Bucketrunner said:

---

At the football game in Denver last September, we had Colorado fans yell at us, "At least my wife can have an abortion!"

We were dumbfounded.

---

Same thing they yelled at us, after the game when they were unbelievably butthurt. Their fans were incredibly vile, no surprise they're far left radicals who celebrate the highest sacrament of the leftist church.

I guess colorado will top the list for abortion tourism now on top of the weed tourism. Will be interesting to see if there is push back in the conservative western slopes.

Helicopters.

HuffPost readers are celebrating. One wrote that abortion rights were enshrined in the Oregon state constitution.

I guess that explains a lot about both Oregon and Colorado.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

No human, at any point in development, should EVER be deliberately killed.

Your take is sick man.

This is NOT a bridgeable divide.

Clob94 said:

---

The left is communicating with the right via states rights.


Texas limits its abortion options, so, Colorado responds in kind by going wide open.

This isn't about freedom anymore. This is about pissing off your neighbor in any way possible.

---

We should have a war to settle the issue of infanticide once and for all.

It's worth dying for.

Gaw617 said:

---

Satan is alive and well in Colorado. Abortion is the biggest stain on this country and we will eventually have to pay the consequence of it.

---

It will be a Civil War and a judgement from God.

.....and the pro-life side WILL WIN and end it.... just like we ended slavery before it.

Pinochet said:

---

Helicopters.

---

Username checks out.

Disgusting.

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

---

Get your stars because no kids ever get adopted

We ought to walk back in and take what's ours from that scum. They don't deserve paradise. We can probably divide up and sell what's left over to Kansas and Utah.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

---

Get your stars because no kids ever get adopted

---

You're right, you can give up for adoption instead of murder your baby.

Ralph Northam newest role model!

That's actually most of the great parts of the state, though I'd prefer the slice include the parts remaining to the west (grand junction, etc).

Rossticus said:

---

Bill text:

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EQUITY ACT
25-6-401.

Short title. THE SHORT TITLE OF THIS PART 4 IS THE "REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EQUITY ACT".

25-6-402. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS PART 4, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:

(1) "ABORTION" MEANS ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENT, AGENT, OR DRUG USED TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OF AN INDIVIDUAL KNOWN OR REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE PREGNANT WITH AN INTENTION OTHER THAN TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF A LIVE BIRTH.

(2) "PREGNANCY" MEANS THE HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS, BEGINNING WITH THE IMPLANTATION OF AN EMBRYO.

(3) "PUBLIC ENTITY" HAS THE SAME MEANING AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 24-10-103 (5) AND INCLUDES PRIVATE CONTRACT PRISONS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 17-1-102.

(4) "REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE" MEANS HEALTH CARE AND OTHER MEDICAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE REPRODUCTIVE PROCESSES, FUNCTIONS, AND SYSTEMS AT ALL STAGES OF LIFE. IT INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, FAMILY PLANNING AND CONTRACEPTIVE CARE; ABORTION CARE; PRENATAL, POSTNATAL, AND DELIVERY CARE; FERTILITY CARE; STERILIZATION SERVICES; AND TREATMENTS FOR SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS AND REPRODUCTIVE CANCERS.

25-6-403. Fundamental reproductive health-care rights.

(1) EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, INCLUDING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO USE OR REFUSE CONTRACEPTION.

(2) A PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CONTINUE A PREGNANCY AND GIVE BIRTH OR TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.

(3) A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.

25-6-404. Public entity - prohibited actions. (1) A PUBLIC ENTITY SHALL NOT:

(a) DENY,RESTRICT,INTERFEREWITH,ORDISCRIMINATEAGAINSTAN INDIVIDUAL'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO USE OR REFUSE CONTRACEPTION OR TO CONTINUE A PREGNANCY AND GIVE BIRTH OR TO HAVE AN ABORTION IN THE REGULATION OR PROVISION OF BENEFITS, FACILITIES, SERVICES, OR INFORMATION; OR

(b) DEPRIVE, THROUGH PROSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, OR OTHER MEANS, AN INDIVIDUAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO ACT OR REFRAIN FROM ACTING DURING THE INDIVIDUAL'S OWN PREGNANCY BASED ON THE POTENTIAL, ACTUAL, OR PERCEIVED IMPACT ON THE PREGNANCY, THE PREGNANCY'S OUTCOMES, OR ON THE PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH.

