Search Results for: beauprez abortion

African-American Legislators Rip Beauprez Abortion Claim

37
  by: Colorado Pols August 30, 2006 at 8:06 PM MDT

UPDATE: Beauprez issues apology for his remarks.

From the Rocky Mountain News; “I was wrong about the statistic I quoted in a recent interview with Colorado Public Radio and I apologize to the African American Community and anyone else who was offended,” he said in a statement. “I should have verified the statistic before repeating it.”
———————————————–

Colorado Reps. Terrance Carroll and Rosemary Marshall sent out a joint press release this morning condemning a claim by gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez that “70 percent of African-American pregnancies end in abortion.” Not only does the quote from Beauprez sound bad, the statistic is completely wrong.

Full release below the fold.

African-American leaders call for Beauprez to apologize for careless and extreme claims

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Denver: Leaders of Colorado’s African-American community called on Congressman Bob Beauprez to  apologize for his careless and extreme claim that “70 percent” of African-American “pregnancies end in abortion.”

“Coloradoans deserve better than Beauprez’s disgusting demonstration of ignorance,” stated state Representative Rosemary Marshall. “Beauprez should stop trying to push his anti-abortion agenda at the expense of African-Americans.”

In a Colorado Public Radio interview released August 28, Beauprez argued that “70 percent” of African-American “pregnancies end in abortion.”

Beauprez stated that “in some our ethnic communities we’re seeing very, very high percentages of babies, children, pregnancies end in abortion.” When KCFR asked him to name “which ethnic communities in particular” he was referring to, Beauprez answered, “I’ve seen numbers as high as 70 percent, maybe even more, in the African-American community that I think is just appalling.”

As Colorado Media Matters pointed out, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites an abortion rate among African-Americans that is a tiny fraction of the “statistic” Beauprez referenced. (colorado.mediamatters.org)

“We call on Beauprez to apologize for his careless statements,” stated state Representative Terrance Carroll. “Our community is sick and tired of folks like Beauprez using the African-American community as a political whipping boy.”

“Beauprez demonstrated his poor judgment last year when he shot off ‘I’ve vacationed in Mexico before.  I know exactly what ‘Mexican time’ is,’” noted Marshall. “At the time Beauprez claimed then that there isn’t a “bigoted, racist, slanderous hair” on his body, yet given his careless record and his complete failure to support issues important to our community I am beginning to wonder.”

Beauprez’s continues to receive failing grades from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the worst possible grade from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for his failure to support issues important to ethnic communities in Congress. (www.votesmart.com)

In case you don’t think Beauprez’s abortion stance is important

16
  by: Jason Salzman September 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM MDT

(Beauprez's Todd Akin moment, this is a must-read – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Bob Beauprez.

Bob Beauprez.

​

I wrote last week about gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez's comment, unchallenged by reporters, that he believes a governor has "very limited impact" on a woman's right to choose–even though he told Colorado Public Radio back in 2006 that he'd sign a bill outlawing abortion, if such a bill landed on his desk.

If you're a reporter, and you're inclined to sluff this off, because Beauprez isn't thumping his chest about banning abortion nowadays, you need to know more of what he said during that interview with CPR's Ryan Warner back in 2006.

You can read his exact words below, but, to summarize, he dismisses the notion of making abortion exceptions for rape an incest with, "No. No. I don't make exceptions for that."

He also said, specifically, that he'd support a law preventing a raped 16-year-old girl from having the right to choose abortion, saying pregnancies resulting from rape are "relatively few" and the "child" conceived by the rape should not be punished.

Here's a partial transcript of the interview:

HOST RYAN WARNER: Let’s start with abortion. As governor, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, would you sign a bill banning all abortions in Colorado?

BOB BEAUPREZ: As long as it protected the life of the mother, I would.

WARNER: Rape? Incest? Anything like that?

BEAUPREZ: No. No, I don’t make exceptions for that.

WARNER: Would you seek such a bill?

BEAUPREZ: Uhh, —

WARNER: Or would you sign it if it came to your desk.

BEAUPREZ: I believe that what happened up in — I believe it was North Dakota, or South Dakota –North, if I remember right.

WARNER: South Dakota

BEAUPREZ: South Dakota, excuse me. I thought that was a legitimate question to put in front of the people again. And I thought that’s what South Dakota did. If there was a move mood within the legislature, I’d, uh — I would applaud that.

WARNER: Let me give you what is admittedly an extreme hypothetical. A sixteen-year-old girl is raped. She and her parents want to get an abortion for her. They would pay for it, it wouldn’t be state dollars. You would support a law preventing her from getting an abortion under those circumstances?

BEAUPREZ: Yes, and I’ll tell you very simply why.

WARNER: Please.

BEAUPREZ: I don’t think it’s the child’s fault. And I think we either protect life — all life, especially the most innocent of life — or we don’t. The situations of rape or incest, and pregnancies resulting from, are relatively few. And I think, unfortunately, what we have done, sometimes, is use rather what we think of as extreme exceptions, to justify a carte blanche abortion policy that has resulted in– well in excess, as I understand it, of a million abortions a year in our nation. Tragically, I think, in some of our ethnic communities we’re seeing very, very high percentages of babies, children, pregnancies, end in abortion. And I think it’s time that we have an out in the open discussion about what that means.

WARNER: Do you know which ethnic communities, in particular?

BEAUPREZ: I’ve seen numbers as high as 70% –maybe even more– in the African American community, that I think is just appalling. And I’m not saying that it’s appalling on them. I’m saying it’s appalling that something is happening to encourage that. Frankly, it raises another question, you know? Do we think it is okay that that many African American babies aren’t allowed to be born and live an otherwise normal life and reach the blessings, the fullness of the American Dream. I think those are very serious, very intense, very personal questions that a society such as ours ought to ponder. [BigMedia Note, After being called out by MediaMatters of Colorado, Beauprez later admitted that his 70% figure was incorrect.]

WARNER: Do you believe the state has a role in preventing unwanted pregnancies?

BEAUPREZ: Yes. Yeah, and I’ve supported abstinence training, for example, which is very consistent with my belief and my background. I think that’s a very appropriate role. Some, certainly, their beliefs embrace birth control and the use of condoms. I think that kind of awareness is fine. I’ve got, you know, my own personal beliefs. But I think we need to — certainly need to provide that kind of education to people.

WARNER: Just to briefly–

BEAUPREZ: –especially to young people, I might add.

WARNER: On your personal beliefs, where do you stand on birth control and prophylactics?

BEAUPREZ: We don’t use them. I’m Catholic. And I’m Catholic by choice, and I embrace the teachings of my church, and so we’ve used what our church calls — and I think is widely recognized as ‘natural family planning’ It served me and my wife very, very well.

This interview is proof positive that reporters should ask Bob Beauprez to clarify, precisely, what kind of abortion restrictions (counseling, MRI's, hospital requirements, etc.) he'd impose in Colorado, if legislation, for example, requiring a woman to view an MRI of her fetus before being allowed to have an abortion, as passed in other states, is presented to him for his signature.

Bob Beauprez Goes “Both Ways” On Personhood Abortion Ban

15
  by: Colorado Pols March 5, 2014 at 7:02 PM MST

Here's a brief but important clip of video from yesterday's interview by Brandon Rittiman of 9NEWS of once-and-future GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez:

Transcript:

RITTIMAN: Have you ever supported Personhood, and do you now?

BEAUPREZ: No, I've got a 100% pro-life voting record, as you probably know. So I'm very much pro-life. But Personhood, uh, as my dear friend and my archbishop Charles Chaput, our previous archbishop here in Denver, said that's not the way to do it. I think it creates a whole 'nother set of problems that probably don't help anyone really. And probably won't save more lives. I don't think this is the right solution to, uh, a big uh, a big issue that's been with us for a long time and probably will be.

Well, the only thing we can assume is that Bob Beauprez hopes you never see his 2006 Colorado Right to Life candidate questionnaire! Because it pretty straightforwardly makes a liar of Bob Beauprez:

beauprez2006RTL

Today, Rittiman follows up with Beauprez–who would like to have it…oh, never mind. You know where this is going.

"Bob's answer was the right answer," said Dustin Olson, a strategist working for the campaign.

