CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 17, 2016 10:25 AM UTC
16 Comments
Jill Stein 2016!!!!!!
I can't believe this but I agree with Moderatus. I feel like my fellow Democrats have sold their souls. Using NARAL and CFI's misleading headline on A69's sustainability. While CFI's headline that A69 isn't sustainable, if you actually read the report, it says the opposite. And it bases some assumptions on the premise that the state wouldn't get the full Medicaid funding. The amendment itself says that in order move forward, a waiver from the Fed's to get that money would be required.
And as far as NARAL goes, I'll throw this out on the abortion issue that NARAL claims to protect:
In 2008, only 12% of abortions nationwide were paid for by private insurance.
42% of abortions were performed on women in poverty. Among women with private health insurance, 63% paid out of pocket anyway, for various reasons.
Reference:
Jones, R. K., Finer, L. B., & Singh, S. (2010). Characteristics of US abortion patients, 2008. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Available: http://www.guttmacher. org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf.
According to the Kaiser Institute, the total cost of healthcare in Colorado is $32.105 billion.Roughly 15,000 abortions were performed in Colorado in 2011. At an average cost of about $500 for a surgical abortion, that means that the expenditure for abortions in Colorado was about $7.536 million (though actually less, because of numerous subsidies).Cost of abortions / total cost of healthcare = $7.536 million /$32,105,000 million = 0.000235 = 0.0235%
In words, the cost of abortions in Colorado is less than three-hundredths of one percent of all health care costs.
NARAL CO opposes expansion of accessible, affordable health care to every resident of Colorado over the possible Constitutional prohibition against 0.0235% of health expenditures in the state.
Thank you, NDEdna. Here's some food for thought – legal reasoning countering NARAL's assumptions that Coloradocare would restrict legal abortion:
"Amendment 69 has a long history in Colorado that goes back to at least Sen. Aguilar's SB 11-168. In 2013 two test initiatives (Initiatives 11 and 12) were submitted to the Title Board although never approved for circulation. Between 2013 and 2015 more work was done in order to develop Initiative 20/Amendment 69. As best I can discern at no point in time did NARAL or any other similar organization, in a developmental process that now goes back 5 years, advance the conflict between the program in Amendment 69 in its different forms and Amendment 3 as something that required stronger language.
This is important context when one considers their opposition as they have had ample opportunity to express their technical concern (as their statement notes they see a "potential" for an issue, not a definitive outcome) and yet have not chosen to do so until after the Amendment qualified for the ballot (the very final stage in the process.)
Concerning the legal aspects, as I noted on the main campaign page:
ColoradoCare is authorized to provide any health care benefits the Board of Trustees chooses to (Amendment 69, Section 6(b)).
As abortion services may only be provided by licensed physicians and are in certain limited circumstances provided as health care under Medicaid there is no question that abortion services are health care.
Later-enacted amendments in Colorado take precedence over previously enacted. Amendment 69 (2016) would be later enacted than Amendment 3 (1984). For further discussion of this please see the Colorado Health Foundation's legal analysis of Amendment 69 in which they examine this issue in the context of other conflicts.
As such, under Amendment 69 ColoradoCare can provide abortion services in any manner authorized by the Board of Trustees, regardless of Amendment 3's restrictions. Under this reasoning NARAL will never have a better chance of overturning Amendment 3's restrictions than Amendment 69.
As it turns out reasonable people can examine the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. However the absurdity of the suggestion that Sen. Aguilar, as a 2015 NARAL Pro-Choice Champion and owner of a 100% lifetime NARAL rating (from the report cards on their site), would help craft and advocate for a measure restricting abortion rights should speak for itself."
– analysis by Arn Menconi, Green Party candidate for Senate
Unicorns and sparkleponies don't cut it as a legal argument.
Thanks for telling Colorado women their health care should take a back seat to more important concerns. Here's the relevant part of NARAL’s statement:
One of the most disturbing arguments we have been offered, is we should remain neutral despite the severe policy issues surrounding this, and wait for it all to be worked out after the fact. This amounts to nothing more than "waiting our turn while the more important issues” are addressed.
Women – and women’s health care – have been asked to take the back seat more than once. It may be whether we include women in the research on signs of a heart attack, whether we include women as candidates at the top of the ballot, whether we include maternity insurance, or this time, whether we should simply wait to find out if presently available abortion insurance coverage will remain safe in Colorado.
