Rep.
Anne Donahue
Legislative
Update
Feb.
2, 2019
There
is a public hearing scheduled this week (Wed., Feb. 6) on the subject of H. 57,
a bill titled as “relating to preserving the right to abortion” that is now
being reviewed in the House Human Services Committee. It’s set from 4:30 to
6:30 p.m. in the House chambers.
An
abortion bill controversy in Vermont? Why in the world at this point in time?
The
sponsors are saying that we need to protect a woman’s right to choose, given
the current makeup of the US Supreme Court and the fear that Roe v Wade might
be overturned.
Roe
v Wade and the decisions after it identified what can, or cannot, be restricted
in terms of access to abortion. There are restrictions that are constitutionally
permitted (but not required); for example, after a developing fetus reaches the
age at which they could survive outside the womb, termed “viability.” If Roe v
Wade were partially or fully overturned, more restrictions might be permitted
by different states’ laws.
However,
Vermont currently has no restrictions. Thus a change in US Supreme Court
rulings would have no effect whatsoever on the laws of Vermont. The only
restriction Vermont law ever had was thrown out by the Vermont Supreme Court in
1972, a year before Roe v Wade.
As
former Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna wrote in a Seven Days column
in 2005, “If Roe is overturned, the Vermont State Legislature could arguably
criminalize abortion for both women and the professionals who perform them. If
such a law came to pass, it would be instantly appealed to our Vermont Supreme
Court. Given the … [1972 Vermont case] it's likely the Court would rule such a
law unconstitutional.”
If
the newly proposed bill passes, it would create no new rights that do not
already exist in Vermont, but also would do nothing to prevent a different,
future legislature from making a change such as Hanna was referencing, because
a future legislature can always
change any existing law.
The
flag-waving over this bill reminds me a bit of the parent who “rescues” their
child from a monster under the bed, and becomes a hero to the child. The
monster that this bill would save us from -- a threat to abortion rights in
Vermont – doesn’t exist, but plenty of legislators want to be the hero that
vanquishes it.
The
bill is actually having a different effect. It making some people realize for
the first time that in Vermont, abortion is legal at any time during pregnancy,
right up until the moment of birth. It goes far beyond the requirements of Roe
v Wade, and there are many who are generally pro-choice who are uncomfortable
with that extreme.
That’s
what is creating new controversy. A law that would actually change nothing at
all is being vigorously supported under the false belief that is it necessary
for protecting women’s rights, and is being vigorously opposed under the false
belief that defeating it would protect against third trimester, post-viability
abortions.
It
is, however, a warm-up debate for something much more significant. It is
generally expected that a proposal is imminent for a constitutional amendment
in Vermont that would explicitly say that human personhood does not begin until
birth and that abortion is a right up until birth.
That
would begin a multi-year process. A constitutional amendment requires a bill in
the legislature then re-affirmation in the following legislative biennium,
followed by a statewide referendum.
What
has long disturbed me in this debate is the way that both sides ignore the
truths that exist from the opposing perspective, as if those truths would
defeat their own position.
The
fact is that a developing child in the womb is not like any other life, because
its continued growth depends upon the body of a woman for its sustenance. It
is, in the truest sense, encroaching upon that woman’s own bodily integrity.
That issue cannot be tossed aside.
On
the other hand, this is not the same as cancer cells that are invading a body.
They are the cells of a genetically distinct human life, which is wholly
vulnerable for its survival though the safety and nourishment provided by being
attached to its mother.
That
becomes the true debate: at what point is a person obligated to sustain the
life of another person against their will?
If
we focused on that question, there might be a better understanding of the
competing values at stake, regardless of which value each of us placed first.
I
don’t think criminalizing the actions of a person wants to reclaim their body
will ever be a solution, but I also strongly oppose the characterization of
abortion as being merely an issue of “reproductive rights.”
And
I would never vote for any law that establishes – as H. 57 does – that “a
fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under
Vermont law.”
***
This Year’s Budget
The
presentation of the Governor’s budget doesn’t mean legislators know much about
what’s in it yet beyond the same headlines the public read. That will take many
committee hearings of drilling down into budget line details: what areas are
proposed for cuts? Where are the “upward pressures”?
I
was struck by the absence of any mention of health care in this year’s address.
I buttonholed the Governor later to ask about it. He explained that he felt the
focus needed to be the issue of our workforce crisis, but that there are,
indeed, health care initiatives that he will be bringing to my committee.
We
are facing two ongoing issues.
The
first is access, which translates mostly into affordability but also includes
the issue of shortages in the health care workforce. While we can all agree
that everyone should be able to access the health care they need, the “how to”
menu is far-reaching.
The
proposal for a tax-supported universal system for primary care is back this
year (the bill died in House Appropriations last year), but there are also
complex, interconnected issues regarding health insurance products.
The
core concept of health insurance is, of course, that we all spread the risks of
serious illness. Only some of us will get cancer; no one can afford to pay for
cancer treatment on their own; if we all contribute to a pool of money, it will
be possible for those who get cancer to afford to get the treatment.