The Beauprez campaign asserts that "personhood" can mean different things to different people. [Pols emphasis]

"Just like the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' can encompass a spectrum of specific policy points, the term 'Personhood' in the context of Colorado's landscape actually means 3 entirely different policy proposals over just the last 6 years," Beauprez said. "I'm firmly pro-life, and my record reflects that, but some of the proposals we have seen on the ballot in Colorado over the last 6 years have been written in a way that could have far-reaching unintended consequences."

The campaign says Beauprez did sign on to HR 552, federal personhood legislation, which in a similar manner to ballot questions that have appeared in Colorado aims to confer legal protections on unborn children…

As you can see above, Beauprez answered "yes" to every one of Colorado Right to Life's litmus-test questions. According to this questionnaire, Beauprez supports a constitutional amendment protecting "preborn human beings." Beauprez opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. And most important for this discussion, Beauprez answered "yes" when asked if he would sign on to federal HR 552, the "Right to Life Act." Which reads:

The terms `human person' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, [Pols emphasis] cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

So there's absolutely no confusion, here's the text of Colorado's Amendment 48, the 2008 "Personhood" initiative that failed in Colorado by over 70%.

Section 31. Person defined. As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization. [Pols emphasis]

Anyone who entertained the notion that Beauprez might have kicked his 2006 habits, which earned him a place in history as one of the worst candidates for governor ever, can now put that silly idea to bed. Beauprez's 2006 campaign was littered with like incidents of sloppy, disorganized flip-flopping–it's how he earned the nickname "Both Ways Bob."

By our read, he just earned it all over again.

We Give Up: Bob “Elk Whisperer” Beauprez Considered For Interior Secretary

5
  by: Colorado Pols November 21, 2016 at 6:38 PM MST
"Both Ways" Bob Beauprez (right).

“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).

That’s the news sending palms crashing into foreheads around Colorado this Monday evening: two-time Colorado gubernatorial loser Bob Beauprez, one of the most spectacular failures in our state’s modern political history, is being “considered” by Republican President-elect Donald Trump for the job of Secretary of the Interior! As GOP metaspox “reporter” Dan Njegomir is excited to announce from the Phil Anschutz-owned Colorado Springs Gazette:

Colorado Republican former congressman Bob Beauprez confirmed reports today that he is among those under consideration to become the Trump administration’s secretary of the interior, a Cabinet post of pivotal importance to Colorado and the West…

Reached for comment this afternoon, Beauprez—a former dairy farmer, current bison rancher and businessman who made two runs for governor and remains a state GOP mover and shaker—expressed enthusiasm for the position but stressed his inclusion on the list of prospects is very preliminary…

Bob Beauprez’s second failed bid for governor in 2014 was one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory, slinging so much mud at the popular incumbent Gov. John Hickenlooper that it backfired–costing Beauprez votes in an otherwise very good election for Republicans in Colorado and nationally. Along the way to Beauprez’s second loss two years ago, his long history of militant whackadoodlery, “birther” blatherings about President Barack Obama, and gaffes like claiming that 75% of African-American pregnancies end in abortion were all revisited in media coverage.

Elk (left) and Bob Beauprez

Elk (left) and Bob Beauprez

With regard to the environmental and land use policy Beauprez would direct as Interior Secretary, he managed to position himself well to the right of Hickenlooper–already known as one of the most energy development-friendly Democratic governors in America. In 2006, Beauprez was lampooned for his suggestion that elk could be “trained” to avoid oil and gas production sites (see title).

And in 2009, Beauprez wrote in his book A Return To Values that climate change “at best a grossly overhyped issue and at worst a complete hoax foisted on most of the world.”

The only thing we can say about this news that the same Bob Beauprez Colorado politics has known for so many years is being considered for Secretary of the Interior, is that like Trump’s choice of the white nationalist chief political strategist, the National Security Advisor who calls one of the world’s great religions a “cancer,” and the Attorney General who said the KKK was “okay” until he realized they “smoke pot,” Beauprez is the absolutely perfect choice for the job of the nation’s chief protector of our land and water and people.

And by perfect, we of course mean perfectly disastrous.

BREAKING: Bob Beauprez Enters 2016 U.S. Senate Race

9
  by: Colorado Pols April 1, 2016 at 11:07 AM MDT

beauprezdemsfearA press release moments ago from two-time GOP gubernatorial candidate and former Congressman Bob Beauprez could dramatically shake up the 2016 U.S. Senate race in Colorado:

Former Congressman Bob Beauprez announced today that he is turning in petition signatures to place his name on the ballot in the 2016 Republican U.S. Senate primary. Beauprez’s surprise entry into the race comes after meeting with each of the 13 Republicans currently running and determining that none of them have a realistic chance of defeating Michael Bennet in November.

“They’re a pack of damn clowns, every last one of them,” said former Congressman Bob Beauprez. “None of the candidates in the GOP Senate race in Colorado today have the experience either winning or losing elections that Bob Beauprez has. It was easy to keep my petition drive under the radar after spiking the 2014 gubernatorial race the same way! This ain’t my first rodeo, y’all.”

“As Colorado’s next U.S. Senator, Bob Beauprez will either prevent or start the next civil war–depending on how I feel,” said Beauprez. “Bob Beauprez will ban ‘abortifacient’ IUDs, reduce the current 70% abortion rate among African Americans, build a wall to keep both Mexico and New Mexico out, and train our state’s elk to avoid oil and gas drilling sites. All while being so tough on crime that no one will ever sit suspiciously outside your house waiting for you to turn the porch light off. Ever.”

“Clearly, it’s time for the other Republicans running for this nomination to exit the race and join the Bob Beauprez campaign,” said Beauprez. “Tim Neville is a lunatic, Jon Keyser is a worthless little pipsqueak, and Ryan Frazier couldn’t even win a damn city council race. In 2016, just like 2006 and 2014, the winning team* is Team Bob Beauprez.”

###

* “Winning team” may not refer to actual electoral victory.

More information on this major developing story after the jump.

(more…)

Yes, Those DOA Abortion Bills Matter

7
  by: Colorado Pols February 12, 2016 at 4:20 PM MST

2016-02-11 13.13.01A press release from NARAL Pro Choice Colorado on the death yesterday of two anti-abortion bills in the Colorado House, one a so-called “fetal homicide” bill with no exceptions to prevent the prosecution of women, and a second bill that simply made abortion a felony in Colorado with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest:

Today, physicians and reproductive health activists spoke out against and defeated yet more attempts to ban abortion and put politicians in between women and their doctors in Colorado. Two dangerous, anti-women’s health bills failed in House committees. The first bill, HB 1007, would create fetal personhood. The second, HB 1113, would ban abortion and criminalize doctors who provide vital care for Colorado women. The goal of both bills was clear – to attack access to abortion in Colorado and interfere in the doctor-patient relationship…

According to Dr. Aaron Lazowicz, a Denver Ob-Gyn who testified against HB 1007, the fetal personhood bill, “I recently cared for a woman who had previously undergone surgical sterilization after having two children and several years later presented to my emergency department with an ectopic pregnancy that had ruptured inside of her. She was actively bleeding and had to be rushed to the operating room so that we could take out the ectopic pregnancy to stop the bleeding.

She and her husband had made the decision together that two children was enough for them, but unfortunately no surgical procedure can work perfectly 100% of the time. If House bill 1007 were to pass, this woman and I would be faced with the real risk of criminal prosecution for trying to save her life due to ambiguous terminology used in this bill. My patients expect the best and most appropriate treatment from me and this bill would interfere with my ability to serve their needs.”

…According to Dr. Emily Schneider, a practicing Denver Ob-Gyn who testified against HB 1113, which would make abortion a felony in Colorado and criminalize doctors, “I have treated a wide array of patients in my practice. Every woman is different, and every situation is different. As a physician, I have to be able to use my best medical judgment based on the individual needs of the patient…[t]hese are not hypothetical horror stories. These are the real-life, private medical decisions faced by and made by physicians and their patients every day. This bill will ultimately hurt my patients, as well as women across Colorado.”

Rep. Kit Roupe (R-Hiding).

Rep. Kit Roupe (R-In Hiding).

