Letters To The Editor

Dear Editor,

As the country still remains polarized in the rescinding of Roe versus Wade, I would like to focus a bit on the upcoming proposed amendment (Article 22) to the Vermont Constitution that voters will find on their November ballot.

The amendment would enshrine unlimited abortion in our founding document, allowing abortion right through to the 40th week of pregnancy. If passed, courts may well find that health care providers must provide all services that fall under “personal reproductive autonomy” without regard for the health care provider's personal beliefs. This would become part of the state Constitution.

At this point, it seems like Vermonters will choose either to support life or to become a hub for women who want to abort their child so badly that they would travel here to get one.

Although personally, I totally disagree with abortion, I would like to pose this thought on consistency in morality. Vermont is a state which does not have the death penalty for criminals, as the people believe the life of a prisoner is important. They also believe that there might be some possibility that this person may have done nothing wrong and deserves a chance. On the other hand, the same state and the same people want to support a law allowing the “death penalty” for unborn children who have done nothing wrong, except having been conceived at the wrong time or inconvenience of the parent.

It seems like if one law supports life and the other death, there is something very wrong in people's thought processes. Consistency in morality seems to be called for here.