Policy I: Legislative Bill Review: Senate Bill 09-225

Introduction

In the following paper I discuss Senate Bill 09-225, referred to by proponents as the Birth Control Protection Act (“Planned Parenthood,” 2009, para. 1). After describing the bill, I trace its journey through the Colorado Legislature and outline the main arguments made for and against it. As we will see, although seemingly innocuous, the bill drew fire from anti-abortion activists and legislators. The arguments they gave, we will further see, reveal their desire to outlaw even some of the most common forms of birth control, an action that would negatively impact the lives of millions of women.

Overview

Senate Bill 09-225 was introduced into the Colorado State Senate in February 2009. The bill—co-sponsored by Senator Betty Boyd (D-Lakewood) and Representative Anne McGihon (D-Denver)—sought to legally define “contraceptive” and “contraception” as “a medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy” (Concerning the Definition of Contraceptive, Introduced Bill, 2009). Prior to the bill’s passage, Colorado did not have a statutory definition for these terms. For reasons discussed below, Boyd, McGihon, and others believed that providing a definition would help protect women’s reproductive rights.

This bill is relevant to social work because, if nothing else, it reminds us that there is a movement in this country intent on criminalizing the most common forms of birth control. Many social workers help their clients make informed decisions about family planning. Needless to say, this anti-birth control movement potentially hinders the ability of women to make their own family planning decisions.

Legislative Process

The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services heard Senate Bill 09-225 on February 26, 2009. Senator Boyd began the proceedings by noting some of the benefits of birth control, one being that it prevents unwanted pregnancies and ipso facto reduces the number of abortions. She then pointed to Amendment 48, a 2008 ballot initiative that would have granted personhood to fertilized human eggs and consequently would have criminalized many forms of birth control (Colo. Sen., 2009). Colorado voters rejected the amendment, dubbed the “Personhood Amendment,” by a three-to-one margin (Montero, 2008). By defining “contraceptive” and “contraception” as “a medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy,” Boyd claimed that the legislature would be “protecting birth control and removing it from the abortion debate” (Colo. Sen., 2009).

Myra Young of Planned Parenthood testified in support of the bill and, after being questioned by Senator Kevin Lumberg (R-Berthoud), defined “pregnancy” as “when an embryo is implanted within the wall of a uterus,” something which generally happens “six to seven days after fertilization occurs.” Young claimed that this was the medical definition of pregnancy. Lumberg conceded that Colorado statutory law also defined pregnancy as beginning with implantation but nonetheless stated that it was “self-evident” that life in fact begins at fertilization. Colorado’s statutory definition of pregnancy, he said, is, “in the opinion of many, scientifically inaccurate.” He claimed that it did not make sense to base the definition of pregnancy on this statute because scientists did not know much about the first days of human life in 1967, when the statute was passed (Colo. Sen., 2009).

Lumberg said that he opposed the bill because he felt it was “inaccurate” to call “any drug, device or procedure that would destroy that child, formed at the moment of fertilization but not yet implanted in the mother’s womb” a “contraceptive.” Toni Pannetta of NARAL confirmed, after questioning from Lumberg, that some forms of birth control prevent the fertilized egg from implanting to the uterine wall (Colo. Sen., 2009).

Rebecca Messall, an attorney representing herself, was the main witness for the opposition. Like Lumberg, Messall stated that it was “common sense” that life begins “when the egg and sperm meet” (in other words, at fertilization). Messall contended that SB09-225 would be legally defining many abortifacients—that is, products that prevent pregnancy by preventing the egg from attaching to the uterine wall—as birth control and would thus confuse many consumers, who have the right to know if they’re buying abortifacients. Messall contended that the bill consequently violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Colo. Sen., 2009).

The bill passed the committee by a five-to-three vote (Colo. Sen., 2009).” Facing pressure from Governor Bill Ritter and “Catholic hospital representatives,” Boyd subsequently changed the bill (Norris, 2009), making it clear that “contraception” did not include “RU-486, mifepristone, or any other drug or device that induces a medical abortion” (Concerning the Definition of Contraceptive, Revised Bill, 2009).

The entire Senate passed the revised bill on March 5 (“Summarized History for Bill Number SB09-225,” n.d.). On March 16, the House Committee on Health and Human Services heard the bill. Two witnesses, both representing themselves, stated that they opposed the bill because it defined birth control to include abortifacients. A host of other witnesses appeared, including a teenager who expressed her opposition to birth control because sewage treatment plants do not have the technology needed to remove the pill’s contaminants from water; fish, she claimed, were consequently being harmed. Another young woman appeared advocating abstinence, and a young couple claimed that the pill could potentially ruin a woman’s fertility. None of Representative McGihon’s witnesses said anything substantially different than the witnesses in the Senate had said. The committee finally adopted the bill and referred it to the entire House (Colo. House, 2009).

