In an August 15 Fort Collins Coloradoan column, Erik Rush claimed that Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter “intends to circumvent [the Colorado Constitution] and 'indirectly' funnel Colorado taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.” In fact, Ritter in his January 11 State of the State address announced his intention to fulfill a campaign promise to restore state funding for “pregnancy-prevention and family planning programs.” Consistent with the Colorado Constitution, Ritter has stated his plan would not fund abortions, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

From Erik Rush's column, “Ritter trying to 'sneak in' abortion view,” in the August 15 edition of the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

Although I'm not a one-topic crusader columnist, every now and then a political issue gets my hackles up so badly I feel I would be grossly remiss if I didn't address it.

[...]

Colorado Constitution Article 5, Section 50, was passed via ballot measure by the people of the State of Colorado to ensure that our tax dollars would never be used for the “direct or indirect” support of abortion mills.

It recently came to my attention (and to that of Colorado pro-life organizations) that Gov. Bill Ritter, in an effort to pay back some of the far-left supporters who helped get him elected, intends to circumvent this law and “indirectly” funnel Colorado taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

It should be no surprise: “I will restore the funding to Planned Parenthood and other agencies,” Ritter stated on his campaign Web site.

How, one wonders -- without doing it illegally?

Depending on how familiar one is with the machinations of politics, this process can be likened to the laundering of money by organized crime. When dollars change hands enough times and no one is paying attention to the paper trail, when the government cuts a check, all looks to be above board.

The partial quotation that Rush took from Ritter's 2006 campaign website about funding “Planned Parenthood and other agencies” omitted critical context. Ritter's promise to restore family planning funding -- reversing a 1999 ban put in place by his Republican predecessor, Bill Owens -- was intended to prevent unintended pregnancies and thereby reduce the demand for abortion, a practice to which he stated, “I am personally opposed.” According to the website:

Reducing Unintended Pregnancies: Reaching Common Ground

I was the sixth of 12 kids growing up on a farm in Aurora. Faith and family have been important parts of my life, and as a Democrat I'm proud of that because both have taught me that we need to be responsible for ourselves -- but we also need to look out for each other. That's what I think it means to be a Democrat.

Based on my faith, I am personally opposed to abortion. But I recognize that people who disagree with me on this issue hold equally strong convictions. Most importantly, however, I know we also share common ground: We all would like to see fewer women facing an unintended pregnancy. To reach this common ground, we must:

• Make a stronger commitment to family planning. I will restore the funding to Planned Parenthood and other agencies that Gov. Owens cut by executive order.
• Ensure better access to health care for all women, including birth control and emergency contraception. I would have signed the bill that was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Gov. Owens that would have given pharmacists the ability to provide EC without a doctor's prescription.
• Provide responsible sex education.
• Make a stronger effort to promote adoption as an alternative to abortion. [emphases added]

As The Denver Post reported on January 16, “Ritter, a Catholic who describes himself as 'pro-life,' wants to lift an order by his predecessor, Republican Bill Owens, also a Catholic. The order restricted groups that perform abortions from getting state money for family planning and pregnancy prevention.” The Post further reported that, according to Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer, “Only family-planning groups that show they can segregate state funds from money spent on abortions would be eligible” for funding under Ritter's plan. The article also reported that Dreyer “emphasized Ritter is opposed to funding abortions” and stated, “The governor believes strongly it is good public policy to attempt to reduce unintended pregnancies, and that is his goal.”

A March 17 Rocky Mountain News article similarly contradicted Rush's assertion that Ritter “intends to circumvent” the Colorado Constitution, reporting that "[a]t issue is about $400,000 Ritter insists will be used to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not end them."

In issuing his executive order banning public funds for Planned Parenthood, Owens claimed that such funding violated Article V, Section 50 of Colorado's Constitution, which prohibits public expenditures that “pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion.” As a December 15, 2001, News article (accessed through the Nexis database) by reporter John Sanko noted, “in 1999 ... Gov. Bill Owens' administration announced that no more state funds would be awarded to Planned Parenthood because of a constitutional ban on tax dollars for abortions.” The News further reported:

[I]n order to avoid the loss of state funds, Planned Parenthood formed two groups -- one of them, Planned Parenthood Services Corp., performs abortions.

That satisfied the state at the time, and it approved $320,000 in family-planning funds to provide low-income women with birth control and cancer-screening help across the state.

However, in 2001, a controversial “private audit led the Health Department to cut all of Planned Parenthood's funding because of its financial ties to abortions,” according to a December 18, 2001, Post article (accessed through Nexis). The article noted that “officials from Planned Parenthood and other groups that support keeping abortion legal said they believe state Health Director Jane Norton [later lieutenant governor under Owens] and other top health officials hired their own auditor because state auditors may not have come to the same conclusions."