SB 53 gains approval from State, Veterans and Military Affairs Comm.

The effort to allow hospital visitations during a pandemic took a large leap forward this week, when the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, on a 3-2 vote, greenlighted Senate Bill 53.

Sponsored by Senator Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, the bill has been on hold for more than three weeks while Sonnenberg and Senate Democrats worked out an amendment to address concerns raised by opponents.

SB 53 states that a patient admitted to a hospital for inpatient care, or a resident of a nursing care assisted living facility, can have at least one visitor of their choosing. Those facilities must have written policies regarding visitation rights of patients, which must also state “any clinically necessary or reasonable restriction or limitation that the facility may need to place on visitation.”

It also prohibits health care facilities from blocking visitation if the sole reason is to reduce the risk of spreading a pandemic disease, but the facility can also impose restrictions to reduce that risk.

The deciding vote on Feb. 24 was from committee chair Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, who herself experienced the pain of being denied the opportunity to be at the side of a hospitalized loved one during the pandemic.

The bill, now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, was amended to add a disclaimer that states the visitor must be respectful of the hospital or health care facility staff and recognize that visitation is a privilege, Sonnenberg explained.

The amendment states that “verbal and physical assaults on health-care workers and other employees of a health-care facility would not be tolerated.” That kind of behavior is already illegal, Sonnenberg said. He called the bill the most important one he’s carried in his 16 years. “It’s about families, being an advocate for patients and the data shows that patients do better with that contact. It’s important that we at least make a step forward in allowing families to be together” when someone is sick.

Sen. Sonja Jaquez Lewis, D-Longmont, said what worries her is that the “we’re not thinking enough about the future” in this bill. “If there is another infection, where a simple mask won’t stop it, what will we do then? There’s a line in the bill to allow anyone for any reason to come in, and that scares me” for her spouse, herself and her community. “This is forcing the hands of our healthcare facilities.” 

Jaquez Lewis was one of the committee’s two “no” votes. Stating her concerns over protecting health care workers, she said “If we pass this, we are not protecting Coloradans and the greater good.”

Prior to the vote, Gonzales spoke at length about the issue, the objections and her own feelings on the measure. Lawmakers grappled not only with the importance of policy but on the importance of family in the most difficult moments, she said.

Gonzales received a letter on Feb. 10 from the Colorado Medical Society, in opposition to the bill. That was followed by more than a half dozen letters from health care providers, also registering their objections.

“I was so caught up in my emotions” after the Feb. 1 hearing, that Gonzales said she had to take a moment and then asked some of the health care organizations where they stood.

She also talked to her family. “Policy is not theoretical to me,” and even within her family, different people had different perspectives, she said.

“Part of how we move through trauma, [is] by acknowledging that it happens and part of the way we shift toward healing is having these difficult conversations.”

The witnesses in the Feb. 1 hearing carry the pain about having to say goodbye to their family members, and in Gonzales’ case, to her mother-in-law, on a Zoom screen, Gonzales added. 

Gonzales did not commit to voting for the bill when it hits the Senate floor, but said it is important for that conversation to take place. It’s about “how we treat one another, not when things are easy, but when they are hard, when people are dying.” 

The bill’s next stop, Senate Appropriations, is required because it carries a small cost to the State, about $45,000, which would help the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment deal with complaints filed against facilities that do not permit visitors. Those complaints are estimated at 54 per year.

The House on Feb. 25 debated a bill that would prohibit people from carrying firearms inside any polling location or within 100 feet of a ballot drop box or any building that contains a polling location. 

House Bill 1086 does include exceptions for people who own private property located within the 100-foot buffer zone, for police officers and for contracted private security. 

Violations carry a misdemeanor criminal penalty, up to 364 days in jail or a $1,000 fine, or both.

The bill is part of the legislative agenda of Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who is running for re-election in November.

Backers of the legislation point to an incident in the 2020 election, when two men filmed voters dropping off ballots at an Arapahoe County ballot box. One of those two men was openly carrying a firearm, which led to complaints about voter intimidation.

During the Feb. 25 House debate, however, House Republicans pointed out that concerns raised in urban areas are not echoed in rural Colorado.

Representative Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial, who has made gun control a hallmark of his legislative agenda, said “not surprisingly, this bill passed on a party-line vote.”

The bill would allow everyone to “vote without fear,” Sullivan said. That includes intimidation by those openly carrying guns within 100 feet of a voting place. “Recent intimidation and threats have made this necessary.”

It became clear, however, that Republicans view this as a gun bill, Sullivan said, and he chastised, without naming, three House GOP members who he said repeat the same gun-grab arguments. It does not lead to confiscation or registry, Sullivan said. 

Rep. Jennifer Bacon, D-Denver, the bill’s co-sponsor, said that she learned around the dinner table about how armed men stood at the entrance of polling places, intimidating people to go home, referring to both an incident in 1946 and in 2020.

Weapons are a form of intimidation, she said. This bill makes clear how people should feel when they’re exercising their most fundamental rights. 

Republicans got one amendment on the bill, a requirement that signage be posted notifying voters that firearms are not allowed within 100 feet of a ballot box or polling location.

An amendment from Rep. Adrienne Benavidez, D-Adams County, reduced the penalty for violations to $250 and 120 days in jail.

The bill is unnecessary, said House Minority Leader Hugh McKean, R-Loveland. He said that a rancher, who is out protecting a herd of cattle from predators with a firearm, will be made a criminal by the bill. If the rancher hops in the truck to protect his herd, and on the way decides to go vote and drop off a ballot at the ballot box, that rancher has just violated the law. 

“This is a second amendment right to do the work you do,” McKean said. “This bill turns our world of jurisprudence on its head,” one in which people are no longer assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Rep. Richard Holtorf, R-Akron, said this problem does not exist in his nine counties. “You continue to make that urban-rural divide wider, with state mandates from on high, because you perceive this problem” from Arapahoe County. “This is everything my people don’t want to see … more infringement and encroachment on their 2nd Amendment rights.”

HB 1086 won final approval from the House on a party-line vote Monday and now heads to the Senate.