President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 21, 2010 07:30 PM UTC

Rape, Incest Survivors Target Buck Today

  • by: Colorado Pols

This could leave a mark, Westword’s Michael Roberts has the scoop:

[T]he Campaign for a Strong Colorado, which opposes Republican senate nominee Ken Buck, is putting the topic front and center at news conferences today featuring survivors of rape and incest.

The reason, says Campaign executive director Ellen Dumm, is Buck’s opposition to abortion even for rape and incest victims.

“I’ve never in all the time I’ve been involved in politics — which is longer than I care to admit — seen a viable statewide candidate who ran and said they were against abortion even in the case of rape and incest,” Dumm maintains. “Ken Buck is the first I’ve heard of. There may have been some fringe candidates who felt that way, but I’ve never heard a candidate say that in public and get elected.”

…Buck initially backed Amendment 62. In recent days, however, a Buck campaign spokesman said the candidate would now vote against the measure — a shift that Dumm views with maximum cynicism.

“My question is, if he didn’t understand what it meant, why did he tell everyone he was for it in the primary?” she asks. “It’s the same amendment we voted on two years ago. It’s not like it just popped up again. I don’t think he’s stupid; he went to Princeton. So my sense is, he’s either not paying attention, or he’s lying — and I don’t think Colorado women can trust him.”

Dumm hopes to reinforce this message via events in Denver and Colorado Springs today featuring Emile Ailts, a onetime victim of date rape, and Ginger Smith, an incest survivor…

We had an inkling of this when we read Sunday in the major Denver newspaper that Ken Buck, while abandoning his support for Amendment 62 and reneging on his promise to sponsor a constitutional amendment against abortion rights, was clinging to his underlying strident position on abortion: that it should be illegal, even in cases of rape of incest. Like we said, what Buck backed away from are the applications of his view–the underlying position itself is no less repugnant to a large percentage of voters, even many who consider themselves pro-life.

Bottom line: there is probably nobody on this planet better equipped to eviscerate Buck for this than the women slated to speak here. The stakes couldn’t be higher: both Buck and opponent Michael Bennet have targeted the Denver suburbs, and especially swing-voting suburban women, as the pivotal voting bloc in this election.

And folks, this looks increasingly like a way that Buck could lose them.

UPDATE: We’ve switched out the advisory after the jump with the full release from the Campaign for a Strong Colorado. Says Ginger Smith of Colorado Springs, a victim of incest, “it clearly demonstrates that [Buck] does not understand the emotional impact that comes with being betrayed by a trusted family member and the life-long impact that comes with that betrayal.”

September 21, 2010



Ellen Dumm – Campaign for a Strong Colorado – 303 810-4370 (cell),

Kjersten Forseth, ProgressNow Colorado – 719-641-4674 (cell),

Our Stories: Rape & Incest

Colorado Women Can’t Trust Buck

Rape and incest victims today told their personal stories about why U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck cannot represent Colorado’s women.  Buck has said that he does not believe that a woman has the right to decide her own future, even in the case of rape or incest.

Marilyn Van Derbur Atler, a long-time activist against incest issued a statement saying: “Victims of rape and incest should not be forced to give birth to a child conceived in violence.  Survivors deserve support and options.”

Ginger Smith of Colorado Springs said her experience as an incest victim made her question why Buck would want to force additional trauma on survivors.

“It clearly demonstrates that he does not understand the emotional impact that comes with being betrayed by a trusted family member and the life-long impact that comes with that betrayal,” she said.

Emilie Ailts, who was the victim of date rape as a young woman said, “I don’t believe that Ken Buck understands the magnitude of this violation – it’s something that I have carried my entire life. It’s not shrugged off, it’s not ever forgotten.”

Jennifer Eyl, an attorney and volunteer rape crisis counselor said she has dealt with the trauma that comes with violence against women for years and does not understand how any politician could publicly support forcing a woman to having a child as a result of rape or incest.

“Women need support, not have their choices taken away,” Eyl said.

Colorado has a history of supporting a woman’s right to choose, most recently in 2008, when voters overwhelmingly rejected (73% to 27% ) a constitutional amendment that would have given rights to fertilized eggs. An almost identical amendment (Amendment 62) is on the ballot this year.  After realizing how out of touch he is with mainstream Coloradans Buck retracted his support of Amendment 62 on Sunday, saying he didn’t understand all of the ramifications of the amendment. Colorado women believe Buck knew full well what he was supporting and is only changing what he’s saying to get votes.

“This is virtually the same amendment Coloradans rejected two years ago. This should not be a surprise or revelation to Ken Buck. Where was he then? He just now seems to have discovered he’s out of touch with mainstream Coloradans. He’ll say whatever he needs to get elected. How can Colorado women support that?” said Ellen Dumm, Executive Director of Campaign for a Strong Colorado.

“This is an Ivy League-educated attorney. To say that he didn’t understand that the amendment would have banned most forms of birth control is ludicrous. Why should women trust him? The truth is Colorado women can’t trust Ken Buck,” said Kjersten Forseth, Executive Director of Progress Now Colorado.



199 thoughts on “Rape, Incest Survivors Target Buck Today

      1. If Bennet was Senator back in the days of abuse nobody would have been victimized, right?

        If Buck is elected, after you are victimized exactly how is that one Senator, who is not going to use a person’s stance on life as a litmus test, going to make a difference.

        I appreciate all the progressive’s sharing of pain, but I really don’t care as it relates to the Senate race.

        1. He said he would introduce a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion before the primary. Then he said he would vote for pro-choice Supreme Court Justices after the primary.

          Is Buck against abortion? Is Buck for abortion? Does it depend on who he’s talking to? Does it depend on how many weeks there are until the election?

          Right now Buck’s statements that he wants rapists to have a right to procreate with the nearest woman in a dark alley are still operative. How long until he denies ever believing that?

        2. Pardon me, are you really such a drooling sociopath that you would tell someone that they will be raped in the future? Or did you misspeak?

          I certainly hope it’s the latter. Ken Buck, liar and misogynist that he is, would probably not want his most vocal supporters to publicly display their extraordinary capacity to dismiss as inconsequential and inevitable one of the most violent crimes of which human beings are capable.

