Summary
Colorado Amendment 79, the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative, would add Section 32 to Article II of the state’s constitution, reading:
The right to abortion is hereby recognized. Government shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion.
Colorado currently has no legal restrictions on abortion at any time during pregnancy, but a 1984 ballot initiative banned the use of state funds for abortion except in cases where the mother’s health is in danger.
Fiscal Impact
The state estimates no fiscal impact from this measure but notes that the removal of the 1984 provision in the constitution banning state funds for abortion may influence the decisions of future state legislatures.
Proponents’ Arguments
Arguments in favor of the amendment come from advocates of abortion rights and are targeted at pro-choice Colorado voters who oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs vs. Jackson decision. Pro-choice voters also typically oppose Colorado’s constitutional ban on state funds for abortion services, which was passed by voters in 1984 by a margin of 50.4% to 49.6% and upheld by a wider margin in 1988.
The measure has been endorsed almost unanimously by Colorado Democrats. At the time of this writing, both U.S. senators, all five Democratic U.S. representatives, and over 50 state Democratic legislators were listed as supporters. Support also comes from the Colorado Democratic Party, pro-choice organizations, the League of Women Voters, and the Colorado chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Proponents argue that while abortion rights are already a part of Colorado law, enshrining them in the state constitution would add another layer of protection. Furthermore, they view access to abortion services for state employees and others constrained by the existing ban on state funds as essential to guaranteeing all residents of the state the right to reproductive services.
In a statement, Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom, a group campaigning for passage, said that:
People enrolled in state health insurance plans—teachers, firefighters, and other state employees—should have access to abortion coverage. Coloradans should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion, without interference by politicians. Coloradans deserve the freedom to make personal, private healthcare decisions—and that right shouldn’t depend on the source of their health insurance or who is in office. A right without access is a right in name only.
Opponents’ Arguments
Pro-life advocacy groups have led opposition to the Colorado amendment. Opponents particularly emphasize the extension of protection to abortions at all times during a pregnancy, as well as the proposed reversal of the 1984 measure banning state funds for abortion.
Jean Mancini, president of March for Life Education and Defense, said:
“Tragically, abortion is legal through all three trimesters in Colorado. We need every pro-life Coloradan to stand up for the unborn and advocate for life-affirming policies that support both mom and baby, born and unborn.”
Brittany Vessely, a board member of Pro-Life Colorado, warned:
“The only provision keeping Colorado from being the number one destination for unrestricted abortion in the United States is the 1984 Colorado constitutional prohibition against the use of public funding for abortion.”
Opponents have also targeted moderate Democrats who may have opposed Dobbs but still favor some restrictions, for example, on late-term abortions. In a guest op-ed column for The Denver Post, founding members of Democrats for Life Colorado emphasized the permanence of an amendment, preventing what they view as needed changes now or in potential futures:
Initiative 79 would preclude the Colorado legislature from making any course corrections. They would be barred from a future choice to protect the viable fetus for social or economic reasons. They could not limit abortions for sex selection.
Discussion
Like several other state initiatives in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturning Roe vs. Wade, the Colorado ballot measure seeks to further protect abortion rights already written into law by enshrining them in the state constitution. In 2022 and 2023, voters in four states (California, Vermont, Michigan, and Ohio) passed similar measures, while voters in three other states (Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana) defeated measures that would have restricted abortion rights. Colorado is one of at least six states with abortion-related measures on the 2024 ballot.
Colorado ballot initiatives currently require 124,388 valid voter signatures (approximate 5% of voter turnout). The Colorado Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative had the required signatures approved by the Colorado secretary of state in May 2024. Concurrently, a proposed ballot initiative enshrining restrictions on abortion rights in the state constitution failed to gain the required signatures. The measure must be approved by 55% of Colorado voters.
Many ballot initiatives require the informed voter to familiarize themselves with details of fiscal policy and regulation that are not usually at the forefront of political debate, and on which voters may not have strong opinions when walking into the voting booth. The Colorado Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative is just the opposite. Most voters nationwide already have pro-choice or pro-life views—often firmly held—and will vote on the measure according to those views.
Colorado has been a frequent election-day battleground for abortion, with voters over the past several decades approving and rejecting measures associated with both the pro-choice and pro-life camps. Colorado’s long history with abortion ballot initiatives includes:
- A narrowly-passed 1984 (upheld in 1988) measure banning use of state funds for abortion in most cases, including the denial of abortion services to employees on state insurance plans and Medicaid;
- A parental-notification requirement passed by voters in 1998;
- A ban on “partial-birth” abortions rejected by voters the same year;
- Several more rejections on measures making abortion access more difficult, culminating in a 2020 rejection of a measure banning abortion after 24 weeks.
The biggest immediate change to Colorado law, should the current measure be passed, will be a lifting of the state funds ban. The measure will also add constitutional protections to the state’s current basic legal regime, which allows abortion and does not condition on how far the pregnancy has progressed.
Colorado’s pro-life voters will oppose the measure on all accounts, and are likely, as in other states, to vote against it in overwhelming numbers.
Pro-choice voters will heavily favor the extra protections on abortion rights overall, but may be divided to some degree on the amendment’s extension of protections to abortion rights after fetal viability. Polling typically shows many voters who identify as pro-choice and oppose Dobbs but also favor restrictions in some cases, including the length of the pregnancy and viability.
Some basic facts may add useful perspective. Over 99% of abortions occur before the 24th week of pregnancy, the most common estimate of fetal viability. The vast majority of the less than 1% of abortions happening after viability are motivated by the mother’s health or fetal anomalies. Many such procedures are medical emergencies where time is of the essence. Bans on late-term abortions, or protections requiring often-subjective circumstances can and in some instances have cost critically needed time.