President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 20, 2007 04:20 PM UTC

Abortion Ballot Initiative to Wedge Up 2008?

  • 92 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

An anti-abortion group has filed paperwork with the state of Colorado proposing a state constitutional amendment that would define a person as “any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

Proponent Mark Meuser, of Colorado for Equal Rights, based in Peyton, said the amendment could be used as a stepping stone to challenge abortion in Colorado.

“This language defines what a person is,” he said. “If it challenges (the Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion), that will be weighed, and it’ll be up to the courts to decide at that level.”

Republicans know that it’s much easier to get out the vote when the consequence of not voting can be represented as burning in hell for all eternity. It’s a time-honored strategy. If this makes the ballot it will definitely mobilize religious conservative voters, who also reliably vote the straight Republican ticket.

Tweet
Share

Comments

92 thoughts on “Abortion Ballot Initiative to Wedge Up 2008?”

      1. Waddams knows that an anti-abortion, anti-science ballot issue that highlights the weaknesses of the Repulsive Republican Radicals will make it impossible for the GOP to win anything in the next couple of elections in Colorado.

        Hang this anti-woman, anti-family ballot initiative around Schaffer’s neck, and he’s toast. Will be fun to blog against him and this initiative.

        Dems must be gloating. It’s theirs to lose. The state has been Californiated, not taken over by Colorado Springs.

    2.   The left wingers in the Democratic Party are more alert than the right wingers in the GOP.  Rank and file liberals are already griping about the Democratic leadership dropping the ball on ending the Iraq War even though they’ve only dropped the ball once so far (i.e., funding the war without any strings).
        The right wingers, on the hand, resemble Pavlov’s dogs when the bell rights.  The GOP leadership keeps serving up abortion and same sex marriage to “energize the base,” then they drop the ball (inadvertently or intentionally).  But the base keeps responding. 

    3. I wont be voting for it, but I’m sure it will drive republican turn out.  Def speaks to the repub unease about the strength of the top of their ticket.

  2. That would make the morning after pill questionable – there’s no way they can get close to a majority for this. And it would pull tons of moderate and young voters in to make sure it fails.

    Anyone who’s liberal – SIGN THIS. This will boost the liberal vote a lot more than the conservative one.

      1. The RINO stampede has already passed the GOP in this state by.  That’s why we have a Democratic legislature, governor, majority in the congressional delegation and maybe one more US Senator come next year.

        And, this is exactly the issue that got the GOP where it is, but these folks don’t care.  OK by me.  If they want to try this crap in one of the most pro-choice states in the union, do it.  Will drive folks right into the D column.  Believe me, I’m one of them as are most of my “country club” Republican friends.  We’re already gone. 

        Please, please, please get this on the ballot.  It’s the final straw in breaking the Republican coalition in this state for a long, long time.  These nuts can have the Republican party for what its worth, which won’t be spit in the ocean after this little trick.

        Hahahahahaha.  Just love these single issue folks.  I can hardly wait for the commericals.  Can you imagine a young woman hooked to a stretcher with intravenous lines waiting to be executed.  If a fertilized egg is life, then a woman and her doctor who participate in an abortion are already, under current Colorado law, guilty of pre-meditated murder and, subject to the death penalty.  Course these folks won’t tell you this is their goal.  Oh, by the way, the woman who doesn’t eat right, or smokes or drinks during pregnancy is also guilty of child abuse, subject to jail and to having her child raised by the state.  But that’s what these folks want too. 

        Colorado is too smart for this stuff.  Witness, that when they brought up the so-called “partial-birth” abortion, the ban was defeated by the legislature and by the voters.

        Get a clue guys.  If you want something like this, move to Mississippi or Mexico or somewhere more to your liking.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  Those mega-churches might make nice night clubs or big restaurants.

        1. The RINO’s have already left the Republican Party.  There simply aren’t enough common values to hold the economic conservatives (“RINO’s”) and the social conservatives together in the same party.  The Ref. “C” campaign in 2005 made that clear.  What we are seeing now is the demise of the Colorado Republican Party.  No one, including Dick Wadhams, can stop it.  All the nasty attack adds in world won’t stop it.  It will roll on no matter what. 

          Personally, I can be categorized as a RINO but that doesn’t matter and which group is right or wrong doesn’t matter, or who has the lease at state headquarters or who can claim the elephant symbol.  The simple fact is they hold such divergent views and values that they should and are going their separate ways.  We (the RINO’s) need to make peace with the Democrats and solidfy the new governing coalition that is forming here in Colorado under the leadership of Governor Ritter. 

