Colorado Abortion Foes Are Confident That the Days of Roe v. Wade Are Numbered

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

A rally held Monday by Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute celebrated what anti-abortion advocates hope could be the end of the constitutional right to an abortion as the U.S. Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments in a case that directly challenges Roe v. Wade.

The state’s most prominent abortion opponents gathered on the eve the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization hearing, which concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy, well before the viability standard established in Roe.

Among these abortion opponents was an attitude of confidence that the conservative majority on the court would rule in favor of Mississippi and strike a devastating blow to Roe.

“We must labor to not only make abortion illegal, but unthinkable,” said Centennial Institute director Jeff Hunt. “Our work is just beginning.”

Hunt compared the fight against abortion to the fight against slavery, something he’s done in the past.

“William Wilberforce is kind of a patron saint to me,” Hunt said. “I’ve modeled my life and my work in public policy after him. If you don’t know, he and a small group of people in London brought about the end of the slave trade in England.”

Hunt and the Centennial Institute have over the past several months joined the conservative scourge against critical race theory. A panel at the Centennial Institute’s Western Conservative Summit in July was titled, “The Plot to Change America: How Critical Race Theory and Identity Politics are Dividing U.S.

Hunt emphasized that part of CCU’s mission is to “impact culture in support of the sanctity of life” and “train up students to embrace the sanctity of life.”

“I think a U.S. Supreme Court justice will one day come from Colorado Christian University and a president of the United States will one day come from this campus,” Hunt said. “This is the vision.”

Colorado Right to Life president Dr. Biff Gore appeared confident that the court would overrule Roe: “Abortion is unconstitutional because a person is a person no matter how small.”

Gore led the event attendees in prayer, saying, “I pray that you would go into that courtroom and be with those lawyers, the people on the side of Dobbs. I pray that the people on the other side, that their arguments would be as idiotic as the people on the other side of [Kyle] Rittenhouse.”

Gore also appeared to compare vaccines to cannibalism, saying, “The majority of states were pro-life until the federal government stuck their nose in it just like this federal government is sticking their nose in all kinds of mandates and then cannibalizing us by using aborted fetal tissue in some of the treatments that they are pushing on us.”

There is no aborted fetal tissue in any of the COVID-19 vaccines. Cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue have been used to manufacture vaccines for decades, including those against rubella, chickenpox, and hepatitis A, in addition to drugs against diseases like hemophilia and arthritis. Cell lines are not aborted fetal tissue, as some anti-abortion and anti-vaccine advocates falsely claim. Fetal cell lines are grown in labs and descend from cells taken from two abortions that occurred decades ago, and the cell lines that are currently used in the development of certain vaccines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue.

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine used fetal cell structures in its development and production. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines did not.

Autumn Stroup of the Colorado-based Family Policy Alliance also spoke at the event. The Family Policy Alliance is an anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ religious lobbying group and an affiliate of Focus on the Family. Stroup urged the crowd to prepare for a post-Roe era.

“After Roe is when the real work begins,” she said, emphasizing that without Roe, states have the power to decide when and how to ban abortion. “Colorado is one of the worst states and we have a lot of work to do to prepare after Roe.”

“We are approaching a new era,” she said. “For decades, Roe has been a black cloud over America. Its days are numbered. We know that.”

Other event speakers included President of Democrats for Life of Colorado Tom Perille, Students for Life’s Lauren Castillo, Republican National Committeeman Randy Corporon, Alternatives Pregnancy Center’s Lori Ann Satriano Arfsten, Focus on the Family’s Nicole Hunt, and Catholic Charities’ Lynn Grandon, among others.

The court heard arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson case Wednesday morning, and a decision is expected sometime next year. On Nov. 1, the court heard arguments in two cases concerning Texas Senate Bill 8, a near-total ban on abortion that has been in effect for three months now. The court has not yet issued a ruling.

The outcomes of all of these cases will drastically reshape the landscape of abortion access in the U.S., not just in Mississippi and Texas. Ruling in favor of Texas or Mississippi gives other conservative states the green light to pass similar abortion bans and restrictions, something around half of U.S. states appear poised to do. If the court overrules Roe entirely, 12 states have laws on the books that would ban abortion immediately.

