By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Representative Town Meeting on Tuesday took care of a lot of local business, but national controversies surrounding abortion rights and gun violence weighed heavily on members’ minds.
On the record in unanimous support of abortion rights
A resolution proposed in support of a woman’s right to abortion prompted passionate discussion, as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, a 1973 decision that assured federal access to abortion.
The final item on the agenda, the sense-of-the-meeting resolution asserts that “Westport supports the constitutional rights and principles established in Roe v. Wade and opposes the elimination of those rights by any subsequent Supreme Court decision.”
“Last meeting, a flash came across our screen that Roe versus Wade may be overturned by the Supreme Court,” said Liz Milwe, District 1. “Quickly, momentum gathered among our RTM members and within 24 hours we had 21 sponsors for a sense-of-the-meeting resolution.”
By Tuesday, the resolution had 23 sponsors.
Candace Banks, District 6, held up a tablet to her video camera, showing a color-coded map of the U.S. illustrating abortion restrictions.
“I want to just share with you some of the compromises and considerations that my daughters will have to make in a world post-Roe,” she said. “Do they apply to Arizona State, or Tulane, or University of Michigan?”
“After graduation, does one of them take that awesome tech job in Austin, Texas? Or, fast-forward to later, what about when my daughter’s at a law firm in the first trimester of pregnancy and she wants to put her hand up for that great trial opportunity in Georgia …”
Karen Kramer, District 5, struggled to keep her emotions in check.
“It’s a step backwards in time for the rights of choice for women everywhere in America,” she said. “You shouldn’t have to pick your job and college by looking at a map.”
“We in Westport RTM are not going to change the world,” Kramer said. “But it’s very possible to someone listening that they might step up and help one woman in the South or one of the other states, that may be going to shutter, to take away a woman’s right, the female who may be struggling with an unthinkable dilemma due to circumstances that force her into an unthinkable choice due to rape, a fetus developing without life-sustaining organs, or even just a mistake when she’s young without resources to raise a child, being a child herself.”
“Please support this right to speak out everywhere in favor of women’s rights, and perhaps we can help, and change the life and circumstance of just one person,” Kramer said.
Several male members spoke in support of the resolution.
“A uterus is no place for a politician to be sticking his head,” said Andrew Colabella, District 4.
Dick Lowenstein, District 5, said the RTM isn’t the proper forum for the discussion. He said he planned to leave the meeting before the vote, because, “I can’t vote no, I won’t vote yes and I cannot abstain.”
The legislative body’s final vote was 29-0 in favor of the resolution.
A local rally was organized last month by abortion-rights supporters shortly after the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision indicating the Roe ruling would likely be overturned.
Silent too long on toll of gun violence
Near the start of Tuesday’s meeting, Harris Falk, District 2, said that a moment of silence had been considered for the 19 children and two teachers killed in the Uvalde, Texas, elementary school massacre May 24, as well as those targeted and killed because of their race at a supermarket in Buffalo ten days earlier.
“There are the people who say, ‘Oh, it’s too soon,’ ” Falk said. “When you have a shooting every day, well then, it’s always going to be too soon. There was a shooting an hour ago in New Haven. Yesterday, Waterbury.”
“This was going to be a moment of silence, but quite frankly, we’ve all been silent enough,” Falk said.
Other business
Among the other items approved Tuesday by the RTM:
• An appropriation of $47,900 for a canopy for modular classrooms at Coleytown Elementary.
• A request for $57,462 from federal American Rescue Plan Act money to expand the Westport Library’s Internet accessibility to the public, inside and outside.
• An appropriation of $62,147 to upgrade air conditioning and repair the library’s roof, rather than replace it at a very expensive time for such work.
• Ratify the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision to opt out of a new state law regulating accessory apartments. Westport already has local regulations that P&Z members considered superior.
• Ratify the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision to opt out of a new state law regarding multi-family parking requirements. The P&Z already has regulations tailored to local needs.
Thane Grauel is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to Westport Journal. Learn more about us here.
