UPDATE 3/23/2019: Vermont’s Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted 5-0 on Friday to approve a bill known as the Right to Personal Reproductive Liberty, according to WCAX. It will now move to the full Senate and if approved, move to the House. The bill seeks to amend the Vermont state constitution to ensure a “right” to abortion.
In order for the constitution to be amended, the bill must be approved by two consecutively elected legislatures and then approved by voters in a statewide vote. This bill is separate from the one which passed last month in the Vermont House which would codify abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
UPDATE 2/24/2019: The Vermont House of Representatives officially passed the expansive abortion bill to codify into Vermont law abortion on demand without a single restriction through all nine months of pregnancy.
House Bill 57 – An Act Relating to Preserving the Right to an Abortion passed by a vote of 106-37 on February 21.
2/20/2019: The Vermont House on Wednesday gave preliminary approval to an expansive bill that will ensure legal abortion through all nine months of pregnancy with zero restrictions in the state. It overwhelmingly passed on a preliminary basis, 104-40. The full vote is expected on Thursday.
Opponents of the bill — House Bill 57 — brought up ten different amendments during the hearing today, but each of those amendments were shot down by the bill’s proponents, according to MyChamplainValley.com. One amendment called for parental consent for minors before obtaining an abortion. Another, proposed by Reps. Carl Rosenquist (R) and Robert Bancroft (R), called for a ban on abortion after six months or 24 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases in which a woman’s health is at risk. (In reality, abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life, as explained by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino in the video below.) For women at this stage, a c-section is faster and safer, and no one is purposefully killed. While c-sections take minutes, a late-term abortion takes three days.
“I put this together as a compromise between the pro-life and the pro-choice people,” Rosenquist said during his testimony, according to VT Digger. But pro-abortion politicians aren’t interested in compromising.
For supporters of this free-for-all abortion bill, banning abortion at any point during pregnancy would label abortion as a crime after that point, and therefore, they turned down the amendment. What that means is that pro-abortion politicians are willing to allow the abortions of viable children just moments from birth, because they would rather protect the abortionist (who is being handsomely rewarded for killing those preborn children) from ever being charged with a crime against that child. The decision to refuse the amendment also means that if an assailant kills a woman’s preborn child against her wishes, that person will not face charges for that wanted baby’s death. That’s what pro-abortion representatives in Vermont just allowed for.
Abortion in Vermont is currently free from any restrictions or time limits. This bill will simply make sure it stays that way in the state if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, because the end goal of House Bill 57 is to add abortion-on-demand as a fundamental right in the Vermont state constitution. Zero restrictions means that preborn children in the ninth month of pregnancy can be aborted for literally any reason. Vermont doesn’t even bother to hide late-term abortion under the label of “health reasons,” as other states — such as New York — do.
Proponents of House Bill 57 also claim that it doesn’t matter that abortion is legal in Vermont until birth, because they don’t think anyone has abortions that late into pregnancy for elective reasons — but this is simply untrue. A study by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, showed that the majority of late-term abortions occur for elective reasons including trouble deciding whether or not to abort, not wanting to raise a child alone, feeling that she was too young, or having a conflict with her partner.
According to VPR, Rep. George Till, an obstetrician, also claimed that there’s no need to add the amendment, because no doctor in Vermont would commit an elective abortion on a viable preborn child. While hospitals have ethics panels on late-term abortions, places like Planned Parenthood do not. Therefore, even if it were currently true that no one commits elective late-term abortions in Vermont, at any time, an abortionist could begin committing elective late-term abortions in the state.
After the Vermont House passes the bill, it will head to the state Senate, where it is expected to be approved. Vermont’s pro-abortion governor, Phil Scott, has said that he feels it is “important” for the bill to move forward because of concerns that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and the legalization of abortion will return to the states.
“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!
Stories like the one you just read transform hearts and minds.
For example, one of our followers, Ross, messaged us and commented:
“I began to question my pro-choice views after reading articles about Live Action…Live Action is primarily responsible for my becoming Pro-Life through their well-thought-out, scientific information and the emotionally and uplifting stories of real people with real experiences in saving the lives of their children regardless of what others might say.”
Knowledge is power and CAN open eyes to SEE the truth. And, YOU can provide the spark to transform someone’s mind, just like Ross.
The DAILY publishing at Live Action News is only made possible through generous people, like you, who give $5, $10, or $25.
Your gift today will not only keep these stories coming in 2020, but also help us open more eyes and change minds to be fully pro-life and save lives.
Will you join us in creating a world where the killing of preborn children is unthinkable and support Live Action News by making your tax-deductible gift today?