CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 18, 2008 05:40 PM UTC
42 Comments
Vote No
an abortion of choice rights.
well put
Her way or the highway; reminds me of the Obamians.
I’m against.
reminds me of the Bush doctrine.
If it were the Bush doctrine, you could be jailed for just thinking about it.
If there’s one thing Obama is NOT – almost to a fault – it’s a “my way or the highway” kind of guy. I just did a google search of Obama and “my way or the highway” and it came up pretty much empty.
And so, apparently, is your Republican talking point.
go to legislative council page and preview the blue book:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS…
A Missouri law defined a person as beginning at conception and the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it was not compatible with Roe. It will take me forever to find the citation, but I am working on it.
The Republican strategy is not to have Roe overturned because the Court finds that a person existed from conception forward, but rather to overturn it on the issue of states’ rights. ..that the Court did not have jurisdiction to rule. The Republicans and most of their religious allies do NOT want to vote up or down on abortion…they want the issue to linger so that they can milk it for money and votes, indefinitely…..for that reason alone, I like the guts of this young woman promoting the ballot issue, she is calling their bluff..
My understanding is that if the Amendment passes and Roe is subsequently overturned and the issue turned over to the States, then, and only then, would abortion in Colorado be outlawed.
…that they are being played for fools by the Republican Party establishment? The R’s don’t want this amendment to pass. They want it on the ballot to try to “get out the vote” of people who will then reflexively vote for R candidates.
If abortion were ever actually outlawed, the R’s would lose this as a wedge / GOTV issue.
And, yes, I realize this is a rhetorical question.
I think this should be a clear cut one to reject. I’m not sure I even agree that it is good to vote on when we are willing to allow abortion. That isn’t something that should be decided by majority rule, it should be an individual right protected against majority intrusion.
I’m not sure how much impact it would really have if it passed as it would likely face an immediate legal challenge and the court would be able to easily overturn it as unconstitutional, but that wouldn’t justify passing it.
Yes it’s a moral choice, and a very very difficult one with no clear answer and everyone having a different opinion.
Yet many of our laws are moral choices including illegal drugs and even no public nudity. And on these questions people differ.
Because it is such a difficult moral choice and because it is so very important to so many people, it by definition is a political decision that should heavily involve the voters of the state.
It is precisely those moral decisions which should NOT be decided by the voters of the state. A civil right should never be subject to majority rule. That is the very essence of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights….see my previous 800 postings on this issue.
Yes, civil rights should be in the constitution. But they get there via the ballot box.
And for the question of abortion, it’s not a yes/no question, it’s how far into the pregnacy is it legal. And medical advancements impact that.
This is a question we as a society need to discuss and via the ballot box find the point at which it will be legal. I don’t say compromise or consensus because what ever point we do vote in, many will be fundamentally at odds with it.
But I do think we need to determine this via the democratic process.
David, I feel sure you don’t really believe that women have abortions in the 9th month just because “they feel like it.” Late abortions only happen in the most tragic of circumstances–and there are only a couple of doctors in the whole country who perform them for serious reasons. Would you deny a woman with an aggressive form of cancer life-saving but toxic chemotherapy if she were diagnosed at the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy? Do you think it’s good public policy to force a couple who learn their baby will be born without a brain to wait until 9 months of gestation is up before the inevitable happens? Don’t get me wrong–I’d never compel the women in these awful situations to have abortions. But I sure as hell think it’s none of the government’s business to interfere in these painful, personal family decisions. And I think you must agree with me in your heart of hearts.
My point was to bring up exactly what you said – you would support a law that said no abortions in the 9th month except for those extraordinary cases. I agree.
But we’re now having to draw a line somewhere because we agree that there is a point at which it is not ok, depending on the situation. And that’s not for you or me or a court to hand down – that’s for us as a society to work out.
In fact, he said:
Sounds to me like he does not think a law should be passed, and I totally agree with him. As progressive promoter points out these instances are rare and used out of necessity. Adding a layer of bureacracy should be antithetical to anyone who thinks the right to your own body with out government intervention is absolute.
If you mean the process to amend the federal constitution, I could not agree more. It would be within the framework of legislative debate on the amendment where such discussions should occur. There are no amendments, either pro-life or pro-choice, introduced in Congress. The amendment process is decided by legislative vote, the people’s representatives vote. It is not a direct ballot issue.
If you mean that every state should decide the issue for itself, then I disagree. Right now, the right to obtain an abortion in the first trimester are uniform across the fifty states because the right is secured by the Roe decision of the Supreme Court. It is a civil right. I disagree with the states’ rights argument because it would eliminate an individual civil right and turn it into a matter of states rights.
Not all civil rights come from the ballot; some come from Supreme Court decisions. For example, Miranda and the right to an attorney in criminal cases are uniform civil rights across the fifty state and derive from a Supreme Court decision. The right to obtain prescription contraceptives is uniform across the fifty states and comes from a famous Supreme Court decision. Interracial marriage or the right to marry someone, regardless of that person’s race, ethnic background or religion, is a uniform across the fifty states and comes from a Supreme Court decision… Anyone who thinks that that particular right could be secured by the ballot is blessed to have little or no contact with old white people, mainly from the South….
