 OK. Thank you very much. Donna. The old school here? Do you want to sit in my seat? Oh, sure. I don't feel like I'm on a bus. Oh, and just so that folks know, this is Orca, which is a local public access. And so you will all be, except for me, I think you're out. I had a sip, so I'm not. You will all be fine. And you are on tape. Great. Hello. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Donna Bailey, and I'm the director of the Addison County Parent Child Center. We at the Addison County Parent Child Center and within the Parent Child Center network work with young families to help them get off to the right start and to connect them with the Marietta Services, starting with prevention. In Addison, we work on primary prevention, pregnancy prevention with individuals and in groups through our local high schools. And community programs and in homes. We use research-based curriculum and trained staff, and RN, and other home visitors, such as social workers and others, to help young women and men get the information they need to get to their medical provider in order to stay healthy. The prevention of STDs and STIs and pregnancy, as well as promoting healthy relationships, is at the core of our work in prevention. The work of parent child centers are most known for intervention work with young families in need. We work with teen parents and young parents to help them complete school and move into adulthood with the skills and support necessary to be successful. Thank you. We work with, excuse me, families living in poverty, families with substance issues, and families living in a cycle of violence and neglect. We advocate for and help young parents build a network of support in order, again, to build a healthy family. Many of our families that we work with intensively have DCF involvement or fear of the arrival of DCF family services in their lives. All parent child centers have a holistic approach to working with youth and young families, and that allows us to meet people where they are and have a relationship in which support without judgment can occur. We can help people find a medical home and treatment, housing, a dentist, get a high school diploma, childcare, transportation, and financial support. At Addison County Parent Child Center, we provide an alternative high school program in which parents and prevention students, those without a child, are together and are influencing each other in positive ways, which include preventing either first or second pregnancies. The work of prevention is critical, and yet is the least funded. All parent child centers do prevention work every day. Before I talk about some of, before I go on in my testimony, I'd like to read a letter that was written by one of our participants in my program. It's unedited, she wasn't able to come today through the timing of transportation, but I did want to read it into the record. I think it's also on your iPads as I sent it in earlier. When I was 14, I had an abortion. I did it without my parents because I was scared of what they would think. I was doing drugs and drinking every day. I knew I was not anywhere close to ready to raise a baby. I couldn't even take care of myself. People always say there's another option, but not another option for me. I could have carried the baby and gave it up for adoption, but that still meant nine months growing in me, nine months of an unhealthy pregnancy and most likely a very unhealthy child. I didn't want to, I really didn't. But something in me told me this was my only option. I knew I didn't want to stop partying. I knew I didn't want to stop the drugs. I knew I couldn't happily grow a baby. I think about this all the time, especially being a mother now. I'm 18 years old with a very handsome, 17 month old boy named Reese. I think about what will happen if the right for women to get abortions is taken away. I worry for all the unwanted children brought into this world because of not having a choice. Just because you have a child does not make you a mother. And when you take the choice away, it's the children that are blamed and grow up feeling unloved. It makes an impact for their whole life. Growing up thinking it's okay to take out your anger, stress, hatred and unhappiness on your child is not okay and never will be. No one working a minimum wage job can support themselves and a child. State's assistance helps families who can't afford to care for their children. People also complain about paying for other people's children, kids, but you are trying to take away the choice about having someone having kids. Even if they know they can't afford to do it on their own, living an unhappy life and raising an unhappy child is not okay. Taking the choice away from a woman to reproduce is not okay. A participant of the Addison County Parent Child Center, Bryden Alger. Having the option to safe and legal abortion is an important piece of women's health. We cannot erode the work we have done on promoting healthcare and self-care of a woman in the area of reproduction. While abortion rates are low and dropping, we need to ensure that women are able to make the best choice possible for themselves and that they know when they are ready to have a baby. Vermont's highest abortion rates are for mothers in their 20s, as is the case across the United States. On the other hand, abortions amongst adolescents aged 15 to 19 are relatively low, both in Vermont, 10.2% and nationwide, 9.8%. Hey, all right. There are hyperlinks to the more data as you're listening in your report. You don't need to do it now, but there's, so this is from the new report from the CDC and prevention says that there were 1,265 abortions performed in Vermont in 2015, the latest year for which the agency compiled such data. The CDC report says that between 2016 and 2015, the adolescent abortion rate decreased by 54% nationally. The decrease in abortion rates was greater than the decrease for women in any older age group. I wanna give a shout out to the parent child centers here as we do a lot of prevention work on that issue and to birth control options that are more effective than ever before. So that gave Vermont a rate of 10.9 abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 down from 13 in 2006. Federal documents also show the number of abortions in Vermont fell 21% in the decade from 2006 to 2015 and nationally dropped 24%. There were 1,781 abortions performed in Vermont in 2000 and 3,184 in 1990, a year in which there were 1.43 million abortions nationwide. Vermont matches up fairly well with the national data on weeks of gestation of the time when abortion is performed. Federal statistics say that nearly 72% of Vermont abortions happened at eight weeks or earlier and another 24 happened between nine and 13 weeks. Nationally, there's been a shift towards earlier abortions and the CDC says the number of abortions performed at more than 13 weeks has remained consistently low. Some of that data came from Vermont Digger. The effort to lower teen pregnancies are working in this state and in fact throughout the nation. Pregnancy prevention has been aided by the promotion and use of larks, long acting reversible contraceptives. Thank you to this committee in the state house for your work on that issue. It's making a real difference. The option of abortion for unwanted pregnancies is critical for the life trajectory of a young woman and for the importance of having a wanted child. As women, we carry our future. It is essential that we be empowered to move forward with the freedom of choice. A large proportion of induced abortions worldwide are due to unwanted or missed time pregnancies. Unintended pregnancies result in about 42 million induced abortions per year worldwide. In the U.S., over 92% of abortions are the result of unintended pregnancies. It's costly to have babies, okay? Nationally, these are national statistics but I think it's important here too to see that 51% of all U.S. births in 2010 were paid for by public insurance through Medicaid. So this is a cost to our society, to our funds in government and yet it is critically important for health. So public insurance program paid 68% of the 1.5 unplanned births. And sorry, I'm braiding through here. In the absence of the public cost of unintended pregnancies in 2010 may have been 75% higher. Have we not been doing the work we are doing? The total gross potential savings from averting all unintended pregnancies in 2010 would have been $15.5 billion. This is less than the total public cost of all unintended pregnancies because even if all women had not been able to time their pregnancies as they wanted, some of the resulting births still would have not been publicly funded. These potential savings do not account for the public investment and family planning services and the other interventions that may be required to achieve. Any woman not being, not able to access a safe abortion would find herself in an unhealthy living situation. Either her own health may be at risk or the fetus and then the born child could be at risk. We know that abuse and neglect rates have risen in Vermont due to substances and poverty, the lack of housing, food, adequate healthcare, transportation, et cetera, are stressors and families that can lead to abuse and neglect. It is important that children in these situations are all wanted children. This makes them safer. The following data, I'm not gonna read all of this. Again, you have it, you have it in your iPads. But I think what's critically important here is to make sure that children are wanted children when we're looking at an increase of abuse and neglect with the children that exist. And so just to highlight a couple of points, in 2015 there were 921 victims of abuse or neglect in Vermont. At a rate of 7.7 per thousand in children an increase of 13.3% from 2014. 