 Okay, this evening, my name is Sandy Baird and this evening we are going to continue our discussion about the impact of the overturn of Roe v. Wade. I have given that a lot of thought over my life. I am an attorney I've read the case of Roe v. Wade I think I understand the arguments of that the attorney made who was a young woman by the name of Sarah Weddington, who was in the Supreme Court of the United States for the very first time in her entire career. As she says on the tape that I have listened to numbers of times. She had done a few divorces and a couple of adoptions and then she was asked to do this case on behalf of a woman by the name of Norma Covey. And that was this case about a Texas law that prohibited abortion and that went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court in 1972 and Roe v. Wade was established at that time and has served until recently as the precedent since that time. Okay, so. And as I said before, I am an attorney I have studied the case I also taught family law. I also was involved all my life pretty much in in the pro woman I would put it but other people call pro choice movement. Let me tell you a personal story in 1972. There was a case prior to Roe, which decriminalized abortion in the state of Vermont which I'll go into what that means. But my personal story is that once that abortion was decriminalized meaning that doctors were then allowed to perform abortions. Because we put into place a bunch of a committee of people put into place the first Vermont women's health center. Together we formed a little committee, we raised a little bit of money at that time as I recall only $30,000 hired an attorney and the clinic was open in Colchester in 90 probably early 1973. Prior to Roe. I'm telling that story because it was really interesting. The, there was also an electoral victory about that. The night before the clinic was to open in Colchester there was a big town meeting, because on the ballot at that town meeting and that fall was this item. There were a lot of people in Colchester who didn't want that clinic to open. And so they have successfully put on the ballot and item that said we the voters of Colchester, no, I guess it said, what do you support an unlicensed clinic in Colchester. And he thought, Oh my God, that's such a obvious we're going to lose this because you had to vote yes, I support an unlicensed clinic in the town of Colchester. The night before the vote there was a big town meeting. I remember I went, I was kind of a young woman at the time. First time I ever spoke publicly at any kind of an event. And I gave this wrap how we welcome the clinic and this the town, the select board president. came up to me and whispered in my ear, you girls are going to win tomorrow. And in fact we won two to one that people voted to create in Colchester or allow an unlicensed clinic. The trick was there was no licensing procedure anyway for any clinic, but we won that two to one. So I think secretly the pro choice pro woman pro family in a way. Attitudes of Vermonters and all Americans are really pro allowing women to make these pregnant women to make these choices by themselves. We won that struggle. Anyways, but let's get back to the legal basis of Roe v Wade. There's a lot of talk about this is not in the Constitution. You never hear the word abortion in the Constitution. No, you don't. You do not hear the word abortion you don't hear about appendectomies either or vasectomies or sterilizations you don't have any of those words in the Constitution. You have general principles in the Constitution that pertain to women and men. And that's what the Constitution and government, when government is limited, and the rights of men and women and those rights outlined in the bill of rights, and throughout the Constitution, are what our founding fathers said are inalienable. No one can take those rights away from you, even democratic majorities. All right. So here was the argument that was made by Sarah Weddington and the argument that I listened to on a tape, and that I got and I want to read you once again, the 14th Amendment, which states, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the oppression there of our citizens of the United States, and no state shall make any laws denying those citizens, the privileges and the immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person, person of life, property or property, without the due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws. That was the argument that Sarah Weddington made that the 14th Amendment pertained to the rights of born people. And that was how Roe V Wade was decided. And so, but okay so that that was how the argument was made. In other words, women are persons because they're born, and therefore women have the right of all citizens of the United States to due process of the law, and to all the privileges and immunities that are protected by the US Constitution, including in my mind, the right to make medical decisions with their doctor, or without, but with their doctor usually in privacy. Men have that right. Why then don't women women are persons. Okay. And so, in fact, that was the basis of also the case of Jacqueline are or Leahy versus Beachham, which went to the Vermont Supreme Court in 1972. This is complicated stuff, but let me tell you how that case was decided. And what a precedent, it could have established one. In 1972 there was one law on the books which pertained to abortion, only one. And that was that stated that a doctor could be penalized criminal could be charged with a crime. If he performed an abortion on a pregnant woman. So the doctor was criminalized, he could face jail. If he did that. Okay, that went to the Supreme Court. So in that decision, it was decided that the contradiction existed, because the doctor could not perform an abortion. However, a woman, a pregnant woman could do it herself. In other words, the killing of a fetus, I hate to be this blunt, but the killing of the fetus was not a crime. So there was no killing of or there was no homicide involved in the termination of a pregnancy or an abortion for the woman to do it herself. The doctor, however, could be put in jail about it. The Vermont court then decided that that was too much of a contradiction in a way. And since it was not a crime for a woman, it wasn't a crime for a doctor. The abortion sanction