 Thank you. Good morning. This is the Vermont House Human Services Committee. And it is Thursday, January 13. This morning, between nine for the first sort of hour hour and a half of our session, we are going to be discussing Proposition five, the Reproductive Liberty constitutional amendment proposal. And we're going to, this is an introduction, while this is, this is an introduction that may be repetitive but we as it is good for those of us who went through this two years ago, but we since we do have two new members, I think it's important that we set the stage in terms of review of constitutional procedures, as well as how that also impacts the role of the legislature, and then followed by that will be Michelle Childs will go over the language itself, and walk through. So thank you all, and we're going to start with legislative counsel from who predominantly staffs government operations and Amaran Aberjali. Good morning chair good morning everyone for the record Amaran Aberjali legislative council. So you'll see I have posted a document to your web page about the procedure to amend the Vermont Constitution. You may notice this was a document originally prepared by Betsy and Rask my predecessor who is also with us this morning in her role as the house clerk. So these materials were prepared in preparation for these proposals when they were. There are two proposals currently for mending the Constitution prop two and prop five. So many materials were prepared in 2019 when these two proposals were first introduced. So we'll begin with a high level overview of the process that's required under the Constitution. You'll see within this document there's also a description of how the House Rules and Senate Rules. So we'll be able to govern how each chamber is going to comply with those constitutional requirements. I won't get into those rules too much unless you would like a walk through of those also, but I can give a high level description of those in this document and then if you have further questions particularly around House Rules for the house clerk. She hopefully will be able to answer any of those questions. Thank you and I will take my lead from the committee in terms of after the high level overview what kinds of open it up for questions. Great. So I'm just going to start off on the first page of this overview so you'll see that section 72 of chapter two of the Vermont Constitution controls how the state can amend the Constitution. So, at a very high level, the section requires the approval of the General Assembly in two consecutive bienniums followed by voter ratification. So, looking at the text of that section 72 below their 72 amending Constitution at the biennial session of the General Assembly of the state which convenes in a D 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter. The Senate by a vote of two thirds of its majority may propose amendments to this Constitution with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate. So a proposed amendment that is adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives is then going to be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly. For context in looking at prop five where you are in this process. In 2019-2020 biennial session, the Senate proposed an amendment to the Constitution, the House concurred in that amendment, and now here we are in the second biennium where the proposal is being referred to this General Assembly to continue the process. So, and if that last session, meaning the current session we're in a majority of the members of the Senate and majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment. It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section, which is approved by a majority of the voters voting there on shall become part of the Constitution of this state. So, in addition to that prior to the submission of a proposed amendment to vote in accordance with this section, public notice of the proposed amendment shall be given by proclamation of the governor. And then the General Assembly shall provide for the manner of voting on amendments proposed under this section and shall enact legislation to carry the provisions of this section into effect. So, the next section three a summary of the section 72 is a combination sort of of the process and where we are right now in the process. So, I think, once again at a high level you are in the second, the second portion of this of this legislative process we're in the second half of the biennium. This is now going to be the House's opportunity to review proposal to for the second time now in the second biennium. And I will just ask the committee if they wish to hear the Senate rules governing how this goes or should I skip down to the House rules. I don't know how the Senate does I want to know how we have to do it. I believe that representative McFawn has responded for the committee that we're most interested. What we need to pay attention to is what happens in the House. Moving down to Roman at to house this is on the bottom of page to see House rule 51 provides the House's procedure to consider the proposal. And this section here for the House this is what happened in the first biennium. So House 51 a provides the House's procedure to consider the proposal in accordance with this rule the proposal is referred to the committee of jurisdiction. If