Article 22 Presentation - Part One

As you are aware, the Vermont State Legislature has proposed what is known as “Article 22,” an Amendment to our State Constitution intended to enshrine within our Constitution what is known as “personal reproductive autonomy.”

I wish to make a pastoral address to this issue in two parts: looking at the proposed Amendment this week… and then next week, looking at our responsibility to create a Culture of Life even among many who oppose our faith values and the right to life of children in the womb.

Although the election is more than a month away, mail-in ballots have already been made available, so I will speak to this issue now in order that potential voters can learn the Truth involved in this issue, and then cast your vote from an informed conscience. 

In his recent Pastoral Letter  to all Catholics in our Diocese, Bishop Coyne stated that, “The immediate challenge we face is the continuing efforts to enact state laws and policies that incentivize and encourage the right to an abortion as the first response to an unplanned pregnancy, culminating in the drive to amend the Vermont State Constitution this November, enshrining these laws within the State Constitution. The larger, more complex challenge to address is a culture that no longer prioritizes the support of families and children, especially the poor and the single parent, so as to lessen the factors that lead to an abortion.”

It is important to note that a Constitutional amendment (or the removal of an amendment) must start with the legislature. The process for Article 22 began at a time when the legislature was essentially closed to the public while citizens were understandably distracted by the Coronavirus pandemic and upheaval in our economy. Yet, we’re well into the process now, and citizens are just becoming aware of the Constitutional amendment at the 11th hour.

Known as Article 22, the “Reproductive Liberty Amendment” reads, “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Does this sound confusing? That’s because it is, and is quite likely meant to be. The article uses words such as “autonomy… liberty… dignity… determining one’s own life course…” without defining specifically what these concepts actually mean, as would be needed in the encoding of civil law. It would seem that they are left intentionally vague so that they will sound noble to the uninformed Voter. Note further that the Amendment does not even mention words such as “pregnancy… abortion… women… the unborn…” all of whom are intrinsic to the law’s eventual application.

The intentionally vague, simple and brief language leaves it open to judicial interpretation and perhaps unintended consequences, paving the way for many dangerous ramifications.

There is nothing in this language that protects and balances the rights of parents against secretive “reproductive liberty” for their children.

There is nothing in this language that protects the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals against demands by patients, their employers or the state to violate the tenets of their faith.

There is nothing in this language that allows our government to create regulations designed to ensure the safety of underage persons misunderstanding their gender identity or experiencing confusion about their sexuality.

There is nothing in this language that specifies that it applies only to women, raising concerns about the rights of fathers toward their pre-born children.

Finally, there is nothing in this language that protects taxpayers in any way from unlimited demands, nor the use of their tax money to procure abortions.

Article 22 is completely unnecessary, because, sadly, abortion is already legal and fully accessible in Vermont.  Voting “no” to Article 22 in November would still have no effect on the ability to procure an abortion here. The article takes a deeply ethical dilemma that divides good people, and chooses the most absolute extreme of one side of a debate, and enshrines it into the State Constitution.

Wherever voters stand on the issue of abortion, choice, liberty or “personal reproductive autonomy,” intentionally ending the lives of innocent, defenseless,  infants in the womb, and diminishing their humanity at any stage of pregnancy, does not represent the values of the majority of Vermont voters. Yet Article 22 disregards these values and would enshrine late-term abortion, even up to the moment of birth, as a constitutional right. In terms of our responsibility to shape the future of Vermont’s moral and political landscape for our children and our grandchildren, this referendum is the most crucial issue to be placed before Vermont voters. It is nothing less than a matter of life and death.

Bishop Coyne continues, in his pastoral letter: “I ask you to consider with great seriousness the implications of this amendment. Our state constitution not only serves as the foundation for the enactment of our state laws and interpretation of those laws within our juridical system, it also serves to enshrine the values that we should hold as a people of the State of Vermont.

“Do we really want to enshrine amongst our values something as vague and misguided as a “right to personal reproductive freedom?” Should we not, instead, continue to value first and foremost the right to life of all human beings, including the child in the womb?

Should we not focus, instead, on the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ by enacting laws and policies that directly confront the reasons why people choose to have an abortion by creating a ‘culture of life?’”

I will respond to these questions and others next week on Respect Life Sunday, as we look to our responsibility to build that “Culture of Life” not merely to overcome the adversaries of Life, but to care for their eternal souls.