47.9 were physically abused, 51.5 were sexually abused. Again, the number of children living apart from their families and out of home care has increased 31.9% in comparison to the number of children in out of home care in 2011. I think the other thing to highlight and I understand this committee worked on to get about reach up this morning. The other piece of this puzzle is the cost of TANF and what that can cost us in our society. And I think it's important to look at the data around child poverty and income support. The insecurity of income, having enough income, housing, food, transportation and the lack of quality child care in this state all make the decision of having a child an important decision for the individual parents involved. And again, it adds to the stress of being a parent and those of us who are parents know that it's not easy in the best of times. So I think again, all of these issues of lack of affordable child care, housing and fairly paid jobs are a stress. Legal and safe abortion is a critical option to protect public health. It is critical to the health and well-being of families and to lessen the strain on social services. I am proud to live in Vermont and to work to help promote the healthy place for children and families to grow. A woman's self-determination and reproductive health is at the root of this. Thank you for legally supporting a woman's right to choose and being part of a healthy Vermont. Can you tell me what in federal legislation are any Vermont law that takes away a woman's right to choose? No, I know that it's protected to keep a woman's right to choose is our law, the federal law. So your answer is, you know of nothing in federal estate law that takes away a woman's right to choose. I understand that according to our constitution and the decision from the Supreme Court is that it is a woman's right to choose. Can you tell me what the necessity of this legislation that we're talking about today is? I think the importance is to protect women and children and especially to make sure that the children we have are planned and that women's health and that women are able to make decisions for themselves and protected and funded. Is there anything that in law today in the law that says that's not possible? What do you just say? That's probably a bigger question than I can answer because of legal decisions. And Topper, Brandon will be speaking to us as the legislative council around Vermont law when we finish with today's witnesses. I had a question about why is there such a large emphasis on not allowing parents the right to give permission for an abortion for an underage child? I've heard different explanations but it's a concern to many of us that parents do not have the right to make such an important decision or to be part of the important decision. Or grant parents as the case may be. Yeah, or a court system. Or a court system? Or no, you're not. I'm wondering about parents or particular grandparents that are the guardian or whatever. So according to the law, a woman 12 years or older has the right to her own decisions around reproduction not including parental consent, correct? Also, I can't say anything. Well, a grand probably can answer that. Yeah, I don't wanna speak incorrectly but that's the practice and the law in Vermont. And while I think it takes many people back to think of a 12 year old making those kinds of critical decisions, I think it's also critically important to think about young girls in this situation who might be pregnant, again, not by choice, but through either actions of abuse, which in fact legally is sexual abuse because they're under the age of consent. So that may be from someone in their family which may make it unsafe for a child, a young woman to tell their parents and include their parents in a decision. It may also be through assault. And it, for other reasons, I think it's a safety issue to me more than anything. So following representative Rosalind's question, what is your views on court appointed guardians or counselors, whatever you wanna call them for that decision? So you can't go to a parent. That's true, there's the cases you can't. But what about involving other adults through the court system which a lot of states already provide for them? Well, I think that would add to, I mean, there's other issues within that I think because a young woman or a girl may be making a decision that's not part of a legal system. They're making a decision with a medical provider. Well, the reason I asked, I mean, under 18, you're not able to contract and make decisions. So I just, normally there's some provision for adults to be involved in some way. So I'm just curious what your opinion was. So that's all I wanted to know. Yeah, my opinion is that that's something that the medical provider should work with the person on. Sure, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. I wish they'd give a copy too. I'll probably send everybody, it's normal, but for now. Give me that copy. So, I mean, this is fine, you don't, I'm sorry. Those of you are very typical people, at the end of the table, we don't have something to do. Yeah, I'm sorry, I had 24 hours but I barely got it done. Yeah, I'm not from my family. We want us all to be looking at something for what we need to be looking for. Okay, sorry for this question. Well, good afternoon. And thank you for the opportunity to come before you and testify in opposition to age 57 and act relating to the preserving the right to abortion. I oppose the legalization of abortion in general, but I am sharing my perspective as a mother of a child with Down syndrome. I'm the mother of two daughters. The younger one named Sadie is the one with Down syndrome and she's now 20, and she's a special young lady and the joy of our lives, and here's her picture from high school, just keep this here to keep me calm. I know that those of you on the committee here care about social justice and care about vulnerable individuals such as those with disabilities and I'm sure that's why you serve not only in the legislature, but in other organizations and to improve the lives of her mentors. So I wanna share with you today the devastating effect that legalized abortion, the very procedure that the house is aiming to preserve by this proposed legislation, is having on the population of Down syndrome. I'm sorry, I did a little cut here and I forgot to add a little information, but Dr. Scaco, he's from Massachusetts General Hospital, conducted a study with some others that estimated at about one third of the population of individuals with Down syndrome in the US has been lost to abortion. In that study, they referred to an earlier study that estimates that the rate of abortion of babies with Down syndrome is about 67% in the United States for those who are diagnosed prenatally. The rate varies among geographic areas and demographic groups. Geographically, the Northeast and Hawaii have the highest rates and I would expect that Vermont would be included in that higher rate. I don't know that for sure, but that's my suspicion. And I hope I'm wrong. In Europe, the rates are even higher and France, the abortion rate for babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome is 77% and the UK 90%, Denmark 98%. In Iceland, an unbelievable 100% of babies who are diagnosed with prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted. Now, there may be a few here and there that are born because maybe the test was inaccurate or maybe the mother chose not to undergo testing, but in those two countries that are high, Denmark and Iceland, about, well, 80 to 85% of women in Iceland and 90% in Denmark do get tested. So they essentially are catching most of the babies that are conceived with Down syndrome in these countries and there are not many who escape the net. In 2017, CBS News on assignment produced a show that investigated the eradication of babies with Down syndrome in Iceland. This is an issue that has grabbed international attention. It's not just pro-lifers or parents of children with Down syndrome, this has captured attention all around the world. When abortion is allowed for any reason with no restrictions, it's also allowed for discriminatory reasons, such as having, such as eradicating babies with Down syndrome. Of course, in order to abort based on disability, the disability must be detected. This is why prenatal testing was developed. And if I'm not mistaken, the primary reason for the development of amniocentesis was primarily to detect Down syndrome specifically. Prenatal testing is routinely performed on pregnant mothers to detect whether their babies have Down syndrome as well as other genetic conditions. But in general, the focus is Down syndrome. Without going into too much detail, I would just say that advances in non-invasive prenatal tests, or NIPs, along with the current policy recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that all pregnant mothers be offered prenatal testing. Previously, it was only offered to older mothers where the risk was higher. Has led to many more babies with Down syndrome being detected in the womb than ever before. Statistics tell us that when they are detected, almost three quarters of them will be aborted, at least in the United States. All of this new non-invasive testing alone, I haven't mentioned it too much, but there is this, since 2011, new tests have been introduced that are accurate and can be done early in pregnancy and are non-invasive, they're just a maternal blood test. Is completely harmless to babies with Down syndrome. Testing merely gives us information. It is the legality of abortion that is threatening their lives and drastically reducing the Down syndrome population around the world. This routine practice of screening for babies with Down syndrome so they can be aborted is nothing short of discrimination. For a state that prides itself on respect, tolerance, and equality, it is unconscionable that we allow this. The situation is so alarming that there is a trend for other states, North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, and Louisiana so far, to enact bans on abording babies specifically