Staff raises drafting, standing and constitutional-conflict concerns in review of four prenatal protection initiatives

On Jan. 26, 2026, Colorado Legislative Council staff and representatives from the Office of Legislative Legal Services held a review-and-comment hearing on four proposed constitutional initiatives (numbers 219, 220, 221 and 222) that would recognize a right to life from conception and create related enforcement mechanisms.

Proponents described the measures as establishing a new Section 33 in the Colorado Constitution recognizing that "children have the right to continue living from the moment they are conceived," prohibiting drugs and facilities that end children’s lives, requiring implantation for children conceived in a lab, forbidding experimentation that would intentionally cause a child's death, permitting medical triage in emergencies, revoking licenses for those who intentionally cause a child's death, and authorizing civil suits and the award of attorney's fees and court costs to parties suing on behalf of a child.

Staff raised multiple drafting and placement concerns. Office of Legislative Legal Services staff noted the initiatives' applicability and enforcement sections include section numbers but do not identify where that language would appear in the Colorado Constitution or the Colorado Revised Statutes, and warned proponents to decide whether the provisions are intended as constitutional text or as statutory language. Staff also advised that new constitutional language must have a clear 'home' in the constitution and follow standard formatting and numbering conventions.

Several substantive ambiguities were flagged for clarification. Staff asked whether the initiatives should define who qualifies as "a child" and asked proponents to clarify whether the enforcement provisions are intended to apply only to the initiative's language or more broadly. On standing, staff noted a draft earlier had allowed "any U.S. citizen" to bring enforcement actions but said the title board rejected that formulation; as written, staff said the text is ambiguous about who may bring a civil action and suggested specifying who would have standing to sue.

Staff also questioned the provision requiring that children "created in a lab" be implanted and asked proponents to explain how that requirement would affect people who use in vitro fertilization; proponents said they would consider adding a definition. On research language, staff recommended clarifying that prohibitions on experimentation refer to interventions that are knowingly unbeneficial and will cause a child's death, consistent with proponents’ stated intent.

Legal staff flagged a direct constitutional tension. "Yes. It directly conflicts," a participant said during the hearing when asked how the proposed Section 33 would interact with Section 32 of the Colorado Constitution, which recognizes an existing right to abortion. Staff emphasized that any inconsistency with Section 32 would raise a substantive legal conflict.

Staff also read technical form comments aloud and made drafting recommendations: avoid using forward slashes in lists, place the enacting clause before declarations, use the standard typographic convention (small caps) to show new constitutional language, and correct inconsistent section headings so the title board can evaluate the proposals. Proponents acknowledged these formatting and placement issues and said they would correct them.

Proponents asked staff whether phrasing such as "the government shall not permit businesses" versus "the government shall prohibit businesses" would be clearer; staff declined to direct policy choices and advised proponents to consult drafting examples and consider how phrasing affects substantive law versus permitting or prohibiting conduct.

The hearing closed with staff encouraging proponents to clarify standing, definitions (including the meaning of "child" and "child created in a lab"), the scope and triggers for attorney-fee awards, and placement of applicability/enforcement text in either the Constitution or statutes. Gerard Brown adjourned the meeting.

The review-and-comment hearing does not adopt policy; it is intended to surface drafting issues for proponents before the title board and possible future filings.