 Hi, my name is Sandy Baird and thank you all for being here to discuss this very important subject of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which happened a couple days ago when the Supreme Court announced that that precedent of Roe v. Wade, which was established in 1973, was no longer good law that had been overturned and that the question of abortion and women's rights was going to be returned to the state and would not be part any longer of the fundamental rights of women throughout the United States. So tonight I wanted to begin the discussion. It's a very long discussion and we're going to continue it also on the 13th. So thank you all for coming but tonight I will start and then we're going to hear from Kurt Mehta who's a constitutional scholar and also Justine Snow, a former student of mine, a public defender in Florida and also an expert on Roe v. Wade. I'm going to begin by talking about the original reasons that Roe v. Wade was put in place in the first place in 1973 and I have the arguments that were presented at the time. In fact, I have both a tape of that hearing in which the court was asked to decide the fate of women's rights. I have a tape of it but I also have a written version. At that time there was a young female attorney, Sarah Weddington, who argued the case that the right to an abortion as many other women's rights, many other women's rights in order to have children as well and have as many children as she wanted was fundamental, was a fundamental right that was in the United States Constitution. I'm always surprised that when the opposition to Roe v. Wade talks, they're talking as if that the Constitution has to say something like, the woman has a right to abortion. The court never did say that. They're quite right. The court did not say that a woman had a right to an abortion nor did it say that a woman had a right to have a child. What they did say, however, and this is in the original argument that Sarah Weddington made to the court, after a couple stumbles, by the way, the court says to her, where is your constitutional basis for abortion as a constitutional right? She stumbled around and then enunciated in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Okay, what is the 14th Amendment? And I'm talking about this because I think that the court in overturning Roe fundamentally ignored the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was established in about 1868 and the reason it was was because black people had been slaves. They were emancipated during the Civil War. They had no real legal status at that time, but nobody knew what they were. Were they citizens? Were they property? And so the 14th Amendment says the following. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there are are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which abridged the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. Sarah Weddington argued therefore that the person to be protected by the Constitution was the person that was born. Okay, and that person of course is the pregnant woman in the case that we're arguing about. And because she is a born person she has all the rights of the citizens of the United States. That means the due process of law and that means essentially the right to make her own medical decisions in the privacy of her own conscience as well as men have the right to make decisions about their bodies. Women were entitled to the same protections since that that so that's the 14th Amendment and that's what the original role was decided upon. I'm going to let Bert talk about and and um Justine talk about why that was overturned. My argument has always been from the beginning that this is a fundamental human right of women and men to bodily autonomy we could call it that or the right to make important decisions about the course of their life without interference of the state, politicians, or bureaucrats. That is the fundamental right of all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and are entitled to the equal protection of our law. That was what the original role was the side of him. I think that recently however okay so we'll discuss that later but then I want to talk a little bit about the politics of this whole situation. I think that increasingly throughout this horrible period from 1973 to the present that many people see the whole struggle between those who would the court which has denied rights to abortion and they've argued look at there's no abortion mentioned in the Constitution that's correct that's correct nor is appendicitis nor is you know vaccines injections either none of that is also mentioned what is the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of citizens born in the United States or naturalized in the United States that is a fundamental right that the court decided pertains to women that's all gone now and I think largely the argument against a lot has been mistaken I think that many even pro-choice advocates have to have sort of not seen this as a fundamental human right they've seen it as some right that a person pregnant woman has to an abortion no she because she's a citizen because she's born has the right to ask for constitutional protection of her fundamental rights to make her medical decisions on her own without the appearance of big shots from the government or big courts or big bureaucrats it is her fundamental right as it is the fundamental right of males to determine their medical best interest free and clear of the state okay so I'm going to stop there for a moment but because I'm going to I wanted to mention I want of course the others to talk off also because I want to know oh so then the court made a another decision which I did want to address so the court in denying this human right returned the question to the state legislatures now they're arguing