 Josh, on folks, on our old agenda, it was TJ, but he's unable to, excuse me, our old agenda, it was the attorney general, I'm sorry, don't need to do so, and he's unable to attend. So Josh, we have you. Yes, Chairperson Pugh, members of the committee. Joshua Diamond, Deputy Attorney General. It is my privilege and honor to be here on behalf of the Attorney General and the entire Attorney General's office, including Ellis Fox, who is here to join us today. She is our Deputy Secretary General who is our subject matter expert and will also be providing testimony. But as I said, it is our honor and privilege to provide testimony in support of Proposition 5, which recognizes reproductive autonomy, including abortion, as a fundamental right under the law of the Constitution. Under current federal constitutional law, there is a recognized fundamental right to abortion. This right has been long recognized since 1973, in the case of Roe v. Wade, and has since been reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood versus Casey back in the early 90s. Under federal constitutional jurisprudence, a fundamental right is one that gets heightened protection against governmental intrusion under the due process clause when it is implicit in our concept of order of liberty, or deeply rooted in the history and tradition of our nation. Unfortunately, given changes to the makeup of the US Supreme Court, we believe that this fundamental right, this federal fundamental right, may be at risk to either being completely reversed or certainly rolled back or substantially eroded. And we believe the Vermont Constitution therefore should be amended, as proposed in Proposition 5, to expressly protect the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, including abortion, because it is both implicit in this state's concept of order of liberty and deeply rooted in our history and tradition. Vermont has long had no restrictions on abortion in the state, and the decision about whether to abort a pregnancy is a private, personal one that exists between a woman and her physician, and that's the way it should run. Proposition 5 creates a special opportunity for Vermont. Like other Vermont constitutional provisions, we have an opportunity to create protections for individual freedom and liberty that surpass the Vermont Constitution. There are a couple of examples, if I may, under Article 11 of our Constitution, which prohibits or protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, already provides levels of protection that exceed the federal court amendment. Under the Common Benefits Clause, under Article 7, we only need to look back to the case of Baker v. State, which famously recognized under the Common Benefits Clause that same-sex couples shouldn't be entitled to the same benefits and privileges of marriage. At that time, the federal constitution did not recognize under the Equal Protection Clause those rights. We have a historic opportunity in this state, and I strongly urge support and passage of Proposition 5 to protect the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, including abortion. Our office looks forward to the debate that will go forward, not only in this legislature, but also before the Vermont voters, hopefully, will decide to pass Proposition 5. Thank you for your time. I have to take any questions or turn it over to our deputy sister general. Today, as we sit around the state, women have a fundamental right to abortion, do they not? They do, under the federal constitution. What about the Vermont Constitution? One, I think, could properly interpret the provisions to make sure that there's no ambiguity. Having this expressly recognized under the Vermont Constitution is an important step to protect this fundamental right. Proposition 5, as it's written, you made the statement just now that it protects fundamental rights, including abortion. Am I right in quoting you? That is correct. What other rights might Proposition 5 protect? Well, as any constitutional amendment, you are trying to protect broad, fundamental principles, reproductive autonomy in this case. And so, unlike a statute that can be amended easily, and typically more specific, you're trying to create an enduring concept that will transcend time. For example, freedom of speech, given with discretion. The founders of this country in the first amendment couldn't contemplate the internet. But certainly the concepts of freedom of speech applied to this new technology. So I think by using the phrase, reproductive freedom, we create a principle that will hopefully improve our life. If you want Ellen to join you or not, that's up to you. My question. Okay, because I was going to ask him what this person would be productive autonomy. I thought that's what you were getting at. Okay, sorry, never mind. That'll be the next one. Okay, you go ahead, Tom. If you would, the phrase, shall not be denied armed friends unless justified by a compelling state interest. What does that mean? Certainly, as with many other fundamental rights, whether it be those protected under the protection clause or let's say the first amendment. Those rights get heightened protection, but they're not absolute protections. So in order for states to infringe on those fundamental rights, there has to be a compelling government interest. And that the means by which those compelling government interests are perpetuated