After hours of debate in two House committees, both anti-abortion bills debated yesterday were killed. In the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee, the discomfort from some Republicans over these bills was especially evident. Rep. Kit Roupe, in a tight race for one of the most competitive seats in El Paso County, was excused from voting. Another Republican, Rep. Dan Thurlow, bucked fellow Republicans once again by voting against the bill even though there were enough Democratic votes to kill it without his help.

The lack of any press coverage of yesterday’s long hearings seems to reflect a collective judgment that these bills destined for death are not worthy of coverage. With fewer reporters covering bigger beats than ever today, it’s a judgment you can see reporters making without prejudice.

It’s also totally wrong.

The truth is, abortion rights are in serious peril in many states. Recent restrictions on abortion in Texas, as one example, have dramatically reduced access to abortion in that state with severe consequences for Texas women. But despite the hundreds of abortion restrictions that have been successfully passed across the nation in recent years, Republicans in Colorado have somehow managed to make work a schizophrenic campaign of attacking abortion rights on a more or less continuous basis–then claiming that it doesn’t matter at election time because “abortion rights are not in danger.” If Democrats try to make an issue of Republican attempts to restrict abortion rights in Colorado, Republicans complain about Democrats being “obsessed with social issues.”

As the local media downplays the ongoing Republican attempts to restrict and even totally ban abortion in Colorado, a grave disservice is being done to Colorado voters. The reason why Republicans cannot restrict abortion rights in Colorado is simple: in Colorado, they do not have control. The problem is, every election risks a change of power that could easily result in Texas-style abortion restrictions, or worse, being passed and signed into law in Colorado. In 2014, GOP gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez openly promised as much, even declaring IUDs to be “abortifacients.”

Bottom line: these DOA abortion restriction bills are not “meaningless.” They are a warning–of bad things that are happening right now in other states, and are never more than one election away in Colorado.

The media ignores them not at their peril, but all of ours.

Neville Not “Buckpedaling” on Abortion

9
  by: Jason Salzman November 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM MST

(Tim Neville aims to dominate Thanksgiving table talk – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

State Sen. Tim Neville.

State Sen. Tim Neville.

“My name is Tim Neville, and I’m THE pro-Life candidate running for the nomination to take on and defeat Democrat Michael Bennet in November 2016.”

That’s how Neville, who’s considered the frontrunner in the GOP Senate primary, describes himself in a recent fundraising email.

And judging from the email (excerpt below), it’s hard to imagine there’s a more anti-choice candidate anywhere on the planet.

Neville even confirms that the Live at Conception Act is a personhood bill, something Sen. Cory Gardner was willfully confused about.

In contrast to Gardner, who was obviously worried women would revolt against his history of Neville-like positions on abortion, Neville brags that “politicians in both parties” opposed his bill that would have “forced abortion providers to offer women the opportunity to see an ultrasound, saving thousands of babies in the process.” (Translation: women would be required to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion.)

We know Republicans in Colorado like to modify their positions once they face a general-election audience. See, for example, Gardner, Rep. Mike Coffman, Bob Beauprez, Rep. Ken “Buckpedal” Buck.

But unlike those guys, you get the feeling that Neville really  believes he can win over both primary and general election voters by being himself, regardless of the issue. That will set him apart from recent state-wide Republican candidates. That would make things interesting.

(more…)

Irony watch: Beauprez blames Republican Governors Association for election loss

10
  by: Jason Salzman March 9, 2015 at 4:20 PM MDT

(Wait, what? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

beauprezdemsfear

Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez appeared on KNUS’ Craig Silverman Show Saturday and blamed, among other things, the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) for his November loss to Democrat John Hickenlooper.

“We would have liked to have had a little more backing from some of our friends,” Beauprez told Silverman. “Notably the Republican Governors Association went dark for three weeks right during the middle of the campaign. That one hurt quite a little bit.”

Beauprez’s opponents would wail at the irony of it, of course, because it was an RGA-funded campaign that arguably allowed Beauprez to prevail against his opponent Tom Tancredo during the Republican gubernatorial primary last year.

Beauprez has rejected accusations, from former Rep. Tom Tancredo and others, that he had any knowledge of the RGA’s surreptitious campaign against Tancredo. But Tanc is so mad about it, he’s started a Stop Chris Christie PAC to fight Christie.

“But didn’t you get in bed with Chris Christie, and then he ultimately rolled over and squished ya,” asked Silverman, in a flashback to the kind of edgy questioning he used to deploy on some Republicans during KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman Show. “I hate to use that kind of imagery. But Chris Christie is a bed you got in, and he ended up betraying you.”

“Getting in bed with Chris Christie, I do reject that metaphor, that analogy, the use of that kind of phrase” responded Beauprez on air. “I’m not a Chris Christie supporter in this election right now. And I had some issues with Chris Christie, but the reality was, he was the chairman of the Republican Governors Association. So was I going to accept the help of the Republican Governors Association, just as John Hickenlooper accepted massive amounts, massive amounts, of money from the Democratic Governors Association? Of course I’m going to do that. So the presumption that I was in lockstep with Chris Christie on everything he ever said or would do or say in the future, that’s simply not fair.”

Beauprez rejected Silverman’s assertion that Beauprez’s opposition to marijuana legalization hurt him in the election.

Beauprez said he didn’t take a position against pot, per se, but instead simply said the future governor would have to deal with the law as passed.

Beauprez also rejected Peter Boyles’ accusation, repeated to Beauprez by Silverman, that Beauprez backed off his hard-line stance against immigration, including his suggestion that Colorado should send troops to the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration.

(more…)

GOP’s Self-Injurious Abortion Ban Bill Up Today

51
  by: Colorado Pols February 27, 2015 at 10:30 AM MST

FRIDAY UPDATE: 9NEWS reports on the bill's eventual death Thursday on a 7-6 party line vote:

Thursday's bill was the second of three anti-abortion bills introduced this year. A bill to increase the regulation of abortion clinics was defeated in committee earlier this year. The third bill, banning partial birth abortions, is scheduled for committee debate next Tuesday.

HB15-1041 would make abortion unlawful with violations resulting in a class 3 felony. An exemption is made for the life of a woman, though exemptions for rape and incest are not included.

Testimony before the house judiciary committee was limited to three minutes due to the number of supporters and opponents signed up to testify…

When pressed by committee chair Rep. Daniel Kagan (D-Cherry Hills Village) about cases of rape and incest, supporters of the bill defended the non-exception saying that abortion often hides incest or causes the women affected to feel victimized twice.

—–

Photo courtesy NARAL.

Photo courtesy NARAL.

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee is set to debate (and barring unforeseen circumstances, to kill) House Bill 15-1041 Thursday afternoon, the bill sponsored by a number of House and Senate Republicans to make abortion in Colorado a class 3 felony. It's the same essential language that Republicans introduce in most legislative sessions, including and preceding now-U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner's bill to impose the same penalty on doctors who perform abortions in 2007.

A press release from NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado recounts the effort that organization is making, as in previous years, to ensure that the bill not only dies, but politically damages Republicans who sponsored and enabled it:

For the second time in two weeks, anti-choice legislators are wasting time in the General Assembly with HB 1041, yet another “personhood” bill that would ban all abortion and many forms of birth control. This comes after Colorado voters defeated a personhood measure by landslide margins in 2014 for the third time. The bill will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee Thursday afternoon…
 
In 2014, the voters of Colorado overwhelmingly reiterated a belief that they had previously declared in 2012, 2010 and 2008: they believe women have the right to make their own personal, private medical decisions about abortion and that abortion bans are wrong. This is a mainstream value held by the vast majority of Coloradans for decades.
 
The will of Colorado citizens is clear: they want to focus on the economy and other  issues currently affecting our state. Colorado voters appreciate the work being done to reduce the numbers of teen and unintended pregnancy by over 40% and in turn reducing the number of abortions by over 30%, but access to safe and legal abortion is still a necessity for many women.

As everyone knows, this legislation has absolutely no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee today, nor would it pass the House if it made it to the floor–and maybe not even the GOP-controlled Senate, where we have to think there is a moderate Republican vote left to stop a felony abortion ban bill. And of course, Gov. John Hickenlooper would veto it in the worst case. These simple realities have made even some Democrats complacent about opposing–and as a result, publicizing–continuing Republican efforts to ban abortion in Colorado.

