Now conspire to our work in terms of figuring out what we're going to do and have sort of discussions around the bill as an entity. And one, I don't know if anyone, whether you want to just go through it again section by section or whether. So maybe, could you walk us through the bill again? And so we can either ask questions, does that process work? Well, sure you. And then let's, whoever has amendments. Do you want to walk through the bill entirely and then discuss amendments that people have? And then there were a couple of things that came up as questions for me after the testimony last night. So do you want to do that? I don't have any formal amendment about it, but do you want to do that during discussion time or do you want to just go through the whole thing? If there's a question related to what, is it likely to be possible? I think it's a combination. You might be able to walk through the bill. And let's write down our questions. Because a lot of questions should be in the questions. Come on. Hello, good morning committee for the record, Bryn here for legislative council. Should I pull it up here? Go ahead. Okay. Okay, so I'm here to walk through H57 again and we'll start with section one. This is the section that sets out the legislative intent behind the bill. Which is that the act is intended to safeguard the right to abortion in Vermont by ensuring that right isn't denied, restricted or infringed upon by a governmental entity. Section two sets out a new chapter entitled 18, the first sub chapter of which is called the Freedom of Choice Act. And the new section 94 and 93 sets out three separate individual reproductive rights. And the first is that every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization. The second is that every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term to give birth to a child or to have an abortion. And the third is that a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law. The second section in this new sub chapter prohibits interfering with that reproductive choice. So it provides, subsection A there provides that a public entity as defined later on in the bill shall not in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information, deny or interfere with a person's choice to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term to give birth to a child or to obtain an abortion. So it refers back to those individual rights that were just outlined in the previous section. Subsection B is a prohibition on law enforcement prosecuting a person for inducing their own abortion. Section B it prohibits law enforcement for prosecuting a person criminally for inducing or trying to induce their own abortion. Sub chapter two, these are the prohibitions on access to abortion. So this is where we define health care provider and public entity. And as a reminder we define health care provider as a person partnership or corporation including a health care facility that's licensed in the state or otherwise authorized by law to provide professional health care services to people during their medical care treatment or confinement. And a public entity is defined as all three branches of state government or any agency, department, office or subdivision of state government or any elective or appointive officer or employee within state government. And subdivision B provides that a public entity also includes municipalities or any agencies, departments, offices or subdivisions of municipal government including elective or appointive officers. The next section, 94-97, prohibits a public entity from doing four things. First, a public entity can't deprive a consenting individual of the choice to terminate that individual's pregnancy. Public entity can't interfere with or restrict the choice of a consenting individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy so they can't prohibit it and they can't restrict it. Sub three, a public entity shall not prohibit a health care provider who's acting within the scope of their license from terminating a pregnancy or assisting in the termination of a pregnancy. And then same language here as section subdivision two there, a public entity shall not interfere with or restrict the choice of a health care provider acting within the scope of his or her license from terminating a pregnancy or assisting in the termination of a pregnancy. And then the last section, 94-98 is the enforcement clause and this provides that a person who's injured as a result of the violation of that previous section that we just went through has a private right of action against a public entity for injunctive relief. And the second and subdivision B there says that the court can also award reasonable costs and attorneys fees to a person who substantially prevails in their action against the public entity. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. I think they might have been answered on for the review. The testimony, several people last night during testimony, this is in section 94-94 paragraph B, page four. No standard local law enforcement should prosecute any individual. People have been focusing on any individual not reading the second clause of that sentence. That's true. It's really a woman than her. It's taking to the woman herself. People were inferring that it meant anybody, you know, any hack job could get away with doing. What was running through my mind was knowing that there are some insurances that do not cover abortion so that, you know, perhaps people with not sufficient means to pay for that themselves might seek services from somebody who might be less than desirable. And I certainly would want them to have some kind of relief under this law if they had that. But this is very specific. Is that not true to the individual themselves? Yes. And I did hear some of the comments that you're referring to that misconstrued this term. It's just about a person who's trying to induce or inducing their own abortion. So is there, so I guess the follow up question is, is there any protection for that individual who might not have sufficient money or insurance coverage to have an abortion in a, you know, by qualified medical professionals and end up getting it from, you know, some person who then causes them harm? Yes. So nothing about H57 interferes with existing tort law. So people have a right to recovery under our civil statutes for negligence. Any provider who provides care that is considered negligent or any sort of professional malfeasance, people have a cause of action against the, in those circumstances. So nothing about H57 changes that. And so let's just say something horrible happens and, you know, the person dies and is there any right to criminal action against somebody in that situation? I guess I would need to know some more specifics to be able to answer that question. So under the scenario where, you know, somebody sought out to have a private abortion from a non-licensed medical professional or might not even be a medical professional. So typically our criminal statutes require some kind of malicious intent. So it really is pretty fact specific depending on the situation. But a person would certainly have a civil right under the wrongful death statute, for example, of recovery. But again, our criminal statutes do require, there's an intent requirement for prosecution under criminal law. So depending on the circumstances, a person may be able to be prosecuted under criminal law for providing an abortion, but it depends on the circumstances. Physician, then