          The bottom line for me is the fact the social conservatives do not believe in representative government.  They constantly attack every branch of government and support every initiative (e.g. TABOR and Amendment 41) that can be used to take the power to elect and form policy out of the hands of the citizens, who they do not trust at all.  The social conservatives believe the constitutional basis of our government must be radically changed to insure that no matter who the public elects and no matter what policy those individuals were elected to implement, only the conservative policy preferences can actually be enacted.  That is what TABOR is all about.  It isn’t about tax and fiscal policy, it is about taking choices away from the voters because the so called conservatives don’t trust individual citizens. 

          The social conservatives are not conservatives at all.  They are radical extremists bent on changing our form of government and our way of doing the public’s business.  True conservatives believe that existing institutions (e.g. our Constitution, the three branches of government, public schools) should be preserved while allowing for change when good sense and the facts dictate such change.

          The Founding Fathers, at the Constitutional Convention and especially in the Federalist Papers, rejected the views held by today’s radical extremists because they knew that only a government that truly reflected and respected the views of the electorate would be sustained by the electorate; and they knew that meant that at times the electorate would elect a majority that did not agree with their personal policy preferences.  The so called social conservatives will have none of that.  They want to insure that only their policy preferences will ever be implemented.  Frankly, this is not only a formula which goes against what our Founding Fathers believed, but it is also a prescription for ultimate failure for our state and for our country.  The government through its elected representatives has to have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances here at home and around the world.  Hamstringing the government will only lead to ultimate failure and the demise of our nation. 

          But those of us who have been Republicans and are now alienated have another choice.  We can allie ourselves with the Democrats and form the new governing coalition.  We share many of the same values including a belief in fostering strong economic growth through a first rate K-12 system and higer education system, a well developed transportation system and an affordable health care system.

          For sentimental, philosophical and other reasons and  attachments it is difficult to leave an organization and institution that many of us have spent years working for but the time has arrived to look to new political alliances and individuals, and political institutions with which we hold the same basic values.  Democrats like Governor Bill Ritter offer us that opportunity.  We should take it. 

          1. I agree with both of you.

            I spent the last three or four years saying I was done with the GOP. Earlier this month I changed from R to U after being registered with the Rs since I turned 18 nearly 30 years ago. I’ve voted for only a handful of Rs in the last few elections and finally decided I didn’t want to be part of the state GOPs affiliation numbers.

            Now I’m waiting for the candidates to finally have the guts to abandon the caucus system so we can have real choice for the primary and general elections.

          2. Single social issue Republicans (e.g., anti-abortion, illegal immigration, gay marriage) have wrecked the party in Colorado in my opinion.

            It’s easy to characterize Boulder county as a Democratic bastion and home to all the liberal fringe in Colorado, but why did conservative rural counties, like Costillo, Conejos, Las Animas, Routt and Heurfano (to name only a few) turn dark blue in the last election?  In my view, much of the state voted for Democrats because they were alienated by the agenda proposed by the social issue Republicans who have taken over the party.

            Social issue advocates don’t seem to realize that if your party LOSES the election, your views about the social issue become irrelevant because there is no one in the Governor’s office, the House or the Senate with the political muscle to advance the issue.  Politics is about WINNING elections, not about making a social “statement.”

            Libertarians are a party that has a slate of principled positions, but no voice in government because they cannot win enough elections.  Single, social issues Republicans are, unfortunately, turning the party into Libertarians.

            Shame on all you RINOs who, rather than stomp the social issue Republicans, are opting to turn U, remaining mute or going along with these wing nuts.  Lincoln said “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”  That applies to RINOs who need to take back their party.

            1. I tried to make a difference in the Republican party on a small scale to no avail. I know of other people who diligently worked for years trying to change the party. A handful of people trying affect change vs hords of zealots doesn’t make for much of a fight.

              Unless you’re a RINO and you tried or are still trying to change the party, I’m not sure you’re in a good position to shame other RINOs that tried.

              And, the problem isn’t the handful of RINOs that have tried or are trying to change the party, it’s the people with R behind their name that continue to vote for far right Rs even if they don’t agree with them on the social issues. They give false credence to the right wing.

              In my limited experience I came away with the impression that the far right Rs don’t care so much about winning elections as they do about putting up the “right” candidates and supporting their causes.

