mdeer1st t1_it25smr wrote on October 20, 2022 at 12:08 PM

"Article 22. Personal reproductive liberty.
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"

Constitutional rights must be applied to all or to none. If they are only applied to a segment of the population, it is not a right at all. And let me ask this in all seriousness, If there are competing interests, and the courts decide the issue, how is that enshrining a right at all? As well as the whole "unless justified by a compelling State interest" in the proposal. How is it that if it's a right, there can be any consideration of any government interest? So what this will really do, is make the decision between a woman, her doctor, the man involved and the courts. Or the government if somewhere down the road some politician decides there is a "compelling State interest" to either allow or disallow.

And let's play devils advocate for just a minute. How does this apply to men. After all, they are people as well. As I said, in order for something to be considered a right, it must be applied to everyone. How will this be applied to men? I can easily see some scumbag trying to shirk financial responsibility for their child by claiming reproductive autonomy was violated. Downvote if you like, but this is a serious question. Or what of the man who wants his offspring whereas the woman does not? It then ends up in the courts. As clearly stated during the hearings on the subject by the planned parenthood attorney I believe. Is that what we really want? The courts or government to decide? Because that's exactly what this will create.

"Article 1. All persons born free; their natural rights; slavery and indentured servitude prohibited
That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited."

When was the last time there was a case of slavery or indentured servitude in Vermont? I'd wager not in a couple of hundred years. We all understand and agree that it would be unacceptable under any circumstances.

Then again, how does that apply to the person who has a child and does not have custody, nor visitation yet must pay child support? Is not forced financial responsibility indentured servitude? How is personal reproductive autonomy impacted? What of the person who owes the courts fines and is imprisoned for nonpayment? Is that not slavery? To be held captive due to debt.

Just some thoughts.

Biobot42 t1_it47ckp wrote on October 20, 2022 at 8:26 PM

>And let me ask this in all seriousness, If there are competing interests, and the courts decide the issue, how is that enshrining a right at all?

These paragraphs are all over the place, but this is what you seem to keep coming back to. The point is not to keep every case out of the courts here, it's to give a legal foundation to bodily autonomy for when the courts do get involved. Sometimes things need to be decided on a case by case basis and that's okay. Broadly, the courts should be involved in a person's bodily autonomy as little as possible, which is the clear and obvious intent of this amendment and, furthermore, a point that I think you're agreeing with? Again, these musings are not fully consistent.

>Won't someone please think of the men?

No. More seriously, we already think about the men, every day and in every situation and putting too much weight on the desires of men is why we now need a constitutional amendment to ensure the bodily autonomy of women.

>When was the last time there was a case of slavery or indentured servitude in Vermont?

It is currently very much legal for prisons to do this, as a common example. I'm personally not given to believe it is currently happening at the state level but that doesn't stop us from being proactive and clearing up the confusing language in the state constitution.

>Then again, how does that apply to the person who has a child ... Is that not slavery? To be held captive due to debt.

No, it is not slavery. It feels disingenuous to have a debate about whether financial debt and slavery are the same thing, but if that's really the hill you want to die on I can't stop you.

mdeer1st t1_it77u2s wrote on October 21, 2022 at 1:09 PM

My main point on Article 22 is that nothing can be a right unless it is applied to all people. Not a segment of the population. How would this be applied to all people?

Biobot42 t1_it7ccwv wrote on October 21, 2022 at 1:44 PM

I don't see how this isn't being applied to all people. The language is constructed without gendered language. All individuals, any One's rights, etc. And that's without even debating your premise. Be specific, how is this going to be unfairly favoring any person over any other?

mdeer1st t1_it7fove wrote on October 21, 2022 at 2:09 PM

Can you tell me how this would be applied to a woman after impregnation vs how it applies to a man after said act? I will grant that the man cannot carry the fetus to term physically, however, it is still his reproduction that will be decided. Just as it is hers. Which autonomy holds more weight. According to this act, they hold equal weight. So then a court must decide which holds more weight. If one outweighs the other, they are not equal. Therefore not a right being equally applied to all individuals.

And as with anything that is versed to include a caveat of potential governmental interference, it should be loathed and cannot be a right. If an institution, in this case the government, can supersede what is alleged to be a right, it is not a right. But a granted privilege until said institution decides it will not be applied in a given case. Where is the "right" then?

Biobot42 t1_it7i70c wrote on October 21, 2022 at 2:26 PM

>Can you tell me how this would be applied to a woman after impregnation vs how it applies to a man after said act?

You're making a bold claim here that a man's bodily autonomy is infringed upon when the women's is codified. You need to defend that claim. "it is still his reproduction that will be decided" doesn't mean anything, what reproduction is being decided? Where in this law does it infringe on that?

>So then a court must decide

Again, this is not a bad thing nor a failing of the ammendment. The point of the language is to strengthen an individual's legal flooring in cases where it does go to court, not to prevent them from ever being in court in the first place. Literally anyone can be taken to court for anything, God Bless the USA, but winning is a different matter.

>If an institution, in this case the government, can supersede what is alleged to be a right, it is not a right.

Do you know what prison is? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness get suspended given a compelling state interest, in this case a conviction following a crime being committed. Are those no longer rights? Nonsense.