Morally and politically, that's a huge mistake. In last year's elections, the principal response to Democratic attacks over reproductive choice from Republicans was that the "war on women" was overblown. Cory Gardner morphed from the sponsor in the Colorado legislature of the same felony abortion ban up for debate today to a supposed "champion" of access to birth control who had only voted for hypothetical abortion bans. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who in 2006 had promised to sign a total no-exceptions abortion ban as governor, tried to claim last year that he would not do anything of the kind. Republican surrogates and the Denver Post's editorial board told voters flat-out not to worry about abortion rights.

Well folks, what if Bob Beauprez had won? What if Republicans had picked up just a couple more House seats, and 2014 abortion ban co-sponsor Brian DelGrosso was now Speaker of the Colorado House? We're not talking about big margins in either case. If Democrats aren't out there every day extracting maximum damage from the GOP for these bills, reminding voters every time how close last year's elections were, and pushing back on the GOP's insistence that the "war on women" is mythical with this irrefutable proof that it is not mythical at all…if they're not doing that, they're not doing their jobs. And they'd be missing a priceless opportunity.

Because in addition to being politically expedient, making these bills costly for Republicans at the ballot box is the only way to make them stop.

Democrats Sound Off On GOP Abortion “T.R.A.P.” Bill

24
  by: Colorado Pols February 13, 2015 at 9:45 AM MST

nonono

FRIDAY UPDATE: As the Denver Post's Joey Bunch reports, Rep. Gordon "Dr. Chaps" Klingenschmitt couldn't even hold it together long enough to keep Republicans unified on a plainly anti-abortion message bill with zero chance of passage. That takes skill, ladies and gentlemen:

A bill that aimed to put more regulations on abortion clinics in Colorado failed in a House committee Thursday, after supporters of regulations said it would make the process safer and opponents called it an attempt to make abortions harder and more expensive to get. The bill was killed on a 8-5 vote.

Rep. Gordon Kligenschmitt, R-Colorado Springs, voted with the Democrats, saying the bill appeared to give state approval to abortions. [Pols emphasis]

Awesome, "Dr. Chaps!" You've discovered the only way to make this bill even more pointless.

—–

2015-02-12 13.07.45

A press release from NARAL Pro Choice Colorado today publicizes a bill from Colorado Republicans to pass a host of Texas-style restrictions on abortion in Colorado, House Bill 15-1128:

Among our core values is a belief that government has no right to interfere with our personal, private medical decisions. So when anti-choice male Colorado legislators introduce HB 1128, a ‘women’s health’ bill that would impose unnecessary restrictions on Colorado abortion care providers and reproductive health care access, we stand up and say, No, not in our state. Furthermore, the bill establishes "personhood”, which Coloradans voters have rejected three times at the ballot box.
 
Colorado doctors and health care providers shouldn’t be harassed out of business by anti-choice politicians, and Colorado women shouldn't be denied access to care for political, not medical, reasons. Abortion is one of the safest procedures performed in the United States.  According to the Centers for Disease Control less than half a percent of all abortions lead to complications that might lead to hospital care.Abortion providers are already regulated by their professional licensing boards and follow standards set by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Centers for Disease Control.
 
In other states, anti- choice Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws have reduced access to reproductive health care, including abortion care. In Texas TRAP legislation resulted in the closure of 32 out of 40 clinics that provided reproductive health and abortion services. Women in those states are now driving hundreds of miles across the state, in some cases across state lines, to get the care they need. Further, these laws impact the most marginalized, low income women and women of color who already experience the greatest barriers to accessing the care they need.

Although this legislation is being pushed by Republicans as "not banning abortion," in fact the entire bill pertains to the regulation of abortion clinics–and imposes regulations like requiring a doctor at an abortion clinic have admitting privileges at a local hospital. In practice, these regulations have resulted in the closure of most abortion clinics in states like Texas where they've been enacted.

Also interesting in this legislation, as the release above alludes to, is a provision that once again seeks to "define" an unborn child. That is, from the moment of conception.

"UNBORN CHILD" MEANS THE OFFSPRING OF HUMAN BEINGS FROM CONCEPTION UNTIL BIRTH.

Conception is also defined thusly:

"CONCEPTION" MEANS THE FUSION OF THE HUMAN SPERMATOZOON WITH A HUMAN OVUM.

Really, folks, it wouldn't be a Colorado Republican abortion bill without a little Personhood! This is where their bill that "doesn't ban abortion" gets tricky–and might, if passed, do exactly what they say it wouldn't. The bill is expected to die today, but not before giving Democrats another opportunity to prove again why that whole "war on women" thing is not, you know, fake. But for a couple of House races and Bob Beauprez, this could have been a very different situation.

And that is a lesson for both sides.

Gumming Abortion To Death, Part II: Joke’s On You, Ladies

12
  by: Colorado Pols December 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM MST

Abortion-Rights

One of the central issues of the 2014 elections in Colorado was the battle over abortion policy–both at the federal and state levels, where GOP U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner outlasted months of withering attacks on the issue, and voters again rejected a "Personhood" abortion ban ballot measure. Colorado has a long history of support for women's reproductive rights, and the lopsided margins by which Personhood has been defeated here in recent years have made the issue toxic for Republican politicians who used to proudly campaign on their support for banning abortion.

In 2014, however, Republicans successfully blunted the issue of abortion in Colorado–more than that, they managed to turn the debate back on Democrats, successfully countering that liberal "social issue warriors" were wrongly obsessing about a non-issue. Conservative go-to foil on women's issues Laura Carno wrote an op-ed suggesting that the entire question of abortion rights in this year's elections was overblown–declaring flat-out, despite the many avowedly pro-life GOP candidates on the ballot, that Colorado womens' "right to an abortion is not in jeopardy." In the Denver Post's endorsement of Cory Gardner, they claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever that "Gardner's election would pose no threat to abortion rights." Next month, one of the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate's top priorities is a 20-week abortion ban.

In 2006, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez promised to sign an abortion ban in Colorado that would make no exceptions even for cases of rape or incest, and was happy to explain in detail exactly why he thought that was the right thing to do. This year, Beauprez's message on abortion was a complete about-face: "I respect people's opinion, women's right to that choice."

Because Beauprez was defeated, and Democrats retained at least partial control of the state legislature, the question of what Republicans in full control would do on abortion isn't going to be tested here. But what's going on elsewhere, in the wake of the GOP's huge gains in state legislatures across America? As Politico's Paige Cunningham reports, all that stuff you heard before the election about abortion rights not being in jeopardy–it's simply not true.

The big Republican gains in the November elections strengthened and enlarged the anti-abortion forces in the House and the Senate. But it’s the GOP victories in the statehouses and governor’s mansions that are priming the ground for another round of legal restrictions on abortion…

Abortion rights advocates have had setbacks in the states for several years, with a surge of legislative activity since 2011. [Pols emphasis] Women seeking abortions may face mandatory waiting periods or ultrasound requirements. Clinics may face stricter building codes or hospital admitting privilege rules they can’t satisfy. Dozens of clinics have shut down in multiple states. Texas, for instance, has fewer than 10 abortion clinics now. A year ago, it had 40.

Republicans now hold two-thirds of the state legislative bodies, after winning control of 11 more chambers. They completely control the legislature in more than half the states, adding Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia to that list earlier this month. And they gained two more governor’s seats, so they will hold 31 next year.

Steady Democratic control of Colorado in recent years means we haven't seen the same kinds of proposed restrictions on abortion that have passed in many other states, and the ones that have been introduced have been defeated with enough fanfare to render them political liabilities for Republicans. Despite this, 2014 marked the greatest challenge to Democratic control by Republicans since Democrats took the legislature in 2004–and before the ballots were fully counted, Republicans had a few glorious moments when control of the Colorado House, Senate, and Governor's Mansion were all at least hypothetically in reach.

Today, even with Republicans only in narrow control of the Colorado Senate after last month's elections, a program credited with reducing teen pregnancy by 40% is already in jeopardy. Without more power, there's not much that Republicans in Colorado can do legislatively to further restrict abortion and contraception access–but now that the election is over, it's time to recognize that the downplaying of abortion by the GOP and accommodating local media was enormously deceptive. The truth is, restrictions on reproductive choice are passing across the nation–and if Republicans had taken control of this state as they did so many others in the last two midterm elections, restrictions on abortion rights could well become law in Colorado too.

