Â
[I]n a House chamber filled to capacity on Wednesday night, abortion-rights advocates and opponents took turns pleading with lawmakers to take their side on the most controversial bill of the legislative session thus far.
A public hearing on H.57, a bill that would codify abortion rights, attracted hundreds of opponents who raised religious arguments and concern about an “unregulated abortion industry.” On the other side of the debate, a crowd of supporters cited women’s rights and argued for preserving “safe and legal” abortion.
Though emotions ran high, they were kept largely in check by tight security, a two-minute limit on speakers and prohibitions against signs and applause. Rep. Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington and chair of the House Human Services Committee, made a plea for civility on an issue that frequently spurs less-than-civil discourse.
“This is not a play, so we don’t clap. This is not a sporting event, so we don’t hoot and holler,” Pugh said at the outset of the hearing. “This is a very emotional and personal issue that we all have strong views and opinions about.”
“This is what democracy is all about – we hear what everyone is trying to say,” she added.
H.57 is a response to concern that federal politics and the changing makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court could undermine abortion rights guaranteed by the landmark Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1973.
The bill, in its introductory language, “proposes to recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice.”
The legislation also says “every individual” has the right to an abortion with no specified age or gestational-stage limitation, and it declares that “a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.”
Additionally, the bill says no public entity can “deprive a consenting individual of the choice of terminating the individual’s pregnancy.”
Advocates for H.57 say those words simply put current practice into state law and do not expand abortion rights. But others say the bill uses vague language and goes too far, and they told members of the Human Services and House Judiciary committees to stop the legislation’s progress.
Elouise Martin of Underhill presented petitions opposing the bill, which she said allows “termination of a pregnancy with no limitations.”
“Our past silence has gotten us to this horrific place,” Martin said. “We will be silent no more.”
Dorothy Bolduc of St. Albans argued that “the time for choices is before pregnancy,” and she objected to H.57’s provision denying legal rights to fetuses.
“It is hateful and ridiculous to say they have no rights,” Bolduc said. “Vermont regulates everything. Why do you want an unregulated abortion industry?”
Timothy Counts of Arlington asked whether a lack of rights for the unborn meant “that he or she is property, having body parts that could be sold for use in scientific experimentation?”
Opponents frequently invoked religious arguments.
“Killing a baby in the womb is not a fundamental right of anyone except God alone,” Scott Libby of Newport said. “To kill babies is to treat God as if he doesn’t exist.”
H.57 opponent Greg Darling told lawmakers that, if the bill passes, “God will hold each of you accountable for every abortion in Vermont that follows. Their blood will be on your hands.”
But there also were many advocates for H.57 on hand.
Chloe White of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said the state “has long been a standard-bearer for liberty and personal freedoms, and this bill furthers that tradition.”
She also framed the issue as one of personal responsibility. “It makes no sense to assert that someone is not responsible enough to make their own decisions concerning their body, but is somehow responsible enough to carry a pregnancy to term and function as a parent,” White said.
Brenda Siegel of Newfane told legislators that “the choice to carry a child or not is personal and should always be personal, and should be protected.” She also linked abortion rights to women’s economic rights, echoing others who have supported H.57.
“Women’s reproductive freedom is connected to women’s freedom, period,” Siegel said.
Vermonters on both sides of the issue shared personal stories at Wednesday’s hearing. Melinda Moulton of Huntington told lawmakers that her mother died after childbirth prior to the legalization of abortion; she also described how her mother had earlier been hospitalized after an abortion attempt at home.
“My mother’s life was horrifically compromised because she did not have access to safe and legal abortion,” Moulton said. “What possibly could go through the minds of those who think that they have the right to legislate what I or any woman chooses if we are impregnated?”
Janet Young told legislators that she had worked for abortion providers in Vermont, and “I never saw a woman choose to end a pregnancy without seriously reflecting on the significance of her choice … for some, it was the first time they took control over their future,” Young said.
Young added that she was raised Catholic, but she said “no one should force their religious beliefs on another.”
The future of H.57 is unclear; Gov. Phil Scott has said he supports “a woman’s right to choose” but declined to endorse the bill as written.
The House Human Services Committee is scheduled for a possible vote on the bill Thursday morning, but Pugh said it’s not certain that will happen.
Pugh remains the bill’s lead supporter. Asked whether she heard anything at Wednesday’s hearing that changed her perspective, Pugh said she needs to consider whether there are “things to make clear that this bill does not change what has been the policy and practice in Vermont for the past 40-some-odd years.”