As befits a politician aspiring to the image of moderate Republicanism, U.S. Senate candidate Christina Nolan has given a carefully circumscribed statement of support for abortion rights.
And it’s as worthless as a bank note from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
I’m not accusing her of lying. Although a look at her background might suggest otherwise. She was raised in a devout Catholic family; she attended Rice Memorial High School; her grandparents were publicly anti-abortion; and one of her aunts is Mary Beerworth, the longtime head and public face of Vermont Right to Life. None of those facts can be found in any of her campaign literature, because of course they can’t.
But hey, for all I know she might be the family outcast, what with her “alternative lifestyle” and all.
Whether she’s welcome at holiday dinners or not, she opposes Proposition 5, the amendment that would enshrine reproductive freedom in Vermont’s Constitution, using language and reasoning borrowed from the anti-abortion crowd. They realize that direct opposition is a nonstarter in Vermont, so instead they raise bogus concerns about Prop 5 being overly broad, subject to misinterpretation, and potentially allowing abortion right up to the moment of birth. Nolan reportedly views Prop 5 as “extreme” but shies away from specifics. When asked where she would draw the line, all she can offer is “Vermonters need to have this conversation.”
That’s one level of uselessness. The other is the potential consequences of her entirely hypothetical election to the U.S. Senate.
It doesn’t matter what Nolan personally believes about abortion; it’s the fact that her election would be one more nail in the coffin of Roe v. Wade. With Griswold v. Connecticut in the on-deck circle. (Not to mention Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia, but those are outrages for another day.)
No matter how moderate she is, her election would help return Mitch McConnell to Senate leadership. McConnell, who has promised to block any Supreme Court nominees put forward by Joe Biden if he has the power to do so. McConnell, who spearheaded the detestable maneuvers that put Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett on the high court. McConnell, who openly embraces the tenets of Machiavellianism: the absolute pursuit of power with no quarter for principle.
Nolan has refused to say whether she would vote for McConnell as Majority Leader, but c’mon. The guy co-hosted a D.C. fundraiser for her. And either way, if she helps create a Republican majority, McConnell would become Leader with or without her vote.
Nolan’s support for Roe v Wade is meaningless because her election would ensure the primacy of the anti-abortion movement. Her words are empty. Which shouldn’t be too surprising, given that Nolan sees Sen. Susan Collins, the queen of empty gestures, as her political role model. Collins who, whenever push comes to shove, swallows her alleged principles and votes in lockstep with the Republican caucus.
Collins, who voted for McConnell as Leader.
Christina Nolan’s election would be a disaster for reproductive rights, whether or not she’s being honest about her stance on abortion. Her position is weaksauce anyway, and shouldn’t provide any basis for a Nolan vote by anyone who’s pro-choice.
But really, it doesn’t matter what her position is. Her election would be a clear victory for the anti-choice movement. That’s the only thing that matters.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
Not all of us ordinary citizens in Vermont are clueless, sir, despite the fact that you seem to think so. I earned a Master’s Degree in the teaching of English, so I can read. I have taken the time to look over the proposed language of Article 22. It is so broadly written you could drive an 18 wheeler through it. It is a liberal lawyer’s dream, as it will keep Vermont courts and attorneys busy for years to come. And we the taxpayers will pay for part of the litigation as the State is sued time and again by activists under this language. The wording is broad, vague, and undefined. There are no boundaries. The limiting word “abortion” is never used, so its meaning is much broader than that. The doors to court definitions and redefinitions apart from the legislature will be flung wide. Objectivity and certainty in areas such as what constitutes a marriage, divorce, child custody, child protection, parental rights or obligations, gay rights, trans rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, are all affected. And not in a wholesome way. Replaced by fluidity almost moment to moment. There are no upper or lower age limits. Indeed, we have almost no idea what “personal reproductive autonomy” actually means. And since groups like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and some of the staff of the liberal Vermont A.G.’s office helped to craft the language, you can bet your two cents it was written that way on purpose. If it becomes part of the Vermont Constitution, it will mean everything our liberal court system says it means, no matter how outlandish. We cannot tell exactly what that is because the language is so vague — on purpose. It is a Pandora’s Box of hidden plan and intent. Nothing good can come of it, except total sexual and behavioral license with little to restrain it. No impulses will be checked. The language is so broad that literally anything goes. The people representing the groups who drafted this language are intelligent. They KNOW what it means. And most of the Vermont media are willing accomplices, hiding from we the people just how bad this language really is. We will be the first state in the nation to add this to our state Constitution. It is a doorway to a chaotic future for our state. Liberal activists love this language. They will use it to hammer every organ of our state government —- and its people —- into submission. You use the term “anti choice” — another broad, undefined term. What I ask instead is, what, exactly, is being chosen? This proposed amendment is Orwellian.
One sign of an unbalanced personality is long, almost unreadable, run-on paragraphs.
This is a perfectly readable short essay. Your inability to read it might be a sign of lack of mental acuity on your part. Since when is length the sole determiner of readability? Your articles are longer than my response. Are they unreadable? Oh, and I notice you could not refute the points I made about the real intent of the poisonous Proposal 5/Amendment 22 language, so you reverted to an ad hominem attack on the length of my response instead. The concerns raised by people like Mary Beerworth are spot on.
You’re not worth my time.
Slightly off topic, but Governor Scatt just vetoed another 2 bills on some rather weak reasoning, y’all still think he wouldn’t do the same for a pregnancy rights bill? Because I fully believe he would/ could by stating some pretext or “needs fixing”.
He hasn’t been punished for his actions yet, nay he is probably going to be rewarded with another term. Scatt gets reelected and what is to stop him from doing so?