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

50%↑

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 28, 2016 11:25 AM UTC

Expect Gardner to co-sponsor Life at Conception Act soon

  • 8 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Sen. Cory Gardner.
Sen. Cory Gardner.

Republican Sen. Cory Gardner spent a good chunk of his election campaign telling us that the Life at Conception Act was really nothing more than a symbolic statement, when, in fact, it is federal personhood legislation that would ban all abortion, even for rape.

Gardner infamously described the Life at Conception Act, which he co-sponsored, this way, despite widespread objections by reporters:

Gardner: “The federal act that you are referring to is simply a statement that I believe in life.”

So you’d expect him to co-sponsor the U.S. Senate version of the bill, as he did in the House.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has just given him the chance, having introduced the Life at Conception Act just this week, as announced in a news release that described the legislation this way:

Paul: “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known – that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way.”

But Gardner isn’t a co-sponsor yet.

Comments

8 thoughts on “Expect Gardner to co-sponsor Life at Conception Act soon

  1. This could be good news for Ted Cruz, birth certificates be damned …

    … maybe there's a motel-receipt record of where he was conceived ??

  2. Gawd.  Please give this one up.  Udall used this argument and lost.  He lost because he was tone deaf and because no one who matters in an election in this state understood the minute, ridiculous, stupid point he was trying to make.  Too cute by half.  Who gives a shit.  All of us on the inside knew where Cory stood.  No one else cared.  Get to issues that actually might win the Democrats some elections.

    1. I think you're wrong on this. Colorado has had the distinct and unique opportunity to vote on Eggmendments three times now, and each time they've voted it down resoundingly. Gardner was able to weasel out of his absolutist history against Udall and Udall's otherwise lackluster campaign (with the help of the Post), but a renewed record for an Eggmendment style act at the Federal level would re-establish Garner's credentials.

      The problem really is that Pols is pushing this before it's an actual story. The story here today is either that Sen. Paul is actually doing something in the Senate while Cruz and Rubio are out and about, or that he might actually force a vote Rubio at least would prefer not to be on the record with or against, at a time when it might make a difference.

      1. He and Rubio are both self described pro-life (meaning anti-choice) Republicans. If either or both support it that won't surprise anybody. If either or both declines as a result of a political calculation that won't surprise anybody. I'm just failing to find myself getting excited over will he or won't he. I'm also finding the "infamously" pretty over-stated since something has to be famous to be infamous and I hate to think how many Colorado voters I'd have to ask before running across one for whom this statement springs to mind at the mention of Cory Gardner. Infamous here at this site? Sure. But we really have to remember how unlike the general voting public political junkies are.

        It's always comforting to point out by what large margins personhood amendments are killed in the state of Colorado and to project from that sure defeat for anyone supporting state or federal personhood/life at conception legislation but it doesn't seem to work that way. If it did we wouldn't have any Republicans winning statewide.

         

         

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

43 readers online now

Newsletter

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