News Law and Policy

Colorado Legislature Passes Ban on Local Interferences With Reproductive Health-Care Decisions

Jason Salzman

In what could be a national model for states aiming to curb local restrictions on abortion, legislation is moving through the Colorado legislature that would establish fundamental rights of privacy and freedom to make decisions about reproductive health.

In a 4-3 committee vote Thursday, lawmakers in Colorado passed legislation forbidding state and local government from interfering with reproductive health-care decisions or with access to reproductive health-care information based on “current evidence-based scientific data and medical consensus.”

At a pre-vote hearing before the Health and Human Services Committee Thursday, state Sen. Jeanne Nicholson (D-Gilpin) pointed to a growing list of local laws that restrict abortion or control abortion-related information and testified that her legislation, called the “Reproductive Health Freedom Act,” “is simply saying an individual has the right to make individual health care decisions.”

In response, Natalie Decker, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, testified that the measure should actually be called the “Colorado Abortion on Demand Act.”

Decker told lawmakers that the “deceptive” legislation is so “vague” and “broad” that it could “prohibit any restriction to abortion whatsoever.” She particularly objected that terms such as “interfere,” “evidence-based scientific data,” and “policy” were not defined in the short bill.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“Reproductive health care” is defined in the proposed law to mean “treatment, services, procedures, supplies, products, devices, or information related to human sexuality, contraception, pregnancy, abortion, or assisted reproduction.”

The legislation states that “every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive health care decisions.”

State Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud), who voted against the bill, repeatedly asked why the term “individual” wasn’t defined in the legislation and argued that the measure is “meaningless” without such a definition.

The proposed law, which passed in a party-line vote, “presumes an unborn human being has no rights,” Lundberg said during the hearing.

“What individuals are we protecting and which individuals are we exposing to destruction,” Lundberg asked.

If passed, the legislation “would be one of the first and most comprehensive laws to establish state protections for women’s private decisions about reproductive health, and, as such, it could be a model for other states,” said Karen Middleton, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. It could stop municipalities, for example, in some states from enacting anti-choice policies.

“While many anti-choice bills passed in other states are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, Colorado is taking the extra precaution to make sure that they don’t see the light of day,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a statement. “This measure is an important protection for women so that their access to comprehensive health care is not limited because of their zip code.”

The bill, which is expected to clear the legislature and be signed by pro-choice Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, has been taking a beating by social conservatives on talk radio.

“This is a clear play by the state legislature to bypass and subvert the will of the people,” said local talk show host Dan Caplis, who runs a small Denver law firm, to his audience on April 9.

“This is a bill that would stop the state from ‘interfering’ with any woman’s decision to have an abortion,” Caplis said on air. “So that could be used potentially to knock out parental notification [or] all these restrictions that Coloradans and other people around the country are now placing on abortion. I hope this is part of the inevitable march of the people of this great nation to saying, ‘Wait a second. We can’t be killing our kids before they’re born. That’s goofy.'”

In fact, abortion rights are popular in Colorado. A 2013 Project New America poll found that “62 percent of voters surveyed agree that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion based on her personal values and her doctor’s advice.” Just 9 percent of voters want abortion banned completely, according to the same poll.

In 2008 and 2010, voters here overwhelmingly rejected “personhood” amendments, which would have banned all abortion.

Abortion is legal in Colorado, and the state constitution prohibits public funding of abortion and mandates parental notification.

News Politics

Sen. Tim Kaine Focuses on Reproductive Rights Amid Clinton’s Looming Decision on Vice President

Ally Boguhn

Last week, the senator and former Virginia governor argued in favor of giving Planned Parenthood access to funding in order to fight Zika. "The uniform focus for members of Congress should be, 'Let's solve the problem,'" Kaine reportedly said at a meeting in Richmond, according to Roll Call.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) appears to be rebranding himself as a more staunch pro-choice advocate after news that the senator was one of at least three potential candidates being vetted by presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign to join her presidential ticket.

Last week, the senator and former Virginia governor argued in favor of giving Planned Parenthood access to funding in order to fight the Zika virus. “The uniform focus for members of Congress should be, ‘Let’s solve the problem,'” Kaine reportedly said at a meeting in Richmond, according to Roll Call. “That is [the] challenge right now between the Senate and House.”

Kaine went on to add that “Planned Parenthood is a primary health provider. This is really at the core of dealing with the population that has been most at risk of Zika,” he continued.

