Colorado Proposition 115, 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative (2020)

Colorado Proposition 115
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Abortion
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Colorado measuresColorado Amendment 76Colorado Amendment 77Colorado Amendment BColorado Amendment CColorado Proposition 113Colorado Proposition 114Colorado Proposition 115Colorado Proposition 116Colorado Proposition 117Colorado Proposition 118Colorado Proposition EESubmit

Colorado Proposition 115, the 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting abortions in Colorado after a fetus reaches 22-weeks gestational age as calculated from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period.

A "no" vote opposed prohibiting abortions in Colorado after a fetus reaches 22-weeks gestational age, thereby maintaining current Colorado law that does not restrict abortion after a certain point in a pregnancy.

Election results

Colorado Proposition 115
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,292,787	41.01%
No		1,859,479	58.99%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition 115 have done?

See also: Ballot language and text of measure

As of the election, Colorado did not limit the gestational age at which an abortion can be performed. This initiative would have prohibited abortions after a fetus reaches 22 weeks gestational age as calculated from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period. Gestational age would have been assessed and determined by the physician performing the abortion.

Under the initiative, abortions after 22 weeks would have been lawful if the physician believes it is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. In such a situation, the physician would have been allowed to rely on the gestational age assessment made by another physician.

Under the initiative, performing a prohibited abortion would have been a Class 1 misdemeanor (the most serious level of misdemeanor in Colorado), which would have been punishable by a fine ranging from $500 to $5,000 and not by jail time. A woman who had a prohibited abortion could not have been charged with a crime under the initiative. Medical professionals found to have performed a prohibited abortion would have had their medical licenses suspended by the Colorado Medical Board for at least three years.

Do other states restrict abortion?

See also: Restrictions on abortion in the U.S.

As of 2020, Colorado, as well as six other states — Alaska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont— and Washington, D.C., do not restrict abortion after a certain point in a pregnancy. The other 43 states restrict abortion at a certain point in pregnancy based on thresholds including from the point of fetal viability, last menstrual period, post-fertilization, or post-implantation. Of the 43 states, 15 have abortion bans at viability that were blocked by court order.

One state bans abortion at 20 weeks from the woman's last menstrual period (LMP), 17 states ban abortion at 22 weeks from LMP, and four states ban abortion at 24 weeks from LMP. Twenty states ban abortion at viability, which is around 24-28 weeks from LMP and varies by pregnancy. One state, Virginia, bans abortion in the third trimester, or around 25 weeks from LMP.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), and later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability. In Roe, the Court held that viability was the third trimester. In Planned Parenthood, the Court affirmed that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability and said that point was earlier than the start of the third trimester. The ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey also provided for a standard of undue burden to determine whether a law created substantial obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion before fetal viability. Unlike in Roe v. Wade, the court permitted states to regulate abortion during the first trimester if the regulations did not create an undue burden.

Have Coloradans voted on abortion ballot measures in the past?

See also: Abortion ballot measures in Colorado

Voters in Colorado decided eight measures relating to abortion between 1984 and 2014; however, none of these ballot measures addressed when, based on gestational age, an abortion could be prohibited.

In 1984, Coloradans voted 50.4% to 49.6% to ban public funding of abortion except for cases where the mother's life is in danger. The measure was challenged in 1988 and was upheld by voters. In 1998, Coloradans voted 55% to 45% to require parents to be notified if their minor children seek an abortion and voted 51% to 49% to reject a ban on partial-birth abortion. In 2000, Colorado voters rejected a measure that would have required women to be given certain information from a physician at least 24 hours in advance of an abortion. Coloradans defeated three measures (in 2008, 2010, and 2014) that would have defined person to include fetuses or unborn human beings.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding this measure?

See also: Support and Opposition

The campaign supporting the initiative had raised $689,768 in contributions. Opponents of the initiative had raised $9.5 million.

Ballotpedia identified four committees registered to support the initiative: Coalition for Women and Children, Alliance for Life, End Birthday Abortions Colorado, and Coalition to Help Moms and Save Babies. The committees reported $785,819.66 in contributions and $774,970.46 in expenditures. The largest donor to the support committee was the Archdiocese of Denver, which gave $193,000. Due Date Too Late (operated by Coalition for Women and Children) argued, "Colorado is one of the very few places in the world, and only one of seven states where abortions can be legally performed any time during pregnancy and even up to birth for any reason. In 2020, Coloradans will vote on a common sense limit that will draw a line at 5 months into pregnancy." Measure sponsor Erin Behrens said, "We are going to put a very reasonable limit of 22 weeks, which is about five months into pregnancy. And we think that this reasonable limit will pass overwhelmingly in Colorado, and we will finally be brought into the 21st century. We will finally be among all the other states that have reasonable limits, and we will finally not be the late-term abortion capitol of the United States."

