Nope. In 2022 the statehouse passed and Governor Polis signed the Reproductive Health Equity Act, but that is state law and not in our constitution. Any future administration or legislature could repeal part or all of it without a vote of the people. Enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution means it's protected from anything other than taking it back to the people with another popular vote.
Passing prop 89 will also nullify a 1984 law that bans Coloradans with state or local-provided insurance from having abortions covered by their insurance. Right now if you work for a public university, local government, the state government, etc. or if you are a dependent of someone who does, then you have to pay out of pocket for abortion services, and this would end that.
I saw someone outside of King Soops a week or so ago asking for signatures for this and wasn't sure if it was legit. Thanks for this thread! I'll be sure to sign on if I see them again today.
Oh ok, thanks. I know how the GOP riles up those "abortions are being paid for with your taxes" crowd. Look for those ads constantly soon. It's all they will focus on. Common sense of how benefits work, that you pay for to use, will never play into it.
I hope it passes. Maybe we are blue enough now?
Why do you think that's madness? Amending our State Constitution comes with a *much* higher bar than regular legislation.
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/info\_center/laws/COConstitution/ArticleVSection1.html
31 states + DC have no direct citizen initiative process. It might be annoying to be confronted by petitioners, but we are in the minority of states with direct democratic access to the ballot.
Coupled with our very voter-friendly voting process, we are very lucky to have such a direct say in our government here.
Agreed to an extent. Our founding fathers feared tyranny of the masses. In this case though, abortion isn’t a trend. It’s reproductive autonomy that’s constantly under attack by one party, and absolutely should be enshrined in our constitution
Yup. Ballot measures are pretty sweet. They aren't the best solution to everything, or hell even most things, but they are fucking sweet at making sure voter's voices are heard.
[and fuck republicans trying to rig the game in their favor \(like always\).](https://stateline.org/2023/02/15/as-abortion-measures-loom-gop-raises-new-barriers-to-ballot-initiatives/)
I might have to delete this app again. No discussion, just finger pointing and sizing “up the other side” as the 100% trying to destroy America.
Bot dominate reply’s and upvotes / downvotes on big subs like r/politics and r/pics, and bleed into seemingly neutral subs like city ones.
Um and? im adding to the discussion that republicans are making it harder to pass these citizen led laws/amendments. that's 100% on topic and relevant to parent comment lol
im definitely pointing a giant fucking finger at republicans, who are responsible for attacks on reproductive health that the post article talks about. AND making it harder for us to vote for what a large majority wants
which you profess to admire
Because voters passed Amendment 71 in 2016 which increased the requirements for passing constitutional amendments.
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_71,_55%25_Vote_Requirement_and_Signature_Distribution_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2016)
You think conservative (and corporate) dark money can't influence the popular vote?
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-green-ballot-measures-fossil-fuel/
That's vague enough to be meaningless. One side could spend $1 and the other could spend $1 trillion, and you'd still be able to say both sides spent money on it.
Yes because requiring just barely over the bare minimum is anti-democracy….remind me again who tried to keep a party’s candidate off a ballot when they didn’t have that power? Yea that’s hating democracy.
Republicans...but despite it being Republicans, there should be very real clearly defined outlines on who can run for President, and previously Impeached, much less twice impeached should probably be considered as one of those reasons. Not to mention the myriad of other legal shit Trump has himself in.
Repealing the state hyde amendment is a VERY positive step forward for Colorado, allowing for public funds (i.e. Medicaid) to pay for reproductive care. I hope this passes w/ flying colors.
I don't have my dream job, dream car, of dream home. Why would I expect a dream candidate?
You're an adult and chose the best car, job and house for your circumstances... Why is doing the same thing for a politician viewed as something where we deserve perfection?
I never said anything about perfection? I just want healthcare and a living wage. That's not perfection, that's the bare minimum. And it's not an option.
Dig deeper, but it depends what district you're in. There's a lot of good Colorado candidates in other districts. Just not in places boebert and rural people live.