Colorado has better access to abortion and fewer restrictions than most states, and due to Democrats’ control of both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s mansion, the right to abortion is relatively safe. Colorado does not, however, have a law or constitutional amendment that affirms the right to abortion.

35 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Once Roe and Casey are overturned; if such happens; the next goal for these individuals will be national "personhood." Despite personhood initiatives never coming close to winning in various states; including arch-conservative Mississippi; these religious zealots demand the right to impose their narrow religious views on all citizens and in all bedrooms.

    "Personhood" will mean the banning of most forms of birth control.

  2. Does Colorado have any zombie anti-abortion laws?

    • kwtree says:

      No zombies, but de facto “ No paying for abortion with Medicaid funds”, which was used to derail support for a public health option, and would likely still come into play to mandate that insurance companies offer separate “Abortion / contraception rider” coverage.

      Colorado, like most states, also allows Catholic-controlled hospital chains *  to deny coverage or treatment for abortion, contraception or “medical aid  in dying” care. All these are legal statewide, but insurance and hospitals can de-facto deny care. 

      * This includes CHI – controlled Centura, Exempla, Advent, and any hospital with “Saint” in the name. The only hospital or insurance plans offering abortion, contraception, and medical aid in dying care are Kaiser, Humana, and Blue Cross. 

    • notaskinnycook says:

      Colorado was the first state to expressly permit it, in 1969. As many times as "eggs are people, too" initiatives have failed here, I'm not particularly worried. In fact, there will probably be a need for some new facilities as women from border states flock here for care.  

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        Complacency is the enemy of sanity, Cook. If Roe and Casey go away, or get emasculated, It could be expected that the Catholic Church, among other religious groups, will try to further restrict access in Colorado to both abortion and contraception. In the mid-1960s, the most fervent opponent of Griswold v. Connecticut, the original SCOTUS case on birth control, was the Church. It hasn’t changed its position.

  3. RepealAndReplace says:

    And after Susan "Ditzy Dip Shit" Collins assured us that Brett Kavanaugh respected precedent, and after the Denver Post solemnly told us that abortion rights were safe if Cory Gardner replace the dour and reproductive choice-obsessed Mark Udall.

  4. Negev says:

    Welcome to the world of "reasonable restriction". It is a difficult phrase to construe.  

    • kwtree says:

      How about "reasonable restrictions" on firearms to include smart locks, gun safes, liability for parents whose children kill with guns, and insuring guns like cars?

      These could have saved four lives in Michigan yesterday.

      • Negev says:

        Yeah, they got something like that:

        You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored. As such, a trigger lock, gun case or other device designed to prevent unauthorized access to a firearm is strongly recommended.

        How many weeks is "reasonable" on abortion in your opinion? 


        • kwtree says:

          "Strongly recommended" does not have the force of law. The Michigan shooter's father bought the 9mm last Friday. Tuesday, sonny took it to school and killed 4 people.  The law you cited only gives grounds for civil lawsuit.

          22 weeks. (As Roe v Wade specifies)

          But before this thread turns into yet another Gun Boasting thread in which various Polsters compare merits and prowess on various guns,  or one in which we must play a tiny violin to mourn the loss of your freedom to use your preferred magazine, model, or caliber, I'd like to remember the 300,000 or so American women who will be forced to bear children they can't afford or don't want in the reality your ilk are forcing on us.


          • Negev says:

            Cry me a river mamma I am far more pro choice than you so don't go bundling me with that "ilk".  This is about reasonable restriction and who determines it. I would prefer those most affected by the restrictions to be in the lead of determining what those restrictions may be, so right wing pro life white men would be my last choice in crafting abortion laws, just like left wing anti gun "ilk" crafting gun laws does not sit well with those affected. Funny how when the tables turn you feel somehow wronged by the process you stand by when it is in your favor. Reap what you sow. 

            And it's "unlawfully stored"….


            • kwtree says:

              You're pro-choice on abortion? Since when?

              • Negev says:

                Since forever when have I ever stated otherwise? My mother worked for Planned Parenthood for decades and as a child I was put in the recovery room waiting for my mom to get off work. I always wondered why these women would come in and look at my 7 year old face and break down crying I had no idea till I was 12 or so. I have seen the worst moments in a young womans life before anyone and can tell you from many, many experiences that nobody likes abortion. Nobody. It is however the right of a woman to make her own choices with her body and no one, especially a man, has any right to tell her different. Period. 