          To answer your inarticulate and detestable question, my vote and my dollars will never go to any candidate who opposes a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion in the case of rape or incest. Whether or not they’d be a totally ineffectual Senator and unable to actually enforce that repulsive view is beside the point, though I do agree with you that Buck, if elected, would not make a difference.  

  1. Year after year this measure returns without the support of the Catholic church and others that would normally be in their corner.

    And year after year the Democrats try to use this as fodder. So being so concerned about life and rights, I’d like to know if you all care about those born alive.

    1. Not Buck, obviously. Buck thinks all you pro-life people are gullible idiots who will believe anything. But the people behind A62 are genuine, and they got behind Buck in the primary. I wonder if any of them are disappointed.

        1. And yes, I already know the answer.

          Ritter had his personal views but always said he would keep them separate from his official duties.

          Buck has his personal views and always said he would act to advance that agenda, until he won the primary when he started lying about it.

          Can you see the difference?

          1. He never used his power as Governor to push for any change to a woman’s right to choose. True its not a legislative position but it is a position of influence. That combined with his promise not to make ending the right to choose a priority was what allowed pro-choice Colorado Democratic women to go ahead and support him.

            He was as good as his word.  Just as he appears to be the only pol in history to say he wasn’t running again because of family concerns and the conviction that it wasn’t a good fit for his family without a scandal exploding on to the scene as the real explanation.  He has often ticked me off but he’s a fine man and a man of honesty and integrity.

              1. or maybe not, depending on the weather.

                The other (Ritter) promised to keep his personal views separate from his job and has kept that promise.

                Not only has Buck not kept any promises, he hasn’t even kept his promises straight.

        2. A lot of Dems were unhappy with his position on abortion, myself included, but he was consistent.

          Ritter, from the Pols archive:

          I am pro-life as a matter of personal faith. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the decision of whether or not to legalize abortions reverts to the states, and if the Colorado Legislature passes a bill banning abortion, I will sign the bill only if it provides protections for women who are victims of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. However, should the Colorado Legislature pass a complete ban without these protections, I would veto that bill. That said, Roe V. Wade is the law of the land and abortions are legal. As Governor I will act in the same way I did as DA. I will respect the law as it stands, and I will not act to undermine the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. For example, as Denver DA, I prosecuted those who caused damage and created disruption at family services clinics.

          I do believe that there is much to be done in our society, and in our state, to make abortions rare. In the area of teen pregnancy prevention, greater efforts can be made in educating our youth. We can examine the adoption policies of this state and look for ways to support girls and women who find themselves confronting an unplanned pregnancy.

          Further, I have been asked by people whether, as Governor, I would insist that the judges I appoint pass a pro-life litmus test. The answer is no. I would require that the judges I appoint make a commitment that they are willing to uphold the laws of Colorado and the United States. I have written innumerable letters of recommendation for individuals applying for judicial positions, and I have never once inquired about any individual’s position on abortion.

          [emphasis mine]

  2. The Pope’s astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, has weighed in on who has a soul:

    “Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul,” he added.

    So, if the timing of the entry of a “soul” into a fetus is important in the arguments over abortion, what do we do about this new announcement that delicious calamari is in possession of a Catholic™ soul?

    1. being very sure that the Catholic position was that animals don’t have souls. Of course she wasn’t friends with the Pope. And yes they are delicious especially marinated the Greek way. Yum.

  3. Buck is obviously opposed to killing humans, and if you are a Christian then you know that you don’t punish the child for the sins of the father.  You can interpret that in many ways, but in the end there are multiple scriptures that would support a pro-life agenda.  

    If you are pro-choice the you cannot be a Christian.

    1. He said he was willing to vote for pro-choice Supreme Court Justices.

      Sorry, pro-lifers. Buck used you to win the primary and now doesn’t give a shit about your actual cause.

    2. If you are pro-haircut, then you cannot be a Christian.

      You are either for or against eating pork.

      If you are pro-bacon, then you cannot be a Christian.

      You are either for or against animal sacrifice.  If you are anti-sacrifice, then you cannot be a Christian.

      Your logic can be used in many, many ways, as there are plenty of “multiple scriptures” that would support a number of “agendas.”

    3. If you are for wars and invasions then you are a tool of the devil and condemned to eternal hell.

      So onebighairysweatyRepublican did you support the invasion of Iraq?  I thought so.  You are so going to hell you minion of Satan.

      See that is so easy and black and white.  If you ever supported killing other people for a greater good than you won’t ever see the pearly gates.

    4. Do you consider the United Methodist Church to be a Christian organization?  How about the Prebyterian Church, Episcopal Church, or the United Church of Christ?  Each of these churches are on the record as being pro-choice.  Feel free to look it up.

      I guess only some Christians get to set the rules for all the others.  Those who are not Christian should have no say in the matter whatsoever.  

      1. I don’t believe that those churches have a right to take that type of a stand.  They are wrong, and whomever advocated for that stance is wrong.  They aren’t wrong in believing that murder is ok, but they are wrong in claiming they are Christian, or that they believe in God.  

        Jesus or God, however you want to put it didn’t advocate for murder.  Again, it isn’t me passing judgment.  I will stand up and scream for your right to be an advocate for murder because I love this country, but I will scream just as loud when I know that a woman has chosen to kill a baby.  

        Your rights are just as important as mine, but don’t say you are a believer in Jesus Christ if that is the position you are going to take, or at least have the courage to say you pick and choose what you want to believe in where the Bible is concerned.

        1. Again, it isn’t me passing judgment.  

          Um, yes, you are clearly passing judgement, not only on other people, but on their churches and religious beliefs as well.

          Hey, judge this:

          My beliefs are better than yours!  Because I said so!  And I know better than you do!  So there!

          1. I will stand and fight for your right to believe differently than I do.  

            I will stand and fight for my right to oppose baby killing.  

            Again, show me scripture where baby killing is advocated for, and I can be swayed.  I may have missed something for all of these years.  If you have the “secret” key to my opposition to baby killing then I want to know.  It would be so much easier to be pro baby killing.

        2. between murder and killing, and you don’t get to decide the difference for the rest of us.

          For example, we in Colorado have granted people the right to kill someone who they feel is threatening to them in their own home. Such an act will not be prosecuted as murder.

