 This is an issue that is really new to the committee and we have people around the side who rarely are in this committee, so I'd like the committee members to introduce themselves and then I'd like the people who are following this to introduce themselves and what their interest is. This will help us to know who to receive testimony from and who all is interested. But, um... Kelly Payala, representing one of the very Westin women who also got married. Dan Noise, from Wolcott High Park, South Brompton. Ah, Theresa Wood from Waterbury, also serving in Oldham, Huntington and Pillsport. Topper McFawn, representing Barry Town. Anne Pew, South Brompton. Sandy Haas, from Rochester, also representing Beckles, Stockbridge, and Hittsby. And the Best Streets in South Brompton. Carl Rosenquist, representing Town of Georgia. Marybeth Redmond, Essex. Logan McColl, Loveloe, Mount Holly, and Shrew. Lauren Hurrow, the Director of Vermont Conservation Voters. Hi, I'm Samantha Hurr, the Environmental Associate for Beaker. Bill Dressel, an Associated Industry Group. Bill and everyone. There's a lot of noise, so we need to use loud voices. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill Dressel, Associated Industries of Vermont. Chris Kerrigan, VP of Business Development. And also the Manager of our Manufacturing Division. Statewide from our Chamber of Commerce. Okay. That's exciting. Lisa Phantelli, I'm listening in for the Agency of Agriculture. Okay. Sophia Earhart, Legislative Intern for BCB, BNRC, and BTA. Jerry Morris, Contractual Advocates, representing the American Chemistry Council. Warth Allen with Downs-Rackland Martin, representing the American Cancer Society. Hi, I'm Kimberly Johnson. I'm here with the necrosis group. Austin Davis, Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce. Okay. We're not even sitting together. Julie Tucker is our legislative staff's committee. So if you have an interest in testifying, if you're sitting here, I presume you have a position on the bill, but I'm going to ask you to make those positions or your pros and cons and have you view this legislation so if you can give Julie your contact information, that will be helpful. And now we'll know what this is, that it's gotten a whole new set of people and how soon services. So this is Michael Grady with Legislative Council. Before I start walking through the bill, I want to give you some context for where the bill originated and its previous iterations. So in 2016 in Act 154, you, the General Assembly, established a working group on chemical use. And you directed that group to make recommendations back to you regarding how to present, prevent citizens from exposure to toxic substances, how the state should identify and regulate toxic chemicals that are currently unregulated, and how the state should better inform citizens and communities of potential exposure to toxic substances. That working group met, and it supplied 13 majority policy recommendations. I can provide you a copy of that report if you would like. Some of those recommendations have been passed already. Three of those recommendations were included in a bill last by NEM called S103. And what S103 included was an interagency committee on chemical management, a requirement that groundwater used to be used for private wells be tested prior to receiving the permit for use, and that there be certain changes to the chemicals of height according to children program. When that bill originally passed the Senate, your body that housed it didn't have time to address it in the first year of the biennium. Between the first year of the biennium and the second year of the biennium, the governor by an executive order established his own interagency committee on chemical management, which looked remarkably similar to what was in S103 as passed the Senate. When the House took up S103, it passed the interagency committee, it included the requirements for testing of groundwater, and it included the requirements for changes to the chemicals of height concerning the children program. It was ultimately reconciled between the two bodies, and passed the governor says it can be vetoed. I can provide you with the veto message. I can send Julie a copy later on today. The testing of groundwater was included in another bill, Act 161, and what was left was the creation of the interagency committee on chemical management and the changes to the chemicals of high-concern to children program. That is what is in front of you with S55. So generally it establishes an interagency committee on chemical management, and it makes changes to the chemicals of high-concern to children program. So stepping through the bill, first section, section one, establishes that interagency committee on chemical management. Now the Senate, working with the administration, made changes to the interagency committee to perform it to the governor's committee that was established by executive order. So the purpose of the committee is to evaluate chemical inventories in the state on an annual basis, identify potential risks to human health and the environment, run those inventories, and propose measures or mechanisms to address the identified risks from chemicals inventories in the state. The membership of the committee is entirely state agency heads, and the secretary of agriculture is there because they regulate pesticides. Secretary of natural resources is there because they regulate hazardous waste, hazardous materials, and toxic substances. Commissioner of health is there because they have authority over public health and health advisories. Commissioner of labor is there because they regulate OSHA. Commissioner of public safety is there because they regulate something called EPCRA and other public safety programs. Secretary of commerce is there because the effect on the economy and the secretary of digital services is there because part of their charge is to come up with a reporting system, and the secretary of transportation is there because of their use of certain hazardous materials. There is a directive to the committee to have a citizen's advisory panel to provide input and expertise to the committee. The citizen advisory panel shall consist of persons available on an as-needed basis to provide expertise. Now again, the Senate went through with the administration and conformed this list to what the governor's executive order committee is. They were very similar to begin with. The governor had combined some of the positions from S103 as first passed by the Senate, but in general, it's pretty similar list. So there needs to be somebody with an expertise in top psychology, expertise in environmental health, expertise in maternal and child health, expertise in industrial hygiene, expertise in human health in the environment, expertise in manufacturing products or processes that are located in Vermont, expertise in retail sales, expertise with a small business that's subject to record keeping requirements, someone with academic institutions with expertise in chemical management and an expertise in environmental law, expertise in public policy and expertise in development and administration of information reports. Now this committee is going to monitor actions taken by US EPA under the Toxic Substance and Control Act, the federal law of regulating chemical use. The annually reviewed chemical inventories in the state in relation to emerging scientific evidence to identify chemicals of high concern not regulated by the state, and they shall develop written procedures, guidance and other resources necessary to carry out this function. We have the assistance of all of those state agencies that the members of the committee represent. And then they report on December 1st, December 15th, 2020 and bi-annually thereafter to the governor. And then a copy of that report is given to you, including your committee specifically. The report includes a summary of chemical use in the state on the reported chemical inventories, the summary of identified risks to human health and the environment from reported chemical inventories, the summary of any change under federal statute affecting the regulation of chemicals in the state, and recommended that a state of regulatory action to reduce human health risks and risk to the environment. Then there's language about meetings, secretary of natural resources of the chair, secretary of natural resources costs the first meeting on record for July 1, 2019. And the whole section, the whole establishment of the committee does not affect the independent authority of the state agencies to regulate chemical use or management under state or federal law. Can you first explain what that means? So as I pointed out that many of those state agencies have various different authorities over chemical use in the state. And this inter-agency committee isn't going to usurp or amend that authority under existing state or applicable law. This inter-agency committee is purely an advisory body that's making recommendations to the governor and to you. Any of its recommendations or other actions does not affect its authority under state or applicable federal law, unless you change that law. So section two, it's a transition. It's the intent of the general assembly that the inter-agency committee established by the governor by executive order fulfill the duties of the inter-agency committee established by this bill. You can't tell the governor that his committee shall do it. This is going to be, it's the intent that that committee serve the purpose. And was that part and parcel of the discussion? Do you know if that was part and parcel of the discussion held under the other body? Yes, it was. So does the governor have independent constitutional authority to issue an executive order to advise him or her on the management of state government? And even though the constitution has no express executive order authority, there is implied authority over the, under the constitution since the governor has this explicit authority to administer and execute the laws. And so if the governor wants advice on how to administer and execute the laws, he or she can set up a panel especially of agency personnel, secretaries and commissioners to advise him or her about how to do it. You really can't say that that panel doesn't exist anymore because that's the governor's constitutional authority to set that up. So if you want that panel to serve the same functions as the legislative entity that's created, you can't really say that, you can't really mandate that. Well, governor, you need to take your constitutionally created body and serve. It's just, but it's an intense statement and ultimately