There would be some vague logic for the RTM as a legislative body to support access to abortion. Ultimately if Roe v Wade is overturned because it is based on faulty legal reasoning, which it of course is, as even RBG warned, it will fall to state legislatures to define the circumstances around which a pregnancy may be terminated. But what is odd here is that the RTM “waded” into a question of Constitutional interpretation. That’s bizarre. Sure, some of you are lawyers, some of you are well educated, but for the most part the RTM is a bunch of local yokel blowhards. You don’t have many important duties but acting as a shadow SCOTUS ain’t one of them. The RTM’s delusions of grandeur feel like a “public health crisis” in the making. 🤣
Ironically, by acting as though it were in a legitimate position to opine on abortion restrictions as a legislative body, the RTM is in fact reinforcing Justice Alito’s perspective. Abortion access is not a Constitutionally protected right of individuals but rather a matter for democratically elected legislators to figure out. By simply speaking on this topic, the RTM is making Alito’s point. Congrats guys! 😂😂😂
As a former member of the RTM and thus a “local yokel blowhard” by your reckoning, I invite you to find another town or state which may be more to your political liking. Or, as people of your political persuasion like to say, “love it or leave it.” You really seem to find everything that happens in Westport not to your liking.
I see. Because I take issue with things happening in my community, including inappropriate displays of sexuality being foisted upon children, I should shut up and/or leave. Well, I’ve got news for you. I’m a tax paying American citizen. I will live wherever I damn please and I will criticize those in power as I see fit. So you can take your local yokel brand of “McCarthyism” and throw it in the Saugatuck River. Btw, the folks at TEAM Westport have an awful lot of negative things to say about this town- why don’t you tell them to leave?
lol
Spot on Kevin. The RTM is way over its head on this. Bravo to Lowenstein for walking out of the meeting. Love the typical liberal response from McCarthy– don’t like it, leave. Many are! People are fed up with liberal politicians that have destroyed major cities and states in this nation. SF is waking up just a little bit by ousting their progressive DA.
The Westport Representative Town Meeting has a long and honored (in my opinion) of taking a stand on issues well beyond the local horizon. Like it or not, in a time when many citizen have lost faith in the integrity of our federal legislature and judiciary institutions and when many elected office holders at a;l; levels of government fail to uphold the basic standards of democracy, we will need more not less action from our local representatives. The power and strength of our democracy derives from each individual’s rights and engagement.
If you think about it, what the RTM is doing here is actually delegitimizing our democracy. We have a Supreme Court- it is their job to interpret the Constitution. Obviously the Westport RTM is an irrelevancy but would be it be appropriate if a real legislative body, like Congress, passed a resolution disagreeing with a majority opinion of SCOTUS? There is a disrespect for the principle of separation of powers on display here… If our legislators don’t like how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, there is a mechanism for them to amend it if I recall. Legislative bodies should not be Monday Morning quarterbacking judicial decisions.
Kevin you nailed it again. RTM is wasting time with this issue. It’s simply another example of empty virtue signaling from liberals in this town.
Werner – An interesting and forward thinking perspective.
Sorry for the typos—
Add “tradition”
It’s “all” not “a;l;’
Kevin is spot on. You others need to go back to take a referesher class on US government. Seriously can’t you at least utilize Google before typing such idiocy? You sound like really uneducated and intolerant keyboard warriors! So embarrassing to spout off like that.
While I 100% support a woman’s right to choose without the interference of the government (or, presumably, Kevin Burns) I fail to grasp the value of this kind of sense-of-the-meeting resolution. It carries no legal weight. Connecticut is clearly a solidly pro-choice state. I’d rather see RTM focus on practical matters facing the Town rather than symbolic gestures that (to me) are primarily used to signal an individual’s acceptability on progressive social issues, should they choose to run for (partisan) Town Boards in the future. I’d further say that it especially aids RTM members who are Westport Republicans, who likely couldn’t care less about reproductive rights, but want to send the message in a wealthy if socially progressive enclave that they aren’t *bad* Republicans, even though they happily support the national party.
I never said women shouldn’t have access to abortion under certain or even many circumstances. Unlike you, I wouldn’t describe my support for such access as “100 percent” because a woman choosing to terminate a viable pregnancy at 8.5 months for example seems a little murdery to me. But that’s just me… The Constitutional interpretation question is the issue here. Roe v Wade is a ludicrous decision. Abortion access is not addressed in the Constitution. It therefore falls to democratically elected legislators to sort it out. As you note, it’s ridiculous for the RTM to be weighing in on this topic in general but it is doubly ridiculous for the RTM to be weighing in on questions of Constitutional interpretation. Maybe they disagreed with the Depp v Heard verdict as well? Is that next week’s resolution?
Depp v Heard lol! Maybe next week’s resolution will be: “Westport stands with Ukraine”.
But Kevin, you did say that RTM is “deligitimizing out democracy” which is about the most idiotic, hyperbolic statement ever made on Westport Journal.
What does deligitimize the democracy is having a SCOTUS making enormous 5-4 shifts in policy, when three of them were seated by a seditionist who wanted to overturn a free and fair election and a fourth is married to a seditionist.
