Anti-Abortion Measure Makes Ballot

Great Ghu...

Much as I'd like some Constitutional reform to go through, "Vote No on All" is sounding like an excellent campaign this year.  Maybe "Vote No on All Initiatives, Yes on Referendums", but that might be straining things.

I can see the regulations following passage of this measure: please report all miscarriages, use of birth control, and sexual activity not leading to pregnancy to the Office of Early Life Enforcement for immediate investigation.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 13:57:09 PM CDT

I'm sure...

...we can find a suitable Republican to head up the Seed Spilling in Bathroom Stall That Isn't Procreation Related Division.

---

by: divad @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:18:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ken Starr would be my choice for the role

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:34:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Larry Craig will be needing a job

and have plenty of experience patrolling the stalls.

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:52:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep the government out of individual decisions

....difficult, painful decisions, to be sure. The government has no right to pass laws that come between women and their physician, or women and their personal choice. If you want to protect lives, pass health care reform, and work for the cessation of unnecessary wars like we see in Iraq.

Abortion has been a wedge issue and has been a leading cause of the polarization of this country.

"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

---

by: Sir Robin @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 14:07:57 PM CDT

Keep the government out of individual decisions

Like me deciding who I can rent my house to?

Like an individual deciding who to hire, who to fire, who to serve, who to not serve?

Yea I guess that does make sense.

You get the government out of all the individual decisions they are already involved in, and I'll vote to include abortion.

On one level I actually agree with Robin here.  I believe abortion is the wrong choice. I believe it should never be funded by tax dollars. I believe restrictions like parental notification are common sense. Minors are Minors, and parents should always be informed and have a major influence over any medical procedure their minor child is about to undergo. I believe requiring all women seeking an abortion to have adoption counseling is in the public interest.

But I would never never never want the government to have the final say or veto power over an individuals choice of this magnitude.  

I am a liberty loving conservative.

Agency (free will) is one of God's greatest gifts.  Consequences for the  exercise of that agency is one of mans greatest challenges.  

I am pro choice.  And the way I see it, life is the correct one.

For Me.  

How about you?  

Some men see things as they are, and ask why! ...I dream things that could be and ask,  Why Not !

---

by: NEWSMAN @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:16:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think we're on opposite sides...

You agree that the ultimate decision lies with the woman and her doctor.  You want to put a few more restrictions on it than I do, but I think we could talk about it.  (For example, I don't think parental notification is always in the child's best interest, but agree that Minors are generally in the custody of their parent/guardians...)

Your right to choose who to rent to, or who to hire, or to whom you provide service, should also be unregulated.  It is regulated at present for much the same reasons you cite on abortion restrictions: the public interest.  We are not so removed from our shameful past that we have moved on as a society.  When we have, then I don't think you'll see Democrats arguing strongly for keeping unnecessary restrictions.

For now, housing discrimination, hiring and promotional discrimination, and service discrimination is still demonstrably present and too prevalent in our society.

BTW, pro-choice people are pro-life, too.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:47:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point of order

I think "well debated" isn't the most apt prediction of what's going to come.  

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 14:08:54 PM CDT

Point of order

"Well debated" and "debated well" are two different things!  :)

---

by: Haners @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 17:04:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shrieking pleas

to help Republicans fight back the evil menace of "Abortion Doctors".  There isn't any "meaningful debate" about this topic for some time.  Both sides understand the other is a complete fool that can only be crushed.  The good news is more folks believe that this initiative is the work of cults who are obsessed with ruling other peoples lives so the issue is DOA.

---

by: Gilpin Guy @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:01:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So the question for...

Wadhams....I mean Schaffer, is do you support this Amendment.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 14:09:08 PM CDT

When was the last time

Schaffer actually spoke? Wadhams seems to be the manager, candidate and press secretary now.

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole

---

by: Go Blue @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 22:45:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's an elected official

(on the board of ed these days). It's astonishing the press lets him get away with hiding behind Dick Wadhams.

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 23:05:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not really...

This proposed amendment is almost as absurd as the proposed creation of an Extraterrestrial Affairs Office in Denver.  It's so patently ridiculous (not to mention unenforceable) that it will simply delegitimize opposition to abortion.  It has no chance of passing.  A moderate and reasonable amendment that would protect the rights of the unborn, of mothers, and of medical providers might well pass-but this won't, and will in no way measure "the underlying political views of the state."  

---

by: H-Dog @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 14:53:49 PM CDT

Don't be so quick to judge Extraterrestrials

Besides being one myself, apparently there is proof to be shown tomorrow in Denver of their existence.  

---

by: Car 31 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:35:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You mean Saturday in Broomfield

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:52:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I asked the nurse who

was prepping me for surgery what would happen if they cut into my ankle and discovered I was an alien.  Without batting an eye she looked at me said, "You would be the first".  Some things never change like our anatomy or the total suckers the fundies are to believe that getting to the polls to vote for Republicans will immediately solve the problem.  "Vote Republicans and unwanted pregnancies will disappear".  Bring it on pro-war Christians.  Let's talk about how sacred life really is to you while you support the carnage in Iraq.

---

by: Gilpin Guy @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 21:55:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey H-Dog: And the details of your "moderate and reasonable amendment?"

How would you propose to protect the rights of the unborn, the mothers, and medical providers?  For example: define the rights of the unborn.  Ten to one, you don't reply to this post...

