Cory Gardner To Pro-Lifers: Thanks For Nothing, Morans!

Cory Gardner.

Cory Gardner.

Yesterday, the anti-abortion National Right to Life PAC endorsed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner, citing Gardner's longstanding opposition to "unrestricted abortion." From their press release:

Sen. Udall’s own radical abortion position is far out of the mainstream. Mark Udall supports a policy of abortion on demand, which allows abortion for any reason. He voted to keep the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure legal (10/02/03, Roll Call No. 530). He opposed measures that would protect the rights of parents to be involved in their minor daughter’s abortion decision. Udall has also voted several times in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.

Rep. Gardner opposes unrestricted abortion. He voted for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – ground breaking legislation to protect unborn children at 20 weeks, a point by which the unborn child is capable of feeling great pain when being killed by dismemberment or other late abortion methods (6/18/13, Roll Call No. 251). Gardner also voted for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill that would establish a permanent, government-wide policy against taxpayer funding of abortions (1/28/14, Roll Call No. 30)…

Cory Gardner stands in opposition to Obamacare – a law that created a national program of massive federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion, and imposes rationing of lifesaving medical care – and he voted to repeal this destructive health care law. Sen. Udall voted for the pro-abortion, pro-rationing Obamacare law. Cory Gardner is needed in the U.S. Senate to help reverse the abortion-expanding and rationing effects of that law.

“Colorado mothers and their unborn children deserve better than Mark Udall’s extreme abortion policies,” Tobias added. “They deserve a senator who will stand up and give them a voice in the U.S. Senate. They deserve Cory Gardner.”

Interestingly, this release makes no mention at all of Gardner's strongest current pro-life position: his continuing sponsorship of the federal Life at Conception Act, which includes similar language protecting embryos "from the moment of fertilization" that Colorado's Personhood abortion ban initiatives contained. This is the language that could, in addition to banning all abortion even in cases of rape or incest, ban certain "abortifacient" forms of birth control. Given the problems Gardner is having reconciling his abandonment of Colorado's Personhood intiatives with his ongoing sponsorship of federal Personhood legislation, it's probably best that National Right to Life PAC keeps quiet about it.

This endorsement may be helpful for Gardner for shoring up his right flank, but it works at cross purposes to Gardner's larger objective of burying abortion as an issue to use against him well ahead of election season. Even among friends, Gardner doesn't want to talk about this, because any accommodation to one side of this polarized debate alienates him from the other–even more so since his recent flip-flops on the issue have been away from his base and record. He needed the right's support to get where he is, but what he needs most of all today is for them to shut up and let him run to the middle. That they're not doing so, giving Democrats new angles to revisit the issue, is an ominous development for Gardner.

So, that's one problem with this endorsement.  Here's another.



This is the social media graphic National Right to Life is sharing to announce their endorsement. See the mountain in the background shot? That's Mount Moran of the Grand Teton Range in Wyoming. We've been there. It's pretty. But unfortunately, it's not in Colorado.

In our experience, using non-Colorado mountains in Colorado political advertising is the kiss of death. Perhaps not quite the disaster that the Colorado Republican Party's awkward dance with Personhood has been, but definitely not good. Be assured, locals don't appreciate it. It comes across as ignorant and patronizing, the product of outsiders to whom all "flyover state" mountains look the same.

Bottom line: to summarize National Right to Life's efforts on behalf of Cory Gardner, see title.

21 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

    Sure, receive an endorsement like this and then try to persuade Colorado's sane non-right wing extremist voters that you really actually, kind of support a womans right to choose.  No, really !

    Good luck trying to sell that steaming pile of man loaf, asshole !

  2. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Lame, no substance so talk about silliness. Cory has no control over their ads.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      . . . or his [evolving] stances, either, apparently?!? 

    • horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

      Apparently Cory has no control over what he believes in either. 

    • Republican 36 says:

      Mr. Gardner's Credibility Problem Continues to Expand

      Everyone knows that these groups, like National Right to Life, only endorse candidates they believe are absolutely pro-life. They don't endorse candidates who are only half-way committed to the pro-life position, especially their position that life begins at conception. That group's endorsement raises some logical questions Mr. Gardner should answer:

      1. In this U.S. Senate race has he responded to their questionaire? If so, please make a copy of your answers public.

      2. With National Right to Life's endorsement, which you've received in the past does that mean you support their idea that life beghins at conception? (NRTL only endorses candidates who support that position.)

