On February 16, 2022

Prop. 5 is a Pandora’s box

Dear Editor,

Changing our Vermont Constitution is no small matter. The last time chapter 1 of our constitution was amended was in 1786.

The stated purpose of Pop. 5 is to ensure that every Vermonter is afforded personal reproductive liberty, in the article itself it uses the words, “The right to personal reproductive autonomy.”

There are no definitions to define any words used in this proposal, so I believe this law is meant to be a “red herring” or a “carte blanche” for some present day political agenda. It has been said by some, “Let the courts decide”.

I’d like to point out that our U.S. and state constitutions place the responsibility of making laws solidly into the legislators’ hands and they should be representing “we the people.” Laws should be written clearly enough for the courts to understand them, because the courts should not be “interpreting” them according to political whims.

Good laws should say what they mean and mean what they say! It should be clear. The courts should not have to interpret and in the process create new laws, courting disasters, which is how we got Roe v. Wade to begin with.

I believe Vermont legislators were fearful that Roe v. Wade was soon to be overturned, so they went into overdrive with the passing of H.57. When H.57 was in committee 700 Vermonters showed up to oppose this bill! Approximately 300 others came to support it. VTDigger reported that there were 58 people who gave public testimony. That’s 28 v. 30, but no mention of the massive turnout. It went out of committee the next day with approval to move forward.

With the overwhelming opposition to the bill, one might have thought that they would have tweaked the bill to protect the rights of conscience of doctors, nurses, Catholic hospitals, etc. Instead they crafted legislation to put in our Vermont constitution to fortify H.57’s position or so they thought.

Prop. 5 is unnecessary. When was the last time your right to reproduce was infringed? I can’t remember when anybody even hinted that a person didn’t have the right to reproduce. Do you? At least here in America we have been free to marry or not to marry —to have children or not to have children, have lots of children or keep it to one. Nobody dictates otherwise. No natural or written laws dictate otherwise. So why do we need a new article in our Vermont Constitution stating that we need the “right to personal reproductive autonomy?”

On the bright side, I see this law being used by men. Men will finally have a law that puts some teeth into their reproductive rights! They will finally have a say over their off-spring that is growing in a woman’s womb! Because Prop. 5 in the Vermont Constitution will supersede even H.57. An abortion is an interference with the man’s right to reproduce.

On the darker side, we know that there are a lot of guys who have pressured their girlfriends or wives to get abortions and legalizing abortion has only made that easier to do. How many women succumb to that pressure to save their relationships, only to live with the heartache, grief and after-guilt of yielding to an act she never actually wanted to begin with? She wanted her man to come through for her, to love her and their baby. These men will use Prop. 5 to try to get out of paying child support. They will argue that they never wanted to reproduce at this time and she should have terminated the baby and since she did not she has to shoulder the full responsibility of the child. She violated his “personal reproductive autonomy,” whatever that means because it is undefined.

There are other secret agendas for this law. So what could be some of the possibilities? Abortions for minors without parental consent? Human cloning? Designer babies? With crisper technology-animal human hybrids? Implantation of wombs in men? Egg harvesting and the increased potential risk of trafficking young women for that purpose? Not to mention sex change surgeries and their reversals. And if these are rights- then does Medicaid and the state have to pay for the poor to have these procedures and therapies done? And what of those professionals who feel these procedures are morally and ethically wrong and want no part. Without conscience laws to protect them, they will be forced to leave Vermont for employment. Prop. 5/Act 22 is beneath the dignity of being placed in our Vermont constitution. It will open a Pandora’s box of litigation. Please vote “no” on Prop. 5.

Wendy Bucchieri, Arlington

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

Harrison announces candidacy forre-election

May 29, 2024
Jim Harrison of Chittenden announced his candidacy for a new term as state representative for the Rutland-11 district (Chittenden, Killington, Mendon, and Pittsfield). He was first appointed to the legislature in 2017 by Governor Phil Scott and has been re-elected to new terms since then. Harrison is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, the…

Why Act 127 is vital for Vermont’s rural education

May 29, 2024
Dear Editor, In Vermont’s quest for equitable education funding, Act 127 represents a beacon of hope, especially for our rural communities. This legislation, informed by thorough research from Rutgers and the University of Vermont, revises the state’s school funding formulas to reflect the actual costs of educating students in diverse socio-economic settings, with a significant focus…

Act 127 balance ed resources; aims for equity

May 29, 2024
Dear Editor, The debate over educational equity in Vermont, particularly around the implementation of Act 127 and the Pupil Weighting Factors Report, touches deeply on the state’s social and economic disparities. This conflict is starkly illustrated by the historical and current attitudes of certain towns towards neighboring communities, especially in the context of educational funding…

Save SNAP

May 29, 2024
Dear Editor, We have an urgent call to action: to protect 3SquaresVT/SNAP benefits nationwide for millions of families, including nearly 70,000 people in our state. In early May, the U.S. Congress began to progress on Farm Bill negotiations again. Just a day apart, the chairs of the House and Senate Agriculture committees released their respective Farm…