25-6-405. Application.

(1) THIS PART 4 APPLIES TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, REGULATORY GUIDELINES AND RULES, PRACTICES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE. THE RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THIS PART 4 ARE A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

(2) NOTHING IN THIS PART 4 MAY BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A PUBLIC ENTITY TO BURDEN AN INDIVIDUAL'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RELATING TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.

---

Note they didn't use the word "woman" but individuals rights.

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

---

Get your stars because no kids ever get adopted

---

You're right, you can give up for adoption instead of murder your baby.

---

Are you just arguing with her because she's Tanya? Because I don't think she has expressed a viewpoint in support of the abortion bill.

Maybe I've misunderstood every one of her posts. Or yours.

Next they'll want to pass laws to make it legal to club them in the head on the way out.

Disgusting, evil people.

Cromagnum said:

---

Next they'll want to pass laws to make it legal to club them in the head on the way out.

Disgusting, evil people.

---

Doesn't this law allow this?

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

---

She doesn't understand the point.

This is the natural response for all of the recent anti-abortion bills of late. Keep trying to make it impossible for women to get an abortion, expect liberal states to slap back.

In the year 2022, humans have evolved and advanced to the point that what is most important is the right to have sex like monkeys.

Do not be deceived
God is not mocked
Whatever you sow… you will reap.

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

---

Get your stars because no kids ever get adopted

---

You're right, you can give up for adoption instead of murder your baby.

---

I know.

Hence me saying they can survive.

Buzzy said:

---

This is the natural response for all of the recent anti-abortion bills of late. Keep trying to make it impossible for women to get an abortion, expect liberal states to slap back.

---

Which abortion bill has made it impossible to get an abortion?

Buzzy said:

---

This is the natural response for all of the recent anti-abortion bills of late. Keep trying to make it impossible for women to get an abortion, expect liberal states to slap back.

---

This is either a very dishonest or completely ignorant post. Either way, not surprising.

Artorias said:

---

Buzzy said:

---

This is the natural response for all of the recent anti-abortion bills of late. Keep trying to make it impossible for women to get an abortion, expect liberal states to slap back.

---

Which abortion bill has made it impossible to get an abortion?

---

True, even the red states still make it legal to kill a baby, they just don't want you to take forever to do it.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I wouldn't want to have a wife/GF/daughter have one but I support the right to choose up the first trimester or so, but nine months?

Gross.

---

3 months old is just as sick as 9. Murder is murder. If there's nothing wrong with it, why do you prefer not to be associate with people that get them?

---

People ought to have he right to their own religious belief system and 3 months looks like a human-lizard chimera. It's not viable.

---

Neither is a 6 month old child.

---

Do you mean 6 months in the womb? Or 6 months after birth?

---

Did you really just ask that question?

---

Yes

Because both are viable without the uterus owner.

---

How many 6 month olds out there thriving on their own? Oh wait, they still depend on their mother to survive. Got it.

---

Get your stars because no kids ever get adopted

---

You're right, you can give up for adoption instead of murder your baby.

---

I know.

Hence me saying they can survive.

---

The statement was that a 6month old fetus wasn't viable, and then the same was said about a 6month old, which is true, as in "on their own".

Neither of the six month old fetus nor the six-month-old baby are viable. In other words, neither can survive without the support of another human being.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Bill text:

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EQUITY ACT
25-6-401.

Short title. THE SHORT TITLE OF THIS PART 4 IS THE "REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EQUITY ACT".

25-6-402. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS PART 4, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:

(1) "ABORTION" MEANS ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE, INSTRUMENT, AGENT, OR DRUG USED TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OF AN INDIVIDUAL KNOWN OR REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE PREGNANT WITH AN INTENTION OTHER THAN TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF A LIVE BIRTH.

(2) "PREGNANCY" MEANS THE HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS, BEGINNING WITH THE IMPLANTATION OF AN EMBRYO.

