The Morgan resident and retired Statehouse lobbyist spent years volunteering for Planned Parenthood and served a stint on its board of directors in the 1980s. She says she has known Scott, the Republican nominee for governor, for just as long — and she’s always known him to be pro-choice.
So when Moot saw the first of two recent Planned Parenthood Action Fund ads questioning Scott’s commitment to abortion rights, she jotted off a rant on Facebook. Scott’s campaign contacted her and asked whether she would appear in a video responding to the attacks. She complied.
“I will tell you something: It broke my heart to do that,” Moot says. “I’m sorry to be emotional. It broke my heart to do that ad.”
In the video, which the Scott campaign released Thursday afternoon, Moot says she was “outraged and sickened that Planned Parenthood has distorted” Scott’s position on abortion rights.
“Phil Scott is pro-choice and has always been pro-choice,” she continues. “That’s, I think, why I’m particularly disappointed to see these distortions and lies, because that’s what they are. And I think Planned Parenthood needs to be ashamed of themselves for the ads they’ve been running.”
It’s a powerful rejoinder to an eviscerating series of attacks. But was it wise to engage in the debate at all?
Probably not .
Every two years, like clockwork, Vermont Democrats try to goad Republican candidates into a debate over social issues. It makes political sense. While many Vermonters consider themselves fiscal conservatives, most see themselves as social liberals. Simply put, the views of the national Republican Party on gay rights and abortion do not fly in Vermont.
A state-by-state poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014 found that 70 percent of Vermonters believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 26 percent believe it should not. That makes Vermont tied for second place with Washington, D.C., as the most pro-choice state — or district — in the union. (Massachusetts came in first, at 74 percent to 22 percent.)
Scott has found success in statewide politics where other Vermont Republicans have failed in part because he has branded himself as a moderate: He calls himself pro-choice, voted to legalize gay marriage and was one of the first prominent Republicans in the country to speak out against the rise of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
But the real secret to Scott’s success has been his devotion to a core message: To grow Vermont’s economy and solve its “affordability crisis,” state government has to get out of the way.
That’s what Scott should be talking about 12 days before the election — not whether he’s really in favor of abortion rights. Democrats know it. That’s why, within three hours of the Moot video’s release, three Democratic outfits dispatched statements trying to further goad Scott into a fight with Planned Parenthood.
“It’s a shame that Phil Scott has joined the national Republican attack on Planned Parenthood,” said Molly Ritner, campaign manager for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Sue Minter.
“Instead of owning up to his record of supporting increased restrictions on women’s health care, Phil Scott has joined the national Republican attacks against Planned Parenthood,” Vermont Democratic Party spokeswoman Christina Amestoy echoed.
“Phil Scott’s attacks on Planned Parenthood are disgraceful and are a direct move out of the national Republican playbook,” EMILY’s List national press secretary Rachel Thomas added. “If he can’t wrap his head around the reality that Planned Parenthood is the trusted health care provider for thousands of Vermont women and men, he is unqualified to lead.”
Those statements are plainly ridiculous. As Seven Days reported last December, Scott not only spoke out against national Republican calls to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding, he went so far as to visit one of its Burlington clinics.
“I don’t think we should be spending our time defunding Planned Parenthood,” Scott said last December. “They do really good work for a lot of people in need.”
Scott and his campaign weren’t attacking Planned Parenthood for the services they provide. They were defending him against nearly $347,000 worth of TV ads that, while literally truthful, are pretty disingenuous. Yes, Scott supports certain restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, but he fundamentally agrees with most Vermonters that abortion should be legal in most cases.
That puts him in the same camp as the Democrats’ own vice presidential nominee, Tim Kaine, who like Scott, has opposed late-term abortions and supported parental notification bills. Even Vermont’s own Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) voted in 2003 for legislation banning late-term abortions. His colleague at the time, Republican-turned-independent Jim Jeffords, opposed the very same bill.
Does Scott have a case to make? Yes. But it’s a nuanced one — and political campaigns operate in a black-and-white world. Engaging in an abortion debate will only lose Scott votes — and he’ll need every vote he can get.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Great article.
Polls in Vermont have consistently shown broad support for parental notification laws – which is of course why Planned Parenthood instead uses the generic term “restriction” in their ads. Planned Parenthood opposes a parent’s right to know before an abortion is performed on their minor daughter. Why is it worth $350,000 to Planned Parenthood to keep parents in the dark?
Once again seems like an op Ed for Phil Scott
Not once has Paul Heinz indicated an actual reason for voting for Phil Scott. He simply props him up with allusions to some Democratic conspiracy against him. Vermont has suffered under so-called moderate Republican governors before, because they’re “nice guys” and “thoughtful.” Phil Scott is by no means an angel, having a company that accepted no-bid contracts from the state at times when he was an elected official. Frankly, that bothers me a lot more than his Republican-lite take on abortion. While I don’t agree with his positions on abortion, I have voted for many people who share his positions. He has too many other downsides for me to look away this time.
I’m not sure it will hurt Lt. Gov. Scott to engage on this one. In Vermont, negative attack ads do not generally serve the candidates they are designed to support. I do not think Ms. Minter will be helped by this ad. And Lt. Gov. Scott’s civil, yet clear response is likely to serve him well.
B. A Slop complains that this accurate article is unfair to the Dems because it doesn’t say bad things about Scott. Ah, yes, it is a conspiracy against Democrats if every article doesn’t gush about them.
Hmmm. Haven’t voted for an r except for Jeffords in decades. Been having honest angst this year. PP ad pretty much did it for me so I think it backfired because I tend to vote against intolerance and the Minter campaign hasn’t disavowed the ad. Gives a bit of clarity, honestly. True moderate old school practical vt r with a local company employing mid income v highly educated d transplant who’s never really had much of a job apart from political appointments that seem designed for a run at governor. Lost a lot of respect for pp, which I traditionally support.
That gubernatorial candidate, Phil Scott, is being eviscerated by Planned Parenthood for his impure position on abortion is hardly a shocker. As a former Vermonter of 55 years, it’s apparent that not much has changed. Group-think lives. Your article accurately notes that VT is way out of the mainstream, and I can attest to that with a whole new perspective, now living elsewhere. This article brings back some memories. In 1989, after the Supreme Court Webster decision, the Burlington Free Press published a scathing opinion about the nation’s impending return to the back alley. But in a brief shining moment of balance and fairness, the paper allowed a dissenting “pro-life” opinion to be written as well. The next day, there was a violent takeover of the newspaper offices, complete with angry drums, screams for the editor (head on a platter, presumably), and mob vandalism around town. This in response to blatant freedom of speech and balance! I also remember the legendary day when Patrick Leahy had to take a long walk in the woods in order to find the courage to oppose the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure. Struggle and angst. What nonsense! He was probably scared to death. Mr. Scott is a good man. Planned Parenthood and the thought-police in Vermont will take anyone down for sport, and they can do it because they have huge coffers. Get back on the issues, and listen to what Phil Scott wants to do for the Vermont economy. Muster the courage to step outside of the nonsense that is driven by these tired, angry forces, and listen carefully to his ideas on the real issues that hold a state together. With Phil Scott in charge, maybe some of us life-long Vermonters could afford to return!