RH Reality Check’s correspondent Kay Steiger attended the conference — timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s inauguration — and caught up with Burton about the “egg as a person” legal movement at the aptly named Liaison Capitol Hill Hotel in Washington, D.C.

That, of course, came after listening to former ambassador and perennial paleoconservative political candidate Alan Keyes bloviate for 57 minutes on biblical themes with little mention of the anti-abortion movement.

Since the ballot measure’s crushing 3-to-1 loss in November, Burton appears to have taken those hard-fought lessons to heart for her next expected go-around with voters.

She urged the pro-life movement to begin to hire political consultants, analyze polling data, and raise more money. This, she admits, comes from her active work with the Republican Party. She noted that the personhood movement often doesn’t get support from mainstream Republicans, pointing to the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado, Bob Schaffer, who came out against the personhood amendment despite identifying as pro-life. “Politicians and pro-lifers don’t really get along that well,” Burton said.

Most of all, she noted, the movement needs to unify. “Do you ever see NARAL, Planned Parenthood or NOW fighting against each other? No, because they have one goal and they don’t really care about anything but their goal,” Burton said.

But then things get muddy, as they did during the campaign season, about just what legal rights for fertilized eggs would mean.

Burton wants conservative activists to adopt the personhood campaign’s framework in their legislative efforts to prohibit stem cell research, eliminate emergency contraception, promote informed consent, and criminalize “fetal homicide.” But she steadfastly denies that Amendment 48 would have expressly affected such issues.

“The personhood amendment was a definition,” explained Burton, who is enrolled in a non-accredited Bible-based online law school. “What it said was that in the future, when our courts and our legislators are considering laws relating to those kind of things — I mean in Colorado there isn’t even a law on birth control, so how a definition can affect a law that doesn’t exist, I’m not sure.”

Except there are state laws on contraception among other reproductive health services.

Maybe it’s time to hit the law books again.

(Photo/ishrona, Flickr)

But first an update on more rules that went into effect this week. The Interior Department’s rule that removes a provision requiring scientific review by the Fish and Wildlife Service before federally approved construction projects, such as road-building, went into effect yesterday. So did a rule from the Department of Defense mandating that certain government contractors and subcontractors use E-Verify, a system operated by Homeland Security that determines employees’ eligibility to work in the United States.

Two more midnight regs go into effect tomorrow: (1) A regulation for the leasing of public land to produce oil shale and (2) the changes to the guest worker program for the agricultural industry.

Click the image to enlarge the chart

The agency is essentially rolling back a 2007 proposal that environmentalists say would have prioritized public land use over private.

The revised rule, now in effect, replaces pro-public language with a requirement that renewals for reclaimed-land use be granted as long as the private use is compatible with public needs. Reviews for renewal will occur either at least once every five or 20 years, depending on the nature of the private use.

In its comment submitted to Reclamation, the Sierra Club called the agency’s move an unlawful reversal and criticized it for not providing the public with adequate notice to comment on the rule change. They also remarked that the review process now in place will be onerous and expensive.

The second rule is from the Department of Labor and has been touted as a move to better protect the privacy of laborers working on federally funded projects. The rule eliminates the requirement that contractors include Social Security numbers and home addresses on payroll forms submitted to the government.

But critics, including the U.S. Navy, say the rule will make it harder to enforce wage laws. Concerns have also been raised that it could open the door to kickbacks.

Two final notes: Six states, led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, are taking legal action against the “provider conscience rule,” which protects health care workers from being disciplined should they choose to deny treatment they find morally reprehensible.

And the EPA made a move on one of its more controversial rule proposals this month — the decision on whether to federally regulate the contaminant perchlorate in drinking water. Rather than publishing a final rule, it chose to issue an interim health advisory that sets a minimum level for perchlorate to help state and local officials address any potential contamination.

It’s not quite the “about face” the agency did with respect to two Clean Air Act regulations. EPA stated in a press release that in light of public comments, the agency would “benefit once again from input from the National Academy of Sciences on several specific scientific issues raised by reviewers.” It looks like any final determination will now be up to the next administration.

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.

Democrats Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver and her upstate New York colleague Rep. Louise Slaughter have taken the lead in the U.S. House to block the controversial regulation that would allow health care workers to refuse to perform or assist in medical procedures they find religiously or morally objectionable, regardless of the patients’ needs. Twenty-three representatives have signed on as co-sponsors.