(3) "PUBLIC ENTITY" HAS THE SAME MEANING AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 24-10-103 (5) AND INCLUDES PRIVATE CONTRACT PRISONS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 17-1-102.

(4) "REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE" MEANS HEALTH CARE AND OTHER MEDICAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE REPRODUCTIVE PROCESSES, FUNCTIONS, AND SYSTEMS AT ALL STAGES OF LIFE. IT INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, FAMILY PLANNING AND CONTRACEPTIVE CARE; ABORTION CARE; PRENATAL, POSTNATAL, AND DELIVERY CARE; FERTILITY CARE; STERILIZATION SERVICES; AND TREATMENTS FOR SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS AND REPRODUCTIVE CANCERS.

25-6-403. Fundamental reproductive health-care rights.

(1) EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, INCLUDING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO USE OR REFUSE CONTRACEPTION.

(2) A PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CONTINUE A PREGNANCY AND GIVE BIRTH OR TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.

(3) A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.

25-6-404. Public entity - prohibited actions. (1) A PUBLIC ENTITY SHALL NOT:

(a) DENY,RESTRICT,INTERFEREWITH,ORDISCRIMINATEAGAINSTAN INDIVIDUAL'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO USE OR REFUSE CONTRACEPTION OR TO CONTINUE A PREGNANCY AND GIVE BIRTH OR TO HAVE AN ABORTION IN THE REGULATION OR PROVISION OF BENEFITS, FACILITIES, SERVICES, OR INFORMATION; OR

(b) DEPRIVE, THROUGH PROSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, OR OTHER MEANS, AN INDIVIDUAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO ACT OR REFRAIN FROM ACTING DURING THE INDIVIDUAL'S OWN PREGNANCY BASED ON THE POTENTIAL, ACTUAL, OR PERCEIVED IMPACT ON THE PREGNANCY, THE PREGNANCY'S OUTCOMES, OR ON THE PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH.

25-6-405. Application.

(1) THIS PART 4 APPLIES TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, REGULATORY GUIDELINES AND RULES, PRACTICES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE. THE RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THIS PART 4 ARE A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

(2) NOTHING IN THIS PART 4 MAY BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A PUBLIC ENTITY TO BURDEN AN INDIVIDUAL'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RELATING TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.

---

Note they didn't use the word "woman" but individuals rights.

---

Could this be interpreted that a father could force a woman to get an abortion because of his reproductive rights? Since he has a right to refuse to use contraceptives and therefore increases the likelihood of creating a fetus that has no rights, he should have no consequences a child that results from his right to having a good time. Also, the way pregnancy is defined as an "individual" rather than a woman or mother, since his DNA is also in the uterus, might it be interpreted that the pregnancy extends to the "sperm producer".

In other words, in an "equitable" society, why should "birthing persons" have special privileges regarding the consequences their right to engage in legal unprotected sex? "Sperm producers" should also be allowed to end pregnancies if it might interfere with their "right" to live however they want.

Second, since a fetus has no rights under state law, if someone harms a woman thereby killing the unborn child, he can only be charged with injury to the woman. This law would not allow charging someone for the murder of the unborn child. The child doesn't matter because it has not yet been born and it has no right to life.

Third, what happens if the woman wants to use contraceptives but the man refuses? According to the law he has a right to refuse to use contraceptives, and she has an equal right to use contraceptives.

Finally, apparently it is suddenly ok for the government to go into the bedroom?

The best way to ignore issues at home is too concern ourselves with Russia problems. Guess it makes us feel better about our own wretched policies.

Central Committee said:

---

EVIL.

I cannot fathom how a Christian can vote in favor of this and still profess the faith.

Someday these people will have to give account to Almighty God and explain why they signed off on genocide of the most vulnerable of God's people.

---

The pope will tell you income inequality is the greatest evil in the world. This is the world we live in.

Come liberate us in Colorado Springs, there are some very good people here

Does Det. Joe Kenda still live in Colorado Springs?

So where in this bill does it say abortion is allowed through the entire pregnancy term? Am I missing something? Sounds like Lila Rose is misleading/inflaming people.