the proposal is considered the committee shall conduct a public hearing prior to voting on the proposal. If voted out of committee the proposal will appear on the notice calendar for four legislative days and be up for action on the fifth legislative day. The House must concur with the proposal by a majority of the members of the House. Again, this is the process for that first biennium. In other words, that would be at least 76 House members must approve. You'll see that the House must concur with and cannot amend the Senate proposal. However, you'll see there is a process for the Senate to request the House return. House to return a proposal before the House and acts on it that the Senate could propose to further amend it. That did not happen in this instance during the first biennium. So then you have an interim publication section. So section 17 VSA 1840 requires the Secretary of State within 90 days following adjournment to publish a proposal adopted by both chambers and a summary thereof, and at least two newspapers having general circulation in the state. Public publications must occur once each week for three six successive weeks. And then the statute also requires the proposal to be published on the websites of the General Assembly, and of the Office of the Secretary of State for the same duration as the newspaper publications. So this is an interim step in between that first biennium, and that second biennium. So there is public notice about these proposals. And then in section B. Now we're talking about this second biennium, which is where we are right now, and I will move down to the House, which House 51 a, again applies in the second biennium. The proposal is referred to the Committee of Jurisdiction. If the proposal is considered the committee shall conduct a public hearing prior to voting on the proposal. If voted out of committee it will appear on the notice calendar for four legislative days and be up for action on the fifth legislative day. The House must concur with the proposal by a majority of the House, because the language is not dependent upon House membership. It means a majority of the House quorum. So I won't get into too much of that interpretation, since we do have the House clerk here to explain interpretation of that rule. But in other words, at least a majority of the House members present in constituting a quorum must approve. For example, if only the bare minimum of 76 House members are present to constitute quorum, at least 39 of them must approve. So if there were 100 members present, 51 must approve. If my memory serves me correctly in the first biennium, it passed the House on 103 to 38 vote. And I do appreciate the fact that, and Representative Rosenquist, this goes to a question that you asked yesterday. If the proposal is considered, the committee shall conduct a public hearing. And your question was, do we have to consider it? And I think the committee, the committee will be making an affirmative decision about considering it, but we will make that this, we will confirm that decision. What was that again? I mean, I thought we had said there would be discussion in committee on this and that there would be a public hearing. Is that correct? Yes, there will be. Thank you. And could I just ask another question that was pertinent to it was having to do with was the proposition published as according to that last section in the interim between these two bienniums. In other words, there was sort of very specific that at so many days, the Secretary of State was to publish this proposition. I was just curious if, if that had happened, if Legg Council knows that. Thank you. I do not know the response to that off the top of my head. I'm, I want to give you an accurate answer and if no one, if Legg Council cannot answer that at this moment, we will get an answer to you. Quickly. Why don't we just ask the Secretary of State, let him tell us, show us what you did. Okay. Any, any arguments we clear. Appreciate that represent McFawn. Good suggestion. Any questions I will, which it does not look like there are, I will just, I will continue. Now into section C on voter ratification. This is on page four of the overview, if passed by both chambers and both bienniums, the governor must provide public notice of the proposed amendment by proclamation. In the statute entitled 17 section 1844, the Secretary of State is required to publish the proposal and a summary thereof and at least two newspapers having general circulation in the state. These publications must occur once each week for three successive weeks. And the statute also requires that the proposal be published on the websites of the General Assembly and of the Office of the Secretary of State for the same duration as the newspaper publications. The proposal is then submitted to the voters of the state for ratification. Voters must ratify by majority vote. And section 1842 of title 17 requires the vote to occur at the general election. The past practice has been for the voters to only see on the ballot the actual text of the proposed amendment, not the findings that you see at the top of the of the proposal itself is the process. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there in terms of this high level overview, additional questions right now. I just was, don't recall any findings having to do with this proposition, but maybe I'm wrong like within Proposition five there are findings prior to this. And Rose inquist when legislative council Michelle child goes through it. She can chill address that. Thank you. So, we have the house clerk with us. Betsy and and it do we have questions around what will happen in the house more specific to what has been gone through now representative would. I didn't want our clerk to come here for nothing so I'm going to ask her question. Will the clerk make an affirmative announcement that there are a majority of the house members present. In order to affirm that or will we just go on sort of normal practice and it's kind of like a, I don't know what you do I mean I presume you kind of like look around and see how many but will there be an affirmative statement to that effect. Hello, good morning. Thank you representative wood for the record Betsy and rest clerk of the house. It would be like any other vote that you take. So, it's up to the chamber to raise a point of order, remember the chamber to raise a point of order if there's a question as to regard to the quorum. And our rule our house rule doesn't require a roll call vote like the Senate rule does Senate, that's a difference between the two rules. I don't want to go on regarding to the method of voting, but I did pull up the votes from last by any I'm on the two constitutional proposals that the house took. And I know that PR five was taken by roll call just like any other vote. A member can request a roll call, and I can quickly pull up PR to which is the other one that's pending also. I think they were both done by roll call yes. And I stand corrected I was given a correction I thought that it passed the house with. I understand it was 106 not 103. No six to 38 I stand corrected to what I said originally. Thank you. Representative McFawn. Thank you madam chair. See, I want to, I want to make sure that we, the procedure for the committee, bringing it up that the proposal was considered. How was that ratified. Thank you representative McFawn it's the same as any other piece of legislation with the committee process determining whether you take up legislation so it's part of just your committee. Normal committee committee procedure for committee, considering any other piece of legislation. So we began in order to to solidify that we would. It would be on our agenda and our agenda would be published. We would go through the public hearing. That would be a bracket. And then we would bring it back to the committee, and we would vote on it. And that would mean that we have considered it, correct. Yes, correct. And you would vote it out like you would any other piece of legislation voting it out of committee. So you do voted out of committee with your committee report that you, your option is to vote it out, essentially favorably or not because you're not able to propose any amendments to it so it's either you, you voted out or you do not vote it out. If you voted out it's like a favorable committee report for a bill, essentially if you want to compare it, and then you would deliver to our office like you would any other piece of legislation, and then the special notice provision then applies. If you voted out for the PR, if you voted out, appearing on the notice calendar for four legislative days, and then would be up for action on the fifth legislative day for the vote on whether to approve it. All right, and I have one last question. Do we have to, how do we ensure, I just made a recommendation to get the Secretary of State in here and have him show us the document to make sure that that piece of it was done. Do we have to ensure that that was done before we, before we consider it. I don't think you're required to I don't think that should constitutionally hold up the legislative process but I thought that was a great suggestion to hear from the Secretary of State's office to confirm the notice that they provided. I do recall because there were the two constitutional proposals that the General Assembly did pass last biennium and being aware of this required notice process I was pulling up. I called working on this and working with the Secretary of State's office and our IT department for posting the required notices and so I do recall that happening and it's my understanding that it happened but it would be great for you to just check in if you wanted to check in with the Secretary of State's office to. Thank you. I think it's imperative that we do those things and I'll tell you why. On the slightest misstep. All hell is going to break loose. So I just want to make sure that as we as a committee do the job we're supposed to do that, we do it right. And that those steps that in this Constitution, the way you change it have been followed so that we don't have to deal with that. Enough to deal with. Representative McFawn, I think you've made a great suggestion to have, and I will be inviting the Secretary of State to come in. I do not believe that it will be today, but it will be the next time we take this up. Thank you Madam Chair. Are there other questions for before we move on to. Michelle child's going through the language, are there other questions right now, in terms of the process. The process has outlined in the in the Constitution and the process as our, our house rules. I guess I have one more man chair. Certainly. And I can't find it in the end. But I thought that there was a certain amount of days that something had to take place am I wrong with that. I'm right. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry Madam chair. But you're absolutely right. Thank you for the walkthrough and going through the document it's at the bottom of your page too, of the document is your, or excuse me we're in the next by any and pardon, it is at the bottom page three, it is the notice requirement your notice calendar it has a prolonged notice A constitutional proposal provides longer notice calendar. It needs to be in the notice calendar for longer than a normal piece of legislation. Okay, so we got to make sure this. So, it's part of madam chair I'm sorry. Let's say because I'm a little concrete. So, let's say, if this committee were to vote out favorably, the constitutional amendment on a Tuesday, it would go on the notice calendar, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and then the following Tuesday. And it would not be until that following Wednesday. We would debate it on the floor of that we would present it and then debate it on the house floor. That is correct. And it's just that one day's vote. And, and just to make, I'm not debating. If that's right or wrong. But it's so the fifth legislative day would not be Monday. Unless we were meeting on a Monday. You know how at the end of the year we sometimes. Yeah, me. depends on when the legislature is in session is that. Yes. The committee's meeting or just right. Okay. Sorry to be asking these things I just, I want to make sure that all the tease across and guys are dotted. It's a big deal. It is a big deal. And I appreciate that's what this is for. Or all of us to have the opportunity to ask the questions and be clear. And right now, to be clear about the process. I think we're good so far and represent McFawn your hand is still up but I think it's still up from before. Is that correct. Your, your hand is still up. I think we're all good. I really appreciate both of you coming and answering our questions going through the memo. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And now if we can hear from. Michelle child's legislative council. And if you can walk through. The language. Sure. And I think we're good for. You and certainly for those of you who were here last biennium and had worked on this issue. You'll know I am new counsel to this issue and Bryn had been covering this for the last few years. And so I have big shoes to fill there. I'm going to be probably sending to Julie some of the memos that Bryn. relating to Proposition 5. And I thought today we would just do kind of a high level kind of overview, taking a look at the language and talking about it. And I know many of you are already familiar with it. Julie, or what's the, Madam Chair, what's your preference in terms of do you want the language up on the screen? And if so, Julie, would you mind doing that or? I think it is on our webpage. Okay, under your. Posted under your name. I am checking to see if everyone is able to pull it up that way. And it's not. And I'm looking in particular. For those of us who. Are not quite as adept at others. And so. And representative from stead you had computer problems this morning. Are you able to pull it up or have any, do you have it that you can follow? I just went and got my iPad. Representative Rosenquist, are you able to see the document? I typed in PR five. And it came up and I have it on my iPad. Okay. Okay, good. So. Sorry to go through that. But want to make sure. And I prefer if I can that we can see each other. So we don't. We're all going to look at it and be looking at you. Okay, so I, I first wanted to start out talking a little bit about chapter one of the Vermont constitution and how it. Establishes the rights of, of its inhabitants and is essentially a constraint on government. Many of the rights in the state, in the state constitution are the same or very similar to what we have in the US constitution. However, the state constitution can provide and a dozen at certain times provide additional protections for its citizens. And so an example that I would use that you might be familiar with is relating to protecting its citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. So I think most people have heard of the fourth amendment to the US constitution that's in the bill of rights. And Vermont has a similar provision, which is an article 11 of chapter one. But that's been interpreted. The language is very similar, but slightly different. And that's been interpreted to be more protective than the fourth amendment to the US constitution. So it's not, I just kind of wanted to start out talking about how they do not have to be the same. And so you could have something at the federal level that establishes the baseline, but the states can go above and beyond that and afford their citizens additional protections, which is what proposition five does. So, so look at the language. Section one. Of their proposal and I think that this is what perhaps what representative Rosenquist was referring to. There aren't essentially findings, but there is a purpose section. You'll see in section one. And so this is similar to what you would see in a, in a bill where you might have an uncodified section right up front that states