Newspaper Endorsements

Rocky Mountain Collegian – NO on Amendment 67
Oct. 28, 2014

The results of its passage could criminalize women for taking control of their own bodies, and for this reason [the editorial] board does not support Amendment 67.
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

The Cortez Journal – Ballot Initiatives: Vote No on 67
Oct. 23, 2014
As with previous efforts in 2008 and 2010, this year’s Amendment 67 should be defeated.  The measure is neither needed nor appropriate. Vote no on Amendment 67.
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

Boulder Daily Camera - Personhood returns: Amendment 67 a terrible idea. Again.
Oct. 22, 2014
Personhood amendments are personhood amendments, whether their proponents are sparking fears of violence against mothers-to-be, or fears in the general population about out-of-control human cloning. The amendments are anti-women, anti-science and are designed with one goal in mind: To control women, and to make abortions illegal, and to strip them of their rights to make their own health care choices.
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

The Durango Herald -- No on 67
October 15, 2014
A reminder from the Durango Herald: "Fortunately, history shows that Colorado voters have no patience for such offensive measures."
Red the Full Endorsement Here

 

Loveland Reporter-Herald: We recommend a NO vote on Amendment 67
October 15, 2014

When in doubt, decline changes sought on ballot. We recommend a no vote on Amendment 67. Amendment 67 may limit medical choices available to women in Colorado.
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

Longmont Times-Call: We recommend a NO vote on Amendment 67
October 15, 2014

Amendment 67 may limit medical choices available to women in Colorado. It might limit the legality of abortions by requiring that wrongful death statutes include unborn human beings. There are existing legal protections for pregnant women because it is a crime now "to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause an unlawful termination of a woman's pregnancy, including vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy.”
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

Colorado Springs Independent: NO on Amendment 67
October 15, 2014

Similar measures were defeated in 2008 and 2010, each time with more than 70 percent of Coloradans voting against. Proponents will argue that this measure is different. But those differences are negligible, and as explained in a recent news story, they would not prevent Amendment 67 from causing a cascade of strange and disturbing legal consequences. Vote NO.
Read the Complete Endorsement

 

CU Independent: Why YOU need to vote this fall
October 14, 2014

Your ballot will soon be in the mail to you. Today the CU Independent reminds Colorado students -- and all voters for that matter -- why its so important to vote. Beyond the candidates, "you have proposed amendments such as Amendment 67, which could ultimately lead the way to outlawing abortion and common forms of birth control."
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

The New York Times: NO on Amendment 67
October 13, 2014

"Amendment 67 in Colorado is a modified but no less unconstitutional version of the preposterous “personhood” proposals Colorado voters overwhelmingly rejected in 2008 and 2010....The wording advertises the initiative as protecting women, when, in fact, it would do the opposite."
Read the Complete Editorial

 

Steamboat Today – Our View: Vote no on Amendment 67
Oct. 11, 2014
The Colorado Legislature adopted the Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act in 2013 … Under these laws, unlawful termination of a pregnancy is defined as a termination without the consent of the mother. Under those circumstances someone can be held criminally and civilly liable, and face very serious penalties.
Read the Complete Editorial Here

 

Estes Park Trail Gazette: League of Women Voters
October 10, 2014

The League of Women Voters Colorado has taken the position to OPPOSE Amendment 67 ... "Public policy in a pluralistic society must affirm the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices."
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

Wet Mountain Tribune: No On Amendment 67
Oct. 9, 2014
We certainly understand that many Coloradans are pro-life. But in today’s society, it must be up to a woman and her health care providers to make the difficult decisions surrounding the issue. Attempting to regulate morality via the ballot box rarely works, and this particular proposal is both ambiguous and unnecessary. Vote no on Amendment 67.
Read the Complete Editorial Here

 

Boulder Weekly: Vote Guide - Ballot Questions
October 9, 2015

Boulder Weekly endorsement: #VoteNO67#1: Legislature already fixed the "loophole." #2: Amendment 67 criminalizes women...
Read the Full Endorsement Here

 

Sky-Hi Daily News: Our view: Vote no on 67 and 68
Oct. 2, 2014
Amendment 67 deserves to go down in flames. It would effectively ban all abortions, even in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. It would also restrict access to some forms of contraception.
Read the Complete Editorial Here

 

Greeley Tribune – Vote NO on Amendment 67
October 3, 2014

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, there are a number of reasons to vote “no.” First, it will only further clutter the Colorado Constitution. More importantly, the measure is unclear and redundant ... Amendment [67] would open up a hornet’s nest of uncertainties around women’s health choices and doctor-patient confidentiality. Such ambiguities have no place in our constitution.
Read the Complete Endorsement

 

The Denver Post: Once again, "no" on Colorado personhood measure
Oct. 2, 2014

Amendment 67 is a radical measure that would undermine constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights.
Voters should turn down Amendment 67.
Read the Complete Editorial Here

 

Aurora Sentinel Editorial: Don’t Be Fooled By End Run On Medical Rights And Privacy
Sept. 30, 2014
Make no mistake, this measure has nothing to do with protecting the rights or health of women, and this has everything to do with usurping the medical privacy guarantees for women created by the U.S. Supreme Court. Like the warning to truckers coming down from the Colorado mountains, thinking that they’re in the clear even though treacherous curves await — don’t be fooled on Amendment 67, Colorado.
Read the Complete Endorsement

 

The Pueblo Chieftain: NO on Amendment 67
In the past, Coloradans have rejected personhood amendments. This latest measure would be more restrictive than its predecessors due to its undefined language. And the wording could very likely expose the state to a cascade of expensive legal challenges that the taxpayers can ill afford.
Read The Full Editorial Here

 

The Durango Herald -- Amendment 67 is an unnecessary overreach and wrong for Colorado
… What Amendment 67 fails to do is define “unborn human beings.” That omission means that any potential future human being – from fertilized egg on – would be protected from any crime, including wrongful death. Of course, if any potential life is a person, any loss of that life potentially is wrongful – for example, birth control that prevents implantation, emergency contraception or abortion. Restricting women’s access to these medical treatments under threat of prosecution …would create an incredibly intrusive and restrictive environment with regard to women’s health in Colorado.
Read The Full Editorial Here