 Okay, we have testimony, oh it's posted. There's an individual who had requested to testify. We offered that he come to the public hearing or stand written testimony. So now the wires got crossed. So he's on the phone today because he... So, yeah. It is Norman Smith who I have to ask him when he comes up on our database. He speaks for the Vermont Ethical Health Care Alliance. He's the general speaker of the committee. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith, can you hear me? Yeah, he's breaking up. Okay, well that's all right. I can break up. You're not breaking up at all. But I do, as I said to the committee, we seem to have had a mixed communication or mixed signals because I understand that you had gotten an invitation to submit something in writing prior to this or to come to the public hearing. I didn't know that so I sent you the email today and I'm glad that you can testify right now and around the room, 10 of the 11 members of the committee are here right now. And then as I understand you've testified downstairs in Senate. Yes, I did. In Senate Health and Welfare so you know that there are interested parties as well listening. So Mr. Smith, if you could start your testimony. We'll let you go through it and as you do that if you could identify yourself. On our database you are speaking for the Vermont ethical health care alliance. Yeah, sort of, and also personally. Okay. Okay, so Madam Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify regarding the proposal by declaration of rights and personal resources. My name is Norman Smith. I was born and raised in St. John'sbury graduating from St. John'sbury Academy in 1973. I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduating in 1977 with a bad school degree in urban studies and climate. I then studied law at the college university who was law graduating in 1980. I flirted in 1981 for Albert W. Barney Jr. the then Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. I now serve on the Vermont Supreme Court's probate court oversight committee and the probate court rules committee. I am a full practitioner and as a junction where much of my practice focuses on probate wills, trust, hours of attorney, and advanced directives. I helped serve many elderly that disabled clients over the years. I have managed to finance with several elderly clients that no one could help. I have served as a court-pointed guardian for several years. Proposal five stated purpose is to protect personal reproductive autonomy. The proposed amendment, however, does not define personal reproductive testimony. What personal reproductive autonomy means therefore will not be determined by the people of Vermont through their legislature rather it will be defined by the Vermont Supreme Court. Reproductive rights may well change over time. Reproductive rights are not limited to abortion. They could include the following. Human cloning for reproductive purposes, gestational, just, seriguously trafficking achieved by in vitro fertilization and then followed by human embryo transfer and after the birth the handing over of born human child in exchange for payment. Trafficking in humans, it could also result in trafficking in human embryo creation, the creation of the human embryo by in vitro fertilization and the substance failure trade of such human embryos for implantation in another woman's womb for the purposes of reproduction. It could result, it could include designer babies, the creation of designer embryos using gene editing techniques and the implantation and birthing of such genetically modified human beings. Additionally, the word autonomy is not defined in the proposal. This could raise several issues included would the autonomy include the right, would the autonomy right under such criminal prohibitions related to age of consent or sexual assault if a minor girl starts to become pregnant with the assistance of a man over the age of 18? Would a minor girl's rights to personal reproductive autonomy be infringed if such a man were prosecuted for sexual contact with a minor? Proposal five may also require a state's funding of any of the above treatments. The over-broad language of proposal five might be used to argue that economically disadvantaged people have a constitutional right to in vitro fertilization, human cloning, gestational courtesy, brain care embryos or any other reproductive technology and that the state most of the duties subsidize or fund these practices. The state is already required to pay for abortions for those who qualify as a result of a Vermont court decision based upon Vermont's constitution. This is doubly troubling because we cannot predict what future reproductive technologies may be developed. This amendment would lead it to the Vermont different court, not the legislature to make that policy decision about these issues. The proposal requires a compelling state interest in order to allow regulation. I have not been able to find a clear test for what constitutes a compelling state interest. It would appear in the case that I have reviewed that it is simply the court which determines whether regulation has a compelling state interest. So the proposal again leads it up to the Vermont Supreme Court to determine whether a regulation has a compelling state interest. By requiring the state standard, the legislature is giving up its ability to regulate reproductive technologies that may be created in the future. The case does not appear to provide a clear test for what a least restrictive means might be and in cases I have reviewed the court simply makes a determination based upon his judgment of the fact in the case. Again, this proposal leads it to the Vermont Supreme Court to determine whether regulation accomplishes its goals through a least restrictive means. In closing, proposal five is still open ended in day that many unintended consequences will result rather than a legislature that Vermont Supreme Court will make many policy decisions with respect to reproductive rights. I urge the committee and the House to reject this adoption. And I'm happy to take any questions that the committee members have. