Read AAPLOG Action Supports Repeal of 79
July 14, 2026
Harms of 79: warnings and fulfillment
In 2024, Harms of 79 warned that Amendment 79 would:
The 2024 Colorado Voter’s Guide Fiscal Impact section for Amendment 79 begins, “The measure will have no fiscal impact to state and local governments, as it places current 16 state law and practices around abortion services into the Colorado Constitution.” However, the amendment included the repeal of Amendment 3, the prohibition of using tax payer dollars to fund elective abortion through Medicaid and government employee insurance.
What has happened in Colorado since Amendment 79 passed?
Parental notification: Dani Newsum, the director of COBALT, which was one of the primary sponsors of Amendment 79, claimed publicly that the Amendment had “nothing to do with parental notification.” (Timestamp 7:19)
However abortionist Rebecca Cohen has filed legal action against Colorado to remove parental notification of a minor daughter’s abortion, claiming it is unconstitutional under Amendment 79.
The Colorado legislature in 2026 went one step further, expanding the definition of abuse in custody decisions: “Health-care abuse” – “Interference with or controlling or preventing access to reproductive healthcare, including contraceptive use or reproductive health care information, or controlling or attempting to control reproductive outcomes…” It also added “coercive control” to the definition of abuse, including monitoring their child’s “access to services…” (HB26-1309).
Safeguards for women: defeat of CDPHE regulation of later abortion facilities
The Colorado legislature has twice defeated bills to require similar regulation, oversight and licensure of abortion facilities that perform the increasingly more dangerous second and third trimester abortions, as required for facilities that perform similarly or less-risky procedures, such as Ambulatory Surgery Centers and free-standing Birth Centers (HB26-1243 and HB25-1252). Since the passage of Amendment 79, an 18 year-old woman died of complications from a late second trimester abortion. The Colorado Department of Health and Education has no authority to investigate, or to require improvements in care that may save future women’s lives. 90% of maternal deaths (which include deaths from abortion in Colorado) are preventable; but Colorado protects abortionists, not women.
Conscience Protections for Medical Professionals
In 2025, the Colorado legislature defeated a bill to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals (HB25-1255).
Cost to Tax Payers
Despite the assurance of no fiscal impact, the Colorado legislature immediately passed legislation to use public funds for elective abortion (euphemized as “certain pregnancy related services”) through Medicaid and government employee insurance (SB25-183). The fiscal note for the bill claimed an eventual cost savings to fund elective abortion by “averted births,” both immediate “savings” and decreased need for the “safety net.” “Medicaid-covered births typically involve additional social safety net costs for the child, whereas abortion care services represent a one-time expenditure.” “No fiscal impact” became: “For FY 2025-26, the bill requires and includes the following appropriations to the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing:
During the special session called in August 2025 to address the state budget deficit of nearly $1 Billion, the Colorado legislature determined to fund Planned Parenthood, euphemistically called “State-Only Funding for Certain Entities” (SB25B-002). The fiscal note estimated up to nearly $4.4 Million appropriations of public monies, although there is no cap in the bill.
The full fiscal impact of Amendment 79 is yet to be realized, but the 2026-2027 appropriations budget includes $5.7 Million for abortion care, and an additional line item of $2 Million for “Reproductive Health Care for Individuals Not Eligible for Medicaid.” Abortion funding was prioritized over other essential healthcare services, which were cut, including benefits for pregnant women through Cover All Coloradans, reductions in provider reimbursement, long-term services and supports, disability waiver programs, family caregiver payments, and other Medicaid services.
Mandated Abortion Pill Provision on college campuses
In 2026, the Colorado legislature passed an unfunded mandate requiring campuses that have a health clinic to stockpile and dispense abortion drugs (HB26-1335). Again, there is an unexplainable fiscal note of zero. However, in California, the only other state with a requirement for abortion provision on campuses, $200,000 was provided to each campus for implementation; ongoing cost of provision are not yet reported. Colorado’s mandate has no provision for standards of medical care, emergency access to medical care for complications, nor data collection for quality and cost.