because execution of this is through the governor, through the agency heads, I think it's very, very likely that the governor's executive order committee is going to be serving these purposes. That's it. Should I move on? So on page six, section three, you're now entering the chemical high concern to children program. Do people know what that program is? It predates most everybody on this committee. Not me, not you. I don't remember all that much. I'm happy for the pressure. So it's a requirement in title 18 that a manufacturer of a children's product that includes one or more of 66 listed chemicals of high concern to children give a notice to the Department of Health that their product includes that chemical of high concern to children. The Department of Health would have authority to add more chemicals to those 66 chemicals. In addition, under existing law, if upon the recommendation of a working group, the commissioner could also adopt a rule to regulate the sale or labeling of a children's product that contained a chemical of high concern to children. There are a lot of definitions in this law. Children, children's product, chemical of high concern, they are not currently in S-55 because S-55 amends sections that are outside the definition section. But you may have questions about what those definitions are. So once the commissioner receives that notification from any manufacturer, what is the Health Department going to do? How is the public notified? The Department of Health maintains database of all products that are reported a person can go into that database. Currently the products are listed by class and not necessarily by product name. And so you may need to do some additional research to determine whether that product that you want to buy is specifically listed. So is there any required labeling on the product itself of these chemicals? Not currently under state law, but that is part of the authority that's given to the commissioner through rulemaking. Part of what S-55 is doing is changing the standard for the authority for the commissioner to adopt a rule to prohibit the sale of or require the labeling of that product. There may be separate labeling requirements under federal law to your product safety and touch up, but not necessarily. In addition, this ARPA State Program, Chemical High Concern Children Program, is modeled to a large extent off of Washington State's program. And Washington State's program has been adopted almost entirely by Oregon. And so there are states that other states that have this type of program. It was the stated intent of the committees when they adopted this that it comply or conform with Washington State and other states. So should I move on? So in section three, you'll see that there's a change to the notice that's provided by the manufacturer of that children's product with the chemical high-concerned children. And right now, you'll see that the notice is supposed to include the name of the chemical used or produced, its abstract registry number, the description of the product or product containing the chemical. And now what would be added would be the brand name, the product model, and the universal product code if the product has such a code in order to provide that additional refinement of information regarding the product for public use. They also need to provide the amount of the chemical in the product and the name address of the manufacturer to contact for that and the other information the product requires and that's basically what is being changed. So what is being added is to have the brand name, product model and UPC code if the UPC code exists. Then you get to section four. This is the Commissioner of Health's authority by rule to include additional chemicals on the list of 66 chemicals. Right now the standard is that the Commissioner on the basis of the weight of credible scientific information has determined that a chemical proposed meets certain criteria. The proposal from the senate is to change it from the weight of to on the basis of credible peer reviewed scientific information has determined that the chemical meets the two criteria. I believe this was the sticking point last year. In a nutshell that's the issue before us. It's one of the major issues before you and I would say that people get hung up on the weight of you get people saying that they saw Perry Mason you know or LA law that the weight of means more than 50%. And my response to that is weight of is not defined in this. And so it's up to the agency that has the authority to interpret and apply this law to interpret what weight of means. If you look at how other science environmental based agencies define weight of means, it is not just about more than 50%. I can give you a document that EPA produces about what weight of means what weight means it's about 80 pages long. And so they do have a little diagram that it's like a little triangular diagram that. So what my point is that because it's not defined it's up to the department to define it or you to further define or you to change the standard but it doesn't necessarily mean weight it doesn't mean necessarily 50. 001 or more. Do you have the same or similar terms of what the difference between evidence and peer review different scientific evidence or peer review scientific information? Part of the reason that it's being proposed for amendment this way is to provide that conformity with Washington State and this is the standard that they use for adding chemical by move to the list in Washington Oregon whole Salem corporate Washington program Oregon has the same standard so that is part of the reason that it's being added this way. So if we wanted to get information on what that meant we need to go to have someone from Oregon or. There's a great resource in Washington State I would have her because just remembering a little bit of the controversy you're going to hear about it from from many of you from my friends exactly exactly how long has that been the standard in Washington for my knowledge from the day the rule and it was a rule that has a standard the day the rule was adopted which was a couple of years before we adopted this program so it's been enforced for a couple of years so that we have some right so you adopted this program in it was effective June of 2014 it was enacted in 2013 and Washington's program was already in existence what would you say Washington the current language that has changed is weight of credible scientific information that's what the commissioner of the base is decisions on what we do currently is that correct? the weight of that's correct and what they want to do here is change it to peer review peer review information yeah should I move on? can I just ask one more? not quite yet Carl the 66 chemicals I was they were identified by the federal government they were the list of 66 chemicals that Washington had listed at the time instead of Washington state the federal government has not spoken or listed their chemicals the federal government doesn't have the same type of program now Washington's list is not exactly the same as the 66 list anymore because they removed the couple of chemicals and then they added two more or they were proposing two more actually but the list isn't exactly the same as Washington's listing and do we review these in terms of whether they are considered by the federal government grass meaning generally accepted as safe or not? so the that standard is not part of this at the moment at the moment whether or not it is about whether the product has one of these listed chemicals not whether or not it's generally regarded as safe in an amount or at all so that is not part of it so moving on yeah I just want to note that the commissioner in reviewing the credible peer reviewed scientific information has to determine that an authoritative governmental entity or accredited research institute university has demonstrated that the chemical harms the normal development of a fetus or child causes cancer genetic damage or reproductive harm or disrupts the endocrine system or damages the nervous system immune system or organs or is a persistent biocumulotoxic and then they also have to determine based on their review of that information whether the chemical has been found through bio-monitoring to be present in human blood, umbilical cord breast milk urine or other bodily tissues or fluids sampling to that it's present in the house or monitoring that it's present in fish water for the natural environment it's not just whether the commissioner says that there's credible peer reviewed scientific information they need to make those two findings needs to make those two findings that it presents a harm and that it's present in the blood, body household or environment based on that information and then you get to sub D so currently there is a chemical of high concern to children working group it is not the working group that we talked about in sections one and two that is about an interagency group that's going to coordinate chemical management across the state identify chemical inventories and those chemical inventories are potentially thousands more chemicals than the 66 that are listed in the chemicals of high concern to children program this is just about those 66 chemicals and children's products that may contain one of those chemicals and that working group right now has to in order for the commissioner to adopt a rule to regulate the sale or distribution of a children's product he or she needs the recommendation of the chemicals of high concern to children working group so right now it says the commissioner upon the recommendation of the working group may adopt a rule to regulate the sale or distribution and so what is being proposed is that at the after consultation with the working group may adopt a rule to regulate the sale or distribution of the children's product people are going to tell you that that this is a unique structure of the existing law I think it is a unique structure but I also think you have the authority to say that the commissioner can't act unless there's a recommendation from this working group it's really a policy decision as opposed to a legal decision can I ask a quick question so that that chemical of high concern to a children working group is different than the citizen advisory panel yes citizen advisory panel only serves the interagency committee on chemical management and this is a separate working group that citizens advisory panel for the interagency committee their jurisdiction is much broader because there are there are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of chemicals that could be subject