In that event, a lot of local pundits and media types would owe you an apology.

Gardner campaign once said it backed personhood proposals to ban abortion, not as statement of principle

0
  by: Jason Salzman October 12, 2014 at 8:26 AM MDT

Before his recent false claims that federal personhood legislation “simply” is a toothless statement of his belief in “life,” Colorado senatorial candidate Cory Gardner’s campaign told Factcheck.org that the candidate backed personhood proposals in order to ban abortion.

Gardner is now saying, incorrectly, that the federal personhood legislation he cosponsored in Congress is “simply a statement that I believe in life.”

But his campaign told FactCheck.org in August that Gardner backed both state and federal “personhood” measures in an effort to ban abortion, not as a statement of principle.

Factcheck.org’s Lori Robertson reported Aug. 15 that “Gardner’s campaign says he backed the proposals as a means to ban abortion, not contraception.”

Robertson reported:

Gardner is on record since 2006 supporting so-called personhood measures at the state and federal level. These bills and ballot initiatives generally said the rights afforded to a person would begin at the moment a human egg is fertilized. The federal bill would impact the definition of a person under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while the state measure would obviously affect only Colorado law.

Gardner’s campaign says he backed the proposals as a means to ban abortion, not contraception. But, as we’ll explain, the wording of these measures could be interpreted to mean hormonal forms of birth control, including the pill and intrauterine devices, would be outlawed. Other non-hormonal forms, such as condoms, wouldn’t be affected, but oral contraception (the pill) is the most popular form of birth control among U.S. women.

In response to an email asking whether the “proposals” cited in her reporting included federal as well as state personhood measures, Robertson wrote, “Yes, it was a general question, whether he supported past personhood proposals as a means to ban abortion, and the campaign’s answer was yes.”

Robinson noted that “this was of course before the recent interviews in which Rep. Gardner has said the federal bill isn’t a personhood measure.”

So before Gardner said the federal personhood bill is “simply a statement” with no legislative teeth, his campaign stated that the candidate had backed past personhood measures in an effort to ban abortion.

The Gardner campaign’s response to Factcheck.org appears to be the closest thing to a factual statement about the Life at Conception Act that Gardner and his spokespeople have provided to reporters during his senatorial election campaign. The proposed law would actually ban not only abortion but common forms of birth control.

When the Gardner campaign uses the word “abortion,” it may actually be referring to birth control as well. If Gardner, like Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, believes that IUDs cause abortions, then Gardner’s aim to use the federal personhood bill as a means to ban “abortion” would include a ban on birth control methods, such as IUDs or Plan B, which Gardner opposed as a Colorado State legislator.

Gardner’s office did not return an email seeking clarification on this matter and others.

There is evidence that Gardner, like Beauprez, believes Plan B and other forms of birth control cause “abortioins.” Gardner voted against the 2009 Birth Control Protection Act, which defined “contraception,” without exceptions, as a device to protect against pregnancy, defined as beginning after implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall.

The Senate sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, Sen. Rand Paul Kentucky, who’s scheduled to visit Denver for a conference later this month, argues that his legislation will result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Beauprez should explain what the fed personhood bill that he’s co-sponsored would do. And tell Gardner

0
  by: Jason Salzman October 6, 2014 at 8:46 AM MDT

Reporters looking for another source to counter senatorial candidate Cory Gardner’s contention that “there is no federal personhood bill” can turn to gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who cosponsored federal personhood legislation and acknowledges his own support for it.

And while he’s talking, Beauprez should explain what his federal personhood bill would do.

Both Gardner and Beauprez do not favor state personhood amendments, even though both candidates cosponsored federal personhood legislation, which would expand the definition of a person in the U.S. Constitution to include the unborn, beginning at the zygote or fertilized egg stage, and thereby banning all abortion and common forms of birth control.

Gardner’s bill is called the 2013 Life at Conception Act. Beauprez’s is the 2006 Right to Life Act. The two bills are essentially the same.

But unlike Gardner, Beauprez thinks federal personhood legislation exists, and his problem, he says, is with state personhood amendments, not the federal bill.

In March, 9News political reporter Brandon Rittiman clarified a previous 9News piece, which quoted Beauprez as saying he never supported personhood.

Rittiman asked Beauprez about his support of the Right To Life Act, a federal personhood bill, and Rittiman reported:

Rittiman: “Beauprez has certainly supported the concept of personhood in the form of federal legislation. He says his answer to 9NEWS was meant to convey that he has not supported it at the state level.”

Close Beauprez observers will note that the former congressman is careful, when he talks about his opposition to “personhood,” to focus on the state amendments, while staying silent on federal personhood legislation.

Look, for example, at what Beauprez said in Thursday’s debate in Pueblo:

Beauprez: “I’m opposed to the personhood amendment. I’ll tell you what I’m in favor of.  I’m in favor of innocent lives.”

In coverage of the debate, The Denver Post’s Joey Bunch did the right thing journalistically and informed readers of Beauprez’s support of the 2006 federal personhood bill.

Beauprez’s reference to “personhood amendment” Thursday comports with what he told Rittiman back in June:

Beauprez: “The personhood amendment, and that’s where we have to draw the line, the personhood amendment might have identified the right issue but the very wrong solution.”

Bottom line for reporters: Beauprez hasn’t explained why he still supports federal personhood legislation, even though he’s not on board with state personhood efforts. I’m curious to know what Beauprez thinks the federal personhood bill he co-sponsored would do, if passed, and why he backs it over state personhood.

Beauprez’s thoughts on why Gardner thinks “there is no federal personhood bill” would be of interest to those of us trying to understand Gardner’s mysterious personhood hypocrisy.

Beauprez Gives Campaign an “Abortifacient”

30
  by: Colorado Pols October 1, 2014 at 8:38 AM MDT

UPDATE: The Denver Post's John Frank has a new story up as the Beauprez's IUD controversy grows:

Beauprez drew a rebuke from experts in the medical community who called his assertion false, while Democrats and like-minded women's rights organizations suggested it showed the candidate is out of touch.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 10 other physician organizations, as well as the Federal Drug Administration, define IUDs as contraceptives that prevent a pregnancy. An abortifacient ends a pregnancy after it has occurred.

Dr. Daniel Grossman, obstetrician and gynecologist who does reproductive research and practices in San Francisco, said the definition of a pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg is an established scientific standard. He said IUDs are not abortifacient.

"I would say in mainstream medicine this is really not a debate," Grossman said. [Pols emphasis]

—–

UPDATE: The Yes on 67 campaign–wow:

No ambiguity here, folks.

—–

“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).

Coverage of last night's debate between Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and GOP challenger Bob Beauprez at the Denver Post auditorium has zeroed in on a pivotal exchange, in which Hickenlooper presses Beauprez on his record of support for banning abortions even in cases of rape or incest–as well as measures like Personhood which could affect access to certain forms birth control. Beauprez initially seemed prepared to avoid this question, making it clear that he does not support the current Personhood measure Amendment 67–but was quickly lured into exactly the discussion he did not want to have. As John Frank and Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post reported from the scene:

When it was time for the candidates to ask each other questions, Hickenlooper pressed Beauprez about personhood, abortion and birth control. He asked whether Beauprez would support using public money to reduce abortions and teen pregnancies.

"I have no problem with people using contraception," Beauprez said.

"I have a big problem publicly funding contraceptives that are actually abortifacient."

He said he considered intrauterine devices, a common form of birth control known as IUDs, the equivalent to a drug that causes an abortion. [Pols emphasis]

Hickenlooper touted a state program that helped lower teen birth rates drop by 40 percent in five years after more than 30,000 IUDs and other implants were provided to low-income women at 68 family-planning clinics across Colorado since 2009. The cost was covered by a private anonymous donor.

CBS4:

Hickenlooper also asked why Beauprez was pro-life but opposed to this year’s so-called “personhood” amendment that would change the criminal code to apply to unborn children.

“You have switched on personhood in this election,” the governor said.

“I am opposed to the personhood amendment,” Beauprez countered.

“I said that,” Hickenlooper interjected.