              If the RINOs that don’t support the current GOP platform leave en masse, then we would see the true “strength” of the right wing.

              1. I agree that it’s frustrating to see the party perverted by single issue zealots and elected Rs pander to them.

                The party won’t suddenly “grow a brain” if normal people (RINOs) leave en masse — it will just turn into Libertarians (a platform with no elected officials).  The problem is that the wingnuts are vocal (I disagee that the zealots are the majority) and masses of the party faithful don’t get involved in party politics and demand change.

                I think you have to annoy your elected officials — which includes the elected party structure — tell them what you think and demand change.

        2. The Church does make a nice nightclub.

          These days, it can be hard to tell the Republican Party from the Communist Party.  Ideological purity is at a premium and principled dissent, strongly discouraged.  (I still haven’t heard as to whether I have been dismissed from the ranks of committeepersons.)

          If you are even the lowliest Party official, you are somehow expected to support the entire slate, even when that slate includes or has included Sheriff Russ Cook (who checked into Betty Ford), Mark Paschall, Bob “I take bribes from Russian mobsters in the form of $20,000 junkets to Israel” Beauprez, John Suthers, Troy “JACKabramOFF” Eid (a Bush appointee in the Gonzo AG-packing scandal), Three-Term-Tom Tancredo, Wayne “Supertower” (a.k.a., the Invisible Man) Allard, Pete “Doe in the Headlights” Coors and Jim Congrove (Kevin McCasky is on my watch list).  Credible candidates like Steve Close and Rob Witwer are getting harder to find.  As the face of the Party in my precinct (and yes, I do belong to a country club), I tell my constituents that it is our job to present a slate of honorable and competent candidates who articulate a clear and compelling vision as to what government should do (and not do!) for you as your servants. We’ve fallen down on the job, because we insist upon having religious revival meetings that masquerade as state/county assemblies.

          Of course, when compared to CAR31, I’d even take McCasky; he may be corrupt, but you can get him to listen every now and again.  For in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king…. 

    2. The morning after pill, to the best of the scientific community’s knowledge, prevents conception, and is not an early form of abortion.  The same is apparently true of birth control pills and the IUD.  But the right to lifers have claimed that all of these are really forms of abortion.  What would their status be if a conception=human amendment passed?  Would only barrier methods (condoms and diaphragms) be legal? This is a rather unsettling question IMO.

      1. really have painted themselves into a corner by insisting that life begins at conception. So what happens to those zygotes that don’t embed themselves in the uterine wall? By their logic that’s probably the woman’s fault too. And of course the whole reason they oppose stem cell research is because they took this position and now have to fight a potentially rich avenue of disease treatment in order not to lose face. If it weren’t for Roe v. Wade Bush wouldn’t be vetoing stem cell research for a second time.

      2. …that Plan B and maybe the other “morning after pill” prevents implantation, not conception. Regular birth control pills prevent ovulation.

        1. (get it?  misconception? heh heh)

          Plan B is a big dose of progesterone, which prevents ovulation.  The manufacturer says it “may” prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but there is no proof it does this.  Same with BC pills.  But right to lifers feel that any possibility that a fertilized egg might be prevented from implanting -> abortion -> murder, QED.

          2. …with all due and much respect.  Once there is ovulation – presumed to have happened just prior to that one night stand – an “anti-ovulation” BC pill would be worthless. It MUST prevent implantation or it is no more good than the condom with a hole in it.

            1. Conception occurs in the fallopian tube….the egg can live 2 to 3 days and sperm…24 to 48 hours….so ovulation can occur after intercourse and conception can still occur…days after intercourse

              I say…a separate thread …abortion all day every day…only in Latin…

            2. I see that it has been too long since you sat through health class.  The whole conception thing is a slow motion process, unfolding over days.  Think fallopian tube. 

      3. If you’re facing a possible charge of 1st degree murder and 30 years in prison – would you give a woman those pills? Because it’s not the facts, it’s what can be sold in the courtroom.

    3. hell, I’d ciculate the damned thing!

      You wanna swell the ranks of single women voters?  This is the way to do it and they, as a group, vote democratic.

      Maybe, just maybe, Hillary could carry Colorado….

  4. They can’t even win a simple election on the merits of their candidates anymore. Every election, they have to trot out the issue of the month to force their own base to get their ass to the polls.

    Pathetic.

  5. Colorado for Equal Rights…..hmmm……IIRC, Equal Rights Colorado is the keeper of the gay agenda and was the proponent of Referendum “I” last year.

