For members of the Vermont legislature who work diligently
to craft legislation that will address problems, protect rights, and generally
keep our “brave little state” as a great place to live and work, there comes
along in every biennium one or two very controversial issues. Last year it was gun regulation. A few years
ago it was removing the philosophical exemption for vaccines. In my first term
it was the single-payer health care system. This year, as a result of the
recent appointment of two conservative judges to the Supreme Court by President
Trump and efforts in many states to make it much harder for women to obtain
contraceptive and abortion services, efforts to protect reproductive choice for
women flared up early in the session.
There is no doubt that, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme
Court, the abortion issue had been divisive because it involves deeply held
beliefs on both sides. While the arguments are usually presented in black and
white terms, the issue has many shades of gray.
At one extreme is the belief that as soon as conception occurs a new
human being is created and deserves the full protection of the law. At the other extreme is the position that the
fetus does not attain the status of a human being with rights and protections
until birth. The reality of the human
condition, however, includes a great many different circumstances in between
such as rape, incest, non-viability of the fetus, the health of the woman,
reproductive freedom of choice, and other considerations.
This year a bill,
H.57, was introduced in the Vermont House to place in statute a woman’s right
to access abortion services even if Roe
v. Wade is reversed. Weeks of testimony, including a heavily attended
public hearing with pro and con testimony from Vermont citizens, were heard by
two House committees, Human Services and Judiciary. This was followed by two
days of debate on the floor with about a dozen amendments offered.
In making my decision to vote for the bill, which passed on
a vote of 106 to 37, I learned as much as I could from advocates of both sides
and from medical sources and considered my responsibilities as a
legislator. First, it is not the job of
the legislature to legislate religious beliefs.
Our decisions must be evidence-based. It is, however, the responsibility
of government to protect human beings. Second, we know from biology that a
fertilized egg initiates a new human life with unique DNA. One can legitimately
argue, however, that a fertilized egg or an embryo in the early stages of fetal
development is not quite a “human being” yet.
Third, again from a biological perspective, a fetus
immediately before birth is the same human organism as it is after birth except
for location and is, therefore, a human being. It then follows that the fetus
attains the status of a human being at some point before birth. The Supreme
court recognized as much in Roe v. Wade
but declined to define that point other than the viability of the fetus.
Fourth, by today’s medical capabilities, 23 weeks of gestation is the currently
recognized point of viability of a normal fetus. Medical practice in Vermont does not allow
elective abortions to be performed after 22 weeks and six days without a prior
consultation of the physician with the Medical Ethics Board of the hospital to
determine if the abortion is medically necessary, such as a non-viable fetus or
a danger to the life of the mother. Almost all unwanted pregnancies are
terminated within the first 12 weeks. When abortions take place late in
pregnancy, it is at great emotional expense for the parents who wanted the
child. Finally, government should respect a woman’s autonomy over her
reproductive decisions.
When confronted with controversial and emotional issues such
as abortion, it is a legislator’s duty to listen with an open mind, to educate
himself or herself as to facts, to weigh the facts carefully and logically
before making a decision, and then to vote without fear or favor according to
his or her conscience. This is what I try to do.
