CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 06, 2012 11:28 PM UTC

"Personhood" Campaign Heads For Ballot; Will GOP Candidates Back It?

  • 39 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: A press release moments ago from Personhood Colorado:

Personhood Colorado submitted signatures to the Secretary of State’s office today for the Colorado Personhood Amendment. The signatures submitted totaled 112,121, although only 86,105 were required. All signatures are pending validation by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office.

“Once again, we are amazed at the tenacity of our nearly fifteen hundred volunteers,” remarked Rosalinda Lozano, Amendment Sponsor. “We had seven fewer weeks to petition due to another failed lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, yet we are turning in over thirty thousand signatures more than in 2010. Thousands of hours of work over this very hot summer have gone into collecting these signatures, and we are so thankful for the hard work of everyone involved.”

—–

From a press advisory Friday:

The Colorado Personhood Coalition will hold a press conference Monday to make an important announcement regarding the number of signatures gathered to place the personhood initiative on the ballot.

“We won’t be certain of the number of signatures until Monday,” stated Rosalinda Lozano, ballot sponsor. “We do know that our volunteers have had to work much harder this year after a 7-week delay in the signature process. On Monday morning, when we have our final total, we will announce the number collected at the press conference.”

“There should be no question about what this personhood amendment will and will not do,” continued Lozano. “The 2012 personhood amendment will recognize the personhood rights of every human being; and by doing so, will ensure a safer Colorado for women and children. We are eager to get our final signature count and complete the signature phase of this campaign.”

The rumor we’ve heard is that Personhood Colorado got many more signatures than last time in favor of placing an abortion ban on the Colorado ballot, for the third consecutive general election in a row. It’s expected that the press conference this afternoon will announce a total number of signatures well in excess of the requirement, and backers sincerely hope enough to survive validity checks by the Secretary of State. Meaning it’s likely a go.

From there, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen, with the exception of the final outcome in November. The “personhood” abortion ban failed in both 2008 and 2010 by over 70% of the vote, and there’s no reason to assume they will be any more successful this time. In 2010, “Personhood” proved quite harmful to defeated U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, who flip-flopped late in the campaign under pressure, helping ubiquitize the expression “Buckpedal.”

Suffice to say, it will be interesting to see what Republican candidates, in many cases prior supporters of the “Personhood” ballot measure, decide to do with it in 2012.

Here is video of Rep. Cory Gardner from his 2010 election campaign, proudly declaring his support for the amendment and describing how he personally circulated petitions for “Personhood” in his own church. Gardner’s district became substantially more conservative in redistricting last year, so why should he be anything but loud and proud in 2012?

Jason Salzman sought out Rep. Mike Coffman’s difficult-to-find position from 2010:

I asked Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks how her organization knew that Coffman supported personhood two years ago.

“Our blog reports on our candidate survey results,” she emailed me. “Congressman Coffman answered all our questions correctly to reflect he is a no exceptions pro life elected official who supports the personhood of the baby in the womb.”

I asked what “no exceptions” means in the context of the survey, and she said, among other things, that abortion would not be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

“Babies are persons, not ‘exceptions,'” she emailed me. “No innocent baby should be punished for the crime of his or her father…”

And finally, GOP CD-7 candidate Joe Coors, Jr.:

Coors donated $1,000 to the “Personhood” campaign during the 2010 election cycle. Note that this wasn’t a donation from one of the Coors family’s foundations, but from Joe Jr. personally. That implies a level of support for “Personhood” greater even than Cory Gardner’s.

The present views of Coffman and Coors will be particularly worthwhile to ferret out; in both cases there are very good political reasons why they would not want to publicize their prior support for a total ban on abortions as candidates in swing suburban districts. But in both cases, we don’t really see how they can walk this back without severe political damage. Why did they ever support a ballot measure twice rejected by over 70% of Colorado voters?

In Coors’ case, what motivated him to go a step further and write that check?

Bottom line: with Buck’s example as a guide, it’s easy to see why many Republicans would be just fine if “Personhood” did not make the ballot again. But since it probably will at this point, all of the questions about it, and the candidates who have backed it, are back on the table.

Now they’d better start working on their justifications (or as the case may be, flip-flops).

Tweet
Share

Comments

39 thoughts on ““Personhood” Campaign Heads For Ballot; Will GOP Candidates Back It?”

  1. If they supported it before – why wouldn’t they again?

    Unless the Catholic Bishops once again say it isn’t time.  But that shouldn’t stop Romney.

    .

    1. First Republican in the modern era to be rejected by the voters for supporting extremist positions regarding women.

      Republicans are waking up to the fact that extremists are in the minority in this country and the chances of getting elected by a pragmatic majority go down the further out they go.

      1. the problem with Buck wasn’t his practical and caring positions regarding women.

        It was liberal media and idiots like me who twisted everything he said to make him look bad.

        – buyer’s remorse

        – forget the 4th Amendment

        – and other Buckpedaling.

