Three “No’s” and one “Maybe” is the clear sum total of the statewide election ballot issues in November. Here’s why.

First, Amendment 67. Proponents indicate the amendment is written for a woman who lost her pregnancy due to a drunk driver and would protect women and children in the future. It clearly will not. Start here. The amendment does not require pregnant women to drive with identification signs, so we won’t drive near them. So nothing is protected.

In 2007 in Michigan, a pregnant woman died in a tragic crash. Alcohol was not a factor. Under this proposed amendment, the other driver who was not hurt could be tried on a murder charge. Not because of the woman, but due to the fetus. All drivers clearly know no one has any knowledge of who is on the roads with us, so such a crash could also happen to us, with prison as the result. Your car slides on an icy road trying to stop for a red light into an intersection and a crash occurs and a pregnancy is terminated a murder charge by statute comes with it. No exceptions. Failure to stop for the red light makes you a criminal.

Amendment 67 would also criminalize abortion even in the event of rape or incest. More than 150,000 voters signed the petition for this amendment. With 55 percent of registered voters in Colorado being women, this could mean nearly 80,000 signatures came from women. So just how many of them are ready to stand up and say to us they are ready to carry to term the embryo of the criminal who just raped them as Amendment 67 will require.

This amendment could also subject us to unintended consequences as well. As the ballot title is written, should anyone do anything to negatively affect a women’s fertility, you too could be a criminal – even a woman who unintentionally harms herself. As the word “unborn” in the amendment is not defined nor its scope limited, it can be argued to include unfertilized eggs as the future “unborn.” 

In July, a woman in Utah discarded her baby in the trash. The same thing happened recently in Colorado Springs. In the late 1980s and early 1990s we had a rash of babies in the trash here in the Denver area. Amendment 67 will not prevent this from happening again. With it in place it will happen more often thus putting even more newborns at risk from mothers who did not wish to be pregnant in the first place. Amendment 67 forces them to carry to term. Utah and Colorado have laws that allow mothers to leave babies at hospitals, fire houses, etc. and some have. However, too many don’t want their family to know they were pregnant in the first place, thus the trash. The only practical way to prevent babies in the trash from escalating again is to defeat Amendment 67 which does not give a woman any way out.

Young men really need to vote against this as well. Guys attending a party that later involves intimate moments with a woman you just met has paternity written all over it by negatively impacting your future. Amendment 67 takes away your right of choice as well should a pregnancy occur.

We had to stop this previously and we need to do so again, now and again in 2016 and again in 2018, again in 2020 and every time they bring in back.  A “no” vote on 67.

Amendment 68 is another “no” vote. First gambling provisions do not belong in the state constitution. The Constitution is for governing and not gambling nor marijuana. Since marijuana was made legal by using the tactic of “funding public schools,” the out-of-state company in Rhode Island is seeking to do the same. We’re still waiting to see the first dollars from “grass” going to schools. Remember when mountain town casinos wanted longer hours and would give money to community colleges? Only a trickle has flowed in there. Colorado voted against a school funding referendum in 2013 and should vote “no” again regarding Amendment 68.

You’ll also find on the ballot, Proposition 104 that in summary would require school board meetings with any teachers union discussing salary and benefits to be open to the public. Think about this. Would you want discussions with your employer regarding your salary and benefits to be open to all persons inside or out of the company? If this should pass, would private companies and organizations subject to federal or state employment law and your salary be next. No. Heck No on Proposition 104!

Many officials are really split regarding Proposition 105. It requires the labeling of selected foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). My State Rep. Lois Court indicates she fears the cost of labeling would result in higher prices to get it done being passed to consumers. In addition, scientists indicate a lot of our food is already “GMO’ed” anyway. On the other hand, I still like to know what’s in it so I can at least choose whether or not to purchase. Vote your preference on this one, but do mark it on your ballot.             

And while we’re at it, an election sidebar:

Remember the other conservative propaganda film, “2016: Obama’s America” released just prior to the 2012 election distorting the world view of President Obama and in 2004 another propaganda film released just prior to that election as a DVD in The Denver Post on how Islam was in the process of taking over the world, etc. In the next few weeks you’ll see marketing on another film this time focusing on Colorado, the governor, etc., called “Rocky Mountain Heist.” It’s produced by Citizen’s United an outsider conservative political group in Virginia.

The Colorado Secretary of State, a Republican, has deemed this film to be “electioneering communication.” Therefore under Colorado law, Citizen’s United must disclose those funding the film, and they do not want to do so, and are law suiting the state.  There’s one propaganda red flag. Next time you’re at the real movies read the credits roll and you’ll see the names of those funding and insuring that film. Citizen’s United is also targeting its release just prior to this election. Timing alone says a lot as well as displaying another propaganda red flag.

Citizen’s United president, David Bossie, says, “It’s like in the movie ‘The Blues Brothers,’ we’re getting the band back together.” Problem is there is no musical soundtrack in “Rocky Mountain Heist.” Doesn’t exist. And the funders of the “Blues Brothers” are in the credit roll. And Jake and Elwood weren’t taking on officials. You’ve seen this T-shirt before and need not spend any time or money viewing it again. And friends won’t let friends see it either. Make sure you vote. It’s never optional.