Colorado’s Anti-Choice Amendment Advocates: Just Say No to Cancer Prevention Programs!

Who is advising these poor people?

First they come out with an amendment that seeks to turn fertilized eggs inside of women’s bodies into human beings with full-fledged human rights (against the better judgment of a host of anti-choice organizations and legislators who have stayed far away perhaps with the clarity of vision that this kind of constitutional amendment is even too extreme for the extremists), and now they’re attempting to dismantle federally-funded health care programs that provide breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income women in Colorado?
VIDEO:: Life Begins at Fertilization?

Backers of Colorado’s Amendment 48, also called the "personhood amendment," filed suit on Wednesday of this week against the state for reimbursing Planned Parenthood and the Boulder Women’s Health Clinic, both of which act as sites for the state’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program (BCCP), a program that is federally funded and so exists in states around the country. The organization says this violates state law prohibiting the public funding of abortion services. Centers that receive federal funding to administer this program do so with strict reporting requirements, just as do centers that provide abortions and receive Title X funding to provide family planning and contraception to low-income women. 

While the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado claims the state has given a total of $18 million to both organizations, the Denver Post says the number is wrong:

The actual amount those two organizations received is much less. Planned Parenthood of the Rockies, for example, received $610,000 in reimbursements in 2007. The figure doesn’t include federal Medicaid payments.

For a campaign that has been lagging consistently behind in the polls, with little hope of winning, this not only reeks of desperation but of thoughtlessness. Promoting an ideological agenda, using a narrow religious view, to attempt to change a state constitution is one thing. Attacking necessary preventative services for breast and cervical cancer and using low-income women as pawns in a political chess-game is not a strategy I’d bank on. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • invalid-0

    Just when you think anti-choicers can’t go any lower…they do. Their absolute contempt and disregard for the lives of women who’ve been born is astounding. What is wrong with these people?!!!

  • invalid-0

    I am pro-life and I read this article and I am appauled at how you are saying that people who are against abortion are also against letting women have breast and cervical cancer screenings. Maybe the people you are talking about are against it but it is not how all pro-lifers feel. You should not judge a group of people by what just a few people say or do. Lets say that a person of a certain race is rude to you, do you think that all the people in that race are going to act the same way toward you? Of course not! So you should not make that judgement until you get to understand the whole group. But I want to say thank you for speaking your mind and showing what you believe in even if nobody listens to you. I am going to try to follow your example and stand up for what I believe in. Thank you.