 Welcome, viewers, to our ongoing program, Focus, coming to you from Channel 17 Center for Media and Democracy here in Burlington, Vermont. I'm your host, Margaret Harrington. And viewers, the title for today's program is The Vermont Reproductive Health Bill is Bad Legislation. The longer title is H57, the Vermont Reproductive Rights Health Bill or the Abortion Bill, is Bad Legislation for Human Beings in Vermonters. So I'm going to read the opinion piece that I sent to various publications here in Vermont over the past month and which have not been published. They have not been published, and I'm going to read this for you so that you understand what is on my mind and on the minds of thousands of Vermonters regarding this H57 bill. An individual ingestation at a particular time is treated as living at that time if the individual lives 120 hours after birth. According to Vermont Statute Title 14, Chapter 42, Descent and Survivors Rights in Vermont Law, this individual ingestation is legally an afterborn heir and can inherit a decedent estate in Vermont. Vermont is in a state of emergency to pass a Vermont Reproductive Health Bill, and this is one example of existing rights that can be taken away if this bill is signed into law. Following our three reasons why H57, the Vermont Reproductive Health Bill, as passed by the Vermont House and eminently to be decided in the Vermont Senate is contrary to precepts of democracy. Number one, H57 removes legal protections already set in place by the Supreme Court row versus weighed decision. Two, there was no voter discussion of specifics of the abortion issue prior to the November 2018 elections or prior to the passage of the Vermont Reproductive Health Bill in the Vermont House. Three, the bill was lobbied for and written by a corporation. The legal protections in row versus weighed specify protecting the woman's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. In H57, the trimester framework is discarded and the rights of the woman seeking abortion to safe medical care are not protected as in row versus weighed. H57 is an emergency bill which preempted all other issues that candidates talked about in Vermont prior to the November 2018 election. There was no discussion with voters about this abortion bill. The majority of Vermont voters did not know they were voting for candidates who would vote for abortion on demand and Part C of the bill. Quote, no fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall have independent rights in Vermont law. Repeat, no fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall have independent rights under Vermont law. In town meeting Vermont, there was no civil discourse on this issue. In addition, there was a paucity of input in the restricted time at the H57 hearings where every change or amendment offered by anybody at all was thrown out. This resulted in passage of the bill as written by all of Vermont Democratic Party representatives. Planned Parenthood lobbied for the H57 bill by promoting abortion access under the emergency condition that row versus weighed will be overturned by conservative judges on the Supreme Court. So H57 has to protect abortion rights. Yet, H57 throws out rights stipulated in row versus weighed. Planned Parenthood is a corporation with an annual total revenue of $1.3 billion, including approximately $530 million in taxpayer funding such as medical reimbursements. This corporation lobbied successfully to block single-payer medical coverage in both Colorado and California. The revolving door between working for Planned Parenthood and being a Vermont legislator is apparent and raises this question. Is the legislator working for the people of Vermont or their interests or for corporate interests? Is the legislator working for Vermont people's interests or corporate interests? The issues of states' rights versus federal law, the power of corporate money in politics, and the silencing of the Vermont voter's voice in legislation have been drawn into clear focus by this divisive abortion bill H57. The Vermont reproductive health bill should not be passed by the Senate and not signed by Governor Scott. The prospect of having to overturn such a law in the Vermont Supreme Court would be tough in a case of the people of Vermont versus the state of Vermont. But given the transparent assault on precepts of democracy, it would be worth the fight. So viewers, that is my opinion piece that I sent to the Burlington Free Press in Vermont Digger. They have not printed it in the whole month. They've had this issue on their table. I'll end with a poem by Emily Dickinson, which speaks to all of us. This is my letter to the world that never wrote to me. The simple news that nature sent with splendid, with tender majesty. This is my letter to the world that never wrote to me. The simple news that nature told with tender majesty. Her message is delivered to hands I cannot see. For love of her, sweet countryman, judge tenderly of me. Thank you. Until next time. And we will have a continuation of this issue with different experts in the field of ethics and liberty, First Amendment rights. Thank you.