle development? Would our schools have to abandon policies that ensure both sides of controversial issues are discussed in our classrooms? If that is the intent or the result of age 57, our legal counsel has advised us it would be actionable. With public entities playing an ever increasing larger role in our healthcare system, I wonder, would age 57 result in even more taxpayer funding of abortion? Would abortion have to be given funding priority over other procedures? If an abortionist wants to set up a new facility in Vermont, would it be exempt from the certificate of need process and other regulatory burdens placed on other medical facilities? And the abortion lobby calls here with every regulation intended to protect the health and safety of women having abortions interference with the right to choose. For those of you who aren't aware, your counterparts in the Senate have introduced S25, which would eliminate all civil, criminal and administrative liability for any person performing a legal abortion in Vermont. We anticipate that a move to add that language to age 57 if the bill gets to the Senate. Under that scenario, how would Vermont be able to protect women from abortion providers like Kermit Gosnell, who is currently in prison for killing two of his patients and murdering infants more than alive? What tools would the state have to put someone like him out of business? They would have none. Proponents of this bill have stated that it is important for the legislature to make it clear where they stand on abortion. And I agree. When the role is called on age 57, each and every legislator will have to go on the record as being for or against unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy, for or against a parent's right to know. For or against placing abortion in a privileged place in our public policy. Will they declare their vote by their votes that Vermont is indifferent to the health and safety of women seeking abortions in different as to whether an unborn baby that is viable is born or aborted, whether it lives or dies? I hope not. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Before you stand, are there questions for Sharon? Thank you. Thank you very much. And please, we can also make a copy if you want to take that with you so that we can. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Yes, could you call and maybe make a copy for? Yes. Okay. We have to unplug. The next person is Peter. Peter Gummary, and he is on the phone. And he has testimony online for our experts in you. Yeah, okay. Thanks, Sharon. There is something online. I'm sorry, Sharon. We're going to be reading up there. So you will. I wanted to put you on speakerphone with the previous. Just one moment. Hello. Good morning. This is representative Anne Pugh. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I assume you can hear me. We hear you loud and clear. Just to make sure that you are aware, A, you are on tape and your testimony is up on our white board so people who are listening to the testimony also can see it. And thank you very much. And please go ahead. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. Rather than simply reading the testimony that I prepared, I'd just like to focus if I could on specific highlights. You know, I think that there are times, you know, I think the first point that I made is protecting the legal women. Also, I was supported by the other thing, which is Sharon Vermont, terminate the pregnancy. These were two separate explained that he did not want to pay additional child support. And in one case, as I noted in my testimony, he actually started to punch her at the abdomen. He was there on site and was actually doing that. We intervened appropriately. The second was a very clear threat of not, that he would make sure that she did not deliver the pregnancy live. And so, you know, we've made it, we've got law enforcement involved. The third incident, child being my son, and got the floor, and she still has the lump on her head from that event. It's really clear to me that these women also need protection. And you know, we're gonna do this to protect the right to abortion. Should we be doing something to protect women from boyfriends that don't want to pay child support? The third point, and this gets into the bioethics area, and that is conscience protection. I think providers and healthcare personnel need to be protected from being compelled to do some of this contrary to their, either the good judgment or their ethical stance. The question of public entities, I talked about the public school counselors, whether they would be prohibited from mentioning the pro-life option as well as talking about abortion option. Would there be any prohibition against that? And would there be any requirement, or could there be a requirement that both sides of the question are presented objectively? And then, the final one is really a matter of significant concern because, you know, I don't think the H57 is gonna do anything more than protecting Beach versus Swahee. If that is the objective, you know, I'm not sure that we need to do H57. The action of fetal research, I talked about, also sale of fetal body parts. Finally, are there unintended consequences in the area of, I believe that there may be unintended consequences in the area of tort actions? And I can think of two horrific situations. One