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to oppose the initiative: Abortion Access for All and Students Vote No on 115. Abortion Access for All reported $9.82 million in contributions and $9.73 million in expenditures. The largest donor was Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Action Fund, which gave $1.76 million. The registered agent for the Abortion Access for All committee is Sarah Taylor-Nanista of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. Jack Teter, Colorado political director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said, "This proposal would force a woman who learns later in her pregnancy that her pregnancy is developing with no brain or no lungs to pack a suitcase and get on an airplane and leave her family and her community and her support system behind to travel to another state that doesn’t criminalize access to healthcare. This measure has no exceptions for rape and incest, it has no exceptions for maternal health, and that is cruel and unconscionable and that’s an abortion ban voters aren’t going to support."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 115 was as follows:

“

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith, making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion, except when the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition; defining terms related to the measure including “probable gestational age” and “abortion,” and excepting from the definition of “abortion” medical procedures relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy; specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is performed may not be charged with a crime in relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the Colorado medical board to suspend for at least three years the license of a licensee whom the board finds performed or attempted to perform a prohibited abortion?

”

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet are available on page 42 at this link.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“ State revenue. Proposition 115 will minimally increase state revenue from criminal fines and court fees beginning in state budget year 2020-21. It may also increase revenue from civil penalties and regulatory fees by a minimal amount. State spending. Starting in state budget year 2020-21, Proposition 115 will minimally increase workload in the Department of Regulatory Agencies and may increase costs in the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. Local government revenue and spending. Starting in state budget year 2020-21, Proposition 115 will increase costs and workload for district attorneys and may increase revenue, costs, and workload for the Denver County Court. ”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be read below.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title Board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 27, and the FRE is -1. The word count for the ballot title is 159, and the estimated reading time is 42 seconds.

Support

Due Date Too Late (operated by the Coalition for Women and Children) led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Representative Ken Buck (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Colorado

Organizations

• Catholic Medical Association
• Respect Life Denver

Individuals

• Tom Perille - Democrats for Life of Colorado president

Arguments

• Erin Behrens, sponsor of the measure: "We are going to put a very reasonable limit of 22 weeks, which is about five months into pregnancy. And we think that this reasonable limit will pass overwhelmingly in Colorado, and we will finally be brought into the 21st century. We will finally be among all the other states that have reasonable limits, and we will finally not be the late-term abortion capitol of the United States."
• Due Date Too Late: "At 22 weeks gestation a baby can feel pain at this stage, she can hiccup, suck her thumb, and react to her mother’s voice. These babies are viable meaning they can survive if born prematurely. A 22 week pre-born is biologically indistinguishable from a baby born at 22 weeks gestation. Just like a newborn, these babies can feel pain. In fact, their pain sensitivity may even be higher than that of an older infant. In late term abortion, the baby is usually dismembered while alive. Sometimes a toxic chemical is injected into the womb first to cause death. In either case, death is excruciating."
• Attorney Mario Nicolais of Denver, Colorado: "At 22 weeks, a fetus borders on viability outside the womb as an extremely premature baby. That is particularly true when the time is measured as Initiative 120 does, from a woman’s last menstrual cycle, rather than the time of conception. While abortion-rights advocates will certainly push back hard on that conclusion, defending the right to an abortion post-viability is monumentally more difficult than pre-viability. Abortion-rights support tends to soften with many voters when a fetus in the womb one moment could be a baby in the world the next. The argument only gets harder for abortion-rights advocates as pregnancies proceed. Outside of saving the life of the mother, an exception Initiative 120 provides, I can’t imagine many voters becoming too comfortable with the gruesome image of an abortion only a couple weeks from term."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "The measure protects viable human life by placing a reasonable restriction on abortion after an infant can live outside the mother’s womb. Colorado is one of only seven states that allow abortion at any time during a pregnancy even though infants born as early as 22 weeks gestation can survive outside the womb and experience good developmental outcomes. The measure allows time for a pregnant woman to make a choice about her pregnancy, and permits abortion after 22 weeks when necessary to save the life of the mother. In addition, the measure does not penalize women who receive prohibited abortions. This is a balanced approach with reasonable and limited exceptions that recognizes the dignity of women and the humanity of their unborn children."

