NRL News

Vermont’s hostility to legal recourse for women whose unborn children have been murdered by criminals

by | Mar 20, 2019

Is there no limit to the savagery of the abortion absolutist?

By Dave Andrusko

NRL News Today has posted numerous stories specifying in detail just how rabidly pro-abortion a number of proposed state laws actually are.

You know the grim details: abortion through “40 weeks” (in the words of Va. Del. Nancy Tran); allowing non-physicians to perform abortions; making abortion a protected “right” in state constitutions; even a receptivity to infanticide (see Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Congressional Democrats walking in virtual lock-step to defeat the Born-Again Abortion Survivors Protection Act).

But an area that needs even more attention than we’ve paid to it is how pro-abortionists are determined that women whose unborn children have been injured or killed by a third party will have no legal recourse.

It is anti-child with a vengeance.

Among the most outrageous proposed abortion laws is one in Vermont, H.57, about which we’ve written several times. Similar to states such New York, Vermont legislators embraces abortion to their collective bosom. In their zeal to pass the most pro-abortion legislation anywhere in the United States (which will pass—pro-abortion Democrats run the state and compete for Planned Parenthood’s affection), they are going into lengths only the most militant pro-abortion Democrat could find acceptable.

Writing for the Federalist and referring to the impact of two separate state Supreme Court decisions, Vaillancourt v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont and State v. Oliver, John Klar explains

Vermont’s bizarre jurisprudence means that a doctor who is alleged to have negligently caused the death of a woman’s fetus can be sued for wrongdoing, but a malicious criminal who beats a woman and thereby causes the death of her unborn baby cannot be charged in any way for taking that life.

Vermont’s legislature is poised to enact the most abortion-friendly legislation in the nation via H.57, and is weighing a first-in-the-nation amendment to the state’s constitution that could include language that the unborn “shall not have independent rights under law.” This would clearly alter the Vaillancourt decision, by erasing that Supreme Court’s existing legal recognition of a wrongful death claim for an unborn fetus. Vermont’s legislature will have then ignored or reversed two state Supreme Court decisions, without any consideration of the rights protected in those cases.

Nothing in Vermont law recognizes the sacredness of the pregnant woman. Recent efforts seek to ensconce abortion procedures––at any stage of gestation, and for any reason––in statutory and constitutional armor. But the pregnant woman’s right to civil recovery for medical malpractice is unaddressed, if not eliminated, and her expectation of justice in the event her unborn child is murdered by a criminal is terminated.

Of course, of course, H.57 is peddled as protecting “women’s rights.” The truth is, as Klar concludes

as drafted, it would have both eliminated their legal recourse where their baby is negligently killed, and ensured their unborn babies had no rights recognized as victims for criminal law purposes.

Is there no limit to the savagery of the abortion absolutist?

Categories: Unborn Victims