Calling it a “well-intentioned but flawed proposal,” a leading progressive organization has decided to oppose the ColoradoCare amendment that would create a state-run health care program.

The board of directors of ProgressNow Colorado voted to oppose Amendment 69 on the Colorado general election ballot, despite broad agreement with the ColoradoCare campaign’s stated goals.

“The first thing I want is to acknowledge the goals and passion of the supporters of Amendment 69,” said ProgressNow Colorado Executive Director Ian Silverii in a statement released Wednesday, Aug. 17.

Silverii said the ProgressNow board acted after studies from the National Abortion Rights Action League Pro Choice Colorado and the Colorado Health Institute revealed significant unintended consequences that could result from the passage of Amendment 69.

“The truth is, nothing would make progressives in Colorado happier than taking a bold step toward single-payer health care,” Silverii said. “But there are real policy problems with Amendment 69 that its supporters did not anticipate. When our trusted partners on the issue of protecting reproductive choice tell us that a measure could create serious roadblocks for women who need abortions, we have to take that seriously. When one of the state’s leading health care research organizations tells us this is a plan that doesn’t work fiscally, we have to take that seriously.”

State Rep. Susan Lontine of Denver, who sponsored health care legislation and is a ColoradoCare supporter, said she disagrees with the reasons ProgressNow cited for their opposition to the amendment. For instance, Lontine said the NARAL claim that the amendment would conflict with an existing state ban on public funding of abortions is uncertain.

“We looked at the numbers and we’re talking about a minuscule number that might be affected,” she stated. “And it might even reduce abortions because it would increase access to reproductive health care.”

NARAL Pro Choice Colorado Executive Director Karen Middleton released a statement Wednesday to restate the group’s opposition to ColoradoCare “and to make it perfectly clear that without comprehensive women’s health care, including insurance coverage for abortion care, this measure will not serve women and families in Colorado and is not in fact, universal.”

NARAL bases it’s opposition on a 1984 voter-approved constitutional amendment that “explicitly bans any public funds to be used for abortion care …,” Middleton’s statement reads.

Middleton noted that because ColoradoCare would be a “political subdivision” of the state, it would be prohibited from providing coverage for any abortion services to women, except when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman.

“This means that presently insured women – more than 550,000 women of childbearing age in Colorado – who, today, have insurance coverage for abortion services as part of their contracted benefits, will lose access to abortion coverage benefits if Amendment 69 passes,” Middleton said in her statement. “This is not an abstract figure. It includes me, many of my staff, NARAL supporters and average Coloradans.”

Lontine also disputed the numbers in the Colorado Health Institute study. The group, a nonpartisan health policy research center, said it conducted an independent analysis of ColoradoCare. The study found ColoradoCare would nearly break even in its first year while extending coverage to all Coloradans, but it would slide into ever-increasing deficits in future years unless taxes were increased.

“I don’t think they add up, if you base it on the potential of Colorado not getting Medicaid waivers,” she said. “Then there’s the substantial administrative savings” not included in the study.

The study noted that while ColoradoCare’s savings on administrative costs would grow over time, those savings would be overwhelmed by the rising cost of health care, which is projected to grow faster than tax revenue. The group said that is crucial because taxes would account for roughly two-thirds of ColoradoCare’s projected funding.

While Lontine said ProgressNow’s opposition doesn’t help the chances of the amendment’s approval by voters, she added, “who can really say?”

Lontine mentioned a recent conversation she had with a voter that underlined the need for better health care.

“I was knocking on doors for another candidate in Thornton and a woman said health care was her number one concern,” she said. “She said she was on the state exchange, but couldn’t get it to pay for insulin until she met the $6,000 a year deductible. So there’s obviously a strong need for a better system.”

Silverii said ProgressNow wants to see health care reformed and improved, but Amendment 69 is not the way to get that accomplished.

“… Instead of abandoning the progress we’ve made in Colorado in recent years, we need to focus on protecting the gains we’ve already made – and building on that progress instead of starting from scratch,” Silverri said in his statement. “Amendment 69 is a well-intentioned but flawed proposal. Let’s move forward in 2017 with reform on a national level, and let the success we’ve already enjoyed in Colorado be a model to be proud of.”