including Tucker Carlson makes this argument every night that that's democracy at work that a state legislature representing the people should be able to to vote on this you don't allow votes on fundamental human rights if it's the right to speak the right to go to church or not to go to church that's a fundamental human right outlined in our bill of rights nobody gets a chance to overturn them that by a vote they don't even human rights do not get voted on they are inalienable in our own wonderful words of the Declaration of Independence these are human rights that no majority can deny you so that's the two elements but the court got away with with this decision because they basically because they wanted to is what I think but anyway so maybe we'll turn it to Kurt and then and Justine or the other way around because I would love to know Kurt's legal analysis and Justine's legal analysis of what happened but maybe we should start with Kurt Kurt Mada who is a colleague of mine an attorney and a legal scholar who has a practice here in Burlington go ahead okay so Sandy thanks for having me and thanks for doing this program this this evening depending on when you when you're watching it I mean you know a couple things that are important to note I mean strictly from the decision as far as the legal reasoning you know then we you know as you mentioned we'll you know we'll talk about politics later because I think I think they're inseparable in this in this context but you know the the case that the seminal case that allowed women to exercise this fundamental right as you stated it is was was Roe v Wade which was decided in 1973 and what what the court decided and and Roe came after a string of cases in the mid mid 1960s late 1960s that that relied on the 14th amendment as you mentioned Sandy specifically with respect to something called a substantive due process substantive due process you know I'm going to try not to make it too boring here but some substantive due process you know the way the court looked at it were rights that were un enumerated which means weren't specifically listed in the Constitution that the court felt that they needed to protect so what Sandy mentioned a couple of moments ago you know as fundamental rights you referred to things like freedom of speech freedom of worship you know going to the church or wherever you go to pray to assemble you know publish you know these are enumerated rights in that the Bill of Rights the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution specifically mention these rights you know thus they are enumerated and those are protected the you know the the the fifth amendment the fifth amendment to the Constitution basically guarantees that the federal government won't take any action that will limit these rights and part of the 14th amendment aside from the connotations that it had with respect to the end of slavery that also guaranteed those rights as to the states because prior to 18 and I'm guessing 1868 when the 14th amendment was was was in fact added to the Constitution by amendment what people had to do in order to protect themselves from government intrusion when it comes to some of the enumerated the listed rights in the Constitution free respect press religion speech is they had to largely rely on on state constitutions themselves as well as state laws because the you know what if they went to a federal court federal court said well the fifth amendment you know that only guarantees the federal government from not taking action so let's let's kind of move back to the present here so the 14th amendment in the late 1870s there was a dissent by a justice field and something called the slaughterhouse cases which established this concept of a substantive due process which are fundamental rights as Sandy mentioned that weren't specifically mentioned to the Constitution that needed to be needed to be protected and preserved for the American people so let's fast forward from there to 100 100 years later and in late 1960s there was this notion of a right to privacy as a substantive due process right that the justices in the 1960s court Supreme Court felt was necessary to protect and then they felt that that was a fundamental right so you had things like contraception that was legally guaranteed then you know for unmarried people married people only in wasn't it in the late 60s prior to prior to yeah the case the big case with respect to cons contraception was briswald versus connecticut you know and then you had right to marry cases and then of course you know the the big case in our discussion today row which said that you know essentially that not that abortion is protected but a woman's right to an abortion because of her fundamental privacy rights to make a decision as to you know what she wants to do with respect to child rearing in that whether to have children or not that was protected by her right to privacy and what the court basically in dobs the current case that overruled row was stating is that that essentially there is no protected right to privacy with respect to abortion and and you know a five four majority in the in the court ruled against row overturned row overturned casey in 1992 case which which further defined row's entire concept with respect to the trimesters as to when when a woman would be allowed to exercise her right to an abortion and when the government could in in fact you know pass intrusive laws right the case the 1992 casey case broke out broke up the the concept of trimesters and talked about fetal viability and that was you know basically assessed as six months 24 weeks but subject to change they can i correct i think that the vote though was six to three six to three with respect to the mississippi statue right but in terms of overturning row it was a little closer it was one closer