As local clergy, we are writing in support of the Herald’s Oct. 14 editorial recommending a no vote on Amendment 67. We urge you not to be fooled by the devious wording of this proposal. It is meant to confuse voters by making them think they are voting to protect women while it would do the exact opposite.
Instead of protecting mothers-to-be, Amendment 67 “goes too far in criminalizing women and doctors and intruding on private decisions regarding family planning,” said the Rev. Amanda Henderson, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado.
There are many religious perspectives on this issue. Amendment 67 goes too far by inserting one religious viewpoint into our state constitution. Doing so removes religious freedoms of many people of faith who respect the private rights of women (and men and families, also) to make personal choices based on their own consciences, consultations with medical professionals, with clergy and with God.
As clergy, we have walked with women who have been abused and violated, and we have counseled women and families struggling with heart-rendering decisions about their own lives and the future of their families.
Do we really want to force a pregnant woman who is subsequently diagnosed with cancer to choose between chemotherapy/radiation treatment – which could save her life but could threaten the fetus (and thus send her and her doctor to jail) – or instead succumb to the ravages of cancer in order to stay within the strictures of Amendment 67?
Regardless of religious perspective, people of faith agree that proposed Amendment 67 is extreme and overreaching. Please learn about what this amendment would really do.
Join us in voting no on 67.
Rev. Ginny Brown, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church
Rev. Katie Kandarian-Morris, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Durango
Durango
