Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee sends campus medication-abortion bill to committee of the whole after contentious testimony
Summary
After hours of sharply divided testimony on safety, equity and implementation, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted 5–2 to advance HB 13 35, a bill that would require campuses with health centers to provide medication abortion and stock medication where pharmacies exist.
The Colorado Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted on May 11 to advance House Bill 13 35 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation, recording a 5–2 vote after more than four hours of pro and con testimony.
Sponsors said the bill implements Amendment 79 by ensuring students can access medication abortion at campus health centers without added travel or cost. Senator Wallace, a sponsor, told the committee students often face time-sensitive barriers and that campus health centers should be able to provide timely medication and, where appropriate, stock medication in on-site pharmacies.
Proponents — students, reproductive‑health advocates and several public‑health organizations — said campus access would reduce delays, missed class time and inequities. Hunter Donovan, a CU Boulder student with New Era Colorado, described a friend who could not get campus care and the resulting burden of arranging off-campus services. "No one should have to rely on friends to fill in gaps in the health care system," Donovan said.
Advocates including Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and the ACLU argued the bill would make the constitutional right to reproductive care more meaningful in practice and provide a proximate point of care for students who may lack transportation or privacy for telehealth.
Opponents — a mix of faith groups, some clinicians and pregnancy‑support organizations — raised safety, coercion and implementation concerns. Multiple witnesses cited an April 2025 analysis and other reports asserting higher complication rates following medication abortion (some witnesses repeatedly described that analysis as showing "about 1 in 9" or "nearly 11 percent" experiencing serious adverse events); proponents and public‑health witnesses disagreed with that characterization and cited medical literature and briefs saying serious adverse events are rare (generally reported in rates well below 1 percent in the peer-reviewed literature cited by pro‑access experts).
Medical witnesses opposed to the bill urged requirements such as ultrasound confirmation of gestational age, in‑person dispensing, stronger follow-up care and funding for campus clinics, saying many campus health centers lack equipment and staffing for emergencies. Dr. Catherine Wheeler, who identified herself as a board‑certified OB‑GYN, said she was "very concerned about women's safety" and described California implementation costs and additional training and equipment that states had provided when placing abortion medication in campus settings.
Proponents countered that many campus health centers already provide reproductive care and that the bill includes exceptions for religious institutions and conscience protections. Ariane Frosch of the ACLU said medication abortion is "safe and effective" and urged the committee to act quickly because federal court developments could restrict access in other channels.
After final remarks from sponsors, the clerk called the roll and the committee recorded the motion to advance the bill as passing 5–2. Committee members did not adopt additional amendments during the hearing.
Next steps: HB 13 35 will go to the committee of the whole for further consideration. The record shows both policy and implementation questions remain, including funding, emergency response capacity on campuses, and whether additional medical safeguards should be required.
