Vote NO 67 Guest Opinions

Colorado should say "no" to constitutional amendments
Oct. 25, 2014
By Jim Griesemer
Denver Post

Colorado does not need more amendments clogging the state's constitution. And there is, of course, an alternative. Statutory citizen initiatives or referenda — actions intended to amend Colorado statutes, not the constitution — can address nearly any topic that one might imagine.
Read the Full Article Here

 

There is no loophole for Amendment 67 to close
Oct. 22, 2014
Rep. Mike Foote
Colorado Hometown Weekly

Amendment 67 advocates decided their best chance of winning this year was to not mention any of the amendment's harsh consequences… proponents also fail to mention something else: Their proposed amendment claims to fill a criminal and civil code loophole that does not even exist. Contrary to their assertions, prosecutors now have the ability to charge and convict a drunk driver or anyone else of unlawfully causing a miscarriage.
Read the Full Article Here

 

A “no” vote on Amendment 67
Oct. 21, 2014
By Gov. Richard D. Lamm
Denver Post

I have never seen anything as deceptive or dangerous as Amendment 67…. Amendment 67, which pretends to protect pregnant women, is a monster and deserves an overwhelming “no” vote.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Personhood: Amdt. 67 is unnecessary and devious
Oct. 11, 2014

By Dr. Richard Grossman
Durango Herald

The people of Colorado have already passed a law to protect a fetus from “unlawful termination.” This amendment would increase governmental probing into and control of our personal lives. Reproduction should remain private!
Read the Full Article Here

 

League of Women Voters Colorado positions on State-wide Ballot Initiatives
Oct. 10, 2014
Estes Park Trail Gazette
The LWVCO has taken the position of OPPOSE on Amendment 67, Definition of Person and Child.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Letter: Plan bad for Colorado
Oct. 11, 2014
Letter to the Editor
The Pueblo Chieftain

I am a pro-choice Catholic from Colorado, and I agree with your editorial, “Amendment 67: No” (Wednesday, Sept. 24). I will be voting no on Amendment 67. It is an attempt to shame, judge and punish women who need reproductive health care, and to interfere with women’s conscience-based decisions and personal beliefs.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Colorado should reject personhood once again
Oct. 11, 2014
By Dottie Lamm
Denver Post

"The wording of the proposed amendment is deliberately deceptive," says Dignam, who joined at least 30 other young women and men on a hot September day to go door-to-door to educate voters. "It claims to protect women and their pregnancies, but instead it threatens our rights and endangers our health."
Read the Full Article Here

 

Don’t be fooled by Amendment 67
Oct. 12, 2014
By Susan B. Levy is Executive Director of the Boulder Valley Women's Health Center
Boulder Daily Camera

In the next few weeks, Colorado voters will have a chance to weigh in — for the third time — on a "personhood" amendment to our state constitution. While voters overwhelmingly rejected this measure in 2008 and 2010, the wording of this year's version is particularly deceptive. The amendment speaks of "protecting pregnant women and unborn children," but make no mistake — its intent is to end all legal abortion in our state.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Keep Mothers Out of Jail: Vote ‘No’ on Colorado’s ‘Personhood’ Measure
Oct. 7, 2014
By Cristina Aguilar, Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR) and Lynn Paltrow, National Advocates for Pregnant Women
RH Reality Check

This fall, the people of Colorado will have the opportunity to vote on Amendment 67. Though the measure’s proponents are marketing it as a way of bringing justice to a woman and the fetus she lost after a collision with a drunk driver, Amendment 67 is not a law designed to protect pregnant women. Rather, it is a total overhaul of Colorado’s criminal code that would give law enforcement officials grounds to potentially arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison women and mothers.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Amendment 67: Third try at ‘personhood’ goes way too far
By Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, Executive Director of the ACLU of Colorado
Special to The Denver Post

The cascade of potential consequences from defining a fetus, zygote, fertilized egg or frozen embryo as a legal person is mindboggling. It would allow the government and courts to violate the sanctity of doctor-patient privacy and allow government access to women’s private medical records.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Hello America, It's Me, Colorado
By Jen Caltrider
Huffington Post

Hello? Is anyone out there? It's me, Colorado
. I'm afraid no one will like me much after the election this November. Why? Because half of my population (that's over 2.6 million people, for those of you who like numbers) might lose a whole lot of their basic rights this November. That's when Coloradans will vote on something called Amendment 67.
Read The Full Article Here

 

Measure by Measure: The upcoming election gives state voters a voice on women’s rights
By Gaylynn Burroughs
Ms. Magazine

If Amendment 67 passes, all pregnant women’s bodies would become potential crime scenes. Supporters of the amendment claim that the change would protect pregnant women from crime—but we’ve heard that one before. The reality is that these laws are used to punish women, many who are struggling with drug dependency and mental-health issues and too often suffer tragic pregnancy outcomes.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Amendment 67: Third try at ‘personhood’ goes way too far
By Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, executive director of the ACLU of Colorado
Special to The Durango Herald

The cascade of potential consequences from defining a fetus, zygote, fertilized egg or frozen embryo as a legal person is mindboggling. It would allow the government and courts to violate the sanctity of doctor-patient privacy and allow government access to women’s private medical records.
Read the Full Article Here

 

Personhood amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing
By Dr. Nanette Santoro, OB/GYN
Special to The Denver Post

We all want to protect pregnant women, right?
Amendment 67 will not protect women — it will harm them. As an obstetrician gynecologist practicing for 34 years, it is hard to count all the ways Amendment 67 can rob adult, pregnant women from having control of their own bodies.
Read the Full Article Here