  6. It is hard to keep the players straight. Didn’t Colorado Right to Life attack Dobson for his stand  supporting the partial birth ban and wasn’t that group subequently disaffliated from National Right to Life?  Where do the members of Colorado Equal Rights for All stand in relationship to these groups?

    I think this amendment would cripple the Republican Party in terms of being able to get the all-important Independent vote. 

    1. Colo. Righ to Life and Colo. Equal Rights may soon become out local version of what the Shiites and Sunnis are doing to one another in Iraq.  We’ll have to change the name of El Paso County to Anbar Province.

      1. The Group is “based” out of Peyton, Colorado.
        http://www.coloradoe…

        And their purpose is “to ensure that all human beings are treated equally under Colorado law.”

        I’m sure these same compassionate peolpe were 100% behind Ref I!

  7. really need to think this through. If it passes, it implies then that any action taken by a pregnant woman that threatens the well being of the embryo or any third party who threatens the well being of the mother and her environment could possibly face criminal and civil charges for child abuse.  Is Colorado ready to put pregnant women in jail or a hospital to keep them off drugs during their pregnancy?

    1. Ok, then if you stop a conception, wouldn’t that then be second degree murder under this law? Because you stopped a person from coming in to existence?

      No birth control and women being told they must have sex every month. The mind boggles…

  8. There were wedge issues on the ballot in 2006 (gay marriage and civil unions), but they didn’t motivate the wingnuts to show up in droves.

    Immigration failed to even get on the ballot as a wedge issue in 2006, in part because it was telegraphed so early.  The Supreme Court and the Legislature each played a role in neutralizing it.

    More important than wedge issues in driving turnout are the candidates, and the quality thereof, in the various races.

    1.   In that case, things are looking good for the Dems.  Regardless of who is at the top of the ticket (Giuliani, Thompson, McCain or Romney), he’s saddled with defending Bush’s Iraq War. 
        The U.S. Senate candidate will be a fringe right winger.  The GOP won’t even be fielding candidates in C.D. 1 and 2, and will probably only put paper candidates up in C.D. 3 and 7.
        The best thing the GOP can hope for is Jeff Crank winning the C.D. 5 primary next year to boost turnout in the general election in El Paso County.
        The next best thing is Tank standing down and Lil Armstrong being the C.D. 6 candidate.

      1. but how would a Crank primary victory help with the EPC turnout for the general? It’s not like he would face a serious challenge in November.

        1. The general thinking on that is that Lamborn is too off base to garner support from the strong party middle in El Paso County. Contrary to popular opinion, EPC is far more centrist than many pundits comprehend. Crank is much better public personality and has been building a strong “consensus” base of moderates and conservatives for years. Crank’s personality, public speaking ability, alliance-building tactics, and core team will enable him to pull more voters out in a general election… something Lamborn is clearly not capable of doing.

          El Paso County: 342,000 Voters

          2004 Republican Turnout: 190,000

          2006 Lamborn Vote: 100,000
          2006 AG Suthers Vote: 135,000

          2. A lot of GOP voters sat out last Nov.’s election because they were loyal to their party and couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Fawcett, but at the same time, they (like Joel Hefley) refused to vote for Still-born.  Nor did Both Ways do much to get them excited.

  9. …desperately hoping the Supremes will listen to his drivel, and he can get his 15. After all, SOMEONE has to fill Haggard’s shoes. Or should I say, “loafers.”

    By the way, if the mighty righties are convinced they can “cure” homosexuality – which they claim is environmental, why is it they can’t cure “stupidity?”  Oh, pardon me, I forgot… “stupidity” begins at conception.

  10. But I think it’s a great debate to have.  The problem with the left–and the comments here show it–is that they are incapable of articulating humane, cogent views on the key moral issues of the day. 

    What’s so great about Boulder Dave cheering on the apparently pro-choice young people in turning out against the proposed amendment is that young people today are probably the most pro-life of them all!  Young people will indeed turn out for this one–and vote yes–while voting Democratic.  Unfortunately for a lot of you, the old orthodoxy of the left simply doesn’t hold any weight among young people.

    I love debate.  Mostly because when serious people think hard about serious issues they think about them in conservative ways.  But debate is great even were that not the case. My pleasure over Referendum I’s defeat was the important conversation this state had about the traditional family and its pertinence to our post-modern culture.