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Committee, questions. Mr. Smith, thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. It is now on our website for us to review again and for others to review who are looking for it. Thank you for your time. Thank you for allowing me to test. Absolutely. Have a good day, everyone. You too. Have a nice day. The other testimony that I would like to read and Julie is now posted. I received a communication from UVM and C about their statement which they have shared with their staff on Wednesday or Thursday. I believe that UVM and C will have to be refreshed. At the University of Vermont Health Network, decisions about reproductive health, including abortion, are the concern of the patient and their provider. As is the case with all medical care. We support state laws, including a constitutional amendment to protect reproductive rights. This includes the right to contraception and to save legal abortion. We also support the right of individual health care providers to elect to not participate in abortion procedures. I thought it was important for this committee to see this statement if you recall during our discussion of age 57, we had individual physicians speaking, individual health care providers speaking on behalf of themselves or the professional organization. I thought that was important for people to have that as well. During I guess I'm just liking it being kind of safe. Certainly. In terms of some of the comments that were just made by Mr. Smith in terms of what would be definitely allowed under proposition 5, I wanted to to get your some of your feedback on that. Sure. We've already talked a bunch and people have had different views on whether things are clear in terms of language. Sure. So I'm just saying this but I'd be glad to comment on certainly I have not seen it before but I'm glad to provide some comments on at least some of it. So for the record, from legislative council I think the committee has talked about the word autonomy. That's a word that can be found in the dictionary. It means the right to self-govern to make decisions about one's self. The question of would this autonomy somehow prohibit criminal prosecution for a person who commits statutory rape, I would say the answer to that is the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting sex with a minor and proposition 5, the wording of article 22 is not going to somehow override our statutory rape clause and I would just emphasize for the committee that that's a good example of what compelling state interest is the state interest in prohibiting sex with a minor. We can have Madam Chair, we can have five lawyers sit in that chair and say five different things. That's why I wanted to get a judge here I'm just going to make that point again because that's who's going to make the decision with this passage. And no disrespect anyway. So comment what the judge is going to say is that a judge can't comment without the specific facts specific to the situation that there's not a cookie cutter for the criteria and so we could give them a hypothetical and they wouldn't be able to answer that Well, they'd be able to give you a decision based on the language I mean that's, this is my opinion. And I'm just sharing my opinion. Yeah. Other questions for Bryn so we can get her, I mean otherwise we can have a discussion and I would entertain we have other questions for Bryn. Bryn, thank you. Thank you. Can you put, I'm sorry ask what we are I will now share that we don't move Proposition 5 out of the committee. Second. You want your book, won't you? Yes. Discussion. The reason that I move in the way I did is because I've said from the beginning when this first hand to us that the way it's written there are, it was interesting when I read this here too there are too many unintended consequences that in my mind come out of this and I've mentioned a couple of them and there's some more here and that's why I'm doing this I think it's going to do more harm and we have a bill that we pass in this committee and on the floor that is being worked on that is My major concern with this proposition going forward is the implication it would have on potential life not just potential life but the life of a viable human being at 20, 26 weeks in the future and I have a feeling there should be more and more emphasis placed on the fact that this is a living human being and should have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and this proposition would further complicate laws going forward to protect the life of a viable human being and for that reason I with the topper I'm opposing this proposition going forward I will be opposing your motion because I support moving proposition 5 forward and I support it because personally I support this and I believe that similar to the statement that I just read from the health network which I just got an e-mail it took so long because it's seven different boards so it wasn't just three people but that reproduced the decisions about reproduction that is made to an individual and their physician and then I supported the law that we had before my other reason for supporting this is the ultimate outcome of this process is this brings it to the people of Vermont so if I am wrong if I am in the minority of the people of Vermont they will speak and I think that I believe that on something as important as this that the people of Vermont deserve the ability to to say whether or not they believe that personal reproductive autonomy is a fundamental value to be in there I'll just quickly say that I agree with Madam Chair on both of those points I also just agree that the individual and their physician should have the right to make decisions about their health care in general should be between the person and their physician and that whether or not they're a female I think that's important and I also really do really supportive of bringing this to the people there are a lot of things we decide here that there's this little piece of me that wishes that we could bring more to the people to tell us how they feel about a position that is difficult where we really argue and talk for a long time on the floor and we all know that isn't very many things but every once in a while there is one that goes on and you do want to hear from the people that's what a lot of us do surveys and things like that so I'm really interested in this and I feel good I agree with you and you I do believe it should go to the people I agree with Carl on the issue and Topper on the issue that I find it distressing that the issue there's no willingness to differentiate between viable and unwed and so that's why I personally wouldn't choose to have abortion because of my religious beliefs and I absolutely support this as a right for women and I don't feel I have the right to determine for everyone else what the lay of the land is I am petrified with what is happening in this country around the rights of women and their ability even since we passed age 57 what has happened since then in terms of eroding the rights and I absolutely feel like this is an essential thing that we have to bring to the people for them to speak I will absolutely be supporting this I feel similarly to what