Copyright 2000 The Denver Post Corporation
The
Denver Post
October 27, 2000 Friday 1ST EDITION
SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-10
LENGTH: 1574 words
HEADLINE:
LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL
BODY:
AMENDMENT 25:
WOMAN'S RIGHT TO KNOW
Complicated legalese
I am urging
Coloradans to vote 'no' on Amendment 25. Like many ballot
initiatives, Amendment 25 is written in complicated 'legalese,' and
it cleverly disguises its true intent - restricting a woman's right
to choose - by claiming to be about 'a woman's right to know.'
Amendment 25 requires that before a woman can make
the decision to have an abortion, she will be
shown government-produced materials and will then have to wait 24
hours before obtaining an abortion. The decision to terminate
a pregnancy is, for many women, the most difficult decision
they will ever have to make, and certainly not one that is taken
lightly.
To imply that a woman cannot make a well-informed
decision without the interference of the government and a 24-hour
waiting period is insulting to women, plain and simple. Amendment 25
would make abortion the only medical procedure which requires a
24-hour waiting period. This is not about informing women, as the
backers of Amendment 25 would have you believe. This is about
restricting women's access to safe, legal abortion.
ALLISON NIEKERK Littleton
Consumer-rights legislation
Colorado women are reporting that they're not receiving
accurate or sufficient information to give their informed consent
before an abortion. We need continuity among all Colorado abortion
providers so that no woman falls through the informational cracks.
Nineteen states have passed similar legislation with language that
has been upheld by the courts.
One major study found 85
percent of women surveyed believe they were misinformed or denied
relevant information during their pre-abortion counseling. When they
asked questions, 64 percent reported their questions were not
thoroughly answered or were evaded, or their concerns were
trivialized.
A majority of women don't meet their doctor until they're
in the operating room awaiting the abortion. Amendment 25
will encourage the development of a patient-physician
relationship. The Department of Public Health will
be responsible for the literature that women receive. Ballot language
mandates information be 'medically accurate and complete' and
'objective, non-judgmental and designed to convey only accurate
scientific information.' Counseling will still be provided by
clinics. Men receive full disclosure for vasectomies. Let's ensure
equal rights and respect for Colorado women by voting 'yes' on
Amendment 25.
MARLENE TRUJILLO
Greeley
Government
intrusion
Amendment 25 didn't sound bad until I read all the way to
the end of the ballot language. It reads: 'requiring physicians
to annually report specified information, requiring the
state Department of Public Health and Environment to annually publish
a compilation of the physician's reports .'
I was appalled. I
think it is wrong for the government to compile private
medical information from our doctors.
What safeguards are there for privacy? This
amendment is government intrusion into a woman's life and a doctor's
medical practice. The last thing we need is government regulations
telling women what they have to read, see and hear.
It
doesn't matter how you feel about abortion; it's wrong for any of us
to force our views on others. That's what Amendment 25 is about, and
I'm voting 'no.'
GREG BOROM
Colorado Springs
Need to
have information
There is a great need for women who are considering
abortion to have medical and legal information which could affect
decisions regarding their physical and emotional health for the rest
of their lives.
The Woman's Right to Know initiative will
provide this information through consultation with a doctor at the
clinic - something most women do not receive there. They will
receive information about health risks, alternatives to abortion,
legal responsibilities of the father and information on the
physical development of the child.
Informed consent is
required by medical professionals for any other medical procedure.
Women should have the right to discuss their health and medical
treatment before this procedure with a doctor so they can make an
informed decision.
Please vote for the Woman's Right to Know initiative.
SHERRIE O'FARRELL
Loveland
It's about 'control'
It's time we stop letting the government intrude into
women's personal lives. Amendment 25 is not geared to help women, it
is about controlling their decisions and bodies. As a
22-year-old woman in college, I refuse to let the government tell me
if and when I will become a mother. Choices I make concerning my body
are my private decision.
