The bill does require that all hospitals give the information, too, not just Catholic Hospitals. A complete copy of the formal bill can be found here.



Denver Post Story

Questions for Debate
1. Is this bill good for the society, or at least the citizens of Colorado?

2. Where should be draw the line on laws that directly go against the beliefs of a religious institution, such as a Catholic Hospital?

3. If Gov. Owens signs, or does not veto the bill, does it mean political suicide for himself in Colorado?

First I would like to review some terms. If a woman is already pregnant, then the procedure is terminating the pregnancy. Contraception prevents pregnancy. I'm not sure if RU486 is contraception.

I do not believe it is good to force a religious organization to serve the state over God. It should be no surprise that, if you enter a Catholic hospital, they will operate according to Catholic values.

I think there needs to be exceptions for any hospital whose mission statement is contrary to such a requirement.

Informing people about the abortion pill RU486 is contrary to Catholic practice. Catholic hospitals won't do it. I have seen this issue come up in other contexts. The response is always the same. The hospitals/charities etc always refuse to go against Catholic practice. The State says they will withdraw funding then. The Catholic hospitals and charities still refuse, lose funding and go out of business.
The community loses a valuable service.

Is it really worth it?

I then assume, haylenanne, that you are opposed to the global gag rule? Where if a clinic aided by U.S. funds even mentions abortion - they don't even have to provide them, just inform patients of the option - they lose their funding, go out of business, and, more severe than a community losing a "valuable service," women in the most AIDs ravaged continent in the world have no place to go to for contraception, condoms, or general gynecological healthcare?

Please. Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it too. If it's okay to withdraw funds for a clinic, no matter what other services they may provide or how badly needed, for clinics in Africa simply for advising patients of an option that is legal in the U.S., then hell yes Catholic hospitals can go out of business because they lost funding for refusing to abide by the regulations in order to receive financial assistance from the U.S. government, and I won't shed a single tear over it as long as Africans are dying because of our moral righteousness. These two situations are no different, except one is vastly more dangerous to the people the clinic served.



RU-486 does not terminate a pregnancy that has already begun. It works in the exact same way as birth control, and in fact is birth control, just at a higher dosage, by making the uterus a hostile environment for an egg to implant itself in. Please see this website.

This bill doesn't force Catholic hospitals to provide the pill, just inform people of its existance. If they can't even do that much, then withdraw funding and let them operate according to their religious values without the support of U.S. taxpayers.

Why would you assume that I support this? I don't. If the U.S. is providing aid to foreign countries-- it is not our business to meddle with how they are running their operations unless they are wasting the funds we provide them with.

My point is that, the reality is that Catholic hospitals and charities will not follow rules that go against their fundamental precepts and mission. That is just a fact. They will forego the funding if necessary. Your position throws the baby out with the bath water-- it is extreme and ultimately hurts communities that depend on services that are provide by Catholic institutions.

If the concern is regarding religious hospitals, the bill exempts them from the requirement.



So, no need to raise the alarms. There won't be any Catholic hospitals losing their funding because of this bill.

As written, this bill seems like a good idea. Religious groups won't like it, but they don't have to necessarily deal with it. It seems to me like this is rather irresponsible reporting. All you have to do is read the first page of the Bill to realize that this has no effect on Catholic hospitals. Or go to page 4 of the bill:



I don't even understand how the newspaper could write something like this without checking the facts first. Is there something I'm missing here? Or is this just pro-life propaganda?

SuzySteamboat,

Emergency Contraception is not necessarily contraception, though. It may not prevent conception -- this is why religious hospitals -- like Catholic ones -- have an issue with it and why they should not be required to give out such information. Birth control pills, if taken properly, prevent conception by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. If the egg has already been released from the ovary at the time the "emergency contraception" has been taken, it may not prevent the fertilization of the egg -- meaning it won't necessarily prevent conception.

Interestingly, this bill specifically excludes RU-486 and similar drugs precisely because it induces "a medical abortion".


Link to bill

1. Is this bill good for the society, or at least the citizens of Colorado?

As haleyanne points out, religious hospitals are going to ignore this. Fortunately, no penalties are provided in the legislation (that I could detect). I suppose that licensing may be affected here, but that is unclear.

2. Where should [w]e draw the line on laws that directly go against the beliefs of a religious institution, such as a Catholic Hospital?