to five four wow everybody noticed today that steven bryer resigned as of tomorrow did you see that today i saw it late afternoon he must have been in the dissent correct he was in the dissent he stayed in long and so he knew it was coming he stayed in long enough to issue a dissent and then he's off the court tomorrow at noon anyway justine this is justine snow as i mentioned a student that graduated happily for me from brolington college except then she went away to florida she's a public defender in florida and she has thought about this issue many times justine hi sandy um thank you for having me again i always love joining on wednesday night springs back good memories um yeah i mean just backing up with curt says that's really what the opinion comes down to it is a 213 page opinion um just you want some light reading um essentially what it seemed like the court went through is if it's not an enumerated right they then decided is it deeply rooted in our nation's history and they go through that analysis and determined that the right to an abortion or abortion is not um deeply rooted our nation's history and then they went through the history of the criminalization of abortion prior to roe and um it seemed as though they were saying that was more deeply rooted um or at least it supported that the right to abortion was not deeply rooted in the history um one of the things to mention was that in one of the concurring opinions opinions from justice thomas who was also present on the court in the with heterodox opinion in obergefeld vihages which was the gay marriage case um he straight said in his concurring opinion that he also felt those cases were decided wrong and that those were not included in this uh right to privacy and so that the supreme court should go back and correct those opinions as well and so that's something to look out for in the future based on now this case being precedent to rely on for future opinions okay with that i might mention something else i want to read you something from the original argument of sarah weddington because these are these were the enumerated rights that she did say were enumerated when it comes to the private matters of marriage and the family she says the court has in the past held that it is the right of the parents and of the individual to determine whether or not they will send their child to private schools whether or not their children will be taught foreign languages whether or not they will have offspring remember the eugenic cases when they decided certain people couldn't reproduce um and then the right to marry which was the loving case um and in the loving case it overturned the laws in i think virginia which did not allow black people to marry white people anyway these issues of marriage the family and sex have all been considered as part of your fundamental rights to make these decisions yourself without the overbearing nature of the government and politicians so that's where we stand let me just say one thing now about where it does stand it does not mean at this point that abortion is criminalized and by the way i want to ask the question when you're talking about criminalizing abortion what has been the case before roe was it was only one part one party that ever was criminalized in an abortion case that was the doctor a doctor here in vermont up until 72 in a vermont case the doctor could not perform an abortion if a woman did it herself there was no crime that's when in vermont essentially that law against doctors was overturned and therefore there was a vacuum in 1972 in the jackal in our case there was virtually a vacuum because abortion was decriminalized right so what so at that point in vermont there were no laws against abortion at all and that and it was in that vacuum that people like me and others sally ballon who's here and other people formed the vermont women's health center and became the first legal abortion providing service in the country i believe okay so anyway um any thoughts questions yeah i mean i think uh you know what justine said towards you know at the the end of her piece it's it's really critical you know i know it may come across by some people as alarmist but uh you know and and just to be clear about that is that uh what justine mentioned was that justice clarence thomas who who wrote a concurring opinion specifically mentioned the the possible need to revisit some of the other cases that were based on this substantive due process right of privacy that they need to be revisited it's really important to remember the entire concept of substantive due process came about in the 1870s from a dissenting opinion uh in in a case uh so i you know i know some people may poo poo the whole thing that okay well we're not going to go back to you know looking uh looking at um looking at contraception or looking at um you know uh the intimate lives of people that are not heterosexual or the right to marry but it's not completely out of the realm of possibilities that we that the court could revisit some of these cases if they're if they're contending that that is badly decided law right i i understand that i want to focus though somewhat on the damage this is done to the lives of women and girls now right this instant the people most damaged by this is that women and girls can no longer make decisions about their pregnancies yeah eric jay i think jen eric's muted uh muted can't hear him yes i uh i was reading uh i think it's a question from jane who said uh sandy you said before but i could be wrong that those not born yet are not considered citizens and don't have protections covered by the 14th amendment would you elaborate on yes because fetuses are not born they're not therefore defined by the 14th amendment as persons born persons have the right to do process and the right to uh be protected by