Live in Bennington, briefly worked for the college.

The students are inoffensive but hidden away from the town. There are bus routes for getting into town but I can't blame the kids for not having any interest in main st, there's nothing there worth coming down for more than once a season. The town doesn't feel like a college town at all, and North Bennington is a kinda shit area to try to hang out unless you like pretty houses and Home Depot.

The school itself is a shitshow. Witnessed the collapse of the entire campus safety department firsthand and the administration reaction was to restart the 3-5 year process of finding a director to fix it. No COLA or raises for workers was a constant source of complaints from staff from grounds to dining hall. I left when they insisted I could only be hired through a temp agency (conveniently exempt from benefits or PTO) and also kept the listing for my own position open for months after I started.

There's been plenty of pricey liberal arts colleges with lots of history going under in New England. I expect to see Bennington College there in the next 1-3 years. I hope it doesn't fuck the kids over but I would be /stunned/ if the college communicated any closure to them before the final semester began. I have no idea how bad the financials are behind closed doors but they've already kicked every can and cut every corner they could.

>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.

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?

>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.