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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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 16, 2012 05:30 PM UTC

How will Ryan and Romney reconcile their different approaches to enact personhood?

  • 23 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

You might think it would take a miracle to find a serious presidential ticket that supports personhood laws, which would ban some forms of birth control, as well as all abortion, even after rape or incest.

That doesn’t sound like a super popular position for a presidential candidate to have, now that we are exactly 62 years beyond the year 1950.

But, it turns out, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are both apparently for personhood.

Paul Ryan obviously supports it, since he co-sponsored federal personhood legislation just last year. His bill grants “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges” to fertilized eggs (or “zygotes”). It also grants authority to the states to pass personhood.

Romney is also apparently a supporter of personhood, but he has said he’s against a federal personhood law, like the one Ryan co-sponsored.

Instead, Romney favors personhood efforts at the state level. Presumably this would include Colorado’s personhood initiative, but he hasn’t been asked about it.

Romney has flipped around a bit on the issue, but as recently as October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution codifying his belief that life begins when a sperm enters egg.

Later, Romney’s spokespeople reinforced this, telling Politico’s Ben Smith that Romney supports “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide.”

Ryan would almost undoubtedly support efforts to enact personhood at the state level, given his history on the issue, and given that the federal legislation he co-sponsored paves the way for it.

So how will Romney and Ryan work out their differences on personhood?

Will Romney bend a little bit and accept the federal approach to personhood, as well as the state path?

Or will Ryan bow to the top of the ticket, give up his efforts to pass personhood at the federal level, and, per Romney’s approach, focus on the states, like Colorado?

That’s something reporters should seek clarification on, as the campaign moves forward.

(Note: For a more detailed explanation of state versus federal personhood, please read this previous blog post of mine. For a list of other co-sponsors of federal personhood bills, click here.)

Comments

23 thoughts on “How will Ryan and Romney reconcile their different approaches to enact personhood?

  1. The bill is H.R.212 “Sanctity of Human Life Act” introduced in the House on 1.7.2011 and immediately secured 64 sponsors and was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. The House Subcommittee on the Constitution has not seen fit to

    hold hearing on the “Sanctity of Human Life Act.”

    I predict that this bill will die in committee, just like every single similar bill introduced by the republicans right-to-life gang since 1994.  It means nothing,  It is a political stunt.  It is Lucy and the football and you guys are Charlie Brown.

    If I am wrong, then I will submit to a gender test by any doctor of dp’s choosing; I will post the results here and never darken the blog with my comments, again.

    You see, people, until or unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, these laws mean NADA.

    Now:  if the law were enacted and then challenged straight to the Supreme Court and the Court found it valid and effectively overturned Roe, then the personhood laws would take effective…..but mere passage of such laws, which I predict is not going to happen, has ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL IMPACT.

      1. Democrats should demand that the Committee on the Constitution vote on H.R. 212 and if it passes, then demand it be scheduled for a vote of the full House.

        CALL THEIR BLUFF.

    1. You say the law is a political stunt, and I’m willing to agree, there.  But it’s a political stunt because the folks who sponsor it want to take advantage of having supported it, even if they know it will never be enacted.

      Since they want to take advantage of their (empty) support, then what’s the problem with their political opponents calling them out for their (empty) support?

      This is like arguing that you know how to get the economy rolling because of your business experience, but then objecting when that business experience is reviewed and parts of it criticized.

      If you don’t want to talk about something, don’t talk about it, and certainly don’t sponsor a bill.

    2. generally seems to try and compromise when an abortion law reaches them. Every new legal theory adds a new bit to the total effort to overturn Roe v Wade– fetal pain, parental consent, waiting periods.

      What happens when personhood shows up in front of the court? Will the court rule that only on its effects on women seeking abortions from licensed providers? What about birth control methods that prevent implantation? What about unintentionally induced miscarriages– would a woman potentially be guilty of manslaughter if her work environment was shown to affect fetal viability?

      It doesn’t take much to budge the current Court from narrowly upholding Roe to de facto overturning it if the legal theory happens to tweak one justice in just the right way. These can be some flaky people that routinely overturn well-established law with odd turns of logic– see Citizens United.

      1. Wait…they can? That’s why these things are being pushed by the radical social conservative right?  To get them before a friendly Court? You’re kidding!

        The things dwyer considers legitimate concerns (lesbians daring to opine on women’s issues) and the things she considers silly concerns (personhood passing and coming before rightie Supremes) never cease to amaze me.  

      2. The general thinking is that the Court would overturn Roe not on the substance of the issues that you cite, but rather that the whole issue of abortion is one for the states, not the federal government, to decide.  That would not “outlaw” abortion, but rather return the issue to the individual states.  So who is a person, would not be a matter of the United States Constitution, but for each state to decide.  Such a ruling would be consistent with the states rights argument.  It also would weaken tremendously the ability of the federal government to protect anyone’s civil rights.