for the reason of having Down syndrome or other disabilities or for the sex of the baby, if it's not the right desired sex. Other states such as Pennsylvania and Utah have considered bills, though those bills were ultimately not passed into law. All but the North Dakota law have been challenged in court. Indiana's law prohibits a baby from being aborted solely based on, quote, race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis, or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability. It was challenged by Planned Parenthood and was subsequently blocked by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Indiana's Attorney General has petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the state's 2016 law. This review has been relisted to this coming Friday as I understand it. This law that seeks to ban the discrimination practice of abording babies based on the disability or the wrong sex, might very well go to the US Supreme Court. So while other states are trending toward protecting unborn babies with disabilities and babies of undesired sex, this state seems to be moving backwards by preserving in law no restrictions whatsoever. In the late 1950s, a renowned French researcher and physician, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, discovered that an extra 21st chromosome is what caused Down syndrome. He was horrified when the medical field used his discovery to detect unborn babies with Down syndrome so that they could be aborted. His goal was to find the cause so that he could find the cure. He saw how badly mistreated they were in France and they were his patients. And he dedicated his whole life to trying to find a cure. Just a few decades ago, when parents were told their newborns had Down syndrome, they were advised to put them in institutions to forget they were born. I'm old enough to remember Geraldo Rivera's investigative expose on ABC Eyewitness News early in the 1970s on the Willowbrook Institution on Staten Island, New York. Though I was only about 12, that report disturbed me greatly. It had a, I just, I still remember the impact it had on me. Fortunately, circumstances were beginning to improve around that time for newborn babies with Down syndrome. It became acceptable for parents to keep their babies to be raised at home. So just when things were looking up for this special population of people, along comes prenatal testing and legal abortion to again ruin their lives or rather take them. There has never been a better time in the history of the world for a baby with Down syndrome to be born, more understanding and awareness of the genetic condition, more advanced medical technology to treat health issues, more inclusive education, more understanding about the potential, and so much more. But because of legalized abortion, almost three quarters of those prenatally diagnosed don't get the chance in life that is rightfully theirs. I believe that future generations of Americans are going to look back on these decades and wonder how we ever allow this to happen. Just as we look back now and wonder how we could have tolerated set slavery and right here in our own state, how we could have instituted involuntary sterilizations. If this legislature patches this legislation, I believe you will be on the wrong side of history. Rather than advances, rather than advances legislation, I would request that instead you introduce legislation like Indiana's that would support the prenatal discrimination of babies with Down syndrome in the womb. I'd like to end with a quote from Dr. Jerome LaJune. The quality of a civilization can be measured by the respected hasp for its weakest members. There is no other criterion. Thank you very much for your time. And I urge you not to further the, not to further protect the right to abortions. Thank you very much. Thank you for the question. Thank you for the question. Thank you. Are there questions? Yes. Just, much of what you said sounds like the time of eugenics in our country where different groups of people and all were basically, we tried to eradicate them because they considered genetically inferior. And in a way, this is a continuation of that practice and what it sounds like to me. You've made a very compelling case. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And if you are willing to keep that in case and it would be helpful if we could post it. Yes. I will send a soft copy to, I have the information where to send that, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I can realize I was gonna have to run it up. I'm sorry. Sorry. See. Welcome to the community, right? Welcome to the American Mutual Society. You know, right? We get good experience of sucking in. I guess so. Some of us don't have to, just for that. First of all, I learned a little much. That was cool, that was getting good, that was cool. First of all, let me say that I just heard about this yesterday afternoon and I wish I had more time to provide data and research. I'm gonna share with you more props on an emotional basis. People who know me know that I'm brutally honest, so that's what you're gonna hear. Hopefully it will pick your consciences, okay? My name is Ken Hopner. I live in Jeffersonville. I'm the father of three children. Five grandchildren and three great grandchildren. And at the age of 17, I had my first encounter with sex which resulted in a pregnancy. We were married in March of 1960 and it was the right thing to do to accept responsibility for my actions. By the time we were 23, we were blessed with a total of three beautiful children. The last one was born in 1967 before a role versus way. Since 1973, there have been more than 58 million abortions performed in the United States. Now I'd like you to follow a train of thought where you're considering age 57 and let me ask you a few questions. Is it right to commit murder? You will probably answer no. Is it right for a woman to murder her husband? Only if you have multiple wives, maybe you'd say yes. But on the other hand, is it truly right for a woman to murder her husband? Is it right for a woman to murder her children? And you will definitely answer no. How about a baby in the womb? Now let's consider this. If I change the word baby to fetus it dehumanizes the infant. If I change the word murder to abortion, it changes the meaning of the procedure. It softens the transaction. And it probably is the grossest rationalization that mankind has ever fostered. Do you believe that 58 million abortions will perform for the sake of planning parenthood? Or is it the motivation to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? And I believe that government has a responsibility to set a standard of conduct. Is it unreasonable to expect the population should accept responsibility for its actions? Or should we change the laws to accommodate the lack of such a demeanor? As I look around the room and look at your faces, consider that someone looked upon you as a baby and not as a fetus. And that's why you're here. Thank you for listening. Here are questions. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Burkett, I think we've came in just in time. No. For a while, I'll break. Thank you, dear. With the notes. But good afternoon, Chair Peerperson Heaphew and Vice Chair Haas and ranking member McFawn and all members of the committee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you all about in support of the bill H57. My name is Donna Burkett. I'm the medical director of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. I'm a family physician and I've been practicing medicine for over 20 years. I've been medical director of PPN&E for over five years now. And prior to that, I was the medical director of a Southeastern affiliate, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that of course states in the Southeast. I know many of you know much about Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, so I'm not going to go into the details of what I've written in my written testimony in order to give you, to give us more time for questions. But my goal here is to sort of fill in the holes for you, answer questions about abortion care specifically in Vermont, as well as in the United States, so that you can confidently pass this bill. So to help you understand some of the subtleties of abortion care as it exists right now in Vermont, I'd like to walk you through what abortion is like for our patients, the complexity of the care and the safety of the care. In Vermont, 6% of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England's patients seek abortion care. Out of 19,000 patients, we provide abortion care to about 1, 100 of them a year. About a third of these are surgical abortions or as we like to call them in clinic abortions because that seems a safer and more explanatory term for our patients. And two thirds are abortion by pill or medication abortion as it's also called. The percentage of medication abortions that we do have been increasing for many years now, likely due to early pregnancy diagnosis or discovery of the pregnancy by the patient and therefore easier quicker access to care earlier in the pregnancy. And also because we have the medication by abortion is more available to patients where they live. It's available at more health centers, more days of the week, more hours of the day. In addition, you should also know that most abortion, whether by pill or in clinic abortion, happens very early in a pregnancy within six to eight weeks of conception. When a woman finds out she's pregnant unexpectedly, she has to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or end it. Sometimes a woman is very clear, very quickly in her decision and others need more time than that to decide. Women consider the opinions of their partner, their loved ones, they consider fear of the procedure itself, their financial resources and their own physical and mental wellbeing and much, much more besides. Every person is different. Every pregnancy is different. There's