One
of the tricky pieces is the question of who is in which pool of risk. If
everyone is in, the cost is spread evenly. But if you are 30, you have a much
lower risk of getting cancer – or of almost any of the highest cost illnesses.
So
if you are paying into the same insurance pool as a 60-year-old – both of you
are paying the same price for insurance – your insurance is going to be much
more costly than if you were in a pool with only those who were 30 or younger.
It’s
no surprise that while our rate of uninsured folks in Vermont is almost down to
a mere 3%, by age group, the 25-to-35-olds are at 11%. They look at the odds of
getting sick and the cost of chipping in for everyone else, and some decide it
isn’t worth it.
The
result of that, of course, is that everyone left in the pool has to pay a
little bit more. In addition, if those gamblers do get sick, they are likely to
still end up getting care with costs borne by the rest of us.
Because
of changes in federal law, my committee is going to be sorting our some very
technical issues that relate to whether certain healthier groups can form their
own pols, making insurance more affordable for their group, but stranding
others.
Saying
it that way might make it sound easy (why would we let some people strand
others?), but part of the problem is that federal law already allows many
groups to carve themselves out. Who gets to be in or out? And what happens to
the remainders?
And
as costs rise, even if more people are now insured, there are also more who are
getting insurance that only helps pay for care at very high costs. That leaves
those folks with most of their care still being unaffordable.
Our
second big health care issue needs little introduction by now: it’s the
question of access to mental health services. The key symptom of our crisis in
this area is the fact that Vermonters often waits days, or sometimes weeks, in
an emergency room waiting for a needed inpatient admission.
The
administration reported to our committee a week ago that it is clear that we
need both an expansion of the capacity for inpatient care in Vermont as well as
an expansion of community supports. (Community services can prevent a crisis
that lands someone in an emergency room, and also enable people to be discharged
from a hospital sooner.)
Planning
for adding inpatient beds – a multi-year process -- is underway by the
University of Vermont Health Network; community capacity is usually overseen by
the Department of Mental Health.
Since
no new initiatives were announced as part of the Governor’s budget address, our
committee will be waiting for more information on how the state plans to
increase those services in the budget year ahead.
***
Drugs and Guns
Most
of the work of the legislature is on intricate details of laws that affect our
lives in multiple ways: how is health care financed and delivered? Which
government services should be funded? How do we create equitable tax laws? What
do we expect of our education system?
Every
one of our large, public policy issues break down into literally hundreds of
smaller questions that must be translated, word by word, into legislation. Very
few of them make for good headline news.
But
abortion – guns – drugs – those capture our attention.
Marijuana
will be back this year. Last year we made it legal for individuals to possess
and grow small amounts for personal use. Now the question is whether we should
allow it to be sold as a regulated substance, like alcohol, with taxes to
offset the costs of both regulation and public protection.
In
concept, I supported the idea that it should not be illegal to make private use
of pot, and in concept, I don’t support turning it into an industry of sales
and profits.
But
I voted against legalization, because we didn’t develop a law that kept use
truly limited to private possession. Proposals I made to prevent use around
kids were rejected; there were gaps for highway safety issues; and of course,
no money to address areas of concern.
I
find myself more likely to vote in support of a “tax-and-regulate” system,
because now that we have chosen to make it legal, it is likely the only we can
improve the oversight and control of uses.
A
lot will still depend upon what a final bill looks like when, and if, it makes
it to the House floor. The Senate is currently working on the details of what
it will propose to us.
Guns
will be back again this year, as well.
Last
year’s focus was on reacting to a very specific issue: a perceived mass
shooting threat in our own state. Now, other proposals that did not get
attention in past years are re-surfacing.
I
do not struggle with either the concept that we hold a constitutional right to
own guns, regardless of personal tastes or fears, or that there are
circumstances where that right can be restricted. It’s easy to conclude that
the state has the right to take away a gun from someone aiming it at someone
else.
Last
year’s bills ran the range from those that rationally restricted rights based
on a demonstrated risk of harm, to those that proposed restrictions based more
on fear alone. I supported “extreme risk” orders that remove gun rights from
persons who show a direct risk, as well as domestic violence restrictions.
I
did not support age restrictions, magazine limits, and private sales
restrictions where there was no demonstrated connection to actual increases in
public safety that outweighed the burden on individual rights.
Some
of this year’s proposals appear easy to assess. To my technologically-unrefined
mind, creation of guns that cannot be traced by using a 3-D printer seem like
fantasy-world, but certainly should not be legal.
Others
are much tougher. Where does the balance fall when assessing “waiting period”
laws that bar purchases in the interest of protecting against impetuous
actions?
Your
input on tax-and-regulate marijuana and on assorted gun restriction proposals,
as they emerge into specific bills this year, will be welcomed.
***
It is truly an
honor to represent you. Please contact me with your concerns and thoughts; I’m
best reached via email at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us.
No comments:
Post a Comment