August 05, 2014 04:16 PM UTC

Conservatives Freak Out Over New Udall Ad

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Democratic Sen. Mark Udall's campaign is out with another ad slamming opponent Cory Gardner for his longstanding support for banning all abortions even in cases of rape or incest–and also for Gardner's renounced backing of the Personhood abortion bans in Colorado, which could have banned certain forms of so-called "abortifacient" birth control in addition to banning all abortions. Udall's latest ad on this subject could be the hardest-hitting yet, and that has seriously upset conservatives allied with Gardner. The religious Life News reports:

Pro-abortion Colorado Sen. Mark Udall has released a campaign ad trashing pro-life Congressman Cory Gardner, who is challenging the abortion advocate in one of the hottest Senate races in the country.

Gardner, a pro-life Congressman from Colorado, hopes to help pro-life advocates gain control of the Senate from Reid and to put it back in pro-life hands. Gardner is a longtime pro-life advocate who maintains a 100% pro-life voting record in the House…

Udall's new "Backwards" TV ad against opponent Cory Gardner, a Republican congressman, features a woman holding a girl that looks about five or six years old while discussing abortion.

After the ad's narrator criticizes Gardner's "history supporting harsh anti-abortion laws," the mother, with the girl in her lap, says: "I want my daughter to have the same choices I do."

The conservative Daily Caller's Alex Pappas is shocked, we say:

Udall’s new “Backwards” TV ad against opponent Cory Gardner, a Republican congressman, features a woman holding a girl that looks about five or six years old while discussing abortion.

And don't even get FOX News contributor Katie Pavlich started:

In an ad released today attacking his opponent, Republican Congressman Cory Gardner, Udall claims Gardner wants to "ban common forms of birth control." This statement is completely false.

First, Supreme Court precedent set through Griswold v. Connecticut makes banning birth control pretty much impossible (you can read more about this in my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women). Second, Gardner actually supports making many pill forms of birth control and contraception over-the-counter. An over-the-counter position provides women with more access to birth control, not less and is very far from a "ban" on anything.

Remember, the best outrage always includes a book plug. Ms. Pavlich is right that a Supreme Court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, upheld women's rights to contraception–much like Roe v. Wade upheld a women's right to abortion. But it occurs to us that comparison doesn't help Pavlich's argument much, since conservatives want Roe v. Wade thrown out. We assume Pavlich never spoke to the organizing proponents of the Personhood abortion bans in Colorado to find out that they very much did intend to ban "abortifacient" birth control. This would amount to a challenge to the Supreme Court's Griswold v. Connecticut decision, but that's not a stretch when you realize that Personhood is meant to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Gardner's disavowal of support for Colorado's Personhood initiative rests on the dubious claim that he "didn't know" Personhood could have these secondary effects on access to birth control. It's hard to call this a fictional consequence when Gardner himself admitted to it. As we've discussed in detail, this has been a well-known consequence of Personhood ever since 2008. Again, the proponents of Personhood knew this, and made no attempt to conceal their desire to ban "abortifacient" birth control at the time.

A ban on abortifacient birth control is also a potential consequence of the federal Life at Conception Act that Gardner remains a cosponsor of to this very day, despite unsupported claims otherwise from Gardner's campaign. As for Gardner's latest proposal for over-the-counter birth control pills? It was made under duress as a response to this crisis situation–as an attack on Obamacare, and with no real consideration for what it would mean as a substitute to the zero-copay birth control already available through Obamacare. For example, who's going to install an intrauterine device (IUD) over the counter?

So what are we left with with all of these facts in view? Well, Udall has another campaign ad out attacking Gardner on one of his gravest vulnerabilities–longstanding support for banning abortion, as well as the Personhood bans that could go even farther. The central offense in Udall's ad is a mother and her daughter, with the mother saying she wants her daughter to have "the same choices" she did. The presence of the young daughter in this ad especially outrages conservatives, who would rather think that Democrats want all children aborted, or that all young Democratic girls are taught loose morals via birth control and easy abortions–or whatever the problem is here.

But the outrage seems to be meant to conceal something Gardner's campaign doesn't want to discuss honestly.