to that interagency's review there's only 66 chemicals that are involved in this program and this chemical supply concerned to children working group is not a subsection of that citizen advisory panel no it is not and what happens if these two groups happen to be in conflict with one another both of them are effectively advisory bodies so it's about what authority the ultimate entity the department or this interagency committee has the interagency committee which is served by the citizens advisory panel their only authority is advisory they can only recommend changes well that seems to be similar to this group well the commissioner this group is serving the commissioner who can make regulatory changes and the commissioner has rule making authority so the commissioner has ability to adopt law and so does the commissioner have to do that in consultation with that other group as well that he or she is a member of no there are two separate programs right and you should know that there are other entities and committees in the state that have authority over chemical use as well like the pesticide advisory council and they are they are they're separate but they may have some authority that looks like it's overlapped but they are truly separate so I guess I'm presuming that the secretaries or commissioners in those other departments may have other advisory committees besides the citizen advisory committee to advise them on toxic chemicals yes I mean the secretary of agriculture the pesticide advisory council agency of agriculture almost every agency of agriculture in the country is the entity that regulates pesticides in that state that's how it is in Vermont and there's an advisory council made up of state employees and private employees that advises the secretary of agriculture on how to regulate pesticides that is separate from this chemicals of high concern to children it is separate from the interagency committee on chemical management it is about that council's they have regulatory authority they have the ability to make recommendations and to they have a little bit more regulatory weight than than the interagency committee on chemical management should I move on so instead of upon the recommendation it's after consultation with the working group and the standard that would need to be shown is also being changed currently there needs to be a determination that children will be exposed to a chemical of high concern to children and that there is a probability that due to the degree of exposure or frequency of exposure the child that the exposure could cause or contribute to one or more of the adverse health impacts listed and we went through those already what is being proposed is that it should not be the children will be exposed but the children may be exposed there's the argument that will requires a certainty and that there needs to be a less stringent standard there and then the argument for removing there is probability that is also an argument that is too high on the standard to show likely never be met so they're being removed the commission would still need to in their determination determine whether children may be exposed to a chemical of high concern in children's product and review specific information related to that can you go up to what is the difference upon the recommendation in terms of actual and after consultation the argument was the upon the recommendation required the approval of the working group in order for the commissioner to go forward with room making whereas consultation does not require approval so is it possible under this new language the proposed change that the commissioner might add a chemical that the chemicals of high concern to children working group had not listed and conversely is it possible that the commissioner would not put would not do any regulation either of it is either possible the commissioner could may want to propose additional chemicals to the list or may want to regulate the sale or distribution of the children's product for the sale or distribution of the children's product the commissioner would not need the approval of the working group the commissioner would just need to consult with the working group the working group could oppose the bill go forward likewise the working group could recommend action and the commissioner would not need to act to address that issue the bill includes on page 10 a provision that the chemicals of high concern to children working group may as discretion submit to you the recommendations or information from a consultation provided to the commissioner so if the commissioner consults with them and they recommend something that the commissioner disagrees with they can report to you what their recommendation is the only other change is removing a obsolete date for the additional rules and oh actually there is an additional rule making directive part of the one of the questions in the senate was what happens if a manufacturer wants to introduce their product into the state between the reporting dates should they be required to report to the department prior to sale or at the next subsequent reporting date there was some discussion about that and what was concluded was that that should be addressed in rule making so the rule making shall include requirements for when or how a manufacturer of the children's product continues a chemical high concern to children provides notice when the manufacturer intends to introduce the product for sale between the required dates for reporting and then you get the rule making date for that rule honored before January 1, 2020 and then the effect of dates everything takes effect well the interagency committee on chemical management takes effect on passage in all other sections take effect July 1, 2019 so it seems like there's another change that we didn't really talk about when it's talking about the bottom of page 8 so the switch from children will to children may be exposed to chemical high concern and so and then the striking out of high probability that it will result in adverse health experience so essentially we're saying instead of meeting a two part test of exposure and health impact is just may be exposed is that am I reading that correctly that is correct I did reference that standard is being changed because there's testimony that it would be impossible to meet that cause and effect what cause and effect that the child will be exposed you would have to show a child that there's certainty of that and that there's probability that the child that the exposure could cause or contribute to one or more the adverse health effects listed and so the concept is that how do you show probability the commissioner would have to potentially be a very high standard and so the argument is with those combined right now it would be very very difficult for the commissioner to adopt the rule from those standards anything else that would just have on interstate commerce in other words let's say that this is not to worry about it worry about that later we can circle back to that my understanding from your walkthrough is this does not prohibit the sale of anything currently there is no product that's prohibited underneath this program the commissioner would have authority to require labeling of or to prohibit the sale of a product in the state the constitutional interstate commerce cause issues would arise under whatever that rule would provide there has been requirements in Vermont for the labeling of products that are sold into the state especially when they may include something hazardous mercury lighting is an example of that and the second circuit found that that was not a violation of the commerce clause if producers of products that had that chemical in it didn't want to label they didn't need to sell their product to the state they didn't need to sell their product in the state we would have similar analysis for a ban on a product the provision there would probably address some different arguments we don't have as much of a precedent for that in Vermont but there are provisions in other precedent in other states where states can prohibit the sale of certain materials when there's a legitimate state interest to do so there's a requirement in existing law that the commissioner of health shall adopt rules by July 1st 2017 did the commissioner of health know that? yes they did they did adopt rules and it's an ongoing process they have been proposing rules changes they have made the adopted a rule so what are the areas of question what is the first run through you've had but one we'll have the council here for a moment and this first run through is questions about what it means I'm just sort of picking up what Carl was asking around commerce issues and trying to understand what you said would the commissioner be able to by rule say products instead of banning products say products containing surrounding and listing what those products might be because they could be anything but could they prohibit products that contain medicines can they do that by rule and is that any interference with the commerce so we can't have products that contain lead or at least I'm assuming for children's toys for children's toys yes there's an allowable level of lead in some children's toys under federal law there's a state law that regulates the amount of lead in children's jewelry which is different I think we defined it as children under three must have changed so the rule making authority is for the regulation of the sale or distribution of the children's product so I do think the commissioner would have some authority to do categories for children's products that contain a chemical of high concern but I don't know and it would really depend on what the commissioner was proposing to say every product I think the broader the rule making the regulation would be the greater the commerce laws issue would be but I can't really address that because I don't have a rule making I don't have a proposal in front of me I do have the the NEMA versus Sorrel case where the state said you can't sell your mercury lamp in the state unless it's labeled with a mark HG and the second circuit said that that was permissible state regulation that did not violate the commerce laws that applied to in-state manufacturers in-state sale to out-of-state manufacturers who wanted to sell in Vermont we had similar discussions about the labeling of food that was produced with genetic engineering that applied to in-state and out-of-state for any food that was sold in the state that was produced with genetic engineering ultimately wasn't decided by the district court because the federal government preempted all