Photo: Owen Hill Speaks At Saturday’s Roe v. Wade Protest

Sunday's Denver Post included a story about protests that occurred Saturday marking the 41st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, which established the right of American women to abortion of unwanted pregnancies. The story goes into some detail about the fact that the battle over abortion in Colorado is ramping up yet again, with a Republican-sponsored bill to ban all abortions introduced in the state legislature, and yet another flavor of the "personhood" abortion ban headed for the statewide ballot this November.

For as much useful background on abortion politics that Christopher Osher's story supplies readers, he focuses almost exclusively on the protest organized Saturday by the Catholic Church–making only the briefest of mentions of another protest, organized by Colorado Right to Life, "at the state Capitol." The problem is, that protest was certainly the event more relevant to the political backstory Osher lays out. Frustratingly, we've not been able to find any coverage of the CRTL protest, not even on the organization's own websites and social media. If anyone has links to coverage of this event, please give us them in comments or email us, and we'll update this post.

What we do know is that hard core anti-abortion group Colorado Right to Life held a protest at the state capitol on Saturday, and that the keynote speaker at this event was none other than Republican U.S. Senate candidate Owen Hill. We know that only due to this photo, sent to us from the event via a passer-by:


With all due respect to Archbishop Samuel Aquila, shouldn't this be part of the story? Our guess is Hill is trying as hard as he can to pump up his pro-life credentials while Ken Buck and Amy Stephens flail away at each other. That said, it may honestly be that Owen Hill's so-far minor Senate candidacy just doesn't rate much coverage.

But somebody tell us what Hill had to say to that horrifying little doll, who is also nowhere to be found in news coverage.

62 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ElliotFladen says:

    When even late professor Gerald Gunther of Stanford Law School thought Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned, faulting Owen Hill for appearing at a rally criticizing the decision seems like whining/nitpicking as opposed to a legit "gotcha" moment. 

  2. ElliotFladen says:

    (lawyers out there might recognize his book)

    • rathmone says:

      Nitpicking? Aren't you the same guy who lamented Buck's latest gaffe/honest explanation of his beliefs as "off-message?"  Unless you seriously believe that Hill is really considering a CD5 run, where bloody crucified babies might actually play well, isn't a US Senate candidate appearing with this crowd pretty "off-message" in advance of the primary?

  3. mamajama55 says:

    Before Roe v Wade: 33% of emergency room admissions for women were due to septic,  or complications of, attempted abortions.

    [Abortion-related] deaths among young women were not always young single girls having their first pregnancy. It was very often the woman who had three or four children, more children than she could already handle.


    Around the world, in countries where abortion is illegal, it remains a leading cause of maternal death. An estimated 68,000 women worldwide die each year from unsafe abortions.2 (National Abortion Federation – medical facts & references)

    And, from the history of Cleveland Planned Parenthood:

    In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, ruled that the constitutional right of privacy extends to a woman's choice of whether to bear a child. Before this decision, complications of illegal abortions represented the number one cause for emergency room admissions among American women.

    After Roe v Wade: (from the same articles linked above) maternal health increased,  septic abortion admissions to emergency rooms went down to almost zero. Nixon had signed Title X into law, so contraception was accessible to almost all women. Nixon would be too liberal for Tea Partiers today. These were good decisions that even a Libertarian could love.

    Elliott, this link's for you: Libertarian thinker Ayn Rand on abortion:

    An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

    The Supreme Court in 1973 made a decision that the right to "privacy" extended to women's decisions on whether or not to bear a child. Since that time, women's and children's health has improved.  What overreach, specifically, are you complaining about?

  4. Canines says:

    But somebody tell us what Hill had to say to that horrifying little doll, who is also nowhere to be found in news coverage.

    Maybe: "Didn't I see you in the 1981 John Waters movie Polyester?"

    • horseshit GOP front group says:

      I remember a Sarah Palin presser a few years back around Thanksgiving where she was speaking while turkeys were being slaughtered in the background.  Just kind of sends that unintended DON"T TAKE ME SERIOUSLY message to everyone watching regardless of the politics.

