Vote NO 67 Campaign Highlights Statewide Endorsements

For More Information:
Cara DeGette
Communications Director
720-979-4385

October 31, 2014
Press Release / For Immediate Release

Vote NO 67 Campaign Highlights Statewide Endorsements
Editorial Boards Not Fooled By Tricky Ballot Wording 

DENVER, CO – Eighteen newspapers have weighed in with Vote NO 67 editorials, warning readers in communities across Colorado of the dangerous consequences of Amendment 67 on the Nov. 4 ballot and urging a “NO” vote.

“We are pleased by the outpouring of strong support from so many respected news organizations, who are urging their communities to reject this latest effort to criminalize Colorado women and their doctors,” said Vote NO 67 Campaign Director Fofi Mendez. “It is critical that voters understand the tricky wording of Amendment 67, and Vote NO on this dangerous proposition.”

Amendment 67, on the Colorado ballot, would ban all abortions in Colorado, including in cases of rape, incest and when the health of the mother is at risk. It would restrict access to commonly used forms of birth control -- including the Pill and IUDs, and would ban in-vitro fertilization for infertile couples who are hoping to have a family.

The editorials, which have been published beginning in July, advise Coloradans to reject Amendment 67 – and have included warnings about the dangers of criminalizing women and doctors, to the likelihood of expensive litigation and government intrusion should the measure pass. 

The proponents of Amendment 67, Personhood USA and Colorado Right to Life, have not generated a single editorial in support from a Colorado newspaper. Among the excerpts of editorials opposing Amendment 67:

Excerpts from Editorials Opposing Amendment 67:

-- 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. (The Greeley Tribune, Oct. 3)

-- Amendment 67 is a radical measure that would undermine constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights. (The Denver Post, Oct. 2)

-- 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 New York Times, Oct. 13)

-- Vote “no,” again, on this repugnant and dangerous measure. Once again, this measure wastes Colorado voter’s time and proponents’ money. They can keep asking, but we won’t be fooled. (Aurora Sentinel, Sept. 30)

-- [These] 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. (Boulder Daily Camera, Oct. 22)

-- The wording could very likely expose the state to a cascade of expensive legal challenges that the taxpayers can ill afford. (The Pueblo Chieftain, Sept. 23)

-- Amendment 67 [would cause] a cascade of strange and disturbing legal consequences. (Colorado Springs Independent, Oct. 15)

-- Amendment 67 is wrong for women and wrong for the state of Colorado. (Steamboat Pilot & Today, Oct. 11)

-- Attempting to regulate morality via the ballot box rarely works, and this particular proposal is both ambiguous and unnecessary. (Wet Mountain Tribune, Oct. 9)

-- Fortunately, history shows that Colorado voters have no patience for such offensive measures. (The Durango Herald, Oct. 15)

-- Amendment 67 deserves to go down in flames. (Sky-Hi Daily News, Oct. 2)

In addition to editorial boards, the Vote NO 67 Campaign has secured formal endorsements from 75 organizations, ranging from the Colorado Bar Association to the Colorado Medical Society to the El Paso County Libertarian Party. 

For a complete list of newspaper, organization and individual endorsements, check out VoteNO67.com.

The Vote NO 67 Campaign is a broad-based, bipartisan coalition of doctors, nurses, other medical professionals, attorneys, civil libertarians, Latina, African-American, Asian-American organizations, and dozens of community groups.

###