Hubris, Thy Name is “Personhood USA”

(Thursday bump, bad news for Republicans — looks like more GOP candidates will have to publicly side with something that the overwhelming majority of Coloradans disagree with. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Despite losing the same measure twice, and despite more than 70% of voters rejecting the measure each time, the Personhood folks vow to return to Colorado in two years. As published on, “Personhood Colorado spokeswoman Jennifer Mason told [Colorado’s major daily]: ‘We’re excited to try again next election.'”

Why the excitement? Because in addition to being just like emancipating slaves, and being just like ending the Holocaust, conferring constitutional rights upon zygotes is the United States’s next wave of social justice activism, analogous to suffragism! According to Personhood USA’s post-election release:

From 1890 to 1918, women in South Dakota attempted many times to gain the right to vote. Their constitutional amendments failed to pass six times before they succeeded. Movements take time to build, but that persistence in the initiative process pays out huge dividends.

“We take from this example that we must not, and will not, ever stop trying to protect every human being in the state of Colorado. We will continue until we succeed,” stated Gualberto Garcia-Jones, co-sponsor of Amendment 62….

Personhood Colorado is determined to make another personhood attempt in the near future….

When the personhood amendment returns to Colorado…



41 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    A couple of people have found it’s a great way to make a living…

  2. redstateblues says:

    If at first second third you don’t succeed…

      • Voyageur says:

        Eight Tabor-like measures were defeated before one finally passed in 1992.  The first was in 1966.  Bruce had a role in writing the last three but I believe the real mind behind them was CU economist Barry Poulson.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          but I don’t think this social issue is a shoo-in for eventual approval.

          For one thing progressives are more aware of these kinds gimmicks and the bottom line is that criminalization of a medical procedure is personal for roughly half the population.

          An alternative future is that this amendment achieves a fraud status and will be an automatic NO vote regardless of tricky wording.

          It’s too bad that these schmucks can spend so much time on criminalization attempts but don’t want to help women who choose to be single mothers get affordable health care for their children.

          • DaftPunk says:

            They didn’t have enough signatures on the first go around, and there were problems with their second batch.

            They might not have such an easy time getting it on after two huge defeats.

    • ColoDem says:

      Did the eight proto-TABOR measures lose as badly as the egg-mendment?

      • redstateblues says:

        It’s a good question, I defer to his expertise on the issue.

        • Voyageur says:

          1-early polls show winning big –who doesn’t like voting on taxes?

          2-news media starts pointing out problems — do we really want an election to raise parking meters or library fines.

          3-fire fighters, police, start talking about number of public safety people who will be laid off if this passes because its so rigid.

          4-voteres defeat.  First by about 3-1, then 2-1, etc.  But margins decline.

          5 first bruce written tabor dies because , among other flaws, it would have tripled taxes on farm land

          6 second bruce written tabor dies because it has an absolute 69 mill limit on taxes that voters can’t override.  this again wrecks rural Colorado where valuations are very low, producing high mill levies but low taxes.  A $50,000 home in Holyoke might sell for $500,000 in Cherry creek.

           7-final, 1992, version of TABOR has less obvious flaws, no direct threat to rural colorado.  It does have nefarious “ratchet effect” (I coined and publicized the term) but that is hard to explain in bumper sticker terms.  Gov. Roy Romer decides this is a greeat year to ask for a 1 pct sales tax increase.  Voters crush it — and narrowly approve tabor.

            We’ve been stuck with it since, though Ref A did remove the ratchet clause.

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    on a mssion from God.

  4. Aristotle says:

    I had earlier proposed that actual constitutional amendments be required to get 2/3 of the vote, while non-amending initiatives remain at 50%; but I think that losing by more than 2/3 should be grounds for enshrining the exact opposite into the Constitution.

  5. sxp151 says:

    is that candidates now have to take seriously their positions during the primary, at least in this state. Republican primary voters really aren’t like the rest of us.

  6. raymond1 says:

    So in Denver, almost the same number of folks want 62 as want a UFO commission.

    Maybe they could pool their support next time with a ballot issue about alien zygotes?

  7. DaftPunk says:

    Which could have been spent on birth control or Democratic candidates.