As Laura Bassett and Ryan Grim reported for the Huffington Post Tuesday, “now that Clinton … is vetting him for vice president, Kaine needs to bring his record more in line with hers” when it comes to reproductive rights. While on the campaign trail this election cycle, Clinton has repeatedly spoken out against restrictions on abortion access and funding—though she has stated that she still supports some restrictions, such as a ban on later abortions, as long as they have exceptions.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

In what is seemingly an effort to address the issue, as Bassett and Grim suggested, Kaine signed on last week as a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would prohibit states and the federal government from enacting restrictions on abortion that aren’t applied to comparable medical services. As previously reported by Rewire, the measure would effectively stop “TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion provider) laws, forced ultrasounds, waiting periods, or restrictions on medication abortion.” TRAP laws have led to unprecedented barriers in access to abortion care.

Just one day before endorsing the legislation, Kaine issued a statement explicitly expressing his support for abortion rights after the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of Texas’ omnibus anti-choice law HB 2.

“I applaud the Supreme Court for seeing the Texas law for what it is—an attempt to effectively ban abortion and undermine a woman’s right to make her own health care choices,” said Kaine in the press release. “This ruling is a major win for women and families across the country, as well as the fight to expand reproductive freedom for all.”

The Virginia senator went on to use the opportunity to frame himself as a defender of those rights during his tenure as governor of his state. “The Texas law is quite similar to arbitrary and unnecessary rules that were imposed on Virginia women after I left office as Governor,” said Kaine. “I’m proud that we were able to successfully fight off such ‘TRAP’ regulations during my time in state office. I have always believed these sort of rules are an unwarranted effort to deprive women of their constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy.”

Kaine also spoke out during his run for the Senate in 2012 when then-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) signed a law requiring those who seek abortions to undergo an ultrasound prior to receiving care, calling the law “bad for Virginia’s image, bad for Virginia’s businesses and bad for Virginia’s women.”

Kaine’s record on abortion has of late been a hot topic among those speculating he could be a contender for vice president on the Clinton ticket. While Kaine’s website says that he “support[s] the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions” and that he opposes efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, the senator recently spoke out about his personal opposition to abortion.

When host Chuck Todd asked Kaine during a recent interview on NBC’s Meet the Press about Kaine previously being “classified as a pro-life Democrat” while lieutenant governor of Virginia, Kaine described himself as a “traditional Catholic” who is “opposed to abortion.”

Kaine went on to affirm that he nonetheless still believed that the government should not intrude on the matter. “I deeply believe, and not just as a matter of politics, but even as a matter of morality, that matters about reproduction and intimacy and relationships and contraception are in the personal realm,” Kaine continued. “They’re moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves. And the last thing we need is government intruding into those personal decisions.”

As the Hill noted in a profile on Kaine’s abortion stance, as a senator Kaine has “a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood’s scorecard, and has consistently voted against measures like defunding Planned Parenthood and a ban on abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.”

While running for governor of Virginia in 2005, however, Kaine promised that if elected he would “work in good faith to reduce abortions” by enforcing Virginia’s “restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother.”

After taking office, Kaine supported some existing restrictions on abortion, such as Virginia’s parental consent law and a so-called informed consent law, which in 2008 he claimed gave “women information about a whole series of things, the health consequences, et cetera, and information about adoption.” In truth, the information such laws mandate giving out is often “irrelevant or misleading,” according to the the Guttmacher Institute.

In 2009 he also signed a measure that allowed the state to create “Choose Life” license plates and give a percentage of the proceeds to a crisis pregnancy network, though such organizations routinely lie to women to persuade them not to have an abortion.

Analysis Law and Policy

Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Law Reverberates Around the Country

Teddy Wilson

"To the extent that similar state laws have different provisions, like those that contain transfer agreements for example, those laws will need to be litigated individually to fall," said Jessica Mason Pieklo, vice president for law and the courts at Rewire. "The good news is that the Supreme Court's decision in Whole Woman's Health provides advocates with a solid foundation to begin those next fights."

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Monday two provisions in Texas’ anti-abortion omnibus law known as HB 2, and with that ruling the dominos began to fall. Similar anti-abortion laws in Wisconsin and Mississippi were blocked Tuesday by the Supreme Court, and Alabama’s attorney general announced he would drop an appeal to a legal challenge of a similar law.