the constitution you're absolutely right the fetus the embryo inside a woman's body is not at this moment a person under the laws of the united states there and eric i thought you had a question thank you or somebody else so sandy i guess uh just to kind of ask a question where where where is this going you know a number of state number of states and passed trigger laws once uh the the uh uh the last uh supreme court justice was uh appointed amy coney barrett uh assuming that there was going to be a case that was going to go up the up the chain to the court that was gonna that was going to overturn uh overturn row so i think that there were about 13 states that passed these trigger laws which uh essentially immediately put a you know a ban on abortions the moment row was uh row was overruled uh there's there's talk about the possibility of uh criminalizing abortion right and go for and and thus you know resulting in a 50 state ban because i mean if the definition of an abortion is indeed murder that how can there be a moment okay correct i'm saying that how can how can some states allow it now some states you know won't so i mean where is this going i'll tell you what you're kind of hinting at what i think is going to happen is the same thing as it always was the doctor will be criminalized that's it i don't think there's anyone that i although no no there are people who would criminalize the woman for having an abortion that has never been the precedent in this country never however these people are so intent on controlling women's bodies they might in certain states pass a law that punishes the woman for doing an abortion by herself or by by one of these pills they might i'm just going to talk about the status again of life before row and in german before the um uh the sally correct me uh beach and versus lehi right that's the name of that case correct beach and versus lehi at that time there was one person who committed a crime if they did an abortion and that was the doctor it was never a crime for a woman to do it herself i believe they're going to go back to criminalizing the doctor i don't even even the most i think whatever you want to call the pro uh i don't know i guess i have to say pro life but it they're not they're not pro life in my mind because they're not pro the life of women and girls so sandy i do just want to jump in prior to row there were four states that did criminalize women for abortions um arizona delaware ido and oklahoma and from my understanding some of the trigger laws in some of the states do criminalize women for um seeking an abortion attempting to seek an abortion or getting an abortion i think we should check that before we know for sure because i think that's the texas law no the texas law is a civil thing it's not a crime anyway the texas laws that were passed makes a person maybe liable for a lawsuit a lawsuit for damages if they assist a woman at all in getting an abortion but it's not really a crime for which a person could go to jail it is a civil liability penalty that they could be sued for monetary damages so it's pretty restrictive too but it's not yet a crime anywhere that i know of i mean it might have been before row in certain states but that was not the case here but the doctor was criminalized which of course made women go crazy and find other ways to get abortions and they died it was the second cause of death of women and obviously these i don't know what to call these people these anti-female women forces don't care about women's and girl's lives they care really only about the fetus i mean i can't i can't see it any other way can anybody else i don't think they really care about the fetus either no i think they really want to control women's sexuality i absolutely love but you know for that for them to assert that abortion um uh is didn't exist before there was a constitution i know is totally ridiculous women have controlled their their entire family and reproductive lives since the beginning of time exactly and thank heaven and it's yeah that's that's i mean to talk about you know tradition all tradition and uh in being embedded in the the national whatever their phrase the analogy was for how long uh abortion rights have existed uh it never was a a matter of public policy until fairly recently and you know the fact is should i would ask this it shouldn't be a part of public policy it's a medical decision period and that should be done in the confidentiality between a woman and her doctor pregnant woman and her doctor so how how do we argue that and is there any point in arguing that what is what is the next step for why don't we talk about that what is the next step sandy yeah robin has her hand up okay robin but you're muted robin just wondering um the other day on democracy now amy goodman was talking about the 13th amendment not the as well as the 14th right but it didn't apply the argument says neither slavery nor involuntary servitude now you could i would think but not being a lawyer i'm wondering what you guys think involuntary that being forced to have as many children as for when you get pregnant is putting you into involuntary servitude can that argument be made unfortunate thing at the federal level no arguments can be made now at all it's done it's over we have to think about what we're going to do about this on a local level that's the only strategy i can think of anybody else have any ideas about that i have a question i have a question who is that am i on yeah yep yep yep so i i think there's one part of this argument and um i am pro pro choice but one part of this argument that we're missing is the idea that this pregnant person is killing a person right and i and i think a lot of the the argument of the say pro life people is is is a degree thing you know is the 12 the 12 week the heartbeat thing the 