Opposition

Abortion Access for All (No on 115) led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

Opponents

Organizations

• ACLU of Colorado
• Colorado Cobalt Advocates
• Colorado Rising State Action
• Democracy for America
• Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Action Fund
• Progress Now Colorado
• The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado

Arguments

• Cobalt Advocates President Karen Middleton: "Initiative 120 means government intrusion on decisions for the family with a much wanted pregnancy facing an unimaginable and heart-wrenching decision when faced with a lethal fetal diagnosis. It means government intrusion on the parent being forced to decide between carrying a pregnancy to term or beginning life-saving cancer treatment. It means government intrusion into decisions made by a pregnant person who has faced significant barriers to access abortion care while under a COVID-19 lockdown."
• Jack Teter, Colorado political director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains: "This proposal would force a woman who learns later in her pregnancy that her pregnancy is developing with no brain or no lungs to pack a suitcase and get on an airplane and leave her family and her community and her support system behind to travel to another state that doesn’t criminalize access to healthcare. This measure has no exceptions for rape and incest, it has no exceptions for maternal health, and that is cruel and unconscionable and that’s an abortion ban voters aren’t going to support."
• Bob Enyart, a spokesman for Colorado Right to Life: "Our misguided pro-life allies have presided over decades of regulating child killing. You don’t regulate crime; you deter crime. Once again, they increase confusion where only truth should be proclaimed. Their immoral initiative seeks to protect children ‘who can survive outside the womb.’ But what about the rest of them?”
• Dr. Warren Hern of the Boulder Abortion Clinic: "These people have no concern for the health and welfare of the women we are helping. This is anti-abortion madness carried to a logical extreme."
• 2020 Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Trish Zornio (D): "After 21 weeks only 1.2% of abortion procedures are initiated. These rare terminations are often accompanied by gut-wrenching stories of women and their partners who wanted a child. ... Initiative 120, which proposes a 22-week abortion ban in Colorado, is particularly problematic. ... An alternative to Initiative 120 is to safely promote women’s health and still reduce the need for abortions by implementing evidence-driven preventative measures. Such measures are twofold. The first strategy works to reduce overall unwanted pregnancies by providing increased sexual health education, access to birth control and contraceptives, and ongoing access to women’s health care, family planning and genetic screening services. In Colorado, the success of this approach was illustrated when access to IUDs prompted a 64% drop in teen abortion rates and an estimated $70 million saved in associated health care costs. The second strategy applies when preventative measures are no longer possible. With documented correlations between early prenatal screening and earlier gestation termination, ensuring first and second trimester prenatal care is paramount to reducing late second and third trimester abortions. This not only appeals to abortion opponents, but it helps women, the rare common ground."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "Restricting access to abortion limits a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and interferes with the patient and doctor relationship. The choice to end a pregnancy is often a serious and difficult decision, and should be left solely up to the woman, in consultation with her doctor and in accordance with her beliefs. The measure does not include any exceptions for risks to the woman’s health or for a woman who has been the victim of rape or incest to obtain an abortion after 22 weeks. In addition, it provides no exceptions for the detection of a serious fetal abnormality after 22 weeks, which may force women to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term. Every pregnancy is unique, and decisions related to pregnancy should not be arbitrarily limited by state government."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through November 30, 2020.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$668,140.79	$117,678.87	$785,819.66	$657,291.59	$774,970.46
Oppose	$9,023,223.30	$771,033.14	$9,794,256.44	$8,954,833.37	$9,725,866.51

Ballotpedia identified four committees registered to support the initiative: Coalition for Women and Children, Alliance for Life, End Birthday Abortions Colorado, and Coalition to Help Moms and Save Babies. The committees reported $785,819.66 in contributions and $774,970.46 in expenditures. The largest donor to the support committee was the Archdiocese of Denver, which gave $193,000.

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to oppose the initiative: Abortion Access for All and Students Vote No on 115. Together, the committees reported $9.82 million in contributions and $9.73 million in expenditures. The largest donor was Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Action Fund, which gave $1.67 million.