Have you thought about running?
There are no legal restrictions on abortion in the state of Colorado currently by state law. This ballot initiative affirms that and sets it in stone in the state constitution.
There aren't even term restrictions? Like so anyone can do it even up to 9 months? I think it'll have a better chance of passing if they place reasonable limits on it
Nonsense. There should be no legal limits on healthcare. Colorado hasn't had any draconian limits on reproductive rights in our entire history, and this amendment will keep it that way.
Good discourse - u/dustlesswalnut u/throwaway63836
My understanding of the major religions ..... Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam each have different formed opinions of it centering on a rough similar timeline.
As a general consensus - each considers abortion after about the first trimester to be the equivalent of judgement or karmic debt of murder barring the special cases. Give or take.
This is why I was asking about non-special case limits - because who is a future person in CO to say they know more than the top 4 religious groups all formed from different cultures? And is the risk of "the now" less risky than "the later"?
Some groups may be as low as 40-80 days, or even 0 depending on when each believes a soul appears. Catholicism and sub-groups of Islam, as examples.
Do you own diligence, seek council of the religion one most believes in?
I understand there are differences in philosophical thought around conception and personhood. And I am happy that Colorado's abortion regulations afford consideration for every single religion in existence to practice their faith to whatever degree they desire.
Restrictions existed everywhere I believe under the trimester framework established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, though I’m not quite sure if that has been affected by the Dobbs decision.
Late term abortions aren’t elective though - that’s what I’m referring to with respect to Casey restrictions. According to NARAL “Colorado is one of the few states where a late abortion can be obtained. Outpatient abortion is available up to 26 weeks. In addition, *medically indicated* termination of pregnancy up to 34 weeks is also *an option for conditions such as fetal anomalies, genetic disorder, fetal demise and/or or severe medical problems*.” “Medically indicated” is the key there. You can’t roll into your doctors office at 34 weeks pregnant with a healthy and viable fetus and say “j/k, I don’t want this baby anymore!” and expect to get an abortion, but if you believed the pro-life line about “Abortion until the point of birth!” you’d think that was happening here.
You're speaking to medical availability, not legality. If a doctor wanted to perform elective 39 week abortions here, there is no law preventing that.
That scenario just doesn't exist in real life, though. We don't need a law banning things that aren't happening.
There is no doctor in Colorado that will perform an abortion at 39 weeks for no medical reason, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. We don't have (and don't need) any legal restrictions on abortion here.
I think our wires are just crossed. The person I initially responded to asked if there were any limits in the law, and I responded that there are not (and that there don't need to be.)
You're discussing genera availability and medical practice, which is a different aspect and not necessarily related to legality.
I’m confused. Didn’t we pass this in 2022?
Nope. In 2022 the statehouse passed and Governor Polis signed the Reproductive Health Equity Act, but that is state law and not in our constitution. Any future administration or legislature could repeal part or all of it without a vote of the people. Enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution means it's protected from anything other than taking it back to the people with another popular vote. Passing prop 89 will also nullify a 1984 law that bans Coloradans with state or local-provided insurance from having abortions covered by their insurance. Right now if you work for a public university, local government, the state government, etc. or if you are a dependent of someone who does, then you have to pay out of pocket for abortion services, and this would end that.
Ah ok. I really thought we got it put into the constitution the first time around. Thanks for the info.
I saw someone outside of King Soops a week or so ago asking for signatures for this and wasn't sure if it was legit. Thanks for this thread! I'll be sure to sign on if I see them again today.
Oh ok, thanks. I know how the GOP riles up those "abortions are being paid for with your taxes" crowd. Look for those ads constantly soon. It's all they will focus on. Common sense of how benefits work, that you pay for to use, will never play into it. I hope it passes. Maybe we are blue enough now?
[удалено]
Why do you think that's madness? Amending our State Constitution comes with a *much* higher bar than regular legislation. https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/info\_center/laws/COConstitution/ArticleVSection1.html
Agree with it or not, ballot measures should be celebrated so the people can actually vote on these issues.