          Or, are you going to claim that you can’t support “make my day” laws and be a Christian?

          1. and no scripture to back up your claims.  So sad, but again, you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior all of the way…not just the parts you want to believe.  

            Show me where it says that killing a baby or murdering a baby is ok…or at the very least justification for your pro murder agenda.

            1. Genesis 7

              23  And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

              Exodus 12

              29  And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

              Deuteronomy 20

              16  But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth

              1 Samuel 15

              2  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

              3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

              And one of my favorites,

              Psalms 137

              9  Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

              Do you need any more examples, obr?

            2. I was sincere, obr, when I asked if you needed any more examples. I’ve got at least this many more fine examples from the Bible of God performing or encouraging, yea demanding, the killing of babies (and calves, don’t forget the calves) and all women, even those that are pregnant.

              Just let me know if I can help out.


              1. I’m just not seeing the justification for abortion in those scriptures.  If you believe that those are the justification you will use then more power to you.  I just am unable to see it in those scriptures.  Can you elaborate on them?

                1. OBR, you specifically asked:

                  Show me where it says that killing a baby or murdering a baby is ok

                  And I provided several versus that exactly responded to your challenge.

                  You are welcome.

                    1. to cause all those abortions when he drowned all those pregnant women? And babies? And when he directed Saul to kill pregnant women? And babies?

                      Your argument is that you are a better Christian than God?

                      That argument is going to win you some friends in the afterlife.

                2. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

                  1 Samuel 15:7

                  From The Brick Testament

                  (Learned readers may recall that God was pretty upset, not when Saul killed all the babies and pregnant women, but rather when Saul spared some sheep and cattle. Oh, what would Janet Rowland have to say about this?)

                  1 Samuel 15:10-11

            3. Be it resolved, there are numerous verses within the Bible that are unequivocal in indicating approval of the killing and murdering of babies.

              Glad we got that cleared up.

        3. is treading on very, very dangerous ground.

          Who are you to present yourself as a judge of what constitutes a “good Christian”?  It sounds to me as if your definition is more narrow than Christ’s definition and I seriously doubt he’d take too kindly to you placing a hurdle between his followers and him that he most certainly did not place there himself.

          1. to have faith and follow.  No walls…no borders just follow and believe.  Have faith.  

            Why are you so angry?  I have found that those that are most angry lack faith.  Once you find it you will find salvation and happiness.

            1. because as a Christian I don’t like it when humans misrepresent Christ’s teachings and put up walls between his people and him (which is what you are doing).

              As an American, it angers me when people such as yourself try to deny others the right to make personal decisions for themselves.  In this particular situation, you are attempting to re-victimize sexual assault victims….injecting yourself and your defintion of right and wrong into their personal tragedy.  You have no right to do that…and yes, it does make me angry.  You, in essence, are re-raping a rape victim.

        4. Your absolutist position would make more sense if there was anything about abortion being forbidden in the bible. In this country, until well into the 1800s, abortion was considered quite permissable until quickening, roughly corresponding to the first trimester. Of course, even if it was banned in the bible that wouldn’t be relevant to secular law.

            1. Not that it matters, because the Constitution is specific:

              The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        5. As a christian, I find your views offensive.  One can be pro-choice and christian, many of us do it every day.  And our stand on abortion is based in the Bible.  The problem is not abortoin, but unwanted and unintended pregnancies.  And in some cases, the best thing for the MOTHER is to terminate the pregnancy.

          Besides, in a republican world without any goverment social services, the only choice the mother is going to have is to raise the child in poverty.  Oh wait, maybe that’s what you want to you can hang on to your power and wealth.  

          1. the power and wealth thing is an interesting side bar.  I had never thought of my position as a pro-life conservative as a means to hold on to my power and wealth.  

            You really thought that one out didn’t you.  Almost as well thought out as your claim of being a Christian. YIKES…

            1. I AM a Christian.  Attend and am very involved in my church. Where the gospel is preached and the church is involved in social justice. You know, like Jesus was.  

      2. pro-choice is identical with pro-abortion which is a false equation.

        Everyone wants a world where all pregnancies are wanted.  Unfortunately there hasn’t been a day in the history of human beings where that ideal has been achieved.  The difference between regressives and the rest of the world is that regressives believe that they can use government to force woman to have unwanted pregnancies.  They despise government except when they want it to control women.  It is a government failure at the outset and shows an inadequate understanding of unwanted pregnancies.  If you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies then fund educational opportunities for at risk women.  The more education a woman has the more likely she will delay having a family.  Unfortunately the regressives have no solutions other than their nanny state government control solution which any liberty loving citizen knows is the wrong approach.

    5. All Christians are anti-abortion.

      If you’re anti-abortion, you support A-62.

      Buck no longer supports A-62.

      Therefore, Buck “cannot be” a Christian.

      Thanks for clarifying that for me.

        1. The whole anti-abortion rationale starts with the notion that human life starts at conception. A-62 just puts that into law. Yes, there are many uncomfortable consequences that follow from that position, but they’re all logically sound and are consistent with the same scriptures that support you anti-abortion agenda.  

        2. they consider any fertilized egg to be fully human with the same rights as any other don’t really mean it. They don’t because in reality it isn’t so simple as that.  If you have a choice of saving dozens of such lives by grabbing a bunch of  embryos at a burning fertility clinic or saving the life of a single living breathing human being, it would take a very cold hearted person to let a man, woman or child die so more lives could be saved in this way.  

          If you can’t honestly answer that you’d let one two year old die in order to save dozens of embryos then you do recognize a difference whether you want to admit it or not.  I suspect that you, like any normal person, wouldn’t give it moment’s thought before grabbing the two year old and getting the hell out of a burning clinic chock full of embryos.  It wouldn’t be at all like those examples in which the choice is between one human or another, your child or you brother, a stranger’s child or your mother, for instance.  It would not only be instant and easy, there would be nowhere near the level of agony, if any, afterwards. That’s why it isn’t so black and white as you would admit were you being honest with yourself.

    6. Buck is obviously opposed to killing humans

      Buck is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Really? Do you have video?

      If you are pro-war you cannot be a Christian.

      (Thanks, obr. This is fun! I love exercises in irrationality! I don’t use that part of my brain enough.)