The entire House passed the bill a few days later, and on April 16 Governor Ritter signed it into law (“Summarized History for Bill Number SB09-225,” n.d.). The Colorado Legislative Council determined that the bill, since it merely added a definition into Colorado Law, would have “no fiscal impact” (2009).

Impact and Opinion

It is not clear what societal impact this bill has had or might have in the future. Such proponents as Planned Parenthood claimed that it was needed “in response to increasing attacks on birth control, of such nature like Amendment 48” (“Planned Parenthood,” 2009, para. 3). But this argument does not seem very compelling. Had voters approved Amendment 48, the state constitution would have been changed and all forms of birth control that destroyed fertilized eggs would have been criminalized, regardless of the statutory definition of contraception.

Proponents of the bill also claimed that such legislation was needed because “legally defining birth control” would finally “end the debate that confuses contraception with abortion” (“Planned Parenthood,” 2009, para. 3). But that debate is still not over. Passage of the bill did not change the minds of abortion opponents, who will continue to believe that life begins at fertilization regardless of what new laws are passed.

This new law, however, might be used by pro-choice advocates to convince some citizens that many of the most common forms of birth control are not abortifacients. Legal definitions carry weight in many people’s minds for the same reason that appeals to authority carry weight in many people’s minds. Proponents of S09-225, for instance, were able to advance the argument that pregnancy begins when the egg attaches to the uterus by appealing to Colorado’s statutory definition of pregnancy. Just because some proposition has been codified by a legislative body, of course, does not mean that that proposition is true, but people are more likely to believe propositions that have been affirmed by authorities. So in the future, pro-choice advocates might be better able to advance the argument that “the pill” is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient by appealing to the statutory definition of contraceptive.

For this reason, I am glad that the bill passed. I do not believe that a zygote is a human being and therefore do not think that any “drug, device, or procedure” that prevents it from implanting onto the uterine wall is murder. If this bill makes it even a little bit more difficult for future conservative legislators and activists to outlaw the most commonly used forms of birth control, then I think its passage is positive.

Conclusion

Completing this assignment taught me a great deal about the abortion debate and the legislative process. I had previously heard liberal commentators warn that a growing number of fundamentalists existed who were trying to limit women’s access to birth control. I took this all to be a bunch of scaremongering. But it turns out that many people do in fact want to criminalize some of the most common forms of birth control. For instance, the current Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia previously supported a bill that, like Colorado’s Amendment 48, affirmed that life begins at fertilization and would have conceivably criminalized the birth control pill (Johnson, 2013).

This assignment also taught me much about the legislative process. For instance, as obvious as it might be to some, I did not know that bills are first assigned to committees. I also did not know that committees are often where “the action” takes place, that is, where witnesses testify and have lively interactions with legislators.

References

Colo. House, Hearing on S09-225 before the House Comm. on Health and Human Services, 67th General Assemble, Reg. Sess. (March 16, 2009) (Available from Colorado State Archives, 1313 Sherman St., Room 1B-20, Denver, CO, 80203).

Colorado Legislative Council. (2009). Final Fiscal Note: Concerning the Definition of Contraceptive. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/291A31D0ED7DE72387257537001BA32C?Open&file=SB225_f1.pdf

Colo. Sen., Hearing on S09-225 before the Sen. Comm. on Health and Human Services, 67th General Assemble, Reg. Sess. (Feb. 26, 2009) (Available from Colorado State Archives, 1313 Sherman St., Room 1B-20, Denver, CO, 80203).

Concerning the Definition of Contraceptive, Introduced Bill, Colo. S. 225, 67th G.A. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/291A31D0ED7DE72387257537001BA32C?open&file=225_01.pdf

Concerning the Definition of Contraceptive, Revised Bill, Colo. S. 225, 67th G.A. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/291A31D0ED7DE72387257537001BA32C?open&file=225_rev.pdf

Johnson, J. (2013, October 1). McAuliffe ad attacks Cuccinelli for supporting bill that could outlaw contraception. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-ad-attacks-cuccinelli-for-supporting-bill-that-could-outlaw-contraception/2013/10/01/db92bda0-2ace-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

Montero, D. (2008, November 5). Voters reject amendment 48 ‘personhood’ issue. The Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved from http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/05/voters-reject-amendment-48-personhood-issue/

Norris, W. (2009, March 5). Harvey, Lundberg argue contraception kills on senate birth control bill. The Colorado Independent. Retrieved from http://www.coloradoindependent.com/22847/harvey-lundberg-argue-contraception-kills-on-senate-birth-control-bill

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains applauds passage of Senate Bill 225. (2009, April 22). Planned Parenthood. Retrieved from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/42209-planned-parenthood-rocky-mountains-applauds-passage-senate-bill-225-27067.htm

Summarized History for Bill Number SB09-225. (n.d.). Colorado General Assembly. Retreived from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/291A31D0ED7DE72387257537001BA32C?Open&target=/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/billsummary/D1E21AF14C269C09872575120075FEAE?opendocument