24 week the viability thing or all the way up to nine months and a lot of the argument has been that people pushed it too far and and and the whole nine month thing it's hard to argue that you're not killing a person when you're nine months pregnant and so that's i think one of the arguments of the people that are against abortion is is that you're killing somebody so you know what right do you have to kill somebody so i'm stating that is a person once again that's pro choice but i think that's part of the argument that we're missing here no it's not not in my mind but other people of course can address that the problem the problem that you're arguing is it's still a medical decision that has to be made by the pregnant woman that's always my argument who would you trust to make that decision only the pregnant woman with her doctor there's no sense in going into when is when is a fetus a person that's defined in the constitution number one but number two even a late term abortion is a medical decision that has to be made in the privacy of a woman's conscience and her doctor it's it that the question of that you're asking is a question that's always asked about you know the development of the fetus but it still is the is the right of a woman with her doctor to make a her own medical and conscientious decision it really that's it's over there's sometimes when late term abortion has to happen but sandy isn't pete's point valid in that that he's uh framing the argument from the other side and that's and that's why these you know for example uh you know row delineated this very detailed trimester a scheme and then Casey talked about fetal viability right and then you know i think about a year or two ago there was this uh statue to state law passed by texas called the texas heartbeat act yes where texas basically stated that if they could uh detect embryonic activity or fetal cardiac activity at that point uh that was considered quote unquote a person and the woman was you know not capable of making that decision on her own or with her doctor any longer so i mean you know i'm not i'm not taking a side here i'm just saying the other side is essentially stating exactly what pete is saying that you know this this is essentially killing a potential person or a person we all know that we all know the opposite argument my argument is always going to be it is a private matter between a woman pregnant woman and her doctor but that argument was never successfully made by our side nor was it effectively it should have been it should have been nor was it at the federal level was it ever codified uh you know after after row it was you know we always relied on row as the precedent but then there wasn't any kind of statutory framework at the federal level that was passed to protect that right didn't need to well i think that well i mean look i mean you know if you look at the context of civil rights you know the 13 14th and 15th amendments were pretty uh you know pretty explicit on what that meant however you still had the civil rights act of 1964 you had the civil rights act of 1968 which put in further protections to to buttress those 13th through 15th amendments so why wasn't something similarly done i have no idea because at that point the court had decided that it was a fundamental human right of women and girls to make that decision in their own conscience they are moral agents they are capable rational human beings those are the only people women and girls involved in this decision and that's what they decided enroll and they merely overturned that right and disempowered women all over this country and i don't know where's where's this where's this going now ask the audience i think we need to hear from the audience where do you think it's going sandy jane has her hand up oh jane yeah yes yes thanks yep what i wanted to say if you consider i think that the that argument that the fetus being considered considered a human being is very pertinent because because of because of you allow abortions then you can allow people then you can allow people to kill anybody that they want to that by a lot by allowing abortions of a fetus as a person and a fetus as a protected and it's and then it gets into the absolute right for right to life we don't have an absolute right an absolute right to life obviously since we go to wars at the drop of a hat right you're right and we have the death penalty and then but then jane makes an important point you know another substantive due process right that was up for discussion in the 90s was physician assisted suicide right and and they tried to get that in under the under the rubric of a right to privacy you know me making a private decision with my doctor about you know you know suffering in a measurable amount of pain and wanting to end that pain so i should have that private right however that the court struck down that you know that option for people one reason i think and i'm not going to get into it because i don't know the reasoning but of course they struck it down because when you commit suicide you it's homicide and it's punishable by law and it's the death of a person the fetus is not a person right but at the end but the end of the day both decisions have you know a element of judaeo christian thinking morality behind them you know this is killing right you can't kill a person i agree with that you cannot commit homicide i totally agree with that you cannot commit infanticide either you cannot kill people so do you see any prospect of you know and i know we have people on different different states you know on the call here so forgive me but do we see that the the right for women to make reproductive choices uh preserved in vermont well i i think maybe we should i could ask some of the people that i know i'm involved in that struggle too but there