    7. If you are pro-choice the you cannot be a Christian.

      But if you are a Christian, you can support an unjustified war where tens of thousands of innocent civilians die.

      Ironic, isn’t it?

    8. I’m a very good Christian and pro- choice. I suppose your pro life stance says nothing about those doctors killed by so calle dpro life Christians. Personally I view you’re type of so called Christian to be nothing more than phony.

      1. If you are supporting murder then you are not a Christian.  I’m not the judge.  It is what it is.  You are half way there, at least you claim to be a Christian. That is half the battle.  Now just go all the way, and believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior, and live it.  

        You will be ok…let Jesus enter your life.  

        1. Jesus is in my life and perfectly ok with me being pro choice. Abortion is not murder to those who think clearly and uphold the law of the land. Do you support war? Killing doctors that perform abortions? The death penalty? Or are you just another right wing phony so called christian hypocrite?

          1. let me know what scripture you are looking at that state that Jesus is ok with baby killing.  I’m open to discussion, perhaps I am wrong, and I am just unaware of those scriptures.

              1. please post the scripture in which it states that baby killing is ok in the eyes of God.  I’m open to being swayed from my belief that baby killing is ok.  I just need to see it in the bible.  Since you are a Christian that does not need prayer I would have to assume that you know where that scripture is?

                1. that my Savior intervene in your life like Paul on the road to Damascus and let you see what a supercilious and self-rightous Pharisee you have become.  The most virulent opponents of Jesus were the Pharisees who were certain that they understood the will of God and were aghast that Jesus didn’t share their delight in superfluous religious nit-picking.  You have an identical mindset to those Pharisees who hated Jesus.

                  1. The Bible’s Teaching Against Abortion

                    By: Fr. Frank A. Pavone

                    Click here for additional Scriptural summaries

                    Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights from the Bible

                    Audio: Why Scripture Says NO to Abortion [Part 1] and [Part 2]

                    Retreat on Scriptural Perspectives on the Pro-life Movement

                    The Bible clearly teaches that abortion is wrong. This teaching comes across in many ways and for many reasons. Some people point out that the word “abortion” is not in the Bible, and that is true. Nevertheless, the teaching about abortion is there. This is the case with many teachings. The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the teaching about the Trinity is there. In any case, a person who wants to deny the teaching about abortion would deny it even if the word were there.

                    Let’s look at some of the Biblical reasons why abortion, the deliberate destruction of a child in the womb, is very wrong.

                    1. The Bible teaches that human life is different from other types of life, because human beings are made in the very image of God.

                    The accounts of the creation of man and woman in Genesis (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:4-25) tell us this: “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

                    The word “create” is used three times here, emphasizing a special crowning moment in the whole process of God’s making the world and everything in it. The man and woman are given “dominion” over everything else in the visible world.

                    Not even the original sin takes away the image of God in human beings. St. James refers to this image and says that because of it we should not even speak ill of one another. “With [the tongue] we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the image of God . . . This ought not be so, brothers” (James 3:9-10).

                    The image of God! This is what it means to be human! We are not just a bunch of cells randomly thrown together by some impersonal forces. Rather, we really reflect an eternal God who knew us from before we were made, and purposely called us into being.

                    At the heart of the abortion tragedy is the question raised in the Psalms: “Lord, what is man that you care for him, mortal man that you keep him in mind? . . . With glory and honor you crowned him, giving him power over the works of your hands” (Psalm 8:5-7).

                    There is the key. Not only did God make us, but He values us. The Bible tells us of a God who is madly in love with us, so much so that He became one of us and even died for us while we were still offending Him (see Romans 5:6-8). In the face of all this, can we say that human beings are disposable, like a car that becomes more trouble than it is worth? “God doesn’t make junk.” If you believe the Bible, you have to believe that human life is sacred, more sacred than we have ever imagined!

                    2. The Bible teaches that children are a blessing.

                    God commanded our first parents to “Be fertile and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Why? God Himself is fertile. Love always overflows into life. When the first mother brought forth the first child, she exclaimed, “I have brought forth a man with the help of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1). The help of the Lord is essential, for He has dominion over human life and is its origin. Parents cooperate with God in bringing forth life. Because this whole process is under God’s dominion, it is sinful to interrupt it. The prophet Amos condemns the Ammonites “because they ripped open expectant mothers in Gilead” (Amos 1:13).

                    “Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).

                    3. The Bible teaches that the child in the womb is truly a human child, who even has a relationship with the Lord.

                    The phrase “conceived and bore” is used repeatedly (see Genesis 4:1,17) and the individual has the same identity before as after birth. “In sin my mother conceived me,” the repentant psalmist says in Psalm 51:7. The same word is used for the child before and after birth (Brephos, that is, “infant,” is used in Luke 1:41 and Luke 18:15.)

                    God knows the preborn child. “You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. “You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God” (Psalm 22:10-11). “God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace” (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

                    4. Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent.

                    This flows from everything that has been seen so far. God’s own finger writes in stone the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) and Christ reaffirms it (Matthew 19:18 – notice that He mentions this commandment first). The Book of Revelation affirms that (unrepentant) murderers cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (Revelation 22:15).

                    The killing of children is especially condemned by God through the prophets. In the land God gave his people to occupy, foreign nations had the custom of sacrificing some of their children in fire. God told His people that they were not to share in this sin. They did, however, as Psalm 106 relates: “They mingled with the nations and learned their works…They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed” (Psalm 106:35, 37-38).

                    This sin of child-sacrifice, in fact, is mentioned as one of the major reasons that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people taken into exile. “They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight” (2 Kings 17:17-18).

                    Notice that this practice was a religious ritual. Not even for “religious freedom” can the killing of children be tolerated.

                    5. The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice.

                    An act of justice is an act of intervention for the helpless, an act of defense for those who are too weak to defend themselves. In foretelling the Messiah, Psalm 72 says, “Justice shall flower in his days…for he shall rescue the poor man when he cries out and the afflicted when he has no one to help him” (Psalms 72:7,12). Jesus Christ is our justice (1 Corinthians 1:30) because He rescued us from sin and death when we had none to help us (see Romans 5:6, Ephesians 2:4-5).