they would sue under malpractice just like for any procedure they would have. Yeah, I'm not talking about physicians. I'm talking about in the situation where, you know, like the gentleman we had a test by here, he had a pad of his own pocket because of the situation. And it wasn't covered by insurance. And, you know, so I'm sure there are other people out there who are in that same situation but can't come up with 10 or $15,000 to have a procedure. And so, I mean, I don't know. I don't travel in those circles. So I have no idea about what's out there. So I just wanted to make sure that women and their families aren't losing anything under this language. And I don't believe that they are, at least from what I understand. And the testimony we heard yesterday from the husband of the woman who had to fly to Colorado, the procedure was not covered and was not... Right, he wasn't... it didn't... It didn't meet New York's... Right. Which is, I don't know, I don't know of all insurance carriers depending upon your policy would cover the procedure here. Did you find that out? We found out about Medicaid. I found out about Medicaid. I'll see if Jen has... I asked for clarification. I'll see if Jen has gotten back to me. May I just make a comment? Absolutely. Obviously right from the beginning I said I think this is an unnecessary bill that the right to abortion already exists in the state of Vermont. And there's really no reason to put this law into effect. And obviously you save a lot of time if we just decided we don't need this bill. And so I was curious if there are other members on this committee that feel the same way I do that it's an unnecessary bill. I said that in the beginning. I said that in the beginning. Right. So obviously it would save a lot of time if we wouldn't have to mark it up. Mark it up. So I don't know if you wanted to take a position or... We did a straw poll. I think we've done... we'll do another straw poll. We'll do a straw poll. Who thinks this proceeding is unnecessary? Proceeding with the bill. Proceeding with the bill. I think the poll. Okay. I think it's on this. Please raise your hand. This is the bill right? Yeah. Right. You raise your hand at the point. Okay. Great. Who thinks moving forward on some aspects of this bill is important? Ben Chip. Yes. Can you rephrase that please? You said some aspects of this bill. Well we're going to probably... I'm talking about the whole bill. Who wants to keep working on this bill and... Who wants to keep working on this bill? Please raise your hand. Steph. That doesn't fit me. Okay. All right. Other questions that you had? So I do have a proposed amendment. Okay. And I did talk with Martin. Martin. Roland. Martin LaLonde is from past judiciary and past judiciary. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play lawyers on TV. So I've been talking to Maxine in terms of some of the concerns and questions that people have had in terms of aspects, in terms of what works and what doesn't, and what where people are concerned. So Representative LaLonde is on past judiciary and is a lawyer. Okay. And I realize I have my first favorite lawyer over here, but Martin is my district mate. My favorite. So... My favorite. Yeah. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. My favorite. And the one thing I should always use to write what I think is the right response, and when we were talking about what I called intimate details of the law, I mean I get, Okay there's tort. I learn, you know, but, so does, and so, I can't say to Brynn, Is this the right thing say, what would you want it to do? And I'm going to go, well, I want to make it. How do you want to do that? Because you can't take the time. Yeah, I'm good. So my amendment is regarding the phrase at the bottom of page three under section 9493, the very last paragraph, paragraph C. And in talking with Representative LaLonge from Judiciary, he also has some concerns about this particular phrase. He has a different idea about how to fix it. And so we have different ideas about how to fix it. So my idea is to eliminate it. So that's essentially what this amendment did. Well, I'm trying to keep the copy and parcel around. I'm trying to get the front tail there. Maybe some additional language coming our way about this and committing here shortly. So we might have more than one option to look at. So essentially, my idea is to eliminate this section C, where it says, capitalize eight every day, or repeat a shaman that didn't fix the right sentence from a fall. Yeah. Yeah. So we've heard in testimony that in criminal statute, it's already been determined through the Oliver case that a live birth constitutes a person. And so I feel like this is already covered in law, in case law at least, and that this was a particular issue, this paragraph, or a lot of people. And I feel like it's already covered and dealt with by the Vermont Supreme Court. So it's my proposal to eliminate that paragraph. You mean the section C? Yeah. Madam Chair, I have a proposed substitute amendment. I agree with Theresa that there's been a lot of concern about what that means. And I propose that we keep the language, that we say that it shall not be considered a person for purposes of Vermont's criminal statutes. And I have this in writing and I can get it around. But to separate, so that we separate the criminal from the tort. And that would retain the tort recovery that we have under current law. And B, I believe it would answer the question that was raised by one of our witnesses about what happens when we try to get insurance coverage for some kind of in vitro treatment. There are some advances that are being made now in, I'm going to call it fetal surgery, because I think that's what it amounts to, but something like that. And he was concerned that this might allow insurance companies to say, we don't have to do that. And so this would limit this phrase exclusively to criminal sanctions. And I know we had testimony from somebody who was unhappy about the death of her children in a car accident. But she was also injured. And she has a right under the criminal statutes. And under the wrongful death act of the statutes, she might even have a right to sue for damages. So I think, and be clear, in both of those cases, we're talking about remedial. We're talking about what you do after something marvelous happened, which I feel less strongly about than what we have to protect people going forward. How do you do that, Kyle? That's fine. We'll get it. I'm sorry. We'll get it. Just for the record, I agree with Trisha's version. That's so misch. So much misch. I think trying to split here is between tort and criminal. I think what you're doing is, again, drawing more attention that you don't need. I think eliminating that phrase altogether is the best way to go. I granted that. It might be, I mean, I think everybody understands the committee process, and it will likely reappear downstairs if it is eliminated here. I just am, I don't need to have to introduce this amendment. At least here in the committee.  