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
September 11, 2012 06:00 PM UTC

Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Joe Coors and "Personhood" Edition

  • 23 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Though we have yet to see it explored in a campaign ad, one of the more damning arguments that has been made to us in recent weeks against the “Personhood” ballot measure–which GOP CD-7 candidate Joe Coors helped fund in 2010–concerns a potentially lethal unintended consequence for women suffering from what’s known as an “ectopic pregnancy.”

This is a product of the simple language used in 2010’s Amendment 62:

Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERM “PERSON” SHALL APPLY TO EVERY HUMAN BEING FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE BIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THAT HUMAN BEING.

Note the lack of exceptions.

Subsequent to the failure of Amendment 62 in Colorado, a very similar initiative made the ballot in Mississippi, Proposition 26. Proposition 26’s defeat in highly conservative Mississippi was a perhaps-unrecoverable loss for the movement to pass “Personhood” around the country. If it couldn’t pass there, it probably can’t pass anywhere. And how was this measure fought off in a state where it should have passed? A opponents explained–ectopic pregnancy.

The medical definition of a viable pregnancy has always been the point at which a fertilized egg is implanted in a woman’s uterus. Many long-established forms of contraception, including the IUD, work by preventing implantation.

Then there are potentially fatal accidents of nature, in which the egg, instead of proceeding to the uterus, becomes stuck in one of the fallopian tubes in what is called an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo can never develop into a live birth and the ectopic pregnancy must be ended or the tube will rupture and the woman will die. Before there were blood tests to reveal the failure of an egg to implant normally, most women did die from ectopic pregnancy. One of the obvious dangers of this amendment would be the prosecution of doctors for performing a standard life-saving procedure. We are talking here about a medical measure to save the life of a real person, not of a group of cells that can never become a person because nature has made an error…

CBS News reported in early November of 2011:

“The thing that we’re mainly concerned about is our physicians’ ability to take care of our sisters and our daughters and our mothers in ways that we’ve been taking care of them for 100 years,” said Dr. Tom Joiner, a family practitioner who is also president of the state medical association. “What this thing is doing is it’s taking it out of the realm of medical decisions into the realm of legal decisions.”

Joiner and other opponents of Initiative 26 are concerned that by attempting to criminalize abortion, the initiative will criminalize routine medical practice that intentionally or not terminates a pregnancy. There is no mention in the initiative of an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, nor for the health of the mother, as in the case of life-threatening conditions such as ectopic or molar pregnancies.

We understand that Republicans are really tired of talking about “Personhood,” and complain bitterly to reporters who have the temerity to keep asking. Ken Buck said as much, both before and after he renounced his support for Amendment 62. But Coors has not renounced his check–and reporters shouldn’t care if the subjects of their questioning find it annoying. Coors shouldn’t be able to hide from his record, even if it’s repeated like a broken record by detractors. Why dodge a question you can simply address? Isn’t that the way to stop the repeated questions?

Bottom line: in Colorado, opponents of “Personhood” never had to get into the weeds of arguing about ectopic pregnancies–it was enough for Colorado voters to learn that the measure would have banned many common forms of birth control in addition to abortion, and “Personhood” failed by over 70% of the vote both years it was on the ballot here.

But be assured, Colorado’s 2010 “Personhood” initiative had the same inherent flaw.

And folks, if CD-7 soccer moms see on TV that Joe Coors helped fund a measure that could have criminalized life saving treatment for ectopic pregnancy, something that terrifies all women of child-bearing age, do you think their reaction will be good for his already-uphill bid?

If anything, Democrats are annoyed that more Republicans didn’t write these checks. Joe Miklosi and Sal Pace would love to have such a damning indictment in their races.

Tweet
Share

Comments

23 thoughts on “Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Joe Coors and “Personhood” Edition”

    3. 1.  Should Old White Guys determine what women can or can not decide for themselves (when exactly did women become chattle)?

      2.  Given the economic burden unplanned pregnancies can impose, why shouldn’t the tools of family planning (predominantly access to birth control and medical information) be freely available?

      3.  Health matters for women — again, why should others of a certain view be able to roll back the clock and criminalize private behavior and life-altering decisions, which otherwise could endanger the life of the woman?

      This issue, with all it’s manifold ramifications, affects a huge swath of the electorate — regardless of political affiliation or past voting history.

