Legislature
House to hear Colorado bill allowing people to break into hot cars to save people, pets
DENVER – People would not be subject to any punishment for breaking into a car to rescue an at-risk person or pet if a bill proposed in the Colorado Legislature becomes law.
People who break into cars to rescue kids or animals, most often during the hot summer months when temperatures inside cars can reach more than 150 degrees, are still currently liable to face trespassing, mischief or property charges in the state.
But House Bill 1179, sponsored by Reps. Lori Saine and Joann Ginal, as well as Sens. Lois Court and Vicki Marble, aims to make that a thing of the past.
Their bill, which last week unanimously passed the House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee by an 11-0 vote, would give immunity from civil and criminal prosecution to people who meet certain standards when breaking into a car to try and save a life:
- They would have to believe in “good faith” that the person or animal is in “imminent danger” of great bodily harm or death.
- They would have to verify the vehicle is locked.
- They would have to “make a reasonable effort” to find the vehicle’s owner.
- They would have to contact a law enforcement officer or first responder before entering the vehicle;
- They could “use no more force than reasonably necessary to enter the locked vehicle;”
- And would have to stay with the person or animal near the vehicle until a first responder arrives. If the person has to leave the scene, they must leave a note with their contact information, name and location.
Currently, the term “animal” in the bill applies only to dogs and cats, but there was discussion in committee of extending the protections to certain other animals as well.
The law would apply beyond children in hot cars as well; it would extend protections to people breaking into cars to rescue any “at-risk” person no matter their age.
The bill heads to the House floor for further work on Tuesday.
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
White House compares recreational pot to opioid crisis, says DOJ will be ‘taking action’
WASHINGTON – White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said at Thursday’s daily press briefing that he expects the Department of Justice will be “taking action” against states that have legalized recreational marijuana, and at the same time seemingly compared recreational use to the nationwide opioid crisis.
“There’s a big difference between [medical] and recreational marijuana,” Spicer said. “And I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people.” Continue reading
Bill that would launch study for Front Range rail line from Pueblo to Fort Collins passes Senate
DENVER – A proposal that aims to continue work toward a Pueblo stop on Amtrak’s Southwest Chief passenger train route, and to add a passenger train route from Trinidad along the Front Range to Fort Collins, cleared a Colorado Senate floor vote Thursday morning.
Senate Bill 153 is co-sponsored by Sen. Larry Crowder, a Republican who represents much of the area in southern Colorado the Southwest Chief runs through, as well as Sen. Leroy Garcia and Rep. Daneya Esgar – both Pueblo Democrats.
The bill would replace the Southwest Chief Rail Line Economic Development, Rural Tourism, and Infrastructure Repair and Maintenance Commission with a new commission, the Southwest Chief and Front Range Passenger Rail Commission.
The original commission’s authorization is set to expire July 1. Should the bill become law, a Type 1 transfer would be used to move the original commission to the new commission.
The new commission would be tasked with continuing the work the Southwest Chief commission has undertaken since its establishment in 2014, namely improving existing rail lines used by Amtrak and BNSF and extending rail lines between Pueblo and La Junta in order to eventually have Pueblo and Walsenburg linked to the Southwest Chief route, which runs from Chicago to Los Angeles.
The new commission would have 13 members, as opposed to the current 9. Five would be governor-appointees; five will be appointed by various metro planning organizations along the Front Range, and one would be appointed by the Regional Transportation District. The final two members, a CDOT employee and and Amtrak employee, would not be able to vote, but would sit on the commission and advise it.
Should the bill become law, the new commission would continue to be funded by grants, gifts and donations. Its members would not be paid for their work. Some would serve four years on the commission, and others would be limited to two years.
In addition to the Southwest Chief expansion, the commission would also be tasked with facilitating a plan to build a passenger rail line along the Front Range, which the bill says “may include” stops in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Castle Rock, Denver, Boulder, Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins.
The commission would have to present its plans for the proposed rail line to local government committees in both the state House and Senate by Dec. 1.
The bill passed the Senate Local Government committee by a 3-0 vote on Feb. 14 and cleared the Senate Finance Committee two days later by a 4-1 vote.
After three readings without amendments on the Senate floor, the bill passed the full Senate with a 24-11 vote Thursday morning. It now heads to the House.
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
Bill that would have allowed lawsuits against ‘sanctuary city’ officials dies in House committee
DENVER – A bill that would have prohibited the establishment of “sanctuary cities” in Colorado and would have allowed individuals affected by such policies to sue the lawmakers who put the laws in place died in a House committee Wednesday night.