                But make no mistake, there is no verbiage in the constitution that says a womans right to abortion "shall not be infringed" so I take a certain grim glee in watching you struggle with your right of choice when you berate me for doing the same with mine.  

                • kwtree says:

                  Why did you so fervently oppose and lobby against the HB19-1032 Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education bill, which would have mandated information on “all outcomes” of pregnancy if the Comprehensive Sexuality course was taught at all. It also prohibited abstinence-only education.

                  Why not give young people tools to make informed choices about their own bodies? You’d certainly do that about guns.

                  I also wonder if people in your party know what your thinking is on abortion. Don’t worry, I’m not going to out you here or to them – have 0 interest in that. But surely you know they’d reject you….

                  And yes, I do know that technically, you’re unaffiliated.

                  • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                    Why does it now matter that Negev may have lobbied against this bill? It was introduced with bi-partisan support; was passed; and signed into law. Also, I don't think guns and womens' reproductive rights should be considered in the same breath. They are somewhat different issues.

                    At least for me, Roe has strong standing in the Constitution, with an implied right to privacy found in the 3rd, 4th, and 14th amendments. For those who say there is no provision directly in the Constitution for abortion, neither is there a direct provision for a "space force (NASA)." 

                    • Voyageur says:

                      The fact that you disagree with Negev on guns doesn't mean you can't cooperate on abortion, tree.  The history of the Popular Front in the 30s is instructive.

                      I know a lot of gunnies and many are moderate to liberal on subjects other than firearms.  The Federalist goons are measuring American women for those red robes.   I'd suggest you take your allies where you find them.


                    • kwtree says:

                      To V: I doubt Negev’s sincerity on reproductive rights. . For one thing, every darn thread or comment about abortion, he’s there moaning about “But the gunzzzzz….don’t take my gunzzzz away. If you infringe my right to carry, it’s just like being forced to give birth and care for a child for the next 20 years.”

                      Willing to hijack abortion threads, but not willing to answer repeated simple questions about which laws would have prevented this most recent school shooting in Michigan. 


                    • Voyageur says:

                      Could it be that he actually disagrees with you about guns?  


                    • Diogenesdemar says:

                      Kwtree: I wouldn’t let what Negev is paid to lobby for, or against, color your assumptions about his personal beliefs . . .

                      . . . bills gotta’ be paid! (. . . and that sold soul doesn’t bring anywhere near as much as it used to.)

                  • Negev says:

                    Um, I did not oppose that bill. Please reference your source of that statement.

                    Tell whoever you want. If you are pro choice and anti gun, you are a hypocrite. If you are pro gun and anti choice, you too, are a hypocrite. The rights protected by the Constitution are not a la carte. I would however urge you to review the document and point me to the exact verbiage protecting your right to an abortion and compare it to the verbiage on the right to bear arms. As a poetry teacher I would expect you to find some rhyme to the reason… a matter of fact, if you don’t mind sharing with us all where exactly in the Constitution is the right to an abortion protected?

                    And yes, I do know that technically, it’s not there.

                    Good luck with your battle. I hope you win. 



                    Sorry CHB my post was flagged from last night and I did not see your post before resending this morning so I was not responding your your post… however I do like your use of personal opinion and implied rights…not real sure where your going with that NASA thing but …. hey more power to ya.

                    • kwtree says:

                      Can’t source it without outing you, which I won’t do. But…How about now? You all in for teen sex ed and tolerance for adolescent gender questioning? Factual birth control information? Hmmmm…

                      You know perfectly well that the SCOTUS decision on Roe v Wade was grounded in the individual’s rights to privacy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

                      They all still apply.

                      Great origin story on your support for reproductive rights, by the way. I believed it for about a minute. I can imagine 7 year old Negev holding the hand of a sobbing teen, and realizing, “This makes me want to make sure that, 50 years from now,  everyone who wants a full auto handgun with 100 round magazine can get one with no questions asked.”


  5. Gilpin Guy says:

    This looks like kicking the hornets nest for state Republicans and to think it came about because of the double dealing of McConnell.  Hiedi’s is going to have to not answer a lot more “divisive” questions.

  6. Negev says:

    Mamma, you can't source it because the person you would "out" is not me. Show me one place where I commented on that bill, positive or negative. 