Yes. So it may stay up. Yeah, I doubt it, but. Trisha, can you speak to what proposal was from? The proposal that Sandy has is the proposal that Martin is thinking about. Here. Here's some more. This is for you. The answer for me, in the Oliver decision, did the decision use the word person, and did the decision focus on defining when, for the purposes of? Yes, it did use the word person. And it talked about, for purposes of Vermont's criminal statutes, a person had to be born alive to be considered a person for those statutes. And if you remember, we talked about this. The court said that because the court always has to interpret criminal statutes very narrowly to ensure that it doesn't create new crimes based on its interpretation of existing criminal statutes. That's why it interpreted the word person in that statute very narrowly to only mean a person who's already been born alive, which, again, is the common law rule. And when was the Oliver decision? 1988. Can I ask another question? Absolutely. So Representative Lawn said, or he believed, that in, I think you were just confirming it, the common law definition of person, and says that as far as he knew that there wasn't any definition of person in Vermont's statute that exists right now. Is that? I think that that's right. Yes, I can confirm that. So for me, this sentence starts to define what is and is not a person. And I believe that this is not the right place to do that. Just to correct the record, Oliver was decided in 1989. Oh, she's doing that. If there's no definition of person, I can't understand why we want to put the word in. So I'm sorry. In our Title I, our general provisions, we have a definition of person that includes any natural person, corporation, municipality, the state of Vermont, or any department, agency, or subdivision, and any partnership, unincorporated association, or other legal entities. So that's why we typically use individual when we're talking about natural people in the statutes. Instead of what? Instead of person, because person is defined to include corporate corporations. That would be like you, for example, a living human being. Oh, OK. So a living human being, then what that does to me, Brent, is that I say, OK, what's a living human being? Is it something with a high feet? Well, as we've discussed, for purposes of the criminal statutes, the Vermont Supreme Court has found a person to mean a person who is born alive, a living person who has already been born. That was the Oliver case. But a corporation has status, but an unborn child does not. Yeah, right. I mean, that just seems absolutely absurd. So I'm hearing the concern about the use of the word person. Another way to accomplish my goal here would be to keep the language that you have there and insert at the beginning of it for the purposes of the Vermont criminal statutes, a fertilized egg embryo or fetal shall not have individual rights. So that phrase that you have in front of you for purposes of Vermont's criminal statutes would be a preamble to what's already on the board. And I don't have that in right, but I can get it. Is that a change in current policy or practice? No. Clarification. Is it inappropriate to reference an existing Supreme Court decision in a proposed bill? No, we have done that before. I think that the reason why we don't make a practice of doing it is because of the nature of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. Sometimes it evolves over time. So it may become an outdated reference, but we have certainly done it in the past. So people, whether rightly or wrongly, believe that we were making new policy by saying this. And I still haven't had it out, but it depends on how the committee vote goes. I would, if we have something that leaves it in, I would prefer to see something that references the Supreme Court decision that's already on it. So people know that we're not making new policy in this regard. Just want to clearly understand more, but talk about it. Does this mean, Brian, that, because Kyle mentioned this earlier, that a corporation would have status? A person is a corporation, right? I think what you said, in the definition of a person. Have status, I'm not sure if it's status. Is corporation a person? Well, as defined in Title I, the word person is defined to include corporations. So then they would have status under this bill. Because a person, I thought you said a person was natural, like me, that was born. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by status under the bill. Can you tell me specifically what you mean by that? Well, when we said is not considered a person. Anyway, it's not considered a person. This is a proposal, I understand that. I'm just trying to figure out what it is. If a corporation is considered a person, the definition, then a person here is the same thing. And my position is, why in heck would we want to have a corporation be, as defined, be a person? And a fetus without be, not be considered a person. Not being considered at all. That's what I'm, that's my point. I believe the topper is talking about the proposal from Sandy, which says that the fertilized egg, et cetera, would not be considered a person. There you go. And it doesn't matter to me whether, and I'm not a lawyer, but whether the terms toward or criminal, it doesn't matter to me. Either way, if a corporation is going to be considered a person, because the definition of a person says they are, then I, I, I. I understand. Yeah, bye. Thank you, you said that very well. So did you. Yeah. Madam Chair, may I have a lead to, to substitute a substitute for my substitute? Yeah, we are talking. So, so I, at this moment, I would like to say that my substitute, I'm going to punch, would be the language that you see on the board, undersea, with the first five words being the purposes or six, the purposes of the month's criminal statutes, a fertilized egg, et cetera, shall not have anything. So, and we will, and if, if we need to have that in writing, we can do that for you to look at. I just want to be, I'm going to, I don't know if you've asked me this question. So, I don't know what, not what I believe. Statutes. Statutes. For purposes of, so if you look at, if you look at what I gave you already, those last, whatever it is, six words, would just be inserted out as a pre-applicated part C, a line 18. So, so you're saying for the purposes of criminal statutes, a fertilized egg, oh my, we just lost that. Empyrean, or fetus, shall not have independence of going back to the language of the bill. We've got to have a tender for this until we're fast. Hey, you guys are falling down on that. It's true. It was a long day yesterday. Yeah. Well, I thought you were going to say no. How does, in serving this, I should say effect in a criminal court, somebody trying to seek damages for the death of an embryo. There are no damages available under criminal law. Penalties are imposed by the state. Civil, okay. Right? All right. So, how, so if, if the proposal did. Let's say a husband hurts a woman in late, late term and it results in the death of the embryo. And criminal charges would be brought because there's been an attack on the woman. But could that attack also be considered against the, the unborn embryo? So, could the man be charged with murder? No, no, and that's true currently. But this, this made it even clearer that. I don't know if it would be more clear. I think it would, it just codifies what is existing law in Vermont. It puts it into statute, which is that a woman or a person can recover for an assault. A person can press charges. Law enforcement can bring charges for an assault against the person who was attacked. But not for murder. Okay. So, I'm, I'd like to take it out because to me it's a lot of my, a lot of the things I've heard is this is really concerning to folks. And I don't, I'd like to understand why, I don't quite understand why it's really important to try to keep it in. So, because it sounds like it is law. We're not