must be done by the least restrictive means. One might be a prohibition by yelling fire in a theater, a movie theater. That wouldn't be protected necessarily under the first amendment because there's a compelling government interest. And there are others that are sort of the sole source of the general can provide to. If you don't mind the way we ask questions, you may have prepared remarks. But I think Topper would like you to answer that as much as you can now as well. Certainly. So as I understand the question, you're asking about the, what it means to be justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. So, could you identify yourself? Yes, of course. For the record, Eleanor Spotswood and the deputy solicitor general of the attorney general's office. And now I'm going to process questions for the community and everyone. Does it make sense if you have prepared remarks for you to go through these clear remarks and then to go forward questions? Or should we, what does the committee, what's the pleasure of that committee? You just heard from the assistant attorney general. The deputy, I guess. Same. I'm not for the deputy, but... No, no, no, no, I elevated you. I think that to me is higher. I'd like to, you know, after his remarks, ask him about certain things. But I will follow to whatever the committee wants to do. I'm going to ask a lot of questions. Oh, I know you are. I know you are. As these other people, that's why we got the more... Same. Whatever the committee would like to do. I suggest that we hear everything that they have prepared. So just write the questions down and know that we're going to come back. So we're going to let you... Which is a first in our committee. Just thought I would tell you. I am honored. I hope I'll touch on many of your questions in the course of... And if not, I am happy to answer them. So I was planning to start today by sort of backing up and talking about the Vermont State Constitution and what it does and why it's important to amend it in this way. Particularly because I know this committee is used to dealing with statutes all the time and you already passed age 57 and so I would understand if there were some questions about, you know, why are we not talking about Proposition 5? So broadly speaking, the state constitution, like the federal constitution, operates as a check on state government power. Josh already mentioned the example of free speech. Free speech is protected by, of course, the federal constitution in the First Amendment. It's also protected by the Vermont State Constitution in Chapter 1 Article 13. The state and federal constitutions operate in essentially the same way for free speech purposes. But that's not always true. There are ways in which the state constitution is more protective than the federal constitution. And one example of that is the Common Benefits Clause, which Josh also mentioned. It's very similar to the Federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, but it operates a little bit differently. So it provides special protection for same-sex relationships and equal educational opportunities as the decision. The state constitution also, it does provide for its own amendment. This is a process that has happened with some regularity throughout Vermont's history. The specific amendment provision in the Vermont Constitution is in Chapter 2, Section 72. As the committee probably know, the process starts every four years. And any amendment to the Vermont Constitution must be passed twice by this body before the voters get to decide if we will actually adopt it. So the constitution is really meant to be a moving document. And it does, as I mentioned, happen with some frequency. So it was last amended in 2010 to lower the constitutional voting age. So statutes can really be easily changed and revisited, but the constitution is obviously a lot harder to change. So the constitution tends to be where we sort of declare basic principles of government, basic democratic principles, basic criminal rights. So one of the key differences that you'll note right off the bat between constitutional amendment and statutes is that the wording of the constitutional amendment should be clear enough to convey its purpose, but flexible enough to account for changing circumstances that we may not anticipate at this time. So the first amendment example that Josh gave is a perfect example. Obviously the framers of the federal constitution did not anticipate the internet, but the first amendment still applies to the internet. So with that background in mind, I'd like to turn to Prop 5 specifically. Again, as Josh mentioned, it clearly recognizes an important right that is only been recognized in the federal constitution so far, and not yet in the Vermont Constitution. It's not explicit in the Vermont Constitution, and the Vermont Constitution has never been interpreted by our Supreme Court to protect, reproductive autonomy in quite this way. Whereas the federal constitution has. So now that we're anticipating potentially the change in the way the US Supreme Court interprets the federal constitution, my understanding is that is the impetus for this process taking place. Is this important enough to Vermont to let the voters decide whether to put it into our constitution? I've heard some questions about what is reproductive autonomy already, and yes, I think it includes, or it has the potential