U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 08, 2008 09:40 PM UTC
46 Comments
The odds of this amendment passing are slightly less than the odds of the Rockies repeating as NL champs.
PsychoBob Enyart rails against Schaffer for not supporting amendment 48. Here he also calls for the death penalty for women who get abortions.
Go to 3:50 cuz its tedious to listen to the rest of it.
can we send him duck hunting with Dick Cheney?
“Colorado Media Matters reports”…
Talk about a biased agenda trying to be passed off as “journalism.”
I’m voting Yes on Amendment 48 because I believe that abortion is an unparalleled evil.
The murder of unborn children is a stain upon our national conscience of this country.
Of course my bet is that Media Matters believes that conscience is just another invention of Karl Rove. (For the record, Rove is a bum.)
The only valid criticism I have with Burton, is that she comes off as a GOP-apologist too much.
for women who take the morning after pill? 5 – 10 years in prison?
most forms of birth control pills would be considered murder should this pass as they prevent implantation of the fertilized egg.
And hell, why stop there? Let’s just pass a law declaring every sperm sacred (as a potential life) and start prosecuting young men when they have nocturnal emissions….
as I see it is control. This is a crusade to control the uncontrollable. I love Burton’s doublespeak about “letting the voters decide” and how she hijacks the libertarian slogan that “we are able to govern our own lives without government interference.”
Barf.
This amendment is the ultimate interference and she knows it.
Hey Kristi: lying is a sin. Stop sinning.
to kill immortal sperm, Arvadonian. Now, “self-abuse” … that’s murder one in my book. Probably even genocide, considering that millions of the pre-born buggers can be sacrificed on the altar of a single Playboy centerfold.
Nobody reads the articles in the dead tree version of Playboy anymore. It’s all about the Internet now!
And somehow, the image of Onan spilling his seed on a keyboard is revolting. Not very good for the keyboard, either.
if a “nocturnal emission” occurs, it is apparent that it was precipitated by impure thoughts…Satin’s playground!
Gather up your marbles and try again, Captain America. Who is “passing off” Colorado Media Matters research as “journalism?” Do you have any idea what you’re even talking about?
The Colorado Media Matters item sufimarie cited in her post notes specifically that in her canned op-ed pieces in the Rocky and Post, Ms. Burton makes the amazing claim that her proposed constitutional amendment does not change the constitution. A reading of Amendment 48 quickly shows that to be a lie.
What part of her statement do you not see as inaccurate? It’s not a question even related to abortion, it’s a question of Ms. Burton’s ability to stick to facts in making her argument.
Amendment 48 is heavily flawed, but arguments of this sort do nothing to point out the flaws of the amendment. Worse, this whole line of argument is blatantly ad Hominem. Kristi Burton, for all we know, could be a genuinely nasty sort of person and, for all we know, could know nothing about science. Who cares? — she’s not running for office, and none of that really has anything to do with whether Amendment 48 should be part of the Colorado constitution. Arguments like this actually do nothing but undermine the many very serious problems that exist in the language of Amendment 48.
The argument that the amendment is “religiously based” is also weak. First off, arguments like that have to be proven, there’s no “guilt by association” allowed here. There’s nothing in the amendment itself that anywhere mentions religion in any form. The argument again smacks of ad Hominem because presumably the sponsor is religious. The implication, of course, being that religious people have no right to propose amendments, which is nonsense. Attacking the amendment because of the sponsor’s religious views again undermines the very real, legal problems with this amendment.
Actually, Kristi’s claim about the beginning of human life is very likely correct in the sense that human life does “begin” at conception. If not conception, I would have a tough time thinking of another point at which human life begins.
Her argument about the beginning of human life is flawed not really in a scientific sense, but rather in the next step of her reasoning. She claims that the fact that human life begins at conception means that “personhood” in the legal definition of the word should begin at at the moment of conception. These are two entirely different questions, and I seriously question the link that Kristi is trying to make between the two.
