Dear Editor,
In the May 13, 2021, issue of the News & Citizen, Dave Yacovone informed us that the Vermont House of Representatives voted 146-0 to ban “forever” chemicals. One of the reasons he cited for the ban was the adverse health effects on fetal development.
If he’s truly concerned about protecting fetal development, why then did he vote for HR.57 signed two years ago by Governor Phil Scott, which officially legalized the option of brutally destroying human fetal development at any stage of pregnancy in Vermont? Why did he vote to pass Proposition 5, the proposed amendment to the Vermont Constitution which would even further legally protect those who violently end fetal development through abortion?
Yacovone has been recognized as a champion for families throughout his many years in public service. He’s spoken out about protecting children from domestic violence, and even won an award last year for his work. That’s commendable. But how ironic and tragic that he supports the horrific violence committed against women and preborn children through both chemical and surgical abortion.
Unfortunately, the majority of our elected representatives, including Phil Scott, Heidi Scheuermann, and Rich Westman, speak about defending and protecting the most vulnerable among us, yet support legislation such as Prop. 5, which removes legal protections for them.
If we really want to create legislation to ban the use of certain “forever” chemicals, why not include the chemical abortion pill, RU-486, which destroys fetal development and murders preborn children? Here’s how the pill works: it kills the developing child by shutting off the supply of nutrients from her mother, effectively starving her to death. A second pill is then taken which induces premature labor. The end result? A dead baby is delivered.
With the convenience of the abortion pill, abortionists no longer have to get their hands covered with innocent blood. In the name of healthcare, and under the guise of reproductive freedom and personal autonomy, they can simply remotely dispense abortion pills, even through the mail. This can be done without a prescription, without parental consent, and without any knowledge or consideration of the medical history and condition of the girl or woman. Inconceivable.
Rather than steering vulnerable moms and dads facing an unexpected pregnancy toward abortion, they need to be provided with wise counsel and loving, compassionate support. This includes ultrasound pictures of their children, and being offered the alternative of adoption.
Martin Green
Morrisville