to include some things we haven't thought about yet. But it also is important to note that because it's sort of drawn from the federal case law, it does encompass a basket of rights that the federal constitution, the US Supreme Court decisions have already determined to be fundamental rights and related to reproductive autonomy. So what this body has been talking a lot about abortion, this right should also encompass the right to choose or refuse contraception, the right to choose or refuse sterilization, the right to become pregnant, and the right to choose an abortion. So those are all sort of settled in federal law as part of reproductive autonomy. They're all part of the same doctrine of cases that the US Supreme Court has already decided are kind of related. We notice because the cases rely on each other and cross-reference each other when talking about these rights. So those are things that are absolutely included in reproductive autonomy. Obviously, abortion is the thing that generates the most political interest, but contraception, sterilization, and pregnancy are all part of that as well. So Prop 5 prevents future state governments from restricting reproductive rights. This includes, unlike a statute, this includes future laws passed by the legislature. So Prop 5 becomes part of the constitution, it will restrict this body the same way that the rest of the constitution restricts the general assembly. So the same way that you can't currently pass a law restricting, you know, broadly restricting free speech, you will not be able to pass a law broadly restricting reproductive autonomy unless you can get through this compelling governmental interest justified by those restrictive teams. It also, like statutes, would find other branches of government, so it would find executive agencies as well, and essentially no state actor could restrict reproductive autonomy without justifying it in the way that Prop 5 asks, and I will get to that in a second. So some examples of things that most likely would not pass that standard are requiring multiple doctors to approve each abortion. Unless you could come up with a really compelling governmental interest in doing that, we probably couldn't pass a law that restricted reproductive autonomy in that way. In closing a gag order on providers that counsel pregnant women, you know, you can't say that those providers wouldn't be able to counsel pregnant women about abortion. Restricting love insurance plans may cover for abortion care. These are all certain examples of things that would most likely not pass the standard set up in Prop 5. So let's talk about that standard. As you've probably heard from other witnesses, justified by a compelling state interest achieved by those restrictive teams is a term of art in the law. It's what we refer to as strict scrutiny. It is a very high standard. It's the highest standard under which courts review any governmental action. And generally speaking, the federal courts have broken down their standards into three different levels. So strict scrutiny is the highest. So that's the highest standard under which courts will review a governmental action. Generally speaking, courts use that standard when they are analyzing any state action, any law, any regulation that they think infringes on a fundamental right, or categorizing people who are in suspect classes like race. So you can't pass laws that categorize people based on their race without having a compelling state interest justified by those restrictive means. Lower than strict scrutiny is intermediate scrutiny. That requires only an important governmental interest, which is substantially related to the means that the law uses. And then the lowest standard is rational basis review. And that's what most laws get if they're challenged under the Constitution and they don't, you know, infringe on fundamental rights. So strict scrutiny is the standard that the court used in court versus court. So this proposition would essentially enshrine into Vermont law the scheme that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade. You may have heard that after Roe v. Wade, the court drifted away from strict scrutiny a little bit. It now analyzes reproductive rights under a undue burden standard, which is sort of a, it's a little bit different from the other standards of scrutiny that the court has used, but when it first decided Roe v. Wade, it said, this is a fundamental right and it gets strict scrutiny. And that was the scheme that we had in place for two decades before the court went back and apparently versus Casey and decided, oh, we can give it this undue burden standard, which is a little lower. But for two decades we did have strict scrutiny under Roe v. Wade. Notably in that time, courts did still uphold laws that restricted abortion under the strict scrutiny standard. Courts particularly uphold laws that restricted abortion in the third semester and later in pregnancy because it found that there were sort of the courts, these are not some new court decisions, because they were lower court decisions, did find that there were, in some cases, compelling criminal interests for which to do so. So strict scrutiny is not absolute. The state can absolutely still infringe on a fundamental right if it can justify its action properly. It is a high bar. The burden is on the government to justify its law. The law is presumptively