Here it is.
Their premise that life begins at fertilization is a religious argument. They are borrowing “science” when it is convenient to them.
These are the same people who deride evolution and global warming as pseudo-science.
If the earth is only 6,000 years old and global warming is a result of cyclical weather changes, exactly how many cycles has the 6,000 year old earth seen in its history?
…or is this another one of those tests like dinosaur bones?
Claims that the argument is religious is, once again, a distraction from the real issue and a fallacious way to argue the point.
You could just as easily claim that statewide bans on the death penalty are “religious” because the Roman Catholic church holds the death penalty as immoral. Or that some anti-death penalty activists are Roman Catholic nuns or priests. It’s simply an irrelevant argument what the religious views of the sponsors of the bill are.
As I said, there are a hundred excellent reasons to oppose this amendment. The religious views of the sponsor are not one of them.
Don’t you know about the separation of church and state?
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with it. There are many issues of policy that religious people or even religious groups like the Roman Catholic Church might weigh in on. That’s their right as citizens of this country.
Are you really saying that the religious views (or lack thereof) of a private citizen should be held as the criteria for whether or not an amendment has merit?
That’s nonsense. If you oppose the amendment, then you have to oppose it on its merits (or lack thereof, in this case). Complaining that the sponsors are “religious” is irrelevant.
are most assuredly part of this conversation. She is trying to amend the constitution to fit it into her idea of how people should live their lives.
If she was running for office, you would have a point, but she wrote the amendment, and is a massive part of why it is even being considered by the voters in November.
Her religious views were the guiding force in the language of the amendment. Therefore they are fair game, and not ad hominem.
Actually, I’d say the opposite. If she was running for office, then her overall religious views would be more relevant than they are in this case.
The fact is that this is a flawed amendment, even if you are pro-life, because legally having personhood begin at conception is not something that can be established as a matter of law without serious negative consequences.
If you wanted to go the route of arguing religion here (and I think that’s a weak argument), you’d have to prove that whatever influences that religion may have had on the amendment would lead to it being poor policy. Just pointing out that the supporters are religiously motivated is not enough. After all, religious people tend to be on the forefront of the death penalty debate as well. And on many other issues as well.
If you’re able to point out the problems, then you might as well just point out the policy flaws of the bill and forget about whether or not they were influenced by religion or not.
That’s why I say that the relgion angle a weak one, and undermines the whole case. Try explaining to a religious person that they’re not allowed to have an opinion on policy because they’re religious. See how far that gets you.
The backers of this amendment subscribe to dogma that has a long and undeniable history of forcing unrealistic and destructive beliefs on populations.
I’m sure you’re right about that.
In which case, it should be very easy to show that their amendment should be rejected based on its (lack of) merits. And it turns out, it’s quite easy to show that Amendment 48 is riddled with problems without having to bring religion into it. And because of that, it’s going to go down in flames by a wide margin.
for each informed person to make. I see your point that religious history doesn’t need to be brought into it but as a compassionate person interested in the big picture, I consider it to be important and I won’t concede that uncovering the motives of its supporters doesn’t have to do with the keeping the best interest of separation of church and state in mind.
Even religious leaders attest to the fact that the claim of life beginning at fertilization is a religious one.
Yes the focus should stay on the legal effects amendment 48 would cause and the most depressing fallout from its cause is that there is a gray area in which every single person lives that and this amendment is absurdly attempting to label it black and white.
There are loads of problems with Amendment 48, whether it be the fact that all hormonal birth control will be banned, or all abortions, or IVF, or miscarriages could be criminally investigated, those are the arguments that should be driving the discussion. Really there are a ton of arguments that should lead. Once those are discussed, it becomes somewhat obvious that extremists are pushing hard for this amendment.
I agree that the proponents ties to extreme groups like the american life league are certainly not irrelevant, but they are more of a fourth tier argument. Indeed, focus on the real implications of the amendment and people will know who is pushing this and for what reasons.