state regulation but the judge at that time had indicated that it was likely that it was going to be withheld on commerce laws grounds except that I screwed up on one thing she basically said that council screwed up on one part of it but it would have been something that we could have fixed that we could have done yeah we could have it was regarding the extraterritorial limitation on advertising the way I drafted that was a little bit too broad and she said it had an extraterritorial effect and that we could have fixed that pretty easily under existing law the commissioner might add chemicals right now and so my question is has in the list of chemicals that are existed right now and I'm presuming the commissioner has a list of chemicals the list is in statute has the commissioner adopted since the rules the chemicals that are in statute has the commissioner added any not to my knowledge now or proposed to add any oh we have a okay we're opening this up yes oh I was just I'll just go to the AIB there's a pending rule that adds up to 21 chemicals okay there's a pending rule it's in the ruling process is it in the public comment process so what product is there or what chemical about 20 so I don't know whether I would get them from you or get them from the commissioner I would be interested in knowing what the comments have been around the chemicals which this current commissioner has put forward in terms of rule I think under the under this so I'd be curious as to what should I ask the commissioner of health or is that something that I can get them for you okay I'm sorry I did not know about the proposed rule David Englander is also the person for the agency for the department on this I understand you wanted to make your concerns with these changes even though they seem small with sentences and things like that so many of our products today contain trace amounts of so many chemicals that when you go ahead and change the wording will in that one line to May it opens up really a wide range of and or spots I guess that's what I did describe as to what people could suggest for possibly harmful levels even if they couldn't get into a child's hands or is my understanding one of the major concerns in this way it was presented now so there are de minimis there's two de minimis levels so if the product contains the chemical at or below one of the de minimis standards which is if it's at a concentration of 100 parts per million it has to be present at 100 parts per million or greater or it was intentionally added to the children's product at a level above the pql and that is the practical quantification limit which means the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured within specific specified limits of precision representativeness, completeness and variability but that is partly asking about whether or not there is a de minimis standard and I'm saying it's 100 parts per million per million and so there's that de minimis standard but your other point was that should these products be reported if there's no exposure pathway to a child and that was part of the initial policy decision among the general assembly among the legislative committees that's a policy decision like cell phones have incredible numbers well there is an extensive list of things that are accepted from the definition of what is a children's product sometimes not a children's product it's not those not those things used for industrial or business purposes it's not a food or beverage it's not a tobacco product it's not a pesticide it's not a drug or biologic regulated by FDA it's not ammunition, firearms air rifles etc it's not aircraft, motor vehicle, wheelchairs or vessels we all know about that child aircraft it's not about consumer electronic products it's not about interactive software and it's not about packaging those are all not regulated in addition, batteries are not regulated snow sporting equipment is not regulated, inaccessible components of a consumer product that may in its reasonable foreseeable use would not come into direct contact with the child's skin or mouth that is not regulated and used consumer products that are sold in a secondhand product market are not what you're reading there is not in the bill it's not in the bill, it's in the underlying law under the underlying law and the underlying law is what again you would want to look at Title 18 Chapter 38a and I was just reading from Section 1772 there's two definitions that are relevant the definition of consumer product and the definition of children's product depending upon how our understanding of this proposed legislation goes, we might need you to situate this in the chapter things like this being one of those things that not that we can't discuss them but it's already in law we'll see how it's been whatever those kinds of things you began and I was a little distracted and you talked about definitions that aren't defined in here but are they defined elsewhere like a child and things like that and so are they elsewhere in this statute they're not in S55 they are in the chapter that I just referenced a child means an individual under 12 years of age there's definitions for children's jewelry, there's definitions of what a contaminant is there's definition of what a manufacturer is there's definition of what's persistent and bioaccumulative because that's one of the standards there's definition of what a toy is there are a lot of definitions no but it would in my opinion fall under a consumer electronic product which includes personal computers AV equipment, calculators wireless telephones gain consoles and handheld devices incorporating a video screen and those are not subject to the regulation that's a third that's too far afield no I was just wondering I mean obviously with that a lot of discussion about certain devices that are used by dentists possible consequences and other health related things so let's say fillings that a dentist would use and products that may be in that how would they be but you have to look at the definition of what is a children's product it's any consumer product marketed to sold, offered for sale or distributed to children in the state it includes toys, children's cosmetics children's jewelry or a product designed or intended by the manufacturer to help with sucking and martinis sounds like it's not in there and then I would just go back to a drug or biologic regulated by the FDA is mercury fillings regulated by the FDA I would have to check on that Your question is not far afield I mean one of the things I am sure that will be part of our discussion or people's understanding of the bill of the proposed legislation is what is the universe that this is going to impact and I am somewhat speaking from experience when regulating children's toys under three a certain retail type of establishment was convinced that this would prevent a time honored tradition in Vermont and so I walked into the store and I said show me the toys but they were convinced I mean until so I think it's important to outline to ask these questions we have because we don't know but maybe because some of us are not they are a face on people who are not here but if you could pull out the section on definitions sure it's like that that might help and the spark notes for the report I mean imagine the triangle the triangle I've been told that cliff notes are no longer which is what that's a part of time I've been told they are now spark notes for those of us who maybe not cliff notes don't exist I was told by one of my students in my other life that no it's not cliff notes it is now called spark notes you can buy them in Barnes and Noble and get them online but because I am assuming that that did that 80 page report have any it was looked at last year by the senate committee I don't recall that being looked at this year might it inform our thoughts on this I think it inform can will inform your thoughts on on the purpose and what this whole well if you leave weight of evidence in statute what discretion would an administrative agency have defining what that means and it goes beyond Harry Mason you need more than 50 years it's a more science based analysis that would probably from my point of view committee I don't know if that would help you to understand to get some information as to what those different words mean what does weight mean what does peer review mean and how is that impact information versus evidence or whatever because that seems to be as you pointed out Carl one of the places of contention so words matter and so let's know what they mean so you suggest to prepare this report no I suggest what I'm referencing is the U.S. EPA U.S. EPA so maybe if you for the overachievers on the committee and for anyone who goes on our webpage if you could forward the full report Julie and then perhaps come back in the very near future when we have it back on the agenda maybe review with us the chart we'll do the way or the way or the week aha okay Julie when you do this thank you very much do you need me to stay or committee what is your druthers right now in terms of where we no one else at this point was on the list to testify I don't want to put anyone on we don't have anything on our schedule in terms of a person coming in until the week I think because we thought we might be on the floor I don't know let you listen have you get into trouble or whether to check in and see if there is anyone who is sitting around the table right now around the audience who is prepared and would appreciate the opportunity to comment on this now don't worry you'll have another chance but if anyone is currently ready for all the interest no one is ready no I guess not thank you if you can go back to Wattenwaist no I don't really want to was this a committee bill in the center no I believe it was Lions and Campion maybe you know that's what it's all about oh there yeah you know so what I need to be hearing from you all okay let's go around the people okay okay how many of you are wanting to testify a little while now to Julie let me it's April 9th I believe we'll be getting out in May in early May Pinky Cross were you giving us some information no no but I was in the top half of the of that exactly at the top I think I was you know 36 for those of you who are sitting around are there people who are not your compatriots or others who you know want to testify but they've sent you here to report back so that we know sure the toy association oh goody Matt Lentz is the state director he's based out of Providence, Rhode Island so he would like the opportunity to testify and then your folks want to testify as well no that's what I meant is you know