are people out here that are really more deeply involved i think at this point like sally or best sacks so maybe what are your thoughts about that mark has his hand up as well oh and mark mark estrin you mean i don't okay fine mark where are you i'm unmuting okay you hear me yes yes um i wanted to get to the question of what are we going to do right if that's okay um and one of the things i think we can do and can easily do is create a public organization of people who will assist people who need to come to vermont in order to get an abortion so for instance you have a room that you can offer you for you know short term you have a couch people can stand you have a transportation that can be used locally or statewide and if there were such an organization that had a public face uh the model that i'm thinking of is there's something called couch surfing dot org which is terrific um and it used to be free to people who who would open their houses if anybody or the traveler needed a place to stay and uh we uh here did couch surfing on both ends and it's wonderful meeting people then especially the kind of people who are willing to open their homes and uh so i would suggest that even this group of what 15 people could uh constitute a an open home uh transportation system within the state for people who need to come here stay for a while get to the get to wherever they have to get okay i think eric wants to add something yeah also what can we do you know uh this uh ruling will affect the new american community because also uh most of them don't have access or don't know much about contraception was in this so uh they will i mean i i don't have the figures but i will suspect that abortion will be sometimes in and and you know i've seen that in africa so it could be replicated here as a way to do uh uh contraception right so uh as much as effort should be you know deployed to allow people to have access to uh to uh abortion we should also when it comes to the to the new american community emphasis i mean put an emphasis on contraception and means to avoid going to that place where you can be i also have a question which is technical i mean i'm pretty sure that the debate will evolve into what is the human being at which age because my daughter in france was you know i was able to recognize her when she was six months a fetus she was a fetus six months then i could go to the supratec alla protecture to say i erica nero recognize hello and that being is not born yet is yours yeah but i had i was able to do a birth certificate in advance that's that's you know what you can do in front of a very responsible of you as a father too it was yes but you know so uh i'm pretty sure they will evolve towards like the definition of what is the human being at which stage of the fetus you are considered i don't know if such a thing can be no not under american law a fetus becomes a person once it's born now that that's still part of the 14th amendment but the court said however was that none of that was pertinent what the court said was that this is a this is something that should be debated in legislatures well i don't agree with that i think that this was a fundamental right guaranteed to women and girls to make this decision and the court obviously does not agree so it's up to us to figure out therefore what next what are we going to do next justin has her hand up who justin has a comment so i just want to go to i think it was mark's question about um coming together and offering homes first i want to say um as someone in a state where abortion is probably going to be very dangerous soon that's a dangerous statement to make on a recorded um system out loud and i just want to explain why um there are organizations nationwide that do that they're called abortion funds if you are looking to help people in that way come to vermont and get abortions um you can join or donate to an abortion fund you can go to abortionfunds.org they are trained they know how to move people secretly where these people are not later going to be criminalized or sued in their own states um when abortion becomes criminalized in a state and someone leaves a state to get an abortion there's a very high risk that they can later be criminalized um sued there are bad legal consequences so it is not um safe to say in open forums such as this let's all get together and help people who want to travel to vermont get abortions but there are ways to do that um with people in organizations that have been preparing for this for years because they saw this coming and that's abortionfunds.org they will direct you to any in the area and they will tell you how you can assist and so that's where i just want to direct people to that um as far as what we can do next i just wanted to touch on that each state is going to have different ways that they're approaching this i will say in florida as crazy as we are currently there are lawsuits that are being put in place because florida has an express right to privacy in our constitution and so roe was decided under this right to privacy florida codified that in our constitution and so currently we do have that protection for us right now i don't know how long it will last um because the florida constitution can change a little bit easier than the federal one but so i did just want to put that out there and that different states are going to it's going to be a lot of state battles is what i see in the future because of the federal opinion and the other thing i just wanted to point out is these three judges who were put in place were put in place by a president who wasn't elected by the popular vote and so that's a concern as we have somebody who wasn't elected by most of the country who put someone in who put three people in who have now made a decision who affects the whole country and so i think um