In the same legislative session, HB26-1141 changed the definition of harassment and discrimination on education institutions campuses from kindergarten through higher education to: “”Harassment or discrimination” means to engage in, or the act of engaging in, any unwelcome physical or verbal conduct or any written, pictorial, or visual communication by a student or employee that is directed at a student or group of students because of that student’s or group’s membership in, or perceived membership in, a protected class….” Protected classes were expanded to include pregnancy and parenting status. Data and grievance procedures will be publicly available. This bill potentially chills groups on college campuses that may offer other pregnancy options to pregnant college women, while HB26-1335 mandates one option – abortion.
Coloradans were duped! When the amendment sponsors incorporated language that nothing shall deny, impede or restrict access to abortion, they meant it… and more. Free abortion for all with no restrictions or protections for women or minors.
Read the full “Harms of 79” declaration below.
June 19, 2026
Lexi Arguello’s death February 6, 2025 in Fort Collins, Colorado, was a tragic loss to her family and those who knew her, and we extend our sincere sympathy.
Despite the abortion industry’s repeated claims that abortion is “safe and effective” and “essential healthcare,” Lexi’s tragic death reflects the stark reality to the contrary. These mantras presume that high-quality care is provided by qualified medical professionals in facilities that meet medical safety standards appropriate for the risk of the procedures provided. Most people seeking abortion assume that because abortion is often called “healthcare,” the facility is licensed and regulated, and that there is a government authority that investigates poor outcomes, including deaths. This is not the case in Colorado.
Abortion facilities are not simply clinics. Most medical offices, except rural community clinics and federally qualified clinics, are not regulated by the Department of Health, because they do not perform procedures with significant risk. Facilities that perform second and third trimester abortions are performing high-risk procedures, and they should be licensed, regulated, and inspected at least comparably to other facilities performing outpatient surgeries and inductions of labor with complex delivery.
While later abortions are sold to the public as necessary for a woman’s health, or anomalies of the baby, in Arizona, one of the few states that reports statistics, 80% are performed on healthy women and healthy babies. Induced abortion complications and deaths are especially tragic, because a risky surgical procedure is being performed with no medical indication or diagnosis. Medical professionals are ethically responsible for informing their patients of risk/ benefit considerations as part of informed consent: is the risk of the procedure outweighed by the medical benefit of the procedure? There is no medical benefit for women undergoing elective abortion, only the risk of harm. Every complication from induced abortion is specifically caused by the drug or medical procedure (iatrogenic). Abortions after the first trimester are especially risky, with exponentially increasing risk for each additional week of pregnancy.
For Lexi, her risk from the abortion was ultimately death. If a young woman died from elective plastic surgery, people would be in an uproar. Instead, the coroner attempted to hide the facts surrounding Lexi’s death from the public so that other women wouldn’t be deterred from seeking “reproductive healthcare.” Women deserve to know the whole truth about the risks of induced abortion before making such a consequential decision, which may include death.
The coroner concluded that her death was directly caused by the late second-trimester abortion. His medical opinion was that the probable diagnosis was “amniotic fluid embolism.” This is not a definitive diagnosis, but one made by exclusion of other possible diagnoses. Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is an extremely rare event which is unique and specific to the circumstances of a delivery or induced abortion. Factorsi that are associated with AFE, which are present in a second trimester induced abortion, include trauma to the uteroplacental interface by instruments, induction of labor – often used for cervical dilation in later abortions, and premature gestational age.
While we cannot know for certain, it is highly unlikely that she would have suffered an amniotic fluid embolus from natural childbirth at term. Among the most important factors for survival from AFE are the promptness of recognition, and rapidity of access to ICU care and blood products. The coroner does not comment on her medical records from the abortion facility, whether there were delays in transport, appropriateness of management prior to arriving at the hospital, or other medical details.
Last year, there were at least seven ambulance transfers of women from the same Fort Collins abortion facility to the local hospital. This year there have already been at least five ambulance transfers. In Colorado, the Colorado Department of Health (CDPHE) has no authority to investigate.
When will Coloradans and legislators wake up to the harms that are happening to women from later abortions complicated by lack of CDPHE oversight, in addition to the death of babies that are often capable of surviving if they are delivered and provided appropriate care? How many more women must die?
