Yesterday, the Colorado House Health and Human Services Committee delayed taking action on Rep. Rebecca Keltie’s (R-CO Springs) “Do Not Abort” bill. The bill, HB26-1085, would introduce a medical form that expresses the person’s wishes to not receive an abortion in the event the person is incapacitated or incapable of communicating.
Keltie compared the form to a “Do Not Resuscitate” order. “It’s basically a bill concerning requiring a pregnant person’s health care provider to offer the pregnant person the option to fill out a ‘do not abort’ form,” she said. “The true intent of this bill is simple, it protects the mother’s right to choose even in the most unimaginable emergency. As a mother, there’s nothing I would not do for my children. That includes giving my last breath so that they may live. This bill honors that depth of love and conviction by ensuring that a mother’s voice is not lost in a moment when she cannot speak for herself.”
Keltie noted that her bill was in response to a pair of bills that passed last year, specifically SB25-130, which guarantees emergency room care in Colorado, including abortion and miscarriage care, and SB25-183, which requires Colorado employee health insurance plans to cover abortion care in accordance with Amendment 79.
“Recent legislation, including Senate Bill 25-183 and Senate Bill 25-130, clarified that in certain emergencies the physician may act to preserve the mother’s life without her knowledge or consent,” she said. “This bill does not diminish emergency medical authority. It strengthens it. It strengthens informed consent. It simply ensures that if a mother has already declared her wishes, those wishes are known and documented. This directive removes an unbearable burden from physicians who would otherwise be forced to decide without guidance.”
SB 130 was created to address concerns over federal actions related to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The 2024 U.S. Supreme Court case Moyle vs United States questioned whether EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortions, overriding Idaho’s strict abortion ban. The case was ultimately dismissed, leaving legal questions about how the law applies in states like Idaho and Texas. Last June, the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced they are rescinding the 2022 guidance that reaffirmed hospitals’ obligation under the EMTALA to provide abortion care to patients experiencing medical crises. Passed in 1986, EMTALA has been understood by medical providers and the federal government to require abortion care when that care is needed to stabilize pregnant patients in a medical crisis, regardless of ability to pay.
Pro-abortion advocates opposed Keltie’s proposed legislation. “Colorado already has a comprehensive system of advanced directives, living wills, and medical verbal power of attorney that allows any person to document their wishes regarding their medical treatment. This can include pregnancy-related decisions,” said Vanessa Martinez, the vice-president of policy for the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights. “HB1085 creates a single-issue directive, focused only on abortion. We do not create procedures or directives for C-sections or chemotherapy or other forms of medical care. In isolating this one form of medical care, the legislature inserts itself into a clinical setting in a way that is inappropriate and does not exist otherwise.”
Dr. Tom Perille, an anti-abortion activist with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), suggested amending the bill. “Just create a pregnancy advanced directive,” he said. “I think it’s analogous to organ donation.”
Fellow AAPLOG member Dr. Catherine Wheeler also expressed concerns about the bill in response to hypothetical situations posed by lawmakers. “What we’ve heard so far were decisions about what to do in life-threatening situations — I’m assuming pre-viability because post-viability, deliver a live baby, hopefully, and take care of the woman, so it appeared to me this would be a pre-viability situation,” she said. “The situation that came up with bleeding and hemorrhaging, you’ve got two patients. They’re both going to die if you don’t do something to stop the bleeding. I don’t see that as an abortion, as in my training, that would not be an induced abortion. Induced abortion in medical terminology would be the direct ending of a pregnancy with the intention not to have a live birth, so we’re talking about different things. I would recommend an intentional amendment to actually say what we’re clarifying is the woman does not want an abortion, and that we should honor that.
Following testimony, Keltie asked that the bill be laid over so she could discuss it further with stakeholders and make changes.