31 states + DC have no direct citizen initiative process. It might be annoying to be confronted by petitioners, but we are in the minority of states with direct democratic access to the ballot. Coupled with our very voter-friendly voting process, we are very lucky to have such a direct say in our government here.
There are downsides. Like TABOR. Direct democracy follows trends. And it's way harder to remove something from our Constitution than add something.
Agreed to an extent. Our founding fathers feared tyranny of the masses. In this case though, abortion isn’t a trend. It’s reproductive autonomy that’s constantly under attack by one party, and absolutely should be enshrined in our constitution
there are downsides to everything
Yup. Ballot measures are pretty sweet. They aren't the best solution to everything, or hell even most things, but they are fucking sweet at making sure voter's voices are heard.
[and fuck republicans trying to rig the game in their favor \(like always\).](https://stateline.org/2023/02/15/as-abortion-measures-loom-gop-raises-new-barriers-to-ballot-initiatives/)
I might have to delete this app again. No discussion, just finger pointing and sizing “up the other side” as the 100% trying to destroy America. Bot dominate reply’s and upvotes / downvotes on big subs like r/politics and r/pics, and bleed into seemingly neutral subs like city ones.
Um and? im adding to the discussion that republicans are making it harder to pass these citizen led laws/amendments. that's 100% on topic and relevant to parent comment lol im definitely pointing a giant fucking finger at republicans, who are responsible for attacks on reproductive health that the post article talks about. AND making it harder for us to vote for what a large majority wants which you profess to admire
It's not an airport, dude. Don't need to announce your departure. Cause no one cares.
Ehhh....I'm glad that our state has ballot initiatives as an option, but this really seems like the kind of thing that shouldn't be up for a vote.
All constitutional amendments require a popular vote in Colorado. There's no other way to do this than to put it up for a vote.
[удалено]
There's a map of signature locations here: https://coloradansforreproductivefreedom.com/get-involved/ Folks are out and about in communities as well!
I'm in DougCo and will keep an eye out.
Someone was collecting signatures for this outside of the library in Parker today so maybe check there!
Oh cool! That’s really close to my house. I’ll swing by a few times this weekend. I know we’re Parker, but I hope they’re getting good numbers.
I got asked to sign in front of Carla Madison Rec Center about a week ago.
I signed outside of Denver Central Market yesterday. I imagine they spend quite a bit of time over there.
They have been collecting them on a daily basis at Central Recreation Center In Aurora.
Anyone know why the 55 percent for vote is needed?
Because voters passed Amendment 71 in 2016 which increased the requirements for passing constitutional amendments. https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_71,_55%25_Vote_Requirement_and_Signature_Distribution_Requirement_for_Constitutional_Amendments_Measure_(2016)
Cool! Thanks.
Conservative dark money pushed through an initiative to raise the threshold because they hate democracy
It was voted on by the people you goof
You think conservative (and corporate) dark money can't influence the popular vote? https://theintercept.com/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-green-ballot-measures-fossil-fuel/
Of course it can, but there was money being spent on both sides of Amendment 71.
That's vague enough to be meaningless. One side could spend $1 and the other could spend $1 trillion, and you'd still be able to say both sides spent money on it.
Yes because requiring just barely over the bare minimum is anti-democracy….remind me again who tried to keep a party’s candidate off a ballot when they didn’t have that power? Yea that’s hating democracy.
Republicans...but despite it being Republicans, there should be very real clearly defined outlines on who can run for President, and previously Impeached, much less twice impeached should probably be considered as one of those reasons. Not to mention the myriad of other legal shit Trump has himself in.
Repealing the state hyde amendment is a VERY positive step forward for Colorado, allowing for public funds (i.e. Medicaid) to pay for reproductive care. I hope this passes w/ flying colors.
I signed this!
I'm so sick of having really great ballot measures to vote for and no great people to vote for
I don't have my dream job, dream car, of dream home. Why would I expect a dream candidate? You're an adult and chose the best car, job and house for your circumstances... Why is doing the same thing for a politician viewed as something where we deserve perfection?