sometimes you know we're all family here and sometimes another oh my team that's all I'm asking you know you were all in the room and rooms in the senate so is there a voice I'm really asking for your mutual help is there a voice that is missing that we need to hear from I think they probably are we'll probably want to ask them before we volunteer okay well actually even if they testify we'll have them on the list how about somebody from academia someone from academia to possibly testify on this issue of peer review versus on the weight of evidence assuming we're hearing from the health department yes does ag want to our other because there was ag your ag what is it a board preferably a physics professor physics professor now why physics it's the basic so we're going to find out what the weight of evidence is I know those those well anybody from the heart science I will not have someone who does research in the department of social work did that last time okay folks why don't we take a break a little time to maybe figure out what the rest of our life is or talk about where we want to go with your issue okay and then at 3.30 Brenda's going to do a walkthrough of Proposition 5 okay so see you all back at 3 okay now that's why you're really here okay thank you thanks for the heads up on that work on that so you have Proposition 5 before you and I'm just going to talk a little bit about how we developed it in committee and then I'll answer questions that you might have the the language I'm going to stop you for a second do tell us what you went through I don't I don't want you to start asking too many questions of the senator before we had a walkthrough the expert is over here and so maybe we may go back and forth so I understand that you've looked at the process for that a constitutional amendment goes through and so we looked at that as well the the health and welfare committee had Proposition 5 so it was our responsibility to take the language and to ensure two things that I believe were important in the development of the language one is that it's legally defensible and two that it says what we wanted to say were not specific enough and yet reflects what we believe to be a fundamental right so as you're talking with Bryn you can look to see the meaning of those two things that I'm talking about we spent a great deal of time debating the specific language in the proposal in the article and we spent some time looking at the purpose section no constitutional amendments do not always have a purpose section we felt that it was critically important to have a purpose section to explain exactly what we meant in the constitutional amendment so that it would be derived from or at least foreshadowed in other articles in the constitution so article 22 does have a purpose section with it as you know the purpose section is not included when it is voted on by the voters so should this go through the whole process to the next biennium it's only the article that's voted on so our work on the article itself was to narrow it to a single sentence and to ensure that the concepts that we wanted to have included are included so a fundamental right to personal reproductive autonomy that that became important to us and it's central to the I'll let Fran walk you through it but we did take out the first section the first sentence and integrated it into the single sentence so as you go through it you may see the language that we changed I don't know how far you're going to go through all the language changes that we made and then we did take out in our proposal amendment on the floor a reference to the constitution because folks felt that that was somewhat confusing so all in all the committee listened to people who we felt could contribute to the meaning of the statement of the article and that we are assured by Ledge Council and others that this is perfectly legally defensible and that it does reflect a fundamental right to personal autonomy and reproductive liberty so I know I don't know what more you would like me to say there's a lot more that could be said but I think that's kind of the gist of how we functioned so am I clear that understanding what you are saying that while whoever initially proposed this Senator Ash and you and whatever let me go back a little further it's not in the same process it doesn't look exactly the same you guys took testimony and made changes so as it was initially drafted I and others worked from last summer on the language and so the language that was introduced had already been vetted by a number of people including lawyers and then as we looked at it in committee we realized that there were some changes that would improve the article so in committee as we took testimony and we talked with Ledge Council we made changes so that it was changed from two sentences initially two sentences in the article to a single sentence and then we took the phrase out as protected in this Constitution we took that phrase out so now you are left with a single sentence that reflects the original intent as folks built it in the summer and fall and and includes what we think is a very strong and resilient article for our Constitution when you took testimony who did you take testimony from? well I'm happy to get you the list so we took testimony from the Attorney General the Solicitor General our Ledge Council Planned Parenthood Right to Life ACLU Human Rights Commission Vermont Medical Society a representative from the Medical Society trying to think if I'm missing someone might be a couple others we didn't open it up to a public hearing because it's not the kind of thing that really lends itself to a public hearing we get to have one because it's part of the process yeah really this is a the intent is to provide for reproductive liberty personal autonomy our interest was in ensuring what we have in the state of Vermont what we've had for the past 45 years more or less is placed into the Constitution because we know there are threats as well as you folks know there's threats to reproductive liberty Thank you I don't know if we have time to stay but we probably need to walk through unless there are questions for what the process was I'm happy to answer questions I'll defer to Bryn when we get to I got it Senator we passed a piece of we passed a bill out of here and on the floor it's over in the Senate is there a reason why that is not coming forward instead of this first of all this is an S so it started as a proposition 5 in the Senate as all constitutional members must begin in the Senate H57 is an H bill and after crossover we're looking at it so you'll see it's on our agenda on Friday some of us are are looking for further action on that and why we don't do that finish that job first that seemed to be what everybody wanted so are you saying that people would rather have a law than an article in the Constitution I'm not I'm not saying that what I'm saying is we were tied on the bill and we're very appreciative of the work that you did and what you have sent to us public hearing you had we have a list of everyone who testified we have all that testimony and we'll be at least I will be looking at and reviewing all of that testimony as we take up H57 I don't know what more you're asking at this point I mean so I think that an article in the Constitution is more powerful than a law that can be but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have both simply because right now this proposal should you folks act on it and send it to the House for a vote and then it won't go to the people until after we both the Senate and the House vote again in the next biennium the law is critical to supporting this over the next couple of years three or four years and then being a law that's on the books H57 I mean is it fair and I don't want to put words in your mouth so tell me that these go hand in hand of course they do absolutely that one the constitutional amendment is going to the voters to ultimately see if the voters to enshrine a value I mean a constitution doesn't set in place law on what to do and that is what H50 so I guess we have the right excuse me we have the right we have the right right now women have the right we do so remember fundamental right to reproductive liberty includes what the right to choose or refuse contraception the right to choose or refuse sterilization the right to be pregnant and carry pregnancy the term or the right to choose to have abortion those are the things that we would like to protect in the constitution and the bill that you pass to us and that we will be considering over the next few weeks that bill is critical to laying the groundwork should a constitutional amendment be approved by the voters so as representative Pugh has said these two things go together we know that there is a threat at the federal level what's happening with the trump administration is ominous we know that the supreme court it's just a matter of time before Roe v. Wade is overturned and I encourage you to talk with lech council about the difference between article 22 that we have and what other states have that could be in jeopardy should Roe v. Wade be overturned our state right now relies very much on what is in Roe v. Wade so when that goes age 57 and ultimately article 22 will be what we have in place that reflects what we have done for the past 45 years I'm just curious why the word abortion doesn't appear in proposition 5 it seems like it's misleading when you talk about this issue with the public that it doesn't include the word abortion I think reproductive liberty is broader and it is more reflective of what we wanted to see in a constitutional amendment there are some articles in the constitution that are pretty narrow like you have to send your land deed to the town clerk that's pretty darn narrow but for us we felt that reproductive liberty includes more than that and it will allow for supreme court interpretation going further on those things that come up in the future so of course it includes the right to choose abortion so it includes the four things that I listed at least and I think it isn't only about abortion it is about family planning so it's about thinking about when one chooses to use contraception so that one doesn't become pregnant because of either economic or social or job concerns because you know when a family decides to expand itself there are a lot of considerations that are put in place so yeah, abortion is a piece of it but it's more about family planning and contraception and if you look at the testimony that you've got and you've probably had it already in this committee contraception was a dirty word in 1965 so today we take