I think that if one could offer proof of having watched Law and Order for ten years, including reruns, one should be awarded a law degree. EVen if only for the purposes of this blog…I do NOT want to start another inane discussion of what is in the federal Constitution and what is not…please.
There are no amendments currently introduced in the United States Congress on this issue. But, the United States Congress is one place where such an amendment process could begin.
While I think abortion should be legal (and rare), I also think Roe v Wade should be overturned and the decision settled in the legislative process (state or federal).
My reasoning is at Overturn Roe v Wade
Gotta echo Dwyer here: For some people, interracial marriage is an immoral decision. For some people, using birth control is morally incorrect. These are civil rights secured through Supreme Court decisions, just as Roe established for women to have control over their own lives.
For that matter, there are racists who believe African-Americans should be second-class citizens because of hideous notions of “moral inferiority.” Just because there are people who view it as a moral issue doesn’t mean it should be a political decision.
Furthermore, isn’t legislating a ban on later abortions a solution looking for a problem? In theory, it’s fine with me that Roe articulates a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with exceptions for life and health of the mother. But nobody in their right mind would have a 9th month abortion unless there was a huge problem–it’s an expensive, complicated procedure that most have to fly across the country for. Since it’s not happening, what’s the point of passing laws governing it?
I agree these are difficult decisions. Never having been confronted with these choices, I’ve never occupied where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. But if I were, I think I’d want to weigh the options privately with my close family and our doctor, and not have to worry about the legal implications of those choices.
would be a better definition of the initiative.
The only purpose of this initiative is to excite those who celebrate Sarah Palin’s unwed pregnant teenage daughter as a model of sexual behavior because she “chose” to stay pregnant. It would take a whip to get them to the polls if the initiative was about protecting and educating our daughters so that they could grow up to become women before they became mothers. It’s a garbage amendment and it’s supporters are cynical anti-women frauds.
It’s obvious. Even Bob Schaffer is against it.
I thought he was simply waffling on taking a stand.
From the Rocky Mountain News
It would outlaw many forms of contraception as well as abortion to save the life of the mother. This is a position only the most radical anti-choice activists can be comfortable with.
If you believe that abortion to save the life of the mother is the right moral choice, vote No on 48.
they support an amendment that would kill mothers. They like fetuses more than adult people!
Of course, with Libertad, Bondo and Another Skeptic chiming in as conservative voices against the amendment already here, it may be that it’s already going down in flames.
especially when it’s against something as stupid as this.
of a poll I once saw:
When does life begin:
1) When sperm meets egg
2) Point at which the fetus can live outside the womb
3) Moment of Birth
4) At age 40
The age 40 response won overwhelmingly….
push the decision to the Supremes and get Roe v Wade overturned. The silly little twit who supposedly is the one responsible for this may be sincere but, if she really doesn’t, everyone else knows it’s far too broad with far too many bizarre potential consequences to survive five minutes without challenges that will send it through the court system.
I wonder if the backers are also praying for McSame to win and a non-far right justice or two to die really soon. I wonder if they expect better luck than they had with that deluge of biblical proportions that failed to materialize for Obama’s acceptance speech. Let’s make it a moot point by voting ‘No”.
You call McCain, “McSame”.
Does that mean I can again call Obama, “Hussein”?
I mean fair play and all, it is his god given name. Right?
McSame is really just a jab at a war hero.
Don’t know which non-sequitur to start with here. What anything you said, Gecko, has to do with ANYTHING being discussed here is beyond me. Guess you’ve really got nothing, huh?
If Bluecat were calling him “Sidney” why then yes–you should, by all means, also call Obama by his middle name.
McSame (I’ll just pretend you don’t understand and explain this to you) is used to link McCain to Bush, since he has voted with him 90% of the time during the Bush administration. Not a maverick. Just more of the same.
A war jab would go something like this (just for compare and contrast purposes):
“Wow, McCain couldn’t fly a plane for shit which explains why he got his ass shot down. Talk about an incompetent dumbass.”
Now, that would be a jab at a war hero.
See how that works?
Glad I could be here for ya, buddy.
someone who sold out whatever integrity he had to win a prize, embracing the man and the policies he once disdained. It has noting, nothing, nothing to do with his service. And I suspect that you know that, but having nothing else of value to point to, its all you can embrace about John Sidney McSame.
Couldn’t resist!
Bad piece of potential law anyway you look at it.
Just to inquire, since we’ve got a lot of new seeming conservatives here…
Are any of you in general anti-abortion with exceptions? And if so, does the absurdity of this bill change your opinion of how abortions are provided (i.e. not done as a normal hospital procedure but exiled to clinics…)?
Just say, “NO!” to Amendment 48 – the only state in the union to propose an assault on women. This too extreme.