 Welcome viewers to our ongoing program Focus, coming to you from Burlington, Vermont, Channel 17, Center for Media and Democracy. I'm your host Margaret Harrington and viewers, we're continuing this topic. The Vermont Reproductive Health Bill is bad legislation and this is part two of the subject of the ongoing series, a series within a series which is Resistance to H57, the Vermont Abortion Bill. And here in the studio I'm pleased to welcome Sharon Toburg, the Policy Analyst for Vermont Right to Life Committee. Welcome Sharon. Thank you Margaret. Thank you for coming. So Sharon you're right on the front lines of this fight about the abortion bill in Vermont and so can you give us an update on what's happening right now? Well the legislature has passed H57, which is a bill that puts into statute in Vermont the fundamental right to have an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy without any regulations or restrictions. It also prohibits public entities from interfering with access to abortion. It's very concerning because some of those terms about interfering are not defined. It has passed both the House and the Senate and my understanding is that it has not yet been sent to the governor's desk for action on his part. He has indicated that he will not veto the legislation so it is expected to become law. In fact it would probably become law even if he did veto it because it was passed by overwhelming numbers in both the House and the Senate. So the Vermont Congress can override governor's veto here? If the vote stayed what it was when the bill passed it would be sufficient to override any potential veto by the governor. Okay so this is how it stands right now and the legislature then stopped on last Friday. Correct? Yes. I'm not sure why it hasn't gone to the governor yet since it's been several weeks since it passed but I'm sure it will get there and it will become law here in Vermont. All right well Sharon shall we now go into your main objections your resistance to this H57 bill as the policy analyst for right to life right to life committee? Well Vermont right to life is an organization that believes that every human being has a fundamental right to life so we are opposed to abortion throughout pregnancy but throughout our legislative efforts over the years what we've really tried to do is find common ground because Vermont law currently does allow abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason there are no regulations there are no informed consent requirements there are no parental involvement requirements if a minor daughter is seeking an abortion and that's very concerning not only to a Vermont right to life as pro-life people but to a lot of people who consider themselves pro-choice too. I think one thing that's very interesting about this bill is I think some of the abortion rights advocates thought it would bring an end to the conversation about abortion in Vermont but I think it's actually going to be just the opposite because for the first time many Vermonters are realizing what Vermont law allows and they're really surprised by that. Okay so what you mentioned now is the first thing that you you call the what is called in in legal language in Vermont the the fetus the embryo the fertilized egg you were calling a human being. Well it is a human being and that's not my opinion that's science that's biology if you look at any embryology textbook they all very clearly state that human life begins at fertilization. The question that we face when it comes to abortion is when is that human life worthy of protection by the state so it's not really a question of is it a human life it's a question of is it a human life that has value and is worth protecting. Okay and I'm very glad that you you explain that to us that it is not opinion so on the other hand is it an opinion that an egg embryo or fetus is is not human an opinion. It would be an opinion to say it's not a human life it is scientifically inaccurate as I said the question is is it a life that's worth protecting and that and that's what we as a state I think have really begun to wrestle with with the passage in of age 57 and we're going to have to continue that discussion because the legislature is also past proposal 5 which proposes to amend the Vermont Constitution to guarantee a so-called right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Okay so we have two things going we have the age 57 and we have proposition 5. Yes yes the proposal 5 will take several more years to pass it had to go through this legislature there has to be the election in 2020 and the newly elected legislature will have to pass it again and if that happens it will appear on the ballot in November of 2022 to see if the people of Vermont will vote to ratify that amendment and add it to the Constitution. Okay but with in regard to age 57 there will be no vote by the people. No there will not be a vote by the people and it's kind of ironic that many of the supporters of the constitutional amendment said they wanted to put forth the amendment because there would be a vote by the public and they wanted the public to weigh in yet at the same time they're sort of preempting that by passing age 57. That is a devil's triangle there. It is yeah and what what the question of viable life what what are the standards for that Sharon. Well it really depends on each individual child generally speaking around 23-24 weeks a child born at that stage has a very good chance of survival I just read an article recently there was a child born at 23 weeks weighed eight ounces when she was born