Steadman v. Hindman

992 P.2d 27, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 373, 2000 Colo. LEXIS 27, 2000 WL 51818
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJanuary 24, 2000
DocketNo. 99SA368
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 992 P.2d 27 (Steadman v. Hindman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steadman v. Hindman, 992 P.2d 27, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 373, 2000 Colo. LEXIS 27, 2000 WL 51818 (Colo. 2000).

Opinion

Justice HOBBS

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding brought pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), 1 C.R.S. (1999). Petitioner M. Patrick Steadman (Steadman), a registered Colorado elector, challenges the action of the Title Setting Board (Title Board) in adopting a title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary (titles and summary) for proposed ballot initiative 1999— 2000 #200A (Initiative #200A).1 Initiative #200A requires a woman’s “voluntary and informed consent” before a physician may perform an abortion. Its implementation terms include the delivery of prescribed information to women concerning the abortion procedure at least twenty-four hours before its scheduled occurrence, and annual reporting by physicians to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (Health Department) regarding the number of women who received the required information. Upholding the Title Board’s action, we reject Steadman’s contention that Initiative # 200A contains more than one subject in violation of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, 1 C.R.S. (1999).

I.

The Title Board set the titles and summary for Initiative #200A on October 6, 1999. Steadman filed a motion for rehearing on October 13, 1999. The Title Board affirmed its earlier decision on October 20, 1999. Steadman then filed his petition for review with us on October 27,1999.

Initiative #200A proposes to add the “Woman’s Right-To-Know Act” to the Colorado Revised Statutes as a new part 3, article 6, title 25. Its provisions require a woman’s written certification that she has received the information prescribed by the initiative before a physician may perform an abortion. The referring physician, the physician performing the abortion, or another qualified person must provide the information orally [29]*29and in person to the woman at least twenty-four hours prior to the scheduled abortion.

The required information includes: (1) the name of the physician who will perform the abortion, and a detailed description of the abortion procedure and its risks and possible complications; (2) the follow-up medical care that will be provided; (3) the “probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed”; and (4) advice that an “unborn child” with a gestational age of twenty-four weeks “may be able to survive outside the womb,” that “the woman has the right to request the physician to use the method of termination of pregnancy that is most likely to preserve the life of the unborn child,” and that “the attending physician has the legal obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to maintain the life and health of the child.” Other prescribed information addresses whether the abortion procedure “would be likely to inflict pain upon the unborn child,” the availability of benefits and services if the woman chooses to bear the child, and the duty of the father to assist in supporting a child.

Physicians must also inform women planning an abortion that they are free to withhold or withdraw consent to an abortion “at any time before or during the abortion” without affecting rights to future care or treatment and without the loss of any state or federally funded benefits to which they are otherwise entitled. The physician who is to perform the abortion must co-sign the woman’s written certification of receipt of the prescribed information, and a physician or other qualified person must be available'to answer any questions the woman might have regarding the information she received. Initiative #200A provides differing requirements for informed consent and certification in the event of a medical emergency.

Initiative #200A also requires referring physicians and physicians performing abortions to annually report, on Health Department forms, the number of women who received the prescribed information, how many then obtained the abortion, and how many did not receive the information because of a medical emergency. The Health Department must prepare and distribute to physicians certain printed materials and a videotape in English and Spanish for presentation to women. It must also provide to physicians the patient certification and physician reporting forms and to the public an annual statistical report summarizing the information it received from physicians. The Department may not publicly identify the physicians or their patients. Criminal penalties attach to-physician non-compliance with the requirements of the proposed “Woman’s Right-To-Know Act.”

Steadman contends that the reporting requirements of proposed section 25-6-307:(l) have no reasonable or necessary connection to the initiative’s purported subject of ensuring a woman’s right to informed consent; (2) lack a proper relationship to the subject of the initiative because none of the data compiled by the department is communicated to women contemplating abortion; and (3) burden the right to receive an abortion by overloading doctors with paperwork. He would have us determine that Initiative #200A serves two distinct purposes, “namely mandating certain communication between physicians and their patients seeking abortion services, and collection of statistical data that has no bearing on the communication that takes place in the privacy of the physician-patient relationship.”

The Title Board and initiative proponents respond that the data gathering and reporting requirements of Initiative # 200A implement and enforce the proposed informed consent act and do not constitute a separate and unconnected subject. We uphold the action of the Title Board in setting the titles and summary for this initiative.

II.

We hold that Initiative #200A does not contravene the single subject requirement of article V, section 1(5.5) and section 1-40-106.5.

A. Court’s Role in Single-Subject Review

The right of initiative is a means the citizens have reserved to themselves for proposing change to the constitution and statutes of Colorado. See Havens v. Board of [30]*30County Comm’rs, 924 P.2d 517, 520, 524 (Colo.1996). Our function on appeal of the Title Board’s action is to determine whether the titles and summary it has adopted: (1) comply with the single-subject requirement for initiatives; and (2) clearly, accurately, and fairly characterize the proposed initiative. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 # 104, 987 P.2d 249, 253-54 (Colo.1999). Here, Steadman raises only a single-subject challenge.

Article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution provides:

No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any measure which shall not be expressed in the title, such measure shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. If a measure contains more than one subject, such that a ballot title cannot be fixed that clearly expresses a single subject, no title shall be set and the measure shall not be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls.

Colo. Const, art. V, § 1(5.5).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cordero v. Leahy
2014 CO 62 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2014)
Kemper v. Leahy
2014 CO 66 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2014)
Blake v. King
185 P.3d 142 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2008)
Kemper v. Hamilton
172 P.3d 871 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2007)
Gonzalez-Estay v. Lamm
138 P.3d 273 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2006)
Ausfahl v. Caldara
136 P.3d 237 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2006)
Jones v. Polhill
46 P.3d 438 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2002)
Garcia v. Montero
44 P.3d 213 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2002)
Armstrong v. Davidson
10 P.3d 1278 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
Matter of the Title v. Campbell
8 P.3d 1194 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
Garcia v. Chavez
4 P.3d 1094 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
In Re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 258 (A)
4 P.3d 1094 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
Brown v. Peckman
3 P.3d 1210 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
In Re Title 1999-2000 No. 235(A)
3 P.3d 1219 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
992 P.2d 27, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 373, 2000 Colo. LEXIS 27, 2000 WL 51818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steadman-v-hindman-colo-2000.