U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 09, 2012 10:19 PM UTC
8 Comments
Obviously injuring someone so badly that she loses an 8 month pregnancy should be a more serious offense than simple assault. Why does it have to be homicide? Is nobody capable of passing a bill that establishes severe penalties for assault on a pregnant woman while focusing on the woman, not her fetus? Personhood hasn’t passed yet, so the fetus does not have its own rights. The woman, however, does have the right to sustain a wanted pregnancy, and her injury in the loss of a wanted pregnancy should be considered when evaluating the damage resulting from an assault or vehicular accident. But it is a severe injury to the woman.
is pretty simple but would not attract quite as much attention. Simply make it an aggravating factor for sentencing.
I can’t find anything on it online, but there’s a legal theory that suggests animal rights issues can be resolved with an “intelligent property” or “conscious property” doctrine that recognizes a pet’s status as legal property, but also its capacity for thought and suffering. Similar could go for wanted pregnancy. The fetus is not a person, but after the point of viability it is the conscious property of the mother, and can be assumed to independently suffer in such a way that its injury or loss constitutes a severe injury to the mother and gives grounds for criminal penalization of the person causing its injury or loss.
We all feel badly for anyone who loses a late-term wanted pregnancy, and we all agree it should be something more than whatever charge is made regarding the mother. We need to tread very careful, however, because there is a huge difference between a woman being attacked and assaulted who loses a baby, and a woman with a severe infection or cancer complications who chooses her own life over her fetus.
The fetus’s consciousness is recognized after a certain point (or the pet’s, in the original theory) but the harm done to it remains an injury to the owner — and there are no criminal penalties for destroying one’s own property in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others.
Democrats do a bad job trying to fake conservative.
Since my beloved son was born 5 weeks premature. If someone had killed him before he was born, I would not have lost a “fetus” or “intelligent/conscious property,” I would have lost my child. I’m not suggesting that this law is a good one; in fact, I agree with Pols’ idea that the existing criminal statutes are sufficient to deal with this issue. But saying that the only injury is to the woman, and that the rest of the family and society as a whole haven’t suffered any injury by the loss of that life, rubs me the wrong way.