changing anything whether or not it's in or out. And since I feel like a lot of people would be more comfortable with it out, I'd just like to understand why others are more comfortable with it. So, I'll speak for myself. Okay. I'll be speaking for myself too. Yeah, of course. We all know that what we're really talking about here is a small number of procedures that happen after let's say 22 or 23 weeks when time is critical. And so, if you have an argument, if you can have, if somebody can go to court and get a guardian appointed, you can run the clock for weeks and months. And I, and that does not accord with my feeling that while Aphetus is still in utero, that it's between the mother and the medical provider operating within their ethical standards to consider what is best and that we shouldn't be opening it up for somebody on the street to come in and say, I have a better idea and I'm going to judge. For me, I went to the language in C but in terms of how to do something to make it clear, the fact that this has become such a lightning rod is almost the reason to make it clear. Because it is a lightning, it's a lightning rod because people didn't don't know what is the current, did not don't understand what is the current legal landscape and what the Oliver decision has put forth and how that has impacted things. So for me, that's why it's important because the general, the world out there thinks that we are carving new, new law. Now, let's argue about whether we think that's right or wrong and you know, Carl, you've been really clear now. You know, and so have you, Topper. And I mean, and you can argue to change what has been our current process. But that for me is why it's important to put it in there because people don't understand what is the legal framework now. Topper. I would like to get some language clear now. I'm just here in legal framework and I'm hearing current law, which is my understanding is there is no law, there's no current law. There's not a statute that addresses this currently. Okay, let me ask the question a different way, Brian. Is there a current law? The Oliver decision is current precedent by the Vermont Supreme Court that it interprets criminal statutes narrowly so that people have to be born alive in order to be considered person for criminal statutes. What about the civil statute? And the veiled court decision, which was issued nine years earlier, found that a person could recover for the death of their fetus under the wrongful death statute because that's the civil statute so they interpreted it more broadly than the criminal statutes. So that is existing case law, which is, as you know, subject to change based on later decisions. You mean, how couldn't that woman recover anything for the two kids she lost? The woman who you heard from over the phone? Yeah. I don't know the specifics of her case. I don't know if she tried to bring a civil claim. She could have, I think that her point she wasn't able to prosecute the person for murder. For the death of her fetus. This is what everything could be is impossible. So having language in here that clearly defines this, not a person, so then it would be codified, so to speak. Can somebody later on, like say, somebody wants to bring court to case and try to get person to live for the purpose of criminal charges, like if you hit a woman and kill the baby, but somewhere like that, can they go back as precedent and say, well, we're not made a law that says it's not a person, so how do people out there have that? Well, that would be the court would interpret that statute to mean that a fetus would not be considered a purpose, at least on purposes of the criminal statute. They can use this as precedent. Well, that's what the court does because it interprets the law. So it would look to that. I'm just going back to the civil status, what with this wording, I know she's saying specifically criminal, that it is applied to the criminal code or whatever. Would this also then apply to the civil? No, I think that's why the language was presented, was that so it would be specific that it's only for the purposes of the criminal statutes and the court would be free to interpret our civil statutes to include fetuses as a person. Does it complicate matters? Sandy is noodling about for the purposes of the criminal statute. Does it muddy waters to say something about this doesn't preclude tort or whatever that language is? I just read my mind. I was going to wait until we had a vote online and then we started off with it. Okay, sorry. I was trying to go on the substitute. No, I substituted a substitute. She substituted a substitute too. So I mean, Brenda, does that muddy the waters to put something, to be clear somehow in your magic of making things clear, to be clear that it's only for criminal and because we still don't know what that means and it is a fetus, a person, a mother or I guess a father, someone could get damages under the wrongful death statute. Yes, it would just need to be up to you to define how broad you want to go if you want to specifically say for purposes of the wrongful death statute, a fetus can be considered a person or if you want to be clear that under any common law negligence claim because many of the tort claims are actually common law claims so we don't have specific statutes to refer to. Can you say something just under the tort? Under civil law. Or under civil law. Obviously I'd prefer that we make an affirmative statement that Embryo is a person beyond viability and I know this certainly appears as committee would be unwilling to do that and accordingly I think the best thing we could do- Do you want us to do a straw hole? I mean, I'm serious. Do you want us to do a straw hole on that? Sure, that would be great. Okay, so I mean, I would like this paragraph for Part C to be replaced by something that gives personhood to fetus beyond viability. That's a different amendment. I know it is, but I was prefacing that given that assuming that would fail, okay? I would then, hmm? I want to assume that, yeah. Okay, well let's wait for James to do one of the straw holes. Okay. So I just want to be clear on what you're doing. Like I'm not totally clear. I'm going 180 degrees from what we've talked about. Right, that's why I wanted to see for sure in that. But given that I probably will not prevail, okay? I would say that the best thing we could do is to leave this portion out like Representative Wood has recommended. This goes to the mark of the whole issue. And this is what's tearing up both sides of this equation. I think if we leave it out, it's the best thing we could do, right? So, but it's not what I would like to do. What I would like to do is to put in an affirmative statement that says that fetus has personhood, is a person after viability, okay? Which is like 24 years, okay? I agree. The chair has said, shall we take this straw hole on it, okay? So that would be fine with me. Is that right?  