Amendment 46 sounds so reasonable on its face, that voters in states where the same language has passed have been shocked and chagrined to later find out its far-reaching implications. “If I had known,” they say, “I would’ve never voted for it.”
To avoid such voter remorse here in Colorado, we thought we’d let you know about a few of the programs that will most likely be impacted should Amendment 46 pass.
First, let’s consider the Florence Crittenton School. This public/private partnership provides middle and high school education services to both pregnant and parenting teen girls.
It’s a long- proven program in Denver that ensures young women get their high school diploma and are thus more likely to be able to support their own families.
Should Amendment 46 pass, because the Florence Crittenton School uses public education money to focus on gender-specific programming, it would be “unconstitutional” as defined by the amendment.
Next, let’s look at the Colorado Pay Equity Commission. This commission has been charged by the Governor to look at ways to reduce the current gender pay gap. Right now, women in Colorado make about 79 cents for every dollar a man makes. That’s just unacceptable. But the Commission won’t be able to fulfill its mission if Amendment 46 passes – it will be eliminated as a gender-specific program funded by public money.
Finally, there’s the Women in Engineering Program – this program at the University of Colorado works with girls in grades 9-12 to help them succeed in high school and consider degrees in engineering when they go to college.
A program similar to this one existed in California before the passage of Prop 209 (the California version of Amendment 46) there, and was eliminated as violative of the law after 209 passed. The same fate awaits CU’s program should Amendment 46 pass.
These are just a few examples of dozens, if not hundreds, of programs across the state that will be affected if Amendment 46 passes. The three programs mentioned above have to do with women. But there are many other programs that are focused on boys and men that will also be affected.
For instance, programs currently exist to encourage men to enter the nursing profession, where they are under-represented – and a program that is new this year, started by the Department of Health and Human Services offers grants to organizations that work with low-income fathers on parenting skills. Both these programs are “gender-specific” and will be threatened by Amendment 46.
Even health organizations are concerned about Amendment 46. The Colorado Consumer Health Initiative recently announced their public opposition to 46 because, as they stated, it would reduce the opportunities for individuals who are from critically underserved populations and communities to work with those same critically underserved communities in our state.
They also believe that Amendment 46 would reduce or eliminate health programs designed to provide specific populations with education, outreach, screening, services and care that has saved countless lives.
The biggest problem with Amendment 46 is that in its attempt to fool voters, its language is so overly broad that outrageous results follow its passage. In California, both domestic violence shelters and breast screening clinics were sued as “violative” after Prop 209 passed.
Let’s avoid these unintended consequences while we still have a chance. Let’s reject this Amendment that Mayor John Hickenlooper calls, “A solution in search of a problem.” Let’s reject the Amendment that Governor Bill Ritter calls, “A California import we don’t need.”
Colorado doesn’t need or want an Amendment that was born out-of-state and brought here by a multi-millionaire carpetbagger from California. We learned a long time ago that voting for other people’s extremist views isn’t good for our State or our economy.
Just vote NO on Amendment 46.
Donna Davis is Project Director, African American Voter Registration and Information Project and Doug Linkhart, City Councilman at Large. Also contributing to this were Linda Meric, Executive Director, 9to5 National Association of Working Women, and Carlos Valverde, Co-Executive Director, Colorado Progressive Coalition. EDITOR’S NOTE: This online-only guest commentary has not been edited. Guest commentary submissions of up to 650 words may be sent to openforum@denverpost.com.