      3. If you do, then do you believe, as you have stated in the past, that all abortions should be made illegal under state and/or federal law?

      4. If you still believe that, and there is nothing on the record this year to the contrary, then you agree, you will sponsor and/or vote for laws as a U.S. Senator to eliminate a woman's right to choose?

      5. Your campaign responded to this endorsement by trying to deflect the questions above. You said that you don't control who endorses you but that isn't the point. Do you spport the positions of the NRLF that's the real issue?

      These questions are appropriate because you have stated you no longer support the state Personhood amendment but you remain a cosponsor of the federal Personhood amendment. Either one eliminates the right to choose. 

      Mr. Gardner, its time to own up to your true position. You can't have it both ways.

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        Here's the National Right to Life questionnaire from 2012:

        It does have seven questions on it, which one would assume have not changed from 2012 to 2014. In order to get NRTL's 100% endorsement, Gardner would not only have needed to vote the way NRTL wanted, but to answer "Yes" to the following:

        Question 3: A 2009 news headline reported: 'Personhood' movement explodes in 32 states. This modern movement started with Colorado's 2008 Amendment 48 and continued with its 2010 Amendment 62 and Mississippi's 2011 Amendment 26. Will you courageously help lead the continued legal and political efforts to acknowledge that the word "person" includes every human being from beginning of the biological development of that human being?

        As I note below, Colorado Right to Life was skeptical about Con Man Cory's commitment to being "pro-life", and denied him the coveted CRTL boldface type endorsement.

    • DawnPatrol says:

      Lame, silly, without substance?

      Yep, that describes precisely the amoral clusterf–k of a "party" for which you troll.

  3. DavieDavie says:

    Interesting take by "Respect the law Republicans" on Udall's simply supporting the law of the land:

    Sen. Udall’s own radical abortion position is far out of the mainstream. – See more at:

    Just goes to show — the GOTP doesn't respect the truth — in fact it's an obstacle to achieving their goals, so it must be suppressed or ignored at all costs.

    We really want to entrust Gardner and his ilk with power, right? (NOT)

  4. DawnPatrol says:

    Ironically, Con Man Cory would be a much better fit for the anti-choice, anti-environment, O&G-owned, no ObamaCare Teabag Heaven of Wyoming. Yee-haw!!!


    I wish we could pull Yellowstone and Teton (all of NW Wyo, actually) out of there and safely down to Colorado, and be done with it.

  5. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Here's what Colorado Right to Life had to say about Mr. Gardner, after he answered their questionnaire:

    Cong. Cory Gardner (R) supported Personhood for a long time but recently rejected a pro-life position in order to become more palatable to moderate voters. Since entering Congress he has steadily “marched left,” turning his back on solidly conservative positions he held on many issues. He says he is “still pro-life” but rejects protections for all innocent human beings at all stages of development and won’t oppose abortifacient birth control.

    Sen. Mark Udall (D) is pro-abortion.

    Notice how neither of the Senate candidates are in boldface? That's because CRTL only designates 100% pro-life candidates with bold type.

    So, National Right to Life disregarded Colorado Right to Life's conclusion that Cory Gardner was not pro-life. Nice.

    • DavieDavie says:

      Or more likely, Cory's getting protective cover ("marched left" wink, wink) from CRTL to support his "moderate" makeover for public consumption.  He'll swing back hard a starboard if he should somehow win the Senate race.

      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        Wink wink indeed. They're certainly not going to vote for Udall. They still much prefer Gardner over Udall so why not say Gardner has marched left to attract moderates who would consider a little left of where Gardner used to be a good thing? 

        I don't think any effort to convince anyone that Gardner is "moderate" enough for Colorado statewide and conservative enough for the base, all at the same time, is going to succeed. Especially in any debates. As Modster would say, he'll be falling all over himself.

        • DavieDavie says:

          As Modster would say, he'll be falling all over himself. 

          Then I guess I should give Modster credit for his prescience regarding Coffman's stumblebum performance in yesterday's debate 🙂

  6. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    Trying to siphon votes from the "mushy middle" has Conman Cory so far out on a limb you can hear the wood a-crackin'. Somebody better put a net under him for when that limb gives way. 

  7. Diogenesdemar says:

    " . . , so far out on a limb you can hear the wood a-crackin, . . . "

    Poetic brilliance, Cook!

  8. Andrew Carnegie says:


Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.