    I doubt this sort of amendment will pass.  It couldn’t pass in South Dakota and it wouldn’t pass here.  And, being an incrementalist, it’s a little premature.  But the left–and Mark Udall, I’m sure–will be in for quite a surprise when there is a remarkable–if minority–amount of support for human life.

    1. turns to moral issues we’ll turn up with cogent thoughts then. This ain’t it by any stretch of the imagination.

      BTW, I’ll ask again in case you missed it – what’s your title at CU and when did you achieve it? I’m prepared to apologize if I was wrong when we, uh, “discussed” it a few months ago.

          1. For whatever reason my employment seems to be one of the juiciest bits of debate around here.  I feel like I’ve more or less cut and pasted my resume at least 15.6 times.  I’m actually thinking of leave the sweet effervescence of academia.  We’ll see!

            1. Wow! Promoted to Assoc. Prof. but you defended as recently as ’04!?!

              You sound like you’re on the Ward Churchill plan!

              I guess we’ll be hearing a lot about you in the future…

            2. Looking back on it you hinted strongly… at the time that went over my head as I really didn’t believe you were a prof and was looking for an outright statement like this one…

        3. You went from adjunct with only a masters to an associate with a PhD which you defended in ’04 in, what, 6 mos? I am impressed! I thought you said you were leaving CU to join Romney’s campaign?

          1. None of the Associate Professors in the Department of Political Science at CU report having earned a PhD on or around 2004.

            Two Assoc. Professors in PoliSci do not report the dates they obtained their PhDs. (The other three Assoc. Profs received their PhDs in 70, 83, or 96.)

            Of the two without PhD dates, one joined the faculty in 1987. The other in 2002.

            Is the PoliSci webpage up to date?

            Or is the demand for PoliSci faculty so high, and the supply so low, that even a major research university like CU is hiring ABDs?

            Or, is there something else wrong here?

            1. I think you have too much time on your hands if you are able to spend time investigating D.D.H.G.L.Q.’s alleged credentials as a poli sci prof…..better to waste your time working on a hopeless political campaign (Kucinich or Tancredo, depending on which way you hang ideologially)!

              1. When I looked this up a few months ago it took me about 10 minutes, but that was assuming that Dobby was an instructor and not a prof. It probably took more time to go through all those professors to see what they had to say about their credentials…

                1. I’m a bit sensitive about people misrepresenting their academic qualifications. (Not that I’m making any accusations …)
                  It took less than 10 min to skim the one paragraph bio about each of the five Assoc. Profs. Three clearly stated the dates of their earned PhDs. Two didn’t.

                  I don’t think anyone who contributes here has any room to criticize others for “wasting time.”

                  10 minutes one evening was no big deal. But then, I make it a point to base my statements on evidence.

                  Enough, though.

                  2. Dobby brings it up so he makes it an issue. I’m interested because he must deliberately come here to – I’ll put it mildly – have fun by stirring the pot because his arguments are pretty easy for a BA holder like myself (in History no less) to poke holes in them. I was also interested because he said he worked the stacks at Norlin Library and I wouldn’t think that a professor with a family ordinarily does that.

                    At this point I’m over it. He posts what he wants, the rest of us respond, life goes on.

            2. …I remember Dobby saying a few months back that he was a Mastered Associate Professor.  Now he is quietly, suddenly a full professor? 

              On a side note, I’m compelled to get snarky about the phrase “Political Science.”  It is so far removed from science that anyone who utters the phrase should be banished from academia immediately.  Like the “science” of economics, it is just a big guessing game of outcomes.  Luis Rukeyser used to annually see how those six figured analysts did in the past year.  The outcome was always the same, same as flipping a coin. 

              2. Once upon a time I was working on my PhD in econ.  I loved econ as an undergrad, I found the theories useful pedagogic tools for understanding my world.  While working  on PhD I discovered that adding more math did add any predictive value.

                I wrote a paper that basically theorized that discipline of economics is evolving  to promote the professional status of economists not enhance its predicive value.  My advisor said that I could clean it up and get it published, but that I would never work as an economist if I did.

                So I quite and went to work in the capital markets– there is nothing like having skin in the game to confim your theories–or show you just how stupid you’ve been.

                1. Used to be called Political Philosphy, which is probably a better fit.

                  But I like having the phrase “science” in my major title.  Makes me feel like I’m working towards a real degree.

