Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker marked the 46th anniversary of the U.S Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Roe v. Wade in January by signing an executive order ensuring abortion access for government employees and declaring that the midwestern state “will be the most progressive state in the nation when it comes to guaranteeing women’s reproductive rights.”
In Vermont, Democratic legislators marked the occasion by launching their own push for a statutory change that would go further toward protecting abortion than any existing state laws in the country, and a first-in-the-nation constitutional change enshrining reproductive rights for all Vermonters.
But Vermont lawmakers have studiously avoided crowing about the national significance of the legislation, instead framing their efforts as protecting existing access to abortion in Vermont in the face of potential changes at the federal level, particularly after the appointment of another conservative justice, Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court last year.
Rep. Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, the majority leader in House, previously worked for Planned Parenthood, which provides the majority of abortions in Vermont. Krowinski said she took pride in Vermont’s civil discussion about abortion rights this year, but didn’t answer questions about how she felt about Vermont being a legislative trailblazer on the issue.
“I’m really proud of the way that people conducted the debate. And I think that’s something, especially in what feels like a very toxic environment in DC, to show that in legislatures, we can have this debate,” Krowinski said. “So I’m proud of that. And I’m, you know, I think it’s important that we’re standing up to say that we need to make sure that these rights are protected.”
Those on the other side of the debate say Vermont is going well beyond the protections outlined in Roe v. Wade, which prevents states from restricting abortion in the first trimester. Vermont’s laws are currently silent on abortion — the word does not appear in state statutes — and therefore the 1972 case of Beecham v. Leahy sets the legal precedent. In that case, the Supreme Court found that a state law making it a criminal offense for physicians to perform abortions was unconstitutional because it infringed on a woman’s legal rights.
The Catholic bishop in Vermont has said that H.57 is “taking us to a place where we’re literally killing babies,” a claim that medical professionals dispute. Proponents say the bill merely removes the government from the conversation about abortion, just like other medical procedures.
“I think what is important,” Krowinski said of abortion access, “is that we let the medical community be able to take science and to have those conversations and to be the ones to regulate what that looks like, and how you define it, not politicians.”
Less than 1% of abortions in Vermont occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy — what critics call “late term” abortions — and physicians say the procedure would only be performed at such a late date after careful medical and ethical considerations. UVM Medical Center recently announced a new policy that abortions after 22 weeks “requires decision support and oversight from clinical ethics and the chief medical officer.”
In New York, where legislators recently had a similar conversation about abortions laws, the decision was made to only allow abortions after 24 weeks if “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” Opponents of Vermont’s law have been frustrated by Democrats refusing to make any similar compromises — other proposals were parental consent for minors and a mandate to offer ultrasounds.
“I think it’s irresponsible to take H.57 and not put some parameters and safety parameters in the law,” said Mary Beerworth, executive director of Vermont Right to Life. She accused lawmakers of “refusing to do their job, rejecting every common sense solutions, leaving the situation irresponsibly wide open. There’s nothing else so unregulated in Vermont.”
Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, says he is supportive of a woman’s right to choose, but hasn’t specifically pledged to sign H.57 into law. The governor does not need to sign constitutional changes, which instead must pass both chambers of the Legislature in two separate bienniums and then go to a statewide vote.
Vermont obstetricians and gynecologists have largely welcomed the legislation. And UVM Medical Center came out in support of both H.57 and Proposition 5. “I do not need government, nor do I think it’s particularly helpful for government, to help provide guidelines for clinical care,” said Dr. Ira Bernstein, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at UVM Medical Center, the only facility in the state that performs abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy. “I think that we’re well equipped to help women make these calls, in the doctor patient relationship, and to provide those services safely.”
One of the most fervent opponents who testified on the bill is Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas-based physician with the American Association for Pro-life OBGYNs. “This Vermont legislation will remove any oversight from a late term abortion provider’s facilities or competency,” she said in written testimony submitted to the House Human Services Committee.
“Vermont may feel it is helping women by passing this legislation that will allow a small trickle of women with severe fetal anomalies to receive late term abortions in the state,” she added. “However, by opening this door, you will allow a tsunami of elective late terms abortions to follow, many of which will be obtained by coercion of the pregnant women.” She warned that Vermont “will become a destination for ‘late term abortion tourism.’” (Late term abortions is widely viewed in the medical community as a contrived political term).
Sen. Becca Balint, D-Windham, the Senate majority leader, said she did not share that concern, adding that similar warnings were raised when the Legislature was debating civil unions and then gay marriage. “Everybody said there was going to be a huge influx of gay people — we’re going to swimming in gay people. And it didn’t happen. I think it’s a lot of worry and hysteria. These are stories we tell, but you’re talking about real people in their lives.”
There are only four doctors in the country who provide elective abortions throughout a pregnancy. One of them is Dr. Shelley Sella, who practices at Southwestern Women’s Options, a clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The idea that someone would “just decide” to terminate a pregnancy soon before her due date is “completely unrealistic,” Sella said. “These are incredibly desperate women in desperate situations.”
If Vermont had the distinction of having the broadest abortion protections in the country, would that encourage physicians like Sella to practice here? “Those of us who provide the service are aware of the laws in the various states,” she said. “We are practicing where we’re practicing. And it’s not Vermont.”
If H.57 passes, which looks highly likely, Vermont would join nine states that currently have laws protecting abortion, according to the New York Times. Sella said about seven states do not have laws banning abortion post-viability, when a fetus could medically survive outside the womb, though she said she wasn’t certain of the exact number. And about half of the states are currently considering legislation to expand abortion protections, according to Lucy Leriche, head of public policy for Planned Parenthood Northern New England.
But “there are at least as many states working to pass legislation hostile to abortion and reproductive rights,” Leriche said. Over the past two decades, America has been moving rapidly toward more restrictions on abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization, found that in 2019 only four states were supportive or very supportive of abortion rights, while 21 states were hostile or very hostile. That’s up from just four states being “hostile” in 2000. (Vermont has maintained a “middle-ground” ranking throughout).
Across the country, 29 million women of reproductive age, or about 43%, live in hostile and very hostile states, according to the institute, compared to 15 million women of reproductive age, or about 22%, in supportive or very supportive states.
“That was how it was before Roe vs. Wade,” said Sella, “that there were states that supported women’s decisions to have an abortion and desperate women did come from other states to those states to have an abortion. And again, I see that as a positive thing, desperate women will take desperate measures and…this is an incredibly safe medical procedure, we want to keep it that way.”
One place where politics does not enter the abortion conversation, according to a medical student who previously worked with Sella, is in the clinic. “It’s just not that polarized,” said Kalin Gregory-Davis, who is studying at UVM’s medical school. “I had patients who are substantially pro-life. I had patients who are staunchly pro-choice. I had patients who had never really even thought about the politics of it, but needed an abortion.”
Gregory-Davis doesn’t rule out that the proposed protections could lead to expanded access to abortion services in Vermont — nor does she believe that would be harmful. She said that abortion providers exemplify the idea of patient-centered care: “How do we trust the patient, listen to the patient, come to a place of shared decision-making?”
Krowinski said she wasn’t sure if more restrictive abortion laws in some states would make women more likely to travel across borders for abortions, but she hoped it wouldn’t come to that.
“I don’t want anyone to ever be in the situation where they are forced to carry a pregnancy that they can’t,” she said. “And if that means that they have to come to Vermont, then they should come to Vermont. But again, our goal in all this is to ensure that we are protecting the access in Vermont, no matter what happens in Washington, that’s our goal.”