However, significant obstacles remain to ensure access to reproductive health care throughout the country. A number of states have in place slightly different variations of the requirements struck down by the Court, which means it remains to be seen how lower courts may apply Monday’s ruling to restrictions that aren’t exactly like those included in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Monday’s decision is a significant victory for patients and providers, but it doesn’t guarantee that targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP laws) across the country will start to fall immediately, explained Jessica Mason Pieklo, vice president for law and the courts at Rewire.

“To the extent that similar state laws have different provisions, like those that contain transfer agreements for example, those laws will need to be litigated individually to fall,” Pieklo said. “The good news is that the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health provides advocates with a solid foundation to begin those next fights.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Dozens of states in recent years have passed TRAP laws, which single out abortion clinics and providers and subject them to regulations that are more stringent than those applied to clinics and physicians in other medical fields.

Many anti-abortion measures introduced around the country resemble copycat legislation drafted by Americans United for Life (AUL), an anti-choice organization that distributes proposals to state lawmakers as part of a strategy to flood state legislatures with anti-choice bills.

As Rewire previously reported, key players in the development of HB 2 were deeply connected to AUL and other conservative lobby groups.

The Supreme Court ruled in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that two TRAP provisions under HB 2 placed “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion,” and constituted “an undue burden on abortion access.”

Specifically, the Court struck down the requirement that physicians who provide abortion care must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the physician will provide abortion services. The Court also struck down the requirement that facilities providing abortions meet ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements, which involve prohibitively expensive medically unnecessary building renovations.

There are 16 states that have passed laws mandating that physicians who provide abortion care have admitting privileges or similar requirements. In addition to laws that have been struck down in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin, courts have also blocked similar laws in Louisiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

Laws requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges remain in effect in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

These laws typically require physicians have admitting privileges at a hospital near the facility where they provide abortion care. Some of these laws require that the hospitals provide OB-GYN services, and some require the physician to be board certified in OB-GYN medicine.

Other laws require that the hospital be no more than 30 miles from the facility where the abortion is performed, or have varied in defining the geographic boundary.

The law that was struck down in Mississippi required the admitting privileges be obtained at a “local hospital.” And Utah’s current law requires the hospital be within a “travel time of 15 minutes or less,” while Florida’s recently passed law requires the hospital be within a “reasonable proximity.”

There are 24 states that have passed laws requiring facilities in which surgical abortion services are performed to meet ambulatory surgical center standards that go beyond what is needed to ensure patient safety, and another 17 states require clinics that may only provide medication abortion to meet these same standards, according to the Guttmacher Institute.  

As Nick Bagley, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Law, told Vox, similar laws that have been passed in other states may face legal challenges in the wake of Whole Woman’s Health, but the details of those challenges may vary. “The Supreme Court only applies to Texas,” Bagley said. “Other states will have slightly different laws with slightly different facts to argue over.” 

Florida and Indiana TRAP Laws Set to Take Effect 

This year Florida passed its own Texas-style anti-choice omnibus law, which takes effect Friday. However, there are some differences between the two laws, including differences in the types of regulations of physicians who provide abortion care.

Clinics that offer abortion services in Florida will be required to have a written patient transfer agreement, which includes the transfer of the patient’s medical records, with a hospital within “reasonable proximity” to the facility. Physicians also will be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within “reasonable proximity” to their clinic.

The law also mandates annual inspections of all licensed abortion clinics, requires any medical facility in which abortions are performed to submit a monthly report, and prohibits state or local governments from entering into contracts with organizations that provide abortion services.

State Sen. Kelli Stargel (R-Lakeland), who voted for the bill, expressed concern after the senate vote that the bill’s language could become an issue in the courts. “Those clauses gave me concern that it would make it as though our intent was to close down all abortion clinics in the state,” Stargel told the Tampa Bay Times. “That was not the intent of this bill.”

After the Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday, Stargel reiterated that despite the bill’s similarities to the Texas law, it was not lawmakers intent to restrict access to abortion. “In Florida, we passed [the law] to safeguard women’s health, not to close abortion clinics,” Stargel said in a statement, reported the Florida Sun Sentinel.

Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, told the Miami Herald that the language of the bill may be different, but that Florida lawmakers had the same intent as Texas lawmakers: to shutter abortion clinics.

“It’s definitely different language,” said Goodhue. “But the intent is the same.”

Planned Parenthood has filed a lawsuit challenging the law, however, the organization is not challenging the admitting privileges requirement. 