was the phalidomide would use and that'd be abnormalities and anomalies resulting from phalidomide use. But also, diethylsylbesterol, which was a very common drug used in the United States during pregnancy for, I think it was upward in 20 years, presumably to help women who had had a prior miscarriage from miscarrying again. Of course, the scientific evidence came out that that was not even effective in achieving that goal. But also, as we learned in the 70s, 80s, there were quite a few anomalies and actually some serious ones caused by that enduro exposure. Do we believe that there will be no new phalidomides or DES type medications that don't get adequate screening? I think we're probably much better than we used to be, but that's still a possibility. There are also multiple devices. And environmental impact also, we're constantly coming up with this plastic or that plasticizer. Residues have effects on the developing. And I think that we may be harming people by denying human status to the fetus. So those are the things that I see as being compelling issues. And I think the most compelling, of course, is the issue of protecting women from violence. That somebody tries to get them to have an abortion. I have dealt with that several times personally and had to intervene. So that is something that I am deeply concerned about. And the potential of a developing fetus is also a real one. So those are my concerns. And I hope that you will make changes to address them. Any questions? Okay, do you have any questions for Mr. Glamiette? Emery? Apologize. Oh. I was wondering if he was a manager of, he was referring to what he seems to have. Yeah, I worked in a hospital here in St. John'sburg. I actually spent most of my career working in the healthcare field. And my involvement in healthcare has ranged from the on-the-bench research scientist to a manager, to a couple of legal compliance officers for a while. And did a number of things that ultimately developed an interest in bioethics and focused on that. Served on ethics committee for 10 years or so. At what age would you suggest that an infant be considered or a fetus be considered a person? Um, you know, philosophically I've got to look at what the stages of development are and also putting that on the side of your brain. From conception to birth, the organism is, it's the same organism. It is not at the same stage of development. But I think that we would need to recognize the zygote as a person. Thank you. And that's strictly scientific side of my brain and philosophical ethical issues being merged. Thank you. Yes. Are there any other questions for Mr. Comerie? Thank you very much for testifying. You were very clear thank you for providing testimony in writing so we can review that again. My pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Sharon, I apologize, you're gonna have to. I know. It was nice while it was. Do you have the shame in? Hi. Hi. I also have a call today so I'll try to speak loudly but I apologize. I may also do this before I hand you out papers. So I did us and that testimony yesterday and I have copies. For the record, my name is Samantha Sheehan. I'm the communications manager for Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. And I'm here today to offer testimony on behalf of that organization and our membership. It's not part of your testimony. This is the first time you or someone from BBSR is testified and we have members who are new to the legislature. Sure. So BBSR is a statewide business association with about 700 business members who support a business ethic in Vermont which supports the people of Vermont, the environments of Vermont, and the prosperity of the businesses which participate in our organization. We are the largest statewide business association focused on social responsibility and we are in our 29th year of operation. BBSR supports universal access to affordable healthcare for the, in the communities in which the individuals live and work. And that should include the fundamental right to freedom of reproductive choice without public entities interfering or restricting the right of an individual to refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term to give birth to a child or to obtain an abortion. BBSR urges the legislature to advance legislation that will support women's ability to participate in the Vermont labor force to their highest potential. 51% of Vermonters are women and girls making up 45% of the full-time workforce and 73% of the part-time workforce. 33% of adult women in Vermont hold a bachelor's degree or higher which is six points higher than the United States average for adult women and four points higher than that of Vermont men. BBSR recognizes that Vermont women have tremendous potential to contribute to our professional community here. There's a wealth of data relating and individuals access to reproductive healthcare to their ability to invest in their own education and workforce training as well as their ability to participate in the full-time year-round labor force. In my written testimony, I've provided some of that data for you today. Of the number of positive outcomes reported by women who have seeked reproductive healthcare services from family planning clinics, 51% reported the ability to complete their education and 50% reported the ability to get or keep a job. Conversely, women