In Colorado, a new ballot initiative known as Amendment 79 is making waves as it aims to reshape abortion policy by introducing taxpayer-funded abortions and establishing a constitutional right to abortion within the state. This initiative marks a significant shift from decades wherein abortion advocates maintained that their focus was primarily on providing services as a last resort for low-income mothers. During the 1980s and 1990s, the motto “safe, legal, and rare” summarized their stance. However, the push for public funding has persisted, demonstrating that mere legality was not sufficient for abortion proponents. Historical efforts, such as the introduction of Amendment 3 in 1984 which prohibited taxpayer funds for abortions, highlight the ongoing struggle between advocates for public funding and their opponents. Similarly, the Hyde Amendment enacted in 1977 restricted federal funding for abortions, showcasing a longstanding conflict surrounding the use of public funds.
Amendment 79 seeks to dismantle these historical constraints by fully permitting taxpayer money to cover abortion procedures, even for individuals traveling from outside Colorado specifically for this service. This legal maneuvering reflects a broader agenda within the abortion lobbying community to redefine abortion as an unequivocal right under the state’s constitution. As they push for the inclusion of abortion rights in this foundational document, abortion advocates aim to ensure that state Medicaid and various other public funds can be utilized for abortion services. Existing laws in Colorado further complicate matters, as they require private insurance to fund abortions without imposing any out-of-pocket costs on the individuals seeking abortions, thereby shifting the financial burden to all those contributing to health insurance premiums.
The narrative promoted by abortion lobbyists often draws on a libertarian perspective that advocates for minimal government interference in personal choices. However, this portrayal is misleading, as it primarily seeks to facilitate taxpayer-funded abortion services rather than truly reduce government control over individuals’ lives. Major abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, are vocal proponents of subsidized abortions, reflecting a systemic belief that increasing access requires public funding. This creates an intricate intertwining of healthcare with reproductive rights where abortion and contraception are deemed essential components of healthcare—essentially rebranding public expenditure as necessary for “universal healthcare” initiatives while overlooking the implications for the private sector and individual choice.
Further complicating the issue is Amendment 79’s potential effect on parental involvement laws. While Colorado currently has parent notification laws that restrict minors from seeking abortions without parental knowledge, the amendment suggests a constitutional clause that prohibits any governmental body from impeding a person’s right to an abortion. This change could lead the Colorado courts to view parental notification laws as impediments, ultimately overturning them. This scenario illustrates how abortion advocacy does not merely seek to promote individual rights but actively seeks to alter family dynamics by minimizing parental influence in a significant decision-making process for minors.
Moreover, amidst calls for deregulation, abortion activists exhibit selective libertarianism, advocating for fewer restrictions solely on abortion clinics. They may support easing burdens on businesses in this specific sector while advocating for more extensive regulatory frameworks in other areas. This duality resembles historical instances where proponents of certain social policies, like slavery, argued for freedom from federal oversight while simultaneously calling for stringent laws to protect their interests. Such inconsistencies highlight how abortion advocacy does not conform to a consistent libertarian ethos, focusing instead on leveraging state power to promote policies that align with their goals.
Ultimately, Amendment 79 represents a culmination of longstanding efforts by abortion advocates to secure public funding for abortion services while redefining abortion rights within the legal framework of Colorado’s constitution. The amendment does not aim to expand the legality of abortion but to deepen the symbiotic relationship between public funding and reproductive health services, foisting the financial responsibility onto taxpayers and health insurance contributors. The debate surrounding Amendment 79 encapsulates a broader conversation about the intersections of reproductive rights, public policy, and individual freedoms—raising critical questions about the role of government in personal healthcare decisions and the responsibilities assigned to taxpayers in supporting these initiatives.
