It’s not just senatorial candidate Cory Gardner who’s taken the endlessly puzzling position of being opposed to personhood at the state level but supportive of the federal version.
Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez draws a false distinction between the two as well, saying he’s opposed to the state amendment but supportive of federal legislation. Even though they aim to do the same thing, according to yours truly and, more importantly, Factcheck.org.
Despite the obvious relevancy of personhood on the campaign trail, I can’t find a local reporter who’s asked either one of them the simple question of why they favor federal personhood legislation over the state version.
Instead, multiple reporters, including Mark Matthews at The Denver Post and Bente Birkeland at Rocky Mountain Community Radio, listened to Gardner’s spokespeople tell them that that federal personhood legislation is essentially a toothless symbol–without asking for an explanation. On Tuesday, the Hill’s Elise Viebeck reported Gardner’s position, apparently without seeking an explanation. So did The Post’s Anthony Cotton.
CBS4’s Shaun Boyd taped Gardner himself implying that there’s a distinction between federal and state personhood legislation, without asking him why.
At least Politico’s Paige Winfield Cunningham asked the Gardner campaign about the discrepancy. But she got no response, and she’s apparently let it drop.
A question about the federal personhood bill was reportedly put to Gardner on KRDO radio’s Morning News March 24, but, again, he wasn’t pressed for an explanation when he said it’s a “Democratic talking point” and an “incorrect characterization of the federal legislation” to call it a personhood bill.
So does anyone detect a hole in the reporting here?
Who’s gonna be the first reporter to get the details on why Gardner (and Beauprez) support one personhood bill and not the other?
The question reporters should really be asking is how, if personhood passes (which is highly unlikely), it won’t result in women being investigated for miscarriages?
When this question comes up, personhood advocates say that they don’t want—and won’t let—women be investigated for miscarriages, which poses a dilemma. Enabling criminal investigations for miscarriages is prospect we should all find frightening.
However, if personhood advocates aren’t willing to enable investigations of miscarriages, personhood as a tactic to end abortion, becomes meaningless and unenforceable, beyond shutting down established clinics—there are other ways, however, risky, to obtain abortions.
The answer is simple but unlikely to come out of the lips of either Both Ways Bob or Con Man Cory: "If personhood amendment should actually pass, it will never go into effect. Any judge who does not want to be reversed and look like a fool will issue an immediate injunction against the amendment as violating the 14th Amendment. The sole and cynical purpose served by this amendment is to excite our base in the hopes that they will vote for us."
I assume you're referring to the state-level version; a judge can't void a federal constitutional amendment.
exactly…..the perennial RTL state ballot initiative which is the GOP's version of playing w/ fire. They love it when it excites their base. They hate it when their candidates in competitive (i.e., moderate, indie dominated) legislative districts or statewide races must respond or comment on it. Like Gardner is doing right now.
The federal version will never have the votes for passage.
They would be similarly nonplussed if Roe v Wade ever got overturned, ruining their most reliable evergreen old warhorse fund raiser, the mother of all these others.
That’s hard to say—I have no doubt that it’s a useful way to round up votes and money; however, there definitely are people out there who would genuinely like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Abortion is one of those contentious issues that will always be with us, unlike other issues that have garnered solid majorities one way or the other, there will probably always be close splits.
There have always been other issues to raise money on—what do you think the whole push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was about?
Gay marriage is rapidly becoming a losing issue—yes there are some who still get riled up about—but increasingly people realize that the sun will come up the next day if gay marriage is recognized in their state.
If people can raise money on fear of gay marriage, it suffices to say that they could raise money playing to “Reefer Madness” hysteria over marijuana legalization—it wouldn’t surprise me if this is already happening.
I'm not talking about grass roots people. Yes, many are true believers. I'm talking about the pols and fundraisers. They'd hate to see their cash cow go. The nice thing about Roe v Wade for them is, while other wedge issues may come and go, other base concerns wax and wane, they can always count on the good old "baby killer" stuff to get their target voters' blood up and wallets open.
"Reefer Madness" is well represented in the current "Don't be a lab rat" campaign being waged by the Colorado Health Department.
The campaign consists of some highly dubious "facts" about the horrible effects of even casual marijuana smoking that "might" happen.
The second part of the campaign is like performance or installation art – these giant "rat cages". See photo from Westword article.
I have mixed feelings about this campaign. I really hate trying to teach people who are high. They're usually very pleasant, but can't focus on shit. But I do know that when adults consistently lie and exaggerate about the dangers of some forbidden behavior to young people a) it becomes much more desirable, and b) they lose faith in anything else one ever tries to communicate.
The giant cages,too,are psychologically debasing – way too potent a reminder of the thousands of people incarcerated for having small amounts of marijuana. And even though Colorado laws have been changed,and we're not doing that anymore, we're also not letting those people out of jail. Further, we're trying to scare young people away from pot use by unreliable data and nightmarish, animalistic metaphors. It's just wrong.
Quoting from the Marijuana Arrest Research Project study of incarceration rates over the last 10 years:
Is there any drug that has done as much damage as good old alcohol? Yet, it's also entirely possible to enjoy it in moderation without horrible things happening. Pot causes much less mayhem and is much less deadly, even when over indulged in, than alcohol and can also be used in moderation. In both cases, education and age restrictions are a better answer than prohibition.
And by less deadly I should say to the point of zero which I believe is the number who have died from pot poisoning.