    That’s their whole goal.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      in the form of the defeat of their extremist candidates.  This might be the first time that a pro-criminalization candidate has lost because of his/her extremism on this issue.  It is costing them in credibility and importance to continue to push for something the public clearly doesn’t want at this time.  

      • droll says:

        Seriously.  What’s the amendment do?  They freely admit that it won’t stop abortion, merely send a message.  They don’t care what it would do to the rest of those pesky laws.

        DaftPunk is probably closest to the truth.  A little insanity mixed with money that could’ve been used for better things.

        Technically they don’t need a major backer anyway.  It didn’t help this time.  I don’t remember a major backer last time.  Sen. Cadman, while charming, doesn’t count as major.  Had Buck not stuck his foot in his dumb mouth, he wouldn’t have had to worry about it, but the million dollars would still be spent on opposition.  Circle back.

        • Ralphie says:

          So they can work it all the way up to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade.

        • redstateblues says:

          He might not have been nominated. Such is the paradox of GOP primary politics in Colorado.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          is the glaring lack of interest in insuring that the children of the laid off or unemployed don’t go to bed cold and hungry.

          How much nutrition would a million dollars buy for those on the edge of malnutrition?

          I do agree that these frivolous amendments are unnecessary expenditures but at an even more fundamental level they are a grotesque waste in the face of real pro-life issues.  How come we can’t establish wood banks so those people who can’t get funding through LEAP can get a load of wood for some cheap fires.  Where’s the commitment to pro-life alternatives in tough times?

          These people who perpetuate these frivolous amendments are frauds.

          • Ralphie says:

            Are turnout-enhancers among the base.

            Much more effective than a million dollars worth of robocalls.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              If they want to be pro-life then they should work on feeding the hungry and helping the sick obtain affordable health care.

              We waste our resources needlessly believing we’ll never end up like the Easter Island inhabitants.  Their religious fanaticism ended up turning into cannibalism.

              • Ralphie says:

                They are simply anti-choice.

                Big difference.

                • Gilpin Guy says:

                  I don’t believe I made any reference to indicate that you had used the term pro-life to describe the people behind these frivolous amendments.

                  I used the term to highlight the kinds of things people who are pro-life should do.

                  I personally refer to the backers of these frivolous amendments as pro-criminalization because I think that is their only objective.

                  Pro-life in my mind should be caring about all those moments after the descent through the birth canal.

                  These frivolous amendments to preserve every fertilized zygote in the universe wouldn’t be such a waste if we had affordable health care and food insecurities had been eliminated.  They waste time and money and the children of the unemployed still go to bed hungry and cold.  These frivolous amendments are pretty much blasphemy as far as I’m concerned.  

      • Voyageur says:

        Republican candidates, like Buck, now face a dilemma.

        1-to get nominated you need the Right-Wing Cuckoo Clock vote.  So you have to endorse things like fertilized eggs are people and add, gratuitously, to questions “And I’ll answer the next question, I’m against exceptions for rape or incest.”

        2-Once nominated, you need the vote of people who don’t think fertilized eggs are people and who don’t think rapists have the right to force their victims to bear their offspring.

        So you back off your earlier statement and answer questions about abortion by saying “We need to talk about jobs and the economy, that’s what’s on the voters mind.

        3-Now, the right-wing Cuckoo Clock lobby holds a press conference, denounces you, and endorses a third party candidate.  Democratic attack ads hammer you on rape and incest.

        4-You lose the election.

    • Aristotle says:

      A 40-point margin of defeat will not be overcome in one election cycle, or even five. Besides being a lightning rod for Dem money, it’s also something to get a few more wingnuts to the polls and maybe be the difference in a close election. It did seem to backfire on Buck, but the only major race in 2012 will be POTUS and that person won’t have to comment on zygote citizenship.

      The GOP has four years to groom their next gubernatorial and Senate candidates and figure out how to keep them from flip-flopping. I guess that depends on if the GOP is still so hard right that candidates need to stake out extreme positions in the primary; and also if the kingmakers ever realize their dream of clearing the field so there isn’t a primary in the first place.

  8. dwyer says:

    My interest is not policy, it is strategy.  How many of the republican candidates who won and will now control the Colorado House pledged that they supported the personhood amendment?  Does anyone know?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

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