And that would be, I mean, and so let's take a straw hole and Carl's proposal would be to change what is current policy in practice. Right? Tell me what that means, madam. It's specifically addressed. It's all in policy. In paragraph C, okay? Or whatever. It's verbalizing embryos fetus will not have independent, set fee. You wanted to say shall have independent, right? Well, shall be considered a person. Okay, so that would be a departure from existing law and it would essentially criminalize abortion past a certain point in pregnancy. Hey, Carl's straw pole. So, are we pulling? Yeah, we're pulling, because, okay, you're. I need to, before I answer anything, I need to clearly understand what I'm gonna vote on. This is straw poles. It's done. What I'm gonna straw pole. Okay. Okay, what I'm saying is. Are you saying take this out of here? I'm sorry? Are you saying take C out altogether? And replace it with an affirmative statement that. Okay, I'd like to, if I'm gonna, that's a huge decision. In principle, I agree with what you're talking about, but I wanna see it in writing so I understand it. So, Carl, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding what you're saying as well. So, are you saying unequivocally? Because what Bridges said, I think it's important that it would make abortion at any time after viability illegal. And I really understood the witness and I went to his webpage and the stuff that we heard yesterday and my personal feeling is that that would be a wrong move. But I, so, I guess, so I wanna make sure that I understand that you're saying under any circumstance. Presumably we could possibly put some parenthetical items around that, but essentially yes. Okay, I wanna make sure I understand. I would just say that without exception that would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Because there is Supreme Court precedent that says that you have to provide an exception for the life or health of the patient. But that doesn't mean that the fetus isn't a person. It just means that you, I think, the purpose of that would be that a fetus could be considered a person for the purpose of the criminal statutes. So under our criminal statutes, a fetus has a person who's been a provider and probably the patient could be prosecuted under the criminal statutes for abortion. But it's not as simple as saying, like, because nothing in law is as simple, right? It's not as simple as saying, except for these purposes. You kind of have to. Well, I think she's saying we could. Right? You could say except for the life and or physical health of the woman. Yes, there would need to, in order for it to be upheld as a constitutional prohibition on abortion, it would need to contain exceptions. You know, like for the purpose of the medical necessity for the fetus or mother kind of thing. That is one way it is. Well, you'd have to be fairly specific. Right here. Different states have done it differently. It depends on what kind of exceptions you would like to create. But the Supreme Court has said that you have to create an exception for the health of the patient. Yeah. All right. I've read the road versus weight and the other things that you gave me to look at. And I'm utterly confused right now. Could you state what we have right now federally? Because we have nothing as far as I know in the state except that all of the thing that you were talking about, which I didn't know about until today. So, what is road versus weight and all the other stuff that, you know, Casey and all the other things you gave me to read. What does that leave us today as we sit around this table in terms of what Kyle's saying? Yes, so the Supreme Court decisions with the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, right? Yeah. So, what the Supreme Court has done in the decisions about abortion is it has ruled on the constitutionality of other states' abortion restrictions. Correct. And that is a signal to the rest of the states about what the states can and cannot do in their regulation of what is considered a fundamental right. So, because Vermont doesn't currently restrict the right to abortion. Correct. We have an unrestricted right to abortion. So, what those decisions do is they should, if Vermont decided to make a policy decision to restrict the right to abortion, a good move would be to look at those Supreme Court decisions and see what the Supreme Court has ruled on in terms of the constitutionality of other states' abortion restrictions. So, it's sort of a signal or a guide to the states on what they can and can't do in their regulation of abortion. Okay, did it regulate anything? Did what regulate? Did the Supreme Court itself? Yeah. No, so, the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and the states are reserved to the rights of the police power and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. That's just sort of how our government is set up. So, it's up to the states to regulate abortion if they choose to do so. Okay, so, in the state of Pennsylvania, as an example, or any of the other states that the Supreme Court ruled on, is there any restriction at all to abortion at any time? Yes, in Pennsylvania, yes. That's what I thought there was. New York as well. Because those states have- And everybody wants to, they're worried about Roe versus Wade being overturned. I'm worried about everybody. Oh, I'm worried about everybody, but I'm just people. I've heard the reason for these pieces of legislation in the different states is because they're scared of what's going on in Washington and the appointments to the Supreme Court and a bill, I mean, an action coming through that will do away with Roe versus Wade. If you want Roe versus Wade, the state where it is, then why don't we just leave this thing alone? That was the reason I, in the first place, said we don't even need this legislation. If you want to have an abortion, fine. You're better off the way it is right now. And if we get this companion bill that we're talking about done, it will put in process ways to prevent the number of abortions that we have now. When I heard one in four women have an abortion, that was, to me, it was terrible that they had to go through this. That's why I'm talking about having things in place that prevent that decision to be, have to be made. We wouldn't even be talking about this if we gave away, and there would be very few that missed all those things that you can do to prevent conception. We're going to do that, Carl. We're coming back to the last struggle we just took. If this is, by changing this, do we want to move forward with this or not? Because if we change this to a proposal, we're going to be back to the kind of the first struggle we took, which is, do we do nothing? And we already have established that we want to move forward on this, so we should either take a vote on this and get back to what this is Sandy's proposal for. One more. One more to the rest. One more to the rest. I'm just saying. Okay, I just want to give people the opportunity to say what they need to say, and to say it again, and to be clear, and Topper has been very clear that he doesn't think we should be moving forward. We should let it stay as hard as it is. The rest of the, a majority of the committee wants to move forward. No, we know that. Now I'm going to ask a question of all the committee. Do you, does everybody clearly, this is a big deal we're talking about here. Does everybody clearly understand what Kyle wants? No, I have no idea what the parameters would be. I would need to see it in writing. That's what I said too, I need to see it in writing because I don't clearly understand. I agree with the principle I think you're trying to bring forward, but I want to make sure I clearly understand it before. I take a poll, any kind of poll vote or anything. Well, I, at this point, you know, since we don't have something in writing, and I think it's something that will be defeated, I will withdraw what I said, okay? So we can move forward and then decide between these two amendments that are in writing from Sandy and from the