The proposed U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services rule is largely believed to serve as a back door tactic for social conservatives to make abortion, in vitro fertilization, contraception drugs and devices, and stem cell research more difficult to obtain by women patients.

On Jan. 15, the pair filed (H.R. 570), what a press release called the “Protecting Patients and Health Care Act,” to prohibit HHS from implementing the new “conscience clause” which has been roundly criticized as unnecessary and punative since current law already requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for health care workers’ religious beliefs.

A broader strategy to kill the new rule is being employed House Democrats via the Midnight Rule Act (H.R. 34) introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York. It will allow incoming cabinet secretaries “greater power to rewrite regulations issued during the final three months of the previous presidency,” writes the New York Times. Nadler’s bill is garnering interest from a motley crew of bankers, environmentalists and reproductive health advocacy groups seeking to roll back some of the more egregious 11th-hour rules pushed through by the outgoing Bush Administration.

Obama has also signaled his hostility to the last-minute regulations and has directed his transition team to explore potential executive branch repeal efforts.

Citizens opposed to the regulation also have an opportunity to get involved.

The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association has launched a petition calling on lawmakers to repeal the HHS rule because of its significant impact on low-income and uninsured persons seeking family planning services from its member organizations of health departments, nonprofit clinics and health providers.

According to NFPRHA spokeswoman Allison Conyers, “We really want to show that there is support from the general public to stop the regulations to limit family planning services.”

During the public comment period on the proposed regulation last summer, more than 200,000 people lodged their opposition to the HHS rule.

Beliefnet.com reports that HHS officials claim the 127-page regulation to protect health care providers of faith from violating their conscience will cost taxpayers $44 million to implement.

Follow the bill via the GovTrack widget which will automatically update throughout the legislative process:

The Prevention First Act (S. 21) aims to:

• include contraceptive drugs, devices and services in health care insurance benefit programs, where they are often not covered
• provide emergency contraception information in public education programs
• require hospitals that accept federal funds to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assaults
• support medically accurate sex education and research to prevent teen pregnancies in at-risk communities
• offer medically accurate contraception and pregnancy/sexually transmitted diseases/HIV-AIDS prevention information to the public and in family life programs
• expand Medicaid family planning services
• provide discounted drug prices to patients of university-based and safety-net clinics.

The teaming of staunch pro-reproductive rights advocates DeGette and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York) with Reid, a Mormon who is well known for personally opposing abortion, appears to signal a more pragmatic approach than has typically occurred in the ideologically split Capitol.

Said Reid in a joint statement with the congresswomen:

The United States has among the highest rates of unintended pregnancies of all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion. It is time to come together and enact effective policies that will help to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to health care for women. We can find not only common ground, but also common sense in our Prevention First Act.

DeGette hailed the bill as an opportunity to “implement a comprehensive, medically accurate, science-based approach to reducing the need for abortion.”

The sponsors claim that for every $1 spent on family planning services approximately $4 are saved in public health spending.

While always fiscal-hawk crowd-pleasers, budget efficiencies and goal effectiveness of tax-supported family planning programs will likely get even closer scrutiny this congressional session. A new Centers for Disease Control study indicates that national teen pregnancy rates are on the rise — the first time in 15 years. Half the states report increases in teen birth rates in 2006.

In Colorado, the teen mother birth rate of 44 babies per 1,000 young women aged 15-19 remains steady over the last two years after declining 27 percent from 1991 to 2005. The state ranks 20th in the nation behind its intermountain West neighbors New Mexico (No. 2 at 64 babies), Arizona (No. 5 at 62 babies), Nevada (No. 7 at 56 babies), Wyoming (No. 15 at 47 babies).

The bill moves on to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal told US News and World Report that the controversial new regulation tramples on states’ and patients’ rights.

At issue are state laws requiring hospitals to provide information and, in some cases, emergency contraception to rape victims upon request. Abortion foes argue that delivering such care could violate health care providers’ religious and/or moral beliefs and have been pushing for an expansion of the “conscience clause” enjoyed by pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraception.

Reproductive health advocates worry that the rule could have far-reaching implications — beyond making an abortion more difficult to obtain — by threatening contraception, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research which are all vigorously opposed by religious conservatives.

Colorado’s 2007 emergency contraception lawcould also be at risk should the hurried U.S. Health and Human Service regulation take effect on Jan. 18, forty-eight hours before President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Presidential transition team officials have stated that Obama also opposes the HHS rule and is seeking remedies to rescind it, along with several other “midnight regulations” passed in the waning days of the Bush administration. Beliefnet.com reports that HHS officials indicate the 127-page regulation to protect health care providers of faith from violating their conscience will cost taxpayers $44 million to implement.