who experienced a refusal of abortion services were more likely to be living in poverty six months later and were more likely to be unemployed living in poverty or below the federal poverty line and receiving public assistance up to four years after the refusal of abortion. Simply put, what I'd like to communicate today is that when a woman is able to make her own decisions about reproductive healthcare, including when and whether to have children, she is empowered in her own financial well-being and is able to better invest in the prosperity of her family and her whole community. Today, family planning is the most effective way that an individual can close their lifetime wage gap. Highly educated women receive the greatest economic benefit from delaying childbearing and by delaying a first child until an individual's late 20s or 30s, a woman can mitigate the family gap and contribute to her family's strength and economic stability. The family gap meaning the immediate drop in earnings that a woman experiences after having their first child and which continues to impact their lifetime earnings and ability to contribute to the financial well-being and stability of that family. That's all. Thank you, thank you, Samantha. Are there, yes, okay, we've lost from Sandy and then Carl. I was following along and I noticed that you quoted some logistics that I didn't see in your materials. So please just stop in the 20 centers. They were included in the materials. I just chose an excerpt of them. So the data I quoted that 51% of women report the ability to finish their education. That's included in the second data set from the report of reasons for using contraception perspectives of US women seeking specialized family planning clinics. And then the data relating to the family gap. Is in the following data set provided from the economic benefits of women's ability to determine whether and when to have children. I can't provide them, yeah. I think that's what people would find. It just seems like what you were saying is that when the young woman is presented with the fact that she's pregnant and she thinks of what to do. Okay, the organization seems to indicate the best decision would be to terminate the pregnancy because of financial reasons going forward. No. You know, if she's not let's say supported by a partner who participated in the creation of that pregnancy. No, that's absolutely not the perspective of this organization. Our perspective is that any individual should be able to make independent healthcare choices throughout before and during their experience of a pregnancy. I understand that, but it seems that then some of the data you're presenting is that it really isn't a very smart decision for that person to continue with the pregnancy. I mean that's what I sort of read between the line or heard between the lines. That's definitely not what I wanted to communicate. The data that I chose today to include in my testimony, I hope communicates the very real economic experiences of women who work and who are investing in their education at the time at which they become pregnant in the real economic circumstances that women are living in when they're considering when and whether they would like to have children. It's the perspective of our organization that it should really only be that individual's choice whether to delay, to go forward with a pregnancy and resulting in live birth, or whether to seek an abortion at some point during the pregnancy. Thank you. Are there other questions for Samantha? Samantha, thank you very much. Thank you. She will help you feel better. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The next person is on the phone. It is Patricia Blair. I'm very sorry, I'm a little bit forked. Sorry. Don't worry. And Zoe, she will not be able to answer. Yeah, yeah. So I'm late. Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning. Where are you from? I'm from New York. She's from New York. Where do you take her? I'm from New York. I'm from the street. I'm from New York. Good job, girl. Good job, girl. Patricia? Yeah, good morning. This is Representative Anne Pugh and I chair the Housing Services Committee. Welcome. I understand you have some testimony that you would like to give us on age 57. I do want to let you know that along with the 11 members of the committee, there are many others in the room who will be listening to what you are saying. After your comments, there may be questions from members of the committee. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to start with thinking you've given me the opportunity to speak about this bill. I have a very personal reason to want to ask your testimony and I think it'll explain itself as I continue. In 2010, my husband and I were traveling home from pool shopping with our son and I was pregnant. Matter of fact, I was very pregnant with him at the time and then I was... It talks about legislation, legislature, judiciary, et cetera. It defines public entity, doesn't it? Somebody had. Yes. Okay. Age four. How does DCF have anything to say about anything if we're saying in this bill, a public entity has no rights to anything? Can't restrict it all. Right, if for him it's a public entity from interfering with the right of a person to choose their own outcome. So in this case, isn't DCF... No, I don't believe... I mean, you can have DCF justified