family planning for granted so it's a good question but I think that the article allows for a more expansive look at reproductive liberty that is consistent with what we would want to see in a constitutional article in a constitutional article so Ginny, thank you and people who are around both people who support this are hearing what some of the questions that we have and why is this why are we doing this and is this too broad or too narrow or is Carl's confusing but I think and Ginny if you can stay because I see that Topper and others have maybe questions but I think before we go down the road of questions it would be helpful if we knew actually what was in it and have Ledge Council walk us through that so can you that would be great because I know that on Topper wanted to continue to ask you some questions new committee good to see you all again for the record, Bryn here from legislative council here to do a walkthrough of prop 5 the senator did a nice job of introducing it it's a committee of walkthrough as you see it's quite short and it's worth a read since much of it is pretty straightforward but I'll do my best to give you some context and clarity about the language so section one is a purpose section and as underlying mentioned not historically not all proposals of amendment to the constitution have included a purpose section this one does the discussion and including the purpose section was really to provide some context for the court to use and analyzing the new article 22 and specifically to reflect existing principles and language in the Vermont constitution that offered backdrop for this newly enumerated race so it provides that the amendment in keeping with the values in the current Vermont constitution specifically references chapter 1 article 1 and that's the language that all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent unalienable rights and also references article 7 which is the common benefits clause and that states the government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit protection and security of the people and then it goes on to say that this newly enumerated right reflects the principles of the quality and personal liberty that are reflected in those two articles of the constitution and to ensure that government doesn't create or perpetuate the legal, social, or economic inferiority of the class of people and then it provides some clarification that nothing in this amendment is intended to limit the scope of any rights and protections afforded by the Vermont constitution the second subsection here is that the right to reproductive liberty is central to the exercise of personal autonomy involves decisions people should be able to make free from compulsion of the state and enshrining the right of the constitution ensures that people are treated equally and it holds the right to all people of health, dignity, independence, and freedom section 2 is the article so it adds a new article to the Vermont constitution the right to personal reproductive liberty and it's one sentence I'll just go ahead and read it but an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty of dignity to determine one's own life course and shall not be denier infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restricted agency and as this committee knows in your conversations about age 57 that standard of scrutiny that standard of scrutiny that's a strict scrutiny standard that the court uses in analyzing a regulation on what the court deems to be a fundamental right and if you remember our conversation about the fundamental right that was discussed in Roe vs. Wade was the right to privacy and Roe vs. Wade found that the right to privacy encompassed a woman's right to have an abortion and it talked about that fundamental right as being implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and having to do with that area of a person's life that included marriage, appropriation child rearing, contraception and the like so the article specifically directs the court to use the strict scrutiny standard in analyzing any legislation or any regulation on the rights of personal reproductive autonomy this is based on principles one and seven I mean that's in the purpose so could you is in the purpose section I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me so article one states simply that all persons are born equally free and independent article one is really the general principle on self executing provision in the constitution and just sort of the general statement that talks about the rights of all beings in the state and article seven is what is colloquially known as our common benefits which is somewhat similar to the equal protection clause federally yes that's right so the common benefits clause is the article of the Vermont constitution that the court uses in analyzing whether or not a law infringes upon an individual liberty for example so our common benefits clause is often talked about as sort of being Shanghai to use Shanghai for the use of equal protection so the court will use the common benefits clause in doing equal protection analysis and the US Supreme Court may use the 14th amendment due process clause or equal protection clause the Vermont Supreme Court will likely use the common benefits clause I wasn't in the court did not go and authorized portion up through the entire term of pregnancy they just talked about up through essentially up to survivability is my recollection of the states beyond that to do what they're saying so they had some concept of that the rights or work equality common clause but spoke to not just the mother or the person carrying the child but in some ways respecting the product of the viable fetus yes that's not carried forward in this provision that we're talking about here is that correct well I'm not sure I understand the question I think what Grover's way did was that the state did have a compelling interest in the potential life of the fetus and that began at the viability stage but that doesn't preclude of Vermont court finding something similar the wording I mean you've said that I'm a little confused honestly you've said that one in the U.S. Constitution you used the term common good or common common benefits clause that's the Vermont Constitution that's the Vermont Constitution but in the federal Constitution what's the light thing that you compared it to oh the equal protection well I think we might be mixing up two different things that we're talking about Roe vs. Wade so that the court in Roe vs. Wade found that there was a fundamental right to privacy and that right to privacy encompassed the right to an abortion but then it's analysis and it's specific fact based analysis the court said that the state doesn't have a compelling interest in regular right to abortion during the first trimester because it's the procedure is no more dangerous than choppers in the birth itself but then when they went on to talk about when the state does have a compelling interest we found that the compelling interest comes into play at the stage of viability if that interest is in the potential life of the people I just see some sort of conflict there can you pull up on this so that everyone can see that so here we see the last phrase in article 22 this right shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means so your reading of that is that it falls within Roe vs. Wade interpretation is that correct or not I wouldn't say that because I think that this is a different this enumerates this roots the right somewhere else besides the right to privacy instead it roots the right in the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course so rather than establishing the right to personal reproductive autonomy in this right to privacy the idea of the right to privacy first of all it enumerates it as its own standalone right in the constitution and it does not provide for a right to privacy as protecting the right the ability to determine my own my life's course do you see any unintended consequences with the way this is worded for other laws that we've already passed so are you so I take it you're singling out that dignity to determine one's own life course so I think that the way that the article is structured is that it sets out the right it enumerates that right in the first part of the sentence that an individual has a right to personal reproductive autonomy so that's the new right that cannot be denied or infringed unless justified by compelling state interest that's being enumerated right so this is it's a this is separate from any other right if I'm a lawyer and I'll argue in this case would I have any argument with the way this is worded to say as an example I have a sick relative and that sick relative needs me to be there and so I'm going to take off work to be with that sick relative would this any of the way this is written would that allow me to do that I don't think that it would I think that the way the article is structured first of all it's titled personal reproductive liberty so that sort of sets the context for what the right is about okay and then that language I think that language is pretty narrow it provides for a pretty narrow right that is enumerated there and that is the right to personal reproductive autonomy and I think that if you're getting at that second clause there is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course that's not the enumerated right the enumerated right is the personal reproductive autonomy maybe I'll ask a question different friend are there any other rights like this listed in the constitution this way there is no right to reproductive autonomy in the constitution now and not even so this when Roe vs Wade when that decision was made I thought it was based on the privacy clause right right the 14th amendment included the right to privacy so there is no specific right to privacy that's enumerated in the US constitution that the court found remember we talked about that as well in the case that there is a right to privacy that encompasses the zone of marriage and appropriation so that was found in the 14th amendment so it's not that specific we won't find that word specifically in the constitution but based on the US Supreme Court jurisprudence the court found the 14th amendment to protect the right to privacy and what is different about the construction of the Vermont proposal from the people seem to be talking about Roe vs Wade as the 14th amendment and instead in Vermont what was right so this would enumerate a right in the constitution in the Vermont constitution and articulate that right as a fundamental right and specifically