and she's going home from the hospital with her family now it's it's really amazing the advances that have been made in technology that allow unborn children to survive at early and early stages but we have to remember too that it is technology that is allowing them to do that it says nothing about the unborn child the unborn child at 23 weeks today is the same unborn child that 23 weeks years and years ago we just have better technology now that enables that child to be more likely to survive and it is very much a question of language and how we describe what is happening isn't that so Sharon. Oh absolutely though the language plays a very key role in our perceptions of the issue because Vermont Right to Life as I said is an organization that believes every human being has a right to life therefore we oppose abortion and I will be the first to admit that most Vermonters don't agree with the Vermont Right to Life position on abortion however they also don't agree with the abortion rights advocates position put forth here in age 57 which allows abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason and a lot of people who have always thought of themselves as pro-choice are really very surprised very surprised by this legislation in fact when the legislation was going through the house there were members of the house that offered many amendments to the proposal to amendments to involve parents of a minor daughter is seeking an abortion amendments to prohibit abortion after of 24 weeks when unborn child could live separated from the mother and most of those amendments were offered by pro-choice legislators because pro-choice does not equate to what we've seen in age 57 and that's why I think we're just really beginning a discussion as opposed to ending it. Pro-choice does not equate with what we see in age 57 that's a very telling statement and so that we we can let's examine that in detail Sharon and so I'll let you take off on that. Well polls nationally and here in Vermont have consistently shown that most people oppose most abortions now Vermont is more pro-choice than a lot of other states but they still are very uncomfortable with the idea of second and third trimester abortions very uncomfortable with the idea that that a minor can go and have this surgical procedure done and a parent does not even have to be notified so there's we often think of there being just two sides to the abortion issue but really most people out there are somewhere along spectrum of opinions and they and most of them do not fall down where age 57 has taken us. And where do you see proof of your statement that most Vermonters do not do not agree with age 57? Well our most recent polling which was done some years ago found that majorities of Vermonters support things like parental notification and informed consent provisions and nationally we see that there was a Gallup poll done last I believe it was last May in 2018 which found the same thing and polls consistently find that when you ask in a poll are you pro-choice or pro-life people say oh people say oh I'm pro- choice but when you ask about specific issues and specific circumstances they do not agree with the agenda of the abortion lobby. And Sharon could you expand on what is the parental consent that you're concerned about and the other thing the informed decisions so those two things if you would tell us what parental consent involves or does not involve and and informed decisions. Well the Vermont House actually passed a parental notification before abortion bill in the early 2000s and that would require that one parent be notified before an abortion procedure was performed on a minor daughter or if there were some extenuating circumstances they could take advantage of a judicial bypass procedure where they would get permission of a court to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. That did not pass the Senate it never became law in Vermont and it still is not the law in Vermont. Most states do have that type of provision. In fact our neighbors in New Hampshire do have that parental involvement law and interestingly enough Planned Parenthood of Northern New England shortly after they passed it moved one of their clinics from across the Connecticut River and into Vermont and now they don't have to abide by parental notification requirements at that clinic. Informed consent procedures have been passed in a number of states and they just would require that women be informed of fetal development and alternatives to abortion prior to undergoing an abortion procedure. Did you say that that did pass? No, neither of those are law in Vermont. And how do you see that informed consent? How would that be structured and would it be a state agency that would put that in place? In other states where such legislation has been passed and gone into effect it is I believe a state health department that prepares some information that needs to be provided to women prior to an abortion. And how does that work Sharon? Or let's go back to the parental consent. So if you would take a case of a child who would be a high school student and would go to a school nurse would that be how the scenario would develop that the child would go to the school nurse and say that I'm pregnant and I don't want to tell my parents? No, it would take effect if the child actually sought an abortion. It would be the abortion facility's responsibility to make sure a parent had been notified. That's how it works in other states or that judicial bypass process had been undertaken. And it's very important. There are people who do