you just said Miradeth and there's probably in the time that I've been here I haven't received much more email than about this particular subject though last year probably it's an exception and I feel like people are the opportunity to be heard and as you were saying Jessica it is rare that we have the opportunity for people to be heard since we're not a public referendum state and so I feel like the final word would be with the people in the state so I would be supporting or not supporting the motion I have another statement and reading the university the one health network I noticed that they leave out the part that I brought up before about if they refuse to have an abortion they are going against what this constitutional amendment says they are can you clarify it can clarify it's right up there it says it's centered to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life of course and shall not be denied or infringed upon if the universe if the doctors or that group of people that make the decisions about late term abortions after 24 weeks if they decide that the abortion is not going to take place they are infringing upon the woman's right to have that abortion and I'm surprised they didn't deal with that the except UBM I agree with principle but UBM is not the state so this would be doesn't matter to me what they are they are performing the abortion there could be planned parenthood as an example if they refuse a woman they are going against the woman's right what's trying to be done here is to have personal reproductive autonomy going against that Tapper I think you are I'm not trying to persuade you to change your mind I believe that you are misinterpreting and I would ask misinterpreting this statement and I would ask either maybe you could help so as the committee heard yesterday I think this might be just sort of a fundamental misunderstanding about what the constitution does and the constitution as you heard yesterday from the attorney general's office acts as a check on state power so adding article 22 to Vermont's constitution would provide a specific check on state power from interfering with the right to reproductive autonomy so it wouldn't have an effect on a private institution a medical facility of individual it's about what the state how the state can interfere with the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy I guess I got to make another statement just so everyone knows how I feel when the attorney general when the two people came in here yesterday I was disturbed personally that they talked about supporting this because that's not what they're supposed to do they're supposed to come in here and talk to us about the law so I might as well get that off my chest too I still say we should have had a judge count we could have set it up so that they weren't going to be a judge that would be making any decisions could have been a retired judge just to get an idea of interpretation that's my big hang up there's too many unintended consequences here for me and I voted by the way for the bill that still isn't out of that Senate the motion is to not support not to move article 22 out of committee so a yes vote means this article goes no further and stays in committee a no vote will move this article to the floor or the legis or the house to decide whether it takes the next step so begin to call the vote representative fond so a yes vote means a yes vote is in support of the motion that you made I made yes to keep it here representative Haas representative Brunstead no representative Rosenquist yes representative Redmond no representative Paella no representative Gregoire yes representative Noys no representative Wood no sales of a eight to eight I'm sorry, I'm sorry but I'm sure but we approve the second motion I'm move to approve proposal five the Quirk show begin to call the roll representative fond no representative Haas representative Brumstead represent Rosenquist. No. Represent Redmond. Yes. Represent Nicole. Yes. Represent Paella. Yes. Represent Brighard. No. Represent Noyes. Yes. Represent Wood. Yes. Represent Pugh. Yes. Motion to move, perhaps if we find that committee has us on eight to three. Thank you committee for reminding us all of the constitutional process or steps that we have to take. It will be on notice on Tuesday and it will be on notice. It has to be on notice for four legislative days. So it will be on notice all next week and it will not come up for action until the following Tuesday. So does that mean that there will be full debate on Tuesday, like on the bill that we did as well? Yeah, just on the constitution. I just said that. Does that mean that following Tuesday when it comes off of notice, do we have a full out debate? We will have, yes. So if there is a full debate on the Tuesday after whatever day that is. So next week it's the whole week it's on notice? Correct. The whole week. Four days. And then the next Tuesday. And the next Tuesday I will be reporting it on the floor of the house and there will be no debate. And there will be. I think maybe there won't be, but there may be debate. But there can't be any amendments. So it may be, I mean I don't know, it may be more statements that people are making as opposed to, since an amendment, I don't know whether the speaker will say non-Germain or whether the speaker will say sorry can't do it. There's probably some fancy words to say about that. And I believe it is a one-day vote. It's a one-day, it's not a. It's not a, it's a one-day up and down. And it is a majority vote. A majority of members. A majority of members. So there needs to be 76. Positive vote. Correct. Madam Chair. Yeah. I can't remember. Does the purpose, when it goes out to the public, does the purpose go with it? No. Just think. When it goes out, the only thing that will go out will be below that. True. And then I would just want you to. So after just the Tuesday after that. Yeah. 76 votes. Next year, nothing year after. Correct. Correct. Do we have to debate or have a committee next year? No. In the following legislation. Oh, that's right. Okay. The final legislation, the Senate will, the process. Read the book. The Senate doesn't, this is not, again it is not a change the language. It is, here's the language. Yes or no in the Senate. Here's the language. I mean, and if the Senate says yes, comes to the house, here's the language. Public hearing. Public hearing. Get into the public hearing. Another one. And then if the House were to vote, yes. The next legislative, the next legislative session, it goes to the votes. The only difference in the Senate, if I understand it, is instead of two-thirds votes today would be the majority. In the second year. Yes.