Our right to make our own health care choices will be seriously compromised if Senate Bills 188, 189, and 190 are signed into law. While all three bills will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional under the Colorado and US constitutions, they will, in the meanwhile, deny our right to choose.
Senate Bill 189 will force employers to purchase health insurance policies that cover abortion up to birth without copays in violation of the Colorado Constitution which states no public funds may be used directly or indirectly for abortion unless to save the life of the mother with every reasonable effort made to preserve her life and the life of her child. Under SB 189, public funds will be used directly to enforce the abortion mandate and indirectly to force taxpayers to subsidize abortion through their insurance premiums.
The bill does not protect employees who consider themselves pro-choice but do not want to pay for abortion or employees who are pro-life. The bill has a narrow exception for employers with sincerely held religious beliefs opposed to abortion but leaves these employers open to lawsuits if they do not provide abortion coverage.
Public agencies are exempt from the abortion mandate but it is unclear whether individual plans on the state health benefit exchange would be forced to comply. Tax dollars support the administration of the exchange and the premiums for these plans are subsidized by refundable tax credits. My individual plan does not cover elective abortions. If this should change, I would have no choice but to violate my conscience or go without health insurance. That’s not a choice anyone should have to make.
Senate Bill 188 would force medical institutions and insurers to contract with medical personnel who perform abortions. Because the provision contains only a narrow conscience clause for religious organizations, it likely violates federal health care funding laws and First Amendment protections. Because Colorado receives federal funds, it cannot discriminate against institutions that object to abortion.
Lastly, Senate Bill 190 violates women’s right to choose the care they want during their pregnancy. It targets pregnancy resource centers that provide pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, information about fetal development, referrals, and material support such as diapers, baby clothes, and other needs. The legislation asserts that such centers engage in deceptive advertising practices but does not provide a precise definition of such practices. Since the bill denigrates centers for suggesting “that adoption or parenting is a better option” than abortion — a belief held by many people I know who consider themselves pro-choice — it is likely that the sponsors consider even this value statement deceptive. Any such statement would be fair game under the law. Similar laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court and lower courts on First Amendment grounds.
The bill will also would deny women abortion pill reversal care unless it is determined to be a “generally accepted standard of practice.” A woman who has taken the first of two abortion pills, mifepristone, but not the second pill, misoprostol, and has decided she wants to continue her pregnancy can take a dose of progesterone, a natural hormone, to mitigate the effect of the first drug. Taking progesterone in place of the second drug, misoprostol is twice as effective at preserving pregnancy than simply not taking misoprostol and hoping for the best. Several studies show that APR care is safe while not taking misoprostol and hoping for the best poses a much greater risk of health complications.
It’s no wonder that more than a dozen states require abortion facilities to provide information on abortion pill reversal care as part of informed consent. States need not require women to receive such information; however, they cannot censor it the Supreme Court has ruled.
Several women testified before the Senate Judiciary how abortion pill reversal care saved their pregnancies. If lawmakers believe that women have “a fundamental right to continue a pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion and to make decisions about how to exercise that right,” as they asserted in the last year’s Reproductive Health Equity Act, why would they deny these women the right to choose? Why would they deny any of us the right to make essential healthcare decisions?
Gov. Polis can demonstrate he is truly pro-choice by vetoing these bills.
Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.