    I am all in for teen sex ed/tolorance and gender questioning, and of course factual birth control information. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

    Of course our beloved Scalia reminds us that no right is abosolute, so I while I begrudgingly accept that I will be reasonalby restricted to 15 rounds, perhaps you would consider 15 weeks a reasonable compromise. I've been told if I can hit my target with 15 rounds I should not own a gun, why can't you figure out if you want to terminate a pregnancy in 15 weeks? 

    I can come up with way better stories than the one you fail to believe, but I would be willing to bet money that my family started, managed, or participated in the expansion of the location you got your abortion at. I used sample birth control pills in my toy musket as a primer cap because when you fired it the pill would explode and look like smoke. I drove a portable mamogram van when I was 16. I think I still have a set of  forceps in my toolbox. My very existence and ecconomic well being was based on the business of abortion, and let me tell you, abortion is just a business. Nothing more. 

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Kiwi-Tree (a/k/a La Pomposa) sees the ideological world as a binary choice:  you are either with her on everything or you are against her. The idea that some of us folks can pick and choose positions on different issues is alien to her.

      Frankly, I have to admire the commitment to principles for many libertarians:  freedom means freedom whether it is in my wallet and bank accounts, selection of my child’s school, my bedroom, my gun rack, or my OB/GYN’s office.

      I particularly liked her comment about questioning your sincerity on the issue of reproductive choice. Can she read minds? Did she look into your eyes, Negev, and see your soul?

    • kwtree says:

      It’s hard to be a libertarian without a life, R&R. Those 4 dead kids in Michigan had no “right to life”, apparently, or the shooter’s father’s right to carry “uninfringed” superseded theirs.

      As the insane Robert Dear’s right to wield his gun took precedence over the lives of staffers at the PP clinic in the Springs where Negev ‘s  mother may have worked. 

      And Negev still won’t answer any questions about the Michigan shooting, and which laws could have prevented that tragedy… preferring to hijack a thread about abortion instead. 

      • Voyageur says:

        Michigan already has several laws that would have stopped this shooting.  In practice, they can only be enforced after the fact.

        Only Australian-style mass confiscation can prevent all gun violence. Is that what you want?

        Since you raised the topic of abortion, it may be worth noting that the chance of a human life from the age of conception to 18 years being terminated is about 5,000 times higher from abortion than school shootings.  We run about one million abortions a year, less than 200 school shootings.

        Tree and her followers are willing to forestall a million lives a year to protect women’s freedom.  Negev is willing to lose a couple hundred kids a year to protect gun rights.

        I don’t think that makes either one an extremist.

  7. Negev says:

    My original post said nothing of guns mamma so if anyone hijacked a thread it was you, but if you need answers to your questions here ya go: Trigger locks and safe storage make good sense. Most responsible gun owners do that volentarily, including myself. If you fail to securely store a firearm and it is used by your child to kill another human being, your should be held liable. This parent will be, as per law. If that kid could not gain access to a weapon the victims would still be alive. We can agree on that. You go a bit futher and suggest that if guns were insured, like cars, this would have been prevented. I ask you how? My liability insurance on my vehicle does not prevent me from driving drunk or running over somebody, so how does that work in your mind? 

    The right to bear arms does not give you the right to shoot people, just like the right to abortion does not give you the right to kill babies. I am just guessing here but if you are for a 22 week limit as per Roe v Wade, I can only assume that you have some moral adversity to 3rd term abortions? 23 weeks? When or how do you draw the line between reasonable window to abort and infanticide?  

    For every Rober Dear there is a Kermit Gosnell

    So perhaps you can answer my questions now and  we can come to a solution. As it stands now you seem buthurt that your right to an abortion is being restricted in a similar fashion as my right to bear arms was, and that you somehow are more entitled to the protections of (what amendment was that?) than I was on the 2nd. 



    • Voyageur says:

      Guns don’t kill people.  Anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers kill people.

    • kwtree says:

      Thank you for finally answering the questions about the Michigan laws. Yes, locking the gun up (smart lock and / or locked safe to which kid did not have access) would have prevented these killings.

      Insuring guns like cars would require  training and licensure, as drivers must  before they get behind the wheel independently. It would also establish a pool of money to be accessed if/ when the gun harms someone or something. It should cost extra if the gun owner has prior offenses. 