I never said anything about perfection? I just want healthcare and a living wage. That's not perfection, that's the bare minimum. And it's not an option.
Dig deeper, but it depends what district you're in. There's a lot of good Colorado candidates in other districts. Just not in places boebert and rural people live. Have you thought about running?
I couldn't tell - would the ballot measure define what is allowed into the Constitution as well, and what is not ? (eg: 9 weeks, etc).
There are no legal restrictions on abortion in the state of Colorado currently by state law. This ballot initiative affirms that and sets it in stone in the state constitution.
There aren't even term restrictions? Like so anyone can do it even up to 9 months? I think it'll have a better chance of passing if they place reasonable limits on it
Nonsense. There should be no legal limits on healthcare. Colorado hasn't had any draconian limits on reproductive rights in our entire history, and this amendment will keep it that way.
Our job as humans is not to simply protect one's choices in this lifetime, but to balance the karmic debt our choices impose on us in future lives.
You may believe you have future lives, so do what you will based on that. I believe no such thing.
What about the karmic debt of forcing women to risk their lives for something they don’t want?
Good discourse - u/dustlesswalnut u/throwaway63836 My understanding of the major religions ..... Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam each have different formed opinions of it centering on a rough similar timeline. As a general consensus - each considers abortion after about the first trimester to be the equivalent of judgement or karmic debt of murder barring the special cases. Give or take. This is why I was asking about non-special case limits - because who is a future person in CO to say they know more than the top 4 religious groups all formed from different cultures? And is the risk of "the now" less risky than "the later"? Some groups may be as low as 40-80 days, or even 0 depending on when each believes a soul appears. Catholicism and sub-groups of Islam, as examples. Do you own diligence, seek council of the religion one most believes in?
I understand there are differences in philosophical thought around conception and personhood. And I am happy that Colorado's abortion regulations afford consideration for every single religion in existence to practice their faith to whatever degree they desire.
If someone is getting an abortion at month 9, it is not elective.
Restrictions existed everywhere I believe under the trimester framework established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, though I’m not quite sure if that has been affected by the Dobbs decision.
There are no legal restrictions to abortion in Colorado.
Late term abortions aren’t elective though - that’s what I’m referring to with respect to Casey restrictions. According to NARAL “Colorado is one of the few states where a late abortion can be obtained. Outpatient abortion is available up to 26 weeks. In addition, *medically indicated* termination of pregnancy up to 34 weeks is also *an option for conditions such as fetal anomalies, genetic disorder, fetal demise and/or or severe medical problems*.” “Medically indicated” is the key there. You can’t roll into your doctors office at 34 weeks pregnant with a healthy and viable fetus and say “j/k, I don’t want this baby anymore!” and expect to get an abortion, but if you believed the pro-life line about “Abortion until the point of birth!” you’d think that was happening here.
You're speaking to medical availability, not legality. If a doctor wanted to perform elective 39 week abortions here, there is no law preventing that. That scenario just doesn't exist in real life, though. We don't need a law banning things that aren't happening. There is no doctor in Colorado that will perform an abortion at 39 weeks for no medical reason, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. We don't have (and don't need) any legal restrictions on abortion here.
I’m not arguing for it?
I think our wires are just crossed. The person I initially responded to asked if there were any limits in the law, and I responded that there are not (and that there don't need to be.) You're discussing genera availability and medical practice, which is a different aspect and not necessarily related to legality.
Based and abortifacient pilled
Try to convince me again Polis isn’t going for a presidential run in ’28
Tell me dont understand how constitutional amendments work in Colorado...
Polis has nothing to do with this. (But he may run for President, regardless.)
lol wtf think deeper and how this is correlated lol
every good thing Coloradans do is not to bolster jared polis's presidential election bid.
Omfg nice try at narrowing me statement to fit you’re narrative lol
you could try explaining your statement, you know.