5'x8'x5' coop with a 18'x30' Run. 17 birds.

I don’t believe I ever said, establish civilized norms with science based public policy. I said mandate another citizens way of life just because you don’t agree with it. But that’s very lofty of you.

snicker

I'm sorry that you have a misguided feeling that you're so far above the common resident as to dictate someone else's way of life.

How does it compare to the states where your rights are least likely to be taken away by progressive activist politicians?

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?

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?

"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.