By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
A bill that would have required health care providers to inform women about adoption before performing abortions will not move forward this year after a sharply divided hearing at the Colorado Capitol.
Lawmakers on the Colorado House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee voted March 10 to postpone indefinitely Colorado House Bill 26-1105 following testimony from witnesses who framed the proposal in dramatically different ways — from a measure supporters said would expand options to one critics argued would insert the state into private medical decisions.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ava Flanell, Rep. Scott Slaugh and Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson, would have required health care providers to offer information about adoption at least 24 hours before performing an abortion — unless the patient declined the discussion.
For Slaugh, the issue is also personal.
“As an individual who was adopted at birth myself, I often have conversations with people and am no longer surprised when they have misconceptions about life as an adopted child,” he wrote in a recent commentary.
Slaugh has argued the bill was intended to expand awareness rather than restrict choices. In the same commentary, he wrote that “the goal of the bill is not to limit existing rights, but to ensure that women are aware of adoption as a practical option and have access to information that could help them consider that path.”
He has also described the proposal as what he calls a “Pro-Life-Choice” approach. An effort, he says, aimed to broaden awareness of adoption rather than restrict abortion.
Abortion numbers in Colorado have been trending upward. In 2023 alone, 14,691 procedures were reported statewide — the highest total since the mid-1980s. State health officials say a growing share involves patients traveling from outside Colorado.
Witnesses share personal experiences
Once testimony started, some witnesses focused on policy. Others spoke about their own lives.
One of the most emotional moments came when Gracie Wicke addressed the committee. Wicke told lawmakers that when she was 20 years old she “was forced into having an abortion by my parents.” She said she did not realize at the time that the appointment she was attending was for an abortion.
“When I went into the appointment that they told me would take care of the situation that I was in, I didn’t even know that I was there for an abortion,” Wicke testified. “If somebody would have spoken to me about a different option, I would have a different life.”
Wicke also described the emotional aftermath in stark terms.
“I went home after that appointment, and I knew in my heart that I had killed my own child,” she said. “I thought the only thing that I could do was take my own life.”
Studies examining women’s experiences after abortion describe a wide range of emotional outcomes. Many women report relief after the procedure, though some research has also documented grief, sadness or regret in the months or years that follow. A large review of abortion and mental-health research published through the National Institutes of Health notes that outcomes often depend on a woman’s circumstances and the context surrounding the decision.
Other testimony focused on adoption itself.
Christine Neely told lawmakers that one of her daughters had been adopted at birth.
“Sixteen years ago, a brave woman faced an incredibly difficult situation,” Neely said. “But because of that courageous decision, my daughter’s alive today. She laughs. She dreams. She brings joy to our home every day.”
Neely added that “our family exists as it does because she was given the option to consider adoption.”
Some supporters also framed the proposal as consistent with standard medical practice.
Wendy Smith, a retired nurse practitioner, pointed to what she described as a basic rule of medical care.
“In medicine, informed consent is a foundational ethical principle,” she told lawmakers.
From her perspective, that means “patients deserve clear, complete, and unbiased information about all available options before making a life-altering decision.”
Opponents push back
Opponents of the bill argued that such conversations already occur when appropriate and warned that the legislation would place the state inside private medical decisions.
Katia Garcia of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains told the committee that “at our health centers, physicians already offer information about adoption, including referrals, when it’s relevant to the patient.”
She also challenged one of the bill’s underlying assumptions. “When somebody schedules an appointment for an abortion, they know what they’re scheduling their appointment for,” Garcia said, adding that assuming otherwise “is disrespectful and honestly condescending to a patient.”
Nicole Severo-Loy, senior policy manager for the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, urged lawmakers to reject the measure. “This bill creates a new mandate that singles out abortion care for additional requirements that are not applied to other forms of medical care,” she said.
According to Severo-Loy, the mandate may have an impact on the doctor-patient relationship and increase the stigma associated with abortion care.
Committee vote ends the proposal
The bill was subsequently put on indefinite hold by the committee.
Flanell later took to X to defend the proposal, writing that it was about making sure women knew their options when facing an unexpected pregnancy.
“All we asked was that health care providers ask women whether they want information about their pregnancy options,” Flanell wrote. She added that patients “can decline at any point,” and that providers could either share the information directly or connect patients with resources that explain adoption and other options.
Flanell also argued that many people are unaware of the support available to women considering alternatives to abortion, writing that “the sad reality is that most people do not know these opportunities exist.”
The bill is done for this year. The broader debate behind it likely isn’t. Lawmakers heard testimony that framed the proposal as everything from an expansion of informed consent to an intrusion into private medical decisions — a divide that continues to shape Colorado’s abortion policy discussions.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)