        In fact, the real problem with Buck was just that he wasn’t really conservative enough.

        1. and kiss Rosalind’s ring and swear undying loyalty to this piece of shit and wear a “Casper the Unborn Ghost” badge where ever he goes.  To win, he an extremists extremist.

  3. I had planned to vote for Ken Buck until he supported Personhood. I even emailed him (no response.) Since I, a registered Republican, am utterly and completely disgusted with the GOP in general and Personhood in particular, I think that supporting Personhood will be another nail in their coffins.

    As for me, I am busily educating people on how dangerously stupid it would be to allow Personhood to pass.  

      2. once sighed to me:

         “There are two parties, the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.  We belong to the Stupid Party.”

          Democrats may dispute their designation as the Evil Party, but the Republican far-right habit of adding ultra-rigid Abortion/birth control to the ballot certainly helps Obama’s chances of taking the state and the Democrats chances of gaining control of both Houses of the legislature.

         

      3. The party has completely fallen apart. There’s no cohesion. The LIES are just incredible. The Tea Party candidates are complete crackpots. Romney is both a tool and a fool.

        I have come to really admire President Obama over the past few months. If someone had told me that in January, I would have laughed in his/her face. But as a woman and a mother, I cannot support the misogynistic GOP. I am simply appalled by Chris Holbert and other crazed loonies who attach anti-abortion crap to budgets and cybersecurity bills. Stop the madness and get these idiots out of office.

  4. whereby ballot measures which have failed repeatedly don’t get to come back again, regardless of signatures gathered, until several cycles have passed. Like, say, 10 years. Give it three chances, then it’s out.

    1. But won’t work.  What is the same as last time?  If you change one provision is that the same?  How about one punctuation mark?  Where’s the line?  Sounds like you want to do away with the initiative/referrendum process all together.  I’m not in favor of that.

      1. as I’m sure you know. But, if we’re going to play that game… You sound as if you think there isn’t a single, solitary thing wrong with the initiative/referendum process.

    1. but which potential voter is this supposed to persuade?

      The loyal anti-choice crowd may like it (though I  suspect they’ll be wondering what this woman did to get her self raped) but they were already voting for it.

      The loyal pro-choice voter is going to see the hypocrisy and even greater need to protect women’s right to have control of their own medical and life  choices.

      Neither are very persuadable, and certainly not by this.

      If there are undecided – I see this as more likely to influence them to vote pro-choice.  

    2. that their egos will live for eternity and they will spend countless hours with gramps and Aunt Lucy recounting their exploits while housed in a corporal body.

      It’s all about persuading people that their petty egos are important therefore every fertilized egg is an ego that can’t perish otherwise their little egos might not be safe.  If one ego can cease to exist then their ego is at risk and they will move Heaven & Hell to do what they think will preserve their ego.  It’s all about pretending that the consciousness that is the custodian of the form cannot dissipate when the form is no longer viable and begins to decay.  For all their bravado these people are scared of dying and will aggressively pursue all kinds of militant scenarios to convince themselves that their ego will live forever.  

      1. .

        My Christian friends say that I shouldn’t be, if I have faith.  

        Guess I am a little short in that department.  

        I DO believe that a part of me will live forever; I wouldn’t say that part is my ego, but OK.  

        I don’t support Personhood in order to convince myself of anything, I don’t think.  

        I’m already mostly convinced, so supporting Personhood follows.  

        You choose to believe otherwise, and I respect your right to do so.  

        A child conceived as a result of rape or incest is not qualitatively different than any other unborn child / zygote at the same stage of development, is she ?  

        1. and never has been. You cannot, will not, ever force anyone to LOVE a child. And what babies, children, and teens need above all else is to be loved. 43 children have died in foster care in CO over the last five years. So, clearly, foster care for unwanted children is often not the answer. There are many hundreds of thousands of children in the US waiting for adoption, not enough parents wanting to adopt.

          I have always been prochoice, even as a staunch Republican. And the reasons for that are twofold: I believe that EVERY child should be both wanted and loved, as mine are. And it is none of my business what choices another woman makes. The choice is hers to make and should remain so. She needs to decide whether she will love the baby, and can afford the baby. It’s not your choice, or the government’s, or the Church’s. HERS. You, the government, or the Church will not be up in the middle of the night with the baby. So my attitude is, butt out. Forget the zygotes. Worry about hungry, abused, living, breathing children who were unwanted and are unloved as a consequence.

    4. .

      Taking a life is always worse than rape.  

      As Daft Punk is wont to say, it should be up to a woman’s priest and husband, on a case-by-case basis, to decide which is worse.

      Sorry.  that was snark.

      I can conjure up in my imagination some circumstances where maybe a rape is as bad, or worse, than an abortion.  

      Even so, if a child is conceived, as a result of such an attack and assault, it is still a child.  

      Obviously, if carried to term and born alive.  But also if not.  

