CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 07, 2014 11:00 AM UTC

Gardner: "There is no federal personhood bill."

  • by: Jason Salzman

(Once again–the federal Life at Conception Act contains the same operative language as Colorado's Personhood abortion ban. Gardner's distinction according to fact-checkers, is complete BS. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Cory Gardner's Personhood twist

9News political reporter Brandon Rittiman got one-on-one interviews with both senatorial candidates last week, and the questions he chose to ask Sen. Mark Udall and his Republican opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner, should earn him the respect of conservatives and progressives.

One of Rittiman's questions for Gardner has been consistently overlooked by Denver journalists:

Rittiman: How do you square your recent change on personhood at the state level with the bill that you still are on in Congress. The life begins at conception act?

Gardner: Well, there is no federal personhood bill. They're two different pieces of legislation, two different things.

Rittman followed up by pointing out that other co-sponsors of the bill say it it is federal personhood, and asking, "But it's still a piece of legislation that says abortion ought to be illegal, no?"

Gardner: No. It says life begins at conception. Look, Sen. Mark Udall is trying to say that it's something that it's not.

Rather than letting Gardner's false statement slide, Rittiman reported:

Rittiman: At the very least, the bill is meant to set up a legal challenge to a woman's right to choose. [ supports Rittiman's reporting here.]

Rittman also brought up the subject of Gardner's failed healthcare plan, reporting: "9NEWS asked a few times for Gardner to share the details of his canceled healthcare plan, which he has used as an issue in the campaign."

Rittiman: You don't want to discuss the details of your old plan?

Gardner: "Well, look. This is about a promise that Mark Udall made. About being able to choose the health insurance that they liked for their family. Mark Udall didn't tell people that if you had this policy or that policy you might be able to keep this but not that. Mark Udall promised if you like your plan you could keep your plan. He broke that promise."

Rittiman should have explained to his audience that details of Gardner's plan are important because Gardner has ranted about how much more money he had to pay for insurance under Obamacare, which covers pre-existing conditions and preventative care, among other benefits.

If Gardner's old plan was bare-bones, or if it had a giant deductible that would make it too risky for average voters, then his complaint about the increased cost of his Obamacare insurance starts to smell rotten. As it is, the smell of his answer to Rittiman is pretty bad and deserves more scrutiny by journalists. Why won't Gardner release details of his old plan?

As for Udall, Rittiman asked the question that comes up most frequently on conservative talk radio:

Rittiman: Frankly, does Colorado deserve for this campaign to be about more than just about abortion?

Udall: My campaign is about contrasts and comparisons. An election is a choice…. It's my responsibility to bring that to the attention of Colorado voters, and I will continue to do so, but I will also talk about all the other things that I've accomplished.

Rittiman followed up twice by asking Udall about fracking, "They didn't hear you saying specifically where you think the policy on oil and gas should go. Do you think that local governments ought to have the power to full on regulate it, or is it just about giving them meaningful input?"

Udall: Look, I'm gonna let governments speak from their point of view, but I think there's a sweet spot there. You definitely want meaningful involvement, you want meaningful input. And again, there may be places where the local community decides that the use of that land is better directed at a park or a wildlife refuge or subdivisions, versus drilling for natural gas. I think there's broad support for that, including in the industry.

Rittiman reported that Udall "opposed the now-dead ballot questions to restrict oil and gas operations, but still gets support from the environmental lobby."


12 thoughts on “Gardner: “There is no federal personhood bill.”

      1. Some friends flying in from California couldn't believe Denver welcomes visitors with this demonic horse from hell. Their dumbfounded reaction to the story of how it killed its creator yet was still erected, glowing red eyes and all, as one of the first things visitors see was priceless. They kind of think we must be nuts.

      2. I hope whoever the next Governor is commits to working with Mayor Hancock to removie this bane from DIA property. I can't believe that damn thing is still standing,

        1. Can’t resist- Some like the blue Horseicanus erectus (walking upright)

          Perhaps a fitting compromise between the more timid & art lovers might be a pair of Jockey shorts

          1. It's the demonic eyes that my visitor friends found creepy. And BTW, they are art lovers.  So am I which is why I think the over the top glowing red eyes make it look really cheap and cheesy. Not that I'm starting up any petitions to have it moved or anything. I'm not the art police. Just sayin'. Cheesy. 

            Remember when they were talking about having a buffalo herd placed so you'd see it as you drove out of the airport? Now that would have been really cool.

  1. In keeping w the horse thing, Cory is a one trick pony on personhood for most of his political career, running for office in the 4th District (the delta quadrant, where Klingons uncloak behind the barn). What is he going to run against, tractors?  As high lighted by NYC Gail Collins piece, Passion of the Pill (I cited her first on Fri, dammit!) he reeks of hypocrisy and falsehoods, my criticism of Brandon is that his truth tests rarely lift up out of the weeds,( usually concerning votes, OK, then lay the blame where it belongs on a do nothing R house. why cant Brandon get it if east coasters can?

    In Colorado, the Democrats have pointed out endlessly that Cory Gardner supported personhood amendments to the State Constitution. After he seemed to be losing ground, Gardner said that when personhood came up in 2008 and 2010 he did not really understand the possible consequences. (“This was a bad idea driven by good intentions.”)

     At what point would you say to yourself: “Wow, I wonder if this could have any impact on birth control?” Choose from the following:

    A) First time the subject came up.

    B) Not actually until a week before the election because it was a tough year and I had home repair issues to deal with.

    C) Some undetermined point between the day the amendment failed by 3 to 1 and, um, right this minute.

    Yes! In Gardner’s case the answer is C.

    1. h/t…… did cite Gail Collins first.  I didn't see it until after I posted about her column.  Sorry about that.

      I do like your reference to the Klingons decloaking behind the barn in the 4th C.D.!

  2. Please no more horsie! Once again, not relevant since Gardner continues to evade the questions instead of directly answering them. Does he or does he not consider that a fertilized egg is a human life that should be considered equal to any other living human in terms of rights under the law. Everything else flows from that and he just won't give an answer. Let him say…. I believe life begins at conception but that a fertilized egg should not have the same rights as a human who has been born if that's what he means. If that's not what he means than does he instead mean that life beginning at conception does logically require personhood with full rights from that point? It has to be one or the other. When he states which clearly, people can stop asking. We have the right to know before deciding how to vote.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

41 readers online now


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