An unrestricted right to abort vs blanket prohibitions

Like everything else in our politics, the conflict over abortion is increasingly a clash of the most extreme positions.

Vermont Moves to Protect Abortion Rights

[I]n Vermont, Democrats have approved a measure meant to protect abortion rights, and supporters have pleaded with the state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott, to sign it.

. . . .

In Vermont, the bill would prohibit the government from interfering in any way with the right to have an abortion. 

It would not change the status quo in Vermont, where there currently are no legal limits on when or under what circumstances a woman can decide to end a pregnancy. 

. . . .

Beyond Vermont, Democratic officials in other states are also fighting back against the wave of bills restricting abortion.

The newly elected Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has promised to veto legislation passed by the Republican-controlled State Senate that would ban the most common second-trimester abortion procedure.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers, another Democrat elected in 2018, said on Tuesday that he would veto four pieces of anti-abortion legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Assembly if the measures reach his desk.

. . . .

Still, the [Vermont] law itself could simply be changed by a future legislature. 

Because of that, abortion rights advocates in Vermont are simultaneously pursuing another, more lasting strategy: amending the State Constitution to protect abortion rights.

In recent weeks, lawmakers approved an amendment that would declare “personal reproductive autonomy” to be a fundamental right. 

Supporters say an amendment would provide greater protection than the bill, but the process to pass it would take several years, at least. 

The Legislature would have to pass the proposed amendment a second time in a future legislative session, and it would also have to go before the voters.

“Because of the landscape that we’re dealing with in this country, when it comes to reproductive rights we needed to have a short- and a long-term plan in place to help and support Vermonters,” said Jill Krowinski, the House majority leader.

. . . .

Vermont would be the first state to amend its constitution to specifically protect abortion rights, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a policy organization that supports abortion rights. 

Some other states’ constitutions have been interpreted as protecting abortion rights but none explicitly address abortions.

. . . .

Critics of the measure described it as extreme.

Bishop Christopher J. Coyne, the Roman Catholic leader of the Diocese of Burlington, described the law as going “far beyond Roe vs. Wade,” warning that it meant “that a baby in the womb can be terminated right up to the moment of natural birth.”

Mary Hahn Beerworth, the executive director of Vermont Right to Life Committee, said the bill also was unnecessary, since the state already placed no restrictions on abortion.

“This is going to be one of those things where you’re going to look back and say, ‘What were they thinking of, really?’” Ms. Beerworth said. 

She added that her organization would now turn its attention to opposing the constitutional amendment.