this is another and not to get off topic sandy but this is another reason to look back at the electoral college system i i understand that but um i honestly think i really think it's too late to do much in the federal court i just do i think we have to be looking at the local level and how to preserve i mean vermont right now has uh hasn't it sally hasn't it codified the right to uh reproductive decision-making on the part of women and girls hasn't that been codified into the law and isn't there a talk of prop five which will be a constitutional amendment i think sally or beth maybe know that better than i do do you where are you well again i guess they don't maybe but i do know that there's going to be that this that the legislature last year passed a law which codified row at least into the law i know also that there's proposition five i think which wants to make a constitutional amendment to the vermont constitution which allows women to seek abortions i don't know if it's going to pass though i know i mean that's a different manner right i think i just think just think to clarify but mark well i i justine was commenting on my uh proto proposal here um and i don't really understand maybe you can clarify supposing either i uh as a householder or a group of us we have 17 here uh became publicly open house to and for offering transportation and and housing to people in need who come to vermont for abortions i don't understand what then with what the danger is what would i be charged with aiding and embedding a crime it's not a crime here right it's not a crime until it's federally declared a crime which hasn't happened yet and then supposing that happens next year can you be endangered by a a law that was not in place when you committed your quote crime so can you clarify that stuff yeah absolutely so you would not get in trouble because you're in a state that allows it the woman who leaves the state where it's illegal or anybody who assists her can get in trouble and because we have this digital world where everything you say and everything you write on social media and your phone and everything is tracked there's a there's a digital trail to everything and so if someone's living in a state where abortion is criminalized and let's say for example either the woman is criminalized or anybody who is assisting her which is the trend of a lot of the laws that are placed um as of friday it's people who are assisting so if i live in a state where abortion is illegal and anybody who helps me can be charged with a felony like alabama and my friend drives me to vermont and you have this post on on facebook or on here or on some type of social media that says hey anybody seeking an abortion in vermont we have a little underground railroad here um come stay at any of our houses that's all online so when my friend and i go back afterwards they can trace that trail and use all of that in a prosecution of us or my friend or a civil suit of us because it's all out there and that's why it's so important and there's nothing wrong with wanting to help and i think that's great and i think it's going to be so necessary for the next however long this is going on that people are helping that people are offering those resources but it's important to do it through those organizations that have trained for this and that are prepared and know how to do this in a way where there's not going to be a trail and where people aren't going to be endangered legally or criminally in the state that they are coming from and so that's where i hope that clarifies that who's there's some people in the chat i think right or p or no p yeah um this this is about proposition five um because we we started talking about that so in 2019 vermont did guarantee women the right to an abortion proposition five although vermont digger recently wrote an article saying it was redundant is not really redundant because it has very vague broad language that would basically allow anyone male or female to alter their reproductive systems at any age and and this is a problem because this this isn't about abortion this is this is another thing that unfortunately is being promoted about um children being allowed to decide or their parents even that at the age of 10 that they've been born into the wrong body and want to change their reproductive system and remove perfectly healthy body parts so the this thing that's being voted on and the other thing which i've read legal legal um um legal uh uh writings about if the federal government decides to say that abortion is is illegal no matter what vermont does in this constitutional bill it won't it won't override what the federal government says wait a minute wait a minute okay so yes that's correct proposition five is very vague you have to read it and unfortunately it encompasses way more than way more than just a woman's right to reproductive to an abortion the 2019 law specifically stated abortion the the bill that we're voting on in the fall says it gives the right to any person to be able to decide um get reproductive autonomy and it doesn't have an age limit so literally a 10 year old could say yeah i don't really want a uterus so please remove it and that and that's the the unfortunate thing that i think this bill encompasses oh i mean can i correct you on one thing it's not a bill it's a it's a vote i believe on a constitutional amendment correct it's worse than a bill well it would change the concept our cost of remote cost correct sally did you have something to say yes i just wanted to point out another way in which it's not redundant a statute can be amended it can be changed it can be it's it's not a permanent thing and another different legislature could could make it be completely different make it be useless the only way to really protect abortion rights is to have a constitutional