express concerns and are rightly concerned about minors who are the victims of abuse perhaps at the hands of family members. But giving a minor a secret abortion and sending her back home back to that situation is not the solution to that. If you have parental notification, especially in this me too era where we see so many cases of abuse and so many people being taken advantage of, a parent would know what was going on with the child or in lieu of a parent a court would be involved or someone who is a little disconnected from the situation because an older man can take the younger girls in for the abortion and it really covers up a crime sometimes. Sharon, you did several testimonies before you presented a testimony before the Vermont House Human Services Committee on January 30th, 2019 concerning H57 and you talked about the born alive rule of so could you go into that more in detail about how that is impacted by the H57 probably going through now? Yes. One thing that's been very interesting in this process is H57 says that a woman has well a woman or man has the right to choose or refuse contraception or to choose or choose to carry a child to term. And this has been a point of contention in Vermont for a number of years because there have been several cases that have gone to court where a man has in one case kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach to cause an abortion and yet there's no legal remedy for that because in Vermont currently you have to be born alive in order to be the victim of a crime. And during the course of H57 there was testimony from Patricia Blair who was living in Bennington who was six months pregnant and was hit by a driver who was impaired on prescription drugs that were not prescribed to her. And both of her children died as a result of that crash. When you say both of her children... She was pregnant with twins and both of her unborn children were killed as a result of that crash. And in the media accounts of that accident they reported that there were no fatalities. And she said of all the things about that incident that just hurt her so much and she was very upset that the legislature would claim to be supporting the right of women to carry a pregnancy to term when they have refused over the years to protect women like her and her children who were killed by this impaired driver because she wanted her babies and wanted to carry them to term. But there was no legal consequences for causing their deaths. Are you saying in this tragic and horrible recounting of a historic story now that with H57 that if the same horrible thing happened that there would be a legal case for the on-born child to be considered a fatality? Under H57 there would be no fetal homicide provision. They could not be charged for killing the unborn child even in the case of a mother who very much wants her children to come to term. Some of your viewers may remember some years ago there was a case in California with the Peterson family. Lacey Peterson was pregnant. She was murdered by her husband and that spawned a national legislation to to create what they call an unborn victims of violence legislation so that there were penalties for ending the life of an unborn child. And all of those bills many states have them. They do specifically have to exclude abortion and the one that was proposed here in Vermont but was not passed did exclude abortion. But it kind of runs counter to the notion that we're trying to protect all choices and all women when you have H57 which really only protects abortion and abortion providers. So in H57 we don't have the right to carry an unborn child to to fruition. Well the law says you do but the reality is different. There's no penalty. There's no legal consequence. There's no recourse for a woman who experiences what Patricia Blair experienced. Again you make this the law says that but the reality is different. This is mind boggling. Well it is and one other point too about this this bill is there's a provision to it related to public entities that public entities may not interfere with access to abortion. It doesn't say that they can't interfere with access to other choices like childbirth or adoption. But all of our regulatory agencies that regulate the medical profession in the healthcare field they are public entities. So for a while there were claims that if someone wanted to come in and set up a late term abortion facility in Vermont that somehow there would be medical standards of practice that would be relied on and the medical practice board would be able to sanction someone's license. That can't happen under age 57 because the medical practice board is a public entity and the office of professional regulation which regulates nurses they're public entities. The healthcare board is a public entity. It also could impact schools and what information can be provided in schools. What books can be in the library because a public entity can't quote unquote interfere with access to abortion. But there are no definitions for some of these terms. So I think we also have some first amendment implications that we might be seeing down the road with this piece of legislation. And with first amendment issues then do you see lawsuits and that sort of thing going on? When you say would our schools have to abandon policies that ensure both sides of controversial issues are discussed. If that is the intent or result of age 57 our legal counsel has advised us it would be actionable. Well there are a lot of questions around that. My sons attend Spalding High School and they have a what they call a