Abortion is a moral question that remains forever complicated. But pro-choice and pro-life activists continue to jockey for the legal upper hand when it comes to the controversial procedure.

In Colorado, the latest maneuver by pro-life advocates is Amendment 25, the "Woman’s Right to Know Act." The ballot initiative, if passed by voters in November, would require a woman to give "informed consent" at least 24 hours before having an abortion, except in emergency situations. Abortion providers would be required to furnish a laundry list of information, including risks and complications associated with abortion.

Amendment 25 also requires physicians to keep data on both the number of women who were provided the mandatory information, and the number of those who then continued with the procedure. Physicians and abortion providers would be required by the measure to compile this data and submit it annually to the State Department of Public Health and Environment.

Performing the abortion without obeying these measures, or failure to file the requisite reports, could result in legal penalties for the doctors. The initiative paves the way for additional civil penalties as well.

Proponents, including Fort Collins resident Gary Rogers of the Women’s Right to Information Coalition, insist that the amendment is designed to protect women who have been victimized by the "abortion industry," and that it is designed to give women complete and accurate information about the risks and emotional fallout associated with abortion.

"There is an obvious need (for the amendment)," he said in a recent phone interview. He alleged that women do not have access to "accurate information, and no chance to speak to a doctor before the abortion."

While researching the matter, he found that many women "seek counseling to deal with the trauma of the abortion. It became increasingly evident that women are being victimized for profit."

Rogers added that 15 other states have passed similar initiatives. Statistics from states that have such laws point to a 30-percent reduction in abortions.

The Women’s Right to Know Coalition holds that women are currently denied information. "The purpose of the law is to ensure that women receive accurate medical and legal information concerning risks and the fiscal responsibility of fathers," Rogers said.

The latter is addressed in the amendment because many women feel pressured or coerced into an abortion, he said.

"The crux of the issue is that women have the right to information, and when they receive that, it makes a difference."

Locally, Barbara Fair of Heart to Heart Crisis Pregnancy Center, echoed these sentiments. "It’ s a wise thing to think before making a big decision," she said. "It’s not taking away any rights, it’s just so a girl can understand all of her options."

But opponents, including officials with Planned Parenthood, see the amendment as an invasion of privacy, as well as a violation of patient-confidentiality laws.

Abby Erikson, manager of Cortez Planned Parenthood ( a referral clinic only), disputes the notion that women who seek abortions receive no counseling or pre- or post-operative treatment.

"Women always give voluntary consent," she said, and many clients do return for post-procedural checks. She added that Planned Parenthood does provide counseling, and informs women about the alternatives to abortion. An effort is also made to address religious issues, Erikson said.

"Planned Parenthood feels it does a better job than government bureaucrats at giving the woman the information she needs," Erikson said. "Planned Parenthood works to reduce abortion every day with family planning and sex education."

No woman makes the decision to have an abortion lightly, Erikson said, and when women come to an abortion provider, they have already made the choice. "It (the amendment) is not about the rights of women. It’s about chipping away the rights to choose," she said.

But the biggest problem opponents have with the amendment are the stipulations concerning record-keeping.

"This is at the heart of why we in Colorado need to be against Amendment 25," Erikson said. "It’s wrong for the government to compile private medical information. I think that speaks volumes." She is also concerned because the measure does not specify that the names and addresses of the women will be kept confidential.

Both sides accuse the other of being misleading. Rogers called Planned Parenthood’s allegations concerning privacy issues "fallacious. These scare tactics have not happened."

According to Rogers, there are already laws which require termination of pregnancies to be reported, and there have never been problems with confidentiality. He disputed the concern that names of women will not be kept confidential, despite the fact that there is no specific requirement in the amendment’s language to keep names private.

"We just report numbers, not names," he said. The numbers will provide a measuring device and a guarantee that the woman received the information.

Rogers said the reason opponents are honing in on the privacy issue is because the possible reduction in abortions would spell a loss in excess of $3 million per year for Colorado’s "abortion-providing industries."

But Erikson said the ballot had "real inflammatory language." For instance, part of the stated intention of the amendment reads: "(to) protect unborn children from a woman’s uninformed decision to have an abortion."

Erikson felt that certain sections — including the stipulation that the state describe the fetus at two-week gestational increments — seemed designed to frighten, rather than inform.