But, yeah, you tell me what is a bigger threat the the democracy – a seditionist former President or Westport RTM. What a clown.
Yes, John. The RTM, which is a legislative body of sorts, is asserting its authority in the judicial realm with this pointless resolution. Basically it is saying we know better than these stupid justices and we want to delegitimize their rulings. You personally are further undermining the judiciary by claiming several of the justices aren’t even legitimate because they were nominated by someone you seem to think lacked authority despite having been elected by the American people because of crimes that in your deranged mind he would later commit. It’s this kind of extreme disrespect for our system of government that leads young men to attempt to murder sitting justices. The RTM is feeding this mentality – in essence liberals don’t like Alito’s opinion so they think it, and the whole Supreme Court, should be disregarded and invalidated at some level… If the RTM wants to be helpful to American democracy, they should pass a resolution condemning those who would threaten the lives of our Supreme Court justices and extend their blessings to Justice Kavanaugh and his wonderful family. John, can I count on you sir to find a place for Justice Kavanaugh in your prayers this evening? (Once you are done reviewing the photos from the drag show for the 28th time)
Thoughts and Prayers…that’s all the kids in Texas got, that should be all that Kavanaugh gets,
fuck a resolution…….
Find it odd that 06880 parents are asking to condemn the actions of the BOE and the DEI Study publicly, but the public has emailed the RTM and asked us to speak and pass a resolution.
Government trickles down to me and you. Local, state, federal, all voices are heard and are suppose to be respected and represented.
The RTM is a nonpartisan body that speaks up for the people.
The DEI Study was garbage because it was NOT inclusive of all races and those that fall under inclusive (disabilities). What is going on at the federal scares people. When the masses come roaring, you roar too.
Well said.
John, being supportive of violence against a US Supreme Court Justice because you disagree with his position on an issue is rather uncivilized and quite uncharacteristic of you. And, some would say that late term abortion violently takes the lives of innocent children every day in numbers that sadly dwarf all school massacres. Thoughts and prayers for all victims of violence, especially those who have yet to enjoy a full life.
Jack, if you are saying that John is “being supportive of violence against a US Supreme Court Justice” you are a liar. He said no such thing. You owe him an apology.
Additionally, late-term abortion (not a medical term, but a political construct) is an exceedingly rare thing. Close to 90% of abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks. The suggestion that the abortion fight is about late-term abortion is a lie. Like so many social conservatives, you seem to think that life begins at conception and ends at birth. You clearly don’t give a damn about school shootings, when you are so eager to change the subject. You care about Brett Kavanaugh and fetuses, but not murdered children and their families. That’s mighty Christian of you.
I don’t think it’s wrong for Jack to have interpreted John’s comments as expressing indifference towards Kavanaugh’s safety… Late term abortions depending on how you define it are indeed a low percentage of total abortions but even if 1 percent (some estimates of third trimester) that is some 6,000 abortions per year. It’s possible to be concerned about those deaths along with school shooting fatalities… John Francis continues to display Westport’s trademark “inclusivity.” Inclusive until someone says something that contradicts prevailing hard left narratives. Then it’s nothing but vitriol, accusations and unhinged foaming at the mouth.
. I care as much about Kavanaugh’s safety as Much as most Republicans care about school safety. I think the Entire Kavanaugh family should be heavily armed at all times and there should only be once entrance to the Kavanaugh home. With a metal detector at the one entrance. That should keep them safe. Effing hypocritical bastards.
Kevin, you and Jack change the subject and rail against people based on the subject that you introduced.
The fact that a couple of dolts like you are trying to make the comment thread about Brett Kavanaugh’s safety rather than the matter at hand (reproductive rights) probably speaks to the lack of any salient points that you can make on the subject of the article.
“Logical Fallacy.” Look it up.
Lighten up Francis. What logical fallacy? The article was about the RTM resolution, and the comments were about the RTM resolution. I think the real problem is we got off the liberal Westport script: we didn’t just pledge unrestricted support for a “woman’s right to choose.” But the real logical fallacy is embedded in Roe v Wade: there ain’t no implicit Constitutional right to an abortion. It was imagined back in the 70s when a lot of people were imagining a lot of things. Even if you wished there were such a right, an intellectually honest person must recognize this as the majority of SCOTUS will soon it seems.
“Ain’t no” is a double negative. Maybe you mean to say that there’s a logical fallacy embedded in Roe vs Wade, whatever that means, but the words you use mean there IS an implicit Constitutional right to an abortion.