“You said personhood. There’s a big difference,” Beauprez retorted. [Pols emphasis]

As to the question of whether or not the IUD is in fact an "abortifacient" form of birth control, meaning a type that supporters of Personhood and other "moment of fertilization" abortion bans want to outlaw, there appears to be some debate–certain types of IUDs may be able to stop a pregnancy if inserted within a few days of fertilization, but in their normal use, IUDs are intended to prevent fertilization for very long periods of time.

But folks, that doesn't really matter. Because the conversation we are having is a disaster for Colorado Republicans.

Not only does Bob Beauprez not, whether he realizes it or not, want to get into the messy details of which kinds of birth control women ought to be using, we assure you that Cory Gardner is absolutely horrified that we are talking about so-called "abortifacient" forms of birth control. The last thing Cory Gardner wants is to start interjecting qualifications about which kinds of birth control are morally okay into his Senate race. After all, he just told the world last weekend that he would "never" support legislation to ban birth control.

That's crazy!

Well, as it turns out, it's not so crazy! The critical point to understand here: prior to Republicans realizing with Ken Buck in 2010 that this whole banning birth control thing was politically disastrous, banning "abortifacient" forms of birth control was an explicit goal of the Personhood movement. Opponents didn't just make up banning birth control as a possible "unintended consequence." It's part of the plan. Or at least it was, until Republicans were compelled to run away from the idea after women voters spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Colorado GOP in their greatest wave election since 1948.

And by taking Hickenlooper's bait, willfully ripping the scab off an issue Republicans are desperate to keep out of the headlines, Beauprez has done more to validate the Democratic "war on women" theme than any Democrat ever could. Beauprez just legitimized the very issue Gardner, and every other Republican interested in career preservation this election season, wants you to disregard.

What a way to kick off October.

Hickenlooper v. Beauprez: Live Blog Tonight!

28
  by: Colorado Pols September 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM MDT

Democrat John Hickenlooper

It has become something of a tradition here at Colorado Pols for us to give you, our loyal readers, a live blog, play-by-play of political debates in Colorado, and we're back at it again.Bob Beauprez Governor

Tonight we'll be at the auditorium in the Denver Post building once more, this time for a debate between Gov. John Hickenlooper and Republican Gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez.

The festivities are scheduled to begin at around 5:45 pm. Live streaming of the debate should be available at denverpost.com/debates.

 

*NOTE: The most current update appears at the top of the page. As always, unless it is in direct quotes, consider all statements paraphrased in the interest of time.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS
Governor Hickenlooper was poised, funny, and his general affable self. Beauprez seemed much more relaxed than normal — but almost too relaxed. Beauprez needed to land some solid punches in this debate, and he just…didn't. There weren't a lot of memorable lines from tonight's debate, despite some pretty good questions, which makes this absolutely a missed opportunity for Beauprez. Hickenlooper wanted either a "win" or a "draw" tonight; you can argue whether he won, but he definitely ended up with at least a draw.

As for Beauprez? The only thing he was consistently on-message about was saying the phrase "kick the can down the street" whenever possible. He seemd tonight like a man who is unaware that tomorrow is the first day of October. Beauprez absolutely, positively needed to throw some punches that would at least leave a small mark on Hickenlooper. Instead, he just kicked the can down the road toward the next debate.

 

(more…)

Beauprez’s Post Profile: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

22
  by: Colorado Pols September 29, 2014 at 11:52 AM MDT
Bob Beauprez.

Bob Beauprez.

The Denver Post's Joey Bunch published a long-awaited profile of two-time GOP gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez in yesterday's Sunday edition, along with a similar profile of incumbent Gov. John Hickenlooper. We've heard varying opinions about Bunch's story–many Democrats are upset with what they consider to be major omissions, while others are happy to see the overall frame expressed in the story of Beauprez damaged by his long record of far-right statements. In a few respects, Bunch does contribute to this important latter theme:

Beauprez isn't trying to evolve.

In the six months since he joined the race for governor, Democrats have rolled out a list of his past statements they say are inconsistent or too extreme, including his statement that he sympathized with 11 Colorado counties that tried unsuccessfully to secede last year.

Also, in 2006, he apologized for saying African-American women get abortions at an "appalling" rate, which was not supported by facts.

A devout Catholic, he opposes abortion except when a woman's life is endangered, but not in cases of rape and incest. Yet he opposes personhood — defining an unborn child as a human with legal rights, which would effectively ban abortions — as bad policy.

"To believe that a victim of rape or incest should be forced to have her rapist's baby proves that Congressman Beauprez is a dangerous extremist, who, as governor, would be a threat to the freedoms of Colorado's women," said Jennifer Koch, executive director of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Last year, on the conservative website TownHall.com, Beauprez compared abortion to the shootings in Sandy Hook and Aurora…

Readers do get the sense that Beauprez is a strident conservative from this story, and that's valuable to Democrats looking to frame him as out of touch with Colorado's more moderate electorate. There's also new information in this story: Beauprez was reportedly paid over $100,000 by right wing funders at the John Hancock Committee for the States to "organize" the Tea Party after 2009. That's an interesting detail which explains a lot about Beauprez's energetic organizing at that time on behalf of the "grassroots" Tea Party–he was on the clock.

With that said, this story left out most of the worst items in Beauprez's record: and in a piece exceeding 2,400 words in length, that's just inexplicable to us. It's well known that Beauprez is far to the right on abortion, and that he endorsed efforts by northeastern Colorado counties to secede from the rest of the state. Bunch covered those. As for so many others:

His opponents are trying hard to resurrect 8-year-old talking points to scare off unaffiliated voters, only to see Beauprez effectively tie his race against incumbent John Hickenlooper.

Presumably, this is meant to refer to all the things Bunch left out? Our readers know that statement is factually not accurate, since most of the crazy things Democrats have been using against Beauprez are much newer than his last run for governor eight years ago. Beauprez questioned President Barack Obama's citizenship in June of 2010. Beauprez claimed that Obama is pushing America toward "civil war" was in 2012, as were Beauprez's comments about about Americans buying up guns to "protect themseselves from the government." Beauprez's claim that Muslim Sharia law is "creeping in" to Colorado was only this past March. The fact is, and Joey Bunch is misleading his audience to suggest otherwise, most of Beauprez's craziest quotes came quite recently. To characterize these very recent and relevant statements from Beauprez as "8-year-old talking points" is simply ridiculous.

(more…)

Beauprez’s Shame

0
  by: ProgressNow Colorado September 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM MDT

Just when you thought you knew everything about Bob Beauprez, it gets even worse.

During Beauprez's last run for governor, he proved himself to be hopelessly out of touch on issues that matter to women voters. Beauprez was even forced to apologize for claiming in a Colorado Public Radio interview that 70% of African American pregnancies end in abortion–a claim which is ridiculous, offensive, and bigoted in the extreme.

Another portion of this same interview was published this week. Here is what Beauprez says about abortion, even in cases of rape:

RYAN WARNER: A sixteen-year-old girl is raped. She and her parents want to get an abortion for her. They would pay for it, it wouldn't be state dollars. You would support a law preventing her from getting an abortion under those circumstances?

BOB BEAUPREZ: Yes, and I'll tell you very simply why.

WARNER: Please.

BEAUPREZ: I don't think it's the child's fault. And I think we either protect life — all life, especially the most innocent of life — or we don't. The situations of rape or incest, and pregnancies resulting from, are relatively few…

Tell Beauprez right now: this is totally unacceptable.

Not since Todd Akin said that rape victims "have ways" of preventing pregnancy have I heard such a sickeningly offensive comment from a politician. This morning, I hosted a press call with Dr. Rebecca Cohen, an OB/GYN doctor and Family Planning Fellow, as well as a brave survivor of sexual assault to respond to Beauprez's horrifying remarks. You can listen to the recording here.

(more…)

Would Beauprez sign Gardner’s personhood bill?

5
  by: Jason Salzman September 26, 2014 at 8:39 AM MDT

(The next logical question – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

beauprezdemsfear

In the wake of this week's revelation that Bob Beauprez once said he'd sign a bill outlawing abortion in Colorado, even for a 16-year-old who was raped, you have no choice but to ask yourself this bizarre question:

If Beauprez were governor, and Rep. Cory Gardner's federal persohood bill successfully overturned Roe v. Wade, as it's intended to do, freeing up the Colorado legislature to send an abortion-ban bill to Beaurprez's desk, would he follow through on his promise to sign it?

