Voters confused about the purposely vague wording of Proposal 5, Article 22, the pro-choice amendment articulated by a large majority of Vermont’s legislators, would do well to ignore the noise and focus on the principle being argued. That is, the amendment simply and plainly gives women personal control of their reproductive rights. 

That is, no government, nor any court, can dictate what individuals can or can’t do with their own bodies. 

Those who are opposed to “big brother government” exercising control over the individual should rejoice at such a clear statement. 

The confusion stems from well-intended residents who worry that the statement is too lax; that individuals will take those liberties too far for their comfort. They drum up the most egregious examples of “what if” and use that as a reason to argue against a provision that the vast majority of Vermonters agree with — that the individual, not the state, should dictate such personal choices.

We agree with the drafters of Article 22 that by keeping the wording simple and all-encompassing the principle of protecting one’s reproductive liberty is best served. Women, not the state or the courts, are the best arbiters of their own reproductive system. 

But in knowing that the amendment gives them the right to choose, we also know such a right comes with all the burdens and doubts it also encompasses. That’s burden enough to keep the choices within societal norms — beyond which no laws will suffice in any case. 

Angelo Lynn