Vermont lawmakers on four-pronged offensive against abortion alternatives
Conscience protection, legal redress, crisis pregnancy centers all targeted by the Vermont Legislature
UVM student describes crisis pregnancy center harrassment campaign to senate committee
By Guy Page
Vermont lawmakers are taking a four-pronged offensive against people who seek to offer alternatives to abortion in post-Article 22 Vermont.
Restricting speech on crisis pregnancy centers – H254 would “prohibit crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) from disseminating any advertising about the services or proposed services at the center if the management of the center knows or, by the exercise of reasonable care, ought to know it is untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of services provided or delay time-sensitive medical care or both.”
A violation would be considered an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce and subject to the enforcement actions authorized for such under current law. Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark already has said she will pursue complaints against CPCs.
The bill is sponsored by Burlington Progressive Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. (She is the daughter Barre diversity, equity and inclusion committee chair Jo-Ellen Mulvaney, who earlier this year demanded member William Toborg resign because of his pro-life views. He refused and she was publicly chastised by city council members.)
Vermont’s eight crisis pregnancy centers are completely privately-funded and offer both counseling, ultrasounds, and tangible assistance to expecting mothers. Plain language on the CPC’s websites and social media state they do not perform or advise performing abortions.
Banning legal action against abortion – H89, passed last week by the Vermont House and now in the Senate, thus defines ‘Abusive litigation’: “Litigation or other legal action to deter, prevent, sanction, or punish any person engaging in legally protected health care activity” [abortion or transgender services]. For example: a parent or other interested person (instate or out) seeking a restraining order to prevent an abortion would be guilty of ‘abusive litigation’ and liable for a successful countersuit.
In the past, such suits were merely unsuccessful. Under H89, they would be actionable.
No vote allowed on conscience protection for health care providers – When Rep. Anne Donahue (R-Northfield) last week proposed an amendment to H89 on the floor of the House that would have granted conscience protection to health care providers unwilling to participate in abortion or transgender services, Acting Speaker of the House Emily Long ruled the proposed amendment “not germane” – that is, not relevant. No vote was allowed. Donahue is a vocal pro-life lawmaker and former spokesman for an organization opposing Article 22. Jill Krowinski, the Speaker of the House, is a former lobbyist and executive VP for Planned Parenthood of New England, the state’s largest abortion provider.
A bill requiring conscience protection has been introduced into the House but is not expected to reach the floor, either.
Encouraging harassment of crisis pregnancy centers – In a February 14 meeting of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee (see video above at 33:20), Sen. Ruth Hardy urged a UVM student to explain the direct actions they intend to take against crisis pregnancy centers. When the student explained they intend to “storm” the CPCs and deplete their resources (apparently with many visits by abortion supporters posing as expectant mothers seeking help), there was no effort by Hardy to discourage the activity or inquire about its legality.
Read more at www.vermontdailychronicle.com