a few things that remain consistent though. For every patient, abortion is a deeply personal medical decision and it's a decision that they make after careful thought. Once she's decided to end a pregnancy, a woman must consider how to end it. If her decision is made before 10 weeks of pregnancy, she chooses between abortion by pill and in clinic abortion. In all cases, the pregnancy must be dated in some manner to best understand the safest methods for her. This may be done by understanding a patient's last menstrual period or dates of sexual encounters or by ultrasound. Pregnancy dating is a great example of how legislative restrictions can be problematic for patient care. Many states are legislating how ultrasounds must be done before abortions. Meanwhile, there's a mounting body of scientific evidence that ultrasounds are unnecessary prior to some abortions. A good medical history can often suffice, however. As a medical director in North Carolina, I had to develop protocols in response to a law requiring certain consent and ultrasound procedures as one particular example of how this can play out. In my experience, though, science as slow as it can be usually changes faster than legislation, policy, and procedure. So there are examples like this that abound throughout abortion care. If a patient chooses medication abortion, she must make that appointment in a specific timeframe. Indeed, this is true of each type of abortion. And this timeframe is also one that changes with scientific evidence. An example of that is that we keep, with additional evidence, we are able to push up the number of, the gestational age for medication abortion or abortion by pill. So just recently, in the last couple of years, we increased that from nine to 10 weeks alone. And there's further evidence that it can be increased to 11 weeks, though we haven't done that yet. At her visit, a thorough, at a patient's visit, a thorough history is taken and lab tests are done as well as an ultrasound when needed, allowing us to understand whether she has medical conditions that would make the process unsafe for her or for her future pregnancies. She's thoroughly counseled on the process of abortion by pill and given plenty of opportunities for questions. When ready to proceed, our compassionate provider administers, dispenses or prescribes the set of medications she will need to complete the abortion successfully. She's given a follow-up appointment to assure that everything has gone well and phone numbers to reach our own call staff should she have difficulties. Only about 1% of patients have complications that require additional care with this procedure. Usually, the additional care occurs in the form of additional medications or sometimes an in-clinic abortion procedure. So if she chooses from the start an in-clinic abortion which is also called suction curatage or you may have heard an older term DNC or dilation and curatage, she goes through the exact same medical screening to assure her safety. If she's choosing to be sedated, there's additional screening for this portion of the process. She's counseled just as thoroughly and referred to an outside provider if she falls outside our scope of practice because of her medical conditions. If she's, she is given medications to help her through the procedure in various ways and an antibiotic to prevent infection that could be caused by the procedure. And then an experienced provider completes the suction curatage in a standard manner in a setting appropriate for such care with staff ready to support where needed. The same staff provides sedating medications and monitoring of the patient during recovery which usually lasts only 15 minutes or so. In fact, the care is so routine and smooth usually that many patients comment to us, that was it, that was all. And our safety figures similar to those across all abortion providers show complication rates also around 1%. And these complications are usually dealt with by using medication or watchful waiting rarely an additional suction procedure. If a patient is beyond the first trimester, her options change depending on the gestational age. So medication abortion is no longer an option because of the risk of bleeding outside a hospital setting. At PPN&E, we use two procedures, very similar to the suction curatage method that are also very safe and have similar rates of complications. If you look at a very large number of patients receiving these procedures, the complication rates go up by gestational age, but they never reach that rate of complications that's inherent to carrying a pregnancy term. Our safety processes are similar to those in the first trimester, and we are more likely to refer to our hospital-based colleagues for care because there's more often need for closer monitoring during the procedure. So I'm proud to report to you that the safety of abortion care in Vermont is excellent. And part of that is because of the lack of restrictions. Patients are able to access care early and safely, and that's because of the lack of restrictions. I'd also like to say a word about abortion at gestational ages that are later than what we offer at PPN&E. I am so grateful to be working in a place where these options are available to patients because of the varied reasons a woman may need to access them because of serious risks to her health, severe fetal abnormalities, and a host of additional factors that affect the decision a woman makes with her provider, usually involving her family and often involving counselors and religious leaders. These are the kinds of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available. I'd like to share with you a couple of cases from my past related to this. Vermont is a small state, so I hesitate to share recent examples. So I would like to talk about two minors who received care for me in the setting of a family practice. I was not the abortion provider in either case, but both were cases that I referred for later gestational care. One was a case of a young Latina girl who was 13, 12 or 13 maybe. I'm not sure that she knew what sex was. She came to me after having presented to the emergency room, and I'm sorry, this case still, 20 years later, literally gets me broken up. She'd presented to the emergency room before because of nausea and vomiting, and she was treated with anti-acids. No one thought to check a pregnancy test at that point in her care. Many weeks later, that got better. Many weeks later, she came to me with a growing mass in her abdomen. She was brought to the health center where I was working by her father. I asked the father to leave the room, as I do with every adolescent patient that I see, and I felt her abdomen, and I discovered a 20-week, gravate uterus very easily upon exam, and was able to get a quick pregnancy test and understand that, yes, that wasn't just any old mass, that was a mass that you would expect to see at about 20 weeks of pregnancy. And so my counseling of her had to start with what sex was, she didn't know. Nor could she even acknowledge to me that she had had sexual intercourse in her life. That's the kind of complex case that gets referred for termination. That's a very young patient with a very immature body at that point in her life who needed a late-term abortion. I don't think that that was the outcome in the case. I referred it to social services, and she ended up not coming back to me for care, so I don't know the outcome. Another case was very similar, but in this case was a young teen who was brought to me by a mother whose father had been pregnant, and she too was very far along in the gestational range. In that case, I did refer her to a provider in another state who provided these services. So I think those are both very illustrative of later gestational cases. They are rare, very rare, blessedly so. I appreciate the work that this legislating body has done on adverse childhood events, and I think because of the work you've done on that, I think you have a nice appreciation for the complexity of things that can lead to later-term abortions, and that's fully within the realm of what I would expect with the exception of the fetal abnormalities and maternal medical conditions that these things fall into. So since we're just talking about minors, I do wanna finally just ask that you keep our legislation free of restrictions on minors' ability to access these services, these two cases, I think are equally illustrative in the same regard. And the teens to whom I've provided care for for abortion, they usually come with an adult, and oftentimes that is a parent. And if they don't, they're often with a boyfriend, but they tell me that they have already involved their parents. New Hampshire in several states in which I served as medical director in the South parental notification or consent laws, left minors in a position of having to go through a judicial bypass process when they knew that abortion was the right choice for them, further delaying their care, and the point at which they could access these services, thus increasing, although mildly, the risk, but also the length of the procedure and many other things besides the cost. So in summary, I applaud the introduction of this bill. On behalf of my patients, I hope that you will agree with me that we must keep abortion legal safe and free from restrictions. And I'd like to thank your leadership, especially the leadership of this committee, and Pew particular for being the lead sponsor of this bill. And respectfully ask that you ensure the reproductive rights are predicted here in Vermont. I want to be available to you for questions, starting now, but even after I leave this room. I guess I would ask Topper's question, okay. Again, is there anything in this? Why do you think this bill is necessary because women have the right to abortion at the present time? Without restriction. Without restriction, right. I think this is necessary because of what is going on at our national level and protecting