It is unbelievable that we’re even having this discussion:
[Colorado] Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, introduced the measure [Senate Bill 225] 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.”
Two Republicans wanted to change the word “pregnancy” to “contraception,” which would open the door to bans on all forms of birth control, such as the pill, which may act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus (as discussed).
Why are we even debating whether contraception is “medically acceptable?” It obviously is. Do we really need the state’s constitution to state as much? Should the constitution also point out that aspirin and eye glasses are “medically acceptable?” More to the point, would Boyd approve of an abortion ban that nevertheless allowed people to use birth control?
Boyd’s exercise is pointless. If the faith-based anti-abortion crowd wants to ban birth control that may prevent implantation, it will simply propose to change Boyd’s language. Boyd should focus her energies on defending the right to get an abortion, not playing semantic games around the margins.