Colorado citizens deserve to know the harms that are happening to women and children in our state. Colorado legislators have a duty to protect women and must not exempt abortion facilities from the standards applied elsewhere in medicine. Facilities performing abortions after the first trimester should be licensed, regulated, and subject to oversight just like other healthcare facilities performing procedures of similar complexity and risk.
Recent reporting and firsthand investigation are raising serious concerns about how abortion services are being promoted and delivered—particularly involving minors. Two developments stand out: the encouragement of teenagers as young as 14 to participate in abortion support roles, and the increasing availability of abortion pills with limited, if any, medical oversight.
A report from Fox News describes a training hosted by a youth abortion advocacy group that explicitly invited participants ages 14–24 to learn how to become “abortion doulas,” equipping teens to support both procedural and medication abortions.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/group-hosts-abortion-doula-trainings-teach-teens-young-14-support-abortions-train-others
While abortion doulas are defined as non-medical support persons, extending this role to minors raises serious ethical concerns. Adolescents are still developing emotionally and cognitively. Encouraging their involvement in medically and emotionally complex situations risks exposes them to experiences they are not equipped to process, while blurring the boundaries between peer support and medical care.
Notably, even within abortion advocacy spaces, there is an implicit acknowledgment that medication abortion is not a trivial or casual experience. Training materials and support models emphasize the need for continuous emotional, physical, and psychological assistance. This framing itself contradicts the common public narrative that abortion pills are “simple” or comparable to routine medications. If significant support is necessary, it underscores that the experience can involve pain, distress, and medically relevant symptoms that require monitoring.
At the same time, access to abortion pills has expanded rapidly through online and mail-order systems. A report from Live Action highlights efforts to recruit “abortion pill doulas,” further normalizing peer-based involvement in abortion support.
In an undercover investigation, Christina Francis, MD, demonstrates how easily abortion pills can be obtained online, even by a 13 year old with multiple health conditions that would place her at significant risk. The process, as shown, raises concerns about the consistency of safeguards such as physician involvement, thorough medical screening, and meaningful oversight. For minors, this approach creates a pathway where abortion medication can be obtained with little to no direct physician interaction and without the kinds of safeguards—such as parental involvement or comprehensive screening—that are typically expected in adolescent medical care.
https://youtu.be/Nkqqfrgg6C0?si=W0HPIftuaLtnOFn1
This model also raises difficult legal and ethical questions. In many jurisdictions, pregnancy in a young adolescent may trigger statutory rape considerations depending on age differences. Systems that allow minors to obtain abortion medication without adult involvement may inadvertently reduce opportunities for identifying coercion, abuse, or exploitation. Rather than protecting vulnerable individuals, such pathways risk shielding those responsible for harm.
At the same time, the growing reliance on peer-based support—particularly involving minors—introduces additional concerns. Placing a 14-year-old in a position of supporting another individual through a medically and emotionally intense process may expose both individuals to psychological strain. Adolescents are already a population with increased vulnerability to anxiety, depression, and suicidality. Asking them to “hold” complex, and sometimes traumatic, experiences—potentially in secrecy—raises questions about the risk of adverse childhood experiences and long-term emotional impact.
There are also practical safety considerations. Medication abortion is often described as safe and effective, but it is not without side effects. Commonly reported symptoms include significant pain, nausea, vomiting, and heavy bleeding. In some cases, complications such as incomplete abortion or hemorrhage require follow-up care. These realities reinforce that this is not a passive or negligible experience, and they raise concerns about relying on untrained individuals—especially minors—to monitor or respond to potential warning signs.
Additionally, basic occupational safety considerations cannot be ignored. Exposure to blood and bodily fluids typically warrants protective measures under standards such as those outlined by Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Informal, peer-based support structures operating outside clinical environments may not consistently incorporate such protections, creating avoidable risks, such as exposure to hepatitis or HIV.
Taken together, these trends point to a concerning shift. Expanding access, when there is often no medical oversight, places adolescents in situations where medical risks may go unrecognized and emotional impacts are left unsupported. In most areas of medicine, minors are afforded additional safeguards. Here, they appear to be given fewer.