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Proposition 115
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coalition for Women and Children	$377,368.03	$26,524.29	$403,892.32	$366,518.83	$393,043.12
Coalition to Help Moms and Save Babies	$229,858.00	$91,154.58	$321,012.58	$229,858.00	$321,012.58
Alliance for Life	$60,914.76	$0.00	$60,914.76	$60,914.76	$60,914.76
End Birthday Abortions Colorado	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$668,140.79	$117,678.87	$785,819.66	$657,291.59	$774,970.46

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Archdiocese of Denver	$155,000.00	$0.00	$155,000.00
Archdiocese of Denver Management Corporation	$38,000.00	$0.00	$38,000.00
Scott Brown	$25,250.00	$0.00	$25,250.00
The Truth and Liberty Coalition	$10,000.00	$14,000.00	$24,000.00
Larry Brown Trust	$15,000.00	$0.00	$15,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 115
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Abortion Access for All	$8,968,227.79	$732,337.39	$9,700,565.18	$8,906,871.71	$9,639,209.10
Students Vote No on 115	$54,995.51	$38,695.75	$93,691.26	$47,961.66	$86,657.41
Total	$9,023,223.30	$771,033.14	$9,794,256.44	$8,954,833.37	$9,725,866.51

Donors

The following are the top five donors to the opposition committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Action Fund	$1,575,000.00	$180,766.39	$1,755,766.39
North Fund	$1,350,000.00	$0.00	$1,350,000.00
Stacy Schusterman	$1,250,000.00	$0.00	$1,250,000.00
Cobalt Advocates	$552,610.00	$0.00	$552,610.00
Planned Parenthood Action Fund	$500,000.00	$4,904.26	$504,904.26

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Another chance to find common ground on abortion policy appears on this fall’s statewide ballot as Proposition 115. It would end late-terms abortions — pregnancies terminated after 22 weeks — when unborn babies are regarded as substantially formed and biologically viable. The proposal allows an exception if the birth mother’s life is in danger. We urge a 'yes' vote on this sensible and needed reform. Babies can be born and survive after 22 weeks. It’s simple science. Yet, Colorado is one of a handful of states with no cutoff for abortions performed on adults."

.

Opposition

• Denver Post Editorial Board: "In an ideal world, abortions would never occur. But in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be 24,000 stillbirths a year, or 4,700 infants who die from congenital malformations, deformations, or chromosomal abnormalities. ... Please spare the hundreds of other women in this state who have faced these impossible decisions from having to make their tragedy part of a political fight. Decline to sign the 22-week abortion ban. Let women and medical professionals make these decisions based on science and their own moral compasses, rather than imposing the fear of prosecution on doctors and the stigma of illegality on expecting mothers."
• Sentinel Colorado Editorial Board: "This measure is especially sinister. By leveraging falsehoods about so-called “infanticide” and other baseless myths, proponents will seek to make this request seem reasonable. ... The matters of reproduction, women’s medical treatment and abortion are all issues for a woman and her physician. They are never appropriate for political intervention. The Constitution and decency demand that women have the same right to privacy as do men, who do not permit political whim to dictate their healthcare."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Restricting access to abortion limits a person’s right to autonomy and interferes with the patient-doctor relationship. The choice to end a pregnancy is a serious and difficult decision, and people who are pregnant should be the ones making that choice — no one else. The measure does NOT include exceptions for risks to the parent’s health or for those who have been victims of rape or incest. It also provides no exceptions for the detection of serious fetal abnormalities, forcing a person to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term. Everyone is capable of making decisions regarding their life, future and health. No interference from state government is required, needed or appreciated. Vote No on Prop 115."
• Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. We believe abortion is a women’s right to choose, in consultation with her doctor and in accordance with her beliefs."
• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 115 ... would penalize doctors for performing an abortion after that time. But the government has no judgment or skills in the reproductive arena, and should stay out. No on Proposition 115."
• Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "Women should dictate the course of their pregnancies, not the government — it’s their right. And in a time when Roe v. Wade may be threatened, we must fight for women’s reproductive rights every chance we get."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

Poll results for the measure are detailed below:

Colorado Proposition 115
Poll	Yes	No	Unsure	Margin of error	Sample size
Daily Kos/Civiqs poll 10/11/20 - 10/14/20	42.0%	51.0%	7.0%	+/-3.6	1,013
Survey USA poll 10/1/20 - 10/6/20	42.0%	45.0%	13.0%	+/-3.9	1,021
AVERAGES	42%	48%	10%	+/-3.75	1,017
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected].

