Nathan Harvey


SB23-190, in brief, makes it illegal to falsely claim you provide abortions or emergency contraceptives (section 2), and unprofessional conduct (at least for doctors) to give Medication Abortion Reversal (MAR).

It was amended to allow the state health boards to counteract it if they all felt so inclined by Oct 1, but this is a silly and useless amendment. As Rep. Marshall pointed out, (see below), the boards already have the jurisdiction to decide what is unprofessional conduct, we don't need the legislature to do this, and in fact, they should never play scientist like this.

I've read the bill in its entirety (it isn't too long), but the summary covers sections 2 and 3 well. (if you wish to see the amended version, click summary then whichever the top PDF link is.) I do recommend that you read through section 1 even though it isn't the part which would become law.

Here's my list for 3-28 committee questions.

Status #

Still check Bill History on this page to see if it ever says "became law".

Gov. Polis signed the bill, but also issued a rebuke to the legislature for "legislating the practice of medicine". There may be some inaccuracies in that rebuke, which I am investigating because they may have bearing on the following.

Colorado Sun reported on the 04-15 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The TRO was granted for relief until the full case against the bill can be heard.

Quotes #

Third Hearing (Audio - look for 7:11:43 PM SB23-190 on the right)

Senator Marchman, one of the sponsors, said "Time is of the essence in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Don't slow them down! Don't interfere with them, all while shaming them and projecting your stigma on them!". If time really was of the essence, why is abortion legal through all 9 months of pregnancy in CO? Why is there no sense of hurry unless opponents are involved?
Senator Faith Winter, another sponsor, said "Trying to persuade people to change their minds about their healthcare decision is a violation of autonomy, and it can be downright dangerous." Note that decision was in the singular, so refers to abortion.
Winter: "No rigorous scientific evidence outside of a regulated study setting"

House Judiciary (recording) #

Rep. Epps said regarding whether AACs could just indicate clearly that they don't provide abortions, "'We do not provide abortions', if you see that clearly on the website, that's a really help, that is not a deceptive trade practice! I guess I shouldn't make something that was a conclusion, but..." Which sounds like she is back-pedaling. Does she (or her friends) intend to prosecute even the AACs that do clearly indicate that they don't provide abortions?
At about 5:34, Ms. Counsel was confused and talked about indirect indication even though that was already struck from the bill.
Tamara Axworthy
Dr. Wheeler said that bio-identical progesterone comes from a plant about 6:08pm.
Rep. Marshall had pretty good reasons for opposing the bill, even though he is a Democrat. Note he also brought up the idea of giving the power back to the boards earlier (see 6:12:12, and Dr. Purell's answer later).
Brazen Project is mentioned about 6:13
Dr. Mitch Crienin testifying on the fourth panel (at 7:42:57 PM he made the medical fraud claim). His Bear Hug analogy is bad chemistry because he neglects the fact that every reaction is an equilibrium, and that almost never will 100.0% of the progesterone receptors be blocked. In the subsequent question, he lays out what he was looking for but didn't see as far as research proving safety and efficacy. He also admits that he has no good answer to my question about what harm will MAR cause the woman that is so bad that we need to outlaw it.

Trying to find Roberta Bigalk's invitation to dinner...

Old actions to be taken (too late for this bill, but future reference)

Here is the link to Find your Representative(s). Let them know they have to honestly think about these questions and urge them to strike section 3 (re-propose amendment 11 that failed in the Senate).

Sign up link to testify in committee hearing(s).

check Governor's Bill Tracker.

Add any questions I missed or that you think should also be answered to , and if you know the answers to the "citation needed" items, please also fill those in.

Committee Questions

Section 1 #

  • §1(1)(f) calls Medication Abortion Reversal (MAR) "a dangerous and deceptive practice". What specific hazards or dangers does a pregnant person face if given MAR?

Section 2

  • Why does §2 only prohibit advertising a service you don't offer, if that service is abortion or emergency contraceptives? Why not apply that prohibition to painting, dental extraction, or any other service?

Section 3

  • Under §3(2)(b), why can't the state boards change their mind (for instance, based on rigorous studies once they are performed) after 10/1/23?
  • If a safe and effective MAR was developed after 10/1/23, would that be unnecessarily blocked by §3?

Questions to Governor Polis about 190

The following are my questions that were sent on 2023-04-20 to the office of Gov. Polis about his statements about the temporary nature of SB-190. They are subject to public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act.

These are heavy legal questions which probably need input from an attorney familiar with CRS §12-30.
However, they relate to Governor Polis' statement ( about the signing of SB-190, so that's why I'm contacting constituent services.

Before I get to my question(s), I do want to thank Gov. Polis for rebuking the legislature for encoding "precise medical treatments into law". I appreciate the stance and look forward to seeing the veto of future attempts at "legislating the practice of medicine".

My first question is regarding the scenario where the state boards do not approve progesterone as a medication abortion reversal MAR), but later, another drug is developed that either goes around mifepristone to activate the progesterone receptor (PR) in spite of the mifepristone, or decomposes the mifepristone so that it falls off of the PR. It was my understanding just from reading the bill, that even if the boards (or more likely, just the pharmacy board) decided a particular one of the two aforementioned hypothetical drugs was safe and effective, it would still be considered unprofessional conduct because the boards didn't find that all MAR is "A GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARD OF PRACTICE" ( §12-30-120(2) (a) of the new law). Is my understanding incorrect? If so, what did I misunderstand, either about the bill itself, or the surrounding statute?

My second question is with the word temporarily in "temporarily makes it unprofessional conduct". This notion that the bill (or at least §3) is temporary is reinforced by the later statement "this direction only lasts 5 months under this bill". Is it true that the bill completely steps into the background after 10-01, and going forward, the decision that the state boards come up with is the only factor deciding whether MAR is unprofessional conduct? If so, can we just strike CRS §12-30-120 next legislative session because it will be outdated?


No Page Content
drafts /

stay home dad

Many read the phrase "keepers at home", and assume it means that women ought to stay at home, when what the Middle English word keep means is really guard. Thus, with this passage actually commands is a protection of the home, which is normally assumed to be the man's responsibility. It is also commonly assumed that the man's role is to go out and produce merchandise, work as a paid servant of a master, or otherwise earn a living. And it is assumed that the woman is the one whose responsibility it is to stay home and instruct the children (partly because of the false assumption that instructing the children requires staying home). However, the scriptural commands are almost exactly the opposite of our assumptions! The one the scripture commands to instruct the children is the father in Deuteronomy 6. The one who is praised for selling merchandise (which you could argue is earning a living) is the excellent woman (or wife) in Proverbs 31.