DEAR EDITOR:

I would like to flesh out a couple scenarios that become possible if the so-called “Reproductive Rights” amendment comes to pass.

Consider an estranged uncle sexually preying on his 14-year old niece. She gets pregnant. Keeping in mind constitutional amendments trump existing law, it may now be possible that:

The uncle is not prosecuted because “minor attracted” is his sexual preference. The uncle can coerce the niece to legally have an abortion to hide the evidence. The parents never know as no consent is required.

Or a gymnastics coach forms a long-term sexual relationship with their young gymnast. In order to prevent any “issues,” the coach convinces the gymnast to undergo a sterilization procedure.

Since serialization has become of form of “reproductive treatment,” the operation is performed on the minor. The parents never know, as no consent is required. The coach is not prosecuted because “minor attracted” is a sexual preference.

The wide range of possibilities that open up with this amendment can only lead one to conclude that this amendment was written by sexual predators for sexual predators.

Proponents will likely state that this is not their intent. That leaves two possibilities: They are lying; or in drafting the language of the amendment, they were grossly incompetent to the point of negligence.

If you are thinking to yourself these scenarios won’t happen, then you haven’t been paying attention to the national landscape. But for sake of argument, let us say these scenarios have only a 20% chance of occurring. Wouldn’t a 20% chance be enough to vote no in order to save your children and grandchildren from these atrocities?

Vote no to the sexual predator amendment.

MICHAEL VINCA

Weathersfield