Background

Roe v. Wade

In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, finding that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The high court held that states can regulate and/or prohibit abortions (except those to preserve the life or health of the mother) once a fetus reaches the point of viability. Roe v. Wade defined fetal viability as "the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." The high court further noted that "viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

The ruling established a strict trimester framework to guide state abortion policies. States, according to this framework, were prohibited from banning or regulating abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester, states were permitted to regulate abortion to protect the mother's health. During the third trimester, states were allowed to ban abortion, except in cases where an abortion is needed to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey of 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but rejected the trimester framework established in the case. The high court affirmed that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability. However, according to the court, neonatal care developments since Roe v. Wade meant fetal viability occurred somewhat earlier than the start of the third trimester of pregnancy.

The ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey also provided for a standard of undue burden to determine whether a law created substantial obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion before fetal viability. Unlike in Roe v. Wade, the court permitted states to regulate abortion during the first trimester if the regulations did not create an undue burden.

Prohibitions on abortion in the U.S.

As of June 1, 2020, 43 states prohibited abortions, with some exceptions, after a certain point in pregnancy. The remaining seven states (AK, CO, NH, NJ, NM, OR, VT) and Washington, D.C., did not prohibit abortions at a certain point in a pregnancy. The chart below shows abortion bans by state as calculated from the woman's last menstrual period (LMP). States shaded in red had bans in place that were not in effect due to court rulings or pending litigation.

Abortion ballot measures in Colorado

Coloradans have voted on eight measures relating to abortion between 1984 and 2014.

In 1984, Coloradans voted 50.4% to 49.6% to ban public funding of abortion except for cases where the mother's life is in danger. The measure was challenged in 1988 and was upheld by voters. In 1998, Coloradans voted 55% to 45% to require parents to be notified if their minor children seek an abortion and voted 51% to 49% to reject a ban on partial-birth abortion. In 2000, Colorado voters rejected a measure that would have required women to be given certain information from a physician at least 24 hours in advance of an abortion. Coloradans defeated three measures (in 2008, 2010, and 2014) that would have defined person to include fetuses or unborn human beings.

Year	Measure	Measure summary	Yes votes %	No votes %	Outcome
2014	Amendment 67, Definition of Person	Include unborn human beings under the definition of person and child in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act	35.13%	64.87%	d
2010	Initiative 62, Definition of Person	Define "person" to include unborn human beings from the beginning of biological development	29.57%	70.53%	d
2008	Initiative 48, Defiition of Person	Define person to include any human being from the moment of fertilization	26.79%	73.21%	d
2000	Initiative 25, Requirements for Consenting to Abortion	Define necessary conditions for a patient to give voluntary, informed consent prior to an abortion; require patients to be given specific information from a physician at least 24 hours in advance of an abortion except in cases of emergency	39.44%	60.56%	d
1998	Initiative 12, Parental Notification for Abortions Performed on Minors	Require that parents of unemancipated minors be informed if the minor seeks an abortion; create mandatory 48 hour waiting period after the parental notification before the abortion could be performed	54.87%	45.13%	a
1998	Initiative 11, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban	Ban partial-birth abortions and establish criminal penalties for performing them	48.52%	51.48%	d
1988	Initiative 7, Repeal Ban on Public Funding for Abortion	Repeal the 1984 measure that prohibited use of public funds for abortion	39.76%	60.24%	d
1984	Amendment 3, Ban on Public Funding of Abortion	Prohibits use of public funds for abortion; allows legislature to appropriate funds for abortion to prevent the death of the mother	50.39%	49.61%	a

Recent and current abortion ballot measures

See also: Abortion on the ballot

2020

One other measure regarding abortion was certified to appear on the 2020 ballot in Louisiana. The measure, which was referred to the ballot by the state legislature, was designed to add language to the Louisiana Constitution stating that "nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."

2018

In 2018, three measures related to abortion were certified to appear on state ballots: West Virginia Amendment 1, Alabama Amendment 2, and Oregon Measure 106. The Alabama and West Virginia measures were legislatively referred constitutional amendments while the Oregon measure was a citizen-initiated measure. The Alabama and West Virginia measures were approved and the Oregon measure was defeated.