Goodhue told the Florida Sun Sentinel that the organization will determine if there are grounds for other lawsuits in the future. “Right now, we’re seeking emergency relief on the other three provisions, but we’ll make sure that access to care is protected,” Goodhue said.

Gov Rick Scott (R), who signed the bill into law in March, said during a press conference Monday that his administration is reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision, reported the Miami Herald

Lawmakers in Indiana have in recent years passed multiple laws to restrict access to abortion, including laws that have provisions mandating that physicians have admitting privileges and other reporting requirements

Mike Fichter, president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, said in a statement that the Supreme Court showed “utter disregard for women’s health and safety,” and defended a similar law passed state lawmakers this year.

“We will be reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision thoroughly to see how this legal precedent could affect Indiana’s laws on admitting privileges and abortion facility building standards,” Fichter said. 

An omnibus abortion bill passed in 2011 contained multiple abortion restrictions, including a provision that a physician performing an abortion must have admitting privileges at a hospital located in the county where abortions are provided or a contiguous county.

The law also allowed for a physician to meet the requirement by entering into an agreement with a physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county.

Another similar law was passed by Indiana lawmakers this year, which made numerous changes to state laws, including requiring forced counseling and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients, creating regulations on physicians who provide abortion care, and banning fetal tissue donation that has led to the development of vaccines and other public health benefits

The law created a requirement that a written agreement between a physician performing an abortion and a physician who has written admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county be renewed annually.

The law also requires the state department of health to submit copies of admitting privileges and written agreements between physicians to other hospitals in the county and contiguous counties where abortions are performed.

Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed the bill into law in March, and it will go into effect on Friday.

Ali Slocum, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, told the Indianapolis Star that the organization does not have any immediate plans to challenge the law in court. “We are focused on what is currently in the pipeline. It is possible that the standard that the court set [Monday] could be used to challenge restrictions in other states,” Slocum said.

Efforts in State Legislatures to Repeal Laws

In some states lawmakers and advocacy groups may push to repeal similar laws following the Whole Woman’s Health decision.

Arizona lawmakers have passed several anti-choice laws in recent years and, like Texas and Florida lawmakers, justified those regulations as necessary to ensure the health and safety of women in the state.

Jodi Liggett, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Arizona, said in a statement that the Supreme Court made a “clear statement” that laws that restrict access to abortion care are unconstitutional.

“Arizona is a large state, with population spread across many rural areas. Laws that delay care, require travel over great distances and overnight stays certainly place real-life burdens on women seeking our care,” Liggett said.

Arizona Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs told the Arizona Republic that she will lead the effort in the legislature to repeal similar laws. “No woman or doctor should be punished for receiving or providing essential medical care,” Hobbs said. “These restrictions have never truly been about women’s health.”

However, repealing anti-choice laws in the GOP-dominated Arizona state legislature may prove difficult.

Republicans hold an 18-12 majority in the state senate and a 36-24 majority in the state house, and they have introduced dozens of anti-choice bills in the past several years. There have been seven laws to restrict access to abortion passed by Arizona lawmakers, including a law similar to Texas’ HB 2 which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges.

Those efforts have been spearhead by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative think tank that promotes anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and so-called religious freedom legislation.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision eliminated “common-sense safety precautions” for women seeking abortion care. “To give the abortion industry a blanket exemption from laws applicable to every other medical facility is unconscionable,” Herrod said.

Josh Kredit, general counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy, told the Arizona Republic that the Supreme Court’s decision suggest that abortion providers should be treated differently that other health-care providers.

“They are arguing they should be exempt from garden-variety health and safety regulations,” Kredit said. “It was clear that Texas, when it passed these, was focusing on protecting women, just like many of our laws that we pass in Arizona.”

Dr. Thomas M. Gellhaus, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement that the Court’s decision made it clear these laws do not improve the health and safety of patients seeking abortion. Said Gellhaus: “As the court found, it was clear that the ambulatory surgical center and admitting privileges requirements at the heart of Texas law HB 2 did not improve the safety of women, and served only as a barrier to women’s ability to access safe, legal abortion when needed.”

“Of course, this is not the end of the battle when it comes to abortion access,” Gellhaus added. “In dozens of states, women are living under laws that impede access in a variety of ways, for example banning certain abortion procedures, setting gestational limits, mandating that medically inaccurate information be provided to patients, and more. None of these have a basis in medicine, and all of them represent political interference in the patient/physician relationship. We will continue to oppose these laws and to promote safe access to legal abortion for our patients.”