On February 16, 2022

Drafters of Prop. 5 messed up

Dear Editor,

Proposal 5 is a proposed amendment to the Vermont State Constitution that its supporters say is necessary to protect a woman’s right to an abortion. Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that the wording of Proposal 5 is so convoluted and vague that it might actually have the opposite impact on a woman’s right to choose and control her own body.

Proposal 5 is being called the “Reproductive Liberty Amendment,” not the “Right to an Abortion” amendment, or the “Women’s Reproductive Rights” amendment because its language does not mention, at all, abortion or women. If you are a woman concerned with abortion rights, this is a problem. Potentially a big one.

Here’s how Proposal 5 reads, “”That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

This new “right to personal reproductive autonomy,” as opposed to a clear right to an abortion, would apply equally to men as to women, and this could have some significant unintended consequences for women’s rights. The words “abortion” and “woman” are not included in Prop.5, contrary to how it is promoted.

The Vermont House Human Services Committee recently took testimony from an ACLU spokesperson, Indi Schoenherr. She was asked, “What happens if a man’s right to personal reproductive autonomy conflicts with a woman’s regarding the same unborn child? Whose right prevails, and on what legal, constitutional basis under Proposal 5.”

When Schoenherr struggled to answer, committee chair Anne Pugh jumped in and said, “When rights are in conflict, we go to court. And that is the role of the courts to decide, or a judge, or however that is. So, what I’m asking is would I be correct in responding to [the question] to say what you are presenting is a conflict of rights. And where historically this country has gone when there is a conflict of rights is we go to court. Would I be correct in that response?”

To that Schoenherr said, “Yes, that is the correct response.”

And that’s the problem.

Under Roe v. Wade a woman has a right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy that is not in conflict with anyone else’s rights. Under proposal 5, that “right” would potentially be in conflict with the father’s newly minted right to personal reproductive autonomy, and, if so, the woman would have to go to court to sort out that conflict. And, in reading the language of Proposal 5, the woman’s burden might be having to prove there is a “compelling state interest” to justify her abortion.

Although this may not be what the authors of Proposal 5 intended, it is what the women of Vermont will have to live with for a long time if Proposal 5 is ultimately approved and becomes a part of our state constitution. Just so you know.

Annisa Lamberton, Middletown Springs

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

The public reality of private schools

June 25, 2025
Dear Editor, In their June 13 commentary, “The Achilles’ heel of Vermont education reform,” the Friends of Vermont Public Education state that, “Since the early 1990s, we have been operating two parallel educational systems — public and private.” The organization calls upon the Vermont Legislature to create “one unified educational system,” arguing that, “The current…

Alternative steps for true education reform

June 25, 2025
By Jim Lengel Editor’s note: Jim Lengel, of Duxbury and Lake Elmore, started teaching in Vermont in 1972, worked for the state board of education for 15 years, and retired back in Vermont after helping schools all over the world improve the quality of teaching and learning. Our executive and legislative branches have failed during…

Protect SNAP—because no Vermonter should go hungry

June 25, 2025
Dear Editor, As a longtime anti-hunger advocate, a former SNAP recipient, and a proud Vermonter, I am deeply alarmed by proposals moving through Congress that would gut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known here in Vermont as 3SquaresVT. If passed, these cuts would devastate thousands of families across the Green Mountain State that rely…

The Good, the Bad & the Ugly of H.454

June 25, 2025
By Sen. Ruth Hardy Editor’s note: Ruth Hardy, of East Middlebury, represents Addison County in the Vermont Senate. She wrote the following reflection (originally posted at ruthforvermont.com) on voting “no” on H.454, the eduction transformation reform bill that passed last week.  On Monday, June 16, the Legislature passed H.454, the education transformation bill that was…