either legislative intent or purpose or sometimes it's findings. Again, this is not wouldn't be codified. It's not going to be in the Constitution. It's provided as background with regard to the purpose. So I'm going to, because it's short and the language is obviously quite important here, I'm going to do a little more reading of the language line by line than I typically do when, when I do a walkthrough. So he's looking at subsection a and section one for the purpose. This proposal would amend the Constitution of the state of Vermont to ensure that every Vermonter is afforded personal reproductive liberty. And so you're here to hear these words, liberty and autonomy frequently in the discussion of Proposition five. And these are terms that I think. And so I'm going to go back to that. Initially you might say, well, what does that mean? And I would just say that there is a long history of case law and jurisprudence around what these terms mean. And as I think as you continue to work on this proposition, we can dig into that as, as much or as little as you want. And I know that those issues have been discussed in this committee before. The Constitution is our founding legal document stating the overarching values of our society. The amendment is in keeping with the values espoused by the current Vermont Constitution. And then it goes on to specifically identify provisions in Article one and an article seven with regard to this particular proposition. So Article one declares that in part all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and unalienable rights. And the article seven states of the government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit protection and security of the people. That one may sat may ring a bell a little bit more because you may be familiar with hearing about the common benefits clause. And that is to be sure that the as you see in the next line that the core values is that the state is to not provide benefits and protections on certain folks while denying them to others and elevating certain people to be more privileged than others. The amendment would reassert the principles of equality and personal liberty reflected in Articles one and seven. And ensure that the government does not create or perpetuate the legal, social or economic inferiority of any class of people. Again, this is really pulling from a lot of case law U.S. Supreme Court case law and the terminology here about making sure that people are treated equally and specifically looking at the reproductive case law with regard to the impact of regulation of abortion and contraception and its impact on women. The next line, this proposed constitutional amendment is not intended to limit the scope or the rights of those particular provisions. Sorry, I'm losing my place here in my notes. So just going back in subsection A on the term liberty, I just wanted to mention that that does appear in the due process clause of both the fifth and the 14 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And as used in the Constitution, if you think about the term liberty, you want to think about freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. So section two is where we get to the language that will appear on the ballot or that will also be in front of you for voting. Section two establishes the right to reproductive personal liberty in the Constitution through the addition of article 22. So that language read individuals right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest. So I want to unpack that language a little bit. And something that you have on the website is something that Bryn had developed last biennium and there are case notes for a lot of the terms that are with that are in article 22 here. So if you look at so this first one being if we talk about what is personal reproductive autonomy. So, you know, again, as I mentioned before reproductive liberty and our autonomy are concepts that come directly from the U.S. Supreme Court cases. Personal reproductive autonomy is a concept that derived from Roe. The case is prior to Roe and then the case is after Roe and it includes not just the right to abortion but also the right to choose or refuse to contraception, the right to choose or refuse sterilization, the right to become pregnant and then of course the right to have an abortion. So the amendment here in article 22 establishes reproductive autonomy as a fundamental right. Government constraints on fundamental rights are considered to be presumptively invalid because they are constitutional fundamental rights. Sorry, I'm having problems with my screen. So government constraints on fundamental rights, as I mentioned, are presumptively invalid. However, the government can infringe on this right if it can justify its actions under what's called a strict scrutiny standard. So this is the highest level of court review and is the one that the court used in the U.S. Supreme Court that the court used in Roe. Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of showing that it has a compelling state interest in the regulation and that the law is narrowly drawn to address that state interest. Roe applied the strict scrutiny to the right to abortion and found that the government's interest in regulating abortion became more compelling as the pregnancy advanced. So you're probably familiar with the trimester framework in Roe. They decided that in the first trimester, the government had very little interest in regulating abortion. But then in the second trimester, they had a stronger interest and they could regulate abortion to further the state interest in preserving and protecting the health of the mother. And then after viability, the government can prohibit abortion entirely due to its compelling interest in potential life except in cases where the life or health of the mother was at risk. And then subsequently after that, lower courts have held a number of restrictions on later term abortions. So what this means is that if a future Vermont legislature or administration wanted to adopt a statute or a rule that infringed on an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy such as requiring that doctors who perform abortions have hospital admitting procedures that they would not be able to do, that they would not be able to do that. And I'm sorry, I keep thinking I'm frozen. Or if there were like excessive waiting periods that were implemented, then that would come under a strict scrutiny analysis and the state would need to justify that action by showing that it has a compelling state interest that's achieved by the least restrictive means in order to be upheld. That is my quick walkthrough. So to clarify, the first section will not be what is seen by the voters in November. What the voters in November will see is this section, this second section, Article 22. That's what people, people to make sure that they understand that. Yes. That's the point I was trying to get at. I wanted to make sure we understood. So it's just a part from Article 22 thereafter that will appear to the voters. Is that correct? That's correct. Section three will not, section three will not appear. Right. Not the, not the application, but effective date, but just section two, Article 22. Questions for Michelle right now. Representative McFawn. Thank you, Madam chair. I want to bring us back to when the federal, when the legislature Congress, when they enact the law, the state can not do, they can do a lot of increasing any restrictions or anything like that, but they can't do less. And that was that correct. Well, if you're talking about, about rights afforded to the citizens, so the federal government can establish that the, the states can go above and beyond that and provide additional protections to its citizens. Correct. Is that your question? Yeah. Yes. That's correct. That's correct. That's correct. It's not additional, but not less. Right. Okay. Now constitutional amendments. This amends our constitution. Is there any place anywhere where the state has to abide by anything that the federal government has done in relation to their, to section, I mean, Article 22. Is there any place where the state has to abide by anything that the federal government has to abide by? Are we doing less. To protect our citizens. I believe that it's an intention is to do more as to afford greater protections. What's happened at the federal level is, I think probably as you've heard in previous testimony is there has been kind of a whittling away of the. The court has shifted to a different standard over the years, looking at new restrictions with kind of a, whether or not they're an undue burden on someone accessing services. And so as there's kind of been a less and less recognition of the rights that were identified in row. Then Vermont. Is stepping in and saying we want to kind of basically enshrine the concepts and the rights in row within our state constitution. That way, if the U. S. If the U. S. Supreme court. Decides. That's that row. You know, decides to overturn row. Then those. Concepts and those rights that were afforded in row. Are secured by the Vermont constitution. Did that answer your question? Thank you. Representative frozen quest. Thank you, Madam chair. Michelle. Of course, all the protections we're talking about here. For, for women. And. And one reason I think a lot of things change. Hello. I'm sorry. Can you hear me or not? Because I heard some feedback there. Okay. All right. There is no protections for. The viable unborn child. In anything. In this act or proposition. And I think that's been one of the issues where. Weight has been debated over these last years. There's more and more recognition that the unborn and viable child. Should have some rights and protections. But this. This proposition leaves out. No protections for. The viable unborn child. And it seems that. Well, anyway, I took just a statement, I guess. I'm not. I'd appreciate your reaction to it. Well, I would say that the, the amendment does encompass. Not just the right to abortion, but as I mentioned. There's a whole range of things with regard to reproductive autonomy. And so sterilization is one as well. So I think it wouldn't just exclusively be towards women. I just wanted to note that. And then the other thing is that. If you, if you look at row. You know, the court there did find that the state had an interest. At the third trimester. In protecting potential life. And so there it did find, so as it went as the, as the pregnancy increased. It found greater and greater state compelling interest. That it then had to look and see whether or not the regulation was narrowly tailored to a court. And so I would. I would