This is how roe goes:
1) First trimester the right of the mother to control her own body is absolute...the state can not intervene

2) Second trimester....the STATE may regulate abortion to protect "developing life" but it can not prohibit it and the regulation must allow an exception for the life and health of the mother

3) Third trimester...Again, in the interests of protecting developing life, .the STATE may prohibit abortion if it allows an exception for the life of the mother....now when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on parttial-birth abortion which did not allow an exception for the health of the mother...it may have weakened the stipulation that ANY third trimester abortion prohibition had to have a stipulation protecting the health of the mother...

Talk Radio - The weapon to divide and conquer America....but who is funding it?

---

by: dwyer @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:20:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would like to see a referendum

That was very straightforward and reasonable that outlawed abortion in the last trimester. I think that would be a discussion well worth the voters of this state having.

This totally off the deep end stuff doesn't do anyone any good.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:48:01 PM CDT

there are a bunch of moderately pro-choice people...

...myself included, who wouldn't mind seeing third trimester abortion ban with an exception where necessary to protect the life, or to prevent serious risk to the health, of the mother.
  These fools pushing the Egg Amendment fail to realize that they could probably enact something constitutional and on which there is probably a concensus.
  Kristi Burton is NARAL's best friend!

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:53:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Third Trimester

The very devil is in the details.  

How would serious risk to health be determined?  I would not object or campaign against a third trimester abortion ban, but only if there are serious safeguards.  

For example that abortion opponents cannot entangle a woman in legal procedures by shopping around to find one doctor somewhere that would say it was not necessary.  And what of launching lawsuits against doctors to effectively outlaw the procedure by making it too risky from an insurance/legal point of view?

Without details my inclination would be to vote against it as I vote against pretty much anything changing the State Constitution.

Matthew

Matthew

---

by: Precinct854 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:40:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Roe v. Wade allows prohibition in the third trimester

there needs to be a provision for the life/health of the mother, but what you suggest is already legal under Roe v. Wade

It will be interesting to see who actually knows the federal constitutional principles at play, here, and who just wants to throw around the old bromides...

Talk Radio - The weapon to divide and conquer America....but who is funding it?

---

by: dwyer @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 17:58:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

???

How in the world is pointing out that an exception for the health and life of the mother needs to be an actual exception and not just a theoretical one an old bromide?  As with Amendment 41 I worry about unforeseen consequences to changing the state constitution.  Like someone dying because they cannot find a doctor willing to take the legal risk of terminating a third trimester pregnancy.

Matthew

Matthew

---

by: Precinct854 @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:05:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me sort this out, if I can...Matthew

IF the amendment passes and the personhood definition of life beginning at conception is in the Colorado Constitution, and IF the Supreme Court overturns Roe and the issue reverts to the state, then and only then, would the state constitution come into play and ALL abortion would be illegal in Colorado...  so the question of legal third trimester abortions would be mute because they would all be ILLEGAL...

Now, making an exception for the life and health of the mother in the third trimester  has been Colorado law for over thirty years, without any problems.  I believe that the state of Colorado, via its citizens, has chosen not to restrict or prohibit abortion in any of trimesters.

so as far as I can figure out, Matt, you are discussing a situation which does not exist...which is a twist on the old bromides...attempting to make a distinction between "actual exception" and "theoretical one" has neither medical nor legal meaning and thus does qualify as  an old bromide....

Talk Radio - The weapon to divide and conquer America....but who is funding it?

---

by: dwyer @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:15:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Until the state....

can carry the fetus, then they/we should keep our opinions out of it.  It is entirely up to the woman (and anyone else she choses to consult) carrying the fetus as to what to do with it.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:56:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is a very political decision

Where the populace has strongly differeing views on a serious moral issue, it absolutely should be discussed in the political arena.

With that said, the opinion that the state should do nothing is a very valid one to bring up in that discussion. The problem is until we have that open discussion, people continue to yell past each other.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:06:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I strongly disagree...

while many members of the populace may have "strongly differing views on the serious moral issue" of who my life partner is, I don't think I should have to consult with them on that choice.

By the same token, until the populace is willing and able to carry the fetus, birth it and care for it, they should shut the hell up about it.  It really is none of their concern.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:23:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Colorado is not a pro-life state

2006 polls showed that Colorado is narrowly a pro-choice state. Voter turnout for this issue may end up benefitting Democrats more than Republican candidates.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 17:21:20 PM CDT

The problem is that polls don't measure intensity

Pro lifers believe, passionately, that abortion is murder.

pro-choicers hem and haw, mutter about third term exceptions, etc and feel very uncomfortble. Result is that pro lifers are more likely to vote for or against a candidate on the single issue of abortion.  Pro choicers move on to ask what you think about social security, alternative energy, etc.   It's the same reason polls show majorities in favor of gun control but politicians who vote for gun control are voted out of office by zealous gunnies while the gun control types worry about other things.  

---

by: bob ewegen @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:20:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For a very simple reason

The pro-choicers know the courts will keep abortion legal. If the question moved back to the political sphere, then it would be a key question for most voters - on both sides.

When you've "won" the decision then you can look at other issues.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 22:13:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now at Wal Mart: car seats for frozen embryos

As Democrats, we have a lot to be proud of as we move through the 2008 election season. In Colorado - we are blessed with a slate of local, state, and national candidates that will restore Democracy and good governance to our country. Unfortunately in Colorado, we will be distracted by this nonsense.

But we must be vigilant and ensure that all Coloradans understand that this is not a "pro-life - pro-choice" debate. There are serious ramifications of adding this language to our State Constitution, including hampering the care that the medical community can provide to pregnant women.

Here's one example: If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, this Amendment will prevent her doctor from providing the apprioriate medical care so that she will live.

From the National Library of Medicine definition: "Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."

Those who signed the petition have made a clear statement: they do not value the lives of pregnant women.

---

by: monisha @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM CDT