This issue is skirted by the legislature. Technically, no individual needs to follow this law if they object on religious grounds. Similarly, the language is quite vague, perhaps allowing a loophole:



Medically, this is vague territory. When does pregnancy start? Who is "not at risk of becoming pregnant"?

3. If Gov. Owens signs, or does not veto the bill, does it mean political suicide for himself in Colorado?
I doubt that both could be the case... Colorado's Senator Wayne Allard is one of the most pro-life Senator's out there, indicating that this may not harm Owens if he vetos this. That certainly isn't conclusive, however. I doubt it would be "suicide" either way...

I'm not sure where the references to RU486 are coming from. RU486 is the abortion pill. The morning after pill is the emergency contraception refered to in the bill. It states this:



Many types of birth control can act to prevent implantation of the egg, to include the IUD and pill. In point of fact, the the day-after "pill" is simply the equivalent of several high strength birth control pills taken at once. That being said, I don't believe the Federal government should force religious hospitals to provide this information. But, from what entspeak has indicated, individuals with religious objections don't have to.

Edited to add: Amlord and I were posting at the same time

RU-486 is not contraception. It's abortion in a pill by expelling a embryo/fetus.

Plan B is emergency contraception. The medical definition of pregnancy is a fertilized egg implanted in the uterus. Plan B will either 1. stop sperm from breaching the egg, and/or 2. change the lining of the uterus to create a hostile environment where the fertilized egg can't implant itself.

If you wonder why the medical definition of pregnancy doesn't start at conception read here. Which brings me to my next point. Contraceptives like the regular birth control pill, Norplant implant, the quarterly Depo-Provera shots and intra-uterine devices all cause "abortion" by making the lining of the uterus a hostile environment should the ovaries release an egg.

Ent beat me to it but I'll respond to the questions anyway.

Is this bill good for the society, or at least the citizens of Colorado?

It is good for female rape victims as long as the hospital doesn't advocate.

Where should be draw the line on laws that directly go against the beliefs of a religious institution, such as a Catholic Hospital?

Practitioners of a particular faith and non-faith are not obligated to accept government funds. Such is the case in California.



Had the bill not included a religious exemption I don't think religious autonomy is in danger. Abortion, in all the ways it can come about, is either legal or illegal. If religious and non-religious groups want to go against the grain of a desired government outcome they must make due without government funds. As an aside, I don't completely agree with the 9th's ruling on Catholic Charities v. Superior Court, but that's fodder for another thread.

If Gov. Owens signs, or does not veto the bill, does it mean political suicide for himself in Colorado?

That depends largely on what the pro-lifers decide to make of this law. They'll probably treat Plan B as an abortifacient, leaving me to wonder if birth control itself is a future target.

1. Is this bill good for the society, or at least the citizens of Colorado?

For me personally, big deal. I'm a man. For the female population of my adopted home state, I'm all for freedom of procreation -- to do so or to not to do so. This looks like a no-brainer signing for Guv Owens, except that he's a Republican Presidential wanna be. He might veto to keep his future opportunities open. I don't care what happens to Guv Owens in the future, and so I am for this bill getting signed -- even though I strongly suspect it will be vetoed.

2. Where should be draw the line on laws that directly go against the beliefs of a religious institution, such as a Catholic Hospital?

I am not in agreement with tax dollars supporting a religious institution in the first place. However, if the religious institution does indeed provide full services to the entire community, then okay, support the thing with tax dollars. Otherwise, cut them off. They get tax exemptions as being religious institutions, so why get tax subsidies on top?

What we are talking about here is probably Medicare. Refuse to treat rape victims, but at least refer to an organization that will. Is that so darn difficult? Then get out of the health care profession. Go be a nun or priest, just keep the mitts off the kids.

3. If Gov. Owens signs, or does not veto the bill, does it mean political suicide for himself in Colorado?

Guv Owens (a Texas transplant) is already politically dead in Colorado. He's on his last months of his second administration. From here will come a run at the White House in 2008. He has the pressure to keep politically pure on the national level, and this bill could be an attempt by Demos to get him cornered early on.

Meanwhile, rape victims need to know their options -- and quickly. It looks to me that this is a side benefit of an ongoing political struggle in Colorado. Power has shifted here and will continue to shift by my prediction. Guv Owens will probably veto the bill and remain pure to the RNC, but he won't win the presidential nomination for 2008.

