Review hearing examines three proposed Colorado constitutional measures to restrict abortion rights
March 30, 2026 | 2026 Legislature CO, Colorado
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Gerard Brown, research analyst with Legislative Council staff, opened a March 30, 2026 review-and-comment hearing on three proposed constitutional initiatives about abortion and identified participants including Office of Legislative Legal Services counsel Chelsea Princel and co-proponents Angela Eichor and Faye Barnhart.
The proposals under review were Initiative 283 (to repeal the constitutional right to abortion by repealing Section 32 of Article II), Initiative 284 (to prohibit use of public funds for abortion services), and Initiative 285 (to repeal a statutory provision stating that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derived rights under Colorado law). The hearing is part of a statutorily required process to help proponents refine language and to inform the public of a proposal's content.
On Initiative 283, staff asked proponents to state the single subject of the measure to satisfy Colorado Constitution Article V, section 1(5.5). One co-proponent described Initiative 283 as a direct repeal of Section 32 of Article II. Staff also asked how repeal would interact with Colorado Revised Statutes §25-6-403(2), which currently recognizes a pregnant woman’s fundamental right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy, carry a pregnancy to term, or have an abortion; a co-proponent responded that proponents viewed the change as having "no effect" on that statutory provision. Staff then read technical drafting recommendations aimed at improving ballot text and form, including a required enacting clause in lowercase italics, a suggested amending clause (“in the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 32 of article 2 as follows”), inclusion of a head note for the section, and a standard effective-date clause.
For Initiative 284, staff identified the measure's stated purpose as prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion services and asked about the single-subject requirement. A co-proponent summarized the proposed ballot language as barring public funds for any procedure or drug intended to cause the death of a “preborn child.” Staff asked for clarification on how the initiative would define "preborn child." The proponents declined staff’s offer to have technical comments read aloud for that measure.
On Initiative 285, staff said the proposal would repeal the statutory provision that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derived rights. Staff questioned how the initiative would affect statutory requirements and practices governing the use of fertilized eggs and embryos in in vitro fertilization and how it might affect individuals who require IVF to have a child; the co-proponents said they would consider those issues further. The proponents declined technical comments for this measure as well.
No formal action (motions or votes) was taken at the hearing. The session was framed as an informal review to surface legal, drafting, and practical questions for proponents to address before a finalized petition is circulated. Gerard Brown adjourned the meeting after proponents had no additional remarks.
What happens next: the hearing produced technical drafting guidance and raised substantive questions about statutory compatibility and potential effects on IVF that the proponents said they would consider; Legislative Council staff and OLLS provided the record of comments for proponents' follow-up.
The proposals under review were Initiative 283 (to repeal the constitutional right to abortion by repealing Section 32 of Article II), Initiative 284 (to prohibit use of public funds for abortion services), and Initiative 285 (to repeal a statutory provision stating that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derived rights under Colorado law). The hearing is part of a statutorily required process to help proponents refine language and to inform the public of a proposal's content.
On Initiative 283, staff asked proponents to state the single subject of the measure to satisfy Colorado Constitution Article V, section 1(5.5). One co-proponent described Initiative 283 as a direct repeal of Section 32 of Article II. Staff also asked how repeal would interact with Colorado Revised Statutes §25-6-403(2), which currently recognizes a pregnant woman’s fundamental right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy, carry a pregnancy to term, or have an abortion; a co-proponent responded that proponents viewed the change as having "no effect" on that statutory provision. Staff then read technical drafting recommendations aimed at improving ballot text and form, including a required enacting clause in lowercase italics, a suggested amending clause (“in the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 32 of article 2 as follows”), inclusion of a head note for the section, and a standard effective-date clause.
For Initiative 284, staff identified the measure's stated purpose as prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion services and asked about the single-subject requirement. A co-proponent summarized the proposed ballot language as barring public funds for any procedure or drug intended to cause the death of a “preborn child.” Staff asked for clarification on how the initiative would define "preborn child." The proponents declined staff’s offer to have technical comments read aloud for that measure.
On Initiative 285, staff said the proposal would repeal the statutory provision that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derived rights. Staff questioned how the initiative would affect statutory requirements and practices governing the use of fertilized eggs and embryos in in vitro fertilization and how it might affect individuals who require IVF to have a child; the co-proponents said they would consider those issues further. The proponents declined technical comments for this measure as well.
No formal action (motions or votes) was taken at the hearing. The session was framed as an informal review to surface legal, drafting, and practical questions for proponents to address before a finalized petition is circulated. Gerard Brown adjourned the meeting after proponents had no additional remarks.
What happens next: the hearing produced technical drafting guidance and raised substantive questions about statutory compatibility and potential effects on IVF that the proponents said they would consider; Legislative Council staff and OLLS provided the record of comments for proponents' follow-up.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
