(Beauprez's Todd Akin moment, this is a must-read – Promoted by Colorado Pols)
I wrote last week about gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez's comment, unchallenged by reporters, that he believes a governor has "very limited impact" on a woman's right to choose–even though he told Colorado Public Radio back in 2006 that he'd sign a bill outlawing abortion, if such a bill landed on his desk.
If you're a reporter, and you're inclined to sluff this off, because Beauprez isn't thumping his chest about banning abortion nowadays, you need to know more of what he said during that interview with CPR's Ryan Warner back in 2006.
You can read his exact words below, but, to summarize, he dismisses the notion of making abortion exceptions for rape an incest with, "No. No. I don't make exceptions for that."
He also said, specifically, that he'd support a law preventing a raped 16-year-old girl from having the right to choose abortion, saying pregnancies resulting from rape are "relatively few" and the "child" conceived by the rape should not be punished.
Here's a partial transcript of the interview:
HOST RYAN WARNER: Let’s start with abortion. As governor, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, would you sign a bill banning all abortions in Colorado?
BOB BEAUPREZ: As long as it protected the life of the mother, I would.
WARNER: Rape? Incest? Anything like that?
BEAUPREZ: No. No, I don’t make exceptions for that.
WARNER: Would you seek such a bill?
BEAUPREZ: Uhh, —
WARNER: Or would you sign it if it came to your desk.
BEAUPREZ: I believe that what happened up in — I believe it was North Dakota, or South Dakota –North, if I remember right.
WARNER: South Dakota
BEAUPREZ: South Dakota, excuse me. I thought that was a legitimate question to put in front of the people again. And I thought that’s what South Dakota did. If there was a move mood within the legislature, I’d, uh — I would applaud that.
WARNER: Let me give you what is admittedly an extreme hypothetical. A sixteen-year-old girl is raped. She and her parents want to get an abortion for her. They would pay for it, it wouldn’t be state dollars. You would support a law preventing her from getting an abortion under those circumstances?
BEAUPREZ: Yes, and I’ll tell you very simply why.
BEAUPREZ: I don’t think it’s the child’s fault. And I think we either protect life — all life, especially the most innocent of life — or we don’t. The situations of rape or incest, and pregnancies resulting from, are relatively few. And I think, unfortunately, what we have done, sometimes, is use rather what we think of as extreme exceptions, to justify a carte blanche abortion policy that has resulted in– well in excess, as I understand it, of a million abortions a year in our nation. Tragically, I think, in some of our ethnic communities we’re seeing very, very high percentages of babies, children, pregnancies, end in abortion. And I think it’s time that we have an out in the open discussion about what that means.
WARNER: Do you know which ethnic communities, in particular?
BEAUPREZ: I’ve seen numbers as high as 70% –maybe even more– in the African American community, that I think is just appalling. And I’m not saying that it’s appalling on them. I’m saying it’s appalling that something is happening to encourage that. Frankly, it raises another question, you know? Do we think it is okay that that many African American babies aren’t allowed to be born and live an otherwise normal life and reach the blessings, the fullness of the American Dream. I think those are very serious, very intense, very personal questions that a society such as ours ought to ponder. [BigMedia Note, After being called out by MediaMatters of Colorado, Beauprez later admitted that his 70% figure was incorrect.]
WARNER: Do you believe the state has a role in preventing unwanted pregnancies?
BEAUPREZ: Yes. Yeah, and I’ve supported abstinence training, for example, which is very consistent with my belief and my background. I think that’s a very appropriate role. Some, certainly, their beliefs embrace birth control and the use of condoms. I think that kind of awareness is fine. I’ve got, you know, my own personal beliefs. But I think we need to — certainly need to provide that kind of education to people.
WARNER: Just to briefly–
BEAUPREZ: –especially to young people, I might add.
WARNER: On your personal beliefs, where do you stand on birth control and prophylactics?
BEAUPREZ: We don’t use them. I’m Catholic. And I’m Catholic by choice, and I embrace the teachings of my church, and so we’ve used what our church calls — and I think is widely recognized as ‘natural family planning’ It served me and my wife very, very well.
This interview is proof positive that reporters should ask Bob Beauprez to clarify, precisely, what kind of abortion restrictions (counseling, MRI's, hospital requirements, etc.) he'd impose in Colorado, if legislation, for example, requiring a woman to view an MRI of her fetus before being allowed to have an abortion, as passed in other states, is presented to him for his signature.
Jason you have a rather limited repetoire.
Abortion, media, personhood, media, repeat.
Here's a thought.
How about covering the effect of security issues such as ISIS coverage on the effectiveness of the War on Women for the Senate Dems?
That might require some thought.
Someone has an owie.
Thanks for the advice.
It's good advice, Jason, you shouldn't discount it. Democrats are beating a dead horse with the abortion issue. You've already won all the votes you're going to win with it. Is the fact that you can't talk about anything else just mean you have nothing else to talk about?
You mean like supporting the shutdown of the federal government ? No, I bet Cory doesn't want to talk about that.
Well, how about Cory being a puppet of the Koch brothers ? You think he'll want to discuss that ?
How about Cory's legislative record ?
How about his claim to have launched the renewable energy industry in Colorado when he did no such thing ?