invalid, but it's not fatal to the law. So actually studies show analyzing decisions of all different courts that have analyzed laws under strict scrutiny. Studies show that approximately one in three laws will survive the strict scrutiny challenge. So about 30% of the laws that are challenged under the strict scrutiny standard actually are upheld by courts. So I have a couple of examples. Free speech is generally something protected by the First Amendment under a strict scrutiny standard like this. It's a very important right in America. We give it the highest standard. But the US Supreme Court has found that some regulations on sexually explicit speech may be upheld by a compelling governmental interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors by shielding them from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards but could be seen as inappropriate for children. That was from a case that involved a telemarketing scheme for porn. And the court said, you know, there is a governmental interest, a governmental interest in shielding minors from, you know, having contact with this material. And so the court said that some laws could be upheld under that interest. Other examples. We do have a fundamental right to travel in America. That is a right that strict scrutiny. But courts have still upheld certain juvenile curfew laws. Again, under an interest in protecting minors and some restrictions on traveling in national lands based on an environmental interest protecting those resources. I already mentioned that any law drawing a race-based classification that strict scrutiny, some affirmative action policies could be upheld with the compelling governmental interest in eliminating prior discrimination. So again, it's strict but it's not absolute. And there are certainly examples, many examples where courts have upheld laws under the strict scrutiny standard. Only questions until... I know it's not a mutual process. So we're having to try to adapt a little bit. So let's see. There are some things that Proposition 5 does not do, which I've raised some questions about throughout this process. It does not require any private healthcare practitioner to provide any particular service and portion. It does not restrict the state from regulating healthcare providers broadly or licensing providers to make sure that they're practicing safely. It does not require any private individuals to undergo any medical procedures. And it doesn't change parental obligations after birth. So I've heard some assertions about how Prop 5 would change the child support laws in Vermont. And the ADU's office absolutely does not believe that's true. This is about the reproductive choices that have well before birth. And it's only after birth that those child support laws can get to effect. So that is the bulk of my prepared remarks. I am happy to take your questions. Take it away, Tyler. What does Proposition 5 do? It protects a fundamental right to personal reproductive autonomy. And it enshrines in the Vermont Constitution the rights that have already been founded with federal constitution. And in Article 22, the phrase, the personal reproductive autonomy is central to liberty and dignity to determine one's own life's course. What does that mean? So these are all... Ledge Council has done a wonderful job in crafting this amendment. These are all awards and phrases that have been drawn from U.S. Supreme Court decisions about reproductive autonomy. So I don't know if she's provided this to you yet. I believe it's in the record. But there is an annotated and footnoted version of this that tells you exactly which Supreme Court cases these words have come from. And they're all familiar to me, certainly, having looked into this area of law. But Roe v. Wade is one of them. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is another. Eisenstadt, New Baird, and Prince Ausby, Carhartt, those are cases involving the right to access contraception. So these words have a long history. And that's a history that the Court would look to when it's interpreting Article 22. So as I said in my remarks, personal reproductive autonomy involves the right to contraception, sterilization, pregnancy, and abortion. You know those things from the U.S. Supreme Court case law that gave us these words. And the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course similarly comes from the same set of cases. So the question keeps coming up here is that separate from reproductive autonomy, does that make water, central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life? Does that extend from right to personal reproductive autonomy? There seems to be a question as to whether or not that is more expansive than what you just said in terms of personal reproductive autonomy. It does not expand Article 22. So the right protected by Article 22 is the right to personal reproductive autonomy. What those subsequent words do is act context. It says personal reproductive autonomy is situated in the concept of the ability to determine one's own life course. That's why this right isn't true. But it doesn't create a larger right. And you can see that in the Senate structure. It says an individual right to personal reproductive autonomy is part of this concept. But it's the right to personal reproductive autonomy that will not be infringed by the most justified principle. I want to go back to Dan. If