At minimum, these developments warrant serious scrutiny. When safeguards have been reduced in the name of access, the burden of risk does not disappear—it shifts onto those least equipped to bear it.
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) Colorado chapter, along with a coalition of pro-life organizations are highlighting the risks of unregulated late abortion to the health and safety of women. Regular events will be held as part of a statewide effort from concerned citizens, medical professionals and businesses to raise awareness and apply pressure on Colorado facilities that perform late abortions
Wednesday, Februray 25 from 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM | 1421 South Patomac St., Aurora, CO 80012
AAPLOG CO is the first in the nation state chapter of the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNS. Our foundation is based on the fact that all human beings deserve optimal healthcare at every stage of their life, starting at fertilization.
Our mission is to equip pro-life medical professionals in our state with the tools they need to provide evidence-based/scientifically sound information:
May 2026
How do you measure impact in a state where a 2025 bill mandating taxpayer funding for elective abortion explicitly argued that Colorado would save money by “averted births”? What does success look like when the cultural and legislative landscape seems diametrically opposed to life?
In Colorado, success looks like courageous medical professionals speaking truth with compassion, communities becoming informed, and collaborative efforts growing stronger every day. These are exciting and pivotal times for life-affirming medicine in our state, as new opportunities abound to present evidence-based care that defends both mother and child, and to advance medical care that honors the value of both of our patients. The medical voice remains one of the most trusted in society, and AAPLOG Colorado is honored to help lead these efforts.
AAPLOG CO is actively participating in several impactful collaborative initiatives across the state:
There are those who ask, “Why persist in Colorado?
Yet, each year in Colorado there are an estimated 24,610 abortions – 67 every day, nearly 3 per hour. Faced with that reality, how can anyone with a heart do nothing as this is happening in our communities?
We will not surrender Colorado’s women and children to an extreme abortion industry. Colorado’s story is not finished. Our hope is steadfast – Colorado will become a leader for LIFE – if we don’t give up.
Follow us on Social Media, and on the AAPLOG Colorado website.
By Wendy Smith, ACNP-Retired
A large study of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) offers a basic benchmark for outpatient safety. Across more than 3.8 million patients, immediate hospital transfers occurred at a rate of just 1.1 per 1,000 discharges. When including emergency department visits or hospital admissions within seven days, the rate rose to 31.8 per 1,000. These standardized, rate-based measures allow outcomes to be tracked, compared, and meaningfully evaluated across high-volume centers.
In contrast, publicly reported data from a single abortion facility in Colorado point to an inordinate number of emergency responses. The facility generated seven ambulance or 911 calls over the course of one year, and an additional five to six calls in just the first three months of 2026. Even without precise procedure counts, this clustering of emergency calls at one location is striking and raises serious concerns about patient safety. At a minimum, it invites closer examination and prompts an obvious question: how frequently are ambulance or 911 calls occurring at other abortion facilities across the state?
The concern is compounded by a lack of transparency. Unlike ASCs, abortion facilities in Colorado are not subject to the same level of standardized reporting, publicly available data, or consistent oversight. There is no comprehensive system tracking complications or emergency outcomes, making it difficult to assess quality or identify patterns of risk. Without clear metrics and accountability, meaningful evaluation is not possible.
This demands greater scrutiny, increased transparency, consistent reporting, and strengthened oversight. Greater accountability provides an accurate understanding of patient outcomes and ensures that safety concerns are not overlooked. If Colorado were committed to high standards of healthcare, then greater transparency, consistent reporting, and appropriate oversight would apply uniformly across all outpatient settings. Only with that level of scrutiny can patient safety be fully protected and public trust maintained. However, that is not the case in Colorado. Abortion is not healthcare. Women are being harmed as babies’ lives are ended.