amendment um but i think the point that was just made about it's how broad it is is some is problematic as far as it's actually passing this november i think we all have any questions or comments right now i i mean i had a comment just to make um you know i think if there is a government that is more um i'll say you know use the terms anti-abortion that comes down the line you know at the federal level i mean they could incentivize states to limit access to abortion i mean if you think about you know how did we get to a drinking age of 21 it's not the constitution but the federal government get doles out money to states to be part of this you know 21 regime uh having a speed limit of 55 miles per hour at one point the way they were able to do that it was the the the federal government gave money to states uh for highway funds uh if they participated in that so i think you know there is a possibility in the future that even our state and i'm talking about vermont here could be in a position where they have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to keep abortion on the books or um not accept federal money in uh in a certain context i mean the federal government works that way all the time incentivizing certain states to uh conduct themselves in a certain way based on based on money but there's there's no money that the federal government gives as far as i know to assist abortion no no no not to assist abortion but to get rid of abortion oh i know they could pass not right now but i'm saying i'm saying further down the line the government often gets you know states to act in a certain way that they want it want them to act by incentivizing or disincentivizing that did you have a question eric but the government said i think i heard that from public radio that you know they will try to assist in which in some ways you know the states or the individuals in states that have trouble because they cannot i mean oblige the states to you know to be for abortion so they will help i don't know well there's there's suggestions as to the federal government right now it's a democratic government maybe but it certainly it could change and probably will by the way in november probably it's my feeling at least based on evidence that the democrats are not in great shape for november so i think we very well could get a republican congress and maybe even a republican state legislatures and republican governors it's a real loss on our part but i don't know if we can depend on having pro-choice people that are going to have any power i just don't think so i don't know what anybody else says pretty thing but what do we all think getting me back to though i think that one the only strategy that i can think of is to do as much as possible to keep vermont safe to empower women and girls and boys to play good roles toward women and i think we have to have grassroots organizations that are pledged to that pledge to creating society where girls and women are valued that they are trusted to make decent decisions about their futures and well where we give them control to make those decisions in the best way possible for themselves for their families and for the best of society there's nothing that is more healing or healthy in our society than empowering girls and women to truly take part in the governing of our countries in the discussions around the environment around the population and making sure that women and girls have the ability to participate fully in society and that means having control of over the number of children that they want and that they can afford and that does not pamper them for being full citizens and participants in our society we can't allow this to happen i don't think but i i think that there's only one solution and it's not the courts anymore it's going to have to be in local level of places where are determined to empower women and girls and i hope that's vermont anyway any again i think we're out of time but we i hope to continue this discussion uh on the 13th it's such an important decision and so um i would welcome you all to come back where we will discuss this further does anyone have any final thoughts on this subject or comments or predictions for the future anyone how about you just justine i just want to add one more resource um for those of you in vermont you probably don't need it at this time but if we're talking about things going south in the future um no pun intended uh there are still mail abortion pills available you go on the website aid access dot org and you can order mail and abortion pills you don't even have to be pregnant you can just say that you are living in an area where you fear abortion is about to become illegal and they will mail you the abortion pill um it's like a hundred dollars but so that is out there as well in case anybody wants to stock up for any future doom however justine that's for only an early pregnancy right it is up to eight weeks yeah okay but uh better than sailing or yeah i totally agree but they might try to criminalize that too you know and they certainly by the way would criminalize people who are practicing medicine without a license so be very careful like they criminalize lawyers for practicing law without a license so be very careful about giving out medical advice okay anybody else have any final thoughts well well i mean thank you all for joining us and remember we'll be with you again in a couple weeks next week we're going to be discussing a more local issue on the six we're going to welcome megan emery a city counselor from south grillington who will be describing for us the expansion of our airport and what the effects of that expansion are going to be on our neighborhoods and on our city and region so join us at six next wednesday and in two weeks we'll be discussing this very important case again