The House State, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee killed House Bill 1134 with a 6-3 party-line vote.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dave Williams, R-El Paso County, told Denver7 Tuesday the bill would have forced politicians “to have skin in the game.”
“If they create the sanctuary city, then they would have to be responsible for the backlash and the follow to that,” he said.
The bill would have allowed for victims of a crime committed by an undocumented person to file a civil lawsuit or criminal complaint against the official or officials who created the “sanctuary” status in that jurisdiction.
It would have allowed people to seek up to $700,000 per person in injury compensation, and up to $1.98 million if two or more people were injured.
The bill also would have established the crime of “rendering assistance to an illegal alien through a sanctuary jurisdiction,” which would have been a class 4 felony.
But the bill saw staunch opposition from Democrats and other groups.
Kyle Huelsman, the policy manager for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, called the bill unconstitutional.
“This is one of the most anti-immigrant and xenophobic bills that we’ve seen in the last decade,” Huelsman told Denver7. “Rep. Williams and (co-sponsor) Sen. Vicky Marble have gone to new extremes to push a radical anti-immigrant agenda in the State Capitol.”
Rep. Williams fired back at the Democrats on the committee who killed his bill in a news release.
“Democrats sent a clear message to Coloradans they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for policies that inhibit criminal illegal aliens from being reported to federal immigration authorities,” Williams said in the release. “If elected officials want to create a sanctuary city, they should be held accountable if those policies directly result in known criminals being released rather than deported.”
Boulder is the only city in Colorado that has officially proclaimed itself as a “sanctuary city.”
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
Bill extending concealed-carry rights to all Colorado gun owners passes committee vote
DENVER – A bill that would extend concealed-carry rights to gun owners in Colorado without a permit cleared its first hurdle in a Senate committee Wednesday.
Senate Bill 116 passed the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee by a 3-2 partisan vote, with the committee’s three Republicans voting to pass the bill to the Senate Finance Committee.
Though Colorado law prohibits gun registration in the state, local sheriff’s offices are currently in charge of issuing concealed weapons permits. A concealed-carry permit is not necessary when a person is in a private car.
In Denver, the sheriff’s department requires people to complete an information packet and several other forms, and must show deputies a handgun training certificate showing they are trained in proper gun usage.
People must also have a valid Colorado ID and must pay a $152 fee for the permit in Denver, which has to be approved by the sheriff’s department.
Under the proposed law, anyone aged 21 and over with a legal gun would be able to conceal their gun in public without having taken a training class or obtained a permit.
However, the same rules that concealed-carry permit holders have to operate under would apply to everyone under the law, meaning unless they are permitted to do so, people would not be able to carry the concealed weapon on K-12 campuses.
The bill now heads to the Senate Finance Committee.
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
Colorado Attorney General sues Boulder County over oil and gas moratorium
BOULDER, Colo. – The Colorado Attorney General’s Office sued Boulder County and its board of commissioners Tuesday after weeks of threatening to do so if the county did not repeal a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in unincorporated parts of the county.
Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and the state of Colorado are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which Coffman had threatened since last month if the county didn’t repeal its moratorium by Feb. 10.
Boulder County put the moratorium in place in 2012 and has extended it eight times, most recently in December, when county commissioners voted to extend it to May 1.
But the suit filed Tuesday points to a 2015 Colorado Supreme Court case that went against Fort Collins’ moratorium on fracking and a Longmont moratorium, and said that local governments cannot regulate the oil and gas industry.
The 2015 case’s ruling said that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act gives the state sole power to regulate oil and gas development and operations within the state.
In both rulings, the court said that even temporary moratoriums, which Boulder has argued its is, “deleteriously affects what is intended to be a state-wide program of regulation.”
In Tuesday’s filing, Coffman and the state ask for the court to declare that Boulder County’s moratorium is pre-empted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, and also for it to put in place a permanent injunction that would keep the county and board from enforcing the moratorium. Coffman and the state also ask for court costs and other relief justifiable by the court.
Boulder County and state officials responded swiftly Tuesday afternoon.
“The Colorado Attorney General sent a special valentine to the oil and gas industry today against Boulder County for our working to safeguard our community from the industrial impacts of oil and gas development,” a news release from the county said.