This is not about whether you agree
with abortion or not, it's about being able to make your own
decisions without someone else forcing you to live according to their
views. I believe women are strong enough and intelligent enough to
make all decisions that concern their bodies and personal lives, and
that's why I am voting 'no' on Amendment 25.
CHRISTINA
KITTLESTAD
Lakewood
Infringes on privacy
Conservatives
lament big, interventionist government until that view contradicts
their agenda of forced morality. Amendment 25 would mandate a
pre-abortion waiting period and require a slew of one-sided
information to be given to women considering abortion. It also would
create more government bureaucracy, limit women's freedom, and
infringe on the right to privacy of patients and doctors.
We
can trust women to inform themselves and make a personally
responsible choice without additional government hand-holding - or
coercion.
TOM JONES JR.
Silverthorne
Informed choice
When I was 18 I had an abortion. The clinic's 'counselor'
was intimidating and uncaring. She didn't give me all the
information about the procedure or tell me about the risks. When I
asked a question she made me feel foolish. I never had a chance to
speak to the doctor. No one told me that my baby already had a
beating heart and tiny limbs that would be ripped apart from the
powerful suction of the machine.
I have suffered from
depression and guilt for many years. I am at higher risk for breast
cancer now.
If Amendment 25 had been in place then, I would have been
given the information that I had a right to know and may have
chosen differently. Vote 'yes' on Amendment 25 for an informed
choice.
LISA KENDALL
Loveland
Late for work, supper
Imagine if there were no passing or lane-changing: We'd all
be late for work and late for supper.
LOUIS F. SMITH
Golden
GREEN AND CAMPBELL
Moral position?
I had
the misfortune of reading Chuck Green's column on Sen. Ben Nighthorse
Campbell's ('Campbell stands out in a crowd,' Oct. 13) decision not
to support Indian (AIM) opposition to the Columbus Day parade and
holiday and his 'courage' and 'political guts' in this regard. Excuse
me while I regurgitate my breakfast (I should never eat and read
Chuck's column at the same time).
Campbell has never taken a moral or
courageous position on any issue unless it is politically expedient,
whether it be his decision to change political parties because of an
increase in Republican registration in the state (shortly after I
voted for who I thought was a Democrat), or declining to support
Indian opposition to this parade (and holiday) when it is
perfectly apparent that the political (white) winds either would not
support it or were apathetic to the whole issue.
As far as
Campbell being as 'conspicuous' in the U.S. Senate as Sen. Ted
Kennedy's belly - well, at least Kennedy shows up to vote, unlike our
notoriously absent senator, who consistently has one of the worst
attendance records in the Senate. Perhaps if he wasn't indulging
himself on taking a course on long-distance truck riding (and selling
jewelry), he might have more time to actually represent the state.
TOM BOYLAN
Denver
Merely incorrect
In a recent
column, Chuck Green proposed to confer knighthood on Sen. Ben
Campbell. (Oh, excuse me, I mean Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to use the
full-bodied ethnic name to which Campbell has clung relatively
recently in his life.)
Green would have us believe that Campbell is
admirable because he has made gutsy and politically incorrect
decisions. I would suggest that politically incorrect decisions are
often merely incorrect.
Take, for example, Campbell's
'courageous' opposition to renaming the Columbus Day Parade. At first
glance, this appears to be refreshing. But upon further analysis, it
displays an awkward expression of disrespect to Native Americans by a
Native American. Apparently, many people are charmed by Campbell's
periodic self-conscious declarations of independence. Personally, I
think he should spend a little more time taking leadership on
important issues (like making sure a certain big dam in his area gets
built despite decades of political game-playing) and a little less
time drawing attention to himself.
Green would place Campbell
in the pantheon of political honesty. I think he is the poster boy
for political defectors and a convenient ethnic celebrity for the
Republican party.
JACK FARRAR
Denver
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2000 
