Cutting Through the Word Games in the Colorado Abortion Debate
Neither Jared Polis nor Heidi Ganahl are being straight with voters.
Sigh. It would be pleasant if politicians made some effort to be honest and straightforward with voters. But we are talking about politicians, after all, and we are also talking about abortion, so we’ll have to take care. Unfortunately, neither Governor Jared Polis nor his Republican opponent Heidi Ganahl are being entirely straight with voters on this issue.
On November 2, Polis Tweeted: “Healthcare decisions should be made between Coloradans and their doctors, not their politicians. I signed a law to protect choice in Colorado—my opponent has vowed to rip it up.”
So far this is accurate. On April 4, Polis signed House Bill 2022–1279, the “Reproductive Health Equity Act.” And Ganahl publicly indicated she would have ripped it up instead (hat tip Kyle Clark).
The problem comes with text in an image that Polis included with his Tweet that claims Ganahl wants to “take away our right to abortion and contraception.”
If by “contraception” we mean something that literally prevents conception, such as a condom, then Polis’s claim is false. Ganahl has never said she wants to ban or restrict any form of contraception (narrowly understood). Indeed, she has explicitly stated, “I am NOT against contraception.” Polis is intentionally muddying the waters here. Just because Ganahl is against one bill that explicitly protects the right to use contraception, does not imply that Ganahl wants to ban contraception. Something is legal unless government explicitly prohibits it. I know that Polis is not an idiot; therefore, I also know that he is lying about this point. He should publicly correct the record.
9News claims that Polis’s claim about contraception is true, but on this point 9News is wrong. 9News pretends that we have a “right” to use contraception only if the bill that Polis signed remains intact, but that’s stupid. Our rights are not synonymous with what a state legislature explicitly recognizes.
Does that mean case closed? Not so fast. Many people use the term “contraception” to include not only things that literally prevent conception (such as condoms), but forms of birth control that that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus or even kill an implanted embryo. The “morning after pill” is a key example. The relevant question, then, is whether there are any forms of birth control that Ganahl would restrict, if she could.
As far as I know, Ganahl has not clearly stated her position on whether she opposes any form of birth control. When I asked Ganahl whether she’d restrict any “birth-control measures,” she dodged the question and instead addressed only “contraception,” which, as we’ve seen, is an ambiguous term (in that people can use it broadly or narrowly).
Let us pause here to note that some people think that hormonal birth control pills can prevent a zygote’s implantation in the uteran wall and should be banned for that reason. Others say hormonal birth control pills only prevent fertilization. Here’s what the FDA says (using the brand YAZ as an example):
COCs [combined estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives] lower the risk of becoming pregnant primarily by suppressing ovulation. Other possible mechanisms may include cervical mucus changes that inhibit sperm penetration and the endometrial changes that reduce the likelihood of implantation.
So is such hormonal birth control strictly a “contraceptive”? You tell me.
Here are Ganahl’s fuller remarks: “I will not substantially change CO abortion law without taking it to the people for a vote. I am NOT against contraception. I defend your civil liberty to marry whom you want.” (Let me pause to praise Ganahl for standing up for gay marriage. How far our politics have shifted on that issue!)
In an accompanying video, Ganahl says, “I believe abortion should be rare and safe, but not up to a baby’s birth date.” This implies that Ganahl does not wish to ban all abortions. But that hardly clarifies what restrictions on abortion Ganahl would support.
CPR reports that Ganahl “would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother or fetus.” In other words, she would ban the overwhelming majority of abortions. This seems to imply that Ganahl would ban at least the RU-486 abortion pill, a form of “birth control” but not a “contraceptive.”
Ganahl implies that Polis favors legal abortion “up to a baby’s birth date.” Is that true? This is a hotly debated issue. I think the answer is straightforwardly yes. Bill 1279 states, “A pregnant individual has a fundamental right to continue a pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion and to make decisions about how to exercise that right.” I don’t see anything in the bill qualifying that; so, by implication, abortion is legal at any point prior to birth. That seems like the most obvious reading of the bill.
Some people have claimed that the bill does not mean what it straightforwardly says. For example, Sara Swann claims for Politifact that it is false that the bill allows abortions “up until the moment of birth.” But, if you read her article, you will find that she offers exactly zero evidence backing up her claim. She correctly notes that late-term abortions are rare, but that does not support her point. She cites the standards of Roe v. Wade, which are now irrelevant.
Perhaps some people wish to make the practical point that no one would actually provide an abortion just before birth. I don’t know if that is the case or not. Regardless, that does not change what the bill states. If anyone has offered any compelling reason to doubt that the bill legalizes abortion until just before birth, I have not seen it.
My own position is that abortion should be legal in almost every case, perhaps with some highly delimited exceptions late in term.
To summarize, Polis, Ganahl, and 9News are all bullshitting the voters here. I am sporting my surprised face.