                    If God does justice for His people, He expects His people to do justice for one another. “Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12). “Love one another” (John 15:17).

                    Abortion is the opposite of these teachings. It is a reversal of justice. It is a destruction of the helpless rather than a rescue of them. If God’s people do not intervene to save those whose lives are attacked, then the people are not pleasing or worshiping Him.

                    God says through Isaiah, “Trample my courts no more! Bring no more worthless offerings…Your festivals I detest…When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean…learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow” (Isaiah 1:13-17).

                    Indeed, those who worship God but support abortion are falling into the same contradiction as God’s people of old, and need to hear the same message.

                    6. Jesus Christ paid special attention to the poor, the despised, and those whom the rest of society considered insignificant.

                    He broke down the false barriers that people set up among themselves, and instead acknowledged the equal human dignity of every individual, despite what common opinion might say. Hence we see Him reach out to children despite the efforts of the apostles to keep them away (Matthew 19:13-15); to tax collectors and sinners despite the objections of the Scribes (Mark 2:16); to the blind despite the warnings of the crowd (Matthew 20:29-34); to a foreign woman despite the utter surprise of the disciples and of the woman herself (John 4:9, 27); to Gentiles despite the anger of the Jews (Matthew 21:41-46); and to the lepers, despite their isolation from the rest of society (Luke 17:11-19).

                    When it comes to human dignity, Christ erases distinctions. St. Paul declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

                    We can likewise say, “There is neither born nor unborn.” Using this distinction as a basis for the value of life or the protection one deserves is meaningless and offensive to all that Scripture teaches. The unborn are the segment of our society which is most neglected and discriminated against. Christ Himself surely has a special love for them.

                    7. Scripture teaches us to love.

                    St. John says, “This is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another, unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother” (1 John 3:11-12). Love is directly contrasted with slaughter. To take the life of another is to break the command of love. To fail to help those in need and danger is also to fail to love.

                    Christ teaches this clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), and in many other places.

                    No group of people is in more serious danger than the boys and girls in the womb. “If someone…sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in Him?” (1 John 3:17).

                    8. Life is victorious over death.

                    This is one of Scripture’s most basic themes. The victory of life is foretold in the promise that the head of the serpent, through whom death entered the world, would be crushed (see Genesis 3:15).

                    Isaiah promised, “He will destroy death forever” (Isaiah 25:8). At the scene of the first murder, the soil “opened its mouth” to swallow Abel’s blood. At the scene of the final victory of life, it is death itself that “will be swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?…Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).

                    Abortion is death. Christ came to conquer death, and therefore abortion. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

                    The final outcome of the battle for life has already been decided by the Resurrection of Christ. We are not just working for victory; we are working from victory. We joyfully take a victory that has already been won, and proclaim, celebrate, and serve it until He comes again to bring it to its fullness. “There shall be no more death” (Revelation 21:4). “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20).

                    1. fetus and person:

                      Th is distinction seems basic to the biblicalmstory in Exod. 21:22-25, which is important for the abortion debate. This passage from the Covenant Code sets forth procedures to be followed when a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between two men has a miscarriage. A distinction is made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of

                      the fetus and the penalty for any injury to the woman. For the loss of the fetus, a fine is paid, as determined by the husband and the judges (v. 22). However, if the woman is injured or dies, lextalionus is applied: “Thou shalt give life

                      for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (vv. 23-25).

                      The story has only limited application to

                      the current abortion debate because it deals

                      with accidental, not willful, termination of

                      pregnancy. Even so, the distinction made

                      between the protection accorded the woman

                      and that accorded the fetus under covenant law is important. The woman has full standing as a person under the covenant; the fetus has only a relative standing, certainly inferior to that of the


                  2. although I’m certain that they won’t be heard because you have not accepted Jesus as your personal savior.  However, I can use all of the prayers that I can get.  I will reciprocate!

                    1. who opposes his nanny government solution as not accepting Jesus as their personal savior.  

                      And to think that this buffoon is the epitome of a Buck supporter.  Arrogant and ignorant of the gospel to not judge and clueless about how to help those who have been raped except to tell them that the sins of the father (the rapist) should not be a determining factor in how a woman decides how to go forward with her life.  I hope the women of this state don’t accept this false prophet of stupidity and vote their conscience to protect their right to their own destiny.

        2. The Bible is VERY clear about ALL of us caring for the poor, and that government can be a vehicle for that. Much clearer on this point than abortion!  

          So why do you, as a republican, advocate for small goverment and no social service programs.  That’s against what Jesus teaches as well.  

    9. that you want to use againts children whose parents are migrant workers? It’s not their fault they were born on US soil and their parent aren’t legal citizens.. yet you want to yank away their education and yank them from their homes.

      Glass houses and all.

      I’ll never understand why Repub fight tooth and nail for the rights of a cell mass, yet once that cell mass is born to people of a darker skin color, poor ecenimic status, born with a vagina or Muslim they fight tooth and nail to yank their rights away.  

    10. But, what is the definition of a baby?  Of a life?  When does that life begin?

      This is where, in my opinion, the disagreement is. I fully support protecting each and every living being, from babies to serial killers.  As a result I oppose the death penalties, most wars, torture, genocide, baby-killing, etc.

      However, I think it is erroneous to claim that a single cell, a cell that is hardly different than the millions that get brished off when we scratch our arm is a life.  There is a critical transition that happens in embryonic development where a mass of cells becomes a proto-life, when limbs and organs begin to form (somewhere in the 2nd trimester).   When it is just a mass of cells, how is it a life any more than the hair we cut, etc.?   However, once it is developed (especially by 3rd trimester), it is clearly almost human.   That is why we have different allowances for abortion across the three trimesters, it represents the times where there is arguably not a life, where cells start to become individuals, and where there is clearly a life.

      Calling people who are pro-choice “baby-killers” is ridiculous and hyperbolic.  We have very clear veiws of what we define as life and as a baby.  Do you really think that over a hundred million pro-choice really advocate KILLING BABIES?   What a cynical and insidious thought…

    11. Oh, you mean like taking care of the poor and downtrodden?

      That’s as close as I’ve seen in the NT.

      Jesus was a Jew and Jews have “always” held that life begins with the first breath. That’s why “life” and “breath” are the same in Hebrew.

