New Coffman® "Strongly" Opposes Old Coffman

11 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

A sidenote to this week's passage in the U.S. House of H.R. 1797, a GOP-sponsored bill to restrict abortion rights, helpfully brought to our attention by a reader. Following the vote on H.R. 1797 Tuesday, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado put out a statement attempting to explain his vote in favor of this abortion ban bill:

I voted today in favor of H.R. 1797 to limit late term abortion. I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation. [Pols emphasis]

As has been reported in this space and elsewhere, this represents a major shift in Coffman's stance on abortion. Back in 2009, Coffman was so eager to make sure his hard-line position on abortion was known that he requested this clarification from former local talk-show host Dan Caplis:

Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. [Pols emphasis] I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.

You'll recall that Rep. Coffman has explained his "change of heart" on another issue, immigration reform, by saying he spoke with affected families–especially noncitizen soldiers in the American armed forces. Of course, the fact that Coffman's formerly beet-red district was remade into one of the most competitive districts in the nation is widely accepted as the true reason for Coffman's shifting stances on the issues.

In 2011, Coffman co-sponsored a bill to restrict abortion funding to cases of "forcible" rape along with Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill now embarrassingly prescient of Akin's career-ending remarks about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy. Coffman's 2009 statement that he "opposes abortion in all cases of rape and incest" was unequivocal. What happened to change his mind this time, other than simple political calculation?

Because you only get so many "changes of heart" before they put your face on an Etch-a-Sketch.

11 thoughts on “New Coffman® “Strongly” Opposes Old Coffman”

JeffcoBlue says:

June 20, 2013 at 10:12 am

"No story here," says Kurtis Lee and Chuck Plunkett…

Log in to Reply
Moderatus says:

June 20, 2013 at 11:53 am

When Obama "evolves," liberals praise him.

When Coffman "evolves," he's a fake.

Hypocrites…

Log in to Reply
1. Republican 36 says:
  
  June 20, 2013 at 12:13 pm
  
  I wish he was evolving but that isn't the case. In the 1980's and 90's, Congressman Coffman was 100% pro-choice before the pro-life groups tool over the Colorado Republican Party. When that happened, he became 100% pro-life as Coloradopols points out in the 2009 quote above. The only thing that has changed since 2009 is the fact his district has gone from an absolutely deep red district to a competitive one where pro-life is an unpopular position and thus his change of heart. Congressman Coffman is whatever he needs to be at the moment. He has a bad case of situational ethics.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Moderatus says:
    
    June 20, 2013 at 12:37 pm
    
    Can you prove that? No one has ever told me that Coffman was once pro choice. I don't believe you.
    
    Either way, Coffman is no different from Obama. Obama needed Gill $ in 2012 so he "evolved." How is that any different?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. BlueCat says:
      
      June 20, 2013 at 1:21 pm
      
      Democrats, including his 6th District challenger, state Rep. Joe Miklosi, have worked extensively at defining Coffman as an extreme candidate out of touch with a new district that is much more moderate.
      
      In TV ads, Coffman has been assailed for his past support of a controversial anti-abortion measure that critics maintained outlawed many common forms of birth control.
      
      Coffman has noted that he's pro-life and that he's not focused on social issues. ( my emphasis)
      
      Read more: Mike Coffman: Aurora roots "play to my strengths" – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21768451/aurora-is-home-coffman-but-could-prove-obstacle#ixzz2Wmlc6UJl
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. Republican 36 says:
      
      June 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm
      
      Yes, I can. I've lived in Arapahoe County for well over thirty years and in the 1980's and 90's was active in the Republican Party. I've known Congressman Coffman before he was first elected to the state House in 1988 and he was pro-choice in those days but when the county party was taken over by the right-to-lifers (they did it fair and square), he evolved to a 100% pro-life position. Now that his district is pro-choice, he is evolving again.
      
      Log in to Reply
    3. Davie says:
      
      June 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm
      
      @Moderatus — you need to hang out here more often. Another lapsed Republican polster, Craig, has known Mike Coffman for decades, including Mike's pro-choice days. He's posted the history a few times. Here's a snippet from this past Monday:
      
      Well, Mike. The chickens have finally come home to roost. You made a "strategic" decision to change your position on abortion. That was your call. Now you have to sleep with it. Because at least I won't let you get away with it. I've aired your history before and I'll air it again. Don't try to back up. As former Colorado NARAL chair and former chair of the Republican Party in Jefferson County, I have some authority on this issue, and what I know isn't even second hand. You might as well just stick to your position, even though it's inconvenient now. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/44521/abortion-will-likely-take-center-stage-in-coffman-romanoff-race#sthash.2WjwO0Vi.dpuf
      
      Log in to Reply
2. Curmudgeon says:
  
  June 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm
  
  Coffman didn't evolve. Evolution implies progress.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Old Time Dem says:
    
    June 20, 2013 at 12:20 pm
    
    Not really. Evolution can result in the loss of function, as in animals that adapted to cave-dwelling by losing their eyes.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Curmudgeon says:
      
      June 20, 2013 at 12:31 pm
      
      Adapting to the enivronment isn't progress?
      
      Log in to Reply
3. Canines says:
  
  June 20, 2013 at 3:54 pm
  
  I'm not sure if Coffman believes in evolution.
  
  Log in to Reply