On May 25, 2022

Prop. 5/Article 22 is far beyond the claims of Governor Scott

Dear Editor, On May 3, Gov. Phil Scott promised in a public statement, “The fundamental rights and liberties of all women will be defended, protected and preserved in Vermont”.

Scott referenced Act 47 which codified women’s reproductive rights without government interference. Therefore, if the Supreme Court’s final decision is to send Roe v. Wade back to the states, Vermont will continue to offer abortions from conception up to birth. Abortion rights are not in jeopardy in Vermont.

Scott also stated, “And Vermonters will have the opportunity to solidify this right in November when Prop. 5 amending Vermont’s constitution is on the ballot.”

Governor Scott continues to promulgate his perception of Prop 5/Article 22 and not its reality. In November, the voters of Vermont will vote on the following text;

“Sec. 2. Article 22 of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution is added to read: Article 22. [Personal reproductive liberty] 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.”

Prop 5/Article 22 is not specific to “woman” or “abortion” as Governor Scott and others claim.

The so-called “Reproductive Liberty” amendment, is dangerously vague and leaves minors unprotected. Constitutional law has no age restrictions.

  • Prop 5/Article 22 would erode the rights of parents and remove protections for children.
  • Prop 5/Article 22 could allow unknown adults to usurp the role of parents
  • Prop 5/Article 22 could mean that children can consent to elective abortions, hormone blockers, or other permanent procedures without parental knowledge as introduced in current House Bill 659 (2022)
  • Prop 5/Article 22 could allow minors to be transported across state lines into Vermont to access “reproductive autonomy” rights.
  • Prop 5/Article 22 court challenges will cripple Vermonters with astronomical legal costs.

The vagueness of Prop 5/Article 22 goes far beyond what most consider reasonable, without informing Vermonters of the costs to the taxpayers and families or to potential impacts on Vermont’s children.

How will Scott and the Vermont state government protect the rights and responsibilities of parents to care for their children under Prop 5/Article 22?

Carol Kauffman, Addison

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

VTF&W board a self-serving loop

September 18, 2024
Dear Editor, Editor’s note: The following was submitted to the Mountain Times as an open letter to Governor Scott. To quote Yogi Berra, “It’s deja vu all over again.” Once again, there are members of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board whose terms have expired, this time as of last February, yet they are still…

Vote Radonis for state rep

September 18, 2024
Dear Editor, I’m writing to support of Steve Radonis’s bid for Windsor’s 5th district state rep. And as a 74-year-old Connecticut resident and life-long (so far!) registered Democrat, that’s pretty much all I can do because out-of-state homeowners in Vermont cannot vote in local elections, one of a few issues on which Radonis and I…

Lies masquerading as opinion

September 18, 2024
Dear Editor, In his Aug. 28, 2024, Mountain Times letter “Response to Republican choice,” Mr. George de Luna states rather oddly that “Most of his [Trump’s] ‘lies’ are exaggerations but are in the same direction of the truth.”  Actual journalists disagree.  In their Jan. 24, 2021, Washington Post article “Trump’s false or misleading claims total…

A note of thanks

September 18, 2024
Dear Editor, Thank you to so many who celebrated the life of Erica Hurd last month on the Pittsfield Green.  Like her, it was beautiful in so many ways. She brought us together again to share our love, stories, food, music, tears and laughter. And lots of purple. The support of so many — family,…