model. Chris, and I want to be clear. This is the beginning of our working on this. And you know, we go through page one, two, three, four, and then we come back and we look at it, and if someone goes, wait a minute, this is confusing, wait a minute, I mean, this is the teacher, this is still the draft. We are still drafting and working on making age 57 something that the majority of the committee wants to move forward in whatever amendment is there is. That's the legislative process. So on for Theresa's proposal, and then. Which is to eliminate section C. James. Well, I was gonna say that I agree with Carol, our views were a part of the minority, but I wanted just to say to the record that I agree with the principle what Carol's saying about making an affirmation, but I also agree that if we can't do that, take the word against it with Theresa. Can you look at those, do you want to talk about Theresa Ross? So we have two, I'm just gonna close my steps and we'll have to go to whether we want. We built first on the substitution. Oh, okay, thank you. This is why I'm not this well. That's what we do on the floor, and in fairness, maybe if we're gonna do that, maybe we should take the five minutes to have, okay, the substituted writing. So, I think I heard you, but so just by a protocol, we have to deal with yours first, right? Right. We're gonna make sure, I'm following up on it. I think we vote on whether to substitute. We will vote on whether to substitute. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. I thought we don't do that on the floor. Yeah, we do. Well, why didn't the substitute on the floor get voted on yesterday on the school? Because it wasn't a substitute, it was not, it was, it came later. It wasn't a substitute amendment yesterday. Because it's only going to happen if the amendment yesterday failed. Wow, Theresa submitted something in writing. First. And send maybe a substitute. And I offered a substitute. So, and what I can't remember, and what I remember, and you can, other people who've been here as long as I, longer, we vote on whether or not to consider the substitute. I think that's right. And then we go to the sub, and if you say no, then it goes away. And then we say yes, we talk about the substitute. And if it goes away, then we go back to Theresa's. Where's our parliamentarian? I wonder if that was the one that was put in writing, is that? Yeah, right, left, right, right. I'd like to see it right here, yeah. I'd like to see it right here. Is that the substitute, the substitute? That amendment, we're, we're not much in that one, we might be in that one right now. I would like to do this too, I'll start. Yeah, yeah, you're all right. Right, I'll do it. So. Don't you, just so that I understand how things are organized, yesterday I'm sitting on the floor of the house. And Act 46, there's an amendment that was on the floor, and there was an amendment that we didn't bring up, we're gonna bring it up today. That amendment is a substitute, I thought, for the Sherman amendment. But we couldn't get to that. And I don't remember, I don't, yeah, so we voted on the Sherman amendment. It wasn't presented as a substitute. Yeah, it was done as a different legislative process. And the Shure amendment that we talked about yesterday was actually done as a substitute for the previous amendment, which was also not really talked about yesterday. And I believe the reason that we did it is that Heidi was promised a vote on her amendment. That's what I was talking about. And we wanted, yeah, she wanted a vote on both. That is separate entries. So we changed the game. Sort of did. So I'm gonna change the game here then. It was not offered as a substitute. Okay, all right, so. I didn't put this amendment in to take the paragraph out, see what you did. Yes, I did. You want to change the game here? What I really like is a two minute break. Yeah. That allows us to kind of talk to each other. And I know it's, you know. Exactly. Okay, but I know what's gonna happen. I want my amendment to be voted on. So if voting on Sandy's amendment first negates my amendment being voted on, I have a problem with that. I wrote some poetry yesterday. Patrick. I'll see you in a minute. Oh, I see. You wrote a poem. So if we do approve the same one. Then my amendment would be voted on. Because it would be the substitute. Yeah, you may speak on it. Okay. All right, this is ridiculous.  I know, but Topper's gonna freak out if we have a five minute break. And so, and. I'm not gonna freak out. Yes you are. I know, thank you very much. I needed to go to the second floor. So the way we left it is voting on Teresa's proposal of amendment to age 57, which would be to remove a C, a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, shall not have independent rights under Vermont law to eliminate that section from section 9493. To clarify number C, based on what Bryn, our Legislative Council has said, does not create new law. And to take it out does not change. And to take it out does not change. It doesn't change law. That section C is based on jurisprudence coming out of the, I'm looking at Bryn, going except the right way to say it. Based on the Oliver decision of 1989 that there needs to be a live birth, at a live birth there is a person. So leaving it in is not new in terms of the way we handle things in Vermont and taking it out does not change what is in Vermont. When you do this here, I'm curious, do you call our names in the record? Well, it's, you know, how do people want it? Do you want this to be on record? And then we will, we can do it in the book. We can do it in the book, or we can take a straw poll. What do you call it? A straw poll, because we're not voting on love, right? We're just voting on this once. Sometimes we, sometimes we, I mean, so it really is up to what is the, I mean, a straw poll is fine, but if people want it to be part of the formal record, we can do it that way as well. Well, we would, depending upon the results of the straw poll, we would then see a different version of the bill at some point, depending upon whatever other conversations we have, and then we would, okay, I'm sorry, I'm understanding, now it's clicking with me what you said. Do you want it to be a? I said it doesn't matter to me, honestly. I just want the opportunity to have people on it, straw poll or not. I think it should be up to anybody who wants to have their vote recorded. Does anyone want to have their vote recorded on this? Well, I mean, I guess in a way it's recorded, because I mean, all the proceedings we have here in one way or another is, you know. You're on the record, we're on the record. Well, I mean, I'm not quite sure, I thought the only reason we took an actual vote in the book was an up or down on the bill. Other things that we've talked are discussion, discussional, and if we take a straw poll, it's recorded, so I don't have a problem with the straw poll. Okay, so all those in favor of removing section C of 9493, which sets out the three beginnings. This is Teresa's. Teresa's meant to remove the third piece, which, the third statement, the bill starts out with statements that everyone has a fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception for certain sterilization. The second one being every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose, to carry pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, and Teresa's amendment is to remove the third piece, which is that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetish shall not have