But it maintains, as it did when Coffman first threatened to sue, that its moratorium is “of a materially shorter duration and is consistent with Colorado law.”
The county said its board of commissioners will meet as planned on March 14 and March 23 to review the county’s new oil and gas regulations for unincorporated parts of the county.
“It’s our right and our responsibility to protect our residents and to protect our world-class environment from the impact of oil and gas development, which is very industrial…” said Commissioner Elise Jones.
Five Democrats who represent areas of Boulder County in the state House lambasted Coffman’s suit, saying she was suing on the behalf of a private industry.
“The Attorney General has decided to wield the power of her office for the benefit of private companies at the expense of local communities,” said Majority Leader KC Becker, D-Boulder.
But Colorado Oil and Gas Association President and CEO Dan Haley told Denver7 that Boulder’s five-year old moratorium is illegal.
“We support the Attorney General’s decision,” he said. “For us, it’s very clear. It’s about the law. It’s not about fracking, It’s not about drilling. It’s not about pipelines. It’s about whether, or not, we have a rule of law in Colorado.”
Rep. Jared Polis, the Democrat who represents the 2nd Congressional District and is the Vice Chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, slammed Coffman’s lawsuit Tuesday.
“We should all be outraged that the Colorado attorney general has chosen to use public tax dollars to bully Boulder County on behalf of the oil and gas industry,” Polis said in a statement. “The oil and gas industry is more than equipped to bring their own lawsuits, and I suspect they have opted not to sue Boulder County because they know Colorado law allows for a short term fracking moratorium. What the attorney general has done today is a purely political waste of money, and it is not legally sound.”
State Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, also criticized Coffman’s perceived ties with the oil and gas industry in a statement.
“This is disgraceful. After seeing the Attorney General’s and Oil and Gas industry’s press releases about the lawsuit sent out almost at the same time, I think it’s safe to assume the Attorney General is using the powers of her office and using tax dollars to intimidate and sue taxpayers at the behest of special interest industries,” he said. “The question I have for the Attorney General is this: how many oil and gas corporations did she consult with before sending out her threat letter to Boulder County on January 26?”
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
House committee kills 3 abortion bills, including one that would have made practitioners felons
DENVER – A Colorado bill that would have put practitioners who perform abortions in the same criminal category as first-degree murderers, child abusers who cause a child’s death and people charged with treason was among three abortion-related bills killed in a House committee Thursday.
The three bills, House Bills 1085, 1086 and 1108 all died with 6-5 party-line votes in the House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee.
The outcome was to be expected in the Democrat-majority committee chaired by Rep. Joann Ginal, Ph.D., a Fort Collins Democrat who is also a reproductive endocrinologist.
House Bill 1108 would have made it a class 1 felony for practitioners to perform an abortion unless it is intended to save the mother’s life or unless the unborn child dies as a result of medical treatment, such as chemotherapy – putting those practitioners in the same class as Colorado’s worst criminals.
Rep. Steve Humphrey, R-Eaton, said the Democrats’ vote meant they were “out of touch with the shifting public attitudes towards abortion.”
“In the four decades since the Roe v. Wade decision, scientific research has wholly disproved the long-held medical justifications for abortion,” he said in a statement.
The vice chair of the committee, Rep. Daneya Esgar, D-Pueblo, told Denver7 last month it was “a very dangerous idea to target doctors and health providers” with the bill.
“They are providing a medical service and should never be singled out. Abortion is not a crime, it’s a safe and legal procedure,” she told Denver7. “History has shown that banning abortion, or stopping access to safe abortions, is dangerous for women’s lives.”
Democrats on the committee also killed House Bill 1085, which would have required any clinics that provide abortions to register with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. Under the bill, the AG’s Office would have had to inspect each registered clinic at least once a year to be sure the clinics were using sanitary equipment and adhering to special rules also outlined in the bill for abortions performed after 20 weeks of gestation.
House Bill 1086 also died by a 6-5 vote. It would have required practitioners to tell a woman about a process that can be used to reverse “abortion pills” 24 hours before giving a woman the pill, and would require the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to post information on its website about the process.
“Why would we legislate the care a doctor provides a patient?” asked Rep. Susan Lontine, D-Denver. “I believe doctors should do what they do best: stick with evidence based practices, and politicians should stay out of the doctor’s office.”
Many of the state’s counties do not have abortion clinics, but the state does require only licensed physicians perform abortions, parental consent for women under age 18 to obtain an abortion, and that taxpayer funding for abortions is only provided to preserve a woman’s life or in the case of rape or incest.