you made this statement, fundamental rights include abortion. What are the fundamental rights that you're talking about? The ones that are generally recognized are access to contraception, sterilization, and pregnancy. They include, in Vermont, we have a law that says if I choose to end my life, there's a path for me to take. Is that a fundamental right that I have? I think that is a fundamental right that's contemplated by Article 22. I'm thinking ahead of a judge sitting there. This thing here says that I have a right to determine my own life's course. I'm not prepared to speculate today about what our Supreme Court might do on that particular issue. But what Article 22 addresses is the personal reproductive autonomy, which is part of this concept of implicit liberty to determine one's own life's course. That we recognize, that we all have a natural right to grow as individuals and choose our life path. There are restrictions, but this Article 22 is focused on reproductive autonomy. That's one of the things. We can go back to the question of liberty, central to the liberty, and dignity. We go back to determine one's own life's course. When there is a concern that it will be expressed by members of the committee that that is more than personal reproductive autonomy. But this constitutional element doesn't affect the rest of the scope of those broader concepts. Can you explain to that how it doesn't? If I could jump in. There are ways in which the Constitution sets out some broad strokes about values, which are not necessarily the same as rights. It also sets out rights. But in doing so, it talks about values. I was looking for... I can't find it in my child notes, but I was looking for Article 1 to the Vermont Constitution. It's a great example. And in Article 1, it talks about the right to... I don't actually think we use the word right, but yes. Thank you. We're all very hopeful. That all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and unalienable rights. That is a phrase that does not set out any explicit rights, but recognizes freedom, equality, and independence. And that phrase provides context to the rest of the Constitution that comes after it. The Vermont Supreme Court has actually found that Article 1 is not what we call self-executing. So it does not provide any particular rights that anyone can sue to enforce in Vermont. It just provides context for the rest of the Constitution. In the same way, the text of Proposal 5 sets out a right. It's the right to personal reproductive autonomy and says this right is situated in this larger context of dignity and liberty. If I have this in mind. Yes. And dignity and liberty are referring to themes in the Constitution. But we know from the way, as I explained earlier, we know from the way that the article is put together, it sets out the right. So this is part of liberty and dignity. And then it sets out the standard under which the right is analyzed. So the liberty and dignity language is adding context, but it's not adding rights. That makes sense. I'm going to get beyond that. I want to go to the point, say, four years from now. And Proposal 5 has gone through the whole process. And it is now, in fact, in our Constitution. And I go... I have an unwanted pregnancy. And I am in my 26th week, or further year. And I go to the University of Montenegro Center and seeking an abortion. And the people at the University of Vermont Medical Center, the doctors say, okay, there's certain criteria that have to be followed to have this abortion. And I'll meet that criteria. The University of Vermont still does the abortion in the Medical Center. Are you going to prosecute them? No. They infringed... Well, I thought that you said that the rights of the woman could not be infringed upon. You're infringed upon now. I mean, they wouldn't provide the abortion. They wouldn't provide the abortion. Thank you. That's right. So the woman's rights are infringed upon. No. Proposition 5 does not require that any particular provider provide an abortion. It says that the state can't take state action to restrict this right. But it does not say that, you know, any doctor that you go to needs to provide this service. Okay. The doctor does provide the abortion takes place. I'm trying to read that this is true. The fact that the doctor is saying to me you have to pass this test. We've had a testimony that at the Medical Center if you're beyond a certain number of weeks there's an extensive procedure that you have to go through to have that abortion if you're under the health of a certain number of men. Is that not restricting the woman's right to have an abortion? Those are, as I understand it, criteria that health profession has adopted around this procedure. Those are not state laws or state policies or anything that could be challenged under Proposition 5. The state constitution operates as a check on state power. So if this body passed a law that said you can't have an abortion after 26 weeks unless you need A, B, C, and D A, B, C, and D would have to be justified by a compelling state interest. But if you go to your doctor and say, you know, I want this procedure there's nothing that will stop the doctor from saying okay, let me make sure you meet all the criteria so that I can do this safely in the office. Okay, now you need to explain to me what it means when you say you cannot restrict the rights. The way the