For Gov. Bill Ritter, a self-described “pro-life” Catholic, Amendment 48 has created a quandary.
Ritter opposes the issue on the November ballot, which would declare a fertilized egg to be a person, saying it is bad public policy that could endanger the health of women in Colorado.
On the other hand, Ritter’s opposition raises questions about his “pro-life” credentials.
“He’s in a dicey spot with Amendment 48,” said Tom Hooyman, a professor of medical ethics at Regis University who holds a Ph.D. in moral theology. “It’s clearly a pro-life amendment. For him to come out and oppose it, you have to say, ‘What does it mean to be a pro-life Catholic?’ ”
Ritter’s anti-abortion bonafides have been challenged before, such as in 2007 when he signed a bill requiring hospitals — including Catholic ones — to offer emergency contraception to rape victims and when he supported restoring family-planning funding to Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions.
Ritter gathered Tuesday on the steps of the Colorado Capitol with medical professionals, former Republican state Sen. Dottie Wham and others to rally against Amendment 48.
“I believe the amendment goes too far,” Ritter said. “It threatens medical care, and it would create a legal nightmare in our state.”
The Democratic governor said the amendment could criminalize necessary medical care, an assertion that brought heckling from a small group of abortion protesters.
One man, identified later as John Wiechel, 52, of Morrison, was arrested by Colorado State Patrol officers on complaints of disrupting a lawful assembly as he shouted throughout the event.
Doctors at the event backed Ritter up, saying the proposed amendment could make it illegal for a physician to remove a fertilized egg that has become implanted in a woman’s fallopian tube, which can cause an ectopic pregnancy, leading to serious medical problems or death.
Supporters of Amendment 48 said Ritter’s opposition is contrary to the “will of the people.”
“The governor’s position directly contradicts the overwhelming modern scientific evidence that now recognizes what we all know in our hearts,” said Kristi Burton, who sponsored Amendment 48, “from the moment of conception, a new unique individual has been created.”
Ritter said after the speech that he did not believe his Catholic, anti-abortion beliefs were at odds with his opposition to Amendment 48.
“In spite of the fact that I’m pro-life, I can look at this and really find reasons I think it is just such an extreme position to take,” Ritter said.
He added, “My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine,” he said.
But Hooyman said Catholic doctrine is quite clear on fertilized eggs.
“Official church teaching would be that there is no distinction between a human being, person or human life,” Hooyman said, “and so at the moment of fertilization, official Roman Catholic Church teaching is that that’s a person and needs to be protected as a newborn.”
He added, though, “whether Amendment 48 is the right strategy or right public policy approach is a totally different question.”
That appears to be the question the Catholic Church in Colorado addressed when looking at Amendment 48, which the church is not supporting — but not actively opposing either.
A statement from Colorado’s three bishops says that while the goals of Amendment 48 supporters are admirable, federal courts are likely to throw it out. Thus, “it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.”
Bob Loevy, a professor of political science at Colorado College, said Ritter’s opposition to Amendment 48 isn’t likely to hurt him much politically.
“I think it mainly would hurt him with fundamentalist, evangelical Christians,” Loevy said, “and they vote for Republicans anyway.”
Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or [email protected]