The peer-reviewed research group Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health and rights, found the number of abortions declined by 14 percent between 2011 and 2014, but that there was also a 14 percent decline over that time period in the number of Colorado facilities that provided abortions.
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
Bill that would repeal Colorado health insurance exchange clears first Senate committee
DENVER – The Colorado bill that would repeal the state health exchange that operates under the Affordable Care Act cleared its first hurdle Tuesday in a Senate committee.
The Senate Finance Committee voted 3-2 to pass Senate Bill 3 on a party-line vote. Democratic Sens. Lois Court and Lucia Guzman voted against passing the bill, while Republican Sens. Jack Tate, Owen Hill and Tim Neville voted to pass it.
The committee passage followed hours of discussion about the necessity of the bill while Congress is locked in a battle over whether or not to repeal, and possibly replace, the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” on a national level.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jim Smallwood, argued Tuesday that the expenses of the state exchange, Connect for Health Colorado, outweigh its benefits and that several smaller Colorado counties are limited in their insurance options, according to The Associated Press.
Court argued that the state’s health insurance plans would have to be changed anyway should Congress be successful in repealing the ACA.
The bill would repeal the state exchange effective Jan. 1, 2018, though it would give lawmakers until the end of that year to “wind up” the exchange.
After that, the exchange would have to give any remaining money left over to the state treasurer, who would be directed to transfer the money to the state’s general fund.
Should it pass and be signed by the governor, however, a referendum petition could be filed to force a General Election vote on the matter in November 2018.
Smallwood told Denver7 last month that should his bill become law while the ACA is still in place that it would not affect people’s ability to get insurance on the federal marketplace.
“With my proposal, first of all we want people to know that by repealing the state exchange that in no way ends the ACA, it doesn’t end Obamacare in the state of Colorado,” he said at the time. “It allows our citizens to buy the same policies from the same insurance companies at the same rates, but on website healthcare.gov instead of connectforhealthco.com because healthcare.gov is being paid for with federal dollars because with connect for health we’re paying for it, again, with our state dollars.”
The bill heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee for its next hearing, which has yet to be scheduled. It would then head to the Senate floor, if passed, where Republicans hold control.
But it would face a steep uphill climb from there in the House, where Democrats have control – most of whom have vocally opposed efforts to repeal the ACA.
Beyond that, Gov. John Hickenlooper supports the state exchange and has vowed to fight the repeal of the ACA. Should it be repealed, he said during his State of the State address that he would fight for a replacement plan “that protects the people who are covered now and doesn’t take us backward.”
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
Colorado bills aim to change abortion rules; one would make performing abortion a class 1 felony
DENVER – A handful of bills introduced in Colorado’s House of Representatives aim to affect abortion laws in the state, but they will first have to clear a House committee chaired by a doctor who specializes in reproduction.
ABORTION-RELATED BILLS FILED
One bill, House Bill 1108, would make it a class 1 felony for practitioners to perform an abortion unless it is intended to save the mother’s life or unless the unborn child dies as a result of medical treatment, such as chemotherapy.
That would put practitioners who perform abortions in the same category as first-degree murderers, child abusers who cause a child’s death and people charged with treason.
The bill is sponsored by Reps. Stephen Humphrey and Kim Ransom, as well as Sen. Tim Neville.
Another bill, House Bill 1086, would require practitioners to tell a woman about a process that can be used to reverse “abortion pills” 24 hours before giving a woman the pill, and would require the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to post information on its website about the process.
Though the process is not widely-used at this time, researchers at the University of California-San Diego published a paper on it in 2012. The bill says that as of May 2016, the process had been successfully utilized in 175 pregnancies.
But others have warned of dangers linked to the process.
The process works by using a hormone-based drug that utilizes progesterone, which is a necessary hormone in women’s bodies, to reverse the effects of the main compound in “abortion pills,” mifepristone.
The bill, sponsored by Reps. Justin Everett and Dan Nordberg and Sen. Vicki Marble, says it aims to “reduce ‘the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.’”
A third bill (House Bill 1085), titled the “Women’s Health Protection Act” and sponsored by Rep. Patrick Neville, a Douglas County Republican, would require any clinics that provide abortions to register with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, which would have to inspect each registered clinic at least once a year to be sure it is using sanitary equipment and is adhering to special rules also outlined in the bill for abortions performed after 20 weeks of gestation.