direct the court to treat it as a fundamental right by directing the court to use strict scrutiny analysis on any legislation that would infringe upon the right that's okay to do direct the court on what they can do and what they can't do so yes the way that it's structured yes it's okay to articulate a right as a fundamental right and direct the court to treat it as a fundamental right but it's up to the court to interpret what it means it's up to the court to interpret so are there other articles in the Vermont constitution that the direct a particular standard by the court I think that's what Topper is trying to ask there is not another provision in the Vermont constitution that directs the court to use the strict scrutiny standard I believe this would be the first one to do that and can you repeat for us perhaps in a different way what is the strict scrutiny I don't see those words there so what that is so there are different standards of scrutiny or different levels of analysis that a court will undertake when analyzing whether a restriction on any right is constitutional and what I'm calling the strict scrutiny analysis is invoked when a law negatively affects a fundamental right what a right that the court has determined to be fundamental or the constitution sets out as a fundamental right so strict scrutiny means the court is going to analyze the law to determine whether or not the state had a compelling interest and whether or not that law is written narrowly enough to achieve that compelling interest that the state has in regulating the right so it's sort of a two-part test that the court will do and again it's the highest level scrutiny that a court will undertake when analyzing a regulation so let me ask another question related to that you've talked to me about the personal reproductive autonomy and I mentioned you think there are any unintended consequences to this and I gave you one example I'm going to give you another one now because I worked hard on this one too the death of dignity law I'm not a lawyer but the way I'm reading this the liberty and dignity to determine one own life course shall not be denied or fringe upon let me finish I'm a person in a tough situation and I decide I'm not going to ask the doctor for the prescription I'm just going to deal with it myself which I can do anyway without asking for that but there was some protection in that bill so that people wouldn't just do away with somebody else or talk them into doing something now do you feel the extenuating circumstances with the way this is written so it would throw out that law well what I would say is that a court is not going to look at a phrase within an article of the constitution and take that phrase out of context and apply it to a set of circumstances that have nothing to do with what the article as a whole seeks to protect so the article as it's written is titled in a way that signals to the court what the right protects and then it's phrased in a way that signals to the court that the right that's enumerated is the right to reproductive autonomy and that's the right that's subject to the more rigorous level of analysis for any legislation that seeks to infringe on that rate so what I'm saying to you is I don't think that a court would draw out that one phrase in the middle of the sentence and apply it in a context that has nothing to do with reproductive rights what if the mother the pregnant woman there was a chance that she might die so a woman is trying to make a decision does she want to kill herself or does she want the baby to be born I'm struggling to answer that question well I'm trying to the way the thing is written to me is if I'm that woman I can make that decision because it says I can determine my own life's course great that you have a right to personal reproductive autonomy that's central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course so the question is the question is if I'm pregnant but I have excuse me but I want to kill myself there may be a chance that I might die when giving birth you know just for the record Vermont is one of the women die too often from giving birth my point is if a woman was in a situation like this and she chose would be any problems for you know the article is really structured to set up establish a fundamental right and provide a structure for for the state to in passing any regulation on that rate it indicates to the legislature how they would need to craft legislation I get that I'm trying to think of extenuating circumstances I'm the woman you're the guy and the guy says I want you to have the baby there may be some kind of reasons why if that childbirth goes through that woman could die see I remember when we were having kids and the doctor was asking me hey if we have a problem here because we had a problem this gets into a bad situation which way do you want to go and I said I made that decision I said you saved my wife because I don't know the baby okay and I'm worried about this thing here the way this thing is written where that decision can't be made and the woman dies so do you have something you had senator the questions you're asking are really important questions and if a patient who is incapacitated has an agent in your case you would be the agent yeah but I wasn't officially the agent the doctor just came in and asked me but we already have laws on the books that look at any particular health care decision making process including having an agent who is in your advance directive so it's a different place this is about the four things that I mentioned before contraception sterilization pregnancy that's really the it all do respect that's not what this says I'll let I don't see the word abortion at all in here no it's not I don't see the word no it's not that would narrow this even further so this is to allow for all those things that one uses through personal reproductive decision making to make decisions about one's life course can I ask your question in a little bit different way if I'm trying to get at it I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at if this is giving an individual every individual the right to personal reproductive autonomy and what if there's a conflict between the rights of two people about that reproductive autonomy so it could be the father and it could be the mother one of them wants a baby and the other one doesn't want a baby or there's a health risk for somebody and this one says I don't care there's a health risk for you I want you to have the baby so whose personal reproductive autonomy is going to rule okay so that I can understand that and what I would say to that is that the court isn't going to I don't think that a court would rule in a very pregnancy to term who did not want to carry a pregnancy to term because in that circumstance the court would essentially be sabotaging the right that that person had under Article 22 to reproductive freedom so I can't tell you exactly how a court would rule because I think that those are really factually specific circumstances but I can say that it's very unlikely that a court would rule in a way that would directly undermine the right to have an abortion if the woman who was carrying the baby didn't want to carry the pregnancy to term okay so you don't think and I'm willing to be with you on I don't think I just gave you an example of exactly what happened in my case that's exactly what happened the doctor came out of that room and asked me that question because there was a problem going on where the baby was being bought now how in hell does anybody get in trouble about this the way this thing is written I mean I made a decision that doctor listened to me and he did it luckily everything finally turned out alright but what I'm worried about is somebody's going to get in trouble yeah are you concerned about a physician both both right now my understanding from listening to the testimony on the floor was that at the UVM medical center there's certain forms that have to be filled out certain things have to be met etc. before they'll allow an abortion to take place after 22 or 24 weeks now you're beyond the 22 to 24 weeks you're in that place where the hospital had some rules and regulations and I step in and make the doctor comes out of the room it's okay you're having the abortion the doctor comes out of the room says to me which way do you want to go there is anyone going to get in trouble okay I don't see that I see I guess I'm trying to I feel like I keep saying the same thing but I think that I keep reading the same thing if I understand the question you're not understanding the question we may come back to that but I do agree that we probably need to move on that's okay but just think of this one we're giving an individual in this case I believe a female the right to make that decision okay fast forward guess who made the decision in the example I gave you the physician you're saying I made it he listened to me he asked me I see in that situation that her right to reproductive autonomy was infringed upon what if I said go yell at her I see what if I said save the baby forget about her right so it establishes that right for but she didn't make it the woman didn't make it that's my point and this is probably part of a longer discussion you can continue to have I just don't want Carl to know because I think it also comes into play what is in place legislatively when someone is not confident to make a decision and and your wife if you don't have an advance directive well I mean so but you as you as her husband become the agent in that case I think that is in our I don't think you automatically do well the doctor will contact the next of kin first in that kind of situation so I think that's something that is important if it's critical you should review that but I will say that the medical center did give us some a letter testimony on our web page under this bill and we also learned about the significant medical ethics protocols that are in place in specific situations so that might be and you probably had that would you have had all of that yeah okay one last statement and then I'm done I wish we had done the bill that we passed over that was done first being done over the summer but we had that bill we worked on it we got it I'd like to see that that does not have any as far as I'm concerned any ambiguity that's why I voted for it one of the reasons there is no ambiguity in that this there is in my opinion Carl can you think of any theoretical compelling state interest that would infringe on this right can you think of any theoretical a compelling interest that would infringe yeah I mean it says unless