in the Vermont court was removed period that's what happened in a sense then what happened in Vermont was that abortion itself became decriminalized. There were no laws that prohibited abortion at that point, because the fetus has unpleasant and this sounds to the right to life people, the fetus in our Constitution, the fetus in Vermont. The Vermont Constitution is not yet a person. So the rights of the person has got to be insured and is insured in the United States, and in the Vermont Constitution. Okay, so that was also really the basis of row which was decided a year later in 1973 and in effect, it said the same thing that because the fetus was not born yet. The woman is born that the rights to determine her own destiny belong to the woman. And that means important medical decisions on behalf of the pregnant woman or girl. I noticed that there was just a recent case, which today was announced that it is true of a 10 year old girl raped recently in one of our states which prohibit abortion, and that 10 year old had to travel out of state, because her own home state said she could not get an abortion, even though she was a rape victim. Speaking Fox News last night and Fox says, probably it's not true. Well today it's announced, it is true, and that the rape victim, the rapist has, or the alleged rapist has been arrested for the crime of rape. Right, so that was the basis that there is no crime because the fetus is not yet a person, and that the right to determine the fate of a woman's pregnant woman's body and her own destiny belongs to the woman herself. I always thought that that would be the strongest argument. However, I think that one of the problems is that over the course of Roe v Wade. So-called right to lifers, and remember they're, while they say they're right to life, and I kind of respect that, they're not, they really show right to fetal life. They don't really have a whole lot of respect for a 10 year old girl, or a grown woman who has to make these decisions themselves. They don't have much respect in women or girls making these decisions. They do, however, I guess, respect fetal life. And they put forward the argument that this question of abortion was all tied up in when life begins, not personhood. They began to argue in a way that the protection of fetal life was way more important than protecting the rights of women and girls. And that probably was fairly powerful propaganda. I mean, I don't know how people Jane is the only person on this, but I would like to know how people felt about it because of course that's those cells after fertilization is a is like a seed, it is the seed of a human life. It's not yet a person is the point of Roe v Wade. Okay, so, and I always have believed that it's much that somehow when the anti woman, anti girl, anti choice if you want to put it that way. I would not, the pro fetal life, when they began to make that argument and it was not countered very successfully by the pro woman advocates, and when they began to make that argument that they were pro life and that people like me and others were pro abortion. They got to win, and they began to say life is equal to a separate person. And that's how I think they want. Okay, so what is the status now. My argument would be, I don't I don't I really would love to have a whole different session about what strategy is but I'm not so certainly have enough people to really enter into that discussion. My strategy always has been to stress that this is an individual decision that is made by a pregnant woman, it is nobody's business, except her, and the doctor and that we always should trust women and girls to make the best moral decisions, the best medical decisions for themselves and their family. And in a way, government should have nothing to do with that decision. I don't think nor is it a matter of public policy is simply is with pregnant women and girls should have to meet the right to make important decisions in their own conscience in their own best interest in their own medical health decisions, free and clear of any government bodies or politicians, or bureaucrats, period. However, I don't believe that that argument was put forward enough. And if you watch what the anti woman forces are now saying what they have repeated repeated because I watch. And I watch CNN too but if you watch what they're saying, they are basically saying, these women, like myself, feminist women are anti life, anti the anti life is what they're really saying. And that carries with it, enormous weight. And they, I think have, I don't know, I think they've at least won the fight for now in the Supreme Court. And it's not going to change, no matter how many people demonstrate in front of justices houses which I think is a real mistake. No matter how many people you all scream about it. It's over on a federal level. It's over. If, for instance, the Democrats fail in November, if the pro choice people elect, if they give us a candidate that is not very popular in 2024 which I think right now President Biden is against the logical candidate. Very weak his polls are really bad. If they persist in having Biden be the candidate and if the Republicans, even if they put up president former president Trump, if the Republicans win again. Elections have consequences, and there will be more judges that are anti woman on the court in 2024. Okay, so now what. And this is complicated. So, the, the decision to overturn row was based on the following. They ignored the, the argument that I'm making they simply ignored it. Why, because they want to. Elections as I said, have consequences, and the Republicans won the election got Donald Trump into, into place, and he said he was going to appoint pro life judges and he did pro fetal life judges and he did. Now is consists of pro fetus life judges, and they had determined prior to this to overturn row. Now what was the argument how did they avoid the argument in the 14th amendment because they felt like it and they did. But what they decided was tricky. What they decided was that there was no business in the federal court determining anything about public policy. And what, what the argument says is that abortion is a matter of public policy, and because it's in public policy, and not in an alienable human right that decision was turned back to the legislatures to make a decision about whether or a woman could have