The anti-abortion Web site lifenews.com claims that, in addition to Connecticut, 12 other states — Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont — are likely to join the legal challenge since they initially voiced opposition to the rule during the public comment phase.

Nate Strauch, spokesman for state Attorney General John Suthers, told The Colorado Independent that Colorado has not been asked to join the suit and deferred further comment on its merits.

On the matter of contraception, the Centennial State has a long way to go to catch up to the efforts of its fellow intermountain west states in preventing unintended pregnancies — especially among poor women and teenagers — and reducing abortions.
_{Source: Guttemacher Institute, State Center on Reproductive Health, 2006. Methodology}

According to the Guttmacher Institute, Colorado spends a mere $33 on contraceptive services and supplies for women in financial need. In contrast, our mountain siblings Montana ($52), New Mexico ($53) and Wyoming ($112) spend far more to prevent unintended pregnancies.

So what gives in explaining Colorado’s poor performance in meeting the family planning needs of nearly 550,000 women of child-bearing age — of which 43 percent live well below federal poverty guidelines?

One explanation is that Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming have democratic governors who have not obstructed access to contraception, as Colorado’s former republican governor Bill Owens did throughout his eight year term which ended in January 2007.

Owens twice vetoed emergency contraception legislation and implemented a ban on state funding for family planning organizations linked to abortion providers among several acts — legally and rhetorically — to limit contraception access. 

The hostility toward women’s reproductive health also extends to the Colorado state legislature with a recent history of introduced, but defeated, bills to strictly define pregnancy, make performing an abortion a class 3 felony, and codify as a class 1 felony an attack on a pregnant woman that causes the death of a fetus. None of the bills made it out of committee yet lawmakers continue to push bills that promote a narrow, conservative ideological agenda. Likewise, the recently-formed Colorado for Equal Rights is circulating petitions to add a measure to the 2008 general election ballot to give state Constitutional protections to fertlized eggs. All of this in spite of majorities of Coloradans favoring pro-choice views. 

According to a 2006 Rassmussen poll, 54 percent of Coloradans oppose an abortion ban. Similarly, a 2005 SurveyUSA poll reported that Colorado is 15th in the nation for its pro-choice stance (61 percent of adults). Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming share majority pro-choice views though at slightly lower percentages than Colorado.

Another equally plausible theory is that the other Rocky Mountain states wear their “libertarian-leanings” on their sleeves and legislate accordingly. While Colorado lawmakers tend to like to invoke small government rhetoric when it’s politically convenient, the reality is that conservative members of the state Republican Party, who dominated statehouse politics until recently, lose their libertarian “live-and-let-live” street cred when social issues arise. Reproductive health issues, in particular, strike a gong in the heads of the conservative caucus and legislative mayhem, like the bills mentioned above, quickly ensues.

The negative impact of the Colorado Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) — a constitutional amendment that strictly limits the amount of revenue the state can retain each year to pay its bills and support government services — also cannot be overstated in drastically slashing budget allocations to education, health care, and other important quality of life programs, including reproductive health, over the last decade and a half.

Wyoming and Montana, on the otherhand, are flush with cash thanks to a booming extractive energy industry and are able to fund state programs while stashing sizeable budget surplusses. New Mexico holds one of the largest state budget reserves in the nation. And as one of the most racially diverse among the intermountain west states, New Mexican reproductive health groups are implementing strong outreach activities to Hispanic, African American and Native American communities where contraception access tends to be low.

Whatever the explanation, Colorado has much work to do to reach the 44 percent of poor women and 51 percent of teenagers who are in need and not able to access publicly supported family planning services.

Suddenly, it’s not so funny any more that Alabama and other states — long stereotyped for clinging to antebellum views on education, race and class — are doing a much better job of serving their citizens’ needs than the state that just wasted time in the last legislative session debating the merits of “Rocky Mountain High” as the new state song.

One of the most stark contrasts in Colorado’s freefall is the mother-of-all controversial subjects: reproductive health care.

The United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy in the industrialized world. Half of the six million pregnancies that occur among American women each year are unintended; of these, 1.3 million end in abortion.

In Colorado, 92,770 of the 967,570 women of childbearing age become pregnant each year. 71% of these pregnancies result in live births, and 14% result in abortions; the remainder end in miscarriage.