My answer and NARAL’s answer to this, is a resounding NO.
What part of NARAL as an abortion rights organization to you not get? They oppose any and all limits on abortion access, whether it's parental consent or Amendment 69. It's what they do and who they are.
Not Dame Edna2 – Your figures are old but demonstrate the shallowness of NARAL's and ProgNow's analysis.
According to NARAL's own website the average cost of a first-trimester abortion is approximately $400. More costly abortions generally involve a risk to the mother's life which could be covered by ColoradoCare.
The average deductible for private health insurance has risen to just over $3,000. Which means that for most women, an abortion will have to be paid out of pocket.
Poor and working class women – who need the most financial assistance to even pay the modest cost for an abortion – are covered by Medicaid which is prohibited from paying for abortions.
I'm not sure what is going on with NARAL and ProgNow. I'm inclined to think that they are providing political cover for Bennet, Hickenlooper and other neo-liberal Democrats who are in the pockets of the private insurance and medical provider industries.
I expect they're coming out now to provide cover for state-level candidates, particularly more liberal ones, and Morgan (I think Gail would be happy coming out against this herself). Folks who might have a hard time saying they don't approve of universal healthcare when they've been calling for universal healthcare. They've decided to lift what they see as an obstacle to a state senate takeover/house hold.
I expect that's why you don't see the same folks opposing the oil and gas initiatives in terms of their placement in the state constitution, and might not have heard the same around Amendment 64 or Amendment 41 back in the day.
See?
Morgan Carroll, Trade Groups Come Out Against Amendment 69
The more liberal state House/Senate candidates should join the parade in due course.
How come there are two threads on the same topic?
One pre-press conference, one post-.
Advancing Colorado's Lockwood is yoicking it up in the Denver Business Journal. Sounds familiar – I think I just heard PCN say the exact same things. By the way, that study by the Colorado Health Institute saying that Coloradocare will run out of money – they're predicting that will happen in 2028. More than enough time to make adjustments. These same arguments were made for privatizing social security.
May I note that it's easy to be vaguely "for" national health reform, and for a single payer, "Medicare for All" system. It's also easy to trash anyone who comes out with an actual plan, in favor of some pie in the sky day when all of the Democrats suddenly disregard their hundreds of thousands in health insurance campaign contributions and miraculously do the right thing.
When legislators and "progressive activists" like ProgressNowColorado don't even have the common courtesy to communicate with the Senator who's been leading the fight on this issue in Colorado for the last five years, before they stab her in the back and undermine her work, it's hard to see how they will ever get anything done at all. They have flunked community organizing 101.
Bobster, I was marching in the street for abortion rights when you were playing Donkey Kong. Before Roe v Wade,in fact, as a radical teen. I do not need a man to lecture me on abortion rights, thanks. Are you one of those Manifists that like to lecture women about how to be a real feminist, and accuse us of promoting unicorns and sparkleponies, i;e. not being capable of reason and logic, if we happen to disagree?
What I posted was a reasoned, legal argument that NARAL is wrong about Coloradocare limiting abortion rights. The gist is that if voters pass amendment 69 in Colorado,
The other argument I've seen is that, because of the Hyde amendment (amendment 3), poor women flat out do not have access to abortion services paid for by the state, and haven't except in cases of threat to life, since 1984. Women under Obamacare face the same dilemma in various states; needing to purchase abortion insurance "riders" becaue the federal money in the exchanges won't buy abortion. Is this fair or right? Od course not. Women who have health insurance do not encounter this problem. Probably, if Coloradocare were implemented, money for abortion services would have to be separated out in the Federal stream, as it has in several states implementation of the ACA.
I also take Senator Aguilar, the author, expert, and moving force on this, at her word:
Irene Aguilar shared The Other 98%'s photo.
August 2 at 10:43pm ·
With ColoradoCare all women will have free birth control. This would further decrease unintended pregnancies in our state and abortions. Vote YES on Amendment 69. http://www.ColoradoCare.org
The Other 98%
Senator Aguilar is not going to be advocating for policy that harms women's reproductive choice. Or are you tagging her with the "sparkle ponies" line, too?