Cory Gardner is like a buffet of lies and hypocricy. You can choose what you like.
Yes, he should discount it, with extreme prejudice. You're unbelievably simple-minded and arrogant. You and the other sh-thead are waaayyyy out of your depth.
We've no doubt you'll take it fully to heart, Jason, given its less-than-worthless "source."
Jackass, brain-dead Koch trolls attempting to lecture legitimate journalists. The world's finally gone mad.
Figure out where Beauprez stands on Transportation. He'll be happy someone asked him.
So what does ISIS or ISIL have to do with the Colorado gubernatorial race?
I think Mr. Salzman is just trying to point out that with Bob Beauprez there is no there there, i.e., gosh knows where he stands on pertinent issues, as he's hiding what is agenda is (stated so often in the past). It's all a charade. For him, the question is: Can he fool just enough of the people to get away with it?
It's like watching the old What's My Line TV game show. Will the real Bob Beauprez stand up. But Bob Beauprez is trying to hide the real Bob Beauprez…no there there.
Oh, I'm sure Beauprez will bring up Keystone in the next debate, you know, because so many Colorado jobs depend on it.
Plus, we really want our gas prices to go up due to Keystone to bail out the nearly-on-their-deathbed oil companies' profits.
As opposed to the geniuses at Redstate, who, when they're talking with each other, can admit that "Republicans say stupid stuff", and maybe even admit that the Q poll which showed the R candidates 10 point ahead was garbage.
Notably lacking was any real concern for the Iraqi refugees in Syria, or any policy concerns that might improve the daily lives of women; it was all spin and whether or not a line of attack is working. It was refreshingly honest, though – much more realistic about whether or not GOP candidates have a chance in battleground states. I guess it's only when you talk, or think you are talking with "libtards" that you all start lying and spinning.
As far as your critique of Jason's journalistic topics, that was a word salad with no dressing: "the effect of security issues such as ISIS coverage on the effectiveness of the War on Women for the Senate Dems".
WTF exactly does that mean?
I think it's still just misdirection, the magician's basic move.
"Hey, don't look at Cory Gardner's self-contradictory positions on abortion birth control, and personhood! Real women only care about ISIS!"
"Hey, don't look at 400,000 people marching for climate change in New York! Look at the tragedy of refugees in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, and blame Obama, because real environmentalists only care about ISIS!"
The risk you run when you try to deflect every conversation here onto ISIS is that Republicans are every bit as tangled up in contradiction on Middle East policy as are Democrats – probably because oil and military contracting corporations are pulling everybody's puppet strings in a nonpartisan manner.
There's plenty of blame to go around, and your best rising star candidates, i.e. Rand Paul, etc, are NOT hawks. I suggest that you make an attitude adjustment on ISIS if you want that to be a winning issue for you and yours.
BothWays is, arguably, a greater threat to a Colorado woman's right to choose than either Con Man or Mikey, at least in the short term.
DO NOT BE FOOLED, COLORADO WOMEN! These extreme right-wing Teabagger gits are a dagger aimed directly at the heart of YOUR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, and if you let these lying, two-faced jackals into office, you will rue the day!
I think it's really indicative of how much our state has changed. When you campare the campaign messaging and positions of the 2002 and 2006 governor races to this year's, it becomes clear that the state has moved significantly to the left. Some of those moves are better than others.
Andrew: "Jason, you have a rather limited repetoire." Moderatus: "Democrats are beating a dead horse with the abortion issue." Gents, let's ask our liberal friends to leave the room while we have a conservative-to-conservative talk. Me, I'm a life long traditional conservative Republican. I got my start in the fall of 1964 when, as a high school sophomore, I gave some of my hard-earned allowance and yard cutting income to the Goldwater campaign. Speaking of the late senator, the founder of the modern conservative movement, are you aware what he said about abortion ("it's not a conservative issue; it's a matter between a woman and her doctor"). Fast forward to 2014.
Two questions: do you agree that Colorado families have the right to make their own family planning decisions, within the confines of existing law? Or do you believe that those decisions should be made for familes by big government, powered by big religion? Do you believe that Colorado women of child bearing age have the same right, as men and other women, to make their own personal health care decisions, again within existing laws? Or should those intimate & personal decisions be made for them by big government and big religion?
Myself, I'm a firm believer in individual rights, freedom of conscience, and religious liberty. The law of the land is contained in some Supreme Court decisions, which I support because they emphasize individual freedom. I'll highlight the greatest one which religious zealots really want to overturn (hint: it's not Roe v. Wade). That decision, from 1965, is Griswold v. Connecticut. Check it out.
I am disappointed that some of our major Republican candidates (Beauprez, Gardner, Coffman in particular) disparage individual rights in favor of pandering to the zealots. I think Gardner and Coffman have much to offer (for me, Beauprez is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog). But because Gardner & Coffman take such a hard line against religious freedom, they can't earn my support, as a traditional conservative. And I applaud anyone; even liberals like Colorado Pols; for continuing to shine a light on their antics and agendas.
Regards, Conservative Head Banger
p.s. protect religious liberty. vote NO on 67 (personhood)
Nice post, C.H.B. Too bad it will fall, as always, upon deaf ears, blind eyes, closed minds, and lie-speaking-only tongues.
But they sure play a mean pinball!