      .

      1. if we only operated with intellect and had no emotional influences on our psyche such as that suffered by a woman who is raped then your very logical conclusion would be correct. But, we are humanoids, so these other things get in the way.

        If we all drove smartly then we would not need speed limits or highway patrol

      2. Nobody has ever used the force of law to require me to allow any child, born or not, to use my body to sustain its life. Even if a child has all the rights of a fully born person, the rights of a fully born person do not include the right to somebody else’s body and organs.

        I’d like to know how many personhood advocates have donated a kidney, or even bone marrow, to a complete stranger. Your bodily organs can save a life, too. However, we live in a country that traditionally considers those organs yours, and likewise the decision about whether or not to use them to sustain somebody else’s life.

        If a fetus isn’t a person, it’s the mother’s property and she may do with it as she wishes.

        If it is a person, it has the right to life only so long as that right does not infringe upon the rights of others, just like any person. If it cannot survive without the involuntary use of another person’s body, it does not have the right to survival, person or not.

  7. I thought time for gathering signatures was pretty much a fixed length, and that any delay just extended the other end of the timeframe.

    Is “Personhood CO” just blowing smoke, or is there a flaw in our process that allows legal delays to shorten signature gathering time, or did they just run up against ballot deadlines?

  8. It reminds voters that a lot of politicians, especially those of a declining particular party, are out of touch with most voters.

    Do it every year!  

    1. on how to respond.

      Glee?

      Joy?

      Excitement that little zygote will now be able to get a drivers license.

      Dude probably got his signals crossed on this one.

      Talk about gun control and you can bet the self-righteous “Pro-Life” believers would be all over this diary defending the right for people to have as many guns as they want to kill people.  This is the absolute fraud of the “Pro-Life” movement.  “I’m so concern about that little zygote but don’t you dare consider any gun control regulations.  If you do I’m liable to shoot you for trying to take away my assault rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition”.

  10. .

    In El Paso County, most do back “Personhood,” but some don’t.

    The Party Platform is clear; even so, candidates are selected by party members, NOT party executives.  

    Rather than a litmus test on platform issues, candidates have to convince other party members, who get to consider the candidate in whole.  

    Not supporting Personhood is a big deviation, in my opinion, from what the party stands for.  But I don’t get to spike a candidacy, as County Chair, based on my personal likes and dislikes.  

    If a candidate is, say, 85% in agreement with the platform, they may have a good chance of winning the nomination in their race.  

    If they only align with, say, 30% of the party platform, they aren’t likely to make it through the caucus – assembly – primary process.  

  11. “Personhood” is not headed for the ballot quite yet, and likely not at all.

    To reach the 86,105 valid signatures, they need a validity rate of almost 77% of the 112,121 they claim to have turned in. That’s quite unlikely. 65% to 70% is usually considered an excellent rate.

    If the SOS’s sample of 5% of ballots submitted does not project a valid total of at least 90% of the required number (which would require a validity rate of nearly 69% in this case), checking stops and the initiative does not make the ballot. It the sample projects between 90% and 110%, they check every signature. If over 110% on the sample, it goes on the ballot without further checking.

    It’s not impossible that they have a 77% validity rate, but history says it is highly unlikely.

    1. .

      The only factor that could possibly make the difference would be well-trained and disciplined volunteer signature gatherers, who maybe went so far as to ask for drivers licenses.  

      I doubt that happened.  

  12. Almost every store I go into has ask me if I have a store credit card and this is my answer because I know what the next questions is going to be.

    This is how I’m feeling about the Personhood Amendment. I’m tired of giving the same answer and I’m betting most Coloradans are too.

  13. No innocent baby should be punished…

    I thought Repugs didn’t favor choosing winners and losers. How is a generic “baby” more innocent than a generic woman victim of rape? If we’re going to equate–equate–a bunch of undifferentiated cells with an already born person, we’ve got to equate the civic rights of the two. Since Repugs don’t want government choosing the winners, that leaves us right back where we’re at with Roe v. Wade: It’s a decision between the woman and her doctor (and, if any, her spiritual adviser) and big gubmint should butt out.

    1. In EVERY SINGLE discussion that I have ever had with anti-choicers, not ONE will ever concede that the woman has rights. They just blather about the zygote. When I push them to tell me if the woman in whose body the zygote resides has any autonomy, they usually resort to calling me a “murderer” and blocking me.

      So, in their minds, the woman–whether she is somebody’s daughter, mother, wife, sister, partner, aunt, niece, friend–is nothing more than an incubator. How disgusting and utterly inhuman. And these people call themselves “pro-life”? How sadly ironic. This culture of the fetus is insane. All it REALLY wants to accomplish is to restrict women’s reproductive choices, and thereby their futures. It’s a control issue, not a “save the baby” issue. Witness the absolute disregard for hungry and abused LIVING children that the GOP exhibits. Hypocrites.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

56 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!