The Lobby

View Original

Colorado Legislators May Have Had ‘Anti-Religious Motivations’

See this content in the original post

Federal Judge Poses Tough Questions to State About Colorado’s Abortion Pill “Reversal” Law

In a tense court hearing on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Domenico weighed the arguments surrounding Colorado’s new law banning so-called medication abortion “reversal” treatment.

The first-of-its-kind law has sparked a heated debate, with the state Medical Board defending the law and a Catholic health care clinic, Bella Health and Wellness, fighting against it.

At the heart of the issue is which standard of judicial review should be applied. The state argues for the more lenient rational basis standard, asserting that the law is not discriminatory and should be allowed to stand.

On the other hand, Bella Health and Wellness wants the more stringent strict scrutiny standard to be applied, arguing that the law infringes on their religious freedom.

Colorado Rep. Stephanie Luck’s (HD60) emotional testimony during the state legislative session left audiences stunned as she shared a personal story. In an impassioned speech against SB23-190, which aims to restrict pregnancy-related services, Rep. Luck revealed that she had suffered a miscarriage just the week before. Her powerful words shed light on the real-life impact of limiting access to all pregnancy services.


Despite Domenico’s skepticism, the signs were ominous for the law as he deferred a ruling on whether to grant a preliminary injunction. Domenico acknowledged that the legislature may not have had explicitly anti-religious motivations when passing the law, but it appears they wanted to ban an activity they saw as religiously motivated.

The controversial practice of abortion pill “reversal” involves counteracting the effects of the first of two drugs taken during a medication abortion.

Proponents argue it should be an option for those who change their minds about the abortion, but opponents, including major medical groups, say there is insufficient evidence to support it and worry it could be unethical and harmful.


READ MORE:


Democrats in the state legislature passed a law declaring the practice to be unprofessional conduct, sparking further debate. Questions surrounding the neutrality and specificity of the law have left Domenico with a difficult decision on which standard of review to use.

While the state argues the law was created to protect patients from a practice that has not been proven effective, Bella Health and Wellness claims it was targeted and violates their religious beliefs.

Domenico is expected to issue a ruling by Monday night, just one day before the state Medical Board is set to begin enforcing the law.

See this content in the original post