Vermont approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom, but not from the State Department of Child and Youth Services. And why the heck not? As I’ve suggested more than once, as written, there’s a lot of room to mess with the original purpose, which was to protect abortion.
…if some judge declares the unborn a person (giving them individual rights), article 22 bans abortion in Vermont. That’s not too far-fetched an idea, but the ‘abort them all lobby’ went with this version after fearing trip-wires with previous language.
The assumption is that no judge would ever suggest the words they chose mean something other than what they intended, which is a strange thing for a party that lives to redefine words and their meanings, and assumes it will always be the ones deciding. I never said they were smart, so let’s apply that lack of self-awareness to the so-called Shield law.“
“the Vermont House of Representatives gave preliminary approval for S.28, an act related to access to certain legally protected health care services on a vote of 97 to 43. The bill is up for a final vote on Friday, April 18th, upon approval it will go back to the Vermont Senate.
The bill strengthens legal protections for Vermont individuals and providers in accessing and providing reproductive health care and gender-affirming care. It clarifies and expands Vermont’s Shield Laws and sets new standards to combat misinformation and interference with legally protected health care activity. “
More specifically,
The bill has a wide range of protections and includes:
- Extending protections to people who helped others access reproductive or gender-affirming care in states where it was legal, even if those acts are now being targeted elsewhere.
- Barring professional discipline against Vermont-licensed providers for delivering or assisting with legally protected health care.
- Preventing Vermont agencies and employees from cooperating with out-of-state investigations targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care if that care is legal in Vermont.
- Granting enforcement authority to the Attorney General to act against misleading advertising or information that harms patient autonomy.
- Preventing the release of sensitive medical data related to legally protected health care services, including by pharmacies and insurers, unless narrowly permitted by law.
- Reinforcing Vermont’s commitment to bodily autonomy, accurate health information, and access to care, despite national legal uncertainty.
- Intending to shield Vermont patients and providers from political and legal threats originating from other states.
The Dems must love this. It creates enforcement mechanisms so the state can go after pregnancy care centers. That’s obvious. It also attempts to control speech about pregnancy and abortion, and the care related to either (none of which helps girls or women). This is an invitation for the Blue State to step into a trap that will cost the state millions in litigation it will lose. Interesting and expensive, but not nearly as dangerous as this.
Vermont is inviting child sex traffickers, pedophiles, and like minded progressives who defend things like Minor-Attracted Persons, to no only hide rape and incest but to protect the people who aid and abet it.
As for the gender affirming care, we have a similar problem. Parents are not even on a need-to-know basis. A public school teacher could have sex with their daughter, then get them an abortion, and he is probably protected by the shield law, as are the administrators, staff, or union reps who may intervene to hide the sexual assault to protect the teacher and the district. It succeeds more often than it fails, and this law appears to corroborate that.
The same is true for kids transitioned by the public education culture without the knowledge or consent of parents or guardians, which is offensive enough on its face but presumes there are no religious rights trip wires that would end up in court and the wrong side of a large settlement. Allowing them to dress as the opposite sex (which, for the record, is bigoted and stereotypical) is bad enough. Freeing them for trips to get hormones or surgery is just frikking insane.
Does it have any hope? Phil Scott is as northeastern Republican as you can get, so he is more than socially moderate, but is this a bridge too far? The implied loss of parental rights could be a deal breaker, and a veto stands some hope of being sustained this session.
Vermonters, chime in, please.
Up To 70% Off Food, Survival, Generators, Water
Sale Ends Monday Night
