Saturday, October 8, 2016

NARAL Takes The Coward's Approach on Amendment 69.

{edited 10/9/16 evening}
Excuse the aggressive title, but I wanted to get your attention.  This is an open letter to NARAL ProChoice Colorado and anyone else with fears concerning the potential of Amendment 69 and ColoradoCare resulting in the banning of funding for abortions and limited woman's reproductive health care rights.  This fear is disputed by ColoradoCare legal experts. 

I also want to share an under-appreciated aspect of the ProLife/ProChoice argument.  

This is followed by ColoradoCare’s response to ProChoice fears and quotes from an article by John Frank of the Denver Post.  I hope some find it useful.  Feel free to copy and improve.

{Also see: Passing Amendment 69 - Why the Fear? Embrace the Challenge! }

The “Right To Life" movement doesn't represent all of our society.  It doesn't even represent the majority.  It does represent a self-certain faith-based hostility towards a woman's reproductive rights.  It has been successful in forcing their will onto our laws.  

The lawyers of ColoradoCare have explained their legal argument that passing Amendment 69 will supersede the 1984 Article V, section 50 provision that stipulates the ban on public funds.

If it goes to court?  So be it.  The lawyers can get at it and address the legal arguments and this time resoundingly reject the validity of the 1984 ban, thus resolving the issue.

Consider for a moment, a fetus in a woman is a potential human.  It is a life form that has many challenges and hurdles to overcome before it can take on the mantle of human being.  {Do you know that nature, or God, allows a big percentage of conceptions to result in spontaneous abortions as it is.  So, who’s to say? }

What we should say, acknowledge and demand is the recognition that the mother is supremely her own life and body!  She is the host to that potential human being.  She possesses an awareness and love for that little life developing inside of her beyond what any outsider can appreciate.

There are times when a pregnancy will do fundamental harm to a woman’s life and wellbeing.  She, NOT outsiders with an ideological ax to grind, along with her loved ones and caregivers are best suited to evaluate the situation and support the woman in making the appropriate choices no matter how heartbreaking.  It is not society’s concern beyond allowing the woman to do the best she can, given her circumstances.

A woman has a right to self-defense and these bans on abortion are an affront to that right of self-defense, a fundamental American Right.  

Have any sharp lawyers enunciated such a truth in a legalistic/legislative manner? 

If ColoradoCare, Amendment 69 passes it will show us that there is a genuine will to develop a full spectrum patient responsive health care system here in our own Colorado.  One that will of necessity include access to family planning and safe abortions.  

ColoradoCare’s lawyers assure us that Amendment 69 would supersede 1984’s Article V, section 50 which bans publicly funded abortion services in the Colorado Constitution.

Amendment 69, 2016, will supersede Article V, section 50, of the Colorado Constitution.  Any Right-Wing lawsuit should be embraced as the opportunity to finally fix the malicious act of refusing to fund woman's reproductive medical needs including abortions.

Laws are made to be changed, all it takes is a solid well organized Will of the People.  ColoradoCare provides this framework for finally creating a responsive realistic health care system in Colorado.

I dare say ColoradoCare is the best choice for ProChoice voters who would want to see fundamental lasting improvement in woman’s health care and reproductive rights.

The “Right To Life” movement is a fundamentally self-certain invasive, absolutist effort, hiding behind pretty words, but in reality more intent on suppression than helping woman get through life’s crises.

Clashing with that won’t succeed.

Redefining the argument, that could succeed.

Support ColoradoCare ~ Vote Yes on Amendment 69


Would Amendment 69 limit access to abortion in Colorado?

By JOHN FRANK  |  June 24, 2016
. . .
Under NARAL’s legal interpretation, a constitutional ban on using “public funds” for abortion approved by voters in 1984 would prohibit Colorado Care from covering the procedure because it would be a political subdivision of the state. …

ColoradoCareYES, the group behind Amendment 69, disputes NARAL Colorado’s legal interpretation.

Ralph Ogden, the group’s attorney, argues in a memorandum that if the amendment is approved by voters in November, it would supersede prior amendments — including the 1984 ban on publicly funded abortion services in Article V, section 50 of the Colorado Constitution.

“The general rule is that where an apparent conflict exists between two statutes, the courts must attempt to harmonize them to effectuate the intent of the general assembly,” the memo reads. “If the two cannot be harmonized, the statute enacted last in time controls.” …

No comments:

Post a Comment