an abortion so now in each and every state, the majority who is elected in the legislature gets to determine whether a woman or a girl will be able to exercise for rights to determine a termination of a pregnancy. In many states, the vote is going to and many states already have outlawed abortion outlawed it. Again, I don't exactly know how they banned the boy did they go back to criminalizing doctors about it. I don't realize women about it pregnant women about it. I doubt it. What I bet you they did was to criminalize a doctor for doing an abortion, as was the case. As was the case, be prior to row, which means, but there's all now all kinds of questions what does it mean, there are already states like Mississippi, which have adopted what are called trigger laws. If a minute row was overturned, then there was a trigger, which put in place, the criminalization of abortion, Mississippi, forget it. Okay, and state like Vermont though, it's different a little bit but anyway there are many many states now that are going to outlaw abortion. What does it mean this what what the overturn of role really meant was that it is no longer a fundamental right of a woman or girl, no longer. It is a matter for each and every state legislature to vote about. If you get a Republican majority anywhere in the, in the fall and November which I think is going to be the case in a lot of places, they could outlaw abortion. In other words, it is no longer a human right of women and girls, it is subject to a majority vote. Another human right the right to speak freely the right to worship where the subject of a legislature. These rights are fundamental, and as a founding father said they are inalienable. Inalienable, but legislatures now state legislatures can take those rights away and perhaps and have already. So that's what we're up against. So, with that, does anybody have any questions before we should go into I think what's next for Vermont, but anyway, Jane or Robin. I guess not. Yeah, I can say something. We were talking about it at our wealth meeting yesterday and, and, and, and, and Mark and Margaret Edelman said that there was a big push to, I mean that there was a lot of money involved in keeping and keeping the, the and keeping us from from putting the right in the cons in our in our constitution as we're as we're as what is going, going to be on the ballot this fall that that that it's not a short, it's not a short thing it's not at all. I have all my feelings about it. What Jane is mentioning is something that's occurring in the Vermont legislature right now, which I think is a mistake, frankly. It's called the reproductive liberty amendment, and it reads something like reproductive liberty is guaranteed to all persons. And then it goes on to say each person shall have the right to determine the course of their own lives, each person, like a child. And so I frankly think that amendment is far too vague. It does not say anything about abortion. It does not have anything to do with how many kids that a woman can make it a woman also under row was allowed to make to have as many kids as she wanted to have. And so the decision about family size was left to the pregnant woman. In a lot of ways, it included the right to terminate a pregnancy. And it included. And it included the right to have 14 kids. It was her decision. Right. Okay, so. All right, so go on from there. Reproductive liberty what on earth doesn't mean really that's what worries me. That's what worries me. It could mean the right to an abortion. It could mean the right. Also, I was reading a Boston Globe article about this. It could mean the right of a child to determine to have hormone treatment at a certain age at, you know, that's reproductive liberty to change your sex. And in the Globe article, it said, I'm not certain that it could do that, but there's a very big controversy in a lot of states about that issue about children having the right to engage in becoming the opposite sex, and to have the right to consent to hormone treatments, which have rather drastic side effects, and without their parents consent, does that include both. If it does. If it, well, I think there's, you know, both ways, I think it's it, I don't know what I think about it. So, Jane, though you are right in that that amendment is going to be bought tooth and nail. I would guess by the Republicans, I would guess I don't know if it's going to pass. Everybody who introduced that amendment says that it's a shoe thing, a sure thing. I don't think so. And what will the defeat of it say for instance that Republicans capitalized on this issue are able to convince pro fetus life that they that this is a real problem in Vermont, and everybody and they're able to do that and there's a big boat know how is that going to be interpreted for women and girls. It's it's I think it was a mistake. I shouldn't maybe say that but I wish I wish you were not up to a vote. I really really do. That's right, but Jane I think that there might be money going both ways on this. You know, not just from the those who would protect fetuses, not just that way but I think there's going to be a lot of money going to protect the rights of women and girls. Also, but I don't have a prediction. I don't have a prediction. Yeah, but I'm thinking there's there's more money. There's more money, probably from the end from the anti abortionist. I think there are economics and I think having, I think forcing women to bear children against their will is probably is probably good, good is probably good for the economy. Because, you know, this is because because people people spend a lot of money on spend a lot of money on their on their on their on their kids. And then for the argument about that about about about a port about poor children eventually being being a source of cheap labor. And if you wonder what what what these what it that what what the Supreme Court, people on the Supreme Court who voted who voted to ban to ban abortion. What, what, what, what companies they're invested in. It's strange because companies in our country are very pro abortion to which is weird. Also, there are many, many companies that give for instance, money to women to have abortions and have announced that while they don't give family leave, they don't support a woman's right to have a baby you see it goes both ways. You know it really goes both