in this. I don't believe DCF is requiring any individuals in their care to have an abortion or not have an abortion. So I don't believe that this would change anything about what's happening. All right. And it's even more important for me to understand what healthcare means in this bill because right now it's starting to mix the apples and oranges when that term gets used. In the bill? Yeah. This is not the bill. I know that. I know it's not the bill. I've been reading that bill. So it's coming out a lot. Look, I'm impressed. See all my notes? Read all my notes. No, I'm trying to find the places where... Public entity. Okay, there's public entity. Defines it. So public entity. I'm trying to find where the health is. You're doing a good job. So within healthcare provider, we define healthcare provider as a person who is authorized by law to provide professional healthcare services in the state of Vermont. Is that what we were thinking? Whether or not abortion falls within professional healthcare services? Because that appears... Probably, that's probably where I'm going. Because I'm trying to define what they are now. So the healthcare provider is, health in and of itself is not a word in the bill. Healthcare provider is. Healthcare services. To provide healthcare services. Is that what we're talking about within the definition of healthcare provider? I'm gonna see if I can read it. Healthcare provider means a person about a lot, including a healthcare facility that is licensed, certified, and so on. And it's authorized by law to provide professional healthcare services in the state, et cetera. And then it talks about public entity. DCF is a public entity. And what I'm wondering is, the person is in the custody of DCF. How can DCF have anything to say about what healthcare services that person gets? If this bill, if I could find out somewhere in here, it talks about the public ingredients. It talks about agencies. So how can they have anything to do with whether this person gets an abortion, doesn't get one? If it's, it can't restrict them. Right. That's right. Help me. In this bill. Help me. What are you asking? Well, I was getting a feeling that DCF had a lot to say about that minor. What they couldn't do. I see. So maybe I was unclear in my testimony about the DCF policy. This was really intended to respond to a question that came up about what about a child in DCF custody who makes healthcare decisions, who is responsible for informed consent for a child in DCF custody. And so based on DCF policy, this is what, this is the information that I found that case workers ensure that teens in custody have access to contraceptive services if they would like them. And DCF may or may not inform that child's parents about any pregnancy related healthcare that the child receives based on DCF's determination about what's in the best interest of the child. Okay. I was just getting a feeling that in the legislation way it's written is DCF is out of the picture all together. Any public entity is under the picture all together. Whether it's parental notification or anything. Prohibited from interfering and yes. Interfering with the choice of a person to access abortion. All right. And Topper, that appears to be consistent with much of DCF policy which says, according to DCF policy, case workers ensure that contraceptive services are available. We can have DCF in. Okay. Is abortion a contraceptive service? I would ask them what that's included in their understanding of the word contraceptive service. And we will have DCF. Thank you for taking the time to talk about it. Thank you for helping me understand your question. Thank you. Steve, what do you want people? Thank God they're here. Thank you. One other thing I just would like to respond to if I may. Please. There was some testimony that you heard today that indicated that the way that courts interpret criminal liability for offenses resulting in the deaths of fetus have something to do with abortion law. And I just wanted to make clear that courts interpret liability for offenses that result in the death of a fetus is separate and has nothing to do with the status of abortion law in Vermont right now. And the common law of personhood that we had talked about is far older than any jurisprudence on abortion rights. So those issues really are separate. Make sure that that's clear for the committee. The right to abortion did not flow from that common law personhood rule. There was a reference to, but someone testified against this bill made today. I'm sorry. There was, I believe, there was, I think I'm glad I received it. That there was, I thought there was reference to some kind of a different court decision. My reference in my testimony to court decisions here pertaining to whether a viable fetus is a personhood rule statute. If you could look at Sharon's testimony more specifically. Absolutely. Yes. And if you're interested, I have copies of the most court cases here. If you'd like to. I would print Shovey's here. Imagine one of them is the Oliver case and the Bill and Court case. Okay. So at some point, can you? Yeah. So the Oliver case, I can tell you now that's, that is the case that found that under our criminal statutes, Vermont follows the common law rule that a person has to be born alive in order to be considered, to have persons with status under Vermont's criminal statutes. We