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

We won’t forget Vermonters

January 8, 2025
Dear Editor,  More than any post-election period that I can recall, Vermonters remain heavily engaged since November’s election. So engaged that many want to know why the problems highlighted on Nov. 5 haven’t already been fixed: education property taxes, housing affordability and availability, healthcare costs, public safety, and the Clean Heat Standard.  This urgency, like…

Vermont Saves makes saving for retirement an easy resolution

January 8, 2025
Dear Editor, As we welcome the New Year, many Vermonters set resolutions to build new skills, improve their health, or spend more time with loved ones. This year, let’s add a resolution that really pays off: saving for retirement. Saving for retirement can be daunting, especially for Vermonters living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to…

Common ground: Working together to address Vermont’s affordability crisis

January 8, 2025
By Amy Spear and Megan Sullivan Editor’s note: Amy Spear, Killington, is the president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Megan Sullivan, Chittenden, is the vice president of government affairs for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Each year, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce outlines its legislative priorities with one focus in mind: creating the conditions…

End funding of religious schools

January 2, 2025
Dear Editor, Thanks to G. Gregory Hughes for his Dec. 18 letter, “The dictates of conscience in Vermont.” Mr. Hughes identifies a fundamental flaw in our laws: they allow spending tax money on religious schools. He also suggests a sensible solution to the problem: eliminating state expenditures on all private or religious schools. To paraphrase…