      For example, someone who "open carries" and points his weapon at a protester, in threat as Kyle Rittenhouse did, even disregarding his age and the whole crossing-state-lines thing, would probably make him uninsureable. But if he had had to obtain insurance in order to legally take possession of his Ar15, at least his victims now would have those funds to call on, instead of having to fund their civil lawsuits out of pocket.

      I'll just disregard your whole "Criminals disobey laws, so laws don't work" schtick. You and everybody know that's nonsense.

      22 week limit on abortion? People who need late term abortions generally need it because of severe health concerns for the mother or non-viability of the fetus. Colorado will still be one of the few places in the country people can access that legal procedure, and I support that.

      I'll believe you are pro-choice when I see you respond to a pro-choice thread with something other than, "Yeah, but let's talk about restrictions on guns."


      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        “Colorado will still be one of the few places in the country people can access that legal procedure (late term abortion)…..” On this, tree, you and I agree. As long as Colorado citizens continue to stand behind; and stand up for; doctors willing to perform said procedures.

        The late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) said it best about abortion: “it’s not a conservative issue. It’s a matter between a woman and her doctor.”

        15 weeks; 22 weeks; it’s all bullshit. Trust a woman to make her own decisions on what is best for her and the pregnancy.

      • Negev says:

        Perhaps the best manner in which to respond to your insurance suggestion would be is do you think a woman should be required to carry health insurance to get an abortion? While I am all for training with firearms and suggest everyone who ones one get some, I question whether your would require a woman to obtain proper licensing to exercise her right to abortion. I must have missed the "right to drive" amendment… it must be just next to the right to abortion.

        And your Rittenhouse blather is phenomenal but proven false in a court of law.

        Not sure where your getting the criminals disobey laws quote in this thread, but getting used to you making shit up.

        And again, I only responded to your tirade on guns after welcoming you to the world of reasonable restriction. Not sure how this all pans out but I will reserve my tiny violin for when you're sterilizing coat hangers in five points wondering where your rights went….

        • kwtree says:

          Um, buddy. …in most places, a woman is required to carry a health insurance rider in order to get abortion or contraception.  (Outside of Planned Parenthood or specialty clinics – and chances are, her insurance won't cover this out of network care).

          This is because in Colorado and elsewhere, most hospital chains that insurors refer to are owned and run by the Catholic Health Initiatives, which does not allow member hospitals to provide abortion, contraception, or medical aid in dying. 

          So in Colorado, that's Centura, Exempla, any hospital with Saint in the name…just about all except Humana / Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser.

          I won't respond to any more gun-related crap on this thread, (you should post on the open thread or start your own), but happy to discuss abortion to infinity and beyond…

          • Negev says:

            Thats funny because on the link you provided it was only six states that require it, which last I counted is not most, and Colorado ain't one of them. 

            • 6 states require abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.
              • 2 states require plans that cover prenatal care to cover abortion.
              • 3 states require abortion coverage with no copayments.
            • 9 states permit abortion coverage beyond specified exceptions through purchase of a separate rider and payment of an additional premium.
            • kwtree says:

              Point is, most insurance plans don’t cover abortion.  11 states do cover it and no, Colorado isn’t one of those, either.  9 states let the consumer buy an “abortion rider”. So that is 20 states in which women (I assume) women are paying for “abortion insurance” one way or another.

              The 9 states in which women must purchase a “rider” must have some interesting couple conversations: “We’re a couple, let’s get insured together.!” “Yeah, but, we should buy an abortion rider in case we need an abortion.” How (not) romantic. Probably in most cases the woman secretly buys the rider.

              But if we extend your analogy that abortion rights and gun rights are darn near identical, then it’s quite reasonable to expect consumers to purchase their “gun insurance rider”, which would cover them if they have a delinquent madman like Kyle Rittenhouse as a dependent. Or a curious gun-obsessed toddler, with a careless parent. Etc.

              Just like women in 20/50 states, purchasing their abortion insurance. Gun owners should do the same.

              As I noted several times, most hospital and insurance plans in Colorado are Catholic-owned, and the consumer who wants a service the Catholic Church thinks is sinful is SOL. Unless you’re insured by Kaiser, Humana, or Blue Cross, you’ll pay out of pocket for abortion.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.