controversial issues policy which does say they will teach all sides of controversial issues. And there's a question of whether or not that will run a foul of age 57 once it becomes law. And we'll have to see how some of these issues play out. Age 57 gives individuals the right to sue the state. It would give abortion providers the right to sue the state if they are perceived to be interfering with the choice to have an abortion, the choice to perform abortions. So what those terms actually mean is very unclear. It's not clear in the bill and there is potential I believe for a lot of legal challenges. And also you have mentioned in your presentation to the Vermont House Human Services Committee in January 2018 you mentioned Dr. Lauren McAfee who stated that the University of Vermont Medical Center would offer elective abortions through 22 weeks, 6 days of pregnancy and abortions later in pregnancy with involvement of the ethics committee to be in line with colleagues in the neonatal intensive care unit who offer full resuscitation for neonates born at 23 weeks and beyond. So I'll just finish this statement here. McAfee noted that before 23 weeks outcomes are variable so resuscitation is offered in some but not all cases and you say I doubt a child born alive as a result of an abortion would be among those who would receive such care. So is this is the University of Vermont Hospital then a public entity? The hospital is not a public entity. A public entity refers to governmental organizations. It would be school districts, municipalities, boards, commissions, those types of organizations, governmental organizations. And going back to the hospital there was a lot of focus on how abortions are performed at the UVM Medical Center throughout this discussion but we have to remember they only perform about 100 of the 1300 abortions performed annually here in Vermont. They are not the typical abortion provider and there is nothing to prevent other practitioners from coming in to perform abortions under totally different standards and totally different guidelines. And it's interesting to note too that the practice of abortion is changing in Vermont. It used to be up until about a year and a half ago that the UVM Medical Center did not do elective abortions at all. Now they are doing them up to 23 weeks although they've come up with a new policy recently that says only to 22 weeks and before there were ethics consultations but now ethics opinions are just non-binding and advisory and the chief medical officer can make a decision about whether any abortion would proceed at the hospital. So this is a situation that is in flux and is constantly in flux here in Vermont and throughout the nation. When you say that the ethics advisor advice is non-binding is that a new development Sharon or is it something that has been historically in place? It is a new development. In September of 2017 the UVM Medical Center Board of Trustees eliminated its policy that said that the hospital would only perform quote unquote medically necessary abortions. They just rescinded that policy and up until the end of March of this year they had no written policy and I believe they only created a written policy because of all the discussion and debate and questions that came up during the discussion of age 57. So whether or not this is a new practice for them I don't know but now that they have a written policy it is very clear that the Ethics Committee cannot veto any proposed abortion that is not their decision. So you're talking then about a loss of power and all of this it is a power struggle is it not in the whole question of abortion is it power struggle about ideas and a real life which is the fetus the unborn baby and it is a power struggle that has become so politicized and you're right in the middle of it on the front lines of it. Yes and and it's it's sad you know I read an article the other day from a woman who was formerly pro-choice but she got really to thinking about the issue and what we have done with the abortion issue is we have put women at odds with their children we have said that women's success depends on their ability to end the life of their unborn child and I as a woman I just find that just an awful place you know women don't want abortions they don't want to have to make this choice it's more of an act of desperation as opposed to liberation and we've got to find better alternatives and Vermont Right to Life we we try to do that yes we do work to change the laws around abortion but we also work very hard to educate women about alternatives to abortion and about fetal development and new changes in adoption laws and to make sure that they have real alternatives I've met a lot of women who have had abortions through over the years and most all of them say they feel like they didn't have any other choice and that's really unfortunate because there are better choices than abortion. Thank you Sharon Tauberg public advocacy policy analyst for Vermont Right to Life committee for coming in and discussing this issue on the second episode of our our resistance to the the Vermont abortion law or the Vermont abortion bill which is will become law and the resistance will continue will it not yes yeah because as I said it's not just about changing the law it's about eliminating abortions it's about providing real alternatives and better alternatives so that no woman feels she has to choose an abortion. Thank you very much Sharon Tauberg for coming in and talking to us. Till next time viewers thank you for watching and thank Channel 17 Center for Media and Democracy.