independent rights under Vermont law, and that we understand from Bryn that keeping it in reflects what is current jurisprudence and taking it out doesn't change it. If it's taken out and there's further case law that has a different decision than all of us, then that changes what is common practice. Yes, right? Yeah. Yeah, so. Just clarifying. Right, okay. All those in favor of removing C, please raise your hand high. This is to remove C, you want to raise your hand, Carl. Maybe it doesn't. I know. High. High, she said. Oh, high. One, two, three, four, five, six. Okay, it's removed. Six to five. Okay. And the other amendments. Yes, I, let me pass it around. It's a short, very beginning legislative intent, section one, you see what it says, the General Assembly intends this act to safeguard the right to abortion for Vermont by ensuring that right is not denied with restricted or infringed by a government entity. And I would add the sentence, nothing about this act shall be construed to contravene, which to me means contradict, I really don't really know what country it is. 18 USC, section 1531, which criminalizes the act of a partial birth abortion. In the 2003 case that criminalizes the act of partial birth abortion. So in other words, because we, again, this is another one of those things that it doesn't change anything in this or in law. But it does clarify it because we've heard, or at least I've heard through my emails that a lot of folks are confused about this and concerned about that this allows for partial birth abortion and that it is illegal. And I wanted to make it really clear. We did hear a lot of testimony last night where people were believed erroneously that H57 would allow partial birth abortion. So what your amendment is trying to, is referencing it. Bryn, can I just ask, is that what this does? Yeah, that's exactly right. I don't know if you're correct because it was a congressional action, not a case of the 2003 act that Congress passed that prohibited partial birth abortion. That did, did what, Bryn? You're watching. The 2003 act of Congress to prohibit partial birth abortion. So does this, does inserting this in terms of legislative intent, does it change anything about what has been happening in Vermont? No. Does it card new ground going forward? Next slide. Okay, so I'm saying what are you trying to make clear again, I'm still wondering. That partial birth abortion is illegal. Just curious, I know that we have the case or the congressional action listed here. I'm wondering if it makes sense to name it, name what it's called, like in the bill. Just so it's super clear, because the average person reading that would know what that is, yeah. Do you know that it's a conveyor light or if you would like it? Sure. Does everyone agree that that would be good? I think it's just as back to the way it is. Clear up what was that? And we talked about this, I think Bryn's gonna give me the actual wording so that I could use it on the floor so that if we have to talk about it. And so it's probably, I'm fine with whatever everyone else thinks but I would say go with what I'm saying seems fine. Okay. Are we ready to straw poll whether this is a new part? I'm trying to remember the part we're changing now. This is up in the legislative intent, Bryn. So right here, legislative intent is the section we're just adding this sentence and nothing about this action that's construed to contravene 18 USC and 15 BQR. Logan, can you get the intent up there? This is the new part. There, perfect. Thank you. So folks around here can see it would be C section one. It would be added to section one. Ready to make a decision about this proposal? All those in favor of this second paragraph or whatever it is, second sentence that nothing about this actually construed to contravene 18 USC 1531 which is the Congressional Act that criminalizes partial birth abortion. All those in favor of adding that sentence, please raise your hand high. Okay, Jessica, we're adding that and you're reporting the bill. I'm talking about dying, I haven't been here about who's going to answer that. Other amendments? Okay.  We would want to have it. I think because of this, I don't know whether I mean do you want a clean copy of what is our proposal now which would be to remove that section and to add that sentence? Could you review what's the next step here? Let's say, assume we vote this out today, okay? Or tomorrow or whatever it is, okay? What, we then go to judiciary or? It goes unnoticed. I had people would check with their respective leaders that they'd be willing to take it up off notice for the purposes of referring it to judiciary. But whether that happens or not, when we vote it out, it will be unnoticed. And it will, when it is unnoticed, when it comes up the next day for action, it would immediately be referred to judiciary. So there will not be a vote on the bill, on the floor. On the content, there will not be that kind of vote. Say that to everybody. This is the beginning of the legislative process in the House. There is another committee for those of you who were at the public hearing that will be looking at it. There are other people who understand what the word tort and civil action means. You should move forward. We've been talking, we've heard lots of testimony on both sides of the issue. And we need to make sure judiciary feels they have their time to do their good due diligence. And I, I think we'll talk in this time to move on. My, do we wanna have a clean copy? I think we need to have a clean copy of the bill.  So that may take 15, 20 minutes. Yes, or less, if you are anxious to move it, it can probably be done in about five minutes. I have a feeling based on the dead silence, you know, and I think people are, we're ready to have this hard vote and move forward. Okay, I'll be right back. Why don't we give you 10? Why don't we give you 10?  I think we can only get 20. Well, yes, I mean, this is, let's all take 10. But while we're taking 10 changing subjects or whatever, having no idea what's going to happen on the floor this afternoon in terms of how long we will be discussing Act 46 and amendments or how short we will be, I also think we'll be standing up during announcements and either saying, come back to the committee or if it's like, I mean, if it's 330, maybe we could do, okay, if it's 330, we could do H85, which is on, which is both, it's in your email and it is on our webpage. So we would come, I mean, if it's like 330, we will come back and we will vote on that as opposed to, nursing homes. As opposed to nursing homes. And if it is after that time, if it's significantly after that time, I would ask that people come in at nine o'clock on Friday morning. That's tomorrow. Yes, thank you, thank you. Nine o'clock tomorrow to vote on that bill. My assumption, and I have to say, I need to rely on my vice chair and ranking member. I was not part of, part and parcel of a large part of the discussion on this bill. And so I am trusting the committee process to, that where we are now is pretty much, for that bill, that we're pretty much compensated. And those are the only two changes. So committee and for people who are on the sidelines, unless there are further amendments that get proposed, this will be a two step process. First we have to agree to the amendment. This is an amendment to the bill as introduced. We vote on that and then we vote on the bill. So the whole bill is the amendment? Yeah. And then the amendment. Right. Okay. Okay. Right. That's right. I believe