the rights of women in this state is very important as a statement on the national level and in the event that we were to lose the protection of the road. Thank you. I guess I'd follow up on that. So let's say we agree that something's gonna happen at a national level, which most of the literature on the three judges that are in question say that they won't overturn the rule. But in Vermont, the way it is in Vermont right now, it would still be perfectly legal, 100%. So under that context, why do you think we need to codify? Is there a particular reason beyond it? Because it is already legal and will remain legal no matter what the federal government does. So that's gonna be my question. Yeah. I think having legislation that protects it very specifically is important because there's less room for ambiguity on the part of women seeking the procedure. I think there is clarity on the part of providers that feel better protected in that situation rather than something just having been stricken off the books. I think it's a better space to be in. When surrounding states or other parts of this country, this may well be a criminalized procedure to make it crystal clear that it is not here and that it is considered a normal part of medical care in this state. It will go a long way to protecting this safety care that we have here. Thank you for your answer. Yeah. Yes, Carl. Well, there are other things that are criminal at the federal level, which the state still says that they want to make legal, like marijuana, for instance, okay, it's illegal at the federal level. So just because the federal government says something doesn't mean that the state sometimes adheres to what the federal government says or does. So, again, I find it very troubling that we think we need to do something in case something happens instead of taking a proactive stance at that time with the people that will sit in our chairs at that time who knows what the future holds. And, you know, the concerns we were trying to make a decision about something we don't know will even happen. And secondly, that we're making it for future people that we don't know who they're gonna be, that should be the ones making that decision if they wanna codify in more detail the right women currently have in the state of Vermont. And just like James said, if the Roe versus Wade was, let's say, overturned to the extent that they turned things back to the states, which is most likely will happen, that they, we already have the law in place that says it is legal in the state of Vermont. So I have a hard time really understanding what was legal in the law. Carl and Bryn will, you can ask Bryn these questions. We have an absence of any law both giving it as a right or putting limitations on. So I just wanna be, you're still older. All right. So I think that, you know, I'd love to address that question if I may from the point of view of a physician. And I'll use the marijuana example as a segue into it. I, for one, struggle with medical marijuana as a set of laws in the state because I feel that there's not a whole lot of medical evidence for marijuana and I wanna get into all of that. But like I worry about my own license in this setting where there's, it's illegal at the federal level and therefore I'm cautious about that as a provider. Fortunately, I'm not in a situation as medical director at Planned Parenthood where I need to be, where I'm asked to prescribe marijuana. But if I were, that's a road I would walk down extremely cautiously. And so I think that, you know, if you think about a potential future state where you've got a federal criminality or even next door neighboring state criminality, jump three states over, physicians are very cautious people. And the route to their livelihood is through their license. And the thought that they could lose their license by providing a certain type of care is very threatening. And so I think for that reason alone, it's worthwhile. So that's my two cents about that. I'm a doctor. I can't resist it. I'm trying to clarify something for Carl. Around medical marijuana, Vermont law does not have you prescribing it. It has you attesting to a condition. Thank you, thank you. It may be a, for you, it may mean the same thing. But we have been very clear in trying to walk that line and respecting the fact that it is not a prescription, but rather an affirmation that yes, person X, you have these conditions. And I mean, I just wanted, I think doctors follow over the map with regard to this in terms of their, Yeah, no, I don't too. I just wanted to, if I was correcting Carl, I would. To correct a lot, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm tougher than Carl. Thanks for coming in, Dr. Could you describe for me the kind of counseling individual gets at Planned Parenthood when they present as being pregnant? Yes. Somebody presents as being pregnant and not specifically for abortion services. We provide a service that we call auctions counseling, where we talk to patients about their options to continue or not to continue the pregnancy. And then if they choose to continue the pregnancy, the option to parent or not to parent. And so our staff are trained in doing that in a very compassionate, non-judgmental way and a non-guiding way. The pay, it needs to be the patient's decision and not related to the staff bias on the matter, right? So that's what they receive. If they come to us having already decided to obtain an abortion, sometimes they might have gone through that counseling with us. But if they schedule, they receive a briefer bit of counseling about that, just to assure that they have considered those options. But remember that they're in a different. Come in with that presentation. How many people choose to continue the pregnancy and how many people? That's a good question. No, our data is not great enough to fully capture that. I know that we do more auctions counseling and pregnancy tests together as a whole than we do abortions. And surely there's people doing pregnancy tests at home alone and then going through their process and then scheduling with us. And this is the first time we've seen them for an abortion. We wouldn't necessarily have seen them prior to that for a pregnancy test. So the data is a little confusing. They might go somewhere else for an abortion. For an abortion, they might go somewhere else for pregnancy testing, either one. So how does this, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, do you want to? How does this fit then with your statement that 6% of all your services are abortions? Yeah, so we see patients for many services. We see them for contraception. We see them for well-person visits. We see folks for STI testing. Pregnancy tests is one of the services that we do and much, much more besides. So that list that's there in your notes is the list of services that we provide and abortion services are a very small percentage of that. Does that answer the question? It does, but there's a concern that maybe if you talk about abortion being an option, that that will be a choice as opposed to not presented as an option. That's not our experience. We present it as an option all the time and many people choose to continue their pregnancy. Everybody's different and every pregnancy is different. Certainly more women choose to continue their pregnancy than to abort it. In the questions you may ask about in counseling, is one of them, why do you want to terminate? Or if they want an abortion, why do they want to terminate? Or is that not a question? We allow time for the patient to talk but we do not pressure her as to why. And oftentimes the reasons come out in that setting. There's a follow-up to what Eileen was talking about is the fact that there could be what people worry about would there be some leading questions to this baby maybe Down syndrome affected, if you will. And for that reason, would you want to terminate the pregnancy versus, how should I say it, would you encourage somebody to have an abortion for those reasons? No. In your counseling? No, absolutely not. So what about if the woman says it's a black baby and I don't want a black baby? Absolutely not. Okay. How about sex? That's not the right sex. Absolutely not. You wouldn't counsel them about it but you wouldn't advise them that's not a good reason for terminating a pregnancy. No, we don't have those kinds of reasons come up in a matter of that. Because it's an absolute right. Is that correct? It's an absolute right in the state now. In other words, you couldn't, even if you objected to the reason they wanted to, you couldn't object to it. Regardless of the reason, we honor a patient's right. Right, that's what I'm saying. Okay. But there are some states that would ask. If a patient is ambivalent about it, if she seems on the fence, oftentimes we refer her for counseling and that's a setting in which somebody can get into more of those ethical nuances, if you will, that may be based on the patient's values. And that's a setting where that might come up. But in our setting, we honor the patient's decision. I'll follow it because I've asked this before. But somebody who knows as much as you do about this situation, if there was every time where a compromise was proposed, that abortion, a right for a woman to have an abortion would protect that right up through age of viability, like 22, 24 weeks. And beyond that, it would have to be a medical necessity to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, an abortion. Would you even consider something like that? Can you say it, I'm sorry. Well, as they say, this issue on abortion has been with us for 15, 60 years. Okay, maybe it's gonna be for this another 50 or 60. I would say it's gonna be with us since you mentioned it. Sometimes you say, I mean, spirit of legislation is compromised, okay? And to come to some reasonable compromise, it wouldn't satisfy the absolute right to lifters, obviously, and the other would not satisfy people that believe they should have an absolute right through the whole pregnancy. I'm just saying, is there any room to say is a compromise possible in your opinion? Meaning, abortion would be absolute right up through age of viability, whatever that is. Right now, it's 22 to 24 weeks approximately. And beyond that, it would not be an absolute right, but based on medical necessity for the health of the woman. So I'll leave the compromising positions to the purview of the legislators. What I would like to say is just to reiterate my position on my gratefulness that we have the ability to refer patients for those very rare cases that come up at later justations. And these are not cases that one takes lightly, no matter when one likes it to them. I don't think that there is a provider out there providing care at these gestational ages that is not compassionate, patient-centered, high moral value care. And that's what I want the committee to know is you contemplate your decision. That's what I'd like the committee to know is you contemplate your decision. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Appreciate you. So, us or no? No, I don't have anything to show you. I'm glad to sit down and speak with you. Yeah, it was a technical question. Do we need to use our technology? No, you don't. Right, yeah, that was all, that was all. Thank you, committee. I had asked Brin to come back. A friar witness yesterday had brought up some questions. Guy Page had brought up some questions. And again, we continue to have questions about what is the legal context and is abortion a right in Vermont and all sorts of things like that. So, take it away, Brin. Okay, nice to see you again, committee, for the record, Brin here from Legislative Council. So, I am prepared to answer some of the questions that came up in testimony yesterday from Mr. Page. I believe that he submitted a document to you with five questions that he presented to the committee. So, I'll just go through those and tell you what my opinion is about those questions. So, the first was, would legislative, judicial, or administrative action requiring parental notification be prohibited if the H57 were to pass? And I just want to remind the committee that what the bill does is it prohibits public entities, that definition of public entities from depriving a consenting individual of her choice to carry out or terminate her pregnancy and also prohibits public entities from interfering with or restricting the choice of the consenting individual to terminate or carry out the pregnancy. So, as you may know, the General Assembly is granted the Supreme Legislative Authority under the Vermont Constitution, Chapter Two, Section Two. And that power includes preparing bills and enacting limited laws. So, there's nothing to prevent a future legislature from notwithstanding the provisions in H57 and requiring parental notification or to nothing prevent the legislator from asking for a bill that would require parental notification. The real nature of legislative action is that subsequent governments are free to revisit the policy decisions they make. So, Carl. Even though we are a public institution, as the legislature, that's what I wanted to clarify. I mean, in other words, said any public institution and I thought we as the legislature were considered a public institution. You are. But we're a problem beyond a public institution. But you have a constitutional authority. Okay. All right. Thank you. In the event that a judge would require parental notification, I think that we would likely have a bigger problem on our hands that judges were not enforcing the law. So, that is unlikely to occur. Judges typically interpret the law and enforce the law as it is written. If some administrative action were taken that would require parental notification, then the injured party in that scenario would have a private right of action under the bill as written. Could I just follow up on that? Okay. What about, and I just follow up on something James alluded to, but let's say the child is a ward of the state at this point or comes under CHINs or what's the proper term, PCF has to do with that. So, the child would make their decision themselves and the social worker would not be the one that would counsel this individual. Well, there's no laws currently in Vermont that require parental notification for a minor to get into abortion, but as you know and as you've probably heard, parents have legal authority over their health care decisions of their children and individual practitioners might have different policies about sharing information. So, if a child was in the custody of DCF, it is likely that they would share with their, with biological parents. Well, I don't know if that would happen or not. All right. This seems like a big gray area. Can I just, again, follow up? Absolutely. Sometime this morning we came up and I had written down Bryn for a question about the age of 12 or above is the protected status for not notifying or not consulting a parent. In other words, a child became pregnant at 11 years of age. Would the parent make the decision on whether they had an abortion or not? Well, again, we don't have the, there is no requirement by statute that anyone other than a person seeking an abortion have authority over that decision. So, we don't have a cut off. I'm wondering then why I wrote this down, the age of 12 or above. So, somebody mentioned it. Do we have anything in statute of consent to medical treatment? What did she say? Yes, I believe we do. She said that. I do believe that that age, I would like to check on that age before I enter. Okay, so it might be an age of consent that's what it amounts to. Consent to medical treatment? Yeah, that's what I was just curious about. Yes. Under 12, it means that they would not be able to make a consent on their own or what? I will look into that. Very much. The doc, just to clarify, the doctor made the point of 12 years old for reproductive, like reproductive health decisions. So, but anyway, Brink and... James. Pretty big question possibly, but is there any other medical procedure that a 12-year-old can get without Brink or... I don't know the answer to that. But again, I'll look into the age of consent to medical treatment. Yeah, just prompted the doctor one. If a child at that point wanted a sex change operation, would they need parental consent or something like that? You know, I am not sure. So something else would get there. I will look into the age of consent to medical treatment. I imagine that individual providers have different policies about sharing information with children's parents, because children are often covered under their parents' health insurance. So sometimes that information is required to be shared. Thank you. So what is the difference between an individual provider and a public entity? The law says a public entity. Right, so individual providers are not public entities. As described in the definition section of the bill really applies to governmental entities. Any subdivision of state government or local municipal government counts as a public entity. No provider would be covered under that. Not goes to answer another one of Mr. Page's questions. I think it was question three, would healthcare providers have an affirmative duty to participate in abortions? And the answer to that is no. Nothing in the bill imposes any duty on a provider to participate in abortions. So I'm just trying to get my mind around this. You're saying that even if the law says what, in the way I understand it, what it does, that it's a private provider, they might seek the parental advice of the child and not perform an abortion until they receive it. Is that true or would they be violating the law if they did that? No, they would not be. They wouldn't. No. It seems if we do that. No, again, just because it's the law's scope is restricted to those public entities, any public entity that attempts to restrict the right. Right, I believe, I hear you say that future legislatures could in fact change this whole thing. Absolutely. Okay, that's what I thought you said. And I've read this section several times and I'm trying to figure out how that statement can stand. I look at the definition of a public entity and it says the legislature. And it says under abortion and restricting access prohibited, that says a public entity, a legislature shall not and then it goes into all of those things. So I'm trying to understand if it says we can't do it, how can we say we can't do it? Well, you have a constitution. Yeah, future legislatures. So under the Vermont Constitution, you have the Supreme Legislative Authority to create laws, to drop bills and pass laws. So you're at that constitutional right. So then should we take this out then? It shouldn't be in there, right? That's up to you, I'll just take that out on you. To me, even though I have a constitutional right to do something, there's a law here that I think it's gonna cause problems. There's something written into the law that says I can't do it in the future. Copper, what? It says law passes. What section is that on the stage four? Stage four? Where are the dots? Am I right? Stage four. Tell me, are you right about what? When you define public entity and you name the legislature and then we talk about abortion, restricting access. Okay. It says a public entity, a legislature, shall not and then it lists all the things that we shall not do in the law. So when I'm trying to, even though I have a constitutional right to make laws, there's a law that's telling me that I can't fool around with this anymore. That's what it says to me. And that's when I'm trying to. Understood, yes. So this legislation is modeled off of, or this bill is modeled off of Oregon legislation, a bill that Oregon passed in 2017 in which they provide for a very similar definition of what a public entity is. And so that is sort of the foundation for where this language came from. Again, nothing that the legislature does can find the