Yup, there are numerous hypothetical leaps there, and the leaps are significant, but they are smaller than you might think, and outlawing all abortion, even for rape and incest, is actually factually what both these candidates (Beauprez and Gardner) have pushed for throughout their political careers.

So I'll quickly explain the steps involved in the question.

First, the federal personhood bill, co-sponsored by Gardner last year, would have to clear Congress, which is not so far-fetched when you consider that Republicans could take over the U.S. Senate this year. Then the Supreme Court, whose pro-choice majority is already questionable, would have to overturn Roe, based on the new legislation and other factors. Then, and possibly the biggest hurdle, Colorado Republicans would have to get their act together and take power under the dome. (This is already a reality in numerous other states, where Republican majorities would quickly ban abortion if Garnder's bill had it's intended effect.)

Do me a favor and don't roll your eyes at this blog post, because all you have to do is think of Texas and look at all the places in America where abortion rights are already restricted or threatened. Here's a great summary. It could even happen in Colorado. This is an issue that matters.

Bottom line: Along with their anti-abortion allies across the country, gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez and senatorial candidate Cory Gardner could theoretically work together to ban abortion in Colorado and/or in other states. Gardner could push for the federal legislation allowing Beauprez to sign a state bill giving fertilized eggs (zygotes) the same legal rights as you have.

Beauprez says his support for personhood is irrelevant at state level. Not

9
  by: Jason Salzman September 19, 2014 at 10:20 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).

I don't envy reporters who are trying to uncover the logic in gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez's decision to withdraw his support for personhood at the state level but to continue backing federal personhood legislation, even though state and federal personhood laws would do the exact same thing: ban all abortion, even for rape and incest.

In a post yesterday, Denver Post reporter John Frank tried to unravel Beauprez's logic, and he made some headway, reporting that Beauprez apparently believes his abortion stance is irrelevant, because federal law is all that matters regarding abortion, and Beauprez won't "deny what the law provides you."

Beauprez: “The governor has very limited impact on what is really the federal law. Democrats always bring it up because they don’t want to talk about the economy or education or about transportation,” he said. “I don’t know where it is an issue in this campaign.”

Tell that to women and others in Texas, where a state law, under review now by federal judges, could reduce the number of abortion clinics statewide from 41 to just seven or eight–and Texas has over 5 million women of reproductive age.

In the more friendly territory of Colorado, a personhood abortion-ban bill was introduced just last year. What if control of the legislature changed, the bill were passed, and it landed on Beauprez's desk? What about a bill requiring counseling prior to having an abortion or multiple trips to a clinic?

The Guttmacher Institute has a depressing chart that reporters covering Beauprez might want to take a look at, summarizing the 9 categories of state laws restricting abortion.

(more…)

Who will be first reporter get Gardner (and Beauprez) to explain why they support federal personhood?

10
  by: Jason Salzman August 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM MDT

It’s not just senatorial candidate Cory Gardner who’s taken the endlessly puzzling position of being opposed to personhood at the state level but supportive of the federal version.

Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez draws a false distinction between the two as well, saying he’s opposed to the state amendment but supportive of federal legislation. Even though they aim to do the same thing, according to yours truly and, more importantly, Factcheck.org.

Despite the obvious relevancy of personhood on the campaign trail, I can’t find a local reporter who’s asked either one of them the simple question of why they favor federal personhood legislation over the state version.

Instead, multiple reporters, including Mark Matthews at The Denver Post and Bente Birkeland at Rocky Mountain Community Radio, listened to Gardner’s spokespeople tell them that that federal personhood legislation is essentially a toothless symbol–without asking for an explanation. On Tuesday, the Hill’s Elise Viebeck reported Gardner’s position, apparently without seeking an explanation. So did The Post’s Anthony Cotton.

CBS4’s Shaun Boyd taped Gardner himself implying that there’s a distinction between federal and state personhood legislation, without asking him why.

At least Politico’s Paige Winfield Cunningham asked the Gardner campaign about the discrepancy. But she got no response, and she’s apparently let it drop.

A question about the federal personhood bill was reportedly put to Gardner on KRDO radio’s Morning News March 24, but, again, he wasn’t pressed for an explanation when he said it’s a “Democratic talking point” and an “incorrect characterization of the federal legislation” to call it a personhood bill.

So does anyone detect a hole in the reporting here?

Who’s gonna be the first reporter to get the details on why Gardner (and Beauprez) support one personhood bill and not the other?

More Beauprez/Christie Cognitive Dissonance

26
  by: Colorado Pols July 28, 2014 at 10:53 AM MDT
Chris Christie and Bob Beauprez.

Chris Christie and Bob Beauprez.

After embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's appearances in Denver last Wednesday, wherein he refused to back off from his previous contention that Colorado's "quality of life" stinks in the wake of marijuana legalization, Christie headed up to Aspen for a panel with other Republican governors at the Aspen Institute. While in Aspen, Christie has some fascinating things to say about the GOP's efforts to reach out to traditionally disaffected voters–women, minorities, young people. The Philadelphia Inquirer's Maddie Hanna reports:

Gov. Christie presented himself as both “pro-life” and a tolerant listener during a panel discussion with other Republican governors Thursday night, arguing that Republicans don’t need to avoid social issues to appeal to a broader range of voters.

The party hasn’t lost elections because of a focus on social issues, but because of its “tone and tenor,” Christie said at the Aspen Institute in Colorado. “I think we’re getting pounded because of the way we present ourselves.” [Pols emphasis]

Voters want people “who are authentic and believe what they say is true, but also are willing to be tolerant and listen to others’ points of view,” Christie said…

As a reminder, this is the same Chris Christie who hours before said in Denver:

Christie, the chair of the Republican Governor's Association, praised [Bob] Beauprez and called him "the best chance for change and the best chance for a more positive Colorado."

Credit for the nickname "Both Ways Bob" is frequently given to Democrats, but the true origin of that nickname was Beauprez's 2006 gubernatorial primary opponent Marc Holtzman. Beauprez earned that nickname in the GOP primary over his tepid-at-best opposition to 2005's Referendum C "TABOR timeout" measure, and then kept earning it as he flip-flopped repeatedly on a wide variety of state issues he had at one time supported or opposed–the Referendum A "water grab," Jon Caldara's ill-considered Amendment 38, and Social Security privatization.

Since re-entering electoral politics this year, Beauprez has already joined U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner in flip-flopping on the Personhood abortion ban–as well as jilting backer Mitt Romney on the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Beauprez, who once strongly endorsed the mandate as a conservative solution for health care reform, has both abandoned the idea of a nationwide mandate (which Romney supported before Barack Obama), and even a state-level mandate like Romneycare in Massachusetts.

As Democrats size up their case against Beauprez for the voters this year, the two principal message tracks are Beauprez's turn to rank extremism since 2006–the "civil war" and birther pandering being easy examples–and the longstanding "Both Ways Bob" theme of Beauprez being willing to change his stand on anything in order curry political favor. What Christie is basically saying is that the former doesn't matter as long as voters trust you.

To which we can only reply, "Both Ways Bob" isn't the man for that job.

Why do Beauprez and Gardner support personhood at the federal but not the state level?

22
  by: Jason Salzman June 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Bob Beauprez.

Bob Beauprez.

​On 9News' "Balance of Power" show Saturday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez confirmed his continued support for a federal personhood law but said he doesn't support a state personhood amendment.

In so doing, Beauprez aligned himself with U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner, who's withdrawn his support for a personhood amendment in Colorado but is still a co-sponsor of federal personhood legislation.

The simple question reporters should ask both these candidates is, "What's the difference?" The simple fact is, there is no difference.

If either were passed, the impact in Colorado would be identical: a total ban on abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, as well as an end to the legal sale of some forms of contraception. That's what happens, among other things, when you give fertilized eggs (otherwise known as zygotes) legal rights.

But this fact didn't stop Beauprez from telling 9News' Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman Saturday that "we have to draw the line" at a state personhood "amendment."

Rep. Cory Gardner (R).

Rep. Cory Gardner (R).

​

Rittiman: Early on in the primary, Democrats pushed back on you for supporting, while you were in Congress, a federal version of personhood. And you're admittedly a pro-life guy. How do you reach out to a middle-ground female voter who feels that this is her rights that you're messing with?