justified by compelling state interest you mean a regulation that would be justified by a compelling state interest yeah I mean that would prevent this reproductive freedom okay right so a regulation that would meet the standard of scrutiny right I mean that would be up to the court to determine I could tell you okay let's just a theoretical thing like let's say we had something like the Spanish influenza hit the state of Vermont and a population dropped by by 30% or something like that and so the state is looking at the population and saying we got to increase our population would that be considered a theoretical or a possible justification for somebody to come to the court I take it they would have to go to the Supreme Court and make the case that this is a compelling state interest to have more children I'm not going to conjecture about what the court may find to be a compelling state interest I would just say that the article enumerates the right to reproductive freedom as a fundamental right so whether or not the court thinks that that fundamental right could be different could be overruled by the state's interest in increasing its population that would be tough for me to say I think that it sounds unlikely to me I'll say that for that to be it so I mean we can't even think of any compelling interest would it put in terms of no it's not but I couldn't think of any I just I'm reluctant to tell you what I think that the court would find to be a compelling state interest for the Senate thank you, thank you very much maybe we're going to tomorrow I mean one we're going to take up this bill again on Thursday I forget what 11 a.m. we're going to take up the bill again on 11 a.m. and and I am still trying to get some folks to testify I have asked the ACLU because there seem to be some questions in terms of that and who from who do we contact in terms of right to life and under age 57 when we were there was another group I'm sorry I'm not remembering the name that wanted to testify I will testify on behalf of the not right to life would you be looking for that Thursday or another day assuming that we get off the floor assuming that we actually can go from 11 I think if you are ready on that day that would be fine and you're not this is not the last day we are going to be exploring this and we're going what I do want to be clear with everybody as I'm looking at everybody we are having a public hearing so the people who I think we need to hear from in committee are representatives of Vermont right to life and other groups that ACLU and then I want to look to the Attorney General as our sixth Attorney General that does those kinds of things for us but the individuals speaking for themselves as we had some of that on age 57 and then we had a public hearing I think it makes most sense now that if there's an individual who wants to testify who wants to have their comments on the record that they come to the public hearing and submit their personal as opposed to organizational comments if they can't come to the public hearing to submit their comments the way it was identified the comments are testimony at Vermont oh I'm sorry what's the address for that yes testimony at led.state.bt.us but within the subject line PR5 because then we'll be able to do it that way I think we have a justice from the Supreme Court or maybe the Chief of Ministry of Judge I want to judge I want somebody that can talk about compelling state interest and stuff like that I want that mind involved in this it's a big deal it's absolutely a big deal might that same concept we can we can always ask because the state Supreme Court justice might need to be sitting and making decisions if someone were to bring a what's it called bring a thing to the court bring a case to to the Supreme Court they may not be able to testify because they are going to be the tribunal that will in fact be where disagreements are or you know so let me see let me do some work in terms of who else can describe for us what a compelling state interest means how are we going to judge from a different state then we're a retired I'll tell you somebody won't be doing it somebody that won't be doing it I think answering I would agree with you very much that we clearly need to have a more clarity as to what is a compelling state interest I think to be perfectly blunt to ask someone and lay out 15 scenarios as to is this a compelling would this be a compelling state interest I think their answer is going to be the same as Britain's which is it will be up to the court to decide based on the facts that are specific to that situation that is what our court system is all about it's making fact based decisions based on the unique fact matter of the place but I do think we all need to understand what is compelling state interest and what what that means if you have the law that came out of this room that's what you're working on none of this you don't have to worry about any of this stuff once you stop putting this stuff in then you have to worry about it and I said that before we even did the bill you're bringing attention to something that's already there you already have that right and now we're bringing further attention to it and it to me we had a nice bill and we do and now we're saying we gotta have the bill and this to do it and this opens up stuff to how somebody feels about something and it brings it to Vermonters do Vermonters and they may do Vermonters the fact that Vermonters say no if Vermonters were to say no six years from now about this assuming the senate passed this on age 57 and the governor signs it if that is law whatever whether or not people in the state of Vermont decide to enshrine this value in the constitution will not impact a sitting law so that law would stay until another legislature until another legislature which some might argue is the reason for a constitutional amendment let's have this and not the other thing this doesn't set in place a legal procedure a legal structure and framework how was the argument to have the law right which is why we did it I just said yes and that is why we needed the law and there are there is a law and there is the constitution which frames what are the on some level the values and beliefs that will and that and it goes to so this is a way this is the partner this whole thing started out with if Roe v. Wade gets overturned I think everybody in this room realizes it was an amendment to that original bill that gave us Roe v. Wade remember that one someone was sitting in that chair giving it to everybody and then it turned down on the floor too and I think this will topper you and others around the table Carl has some very clear questions about what does this mean and you clearly have some questions about what does this mean and what value does this does this do and this is why we are looking at it this is why this is why we are looking at it my recollection is we can't change it we cannot change it this body is not able to change it and that goes back to even before I was born that goes back to my older sister right my older sister that goes back the history teacher wants to look and go back to all of those things we cannot actually so what our role is is to say is up or down do we think bringing a potential constitutional amendment to the people to the Vermonters do people in the state of Vermont is a worthy step to take and do we think that this is it and this is what but in the meantime let's get an understanding of what is really in there so that we can make an informed decision it's thoughtful and that's the work that we do it sounds to me like the senate dotted all their eyes and crossed their T's can't believe it why didn't we do this first why didn't we do this before we did the law then because this is so important I'm not saying because damn it constitutional amendments have to start in the senate well it was worked on all from what I heard this was coming all the time why didn't we waste that time with the other okay Logan I'm sorry I missed your hand I thought your hand was up no I was just scratching my eye you know you fooled me okay I think we've talked enough I think we've talked enough tomorrow tomorrow we are going to you know thank you very much do some more around remember we had a walkthrough with the act relating to substance misuse prevention and we had lots of questions some of which was okay you know one lets why do you want to do it and Commissioner LaVine will be on the phone and we wanted to know someone said oh it looks like Dylinda's position is going to go away and the the opioid council so we want to hear a little bit from her in terms of that and then we were curious okay don't we have this director of prevention and resilience in the agency and where does isn't that doing the same thing so that's actually the morning we were trying to get a handle on that when we get off the floor we're going back to raising the age of when someone can purchase a tobacco product to 21 we've got some people again Mark LaVine on the phone and the medical society we've gotten a lot of information we had questions what do other states do stuff like that which we can review in terms of that and then just as a heads up on Thursday morning you will see that we again are doing an act relating to substance misuse prevention for the first like hour and a half the congressional delegation asked if they could come and you know I'll say no to like all sorts of people but I won't say no to the congressional delegation and there are other people who are coming I think someone from another they were all once someone from ladies office well so then I made sure that everyone else was invited no because we're going to be in room 11 we're going to be in room 11 so when is this that's on Thursday and I want to say the input is for this besides the fact that they offered oh fine of course whatever you want but it was in response to their staff had read and knew that this committee and the legislature was interested in substance misuse prevention and there was no money I'm not sure there really is money but they're going to talk about what the federal government has done so that is where that's all come through and then on Thursday we again pick up on prop 5 that 146 is the one where a bunch of different things are right it really is to consolidate all of those commissions and advisory councils and groups that deal with various aspects of substance use prevention and tobacco control and prevention and have maybe we could do the same thing for those toxic substances everybody's got their own advisory committee on that anyway so that's on our week thank you very much see you all tomorrow