EMILY’s List Puts Tipton “On Notice”


Colorado Rep. Scott Tipton has earned a spot on the EMILY's List roster of "On Notice" Republican lawmakers. Criteria being:

Republicans "On Notice" meet two special criteria. First, they've amassed appallingly anti-woman, anti-family records. And second, there is major Democratic female talent waiting in the wings. [Pols emphasis] Help us get the word out that the EMILY's List community is ready to send these guys packing!

“Representatives Heck, Kline, Latham, Reed, Tipton, and Valadao have a record – in some cases years long – of voting for some of the most shocking anti-woman legislation in the country,” said Stephanie Schriock, President of EMILY’s List. “Each one of them has proven there’s no limit to how far they’ll go to roll back the clock. Whether they opposed equal pay, voted to end Medicare as we know it, or to allow hospitals to let women die rather than provide lifesaving abortion care, it’s clear they have the wrong priorities. These extremists are doubling down on the same failed policies that led women voters to reject the GOP agenda during the last election, and threatening the health and safety of our nation’s families in the process. They’re wrong for women and families plain and simple, and the EMILY’s List community is ready to send them packing.”

EMILY's List is the foremost political action committee devoted to electing Democratic women to office. Certainly Rep. Tipton can't be considered friendly to the slate of issues EMILY's List organizes around, but this is the strongest indication yet that support is building for a run by Democratic state Sen. Gail Schwartz next year.


18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DaftPunkDaftPunk says:


    Emily's List practices gender descrimination in their efforts, and I cannot support them for this reason.  Chuck Schumer is better on women's rights than Kelly Ayotte, regardless of their reproductive organs.

    They must know something.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Yeah, you know who else practices "gender discrimination?"

      THE WORLD.

      Go Emily's List, Go Gail Schwartz!

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

        So you'd support a group which expressly advocates electing white people?

        • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

          Well, if we lived in some nonexistent devil's advocate society in which white people had been regarded as second class citizens for centuries, and only in the last hundred years or so have achieved anything close to equality, though still nowhere near parity in representation at any level of government, I guess I would.

          But since we don't live in that fantasy world, I'm down with Emily's List.

      • Konola says:

        I'm with you JeffcoBlue. Women have been discriminated against for centuries. If an organization is working to get more pro-choice Democratic women into office, I'm all for that. But then I'm a woman who got their endorsement when I ran for office.


    • GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

      Good grief, Daft. Emily's List is merely an issue advocacy group. They're not trying to turn good old (male dominated) U.S. of A. into the Democratic Republic of New Amazonia, are they?

      They're a group that saw a serious problem in American politics: Women, at over 50% of our population, are seriously under-represented in our elected offices. Women who might aspire to office face real barriers that men, in general, haven't. Those barriers stretch from country club locker rooms to corporate board rooms and every where in between where money, aquaintanceship and influence–all prerequisites for political access–have traditionally been dominated by men. Therefore, men have controlled our political scene to an extent that's causing problems for all of us. At least, I don't consider the obvious mysogyny of Heck, Kline, Latham, Reed, Tipton, and Valadao to be in my best interests. Whoever supported their access to office were doing none of us a favor.

      Emily's List is an attempt to maneuver around the barriers for women in election politics, to encourage progressive Democratic women in races against regressieve men and women, then rally support and raise money for them. I've not known them to challenge progressive Democrats, male or female.

      When affirmative action is needed to correct an imbalance, I'm in favor of it..

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

        Then be a gender promotion organization or an issue advocacy organization. Saying only one gender is worthy of support on that issue ignores the  sacrifices in blood men have made for the pro-choice movement, and sometimes backfires (see Coakley, Martha.)

  2. exlurker19 says:

    Er, umm, Daft, I know you're a doctor.  White people come in both genders.


    In other words, not equivalent.  Representation by women in Congress is significantly less than representation by old white men.  Go Emily!  I need to send another donation.

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      If your issue is to elect women, no problem.  If your issue is pro-choice, telling men their candidacy is not wanted is.

      Would an organization designed to exclusively elect men be cool?

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        It might be if it supported <a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/05/qa-new-beard-pac-supports-only-bearded-candidates-mustaches-need-not-apply/">bearded candidates</a>, because in some ways the story of the last hundred years has been the story of the decline of elected officials with beards. Among other stories.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          Hey RG…haven't come across your handle here of late. I admit my own presence was hit or miss for awhile, but I am getting to know the good wifi links at the mall here and I will be here for at least six more weeks. You should visit more often. I miss your input.

          Good to catch your user name…..

      • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

        See my comment above and substitute "men" for "white people." Same diff.

        • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

          Here's my deal:

          Who has been assasinated by anti-choice extremists?  Female clinic workers have been collateral damage of anti-choice assasinations, but the doctors killled have been men.

          If David Gunn, George Tiller or Barnett Slepian were still alive and wanted to run for office, they wouldn't merit Emily's List's support, merely because of their gender.  There is a woman organizing the re-opening of TIller's clinic (not a doctor or abortion provider, those names are still secret), but the names with any national resonance of the providers known for doing late procedures, writing Op-eds, being plaintiffs on lawsuits, and  targeted by the antis are Warren Hearn, Leroy Carhart, and Steve Chasen.  I'm sure my anecdotal experience is not an exhaustive census and I apologize for any lightning-rod female abortion provider I missed.

          Still, if men, who provide the services without which abortion rights would be only theoretical, can die in service of the pro-choice movement, then men can be elected to do the same.  I might support the same candidates as EL, and I might give them money, but I won't do it through an organization that categorically treats men as unqualified on this issue.

          • bullshit!bullshit! says:

            Hmm. I just don't get the sense from EL that they are judgmental like that. They simply support women candidates. JB is correct about the historical fact of discrimination against women, and that's the bottom line for me. None of us disagree with you on choice, and I would ask for specifics to back your suggestion that EL treats men as "unqualified."

  3. Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

    I have been a feminist since I was old enough to understand the meaning of the word. On the other hand, I am not a big fan of zero tolerance anything…an interesting dilemma in this discussion.

    I also believe it is true that women would not have come so far without the help of enlightened men. Perhaps, someday, a member of the Emilys' List board will suggest a change in policy. Until then, I guess I will just have to remain conflicted…

  4. ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

    I hear the White House wants Garcia. A little palace intrigue brewing?

  5. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    ArapG, Please shut up until you've told us all what you think of that violent, vile e-mail from Mr. Crazy Eyes to Hudak.  Do you condemn it unequivocally, no excuses?  One thing at a time, please

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.