  4. It is what it is.  I don’t pass judgment on people that have differing belief systems than that of my own.  

    However, either you are a Christian or you aren’t…it is that simple.  You can’t pick and choose things that you like about God, and then decide you are a “part time Christian”.  Either you believe or you don’t.  It is ok that you don’t believe in God.  It is a free country which is what makes this such a wonderful place to be.

    If you think murder is ok then that is your prerogative, but don’t say you are a Christian if you do believe that way.

    I mean what is the point in saying that you only like half of the commandments?  

      1. just claiming you are a Christian does not make it so.  Accept Jesus as your personal savior and live it.  

        If you are a Christian show me scripture that states murdering a baby is ok.  I can be swayed by biblical argument.  

        If you are a Christian, then you obviously have some scripture that states murder is acceptable, or you have scripture that states you only have to believe in SOME portions of the faith then let me know.

        1. We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)

          We should love God (Matthew 22:37)

          There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

          The below sentence is false

          The above sentence is true

          “But anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Jesus) Mat 5:22

          “You fools!” (Jesus) Luke 11:40

          “You blind fools!” (Jesus) Mat 23:17

          “How foolish you are” (Jesus) Luke 24:25

          The bible is one of the least consistent documents in human history.  If you base your entire worldview on a contradiction, how can you prove anything to be true?

        2. I think not.

          Did you know that when I counted them ca. 2000, there were 122 different BAPTIST denominations in the Denver Yellow Pages?  That’s not congregations, that’s self-identified denominations.

          You would be shocked, apparently, to know that many people who believe Jesus died for their sins are not anti-abortion.  True, they tend to the liberal end of the Protestant spectrum, but they have professed their faith just like you have.

          As I requested above, please do identify where Jesus presented anti-abortion directives.

    1. You mean the ones who are content to let the sick and poor suffer because “What’s mine is mine”

      What about that whole render unto Caeser thing… Judge not lest ye be judged? turn the other cheek?

      I wonder how full time Chritans feel about poly-cotton blends?

    2. I’ve volunteered at several Planned Parenthoods, I’ve given money to Planned Parenthood, I’ve served as an executive in a pro-choice organizationa, I’ve driven more than one friend to have abortions, and I’m a Christian.

      And….I don’t really care what you think about my relationship with Christ.  That is purely between him and I.

      1. relationship with Christ.  Planned parenthood is not a bad thing.  There are many wonderful programs and services that they provide.  Congratulations to you for being a part of that organization.  

        Unfortunately, they provide a safe house for torturing and killing the unborn.  That is their only draw back, but other than that their services are much needed.  GOOD JOB!

    3. It just is what it is.

      I might add that he eats cheeseburgers, even though God specifically condemns that practices (see leviticus)

      Burn, cheeseburger eater, burn.

      But I’m not passing judgment on you.

      Yahweh is!

  5. Show me justification in scripture that reveals to us all that murdering a baby is ok.  

    I would love to be swayed by your scriptural beliefs.  Again, it would be easy to be pro-choice.


      << Genesis 22 >>

      Webster’s Bible Translation

      1 And it came to pass after these things, that God tempted Abraham, and said to him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thy only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and go into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will name to thee. 3 And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and cleft the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose and went to the place which God had named to him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said to his young men, Abide you here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and return to you. 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife: and they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-offering: so they went both of them together.

          1. Because I don’t share his definition of “baby.”

            Those of you who are arguing with him are just validating his premise that a fetus at all stages is the same as a baby.  I don’t believe that.

            1. Explosion. Burning clinic chock full of embryos.  One human baby. No time to do more than grab and go. Do you grab a tray full of embryos, saving many lives, or the baby, saving just one.  If you said embryos, you’re lying.  If you said baby, then you agree with Ralphie.  There is a difference between babies, fetuses and embryos and anyone who says they don’t believe that is a liar, I don’t care what religion tha person may be.  

              No normal person grabs the tray instead of the baby.  Therefore, any law that gives the embryo or fetus exactly the same rights as a baby, child or adult human being is a stupid law. Case closed.  

    2. I’ll repeat just this one passage. It really is one of my favorites.

      Psalm 137

      9  Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

                1. You complaining about what a victim you are (especially in a thread about rape and incest victims, for crying out loud) is especially petty.

                  I think this is a pretty serious argument against home-schooling. Clearly you have no idea how to actually deal with other people like a man.

                  1. Your broken record vulgarity is what is petty. As I just said above, I’m am not complaining about that. I am merely pointing out Pols’ biased enforcement of the TOU. Clearly, it is you who has no idea how to deal with people, unless your idea of being a man is hurling the same tired old petty, perverted personal insult over and over.

                    1. In a thread about rape and incest victims being forced to have their attackers’ child?

                      Some people have real problems.

                  2. More like an indictment of home-schooling.

                    I snorted water through my nose I was giggling so hard at that line.  Thanks sxp.  It made my day to consider the cause of such mindless ignorance.  And there was a 20 post thread on the childishness of calling it baby murders immediately before his childish characterization.  Did you not read the previous 20 posts beej or do you need to go to remedial home schooling for more dumb down logic?

                    It is a serious argument against home schooling that you don’t consider the deaths of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as murder.  Civilian murderer.  How can you live with yourself knowing you helped murder so many innocent victims?  Like all true sociopaths, you probably feel no guilt for being pro-war and pro-death.  Murdering innocents is something only liberals are supposed to do but you have blood on your hands too don’t you you war loving jackoff?

                    1. They tend to get you suspended around here, especially if Pols disagrees with your ideology.

                      If you actually had any semblance of a brain, you would realize that I am not a warmonger. In fact, people like me have been called “surrender monkeys” by Josh Penry. I think we should get out of Afghanistan, something your beloved hero Obama apparently doesn’t undertand. So get that through your thick skull first.

                      Second, wars are fought to prevent murders from happening. That’s why we fought Hitler, and it’s why we’ve been fighting terrorists. Cowards like yourself might not understand what it takes to protect our freedoms. While you’d rather cower in fear before the murderous dictators and tyrants of the world, their are brave men and women fighting and dying to defend your freedoms with which you mock them. I suggest you either give them some respect or STFU.

