“It’s democracy at work,” House Minority Leader Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney) said in explaining the demand for roll calls. “I think our members wanted [roll call votes]. It’s a very personal and emotional issue.”
Vermont has had no restrictions on abortion since 1972. Supporters of H.57 say that abortion rights must now be protected in law, given the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1972 decision establishing abortion rights.
Rep. Carl Rosenquist (R-Georgia) proposed an amendment establishing legal rights for fetuses developed enough to survive outside the womb. “The most underrepresented person or thing in Vermont is a viable fetus,” he said in floor debate. “It feels pain, it feels love.”
The amendment was defeated on a 106-41 vote, largely along party lines.
Rosenquist and Rep. Bob Bancroft (R-Westford) offered an amendment barring abortions after 24 weeks except in cases where an abortion would be needed “to avert the patient’s death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” There was no exception for mental impairment. The amendment was defeated 107-40.
Bancroft then proposed establishing a 48-hour waiting period before a woman can obtain an abortion. It lost 115-32.
His next amendment would have required parental consent for minors seeking abortions. “Young people are not capable of making informed decisions,” Bancroft argued. “I can understand why a teenager might be too embarrassed to tell her parents and might seek an abortion on her own. But we need to weigh the rights of parents.”
Rep. David Yacovone (D-Morrisville), a longtime social services professional and former commissioner of the Department for Children and Families, argued against parental notification by citing his own interactions with young victims of incest and the “pain, fear and trauma” that’s suffered by “more than we might care to imagine.”
The parental consent amendment went down on a 123-24 vote.
Rep. Vicki Strong (R-Albany) proposed an amendment to require that any facility performing abortions be subject to the same regulatory and inspection rules as surgical centers. She billed it as a measure to ensure “the best outcomes for mothers’ health and well-being.”
After her amendment was defeated on a 113-33 vote, Strong offered another measure that would require anyone seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound and then wait 24 hours before having the procedure. The woman would have the option of viewing the ultrasound image and hearing a fetal heartbeat. Strong promoted it as a way to give women the opportunity to make a more fully informed choice.
Rep. Charen Fegard (D-Berkshire) related her own experience receiving an ultrasound, calling it intrusive and “excruciating,” comparing it to the pain she imagines men must feel when kicked in the testicles. She argued that women should not be subjected to the procedure unless medically necessary.
The ultrasound amendment was defeated 131-13.
The House then returned to another Bancroft amendment — this one would have banned so-called “partial birth abortions.” That drew the closest vote of all, but still failed 101-43.
All the Republican amendments were defeated by veto-proof majorities, which may dash the hopes of abortion opponents that Gov. Phil Scott might veto H.57 and have his veto upheld by the House. Scott has not publicly committed on this bill, although he has repeatedly said that he is pro-choice.
The House must take a final vote Thursday on H.57. More amendments may be offered.
Correction, February 21, 2019: An earlier version of this story misidentified Rep. Bob Bancroft’s town of residence.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
To my fellow Vermont conservatives: it is always darkest before the dawn.
Vermont has had no restrictions on abortion since 1972 = false. VT has had no state abortion statute since 72. Since then, VT hospitals have either severely restricted their provision of abortions or they have not provided them at all (as reported by alicia freese 7dvt 11/16). UVM reversed its ban on elective abortions 16 mos ago w/out public notice or input (widely reported 4mos later). Planned Parenthood is the exception, performing 94% of VT abortions. With H.57, they have effectively written our abortion law for us, outlawing all restrictions and rendering themselves immune from regulation. Roe, the controlling law since 73, protects a womans right to abortion until age of fetal viability. Casey, controlling since 92, upholds Roe and rules that states may regulate abortions at any stage of pregnancy provided such regulation is not unduly burdensome on the woman. That is a reasonable balance. H.57 is not. It codifies an absolute right to abortion up to the point of birth, for any reason or for no reason. It precludes the state from ensuring even the most basic health and financial safeguards for women. It is unprecedented and opens a disturbing door, widely.
The democrats in the Vermont legislature have exposed themselves as deceitful liars. They claimed H. 57 would only keep abortions legal as they are now being done in Vermont. Opponents have said all along it would guarantee a right to abortion all nine months of pregnancy with no rules or regulations The democrats voted down every amendment that would have kept abortions legal as they are done now. The democrats and progressives have made it clear they will accept nothing less than abortion all nine month of pregnancy with no regulations or restrictions.
Gun rights are next.
Woody Guthrie said some people rob you with a gun, others with a fountain pen. The VT legislature just committed murder with it and for their next act will attemp to remove the means to resist a tyrannical central government that just crossed the border of the womb.
Fetuses =/= people. Simple as that. I’m proud of the legislature.
They should have an amendment giving men the right to abortion too. If they don’t they are discriminating against men, something that is much too common and accepted. The concept of the paper abortion allows the biological father, before the birth of the child, to opt out of any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child, including financial support. Misandrists say that men should use birth control or be abstinent, but when you tell women they don’t need abortion rights because they can just use birth control or be abstinent you get accused of misogyny. Double standards are not acceptable.
This is what happens when you let special interest groups write your laws and no one has the courage to speak the truth: existing practice in Vermont for the last 40 plus years is only UVM Medical Center performed third trimester abortions at the hospital when the mothers life was at risk. The hospital recently reversed its 40 year ban on perforning elective abortions and now performs second trimester elective abortions. Whose to say that the hospital will not reverse their ban on third trimester elective abortions? I have spoken to many of the H.57 bill sponsors and they have promised that the hospital will not change their policy and perform third trimester elective abortions. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I’m against full term abortions, plain and simple!
“…an ultrasound, calling it intrusive and “excruciating,” comparing it to the pain she imagines men must feel when kicked in the testicles.”!! Really? Nearly every happily pregnant woman will get an ultrasound without blinking an eye. The nonsense rationale to promote abortion over all other options is logically laughable. I am so ashamed to be a Vermonter today.
I must question what the outcry would have been if a different group sent this threatening letter to our representatives.
This is the text of a letter from the Planned Parenthood Vermont Action Fund, as provided to a journalist: As a courtesy, please be aware that PPVTAF will score Representatives votes, as well as any amendments that are introduced that would restrict abortion rights in Vermont. The scorecard will be used as an important reference for future endorsements by PPVTAF IE PAC, as well as in any additional relevant discussions and actions as they arise in our work with the Vermont legislature.
Fucks sakes. Stop saying overturn roe.
It doesn’t fucking work like that.
You hurt your craft as a journalist when you keep saying this dumb shit.
Like Tim said, there’s already a more recent case to use.
“I must question what the outcry would have been if a different group sent this threatening letter to our representatives.”
Excuse me, didn’t the organized gun rights people make exactly these kinds of “we’ll be watching you and flexing our electoral muscles” threats to Vermont officeholders? Did you express outrage at that?
Is it too late to abort the president?