talked about that last week. Right. And the common law. So that's sort of the prevailing doctrine across the United States. It dates back to the 17th century. So that common law rule is that, it's called the born alive rule. You have to be born alive to have personhood status under the, under the, under the criminal statutes. Some states have codified differently than that common law rule, but because Vermont hasn't been Vermont advised by the common law rule. So when you say, I might not say the word majority, but you said commonly. So are we one of three states or five states? It's, so at the time the decision came down, which I think was in 1980, it was the prevailing law across the various states. That was now almost 30 years ago. So I will look into how many states have codified something different. Thank you very much. Can I just clarify a question then? So if you're in parks and you're eight and a half months pregnant and the fetus dies as part of the accident, and you know, there are two little kids in the back and they die as well, you can pursue the two children in the back seat under this law, but not the child or the not, but not the fetus, is that right? For the criminal prosecution. Yeah, the mother. Yeah, the mother. Right. Okay. Yeah, okay. That's what I just wanted to say, sure. Are there other legal questions or that we have that we would like to research or get back to us? Calm. Look at me. No, I know, I'm looking at everybody. It's hard not to look at them. Could you just, you and I have had this discussion. I think it might be important for the committee too. Roe versus Wade. As that evolves through KC and the other decisions, Roe versus Wade gets watered down, am I correct? That is one way to put it. I think that what you and I talked about was that later Supreme Court decisions moved away from the conversation about the fundamental right to abortion and applied different standards in its reasoning about whether or not to uphold a state regulation. So for example, the KC court moved to the undue burden standard. So does a state regulation on abortion put an undue burden or a significant roadblock in the way of a person trying to exercise their fundamental right to abortion? So that was a different type of analysis that the court used. It wasn't quite as high of a burden for a state to achieve a constitutionally acceptable regulation on abortion. So essentially what happened was that as jurisprudence moved along, it became, under Roe it was unlawful for states to regulate abortion during the first trimester at all, basically without reaching that strict scrutiny standard. But later court decisions made it clear that states could regulate abortion to some extent during the first trimester. And Wade purviewed it so. Right. There's no time. To where does the undue burden has to come into play or was that thrown out in terms of the state regulation? So that was a Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision that first used the undue burden standard. So it provided that the right to abortion exists and a state can regulate it as long as that regulation doesn't impose an undue burden on the right to access abortion. So I think one of the examples I gave from a recent court case was the Texas. Texas, I think it was a 2015 Supreme Court case that analyzed the Texas statute that required clinics providing abortion services to use the same clinical standards, the same, they had to pass all the same regulations and their clinics had to be up to the same clinical standards as any other hospital which required, which was a significant burden on those clinics. And what the court said is that abortion during the first trimester is no, imposes no greater risk than pregnancy for delivering a baby. So the court, the state didn't have an interest in the health of the mother at that stage. So in fact, it was an undue burden. Other questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there something we haven't asked you to report? I don't think I'm at liberty to say. You know, is there any question that anything we should have asked that we didn't? And the first part of the memo talks more about that case, if you like that information about that. So committee, what I have understood from some of the testimony and the questions from what we've said, talked about right now, that people are interested in getting testimony from a hospital, particularly in terms of what kind of, whether or not they have conscious causes, whatever they're called, the ability for someone who does not want to participate in the procedure as a health care professional, that to get a health care provider to talk about care, what is health care, and maybe to, whether they come in or have a memo from DCF in terms of their role at the call. Yeah, I was just wondering, I don't know where this testimony would come from as a professional, but what are the consequences when parents, let's say, are not notified of impending abortion and then something goes wrong with the abortion? And as a consequence, there's medical complications and problems, and what is the recourse of the parents in such a situation? And obviously they become aware at some point that something's happened and gone awry, that they're not in a position to take affirmative action to try to fix that situation. I would like to compare that. I think in terms of, and