that's, I believe that is the process. I'm looking to my two lawyers. You're voting to accept the amendments as your proposal. And we're voting to pass it out to the committee. Thank you. I just have one question. Healthcare provider is defined here. Is there a definition of that some other place to, or is this the definition brought from some other place? The definition is a new definition that is reflective of the way the healthcare provider is defined elsewhere in Title 18. In Title 18 is what? Is the, our title relating to health law. And we defined it for a reason, right? You defined, yep, because you use it in this section, 94.97. Public entity shall not prohibit the healthcare provider. I move that we approve draft 1.1 of H-57. Is there a discussion? Yeah, yes. Thank you. I didn't sign it yet. Okay. Is there a second? Sorry. I hope Sandy has moved that we support draft 1.1 and it's been signed by Logan. It'll be substituted. Are we, what's the line, substituted? Okay. Is there a discussion? It's been voting on the substitution. We're voting on the strike all. Okay. We are voting on the draft 1.1, which adds a sentence and takes away, second by another section. Provision. Yeah. Is there further discussion on this amendment? Clerk shall begin to call the roll. Dr. Sanathon. Before we vote, I wanna make sure I'm voting on the right thing here. On what I'm voting on. We're voting on the changes we just made. Yes. We're not voting on the bill yet. We are not yet voting on moving the bill Yes. Rep. Sam Paz. Yes. Rep. Sam Bromstead. Yes. Rep. Sam Rosenquist. Yes. Rep. Sam Redmond. Yes. Rep. Sam Nicole. Yes. Rep. Sam Payala. Yes. Rep. Sam Gregoire. Yes. Rep. Sam Noyes. Yes. Rep. Sam Wood. Yes. Rep. Sam Cue. Yes. Do you have any motion to, I know we didn't retain the motion. I will move that we do not accept this bill. Okay. So a motion has been made to vote no on this. Is there a second? Thank you. Can you do that? Yeah. Okay. Is there a second to Doppers amendment? Doppers, Doppers. I'll second it. Okay. There's been, we have to tell us what a yes and no. Yes, I do. So a yes says no to the vote. That's the way to understand. Yes, a yes vote will say no to the bill and the bill will die. We'll pass a new committee.  Actually, the bill will not move forward. No second. I'll second it. I'll explain why I did what I did because I don't think we need to vote. Mm-hmm. The clerk's telling him to call the roll. Representative Fawn. Yes. Representative Haas. No. Representative Branstad. No. Representative Rosenquist. Yes. Representative Redmond. No. Representative Nicole. No. Representative Payala. No. Representative Gregoire. Yes. Representative Noyes. No. Representative Wood. No. Representative Pugh. No. The top-risk motion failed. I would end the game. I will move to the next bill. Is there a second? Kelly seconded it. And the motion is? I'll accept the bill. I'll pass the bill out of committee. Okay. Is there discussion? I guess what I would like to have on their record and I know that people disagree with the fundamental aspects of this bill. But as we have crafted this bill, it does not change what is currently the policy, the legal context, policy and practice in Vermont. It does not allow partial court proportion. It does not require a provider to participate in a procedure that they're not willing or interested to that follows federal law in terms of that. And it does not craft any new law. And for that reason, I will be voting yes. Is there further discussion? I guess you're based on your preamble. And I guess that's the exact reason why many of this bill is unnecessary because you have just stated that it doesn't change anything. That's the way I've read what you said, or what you heard. So that's why I will be voting no. It does not divert from what is current. What it does is it puts it into statute which makes it clear and is another level. I keep saying the other because what I keep hearing from, what I hear from a lot of people are statements about things that they fear will happen and that have not happened in the last 40 years and that they are making statements around what they think this bill will mean. People may disagree and I get it. And people, this may fly in the face of what people believe and I'm not gonna try to persuade or change anyone's view of that. And it probably will not reassure anyone to know but that this is not going to allow unfeathered access. Madam Chair? Yeah. The statement about it doesn't change anything. I think the paragraph 94.94, the public entity, not allowing the legislature or the judiciary to do anything. I think that does change sometimes. Okay, and Topper, I understand that you continue to believe that that's what that language says and we have heard from legislative council on various times that that does not, that the legislature can always act and change law. And that's why. It is what we are doing. And that's why I don't think it should be in there because they can do it. I think we're adding something in there that says they can't. That's my only point. I know that we can. So I put it in there. To call for roll. Representative McThon. No. Representative Haas. Yes. Representative Brumstead. Yes. Representative Rosencliss. No. Representative Redmond. Yes. Representative Cole. Yes. Representative Payala. Yes. Representative Gregoire. No. Representative Noyes. Yes. Representative Wood. Yes. Representative Pugh. Yes. The vote is a three to pass this bill out of committee. Again, it will be put on notice to the next step being to be referred to House Judiciary. I want to say committee, five of us. We fundamentally disagree on many things and we're able to do it in a respectful way. I hope you all, and you will see that bill did not pass out in the exact same form that it came in and that some concerns were maybe tried to be addressed. And I look forward to us moving forward on passing a few other bills that, in terms of that, we've got the personal needs. We keep postponing internet sales of these cigarettes and there's a boatload of other bills on there and we've got Carl's bill that we may, does the health department need that right away? Yes. I'm going to talk to Sheila when I see her. Okay, okay. So we may have something that we need to do. But thank you. We have a companion bill today.


A longtime attorney for a non-profit has been named Chief Deputy Attorney General in Minnesota. Attorney General-elect Keith Ellison announced Friday that John Keller will serve as the second ranking attorney in the office. Keller has worked at the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota since 1998 and has been the group's executive director since 2005.


This research paper investigated the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, and monitoring Antarctic moss beds. It compared the spatial resolution of UAV imagery to traditional airborne remote sensing and found that UAVs could provide finer spatial resolution data up to 1 centimeter per pixel and higher temporal resolution data than traditional methods. To ensure accurate spatial co-registration of the different UAV images, the authors developed their own algorithms based on the SIFT algorithm. They validated these algorithms by comparing the results to those obtained through commercial software. The results showed that the RMSE of the co-registration was 1.78 pixels, which is within acceptable limits for UAV-based monitoring of Antarctic moss beds. This article was authored by Darren Turner, Arco Lucier, Zbinek Malinowski, and others.