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
May 06, 2014 08:41 AM UTC

Politifact Rates Udall's First Ad "Half True"

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Pulitzer Prize-winning fact checker Politifact, operated by the Tampa Bay Times, has kept a close eye on ads in this year's U.S. Senate race in Colorado. Having reported in detail on Politifact's hammering of ads against Sen. Mark Udall as factually untrue, we'd be remiss if we didn't note their analysis of Udall's first ad against GOP opponent Cory Gardner, now playing widely–the most aggressive claim in which is rated "half true."

In 2006, Colorado Right to Life asked all politicians running for office if they supported the Right to Life Act in Congress, "recognizing that personhood begins at fertilization." Gardner, then a first-term state representative answered yes.

Udall’s campaign provided a television news story from March 17, 2008, that appears to briefly show Gardner in a room with several Republican colleagues signing on to the petition to put personhood on the Colorado ballot (around the 1-minute mark).

Gardner’s campaign did not respond to questions about his support of the 2008 referendum. His campaign did, however, acknowledge that Gardner supported the referendum efforts in 2010 at a candidate forum.

In a video clip from the forum, Gardner says he signed the petition and circulated it at his church. He also said the measure "backs up my support for life," but did not mention contraceptives or birth control.

News stories from Colorado papers in 2008 and 2010 mention the debate over contraceptives involved in personhood legislation. In fact, Ken Buck, the 2010 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Colorado, backed away from his previous support of the personhood referendum because he said it could impact some forms of birth control. So contraception was a live issue at the time.

But Cohen, the Harvard professor, told PolitiFact that "it is unclear that the Colorado 2008 and 2010 referendums were intended to ‘outlaw birth control in Colorado’ — that's what the word ‘crusade’ seems to imply. It is more clear that the language of those amendments might have outlawed some forms of birth control, whether that was the goal or not."

In other words, Gardner may have been in favor of the amendment, but for reasons other than curbing contraception.

This is the same ad that 9NEWS Truth Tested late last month, concluding this same assertion that Gardner "championed an eight-year crusade to outlaw birth control here in Colorado" is "debatable." The debate over this question seems to hinge on whether a ban on certain forms of so-called "abortifacient" birth control was the intention of proponents. In some cases, it demonstrably was the intention, but a reasonable person might give the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that it was not in all cases.

The problem is, by 2010 when Gardner backed Amendment 62 in a televised debate, and even helped circulate petitions, the consequence–either intended or unintended–of banning some forms of birth control was common knowledge. This had been the principal argument against "Personhood" two years before. This means that even if banning birth control was not Gardner's purpose in supporting Personhood, he cannot escape responsibility for those consequences. He either supported that outcome, or viewed it as acceptable collateral damage.

Do the full facts of this make the Udall's campaign's claim that Gardner "championed an eight-year crusade to outlaw birth control" debatable? Yes. Reasonable people can debate the full extent of that. But there's certainly enough of an argument on Udall's side to have that debate–and no amount of time spent debating this is helpful to Cory Gardner.

Tweet
Share

Comments

30 thoughts on “Politifact Rates Udall’s First Ad “Half True””

    1. Yeah, but that "half true" is all the baggers need to claim their 100% bullshit ads are "no worse." I understand it's defensible, and that there is a huge difference between this and the lying AFP ads, but our side should be careful to leave the right absolutely nothing to quibble with. It's easier to have no "buts" at all.

  2. Cohen, the Harvard professor interviewed by Politifact, is confusing the "intention" of a proposed law (which, by the way, he gets wrong–there is very strong evidence that the most extreme anti-choicers do, in fact, want to outlaw certain kinds of contraception, so I don't see why he discounts that as an intention of the proposed law) with Gardner's "intention."

    Garder "intends" the forseeable consequences of his actions.

    If Gardner backed the measure, and one of the forseeable effects of that measure was to outlaw certain methods of birth control…then he intended to outlaw certain methods of birth control.

     

  4. Ridiculous. You can't defend this, Gardner was never part of a crusade to ban birth control. The most you can say is this may have been an unintended consequence of Personhood. Gardner was never part of a crusade to ban birth control, it was never Gardner's intention to ban birth control, and Democrats are lying to say otherwise, period.

    1. The fact that Gardner claims he didn't fully think out what personhood is most certainly makes it worse. 

      Oh THAT thing.  That was just an " unintended consequence " that I didn't understand, being a US CONGRESSMAN and all, and that was yesterday anyway !

      1. Now that you brought that up Moderatus, that brings me to another disturbing question. 

        What does Cory Gardner support right not that he dosen't fully understand ?

        1. You mean like Obama? Not only has he evolved on gay marriage, Obama didn't realize that the stimulus would fail, that Obamacare would backfire, or that diplomats in a war zone need protection.

          Let's hold everybody accountable for their mistakes. I'm game if you are.

          1. Stimulus: economic success according to mainstream economists, but stunted (like Obamacare) by Republicans who would rather see our economy falter than to see government (and Democrats) succeed.

            Obamacare: economic and health success (see Stimulus, above for caveat). And Obama knew from day one that he and Democrats would be pounded by Republican lies about it.

            Oh, and – Benghazi!

    2. So which is it–is he a liar or just stupid?  Opponents of "personhood" have been pointing out for years that "personhood" would outlaw certain birth control methods.

      Next he'll just claim he was "brainwashed."

            1. Here's what I've never understood. Since covering birth control is so much cheaper than covering deliveries, including complicated, difficult ones, why didn't insurance companies start doing it as a matter of routine long ago. And even if you accept Santorum's view that the state has a right to outlaw birth control why would the state, an entirely secular entity in this country, want to?

              2. Simple. Conservatives want to punish women for being women. 

                Seriously, a lot of conservative thought revolves around the idea that people who make mistakes (or sin or whatever you want to call it) should (and deserve to ) live with the full consequences of their decisions. Cost savings, public health, and other benefits that accrue to society as a whole are routinely ignored and dismissed*.

                1. As are benefits to children no longer in the womb. Once a low income family's child reaches the other side of the birth canal they couldn't care less.

        5. Your ignorance doesn't prove or disprove a thing, Modster. If anyone in your church supports personhood they do support banning the pill because personhood advocates consider it an abortifacient method of birth control.

    4. So 'local control' which would not 'ban fracking' (it only gives local jurisdictions powers to regulate oil and gas, which could include that but likely would not in most of the state, is  a "STATEWIDE FRACKING BAN THAT WILL DESTROY 100,000 JOBS AND DEVASTATE COMMUNITIES!!!!!" while an admendment that would directly outlaw popular forms of birth control is only an 'uninteded consequence.'  Got it.  Bagger.  

      1. And just BTW, authorities are looking at possible connections between the recent Oklahoma earthquakes and fracking. This isn't the first time such connections have been suspected.  Studies are ongoing.  Also a woman has won a court case blaming illness on nearby fracking. In t the liberal People's Republic of Texas, no less.  Stay tuned.

         

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/justice/texas-family-wins-fracking–lawsuit

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

179 readers online now

Newsletter

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