That's because he has a habit of saying ridiculous things, like "Colorado is burning!" in 2002 (killed tourism) -- and he has shown a lack of rigid right principles on other issues, actually supporting light rail mass transit (socialism!) in Denver. But he has ambitions, and so will come the veto. That will become ammunition for future Demo wins here in Colorado, specifically the guv race in 2004. A Demo win will nail the political coffin shut for Owens, if it hasn't been nailed already due to the loss of the state legislature to Demos in 2004.

I guess rape victims will need to avoid religion-based hospitals in order to get full service. Maybe the slanted right-wing spin (ignoring the bill's full meaning) on this might stick in people's minds, and so future rape victims might demand to know how to stop possible pregnancies. Add to this the recent attacks on Planned Parenthood in this state (pushing them out of public schools), and the potential for actually helping future rape victims is there, as folks realize that parts of the government are working against the community's best interests. The community will need to take the male bovine by the horns -- and send it to market.

Coloradans tolerate male boviners for only so long.

1. Is this bill good for the society, or at least the citizens of Colorado?
I think it is good.
The rubber meets the road in this issue when a rape victim's only choice is to go to a Catholic hospital. The bill would require the hospital to provide this service, but not impose it on individual workers. Most likely, a medical worker who is not devoutly Catholic will be deputized to hand her a flyer with a phone number on it, or possibly a volunteer or counselor from an community service agency external to the hospital will be providing support to the victim, and will inform her.
A pregnancy test is normally done for these victims, and if she is not pregnant there's no problem even for most Catholics to advise her that she can get an EC pill if she so desires. If she tests positive, someone non-Catholic should be on hand to give her info, although I'm sure that in some hospitals there will be someone counseling her right away to keep it, discussing adoption agencies, etc.

2. Where should be draw the line on laws that directly go against the beliefs of a religious institution, such as a Catholic Hospital?
First of all, if a hospital is taking public funds - which is more likely if they are the only game in town (and therefore rape victims can't choose to be taken to a non-religious hospital) then they cannot be allowed to deprive people of their legal rights.
I would say, if people who are not adherents of the Catholic religion may be forced to follow that religion's dictates against their will, that's depriving them of legal rights. I don't want to force devout Catholics to go against their religion either, but I feel this bill does not do that.
Here in my state, by the way, we actually require them to dispense the pills also, but only if the victim tests negative for pregnancy.

3. If Gov. Owens signs, or does not veto the bill, does it mean political suicide for himself in Colorado?
I don't have a prediction, not knowing Colorado well enough.

I found a page with some interesting info on this issue here.

If a woman is pregnant, the EC pill is not for her. The purpose of the EC pill is to prevent implantation, not abort once the woman tests positive on a pregnancy test. It must be used within 72 hours of intercourse. Hcg levels are high enough to show a positive result on a pregnancy test only around the eighth day after implantation, at the very earliest. Too late for the ECP then.

Informing someone, particularly a victim, of all their options doesn't seem like a bad thing for society. I can think of no real reason why this could be considered bad for the victim.

If, as Lesly says, these hospitals are only required to inform their patients of abortive pills because of financial ties to the state government, then this move is perfectly fair. All hospitals that receive state aide must abide by these changes, so religious centers are not being targeted specifically. If there is such an immense moral crisis that Catholic hospitals simply cannot abide by these changes, they can always opt out of government funding and function in a completely private manner.

I'm not quite sure of the predicament Owens is in currently, but I can imagine this to be a stressful situation for him. As shown in the last presidential election, religion is a key factor in the hearts of the populace. A perceived hostile move against faith is dangerous for any Republican right now.

I wish everyone would stop mistaking the RU=486 pill and the emergency contraception pill. They are 2 very different things. RU 486, often called the abortion pill, does in fact cause an abortion. The EC pill--the one referred to in the EC for Rape Survivors Bill is simply contraception. All it does is stop an egg and sperm from getting together and forming an embryo. It's just a high does of birth control pills. And in the case a woman is already pregnant, the pill is completely null and void. In fact, if EC were more readily available, almost 300,000 abortions could be avoided every year. Maybe it's time this country stops freaking out every time they hear the word contraception or abortion, and actually listen to the facts.

And i think it is just gross that we're saying oh well too bad to the rape victims. She doesn't get to choose which hospital she's brought to, so just because of rotten luck she's not going to get the best and all medical treatment available. I think it's awful these hospitals are going to impose their religious beliefs on a rape victim. Just let her start healing. This isn't about politics or religion it's about helping a RAPE VICTIM!