Dear Editor,
Why are those Vermont legislators who sponsor bill after bill to recognize fetal personhood and insist on legal protections for women and preborn babies con- sistently stonewalled, their bills never making it out of committee? It’s time to vote out of office those who deny protections for and refuse to recognizethesanctityand equality of all human life, and vote for those who will work to respect and protect it.
When are you comfortable with a baby being aborted? Is there a point in pregnancy when you would oppose abortion? When is your cutoff line for when a baby should not be aborted?Do you think that the human dignity of babies in the womb increases over time? Do you believe we get our human dignity at birth?
Basic biological science tells us that: Human life begins at fertilization. And moral truth tells us that: An embryo, a fetus—a preborn human baby—is an innocent human being; and, there is never a valid reason to intentionally destroy the life of an innocent human being.
Article 22, the so called “Reproductive Liberty Amendment,” was intentionally crafted to be deceptive and vague. If it were not, why are the words “abortion” and “woman” and “pregnancy” not even mentioned in its text? Everyone knows that Article 22 is really all about protecting abortion. But sadly it protects neither women from the horrific physical dangers and emotional consequences of abortion, nor preborn children from being brutally dismembered, poisoned, and sucked to pieces. Personal liberty is wonderful and guaranteed by our constitution, but only up to the point at which the exercise of one’s autonomy to determine one’s own life course does not create a deadly head-on collision with someone else’s life course. What about the preborn child’s life course? What about mom’s life course if she, but not dad, wants their child to be born? Or vice versa? Whose life course
is pre-eminent? How can these scenarios possibly be adjudicated equitably with such vague language and parameters?
These are some important questions to ask because we all need to be as fully informed and educatedas possible regarding the deceptive nature and destructive ramifications of Article 22 when we see
it on the ballot Nov. 8. We must realize the tremendous difficulty in repealing it if it were to be ratified. It’s why we must vote no to Article 22.
Martin Green,
Morrisville
