|
Senate saving safe sex?Bill would shield constitution from contraception-banning amendmentsPeter Marcus, DDN Staff WriterThursday, March 5, 2009 | |
The Senate yesterday backed a measure that would define contraception in the state constitution.
Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, introduced the measure to protect birth control from being banned by amendments to the constitution. Of most recent concern was a ballot initiative last year that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution. Coloradans overwhelmingly rejected the initiative.
Critics had pointed out that there could have been unintended consequences to the measure, such as banning birth control.
The theory was that because birth control alters the lining of the uterus where a fertilized egg would be implanted, routine birth control could have been made illegal.
Boyd’s measure would prevent birth control from being banned by amendments by defining contraceptive or contraception as a “medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy.”
“I’ve always been a strong supporter of women’s health, and a woman’s ability to choose their own health care, and to have the ability to control their reproductive life,” said Boyd. “And so by putting a definition in the state constitution, I think it allows other women that opportunity to have some control over their own choices, and over the kind of health care that they receive.”
Senate Bill 225 is co-sponsored with Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver. The Senate backed the measure on a voice vote yesterday and is expected today to send it to the House for consideration. Boyd said she is confident the measure will make its way past the House and to the governor for final approval because there was little opposition to the measure.
Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, opposed the measure because it defines contraception as preventing “pregnancy,” not “conception.” He was joined by Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, in opposition.
Definition debate
Harvey said that while he supports defining contraception, he would have rather the bill define it as preventing “conception.”
“There is a four- to seven-day period between conception, when an actual life is formed, and when there is implantation. And so I wanted to tighten it up to make sure that such a definition for a contraception was to prevent conception, because the current statute in Colorado law for pregnancy is 40 years old, and is not really descriptive of what we are talking about when we are talking about contraception,” he said.
Boyd, however, said she does not believe Harvey’s argument would affect the definition of contraception in the constitution.
“That’s not what this is about, because pregnancy is already defined in Colorado statute and it’s congruent with the medical definition of pregnancy,” said Boyd. “So, what they were arguing was not really under the purview of the bill. But they had the opportunity to make their speeches and I don’t think they convinced anybody.”
|