  5. dwyer says:

    I would like to thank DT for introducing the latest republican "buzz word"…judicial overreach.  The republican crowd has two arguments against Roe v. Wade that have morphed over the years.  Logically, the two arguments are diametrically opposed but that doesn't bother the republicans nor, quite frantkly, the  pro-choice crowd. I am the only one who evidently can not tolerate the  cognitive dissonance…it is like chalk screeching on a blackboard, but then I am probably the only one who remembers chalk and blackboards.

    Here is the "judicial overreach" argument.  It is best presented in the dissenting opinion written by Colorado's own Bryan White.  He argued that abortion was a medical matter and that it was left to the states to regulate medical matters and therefore the Roe majority decision was an "overrreach" because it overrode states' rights.  Originally, the so-called pro-life argument put forward by the republicans (read the Hyde Amendment of 1978) was that life began at conception and that abortion was killing a life and therefore Roe violated the right to life of the unborn.  The republican ran on that platform for decades, hence the alliance with the religious right, and the marches with the bloody pictures.  For the most radical criminals, this argument became the  justification for the clinic violence and murder of abortion doctors.  The Republican platform includes a right to life amendment based on this argument or at least it was once based on this argument…

    In 1994, when the republican gained control of Congress and were in a position to  vote on a right to life amendment, they became suddenly shy… a virgin who got cold feet so to speak.  So  then the argument morphed over the years into the argument that the problem with Roe was that it was decidedwrongly because abortion was a matter that should be left to the states.  In all the years that the Republicans have controlled one of both houses of Congress, they have NEVER voted on the right to life amendment. although one get introduced periodically and referred to committee that NEVER votes on it.  Now their hue and cry is to bring a case before SCOTUS and let SCOTUS overturn Roe and let the states decide.  That is what Personhood is all about, as well as some of the more awful state regulations.

    This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in.  If the republicans believe that life begins at conception and therefore a person exists from that point forward, why would you want each state to vote on what rights that person has?  Wouldn't that be a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution?  But nooooo, the repubs go merrily on their way crying about poor babies and poor states rights….and nobody points out that they are holding two contradictary positions at the same time….

    I also think that the pro-choice people ought to be pursuing a right to abortion constitutional amendment simply because it is the only civil right unique to women and such an amendment would secure that right once and forever.

    The issues are so fundamental that I believe the use of them to raise money and stir up the bases is repulsive.





    • Diogenesdemar says:

      "Judicial overreach" has been a rightie favorite in publications now for a couple of decades, mimimun . . . 

      . . . may not have made it onto the Boyles show yet, however . . . 

      . . . way too many syllables!

      • ElliotFladen says:

        Left uses it too (cough…citizens united….cough)

      • dwyer says:


        You are right, I don't hear "judicial overreach" on talk radio.  What I hear is "activitist judges"…some times preceded by unelected, black robed "fascist" communist", etc.  See.  "judicial overreach" is a concept.  It is difficult to rouse the ire of an audience if the target is an abstract concept.  Therefore, on talk radio, at least that which I listen to,….the target is never abstract, always a person, usually a stereotype or a straw man.  Propaganda 101.


        • ElliotFladen says:

          On the right the issue isn't judges striking down laws (a law abriding right to free speech, for example, should be struck down unless various limited exceptions apply).  The issue instead is that judges are striking down laws on reasons that they should not.  Since we are on abortion, the argument goes that even if you are pro-choice, nothing in the Constitution enshrines that position.  As such, to the extent a judge/justice says to the contrary, they are an "activist judge" per the argument. 

  6. Curmudgeon says:

    So, Owen wants the approval of the bloody baby doll crowd, while EF provides him with the standard spineless synchophant spin of "not necessarily" agreeing with the extremity of the position presented.  Definitely a match made in GOP heaven. Who's bringing the Popeye's chicken?

    Say what you want about Moddy (and heaven knows I have), he's not afraid to wear his extremism on his sleeve, and agree with him or not, he has his own sense of decency. 

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.