                    2. And quit making vulgarly insulting accusations such as this:

                      You might get your jollies from killing babies, but the rest of us find it offensive.

                      Wars are fought over resources, not to “prevent murders from happening.”

                      Grow up and take some responsibility for your comments. You have so little credibility, that you do no one any good by demanding who should or should not be respected. Indeed, you’ve earned every bit of vitriol that has been directed your way.

                      Again, try taking your own advice. STFU.

                    3. Even most liberals respect those who put their lives on the line for us. Sorry you and GG feel differently.

        1. that makes me a happy boy.

          OBR asked for a verse justifying killing babies, and I obliged him, skilled scholar that I am.

          I understand that this is part of your holy book, too, Beej, so you must try to live by it, right? Or do you find your holy book to be filled with offense?

          (This verse isn’t found in my holy book, so I don’t actually have to try to live by it. And this makes me feel very happy. Hubba hubba hubba hubba hubba.)

          1. at pagans who were sacrificing their children to idols. For someone who doesn’t take a literal interpretation of Genesis, I’m surprised you take this verse so literally. It is in the Psalms, which is poetry after all.

                    1. for someone found guilty of felonious stupidity.

                      Fortunately, for you Beej, this is not a crime currently on the books. Count your blessings any way you can, huh?

                      (None the less, don’t you agree that Malachi 2:3 and Psalm 137:9 are beautiful and joyous verses? I’m approaching a state of jealousy, nay more of dismay, that both of these verses can be found in your holy book.)

        2. It is clear as crystal that the anti abortion crowd is against aborting WHITE babies.

          part of that “Take America back” claptrap…

          face it it is wrong to limit a Woman (or anyone’s) choices in a FREE society. Regardless of religious affiliation.  

  6. Great job, onebigrepublican. You managed to derail the topic completely, and now nobody’s actually talking about Buck’s extreme views on rape and incest victims.

      1. Do try to stay on topic.

        Buck want the state to force women who were raped to carry the fetus to term.

        If the state can force that, it can force anything. This makes the Patriot Act look like child’s play.

          1. Just curious whether you actually think about what you post for a second.

            P.S. Ken Buck believes he is qualified to be a Senator because he doesn’t wear high heels. Where does Ken Buck think “a woman’s place” is?

              1. that red-headed step-child second removed that had to marry their first or was it second cousin ’cause they were pregnant and their daddy held the shotgun, btw even though one was 14, the other 13 in some states this once they were married or even before wasn’t considered “illegal” or improper.

                So, maybe Buck being the DA, just thought of “Statutory Rape” and that “slippery slope” society calls “Incest.”

                Hmmmm…..I don’t know what the heck he is saying today.

          2. You know, one that’s relevant?

            One that proves that “Buck has done more for women than any of the people on the left.”

            Or, are you going to quit now, before you embarrass yourself even more.  

  7. I’m firmly pro choice but…

    If you believe that at the moment of conception a human life is created and that abortion is murder, the circumstances of that life’s creation are irrelevant. Rape, incest, one too many margaritas, whatever.

    1. start insisting that discarding unused frozen embryos at fertility clinics constitutes mass murder? Those who really believe there is no difference in the value of a fertilized egg and the life of a two year old should be picketing fertility clinics and fertility specialists in exactly the same way they demonstrate at abortion clinics and harass women there. They don’t.

      They should be insisting on investigations for possible criminal charges into every miscarriage.  They aren’t.  Why not? Because everybody, whether they admit it or not, does indeed recognize a difference between the value of a fertilized egg, an embryo, and a 2 month old baby. They can pretend it’s all the same to them but it’s not.

      Show me a pro-lifer who would actually have a tough time making a choice between letting a little girl die and letting a frozen embryo die and I’ll believe that particular pro-lifer really means it (and is seriously twisted).

      1. Have you forgotten your scripture?

        Exodus 20

        5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

      2. So the Republican platform this year is:

        Rape and incest = not that big a deal

        Immigration = unimaginable offense with punishment visited upon the sons.

        When your candidates stop advocating for successful children of immigrants to be deported (instead of just voting for the DREAM act), then maybe this won’t smell like bullshit.

        Until then, it’s you saying rape and incest just shouldn’t be that big a deal. Considering your feelings about women, I guess that’s not too surprising.

      1. This thread is not about respecting other people, it is an opportunity for people to attack other people on the basis of religion, sex, killing puppies and scrambling embryos…or did I miss something?

        Let me tell you.  These are the questions to be asked.  But no one is going to ask them, you all are having too much fun picking up peanuts and throwing them at each other. And, Lady, don’t you ever make any assumptions about I think is important or what matters to me.

        These are the questions for Ken Buck:

        Would you vote to forbid the dispensing of the morning after pill to rape (all incest victims are victims of rape IMHO) victims in federal facilities, such as military medical clinics and hospitals, and prisons?

        Are you in agreement with the statement on federal funding of insurance plans which accompanied “Obamacare” and which stated that such funding was not in violation of the Hyde Amendment?

        Would you vote for further restrictions on the dispensing of birth control and/or the morning after pill in medical facilities receiving federal funding or serving medicaid/medicare receipients?

        Now those are very serious questions and no one is going to ask Buck about them.  Because the goal here is just to get your respective political rocks off slinging mud at each other’s religion and personal opinions.    I know the horror of violence and unintended pregnancies and what dead babies look like, Lady.  That is why this gd discussions which do not lead anywhere but into some kind of self-indulgent satisfaction of reinforcing ones’ baser instincts…be that so-called pro-choice or so-called pro- life piss the (*L) hell out of me.

        1. I wonder if that says anything about you and your positions on women’s issues.

          Sounds like you want to ask the same questions everybody else does, but you want to feel smarter than anyone else while doing it. This is one of the problems with progressives. You didn’t even ask those questions until someone called you on your superiority complex. Instead it was more important to insult everyone else for not being quite pure enough. People like you are why progressive coalitions fall apart at the first sight of adversity.

          If you had to choose one: asking Buck a difficult question, or feeling self-righteous for one more day, which would you pick?

      1. I have given my reasons why I don’t think this is a winning strategy because of the backlash among religious groups….and by making it an issue, it fires up that base.  That is my opinion.