Braden, you can tell me whether or not this is, half of this is something that you could research or get back to us, which is what recourse would a parent or guardian who did not know that an abortion was happening and if there were medical complications. And so, what is the role of the parent? Is the parent maybe required? Can the parent do anything? Is that right? Yeah, pretty much in other words, let's say during the course of this problem, okay, this complication, the child, does the child go to the parents and tell them who initially they weren't told or do they go through some other health professional to take care of this situation? At what point would the health professional essentially be required to bring the family into the situation and understand what I'm saying? I do, and I mean, if they get sepsis or something like that. Sure, so I think there's a bunch of questions there and I think what might be also helpful is to perhaps get from a researcher or someone some information around the safety or lack of abortions and the percentage of time of when there are complications and what those are. Your question is embedded the beginning in the, and things going wrong. So let's find out. Right, I mean, luckily as far as I know, it doesn't go wrong very often. But when it does, what are the implications and follow-up? We had an email from an attorney, Curtis Carpenter, and it's related to the Valencourt case that you were referencing, Brynne. I'm just wondering if you could have a little bit more information about that case and the wrongful death nature of that as well. If you would forward that email to Brynne. Okay. So that she knows what she is. When did this come? Last Wednesday. Okay. Brynne, my understanding is all of these decisions, they only apply to that particular state where the case was brought. Is that correct? Are you talking about the U.S. Supreme Court decisions? I'm talking about KCM. So. The only, like in that case, Pennsylvania. That applied to Pennsylvania period, right? Well, but the Court's decisions struck down a part of Pennsylvania statute and then it upheld another part. So Pennsylvania statute applies in Pennsylvania, but what the Court says with respect to Pennsylvania statute is a signal to the other states about what they could or could not do. If you do. With their own statutes. Okay, so Brynne, some more work for you, please. And I know on. Did you get behind on that and finish with your lips? Medical provider, what is healthcare? And then Brynne. No, defined healthcare services is abortion a healthcare service and is abortion a contraceptive service in terms of this bill when we define it. We haven't defined it, but I think we need to because the word is used. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Brynne. And committee after lunch and after the house floor, we are coming back 50 minutes after the house floor. Dr. Levine is going to come and we are, those of you who are interested, we are changing subjects and we are continuing our committee education program. What are the other issues that we are paying attention to or need to know about? And our commissioner of the department of health and others will be providing us with an overview of what is the department of health and what are the areas that they cover and things like that. Thank you all very much. Did you say there would be a public hearing? Yes. Yes, there is. I believe notice has gone out and so for all that has been work is here because the rest of the press decided it wasn't interesting anymore. No. We are having a public hearing next Wednesday in the well of the house from 430 to 630. People will be able to sign up beginning at four o'clock in order to, and this is, I want to say on some level primarily for members of the public who have wanted to testify and whether it's weather, whether it's work, other things like that have not been able to testify. And so in order to give the opportunity to as many people as possible, we are limiting testimony to two minutes so that there could be upwards of 100 people to testify. In other, we will be following the same procedure that we have used in this tradition in the state house which is that people will be presenting testifying pro or con of the bill and I will take one pro and one con, one pro and one con, one pro and one con in terms of that to give equal opportunity to perspectives on the bill. And the public hearing will be over at 630. I was just gonna say, I'm sure it's not like you said whether to listen or not to be. All right, we are there to listen. And so we will not be, I mean, and in two minutes you don't wanna ask those questions. I would, you will see who, and we will be doing this. This is a public hearing that we'll be having jointly with House judiciary because if folks don't, we're not aware. Whatever action this committee takes on it unless we decide not to pass the bill at all assuming that we pass some version, some amended some version of age 57, it will go on the house floor and then it will be going to, and there will be no vote. Go on the calendar. It will go on the calendar. It will go on the calendar for notice. There will be no vote and it will, it's next stop will be to House judiciary. So if you can let people know who have big interest in this to realize that they will, that there is another opportunity in another committee as well.