Pro-Life in Vermont? Your Baby Could Be Taken Away

Vermont’s Maternal Inquisition: A Dire Warning on Government Overreach

In the bucolic green hills of Vermont, where progressive ideals bloom as abundantly as its maple trees, a dark tale of government overreach is unfolding—one that starkly contrasts the state’s professed commitment to individual liberty and women’s rights. The story of a woman referred to in legal briefs as A.V., a mother whose newborn was ripped from her arms by state authorities based on a flimsy, unsubstantiated narrative, should chill anyone who values personal autonomy.

In early 2022, Vermont’s Department for Children and Families (DCF) orchestrated an extraordinary and unconstitutional power grab. Acting on hearsay about A.V.’s mental health, the agency initiated an investigation into her capacity as a future mother—despite having no jurisdiction over unborn children. Without her knowledge or consent, her medical records were pried open, and her labor became a state-monitored event. Hospital staff fed live updates on her cervix dilation to DCF officials, who—relying on falsehoods—secured custody of her fetus. The mother’s delivery culminated not in joy, but in separation: her newborn daughter was seized before she could hold her.

The allegations that prompted this grotesque intervention were not based on any medical diagnosis, criminal act, or history of abuse. The director of a shelter for battered women expressed her belief that the pregnant woman should not have the baby and encouraged her to seek an abortion. When the woman refused, the director escalated the matter by initiating contact with state authorities to intervene and take custody of the child upon birth. These speculative and prejudiced actions snowballed into an Orwellian surveillance operation. Unverified accusations became the pretext for a cascade of violations: breaches of medical privacy, the undermining of reproductive autonomy, and the illegal seizure of a child.

The “High-Risk Pregnancy” Registry

A.V.’s case is not an isolated tragedy. According to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Vermont and Pregnancy Justice, DCF maintains a clandestine “high-risk pregnancy docket” to track expectant mothers it deems unfit. This sinister ledger includes women flagged for reasons as discriminatory as homelessness, disability, or choosing a natural birth over medical intervention. Rather than championing bodily autonomy, Vermont weaponizes pregnancy as a tool for control, turning the womb into a battleground for bureaucratic intrusion.

Such practices underscore a chilling trend: the redefinition of pregnancy as a condition requiring state oversight. This is the same Vermont that touts itself as a bastion of reproductive freedom, having enshrined the right to abortion in its constitution. Yet when a mother chooses life, the state’s zeal for autonomy evaporates, replaced by an insatiable appetite for control.

From Salem to Modern Vermont

One cannot help but draw parallels between A.V.’s plight and the witch trials of Salem. Just as Puritan authorities acted on rumor and hysteria, Vermont’s child welfare agency relied on hearsay to vilify A.V. as an unfit mother. The same moral panic that led to Salem’s witch hunts now manifests in the state’s policing of pregnancies. The language of progressivism masks an unsettling truth: the state’s interventionist policies strip mothers of their dignity and humanity, reducing them to objects of suspicion.

Alexander Hamilton warned that “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Vermont’s DCF exemplifies this cautionary insight, its actions revealing how easily the machinery of government can pivot from protector to oppressor.

The Progressive Contradiction

Vermont’s betrayal of A.V. lays bare the hypocrisy of the progressive project. The state’s leaders champion reproductive rights when it suits their ideological ends but abandon those principles when faced with a woman whose circumstances—poverty, perceived mental illness—do not align with their utopian image of motherhood. This selective compassion is a hallmark of modern progressivism, where the state’s priorities often eclipse the individual’s rights.

Moreover, the broader implications are staggering. Today, it is Vermont’s Department for Children and Families targeting women with dubious criteria and clandestine dockets. Tomorrow, what prevents other states from following suit? The erosion of privacy and autonomy under the guise of child welfare is a slippery slope toward totalitarian control, where the state presumes to dictate the terms of parenthood.

A Call to Action

The story of A.V. demands our outrage and action. It is a stark reminder that even in the most progressive corners of America, government overreach threatens the liberties we hold dear. Vermont’s DCF must be held accountable, not only to redress the harm inflicted on A.V. but to prevent further encroachments on the rights of expectant mothers.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a government whose primary purpose was to safeguard liberty. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, observed that “there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Vermont’s actions are precisely the kind of encroachment Madison feared. If left unchecked, they will serve as a template for bureaucratic overreach nationwide.

Conclusion

A.V.’s ordeal is more than an isolated injustice; it is a harbinger of the dangers inherent in unchecked governmental authority. The question is not whether we sympathize with her plight, but whether we recognize the broader threat to our collective freedoms. Vermont’s progressive veneer cannot obscure the stark reality: when the state lays claim to a mother’s body and child, it tramples on the very principles of liberty and autonomy it claims to uphold.

Let this case be a clarion call. Liberty is not self-sustaining; it must be defended against those who, cloaked in righteousness, would undermine it. In standing against Vermont’s actions, we defend not only A.V. but the very essence of what it means to be free.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.