Coffman denies that she’s pro-choice

(Schrödinger’s choice? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Attorney General Cynthia Coffman

Apparently contradicting her spokesperson’s statement to CBS4 political specialist Shaun Boyd, gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Coffman told a radio station last week that, in fact, she’s not pro-choice and refuses to “accept a label” on the abortion issue.

The abortion topic came up on Fox News Radio, KCOL, after guest host Karen Kataline asked Coffman directly about Boyd’s report that Coffman is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, a statement her campaign did not want Boyd to correct.

“Shaun didn’t ask me about that,” Coffman replied. “So, I was surprised as most people to hear that.”

Pressed by Kataline about whether she said she was pro-choice when she ran for her current position of Colorado attorney general, Coffman said:

Coffman: No! No, I didn’t. I refused to accept a label. And I still do, because I — like many people, I think have opinions about this complicated issue that are somewhere not on either end of the spectrum. I personally would not choose abortion. I would choose life. But I also believe that this is settled law from the United States Supreme Court. And unless that law changes at some point, we have to follow it. Because we are a rule-of-the-law nation. And that’s what my position is, as Attorney General, and would be as Governor.

Boyd’s initial report that Coffman is pro-choice drew an angry response from conservative talk radio hosts, leading KNUS’ Dan Caplis to say she wouldn’t have been elected AG if she’d come out as pro-choice.

Asked if she did not support the Obamacare repeal, Coffman said, “No. I didn’t even take a position publicly.”

“We need to fix Obamacare,” she said. “People are extraordinarily frustrated, as am I, with Congress, and particularly with the United States Senate, that they are unable after all this time talking about it to come up with a plan that they can get a majority vote on.”

Elsewhere in the KCOL interview, Coffman said her GOP primary opponent Tom Tancredo “goes too far” in an “effort to get people’s attention.”

Coffman described Tancredo as “entertaining” but not “constructive” and “not what people want; people want a serious candidate who will talk about all the issues.”

“This is not a single issue campaign,” said Coffman, saying Tancredo has picked “a few issues” issues to run on.

Coffman said she’d made her decision to join the GOP gubernatorial primary before Tancredo entered the race Nov. 1.

Coffman’s abortion position is similar to that of former State Sen. Ellen Roberts (R-Durango) who began her potential campaign for U.S. Senate in 2015 by telling a radio station she’d never been pro-choice but was forced to correct her statement once a video emerged of Roberts calling herself a pro-choice Republican.

“I’ve never called myself pro-choice as a politician,” said Roberts at the time. “What I found out, early on, was I supported parental notification in the instance of an underage girl having an abortion. So, when I supported that, and I still support that, I found from those who are pro-choice advocates that no longer made me pro-choice. And I was surprised. I didn’t know that there were slices to what made a person one thing or another.”

Roberts later withdrew her name from consideration for the GOP Senate nomination.

Listen to Coffman on KCOL Nov. 22 here:

16 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Maybe her views are more nuanced on the subject than liberal pea brains can handle?

  2. JohnInDenver says:

    Is this supposed to be an improvement on her non-statement about her stance on government control of women / legal rights of a potential person / pro-choice / pro-life? After two weeks, this statement is the offering?

    It clearly isn't a position acceptable to the hard-core pro-life forces, or the politicians who go along with them.

    It isn't a position acceptable to the hard-core pro-choice forces, or the (very few) Republicans who accept a libertarian view on the issue.

    The notion of the Supreme Court decision making the topic "settled law" is ludicrous. How many legislative attempts to narrow or set up a challenge to Roe have there been? How many court cases have been made, then appealed, because someone thinks they have a nuanced way to sneak a onerous restriction into law? No matter your preference on the policy, I don't know many who would suggest the ruling is "settled" enough that conservative, pro-life judges will consistently rule in favor of pro-choice, because of the precedent.

  3. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Told ya'all Cynthia wasn't pro-choice.

    JohninDenver is right. This will please no one. Ask Cowardly Cory how well doubletalk on this issue works.

    But now, at least we know how she's going to handle her fellow "OutHouse" conspirator Tom Tancredo: "Entertaining, not constructive, not what people want."

    If we're lucky,  Tommy will reply along the lines of "White women shouldn't have abortions on account of being the master race and all, and helping to defend against alla the Mooselambs and immygrams. "

    This primary season will be fun.


Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.