disagree that there is not any way in which the state could assert, you know, Say that they have an interest. In protecting. Potential life, but that they would have to fit within the framework of looking at the strict scrutiny standard. Do you give an example of something that would measure up to that? I, I don't. I don't know. I think I'd have to think about that. I'm sure there's lots of people thinking about that one. Representative Rosenquist, I will. I will give the answer that I gave on the floor of the house two years ago, which is it will depend upon the facts of the case. And to. To guess. Is sort of an exercise in the fertility. Because in fact, what. What a constitution, what, what a challenge, what a legal challenge would. A legal challenge depends upon the specific facts of the case. So, so a legal challenge would be made. Thank you, Madam chair. Would it be correct to assume that. With this amendment. I would argue that. A viable unborn child has less protections than they did prior. In other words, by putting this proposition five in, we actually are taking away certain protections of a viable unborn child. I would argue that. I would suggest that we look at what we passed with the legislation. I would argue that. I would argue that. I would argue that. 57. 57. 2019. Yup. It's codified in title 18. Which is codified in title 18. And. And I can send a link to Julie for that. If you want to take a look at the chapter there. But currently there are not any restrictions on abortion in, in Vermont. Thank you. I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. President Quist, you have your hand up. Do you have an additional question. At this point. No, not at this point. In fact, I just took it down. Thank you. Okay, great. Representative McFawn. Thank you, Madam chair. The statement that you just made. Michelle. That currently in the state of Vermont. There are no restrictions. Is that because of act 65? Or were there no restrictions on abortion, except what was enrolled versus Wade. Prior to that act. Right. Correct. Okay. Statutory. And when I say no restrictions, I do realize that there are. There are rules and practice with regard to how medicine is practiced in Vermont. And so I just, I'm just talking about from a statutory standpoint. Thank you. If we don't. This is only this is day one. And this was the introduction. If we don't have any further questions for Michelle. I'd like to have us. I don't want to talk unless Michelle has something she wants to. Add for us. I'd like. Us to begin to, to generate a list of who we want to, who was, who was important for us to hear from as a witness, we will be having a public hearing. And that was reinforced or clarified. If anyone had questions by legislative counsel, we would be happy to answer them. And. Representative McFawn suggested that we hear from the secretary of state. And. Yesterday. I, I gave the suggestion that we hear. From, from. Sharon. I think it's important to try to live and from, and we also hear from a representative. From from monitors for ethical health care. I think it's important that we hear. From the attorney general. I'm looking for some. If there are some additional, I want to make sure that if there are additional. I want to make sure that you let me know representative McFawn. Thank you, Madam chair. I would appreciate it. If somebody from the university of Vermont. The largest healthcare provider. That we have in the state. I would like to hear from them. In terms of the. The process. That has to be gone through. Before an abortion takes place. I believe that we will be getting a letter of support from the. From the. From. From the hospital. And I think it's important that we keep the, if you would like to hear from a medical provider, we can talk about a medical provider, but a process. This is, I want to reinforce what we are talking about is an issue that is not that is about reproductive liberty. Around the choice. To the freedom to. Carry a carry. A pregnancy to term. Or not. It is about. Use or not use of contraception. And sterilization. And we would be doing ourselves and the voters. A mis-service if we narrowly focus. On abortion. This is an amendment that is a wider. Span. For reproductive liberty. Representative Rosenquist. Thank you. I'd suggest it before and would still. I think it would be useful. For us to hear his testimony. Absolutely. And as. Is he, I, and I apologize. Is he is, is he not from a Vermonters for ethical healthcare? Is he an additional witness? Quite frankly. He is. That organization. I mean, he's a pediatrician that practices in. In the town of Georgia. Absolutely. Thank you for that. Addition. I think you already mentioned that possibly. Susan. I don't know if that's her first name, but too. Susan to Borg. From. Right to life. Anyway. Maybe some others. I'm thinking on it. And I will get back to you. Thank you. Okay. My, we have. We have begun to. Receive. Some written testimony. We've received some written testimony. From. I believe it is on our webpage right now. I have now. It's not quite up. That is not, it's not up yet. When we receive written testimony from an organization. And they, and is asked. To be submitted as their testimony. We will post that. On our webpage. When we receive public comment. We're going to do as what we have done. So we'll have a separate version where there are lots of. Public comment. There's a, there'll be a separate folder so that you can see them all together. In terms of that. Julie, is that, am I explaining it correctly? Okay. I've got confirmation that I'm. Explaining that in terms of where things are. Representative Greg war. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if you have this. And I missed it, but. So when there's a public hearing, which is what's required, not the rest. How's that going to look? I'm assuming we're not building in person. Maybe, maybe we are. Have has stopped and put into that. I just curious so I can. Process in my head. I don't know. Process in my head about what it's going to play. A form. I don't know. Identified yet. I'd be thinking maybe. The week, not at certainly not next week, because we need to give. People notice. Thinking of the week of the 24th. Where what kind of public hearing. I imagine it will be this in a similar. The pandemic is. But right now I would. It would be the same structure. And timing as the. Public hearing or proposition to, which is on notice right now. For the week of the. For next week. And if you look on the legislative webpage. We're going to have a virtual meeting in the morning. We're going to have a virtual meeting. And virtual. So I have. Where, where did you go? There you are, James. So there. A formal date has not been decided. Aiming for the week. The week of the 24th. So the week after next. And it would be. And it would be from six to eight, as the other public hearing and yeah, as soon as I don't think you meant that it would take the same time as the other public hearing, as far as the actual time, right? Okay, so the same day. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Carl. Thank you. Yes. I guess what I'm saying is it will the structure of of the two public hearings that are related to a constitutional amendment will mirror each other, unless something happens with Thank you for the clarification. Yeah. Representative McFawn. Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I want to go back to my original request for people who committed to testimony. Okay. If we don't have the University of Vermont healthcare system people come in. I would like to have a letter from them on the procedure that they use. Reproductive rights are being exercised because I know personally, they have a procedure that they go through for a man to do it and award. And I think it's important that the public knows that it just isn't willy-nilly. Okay, so, okay, so, so, so your question is, what is the discussion? Or what is the, and your, and your question is, is about. So I'm trying to understand your question, your question. Let me, let me just lay it out. Okay, let's say a man wants a vasectomy. There's a certain process that you go through to have that. It isn't you just walk into the doctor's office and say, I want a vasectomy. Okay, okay, so the conversation that they have. Okay, there's a conversation that takes place. You know, you're sure you want to do this. And in the woman's case, there's a similar process that they go through. And I think it's important that the public knows that it just isn't somebody seeking around the back of a corner and going into some place where they are providing abortions or sterilizations. That may happen. That may happen. I don't know. I haven't heard about it in Vermont, but it may happen. But I think that the medical profession has certain things they do. And I'll tell you why people. Harper, I misunderstood the direction of your first question. And, and I will go back to UVMMC and see whether or not that is something that they're able to do but right now. I have a reference to how, how, how, how busy many people in the medical profession are. I have, I have said a letter would be fine. I get, I get your question and if it's not someone from there or if a letter isn't, isn't sufficient or maybe they can have someone come in, but there are other other medical professionals, or maybe someone from the medical society. No, I don't know. Okay, okay. You want a practitioner. That's right. Okay. Got it. And I don't want them to come in and say we support this. I don't want them to come in and say, here's what we go through. Here's how we have that discussion. Understands that it just isn't walking through a door. Okay. Got it. Thank you. This sounds good. We will pick this up. I'm going to take a break with some of the individuals who are, we've now identified who we're going to hear from. And today's we're actually only a few minutes. According to our schedule, we were going to take a break at 1030. We're going to switch topics and come back at 1045 to hear from to talk about COVID-19 and a public public health response and sort of some broad overview. But before we rush to do that. We do have a few moments. And representative McFawn your hand is up now I didn't know if you have a. I, that's okay. I get that it's. Just wondering, do we have that spreadsheet yet that we're supposed to fill in? During during our break. I will be working with Julie to to finalize that spreadsheet. We probably wouldn't give it out until Friday because we don't have any more bills on the list. Thank you. Okay. All right, we'll take a since we're not expecting Dr Leahy until 1045. We will be this, we will take a slightly longer break and be back.