ways. These decisions are ultimately personal decisions, whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is a personal decision on, on behalf of that pregnant color mother that is her decision, and it's also her decision, as many black women have pointed out to have kids. For instance, in China, China, the state of China has control over women's bodies also their pro abortion, but they they they make people limit the family size. In other words, they make women and mothers and pregnant women and girls have children, not have children, they practically mandate abortion after the one China rule, the one baby rule that has been reversed because they ended up with no young people to support all the old people. So now I believe in China you can have two, but it's not your choice. It's not your personal decision in China anymore than it is here. So I don't know which way Jane I think it's going to be hotly contested I wish, and I don't know who's going to win the argument I don't. I don't. I mean I think that the people who have argued for fetal life have been very successful. One of the reasons I think so is that the people like us have not insisted this is not about abortion it's about a pregnant woman's right to choose her own destiny herself. I remember I was at a debate once where City Hall where Peter Covell was running for something or other, and there was a bunch of people who are going to attack him on that pro choice issue. And they're going to talk about late term abortion and, and the horrifying, which does sound horrifying of late term abortion, and they started to question him and I said to Peter, you tell them that you trust women to make the best decisions for themselves with their doctors, and in their own conscience, and don't I I mean don't argue about it that's the end of the argument, you trust women to make those decisions. What's, what is a better argument. Right. I think it's been that argument has been made in that regard. And, and I think that people like us have lost because we are perceived as being only pro abortion, and I don't think that has been very successful. But anyway, so Jane did you have other questions or comments or Robin. The other thing is that I see this as a war against women and girls. And, well that's what I was going to say to I think I think I think it's an assault on, it's an assault on women's rights. And, and that is why that's why the majority of the population does, does support support support abortion. They supported or they don't. I mean supports abortion. The majority of people in the United States support support abortion. It's, it's, it's, it's instinctively it's a, it's an anti, it's, it's an anti, an anti woman thing. I wish more people would see it and argue from that point of view. I mean imagine being the parent of a 10 year old girl who was raped and pregnant and having to have to go out of state you she lives in a state where this 10 year old girl cannot determine her destiny even though she was raped there are no exceptions. And some of these laws there are no exceptions and let me just mention something about even late term abortion. This term abortion almost never happens because who what woman or girl would carry a pregnancy beyond the six months and then terminate it it's hard to imagine when it happens it is because something has gone fatally wrong. And so row allows late term abortion. If the mother's health is at risk, it still allows it. So all the all again the pro fetus lobby in a way argues about the horrifying thing about late term abortion a woman can't easily get a late term pregnancy termination, because doctors don't do it and in fact, many of those procedures have an outlawed anyway. However, under row, if the mother's health was questioned. And if a doctor said so, even at that stage it was a woman's health at issue then then even so the late term abortion could happen. The clear message of row. Really, to me is that the court shows women and girls lives. Oh, because they're persons over the life of the fetus. Is that right or wrong. Right. But that is not the way anybody is arguing it and so I think we lost and we lost big time, and we lost because of that election when Donald Trump was elected didn't isn't that when it really happened. Anyway, so that's my stick tonight Jane, any other questions or discussions we can end early tonight. If that's all right with everybody. Is it. Yeah, yeah, yeah it is I wish I wish I were I wish I had more. I'm not a lawyer I wish I wish I was but I, but you're a human being Jane you're human being and you are a woman, and always, I guess there's no way around that really. So, I think that we should remember that, while we continue this fight, I don't know what's going to happen in Vermont anybody have any predictions about that. You're November. I think the Democrats are going to take keep control of the legislature. I guess no one is thinking about that yet, although everybody also does seem to be thinking about. But anyway, thank you both. And again this will be recorded. So somebody out there in the great television sphere will see it I hope. We are going to have a discussion on Vicki with the candidate for states for the office of states attorney and the present states attorney, who is Sarah George, who is the present states attorney and we're going to discuss with her. The importance of the role of the prosecutor in our judicial system, and what the prosecutor does how it is the office is the person who can charge crimes or not, who can bring a case to court or not can decide to dismiss a case or not, based on a police report, and that prosecutor is also almost singlehandedly the person who gets to sentence people after they are convicted of a crime. Very important post I would argue one of the most powerful posts in the whole judicial system, the whole legal system. And so we're going to interview Sarah George next week, which is the 20th at six. So I invite everybody to join us. And I guess we'll see you then and thank you so much. Okay, thank you Tom meeting TV, Jane and Robin and Jenna. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I think, I think we, I think it still deserves more discussion and I think I do just. Especially I agree Jane especially what are we going to do now that this is a lot of discussion, I think. Good night everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.