law that we passed out of this committee is unrestricted. This Proposition 5 to me is the same thing. It's quite similar. So you need to explain to me what does it mean when you say what does it mean when you say you cannot restrict a woman's right to have an abortion? Because I'm the doctor and I'm saying you can't have it unless you've passed these criteria. That seems to me that that doctor is restricting my rights. The state constitution only finds state actors. State what? State actors. So that includes the legislature, executive agencies, the governor, the state acting as an employer. It does not include private doctor's offices. Okay, so if I I assume the doctor, am I going to win? No. Because the doctor the doctor is not bound by the state constitution in the same way that the government is bound by the state constitution. I thought the state constitution was the law of the land. It is the law of the land. So if it's in the constitution and citizens aren't bound by it is that what you're telling me? So let me go back to the example of free speech. I think that's a pretty good analogy. So under the first amendment the government can't restrict our speech rights. Private parties can. Okay. So if you walk into your doctor's office and start cursing at your doctor they can say get out of here. I don't like what you're saying. You can't say that here. You need to leave. But as you all know protesters can and do come into this building and say all kinds of things and you can't stop them because you are bound by the first amendment. That's because it's a constitutional provision and the constitution primarily acts as a check on state power not as a check on private power. So in the same way because this is a constitutional provision this acts as a check on your power to restrict abortion but it does not act as a check on private doctor's power to choose to provide any particular service. Does that help? It makes my way on thinking a lot more solid. Great. That's what I'm here for. Well it's not the way you think it is. I'll tell you that. Okay. Thank you. Carl. This is a hypothetical thing but let's say a future legislature brought forward a proposition ten which essentially enshrines the fact that human life is a viable child at let's say 26 weeks. And with that what infringement or conflict would that raise with proposition five? And all of a sudden you have there is another individual involved in the situation at a certain point in time. So at that point of intersection which proposition takes effect? So so once you have as I understand your question this is a future constitutional amendment to protect the bullet in the chat. So once that is also in the constitution now you have sort of equally important the government and the people have said these are both fundamental rights and once that happens it's sort of up to the courts to decide which is more important. Some of the things the court might look at are which is more specific to the situation. So in your example that might be the second hypothetical amendment that you've opted it would look at which came later in time that might be important. It would look at the context surrounding what the intent of each amendment was. So I couldn't say for sure what the judge would do but those are all things that the court would look at. So to ask a similar question is there anything that would prevent it was the will of the legislature to introduce an amendment such as defining when life begins? No, absolutely not. What about a change in statute in the bill that was entered in a future legislation that miraculously passed the process that essentially recognized a person that 26 people would like. So would Proposition 5 prevent that statute from becoming law? It would depend on the specifics of the statute. So the answer is probably but not necessarily. And my answer is based in large part on what courts found after Roe v. Wade was passed. Roe v. Wade did put strict scrutiny into the law and future courts under Roe v. Wade did find that in some cases legislatures were justified in restricting abortions later in pregnancy. So this body, if it were to want to pass such a statute would want to make a very clear record of what the compound governmental interest was. It would want to make sure that the law was very narrowly tailored to that interest. And if it was able to do that the court would look at those things and decide whether the law or not. So again, the legislature could craft the law. And it would be the law. And unless someone would have to bring a court case, a challenge to that law. Yes. And then the court would decide whether or not. Yes. So I really appreciate the examples you've given. And I'm trying in this context to get a sense of what the compound state interest could be. We use the examples in group speech and other but I'm still hesitant to even think about what, and I'm not asking you to create something out of there, but if you can provide a sense of what a compound state interest level is for any group potentially. Yeah. Yeah. So I was thinking that too. So in the context of Roe versus Wade Roe said okay abortion is part of this fundamental right and big yet strict scrutiny. But the court said the government's interest in restricting this right changes based on the prime master. So in the first prime master the court said there was really no governmental interest at that stage of