This commentary is by Republican Rep. Anne Donahue.
The importance of protecting the conscience of health care workers is, in most cases, endorsed by the Vermont Medical Society, with widespread public support in the context of allowing hospital staff to request an exemption from participation in abortion. It has been.
But if Proposal 5 “Modification of Reproductive Freedom” becomes part of our State Constitution, few have addressed the current risk of erosion of the right to conscience in Vermont.
There should be deep concern about the potential impact Proposal 5 could have on the state hospitals, health care provisions, and the labor crisis by overturning such protection.
There is an inaccurate perception of the scope and intent of this constitutional amendment. This is reflected in VTDigger’s November article, explaining the purpose of “protecting the abortion rights stated in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court.”
In fact, the unusual wording of constitutional amendment will do three important things:
- It protects abortion for some reason until the moment of childbirth (unlike the national interest balance created by Roe for late pregnancy) and invalidates individual hospital abortion policies, including conflicts in care policies. There is a possibility.
- It extends protection to all medical services related to “individual reproductive autonomy” and there is no known definition of how far the concept extends.
- It will pass the debate over its high standards of what constitutes “compulsory national interests” to Vermont courts.
It does not provide the final word, but rather will be subject to future court interpretation.
This year too, we introduced Bill H.497 on the protection of the conscience of healthcare providers. Vermont is one of two states not stipulated by law.
Given the breadth of Proposal 5, there is a significant risk that hospitals cannot independently choose to guarantee such protection. As some healthcare providers decide to quit their chosen profession, the serious shortage of healthcare professionals, especially in obstetrics and gynecology and nursing, will be exacerbated. In fact, allowing protection of the conscience can be considered discriminatory. Alternatively, no hospital may be able to perform an abortion.
If Congress does not act on conscience protection before voting to move forward in Proposal 5 of this year, it forms a clear legislative intent in the record and decides that future passed conscience protection bills are unconstitutional. You can notify the court to do so. Even if such a bill is passed, it is not clear if it will withstand the extent of the amendment, but I think it is still worth the effort.
We hope that Vermonters will actively support this law.
The issues buried in Proposal 5 need to consider the impact on quality medical care before making a decision on constitutional amendment. Conscience protection and the impact on the workforce are typical examples of unexpected consequences.
It is important to fully consider its implications and how “protecting the Roe v. Wade case” goes far beyond the instinctive appeal it brings to many.