But currently, first and second-trimester abortions (up to 26 weeks’ gestation) are allowed in Colorado, as are “late-term” abortions that are most often performed because a fetus as developed complications.
The bill would require clinics to report the number of abortions it performed and the trimester it was performed in, among many other things, in its registration with the attorney general.
CLEARING COMMITTEE AND HOUSE COULD PROVE DIFFICULT
The three bills face a difficult course in Colorado’s Legislature.
They are all scheduled for their first committee hearing Feb. 9 in the House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee, in which Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-5.
The committee is chaired by Rep. Joann Ginal, Ph.D., a Democrat from Fort Collins who is also a reproductive endocrinologist by trade. Its vice chair is Rep. Daneya Esgar, a Pueblo Democrat who is also the majority caucus chair.
Esgar told Denver7 in an interview this week that the three bills would get “a fair hearing,” but that she and her fellow Democrats would “stand up for all women’s rights.”
But she expressed concern over some of the aforementioned bills the committee is set to hear Feb. 9.
“We just passed the 44th anniversary of Roe v Wade, and I share the same frustrations that the millions of women exhibited on Saturday across the country [in the Women’s March events nationwide] – instead of being able to focus on how to make health care for everyone more affordable and more accessible, we are still fighting for basic reproductive rights,” she told Denver7.
Ginal told the Coloradoan that the bills wouldn’t pass the House, which is also controlled by Democrats, should they make it out of committee.
She said House Bill 1085 contained “impossible regulations,” according to the Coloradoan.
Esgar expressed concern over House Bill 1108, saying it was “a very dangerous idea to target doctors and health providers” by making them class 1 felons.
“They are providing a medical service and should never be singled out. Abortion is not a crime, it’s a safe and legal procedure,” she told Denver7. “History has shown that banning abortion, or stopping access to safe abortions, is dangerous for women’s lives.”
But she stopped short of saying such bills further divide the Legislature, in which Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate.
“There are definitely issues, like this one, that we do not agree on and that can cause tension at times. However, we do have more in common than divides us, and here in Colorado we actually work really well together,” Esgar said. “Our work is to come together and find out how to bring the state forward even with divergent ideas.”
Still, abortion remains among the most hot-button issues in Colorado politics, as Colorado Republicans have fought to restrict abortion access for years on both the state and federal levels and Democrats fight to keep women’s reproductive rights already on the law books in place.
Many of the state’s counties do not have abortion clinics, but the state does require only licensed physicians perform abortions, parental consent for women under age 18 to obtain an abortion, and that taxpayer funding for abortions is only provided to preserve a woman’s life or in the case of rape or incest.
The peer-reviewed research group Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health and rights, found the number of abortions declined by 14 percent between 2011 and 2014, but that there was also a 14 percent decline over that time period in the number of Colorado facilities that provided abortions.
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.
Colorado bill would exempt feminine hygiene products from state sales tax
DENVER – Colorado women would no longer have to pay extra state sales taxes on feminine hygiene products if a bill under consideration in the state Legislature passes.
Rep. Susan Lontine, D-Denver, and Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik, an Adams County Republican, are co-sponsoring House Bill 1127, which would exempt the state sales tax on tampons, menstrual pads and sanitary napkins, pantiliners, menstrual sponges and menstrual cups.
Canada repealed its so-called “tampon tax” in 2015, but around 40 U.S. states still tax the products.
Women around the world have fought the tax in recent years, saying it is a basic necessity and should not be subject to taxation.
The Colorado bill classifies feminine hygiene products as a drug, medical or therapeutic devices. The exemption would go into effect starting Jan. 1, 2018 if the bill becomes law.
The fiscal impact report on the bill from the Colorado Legislative Council says, if approved, the exemption would cost Colorado $1.2 million in state tax revenue to the General Fund in FY 2017-18 and $2.4 million in FY 2018-19, when it would be applied for the full fiscal year.
The report says an estimated 1.5 million women in the state are of typical menstruating age and estimates each woman spends $60 a year on feminine hygiene products, generating about $2 each year per person.
The bill would allow local municipalities and counties to adopt the exemption as well.
The fiscal impact report says those exemptions could cost the Regional Transportation District about $740,000 over the next two years, and the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District about $74,000.
The bill is scheduled for its first hearing Feb. 13 in the House Finance Committee.
Sign up for Denver7 email alerts to stay informed about breaking news and daily headlines.