working this more safer than childbirth, et cetera, et cetera no governmental interest. In the second prime master trying to remember big debt of course there was a slightly higher governmental interest in protecting the health and welfare of the mother and child. And in the third prime master there was a compound state interest in protecting I think the life of the infant child and so the laws that were upheld after that tended to be in that sort of third prime master range in some cases any close viability range is that helpful for talking about with that terminology? Yeah, and it's important to remember too that any law that would be you know examined under the strict scrutiny standard means not only to have a compelling state interest but also to be narrowly tailored. So you could say the government has a compound state interest in protecting life in the third prime master but if your law banned abortion after five weeks that's not narrowly tailored to the third prime master design in some cases. So in terms of the role there's this way of speaking about that this particular proposition 5 allows unrestricted abortion is that it? It protects abortion rights and others from laws restricting them without certain justifications. It's not I wouldn't I hesitate to call it unrestricted because there are ways in which the government could subsequently restrict it. Does that make sense? Roe vs. Sway let's go back to that. Okay. That's very specific isn't it? Even with KCM that is it not? Is it restrictive after a certain number of weeks? Roe vs. Sway itself did not create any restrictions? It allows the state if they choose it. It allows for certain restrictions by the state. Yeah. And that was the same remark as proposition 5. So Roe vs. Sway it said abortion laws get strict scrutiny. Proposition 5 says abortion laws get strict scrutiny. This is why I wanted the judge to condemn me. We can talk to a lawyer all day long, but a judge may have to make that decision. I have one more question. You talked about the government, the legislature couldn't get involved with that UVM situation that I brought up. What if the University of Vermont brought state money? Would it be then considered a state entity? Just getting state funding is happening to a state entity. Lots of health centers that get state funding. But they are not all state actors. There's a specific test which I don't have a big finger to state out here. But it's a high quality. That's okay. That's okay? Okay, another hypothetical. A woman decides that she's in a second prime minister and she's elected to have an abortion. But in the process before this happened and her husband is supposed to have an abortion. But she's elected to have a doctor and she's involved in an automobile accident. And the fetus is alive and she is dead. And so the doctor says the only way we have to deliver this by a cesarean inspector how would they determine whether they could do that or not. The woman doesn't have a choice to terminate pregnancy. The husband is setting once the child and she's on the operating table. What law takes precedence about five which basically the woman by her own choice said she wants to terminate the pregnancy. So does the doctor terminate the pregnancy or give to it's democratic or safe life does he go ahead and perform a cesarean? Do you have the medical? My reaction would be that at the moment that the woman dies for right to reproductive autonomy dies but I am not a judge and I suppose I can't say for sure what a court would do with that situation. But again I don't actually in your hypothetical I don't even see any state actors. So my first reaction should really be if there's no state action going on proposition five has nothing to say about this decision. As long as the law doesn't say you know you must do X, Y or Z then there is no proposition five has nothing to say about that. Absolutely You keep going back and forth if the law doesn't say proposition five there is no law. Right now before us we had proposition five and we have a bill that we passed from this in another section of this bill. So I think the question was if based on proposition five right so proposition five is a restriction on future laws which is why I keep saying the law doesn't say so proposition five prevents you from passing future laws that will restrict abortion rights and other things. So What are the other things? Contraception sterilization Nothing else Again in the future something might come up but those are the ones that are certain are under the definition. This is why we are here this is why we are giving the time for people to ask the questions and try to get clear from themselves where we individually sit related to this question which will be first before the committee do we rule this out of committee on to the floor in the full body? It seems to me that not compelling to say it interests is the right to life so I think some proposition like this will come before the courts in the relatively near future so it would seem like that would be a compelling interest to write that somebody said a fetus has a right to life at a certain point 26 weeks it would seem like that would be a very strong compelling statement under the rule versus week framework some laws have been justified by that in the third time that's read Oh, if you have to have written remarks that are unclear can you go ahead and submit it?