Beauprez: "Well, let's be very clear. I am a pro-life Catholic. I voted that way. I've got a pro-life voting record. I believe that life begins at conception. But I also believe, as does my good friend and my Archbishop, who used to be in Denver, Archbishop Charles Chaput… [who said] a “The personhood amendment, and that’s where we have to draw the line, the personhood amendment might have identified the right issue, but the very wrong solution”

Back in March, Rittiman asked Beauprez if he ever supported personhood, which would ban all abortion in Colorado.

Beauprez: "No. I got a hundred percent pro-life voting record, as you probably know, so I'm very much pro-life. But personhood as my dear friend and my Archbishop Charles Chaput, our previous archbishop here in Denver, said 'that's not the way to do it."

(more…)

A Democrat’s Dream Opponent: Beauprez, Tancredo, or Gessler?

23
  by: Colorado Pols March 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM MDT
Bob Beauprez, Scott Gessler, Tom Tancredo.

Bob Beauprez, Scott Gessler, Tom Tancredo.

At this point in the crowded Republican gubernatorial primary, post-caucus but before the state assembly and June primary election, we're beginning to see trajectories emerge that allow for some predictions as to who–in what has been a gaggle of undistinguished candidates–might emerge as clear frontrunners.

Before the entry of ex-Congressman Bob Beauprez into the gubernatorial race on the day before the caucuses, the race seemed to be settling into a two-man contest between Secretary of State Scott Gessler and firebrand 2010 American Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo. The other candidates in this race, principally state Sen. Greg Brophy and former Sen. Mike Kopp, were already more or less relegated to the second tier–Brophy's good early debate performance being quickly forgotten.

Interrupting the natural propensity for big fields of candidates to winnow down to two, Beauprez undeniably shakes up this race. The biggest reason Beauprez had space to get into the race at all is the persistent unease many institutional Republicans have with Gessler. The court ruling this week upholding the ethics commission's finding that Gessler "breached the public trust for private gain" is a big problem for his campaign, who would really like to consolidate the limited victory he achieved on caucus night in counties that carried out preference polls.

Tancredo has a relatively large base of loyal activists left over from his days as a firebrand anti-immigration activist and presidential candidate, and good name ID, but Republican strategists understand he cannot possibly win a statewide general election. Although Beauprez's real opponent for the nomination is clearly Gessler, Tancredo is the one with the most to lose from Beauprez's entry into the race, and the most quickly.

Which brings us to Beauprez, who is energetically calling in favors from Washington, D.C. friends to generate buzz for his campaign. Beauprez has been described in at least one news report as the "prohibitive favorite" of the Republican Governor's Association (RGA), a reflection of his ability to woo D.C. Republican kingmakers. But Beauprez faces an almost insurmountable obstacle to winning: himself. In barely two weeks, Beauprez has already stuck his foot in his mouth over the "Personhood" abortion ban, re-earning the title "Both Ways Bob" that was used against him so effectively in 2006. He's supplying the same laugh-track material in early interviews that made him the easiest mark most Colorado Democrats can remember–practically the textbook bad candidate to set up and knock down over and over. Whatever Beauprez has done to re-ingratiate himself eight years later in D.C., his 2006 run was a disaster of the kind that probably should end a political career. And he shows every sign that if nominated, he'll bomb in 2014 just as badly.

Bottom line: what we have in the Colorado Republican gubernatorial race today are three potential frontrunners, and to be honest, Democrats should relish the prospect of running against any one of them. For strategic and logistical reasons, Democrats may prefer a candidate unable to self-finance or raise big money so they can truly put Gov. John Hickenlooper's re-election on autopilot. Setting the money aside, we'll turn the question over to our readers: which of these three should Democrats want to run against the most?

GOP Abortion Ban Bill Dead, But Issue Will Be Back in 2014

24
  by: Colorado Pols March 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM MDT

prolifevsprochoice

The Colorado Independent's John Tomasic has a great recap of this week's big local political story, the abortion ban legislation co-sponsored by 19 Republicans in the Colorado General Assembly that met its demise Tuesday:

Although Republican lawmakers, including House leadership, signed on in double digits to co-sponsor humphrey’s bill, something changed in the two months since it was introduced.

None of the co-sponsors came to Tuesday’s hearing. Only four people altogether testified in favor of the bill. Yet dozens of pro-choice activists held a press conference prior to the hearing to rail against it and many of those lined up to argue against it from the witness stand…

Humphrey opposed all the amendments. He said they would change the purpose of the measure. It was a personhood bill, after all. Either a fertilized egg is a person or it isn’t. He took the defeat of his bill in stride, with what seemed like the long vision of a true believer secure in the knowledge that fighting for his convictions mattered as much as victory.

But the arguments made by the Republican lawmakers against the bill as plainly unconstitutional may complicate a politically charged effort to land another personhood initiative on this year’s ballot. Supporters of the so-called Brady Amendment have already gathered 140,000 signatures. The secretary of state only has to certify roughly 90,000 of those signatures as valid in order for the initiative to make the ballot.

The long, unsuccessful fight by Republicans to institute a total ban on abortion in the staunchly pro-choice state of Colorado has done great political damage to that party's viability, factoring heavily in numerous major electoral races from Bob Schaffer in 2008 to Ken Buck in 2010 and Joe Coors in 2012–and now Bob Beauprez in 2014. The damage done by this ideological fixation has slowly dawned on Republicans, which may have led to Secretary of State Scott Gessler making an "extra effort" to keep the Personhood abortion ban off the 2012 statewide ballot.

The growing awareness of the self-injury resulting from their campaign to ban abortion on the part of Colorado Republicans is a big reason we were honestly surprised to see another abortion ban bill introduced in the Colorado General Assembly this year. Even more surprising was the large number of co-sponsors, including House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso. Not only did Republicans "go there" again in this election year, they did so enthusiastically.

(more…)

Today’s Main Event: Banning Abortion in Colorado (Yes, Really)

39
  by: Colorado Pols March 11, 2014 at 8:29 AM MDT

UPDATE 4:35PM: GOP Reps. Bob Gardner and Mark Waller, both pro-life but “reluctantly” unable to vote for an “unconstitutional” bill to ban abortion, join Democrats in voting against House Bill 14-1133. Bill dies on a final vote of 9-2.

—–

UPDATE #3: Hearing now underway, this Texas-style rotunda photo sent to us from the press conference prior:

20140311_132523

—–

UPDATE #2: The Colorado Independent's John Tomasic:

Karen Middleton, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado director, told the Independent that calling attention to this kind of legislation is important, especially given the way the local and national political landscape on the issue of women’s reproductive rights has shifted in recent years.

“Leadership in the Colorado House and Senate is always in the balance,” she said. “This is a bill that has been introduced in the past and will likely be introduced again. It could get through, maybe not this year, but next year… Voters have to take note.”

…Middleton points to the historic wave of anti-abortion bills passed in statehouses around the country in recent years that, she suggests, voters may not have supported had the consequences of the laws been more clearly spelled out in debate.

“You can see what is happening. You see what happened in Texas,” she said.

—–

UPDATE: From the release announcing today's opposition press conference:

A diverse coalition of Coloradans, including reproductive health organizations, doctors, and women with stories about their reproductive health experiences will be speaking out in advance of Tuesday’s hearing on HB 1133, the abortion ban bill.
 
HB14-1133, which is being sponsored by Republican leadership, would ban abortion in Colorado in almost all circumstances, including in cases of rape and incest. The bill would make it a Class 3 felony for a physician to perform an abortion, which carries a 4-12 year prison sentence. This bill does not represent the needs of Colorado women and families, or the values of Colorado voters. Coloradans have rejected abortion bans at the ballot box twice, and strong majorities continue to support access to safe abortion services.
 
When & Where: 1:00 pm, Tuesday, March 11, 2014           
Rotunda, 2nd Floor, Outside Old Supreme Court Chambers
 
Who: Physicians, health care providers, Colorado women
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado
COLOR – Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity & Reproductive Rights (bilingual)

—–

Today at 1:30PM in the Old Supreme Court Chambers, debate in the Colorado House Judiciary Committee will commence on a key piece of Republican legislation, House Bill 14-1133. As we've discussed in this space already, this bill has a simple purpose:

1133bottomline

(more…)