By Wendy J. Smith | Member executive team AAPLOG CO On June 23, 2025 – An anti-trafficking operation in Florida, dubbed Operation Dragon Eye, rescued 60 minors from sex trafficking. Their ages ranged from 9-17 years old. Forty three were girls, while 17 were
We are ecstatic that Bella Health + Wellness and Chelsea Mynyk, CNM, lawsuits resolved with permanent injunctions to prescribe Abortion Pill Reversal (bioidentical progesterone). Colorado law has not been repealed. However, this is a major win in the only state
(and Keeping Other States from Becoming Radically Pro-Abortion) By Catherine Wheeler, MD Co-chair of AAPLOG CO I moved to Colorado six years ago, the next year joining with the prolife community to attempt to restrict abortion after fetal viability. I
Initially, Wendy, Tom and I sought to develop a state chapter to increase our validity under the umbrella of AAPLOG, the preeminent medical voice defending both of our patients. We had been thwarted continuously at the Colorado legislature, and the
July 2024 marks one year since we proposed making Colorado the first-in-the-nation state chapter of the American Association of Pro-life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG). Though the chapter officially launched following the March for Life in Denver, in April 2024, a lot work
While Amendment 79 passed in 2024, our focus is now on exposing the predicted consequences and harms, with a goal to remove the constitutional amendment. The two most important thing we can right now, every day, is
Extremism; Malito, Rastrelli and Pasterz https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/columns/a-right-to-abortion-embeds-extremism-in-our-state-constitution/article_10afc50e-8ccb-11ef-a27e-eb5072418272.html
We, the undersigned healthcare professionals, wish to warn Coloradoans about the hazards of Amendment 79.
Amendment 79 would become the only medical intervention that is protected in the Colorado Constitution Bill of Rights. It would ensure unrestricted, unregulated, taxpayer funded access to abortion.
If adopted, Amendment 79 eliminates parental notification prior to a minor daughter’s abortion which is currently law in Colorado. This undermines the critical relationship between a teen, her parents, and their healthcare professional. It may leave a teen feeling isolated and alone as she makes one of the most important decisions of her young life and faces potential physical and emotional complications of an abortion by herself. A girl who is pregnant after sexual abuse or violence would be able to be coerced or forced to have an abortion, with no knowledge of the parent, protecting the perpetrators and harming the girls.
Amendment 79 would prevent Coloradoans and their elected representatives in the legislature from enacting any restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy after the fetus could survive independently from her mother if born prematurely. Some of us care for babies born at the same gestational age as these aborted fetuses and can attest to their humanity – their ability to feel pain and respond to their mother’s caress, voice, and scent. We know that approximately 500 fetuses are aborted each year in Colorado after the limit of viability. Most of these abortions are performed on healthy women carrying healthy babies. This is a tragedy that will only get worse if we pass Amendment 79.
We lament the fact that hundreds of healthy women in Colorado currently undergo abortions each year on healthy fetuses late in pregnancy because they feel they have no other options. As healthcare professionals, we believe there are more compassionate ways to address the financial and social needs of these women.
We are saddened by the abortion techniques that are deployed late in pregnancy that frequently involve the systematic dismemberment of a pain-capable fetus or the fetal poisoning that can result in hours of anguishing discomfort before death. Amendment 79 would strip the fetus of all legal value and protections and prevent professional medical organizations or state government from regulating abortion methods and prohibiting especially cruel abortion procedures.
We are appalled that second and third trimester abortion clinics are not licensed, regulated or inspected in Colorado despite the high-risk late abortion procedures that they perform. We know that Colorado already provides oversight of thousands of healthcare facilities including birth centers, community clinics, rural health clinics, rehab centers, ambulatory surgical centers, free standing emergency departments, dialysis centers, acute care facilities, nursing homes, assisted living centers, mental health centers, portable X-ray services, and physical/occupational/speech therapy services. If Amendment 79 passes, the state will be unable to establish or enforce prudent health and safety standards pertaining to second and third trimester abortion clinics. Our patients’ health and lives will continue to be jeopardized.
By creating a new constitutional right to abortion, the conscience rights of physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses will be compromised. If Amendment 79 passes, they may be threatened with termination of their employment if they don’t refer women for abortions or participate in abortions – even if it is contrary to their core beliefs and values.
As healthcare professionals who care deeply for our patients, we feel it is our moral obligation to tell the truth about Amendment 79 and its impact on our community.
We want to hear from you!