Kristi is presenting the argument that because life begins at conception, personhood should also. She has put the proposition in front of the voters and is attempting to persuade them. Good for her.
The arguments in roe v wade were the last gasp of scholastic medieval thinking. Which went something like this:
There is no scientific merit, at all, to this argument.
Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological one. There is absolutely no biological milestone, prior to first breath which makes the fetus independent of the mother and renders the argument mute, which would indicate a person exists. Personhood is conferred by the electorate.
It is an arbitrary decision..(.although the Declaration of Independence does assert something about inalienable rights.)
There is no biological definition of a soul. There is no biological way to determine if an entity has a soul. There is no place in our legal system to deal with souls or “ensouling.”
I am not going to vote for 48 because I think the issue is a federal one, not a state issue. I think that there are real negative consequences. if it were to pass. But, this young lady is on strong ground. Her arguments are logical. The science she cites does not support personhood. It does support that human life begins at conception, which is what she is arguing.
So, again, gentlemen, cut the crap. Deal with the issue, if you can. If not, leave the young lady alone.
sufimarie is a woman, so referring to her as a “gentleman” is probably not a good idea.
I generally dislike Ms. Burton, but your point is well taken dwyer. I’ll stay away from the personal attacks regarding A-48.
so again, ladies and gentlemen, cut the crap.
that you were lost before Media Matters?
Fofi says that in Colorado the “entity or person or whatever you call it” doesn’t aquire legal rights until they are walking around.
Most people don’t learn to walk until about age 1. Apparently these non-entities never aquire legal rights if somehow they are born unable to walk.
Interesting…
Where did you get that? Link to your claim.
That you would even mention that is absurd and a desperate attempt. Pathetic.
She believes that when you support a candidate you support every part of every stance and agree with every person’s actions and positions that supports the same candidate. I like to source, but there’s too much to support, take a look at her collective comments for proof.
Here’s Hilary making some very good points about abortion and the fight to make it unnecessary, but not illegal.
Nancy accidentally inherited a reasonable position.
The link was provided by ummmm sufimarie actually. That would be you.
I watched the full debate between Kristi and Fofi. That is what Fofi said.
I didn’t comment on it. I just said interesting position.
And as for abortion rights. I am firmly in favor of abortions in every form. Empowerment of women is more important then life itself.
I thought I already laid out my position on this issue.
In fact men have absolutely no say in this debate at all. None. So don’t even go there with me buster.
Abortion is a great birth control method and should even be used in selectively picking out the features you want most in your children.
Abortion gives natural selection a helping hand and will improve the human race in the long run. If we want to evolve as the human race abortion must remain legal.
and I’m not going to touch the rest of what you say except that I think its odd.
Fofi said when they are living, breathing and walking. Not out of context. Fact.
Sufimarie? When does a person become a person? That is a good question.
But I am curious what you think sufimarie. When should we consider someone a person?
That was easy for you. Interesting.
You should be an Obama advisor.
the amendment refers to those “born”
It’s comments like the one above that lead me to believe Nancy L Baldwin is male, and probably under age 18. I just can’t see any women writing the above, regardless of political outlook, and even if just trying to be outrageous.
Anyways, please don’t feed the troll.
you sound pretty foolish on this issue. And since he doesn’t have a clue either – better to define me as something other then a person. Define me as a “Troll” – then you can dismiss me without answering the obvious question.
When should somebody be defined as a person?
David??
“Troll, troll – I don’t talk to trolls and neither should anyone else.”
There!
you aren’t serious and you are very odd and your strategy is pocked with fail.
Frankly, I don’t think Fofi goes far enough. Simply walking around is not good enough (almost any 1 year old child can do that!) to define somebody as a person.
A person should be defined as someone who is able to intelligently argue when they became a person. Therefore David Thi is NOT a person and should be terminated at will.