        There are only a few  important Supreme Court rulings on abortion. Casey v. Planned Parenthood of (1992)  was the most serious challenge to Roe. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe and said that the Court could not put an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. So the state of PA could not force a woman to seek her husband’s approval before obtaining an abortion.  The Supreme Court has also held that states can require parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion, but not parental permission.  The Congress passed a ban on one form of late term abortion – the so-called partial birth abortion- and this Supreme Court upheld that ban.  However, its reasoning was that women still had options to that procedure and it did not place an “undue burden” on women or impact a woman’s health or her life negatively.  I am reporting my understanding of those decisions.  I am not, repeat, not

        attempting to justify them.

        I think it is possible that if a state banned abortion totally or if a personhood amendment passed, and a challenge brought the issue before the Supreme Court, that Roe could be overturned.  I am saying that the mere passage of these personhood laws in the states…which has not happened…or the passage of a federal personhood law…which I argue is not going to happen….would not in and of itself outlaw abortion.

        1. It is also important to note that Roe did not give a blanket right to abortion throughout the entire nine months.

          The right to abort in the first trimester is absolute.

          But, the state has a right to regulate abortion in the second trimester and the right to prohibit in the last trimester PROVIDING that the life and the health of the mother is protected.

        2. The general thinking is that the Court would overturn Roe not on the substance of the issues that you cite, but rather that the whole issue of abortion is one for the states, not the federal government, to decide.

          The general thinking?  By who?  You?

          Why is women’s privacy not a federal civil right?  Why is the competing fetal potential right to life not a federal civil right?  Besides your 14th amendment conspiracy theory on the whole right wing political movement, what evidence do you have that the point is to weaken federal power, and not to protect the unborn?  If fetuses are endowed with all the unalienable rights of born people, why should they have different rights one state to the next?

          The Supreme Court has also held that states can require parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion, but not parental permission.

          You’re wrong, surprise!  SCOTUS has never ruled on parental consent, and it is the law of the land in many states.

          Is this why you have a problem with doctors expressing their opinion, because it’s usually about how wrong you are?

              1. i stand corrected, in part, there are 22 states that require parental permission.  However, every single state that requires parental permission also must by law provide for a judicial bypass, so that a minor may appeal to a judge to avoid parental consent.  It is not absolute.

          1. Ryan has voted to ban federal funding for any health plan that covers abortion and to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. He has co-sponsored federal “personhood” legislation that would declare a fertilized embryo to be a human being, which would outlaw abortion nationwide – overriding abortion-rights laws in California and other states – and might also affect certain types of birth control.

            That goes further than Romney,

            who says he wants to leave the abortion issue up to the states.

            Romney also would allow women to terminate pregnancies caused by rape or incest, exceptions that Ryan opposes.

            As I have noted earlier, proposed federal legislation would not in and of itself outlaw abortion.  It could be used to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, if it were to be passed.  However, I have stated, that I don’t believe that legislation will ever get out of committee.

            http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el

              1. So if the republican party is so gd lockstep in favor or outlawing all abortion, where is the Human Life Amendment that would do that for all time????

                Where is the vote on the federal personhood legislation that would be a step in that direction????

                Where was the vote on federal “personhood legislation”

                or the HLA when the republicans controllled both houses of Congress and the White HOuse????

                I will continue to find quotes showing that is just not “one guy”…the problem is that I hear this “leave it  to the states to decide:  all the time on rr radio….Caplis, Bill Bennet, Reilly, the guys on redeye….and it is hard to post an audio…  


          2. Why is women’s privacy not a federal civil right?  Why is the competing fetal potential right to life not a federal civil right?  Besides your 14th amendment conspiracy theory on the whole right wing political movement, what evidence do you have that the point is to weaken federal power, and not to protect the unborn?  If fetuses are endowed with all the unalienable rights of born people, why should they have different rights one state to the next?

            You have poised beautifully the constitutional issues and how they are in absolute opposition.  So that is why the pro-choice forces have been pursuing a Constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights….oh wait. NO.  So that is why the so-called pro-life forces have been pursuing a Human Life Amenment…..oh wait. NO.

            You should take Leslie Hanks out for a drink because you both have been screwed by the “powers that be” in each of your respective parties….

            If fetuses are endowed with all the unalienable rights of born people, why should they have different rights one state to the next?

            Do you know who agrees with this construct?….Hucklebee and Rev. Al Sharpton…..the latter is pro-choice but he understands the impact of the “let the states decide.”

          3. This is your quote:


            You’re wrong, surprise!  SCOTUS has never ruled on parental consent, and it is the law of the land in many states.

            This is the fact.

            In Planned Parenthood of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983), the Supreme Court ruled conclusively on the constitutionality of parental consent laws- parental consent was found to be constitutional so long as it also allowed a judicial bypass if such consent could not be acquired.

  2. Judge Kane, on July 27th, ruled that a local business – private, for profit – did not have to comply with the HSS ruling on providing contraceptive and other reproductive service coverage in the insurance that they offered to their employees, because it would violate their religious beliefs.  Kane ruled:

    “that the government’s arguments are countered, and indeed out-weighted, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

    Here is the link:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic

    I always thought that Kane was very liberal.

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

191 readers online now

Newsletter

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