Colorado has the 22nd highest teenage pregnancy rate of any state. Of the 12,130 teenage pregnancies each year in
Colorado, 62% result in live births and 23% result in abortions.

Colorado is ranked 40th overall of all 50 states and the District of Columbia on access to contraception, according to the Guttmacher Institute, one of the leading non-profit social science research, education, and public policy organizations on U.S. and global reproductive health concerns.

Alabama is ranked 4th in the nation. [PDF].

The chart, at left, is a composite of data available before November 1, 2005. Since then, the legislature has passed a long-fought bill championed by Sen. Betty Boyd (D-Lakewood) that requires hospitals to inform sexual assault victims about emergency contraception options. Gov. Bill Ritter signed SB 60 on March 15, 2007.

During the same legislative session, a non-binding joint resolution [PDF] was passed by both chambers asserting the need for the state to “consider cost-effective public policies to reduce unintended pregnancy rates based upon comprehensive data and analysis regarding the barriers and challenges to preventing unintended pregnancies.”

While the state appears to be moving in the right direction to reduce unplanned pregnancies it remains to be seen if Colorado’s low ranking on contraception issues will improve.

Especially while ballot measures are floated to bestow legal personhood on fertilized eggs as an attempt — openly admitted by Coloradans for Equal Rights — to effectively ban abortion and contraception access.

Next, we’ll look at Colorado’s relative ranking compared to its intermountain west neighbors — New Mexico, Wyoming, and Montana. When and where does western small “l” libertarian politics play a role in reproductive health?

“An American woman can decide to put her life on the line for our country in Iraq, but she can be prevented from making basic decisions about her own health here at home,” Maloney said in a press release.  “Access to birth control is a women’s health issue, a private matter and a constitutional right.  No one – not pharmacists, politicians, or religious leaders – should be able to tamper with that right.”

continued…Under the Access to Birth Control Act, pharmacists would not be allowed to object on religious grounds. The bill states: “If a customer requests a contraceptive that is in stock, the pharmacy shall ensure that the contraceptive is provided to the customer without delay.” If the pills are out of stock, pharmacists would be required to order them for the customer or refer her to another pharmacy.

Gov. Ritter signed a bill this year that requires pharmacies that don’t stock emergency contraception to post a sign saying so in order to save women valuable time waiting in line. EC, which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the sooner, the better.

Under the new bill, pharmacies could face a fine of $5,000 per day for violations and customers could sue pharmacies if they believe the law has been broken.

Read Colorado Confidential’s coverage of EC.

SB 60 also requires pharmacies that don’t have EC in stock to post a prominent sign saying so, thus saving women valuable time waiting in line. EC can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex – though the sooner the better.

EC can be dispensed at pharmacies without a prescription, but a Colorado Confidential investigation in November found that many pharmacies don’t stock it. Availability seemed to be most limited in rural areas and Colorado Springs. Catholic hospitals have objected to similar measures in past years, but SB 60 includes a right for hospital workers who object on moral grounds to opt out. All hospitals, however, would still have to find someone on staff who would talk to victims about EC.

The Senate passed the bill Jan. 30 by a vote of 25-10, and the House passed it Feb. 14 on a vote of 56-9. Rep. Anne McGihon is the sponsor in the House.

Once signed by the governor, the bill will go into effect immediately.

There was no testimony in opposition to the bill, while health professionals, reproductive rights advocates and sexual assault victims offered sometimes emotional testimony in support of the measure.

This is the fourth try for bill sponsor Sen. Betty Boyd, who introduced similar measures in past years. The closest such a bill came to becoming law was in 2005, when former Gov. Bill Owens vetoed it. Catholic hospitals have objected to similar measures in past years, but this session’s bill includes a right for hospital workers who object on moral grounds to opt out. Catholic hospitals, however, would still have to find someone on staff who would talk to victims about Plan B.

Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, said she was previously opposed the the bill, but she was struck today by the absence of objections from Catholic hospitals. 

“It’s caused me to rethink my position,” she said.

The committee also unanimously adopted an amendment that would require pharmacies that don’t stock emergency contraception to post a conspicuous sign saying so. Plan B is available without a prescription, but pharmacies aren’t required to stock it. A Colorado Confidential investigation in November found that EC wasn’t available at many pharmacies in the state. EC can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and the amendment would save women valuable time waiting in line at pharmacies that don’t stock it.

Rep. Anne McGihon is the bill’s sponsor in the House.