Sunshine and a few clouds. High 73F. Winds light and variable..

Some clouds. Low 54F. Winds light and variable.

To the editor: This is coming Nov. 8 on ballots statewide. You’ll find the following words in an unprecedented proposal to amend the Vermont state constitution.

Article 22 as seen on your ballot:

“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."

Intentionally vague, the language of this amendment never refers to "women," "adults," or even "abortion." In fact, the text is so vague that Article 22 could apply to any age or gender. It reads as something everyone would be in favor of and support, right? Many are given over to this because they believe it will codify Roe v. Wade into the state constitution. However, abortion is already legal, with no exceptions at any stage of gestation in the state of Vermont. So why then Article 22? And what would Article 22 mean for Vermont families? Consider this:

• This proposed amendment would guarantee to individuals of any age the right to make decisions related to “reproductive autonomy.”

• It would allow children to make adult decisions without parental involvement.

• It would mean that children could obtain abortions (potentially increasing human sex trafficking), hormone blockers, or other permanent procedures without parental knowledge or consent.

• It would allow adults who don’t know your child to usurp your role as a parent.

• It could nullify laws that are currently in place to protect children.

• It could give a man, by law, the right to stop an abortion of his child.

Article 22 isn't about codifying Roe v. Wade. It is about opening the door of a Pandora's box, allowing a plethora of unintended (intended?) results.

It would remove a physician’s conscience of morality, and their right to abstain from performing late term abortions, or performing transgender surgery on an adolescent. Article 22 would make it unlawful for a physician to refuse those procedures. We very well may see doctors leaving Vermont, further increasing the already shortage of health care providers. This amendment has the potential for a plethora of adverse effects for all of us.

And now, in light of these potential and very real adverse repercussions of Article 22, I would encourage everyone to vote no on this dangerous agenda that lies beneath the intentionally and cleverly worded Article 22. For the future of our children, and their children, I’ll be voting no.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.