Alabama

a Alabama Amendment 2 amended the state constitution in order to (a) declare that the state's policy is to recognize and support "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," (b) "ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate," and (c) state that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion." Rep. Matt Fridy (R-72), who sponsored this amendment in the Alabama legislature, said that its purpose was to ensure that nothing in the state constitution could be used to argue for a right to abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Oregon

d Oregon Measure 106 would have prohibited public funds from being spent on abortions in Oregon, except when deemed medically necessary by a medical professional or required by federal law. The measure did not provide any exceptions for cases of rape or incest unless federal law requires.

West Virginia

a West Virginia Amendment 1 added Section 57 to Article VI of the West Virginia Constitution to say "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion." If Roe v. Wade were overturned, this amendment was designed to ensure that the state's constitution could not be used to allow abortions.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 124,632 valid signatures
• Deadline: August 3, 2020

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Details about this initiative

• Erin Behrens and Giuliana Day filed the initiative. Initiative #120 was approved for signature gathering on September 19, 2019. Signatures were due on March 4, 2020.

• The campaign submitted 137,624 signatures on March 4, 2020.

• On March 18, 2020, the Colorado Secretary of State's office announced that, based on a random sample of 5% of the submitted signatures, the projected validity rate was 97.5%. Since the projected total is between 90% and 110%, a complete count was performed by the Secretary of State with a statement of sufficiency or insufficiency due by April 3, 2020. If the petition is deemed insufficient, proponents have 15 days to file an addendum with additional signatures.

Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more. Political responses overviewState reopening plansDocumenting America's Path to RecoveryElection changesChanges to vote-by-mail and absentee voting proceduresFederal responsesState responsesState executive ordersStay-at-home ordersMultistate agreementsNon-governmental reopening plansEvictions and foreclosures policiesTravel restrictionsEnacted state legislationState legislative session changesSchool closuresState court closuresInmate releasesLocal government responsesDiagnosed or quarantined politiciansBallot measure changesArguments about government responsesThe 1918 influenza pandemicPandemic Response Accountability CommitteeUnemployment filingsLawsuitsBallotpedia's polling on the coronavirus pandemicSubmit

• Due Date Too Late sued the Colorado Secretary of State's office to give the group more time beyond the 15-day cure period to collect additional signatures in case they did not submit enough valid signatures, citing coronavirus concerns.

• On April 2, 2020, Denver District Court Judge Martin Egelhoff granted an emergency stay to allow Due Date Too Late to collect additional signatures for a cure period of 15 days after the state's emergency stay-at-home order expires. The stay-at-home order was set to be effective through April 11, 2020. Due Date Too Late said, "The stay approved by Judge Martin Egelhoff is significant since it gives Due Date Too Late and its volunteers a fair opportunity to collect more signatures in public, which would be impossible during a potential cure period amid a statewide stay-at-home order."

• On April 3, 2020, the Colorado Secretary of State's office announced that proponents submitted 114,647 valid signatures. Proponents needed to submit an additional 9,985 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot during the 15-day cure period, which began on May 15 and ended at 3:00 p.m. local time on May 29, 2020.

• The secretary of state announced that the measure qualified for the ballot on June 8, 2020, after finding that proponents submitted an additional 38,557 valid signatures, bringing the total number of valid signatures submitted to 153,204.

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $0 was spent to collect the 124,632 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

How to cast a vote in Colorado

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration requirements Check your voter registration status here. In Colorado, an individual can pre-register to vote if they are at least 15 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old to vote in any election. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have established residence in Colorado to vote. Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a absentee/mail-in ballot, a voter must register online, through the mail, at a voter registration agency, or driver's license examination facility at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter that registers through a voter registration drive must submit their application no later than 22 days before the election to automatically receive an absentee/mail-in ballot. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail. Automatic registration Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles and certain other state agencies. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person. Residency requirements Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with his or her mail-in ballot. Click here for more information. The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of July 2024. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State. “ The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in *Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility. ” }}

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Abortion on the ballot
• 2020 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Colorado Secretary of State: Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results
• Initiatives filed with the Legislative Council Staff
• Initiative 120 full text
• Colorado Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)

Support

• Due Date Too Late campaign website
• Due Date Too Late Facebook page
• Due Date Too Late Twitter page
• Coalition for Women and Children on Colorado TRACER campaign finance database

Opposition

• Abortion Access for All (No on 115) campaign website
• Abortion Access for All (No on 115) Facebook page
• Abortion Access for All (No on 115) Twitter page
• Abortion Access for All on Colorado TRACER campaign finance database

Submit links to [email protected].