Op-Ed Statehouse

Vermont vs. Georgia Abortion Law

A Stark Contrast that Will End All Abortions in the USA Someday!

By Bob Orleck

Georgia’s Republican Governor, Brian Kemp, signed legislation on May 6, 2019 that will take effect in July, banning abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected. The new law that essentially ends abortion practice in Georgia will help quicken a legal challenge that is sure to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The enhanced movement toward a major high court decision will be furthered by the move of the supermajority liberal Democrat legislature in Vermont, that is on track to enshrine into Vermont law (both statute and constitution) the allowing of unrestricted abortions to be performed on perfectly healthy full-term babies even seconds before delivery. This law, if passed, will be the most radical law in the nation and most likely the entire world.

Since the appointment of two conservative justices to the US Supreme Court, pro-life, pro-choice, activists and lawmakers around the nation, either thrilled by the now conservative make-up of that body or fearful of it, are pushing for laws to protect their relative interests. Liberals have pushed their radical agenda so far that it is likely they have forced the need for a decision that must be faced head-on, the issue of when life begins.

Vermont and Georgia’s abortion law derive from different sources. In 1972, one year before the infamous Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision, the Vermont Supreme Court decided the case of Beecham v. Leahy. That case established an unrestricted abortion practice in Vermont that may soon be enshrined in statute and in the Vermont Constitution. Georgia’s law comes from a statutory enactment. Such differences create possibilities of conflicting decision scenarios, on an important federal question, flowing from their state’s courts of last resort. This could spark action by the nation’s high court to review the logical, medical, scientific and moral actuality that life does have a definable starting point. In signing the bill, Governor Kemp announced his reason was “to ensure that all Georgians have the opportunity to live, grow, learn and prosper in our great state.” That reason is absent in small Vermont, has been for the last forty-seven years and stands in stark contrast to Georgia. There are many possible court outcomes that could emanate from the many states acting to protect what they feel are important questions of law and rights. No doubt there will be conflicts that will someday require resolution for the settling of the law.

For now, it might be instructive to look at the outcome of that 1972 Supreme Court abortion decision. To date it has cost the lives of one hundred thousand Vermonters, thus depriving them of the ability to grow, attend school, learn and contribute to the economic growth of the Green Mountain State. There is no doubt Vermont needs growth! A valued measure of economic health can be found in the growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In the United States, the 2018 GDP growth was an impressive 3.2%, Georgia’s was a credible 2.6% but Vermont’s GDP was an anemic
1.2% and ranked 50th in actual GDP dollar contribution.

Is there a relationship between strength or weakness of these economic numbers and the one hundred thousand aborted lives that Vermont has been deprived of since 1972?

Vermont’s Governor Scott has bemoaned the stagnant population growth in Vermont causing a worker scarcity and a shortage of thirty thousand students in our schools that has created an education funding crunch forcing the consolidation and even the closing of some area schools. This shortage of students has grown as the years have gone by which now appears to be playing a part triggering a crisis in our colleges throughout Vermont, many of which are closing their doors due to lack of enrollment. The worker deficiency is so bad that Vermont has felt compelled to offer out-of-staters up to $10,000 to come, live and work in rural Vermont.

Art Woolf, an associate professor of economics at UVM who served three years as economic advisor to Vermont’s former Governor, Madeline Kunin, noted the reason for the low population numbers was clear for major areas of Vermont. “…the number of babies being born is less than the number of people dying. That is, what demographers call the natural rate of population increase is negative.” With over two thousand babies being aborted per year in Vermont the effect on the natural rate of population increase is understandably negative. Those children would grow up to have children and could well account since 1972 for today’s thirty thousand student shortfall.

The other reason Professor Woolf cited is that practically every county in Vermont has “experienced net out-migration — more people are moving out of those counties to other Vermont counties or to other states, compared to the number moving in.” Extreme taxation by an excessively large and over-controlling government are often heard as the reason for people moving out of state. This coupled with the birth-rate decline results in fewer people, fewer businesses, fewer good paying jobs, causing fewer reasons for people to want to stay here or to provide reasons for new people to want to come and settle here.

There is little doubt that the Georgia law will be challenged by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and other death-culture minded activist groups. Other similar “heartbeat abortion” ban bills have been signed into law in other states and other states are considering the same. Some challenges to these laws may be successful or temporarily block their operation. As that occurs, the pressure will increase on the high court to settle the area and once and for all decide an issue, that like none other, has emotionally and morally divided our nation. In Georgia such a legal challenge is expected and even welcomed. Georgia Governor Kemp said “We will not back down. We will always continue to fight for life.” Conversely, Vermont will not back down either, not because of a concern for life, but because the Democrats are in power and can do whatever they please. That is the reality for now, but Vermont could be the case that goads the high court into action and triggers a ruling that will be consistent with the US Constitution’s mandate to protect life.

None of this can be turned around overnight, but now is the time for some public introspection, actions and decisions that will allow for natural growth in Vermont and the nation. Failing to choose life by the lawmakers will ultimately lead to a mandate from the high court to do just that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.