In the United States of America the epochal clash between abortion and the right to life manifests itself in the most disparate forms and at all political-legislative levels. In states governed by Democrats, for example, the push towards increasingly pro-choice and deadly regulations is confirmed by what is happening in Colorado.
On November 5th, on the same day as the presidential elections, in the state between the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains, yet another referendum will be held, called “Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative”, which will propose an expansion of the right to abortion, imposing a possible constitutional change with very serious effects. If approved, the amendment will allow public financing of abortion policies and will require the governor of Colorado – whatever his political and ideological orientation – not to prevent the ban on health insurance coverage for abortion.
Unlike citizens of other states called to referendums on other issues, Colorado voters will be asked to declare not only that the state cannot discriminate against the termination of a human life in the womb, but that every citizen of Colorado will be forced to pay to kill those unborn children with their own tax dollars. Furthermore, the amendment also declares that anyone’s decision to end a human life in the womb is elevated to the level of a protected class. This means that any action by the State to ensure that a woman is fully informed about the abortion procedure or to develop health and safety requirements for facilities that perform it, it would be an act of discrimination. Note that this new measure would represent the only protected class involving the act of killing a human being. In this way, any protection that the unborn child might enjoy, such as protections against discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, religion, and so on, would be denied.
The planned referendum in Colorado raises not only ethical questions but also disputes of a more purely legal and jurisprudential nature. As argued in Section V of the sentence Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organizationabortion is not a form of health care, but the intentional destruction of innocent unborn human life. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court recognizes in the same ruling, states have a legitimate interest in preserving prenatal life, mitigating fetal pain and protecting maternal health. The amendment to the subject of the referendum in Colorado would like to force citizens to do the opposite.
The repercussions of the “Pay-for-Abortion” amendment – as it was also called – would therefore be devastatingespecially for the well-being of Colorado women and the children they carry. With abortion elevated to such protections, forced abortions would dramatically increase, thus promoting the harmful and false narrative that abortion is necessary for women to enjoy equality and empowerment. In other words, through this reform, a single and unique vision would be imposed on nascent life: that of reducing the unborn child to a pure aggregation of cells, capable of being disposed of like any biological waste. Supporters of the right to life would essentially be denied freedom of thought, even imposing on them the humiliation of having to finance something that science itself qualifies as murder against the most innocent and defenseless of human beings.