                  1. I know that you are pretty humble, and I understand it was mostly a joke.  Uh, right?

                    All science was once called “Natural Philosophy”, I believe. Theology, my field, was once called “Queen of the Sciences.”  Maybe I should ask for a degree change to “Religious Science.”  Oh, wait, there’s now a religion with that name. (I had a conversation once with a minister from that sect and she agreed that it is a terrible name and there is always effort afoot to change it.)

                    “Economic Philosophy” sounds about right to me.  But science gets more respect than philosophy, so here we are.

                2. And you are right on the money, it’s a big circle jerk. A few make it to the top, introduce some interesting (won’t judge them) ideas, and the world adjusts as they are implemented.

                  But as to the bulk of them, there are way too many churning and not doing anything. 

    2. Then maybe we’d see more eye-to-eye.  But since the Church historically hasn’t been consistent with itself, and hasn’t provided sound theological reasoning for the changes in abortion thought, I fail to see how the concept of human life at conception rises to the level of “key moral issue”.

      Now, let’s talk about bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians…

    3. “The problem with the left–and the comments here show it–is that they are incapable of articulating humane, cogent views on the key moral issues of the day.”

      As opposed to spewing a lot of nonsense and pretending that it is backed up by non-existent facts?

      I would like to see the statistics that show “young people” are more Pro-Birth than in the past?  Please Dr. Dobson tell us where you found this little “fact” or are you just whistling past the grave yard hoping nobody calls you on this phony “statistic”.  The polls I have seen are consistently against the kinds of draconian measures that the Dr. Dobsons and the rest of the Christian Shiites clamor for.

      http://www.msmagazin…

      Let the Republicans trot out this wedgie one more time.  Too bad they don’t care about the planet or the already born with the same passion as they do the unborn.  It is a measure of how dry the conservative well is that they have to recycle women control issues instead of focusing on issues that truly affect voters in Colorado.  No wonder they have slipped into the minority.

  11. Word is the pro Choice groups are looking at running a pro choice ballot as well and have been for some time. I would love to see Colorado stand up for womens rights.

  13. The language of the proposed amendment would deny 14th Amendment protections to corporations and be unconstitutional under Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886). The real wedge will be between the Chamber of Commerce types and the reborns. Tee hee.

    1. …about the corps being a person when the SOS accepts and stamps the application………

      I’m still waiting for corporate offspring to join the military.

      2. If the reborns added a line about corporations becoming persons when the SOS oks their charter, it’s likely that the courts would throw out the petition for violating the two subject rule. (The amendment would affect both human and corporate standing.) Honestly, I really hope they do it. It’ll smash up the GOP for a generation.

  14. If a “person” is a person from the moment of fertilization, how do you then deal with situations where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother?

    And of course it goes without saying that any pregnancy caused by rape or incest can never be terminated.

    2. If a woman is Roman catholic she’s not supposed to have an abortion even if her life is in danger on penalty of excommunication.

      From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
      The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother.

      There’s a certain logical consistency to this if you accept the premise that a potential person has the same moral status as an actual person who is self-aware and capable of having preferences about his/her future. Rather than fighting the fundies on the personhood issue (metaphysics + emotionalism = nonsense), however, it should be enough to point out the brutality of the consequences of adopting the ballot measure.

  15. I think that the run to the right in both the Senate race and this statewide ballot initiative may be an attempt by the GOP to shore up support in local races and in close congressional races like CD4.  This will probably backfire in the statewide totals as the extreme nature of the wording will turn out moderates in opposition, but in the huge swaths of conservative territory this will counteract the growing anti-Bush sentiment where he’s a liability for not being a “true conservative.” 
    It’s possible that this may be the Colorado GOP’s attempt to avoid a negative coattails effect in case a presidential candidate with less than stellar social conservative credentials gets the nod– ie Romney or Guiliani

    1. From what I’ve seen most people would support banning abortions in the 3rd trimester, are unsure about the 2nd trimester, and think it’s a personal decision in the first trimester.

      Proposing an amendment that would make it murder to even take the morning after pill – that would almost certainly see very little support, even in conservative parts of the state.

      I think this could hurt the Repubs everywhere. And I say this as someone who thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned.

  16. The use of abortion is a dumb issue.  Unlike gay marriage amendments which are generally popular, or something like flag burning, the abortion issue is likely to mobolize both sides equally because both sides are equally impassioned in their views on the issue.  The best thing it could accomplish with this is getting a lot of people out to vote.

    I also think that this guy in Peyton is acting on his own, and not in conjunction with the Republican party.  Heaven knows why he’s doing it now…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

57 readers online now

Newsletter

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