        What I find distasteful is the crude quality of discussion which ensues when the topic of abortion is introduced on this blog, as well as others.

        1. It’s one of the most secular states in the country.  We rank 41st nationally, behind New York and California:

          An average 56% of Americans say religion is very important in their lives.  In Colorado, that percentage is 41%.

          Colorado legalized abortion in 1967, six years before Roe.  We were the first state to liberalize abortion laws after the Supreme Court’s Griswold decision, pre-dating Roe.

            1. Is this supposed to be a wedge issue or a way to mobilize the democratic base?  As for firing up the repub base…..there might have been a possibility that some colorado repubs, disgusted with the party, would just stay home on election day.  But the abortion issue brings them out.  Tancredo has a very strong record on the abortion issue…so this could help his vote…..depending on how close the governor’s race is, this could help tt.

              Six weeks before the election and bennet has to “fire up” his base spells trouble, IMHO.  I am voting the democratic ticket, but I don’t like Bennet.  I think he is used to manipulating people, not listening to them.  So he uses internal pollng and focus groups and consultants to frame his message.   What his internal polling and focus groups won’t tell him is that westerners are pretty good at spotting a phony.

              Clarification:  Colorado did legalize abortion in 1967, but it was loaded with stipulations..for example a committee of three doctors had to meet and approve the abortion…etc.etc… And, of course, Colorado elected a pro-life governor in Owens who cut all state funding for Planned Parenthood and was re-elected.

        2. is when people attempt to impose religious doctrine onto public policy.

          Two appropriate responses to these sorts of attempts to develop a-Constitutional policy include:

          1) reminding the dogmatic that this is a completely inappropriate way to develop policy, and

          2) pointing out to the dogma promoter that he/she has a poor grasp of the contents of his/her own holy documents.

          It is quite appropriate that these responses be crude and rude. It is naive to think that the dogmatic ideologue will respond to less. It may even be necessary when the ideologues challenge others to find scriptural passages to support contrary arguments. These folks deserve to have Malachi rub dung in their faces.

                1. it’s a statement of fact.

                  I don’t know a thing about this “strategy” of dems you are talking about. This is a blog. About as useful and as critical to the future state of the nation as a bump on a log.

                  I just conveyed to you why I am responding to the American Taliban posters on this blog. I know you are more experienced at this stuff than me (absolutely no snark intended).

                  But, funny thing is, you seem oblivious to the possibility that many of us are capable of directing our efforts towards more than one approach during an election cycle.

                  In this particular thread, I spent a few minutes calling out our local A-T. Do I like this? No. I would prefer that our A-T folks had some self-awareness and could see how un-American they are and had some ability to police their own behavior.

                  If you don’t like what happens on this blog of no great consequence, go work a phone bank.

                  1. I thought “the powers that be” read this blog first thing every morning.  I thought it was the source of the most important political viewpoint in the state. I thought it was “must read.”

                    I thought that this is where we got a chance to speak our peace and be heard.

                    And, now, a39, you tell me that we are as “useful and as critical to the future se of the nation as a bump on a log.”

                    I want my money back. Oh wait………….

                    Let me get serious for a  moment.  This blog is a part of what forms public opinion, albeit a small bump on a log, every little bit helps.  I believe it is arrogant to think that you can reason with people whose political success is based on their appeal to emotion.  When reason meets emotion, emotion always wins.  (One could argue that in some cases this is not true in a few courtrooms and classrooms).  I believe that such attempts are a distraction, like a bullfighter waving a red flag at a bull and the bull goes after the flag, over and over again, until exhausted he is vulnerable for the coup de gras.  (god, i can’t spell in french, spanish, either).

                    I believe that the dems should have had a strategy to protect their victory and their president and explain their agenda every step of the way.  There is no dem strategy in this election, not nationally and not at the state level.  I write about this in protest, over and over.

                    As for experience?  Ya, I would trade off a lot of it, you are welcome to it.  And phone banks?  I have worked a lot of phone banks over the years.  The very first time was June 5, 1968, Albuquerque NM.  Our caucuses had just given the primary victory to one RFK.  I went home feeling that my country was maybe going to recover from the horror of two assassinations…JFK and MLK.  I woke up to find, not so quick…..that there would be another funeral….RFK.

                    So, grasshopper, right now all I have is a computer and blog and that is why I continue to scream at the democrats to fight back…..something about “and not to yield.”

        3. Just like it is now, the whole purpose of the Personhood amendment then was to ban abortion with no exceptions.  In other words, 75% of Colorado voters do NOT believe in an across the board abortion ban.  


  8. After reading this whole thread all I can say is I am so happy to be an atheist. Thank you OBR for showing me the true path lies far away from organized religion.

    Oh and Ken Buck is a lying POS.

    Thank you.

    1. well in the U.S. Senate.  My heart goes out to those people who are opposed to accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior because of a “bad experience” with organized religion.  

      You don’t have to go to a house of worship to believe or to have a relationship with Christ.  

      Peace be with you, and if ever in your life you face something horriffic or difficult beyond your own abilities to cope with it, please take an opportunity to say a prayer and ask for forgiveness.  

      1. I wasn’t aware that being pro-abortion rights was a “socialist” position.  Actually, it seems to me that government regulation of reproduction would be “big government” solution, so pro-life is actually the “socialistic” position…

  9. I come home from a good day at work to this?

    Didn’t the enlightenment happen in the 18th century? You know that whole age of REASON?

    Buck’s cold hearted misguided,  medieval, misogynist world-view isn’t the issue. Abortion isn’t the issue. People in this country are free to be idiots if they so choose.

    The issue is either: (A) Buck doesn’t know what the hell he is talking (the personhood issue) about and is not clear on core his belief’s (the pill=killing a fetus=abortion=murder) which makes him STUPID. OR (B) Buck changes his position according to who he talks to which makes him a LIAR.

    So which is it? It doesn’t matter to me because neither is acceptable.    

    1. Yes, but in Europe.  While most of the American founders were of the enlightenment, I don’t think the same has ever been said of the majority of the American population, even at the end of the 18th century.  But despair not; we are gaining ground, if painfully slowly.  Three steps forward, two steps towards revival, that kind of thing.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

55 readers online now


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