      So yes, Barron, expect to continue seeing this issue raised in this campaign, and for as long as “Personhood” amendments continue to appear on the ballot.

      1. That would be the 51% of the electorate who are women, of which 99% will use birth control at some stage of their lives and 1/3 of whom will have an abortion by the time they’re 45.

        1. For all of the above reasons.

          Your statistics peaked my interest, so I did a little more digging.  According to Orlando Women’s Center:

          ABORTION FACTS AROUND THE WORLD:

             1/3 of all pregnancies worldwide are unplanned

             Approximately 25% of the world population lives in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, mostly in Asia, Africa and Latin America

             One woman dies every 7 minutes around the world due to an unsafe illegal abortion. Women who undergo illegal abortions are those who are very poor and do not have access to family planning facilities for education and prevention of unwanted pregnancies

             Making abortion illegal or legal has no effect on the total number of abortions performed in the world. Making abortion legal dramatically reduces maternal morbidity and mortality.

             Nearly 50% of pregnancies that occur yearly are unwanted with nearly one half of those pregnant women terminating their pregnancy. In essence; 42 million choose to terminate their pregnancy with close to half of those (20 million) being illegal.

        2. Those women have men who love them and can see just as easily how truly insane the “personhood” movement is. That’s why this stupid crap gets crushed and why republican politicians are so conflicted over it. gotta support it…but..just can’t say so in public.

      1. that he would throw his mom under a bus to rescue one of those ectopic souls.  God how terrifying for them to know they’ll never get to see sunshine of Oprah.  What a good guy to be so worried about ectopic souls.

        BX intends to save their souls from nature so they can all live in a different dimension remembering for eternity their time in the flesh.  

        1. but I can’t countenance that.  Barron is unquestionably a good and moral man who doesn’t just espose, but lives by a consistent, if narrow, creed.

          My only chafe is his desirousness to impose that rigidity on others.  

          1. but he is a “no exceptions” believer and that means that he’ll throw other moms under the bus to satisfy his ideological dogma.  If you’re a believer than it’s all done to “save” the soul and the only soul that counts is the one you need to save.

    5. What, other than just being a jerk, are you getting at?

      Are you saying this potentially fatal repercussion is a “shiny object” or an “exaggeration”? Are you intimating that bringing it up is “hysteria”?

      Or are you, as are Akin, Brophy, Limbaugh, King, Walsh, and for that matter most redlegs, simply uneducated and too intellectually lazy to learn about the female anatomy?

      You should be a red legislator. You fit the profile.    

      1. Economy: FAILED

        Foreign Policy: FAILED

        Obama is having to clean up the mess that you Republicans made.  As Clinton did with Poppy Bush.  As FDR did with Hoover.

        Notice a pattern?

        Never mind.  You NEVER answer questions.  

  2. I feel bad that I missed this lame story for most of the day. Upset that the media won’t cover abortion 24/7 like the Bennet Strategy memo dictates?

    Too bad. You don’t control the issues the election will be decided on. The economy matters more than abortion, always has and always will.

    1. yet another one you’re going to lose . . . but, you already know that.  

      I know this must seem to be getting monotonous, but that is only because it truly must suck to be you.  

        1. is an issue of “rape and incest,” and not an issue of health, self-determination, economic well-being, and equal civil rights, then you are honestly somehow even more fucked up then I have ever imagined . . .

          . . . and I think I possess one hell of a fertile imagination.  

    2. Leading Conservatives Think Romney (the Wimp) is gonna lose

      Neither the conservative commentariat nor the base for which it sometimes speaks has ever been enamored of Romney, but the man who could hardly break 25 percent during primary season was chosen as the vehicle to drive Obama from office. With polls moving in the president’s direction, the Romney campaign continuing to stumble, and Obama outraising Romney for the first time in months, conservatives are wondering if the lemon they bought is enough to finish the race.

      When you only have clowns to choose from during the primary, I guess it shouldn’t be a big surprise when Bozo gets the GOP nomination.

    3. Why won’t your party vote on the Human Life Amendment? The last time elected Republicans in Congress VOTED on the Human Life Amendment was 1982.

      If the life issue is so important, why not vote on it?

      I am truly curious to hear a Republican publicly answer that question.

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

122 readers online now

Newsletter

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