One more thing, cause I'm signing off for tonight:
Today's shindig was brought to you by the health insurance industry. Coloradans for Coloradans is an astroturf group that raised $1 million this year:
Nice bedfellows, ProgressNow and NARAL.
Again, you're spouting gibberish & missing the point. Colorado Constitution forbids public money paying for abortion. When health care is turned over to the state as a public entity, women who have coverage will lose it and have to pay for it themselves.
That means Amendment 69 isn't universal health care – and you yourself just admitted to that.
From NARAL CO's statement:
It has been suggested that abortion care services are not as frequent or as important as other forms of health care.
It has been suggested that access to other areas of reproductive women’s health care will eliminate the need to provide abortion care. Tell that to the woman with the life-threatening pregnancy, or the woman with four children who knows she is unable to care for a fifth or simply the woman trying to make healthy decisions for herself whose contraception failed her.
It has been suggested that we could just start a little fund on the side – perhaps gifts, grants and donations – to offset this loss of abortion coverage? This smacks of a ‘backseat’ strategy and it will not solve anything.
Abortion is a part of women’s health care and it needs to be included in any program that is universal.
Experts agree: the American Congress of Obstetrician Gynecologists, "Safe, legal abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care.”
Amendment 69 does not include it. It cannot add, hope for it or make us wait to fix it later.
Again, women are asked to take a back seat to 'more important' concerns on Amendment 69. Not just No, but Hell No.
So I'm sure you were just as outraged by the lack of funding for poor women's abortion services under Obamacare. 23 states restrict the abortion services available through the health exchanges. Colorado is one of them. Women often have to purchase abortion "riders" if they want insurance coverage. I'm sure you'll be expressing equal outrage at the ACA anytime now. Any. time.now.
Haven't you been outraged, and yelling, "Hell No!" since the state legislature approved the health exchanges in 2011? I'm sure if I search, I can find you and, of course, ProgressNowColorado, and Crisanta Duran, and the other legislators, all vowing never to fund an insurance exchange in Colorado unless it funded abortions for poor women and overturned the Hyde amendment. Funny. I can't seem to find those ringing declarations. Perhaps you'd like to correct the record now.
I want to state that I have been recognized by both NARAL and Planned Parenthood as a champion for women's reproductive rights, including abortion. I have had the privilege of voting down measures our Republican colleagues bring forward to try to limit our constitutional rights to abortion. I understand why NARAL, given its mission, would need to oppose Amendment 69. They are concerned that it rolls back insurance payment for abortion. That is a legitimate concern for an organization whose goal is to make access to abortion available at the same level as access to other medical care.
I would like to use a medical analogy for other progressives who are considering the potential conflict between amendment 69 and advances in abortion coverage – "risk- benefit analysis".
The potential benefit of Amendment 69 is that the 350,000 Coloradans who do not have insurance, the 700,000 Coloradans who are underinsured and the 1.3 million Coloradans on Medicaid who experience financial discrimination will all have unfettered access to not only reproductive care but full medical care. The estimated 535 people in Colorado who die each year due to lack of medical coverage will have a chance to live. All women will have access to long acting reversible contraceptives which decreased teenage pregnancy 40% and decreased abortion 42% in Colorado.
The potential risk is that amendment 69 will not be able to pay for abortions. Fortunately only 10,000 women accessed abortion in 2015 and nationally only 12% of women used their insurance to pay for abortion. Additionally, there is nothing to prevent progressive organizations from pursuing an initiative to remove the state restrictions on use of funds for abortion. And hopefully President Hillary Clinton will successfully remove the Hyde amendment and allow women on Medicaid access to abortion.
My choice is to save lives now with ColoradoCare AND pursue repeal of our outdated constitutional amendment restricting abortion. I am happy to introduce a referred measure to do this in the 2017 legislative session if Progress Now would like to join me.
ProgressNowColorado? Alan Franklin? Ian Silveri? Amy Runyon-Harms? Anyone willing to take the good Senator up on her offer to do away with the Hyde amendment?
OK, maybe that's too tough. We'll leave that one for the real warriors like Dr. Aguilar. But how about a simple apology for acting like a bunch of jerks? You know – when you refused to answer her phone calls, and called a press conference undermining five years of work for not only her, but for the 2400 volunteers, 150,000 petition signers, and thousands of small Colorado contributors to Coloradocare?