actions of a future legislature. So I, but I leave it to the committee to decide how you would like to, how you would like to amend the law. That's a really safe question, I guess. But I mean, on line 18, on page, under definitions, it specifically says public entity means the legislature. The legislature. So, right. So, even though technically, as you say, illegally, the legislature can't hold a future of late legislatures to their bill, this language specifically says it can, it can. This is, you can't touch it again, that's what it says. Even if the law says differently. But that's what this bill says. And my concern is if you leave that page in there, isn't even, well, there's gonna be lawyers who always argue something. They'll say, well, it says right here, the legislative, and you'll have legislative leaders in the future who will say, well, we really can't take that up, even though the constitution says we can, really can't take it up because it says right there, the first two words of legislature. I have real concerns about that word legislature being in there in conflict with the fact that you're saying the constitution allows us to do the right. It kind of sends really significant mix of messages. Understood. And it also talks about elective officials within their elective or the point of office. In any of those branches. So, I mean, this bill, whether it meant to or not, seems to try to supersede the fact that the constitution says we need. I don't think the bill is trying to supersede the constitution. I will say that the legislators and the legislature does more than just pass bills. There are other opportunities for members of the legislature to interfere with or restrict in the regulation or provision of benefits facilities, services or information. The choice of an individual to terminate a pregnancy. I don't, I think that you're, there may be other situations besides the passage of legislation. We had a line up. I was just gonna say, in my read of it, I get where you guys are coming from, sort of. I get where, how you read that into that. But at any time, you just also end, it's basically an apprentice tattoo with you. You know, it's not like we would pass a law to, that would change this law, we would just erase this part of the act. You know, like any law that we would write, if you wanted to change this down the road, would remove this language. And that's kind of how, how legislation works, like how it's formed. This is, this changes part of the title. And this, all this language gets added to the existing act. And so in the future, if you want to change it, all your changes would be to omit this back from the act. And so it's not that you necessarily write a law that then goes against this law, you're just writing a law that erases this law. So it's just kind of, I mean, that's sort of how it works, like functionally. Just something to keep in mind. I'm sure there's other people in the queue, right? Yes, they're, do you want, you're fine. You're fine, you know, Topper was actually the first. Teresa? I think Logan essentially said what I just, was one sense of the word. So my mic, oh, I thought it was my turn. No, I think there was, was there, was it me? No, I think it was one sense of the word. I think that I've already, it's been said. Topper. So the way I read it is it would not, although constitutionally it was supposed to have that writing, it wouldn't even allow us to change the law. That's how I feel the way it's written. Because it says the legislature is prohibited from. And not only that, it says an appointed officer or an employee even within those branches is prohibited from. So I just think it restricts the legislature. Well, we don't have any appointed officers or employees. Well, I like it a bit. We're not either officers or employees. Yeah, I know that. Just, it goes that far. To me it says nobody can change this thing, which is fine. But I feel that it's going overboard. I think this whole thing is gonna draw our attention, so much attention, whatever was intended is not gonna happen. So what if that part wasn't in there? What's it do to the, to the law? The part? The legislative part. Yeah, yeah, just the legislative part. Because I mean, you've been doing this for a while. I mean, how many bills do you see that says the legislature can do anything about it in the future? Well, she's saying that they, they can. I mean, I can, but this specific language can't change the, I mean, no. I think James's question is, is similar language in some things that we have passed? You know, I don't know off the top of my head, but I can certainly ask my colleagues. It seems like there is a definition that the definition of public entity is, because public entity is in other legislation. At least I remember from last year, there are a lot of bills that refer to a public entity and then in the definitions, legislature is included in that. And yet the legislature can still override the bill in another session that no one session of the legislature can have it, can force another legislature to either do or not do something different. That's correct. And it's, that's a given. Like, we just, it's just known. I can't even imagine someone feeling handcuffed by any statement in legislation that we've passed that a brand new elected group would come in and not be able to change it. I mean, our egos are way too big for that. I don't think it's a matter of ego. I think that when, I was saying this one of our favorite words. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a verb. I'm sorry, talking to you about, you say something. No, I was just gonna say, why don't, why don't you just, why don't you just leave it? Chapter 223 reproductive rights, freedom of choice, and just leave it there. What do we need all this other stuff for? Is that a question for you? If you don't have to answer the question, I'm sure that's a question for our nonpartisan, well, I just laid it. I think- That's a nonpartisan question. Why, why do we need it? I was asked to draft this bill. That's why I drafted it. I was asked to draft it. Is there, is there a right to abortion in Vermont right now? Is there a right to abortion? Yes. As we discussed yesterday under federal Supreme Court jurisprudence, there's a right to abortion in Vermont. But it comes from the federal government that there's no right in our own constitution. Is that right? I thought you said there was in our, you know, that we've made certain of. I think what I said was that the question hasn't been presented yet, whether our own Vermont constitution, they haven't examined whether or not that independent right exists under our constitution. But yesterday you said it was rooted in common law, right? That was when I was talking about personhood. Okay. To have to be born into the personhood. And I'm gonna read this, and then I'm gonna ask you a question, okay? It says the legislative intent is to safeguard this act, is to safeguard the right for abortion in Vermont by ensuring that that right is not denied, restricted or infringed on by governmental entity. Why is that in there? Why, what do we have to add? Why we just, it's not restricted or infringed upon. It seems to be dealing with a public entity, it brings it in, but it doesn't need to be that. If you have the right, you have the right. A woman already has the right in Vermont as we see it. We're bringing in something and saying you don't have the right for a public entity. And we don't need to. It's already there. I think that the title of the act might go towards answering your question preserving the right, ensuring that the right is not chipped away at perhaps, there's one way to look at it. The right does exist, but essentially the bill is preventing that right from being narrowed in scope. So is it an act relating to preserving the right to abortion? We're bringing in, that's my big problem. We have that. In Vermont, we have that right right now. Yes. And if we said the next part, all you need is one paragraph, an individual, an individual's protective rights, and then it weighs it out. All it's other stuff. I can confuse this the whole time, but that's my opinion. And I encourage you when we talk, at least when we do a markup, as you know, the process of markup is to look at the language and it's to suggest amendments. And so if, you know, suggest an amendment. I'm just trying to get, legally, is there a need for the bill? No. Well, yeah, that's one question. But the other question. If you're asking him. I mean, I really have that question. But the other part is all this other stuff that's in here about public entity. Is that necessary? I mean, yeah. I feel like you're asking me a question that I can't answer. I am not here to answer whether or not you, I'm at policy questions. I can't answer those questions for you. Okay, I'm talking. You can only answer legal questions, right? I'm asking legally. Do we need this all this other stuff about a public entity? Do we need that to continue? It depends on what you would like to achieve. I want, okay. It's our decision, she's saying. It's not, it's not a question that she has the ability to answer given her role. It's the same thing as when, during the budget hearings, and we have someone sitting that thing and we go, you can't really believe that, cutting the funding for this is okay. They can't answer that. They're the governors, the people. You know, I mean, it's. So that'd be a question. Let me ask it a different way, all together. I'll be right back. I am an individual that wants to ensure the individual reproductive rights of women are safe. And I make this statement that every individual has the fundamental right and set from all of these, these three or four things that are written. Do I need to say anything else, legally? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Do you need to say anything else as a person? As, no, as a legislator, I'm putting in legislation. Do I need to add public entities? It depends on what your purpose, what is the purpose of what you would like to achieve. An individual productive rights are protected as they are now. That's all I wanna do. I think that that's one way to achieve it, and another way to achieve it is to ensure that a public entity can't infringe upon that right. Okay, then that's one, why? Why don't we put it in? What are we fighting about? We have a lot of saying, you have that right. And then we say, what about besides public entities? How about, is the court in here? Yes. I can assure you. So we're saying, okay. I guess, can I just say it hypothetically, I could imagine, let's say the health department for some reason, 10 years from now comes up and statistically, the people that had abortions had two times the, let's say part, half the life expectancy of other people. They might suggest that we get rid of that right, okay? Because it's, as far as they're concerned, it's taking more lives of women than previous. And I guess that was just a hypothetical, but I just thought that would be a public entity, meaning the health department coming up and saying, they want to limit people's right to abortion, to just say, what's that? Well, that's what you can't do that. I know, I think that's what this is trying to do, not necessarily the legislature. I mean, based on what Brynnes told me, I believe the legislature's not included in that prohibition, but other agencies of the state government would be without legislative action that would seem, is that the way out? Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. Yeah, I think that's it. Okay. That's right. I was going to give you a different example, but I kind of come up with an example that would help us to see why. And we do have a part of the agency that we have a lot of help. So we'll come back to that, see who, and this is clearly one of those, I mean, this is, in some level, a committee discussion. I mean, Topper, you're asking Brynne why, and Brynne, you're asking the bill because I asked you. So on some level, I mean, so we're being a committee discussion around this, and we heard testimony today from a doctor who said, there's less room for ambiguity, clarity on the part of providers, and so the providers would feel better protected. That may not be a good enough reason for you. They're protected now. I'm saying that may not be a good enough reason for you, but there's, I mean, so these are opinion data for us to figure out. One other thing that I should add to that is that if there's a right asserted in statute, it's very different than a right being found to exist in the Constitution. So part of what this bill does is it prohibits public entities from doing certain things, and that provides a recourse for a person who's injured, if a public entity does do one of those things. So if there's simply a right asserted in the statute, it doesn't mean that doesn't necessarily mean that some administrative body of the government wouldn't attempt to restrict that right. And if that were to happen, that person wouldn't have recourse. If there were just a statement of what existing legislation is. And I agree with you all, I agree with you all. That's why I'm saying when we put the word legislative in that, legislative. Great, I understand, I understand that. Legislative. The concern that you have about that word. It's on everybody's mind. I was gonna respond to some of the Mr. Page's other questions. Yes, okay, yes. So one of his questions was would H57 immunize practitioners of partial birth abortion from any civil or criminal penalties? And the short answer to that is no. And that's because of a doctrine called preemption. This law would be preempted by the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. And preemption applies when state law and federal law may conflict on some level. Part of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution provides the doctrine of preemption which says the federal government is going to win in a case of some discrepancy between federal and state law. And Kimini, we will have some testimony next week because it is my understanding that there's no such thing as a partial birth abortion. That that is a framing of something that in fact does not exist. But I am not a doctor. I'm not going to, but we're going to get testimony and I'm short because we've already had testimony sort of around that. But that... But I played a doctor on TV. Oh, God. Oh, please, I play all sorts of things. Yes, yes, I do. And then one of his other questions was related to what I believe he was referring to was a crisis pregnancy center. And whether or not HFG7 would inhibit the operation of a crisis pregnancy center. And the answer is no, it's not a public entity, it's a private entity. And in fact, Vermont doesn't impose any regulations on crisis pregnancy centers at all. And I can talk about what those are if anybody doesn't know. Well, I'd be in there as well. I've just been asked that what's a crisis pregnancy center? So those are organizations that are established to counsel pregnant women against having an abortion. And typically they're mission-driven organizations based on religious ideology and not on the care of the person who's presenting for a treatment or counseling. Some states have considered they may have already legislation, which is not in the bill that I introduced to around what they can call themselves. If I am a woman new to town, I'm new to Vermont and I'm finding myself pregnant and I'm not sure what to do. And there is an organization that calls themselves a crisis pregnancy center. I may think I am going somewhere to learn and hear and talk to someone about all of the options, all of the possibilities, all of the different ways I could respond to being pregnant by virtue of its name. I mean, and so there are entities across the country that have put restrictions on either the name or what they have to do. And if you'd like, I could add that to this, but I have not. Sorry, I thought we could just handle one thing. So is Bryn going to put these answers up on the site? So I understand that this committee likes to have written testimony to make public from the witnesses. I have not done that with my own notes, but I would be glad to do that if it would be helpful to the committee. It might just take a little bit of time. I think it would be because he was very specific to these five questions and it'd be nice to have them if we could. Thank you because sometimes we need to hear it more than once and what I heard your answers were no, it would not prohibit crisis pregnancy. No, it does not impose any obligation on the provider. No, it would not provide any obligation. No, it would not prohibit a future legislature for enacting different laws around abortion. And no, it would not immune a provider for any civil or criminal liability. For any reason. Was this last question about the viability of the fears or something like that? I didn't see any question. I think maybe there were some concerns he expressed later in his testimony that I didn't respond to because I thought it was a policy question. So the fifth one is if the answer is yes to any of these, should you create some additional provisions to make sure what? I mean, when you were giving us this sort of the legal context of before, there is that solicitation in the bill around around a fetus not having separate rights when you were, how you explained that in terms of that that's not different than what is now. But could you say that again? Yes, so there is Vermont Supreme Court jurisprudence that confirms that Vermont is a by the born alive rule which is the prevailing United States common law rule that you must be born before you have personhood. And once you are born, you are a person and you have personhood and the statutes apply to you. And I'd be glad to put them and to include that as a part of my responses that give you the right. I think that's also what he's getting at in number five. In the last part of the question on number five. Here. Okay, I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me. Are there any questions left now? No. Oh, why not? You raised your hand. He's holding his head up. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Bryn, thank you. Thank you, thank you very much. Appreciate it, appreciate it. Come on, go away, come away. Whatever it is. I just want to make sure I hear the right stuff. I think you said there's no such thing as a straight kind of rule. Partial part of the rule. Partial part of the rule. I don't know whether my memory, but I thought I saw it on television. That very thing. And I will more than happily ask this on to a doctor next week to respond. And given who is in the room, I am sure we will have multiple disagreements on that. Just a matter of comment. I know that they, I know that the Planned Parenthood, when they do it, it's not long-wise, right? Because you give the shot and that was explained yesterday or today, but I have seen with my own eyes those kinds of proportions on television when they were doing documentaries. Well, I think it's when I go out and Planned Parenthood are in any other place. I'm just saying. And I thought there was a doctor that was prosecuted for that. Yeah. I think they mean, or at least the term was used, that it was partial birth abortion when body parts are removed surgically and taken out through the vagina as part of the procedure. That's what I think, why they call it a partial birth abortion. Because body parts are extracted. But I may be wrong, but I'm not just my recollection of the same thing you're talking about, though. So we'll get some clarity on to that. This is going to be, I mean, I want to reiterate what, I'm sorry, if there's new folks, what the process is, we're gonna talk, you know? Or as much as people want to talk or if people don't want to talk. And if people want to, if members who want to make amendments, we ask Brent to write them up and we vote them and we discuss them. And we make a decision as a committee.