(Promoted by Colorado Pols)
“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).
I don't envy reporters who are trying to uncover the logic in gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez's decision to withdraw his support for personhood at the state level but to continue backing federal personhood legislation, even though state and federal personhood laws would do the exact same thing: ban all abortion, even for rape and incest.
In a post yesterday, Denver Post reporter John Frank tried to unravel Beauprez's logic, and he made some headway, reporting that Beauprez apparently believes his abortion stance is irrelevant, because federal law is all that matters regarding abortion, and Beauprez won't "deny what the law provides you."
Beauprez: “The governor has very limited impact on what is really the federal law. Democrats always bring it up because they don’t want to talk about the economy or education or about transportation,” he said. “I don’t know where it is an issue in this campaign.”
Tell that to women and others in Texas, where a state law, under review now by federal judges, could reduce the number of abortion clinics statewide from 41 to just seven or eight–and Texas has over 5 million women of reproductive age.
In the more friendly territory of Colorado, a personhood abortion-ban bill was introduced just last year. What if control of the legislature changed, the bill were passed, and it landed on Beauprez's desk? What about a bill requiring counseling prior to having an abortion or multiple trips to a clinic?
The Guttmacher Institute has a depressing chart that reporters covering Beauprez might want to take a look at, summarizing the 9 categories of state laws restricting abortion.
One category of state laws is "State-Mandated Counseling:"
17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes
information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (5 states), the
ability of a fetus to feel pain (12 states) or long-term mental health consequences for the woman (8 states).
Waiting periods in ten states effectively require women to make two trips to a clinic prior to having an abortion. Some states mandate abortions to be performed by a licensed doctor at a hospital or at a clinic with full surgical capabilities.
Colorado is obviously less restrictive than many states when it comes to abortion, allowing it throughout pregnancy, and the state Leg is controlled by pro-choice Democrats. But it's not crazy to point out that this could change. It's fair to say it's not likely, but it could happen.
So reporters should correct Beauprez when he says, when it comes to abortion, a governor has "very limited impact on what really is the federal law" and a women's right to choose is the "law of the land."
Beauprez: "Some like me are personally pro-life, but I’m not going to deny what the law provides you.”
But Governors change laws. Which ones on the Guttmacher chart would he sign?
Here's where Bob Beaupez stands on transortation, in case you are as unaware as I was:
Can we talk about something else now? Like personhood?
Both Con Man Cory and BWB want to convince fencesitters that their support for Federal Personhood makes them "mostly harmless", you know, just like the scorpion and the frog.
http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheScorpionandtheFrog
Actually I agree with BWB that focusing only on state and federal personhood amendments does give the impression that Dems are afraid to go toe to toe with Rs on the economy, transportation and, to lesser degree, education because that does get mentioned. Regardless, it's stupid of Dems to run from these issues as the Rs have a record of failure on all of them where the Dems have a much better record, including lots of unarguable success stories.
So now that the low info women know where BWB and Gardner really stand on their right to make their own decisions on family planning and where they stand on access to quality reproductive as well as basic healthcare, please Dem candidates. Take up the challenge on economic and all other big issues. Your ideas are better. Theirs have a proven record of failure.
Also, please remember that factual ads with unpleasant facts aren't negative campaign ads . If the negative facts are accurate, ads that detail them are simply providing info. If that info makes Republicans look like they're sticking to discredited policies, policies with a record of failure, like austerity and trickle down to revive a consumer economy (Seriously? How does that make any sense on any level and how long have all the stats disproved those approaches?), so be it.
There's a reason why the Rovians want to create their own reality and why they believe facts have a liberal bias. Tell the voters the truth about all the big issues. It's on your side.
Is there anyone out there in COPolsland who can enlighten me on how the two candidates differ on transportation?
Would Beauprez have done anything different here?
Here's Bob Beauprez on transportation:
I think BWB would have signed it, then vetoed it.
His stance on partnerships is covered in this article. It includes a bit on supporting a "more transparent" projects, but who knows what that actually means. As noted here, Hick did implement the bill's transparency ideas but didn't like the legislative approval process. My guess is that BWB would not like that part either (nor would most governors).
I'm still waiting for Bob Beauprez's hard-hitting ad attacking Hickenlooper on transportation.
Hey–he's the one who brought it up!
Why aren't the "counseling sessions" compelled government speech, in violation of the Fist Amendment? Especially the discredited link with breast cancer? The only link between terminating a pregnancy and breast cancer is that the longer a woman's body avoids ovulation the lower her cancer rate. So, theoretically, the more time she spends pregnant or lactating, the lower her risk.
Sounds like the brain police to me. I thought righties didn't like the government indoctrinating people.
As usual, CoPols misses the point.
so what some never was, never gonna be has been thinks boo about anything. Of course what this guy thinks is irrelevant. Both ways who?