Abortion rights organizations in Colorado launched a campaign Tuesday opposing a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would add “unborn human beings” to the state’s criminal code.
Days after Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO), who’s hoping to unseat Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, dropped his longstanding support of the amendment, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO), who also had long supported the measure, backed off it as well.
As expected, a bill banning most abortions in Colorado was killed in the state legislature Tuesday. The state house majority leader, a Democrat, called the Republican house majority leader’s sponsorship of the anti-choice legislation a move to “pander to the right wing of their party.”
Reproductive rights activists help defeat a proposed abortion restriction in Louisiana, while a bunch of new restrictions pop up in states across the country.
Anti-choice state lawmakers have introduced legislation in Colorado that defines life as beginning at conception, reflecting “personhood” ballot initiatives defeated overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2010.
When viewed as part of this ”fetus first” landscape, fetal homicide laws quite plainly seek to exploit tragedies like that suffered by Heather Surovik in order to pursue an anti-choice agenda, which champions so-called personhood and seeks to eliminate safe abortion care access.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO), who’s widely seen as one of the most vulnerable incumbents in Congress, touted his visit to a stem-cell laboratory even though he’s on record opposing research with embryonic stem cells, which are used in the lab he toured.
Anti-choice organization Personhood Colorado collected more than 140,000 signatures in favor of the ballot measure, which would redefine the words “person” and “child” to include fetuses, far exceeding the required number.
If the secretary of state approves the signatures and the measure makes the ballot, political observers say it’s unlikely to pass, just as “personhood” abortion bans were defeated overwhelmingly in Colorado in 2008 and 2010.
Even with a packed docket, the Roberts Court could find room to take up important cases on pregnant workers’ rights as well as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.