Would Coors co-sponsor federal personhood bill currently endorsed by 111 Congresspeople?

12 Comments

by: Jason Salzman

(The real question is, why wouldn’t he? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

ColoradoPols broke the news last month that congressional candidate Joe Coors gave $1,000 to Personhood Colorado, in support of its efforts to pass a personhood amendment in 2010.

A handful of news outlets subsequently reported the Coors donation, but it appears no one has asked personhood activists about Coors and his support of their effort. You’d assume the personhood folks would welcome his support because Coors could become a key ally.

If Coors is elected to Congress, he could put his vote where his money is. And, presumably, where his mouth has also been.

Coors could join the 111 U.S. Representatives who’ve co-sponsored legislation that would define “person” under the 14th Amendment to include zygotes. If passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, any of these bills would make personhood national law–or at least set a court battle with an unknown outcome. (Due to unusual language in the 14th Amendment, a more complicated process, involving approval by state legislatures, is not required to amend the 14th Amendment.)

I know it’s not likely that these bills would become law, but I’ve lost count of the unlikely things that have happened in American politics over the last two years. So, given the seriousness of the bills, which would outlaw forms of contraception as well as abortion, they should be taken seriously.

Yet, no reporter has asked Coors if he’d co-sponsor these bills. It’s obviously fair and important question.

Asked about Coors, Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia-Jones told me via email, “Joe Coors did donate to the Personhood amendment in Colorado in the past. I have not personally met Joe Coors, but I have heard that he is supportive of Personhood as he is pro-life.”

Garcia Jones wrote that he welcomes the continued support of Coors, just as he “would welcome all support, whether wealthy and powerful or poor and humble.”

Coors is battling Matt Ball in the GOP primary, to be held in June, for the opportunity to challenge U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter. Ball is kicking off his campaign tomorrow at Front Range Community College.

12 thoughts on “Would Coors co-sponsor federal personhood bill currently endorsed by 111 Congresspeople?”

BlueCat says:

February 24, 2012 at 9:52 pm

Very nice people. Joe’s a nice guy, not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. I’m sure he thinks he sincerely believes all the rightie nonsense. Don’t let him anywhere near an elected position, though. Rotary Club or something seems more his speed.

Log in to Reply
1. ArapaGOP says:
  
  February 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
  
  The problems Pols warns of are fiction. Has support for his principles hurt Cory Gardner? Notice how they don’t talk about Gardner in relation to Personhood, because Gardner screws up Democrat talking points.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. breatheandreboot says:
    
    February 25, 2012 at 12:07 am
    
    Why not mention Lamborn? What the hell do you have against Cadman? McNulty?
    
    Many Republicans have non-mainstream views on personhood. Good for them, standing for their principles. Buck did, too. It didn’t work so well for him. Why? Because Buck had to run all over the state. Coors is not, nor is he running in CD5. He’s running in CD7. Do you know how well “personhood” does in CD7? See, representatives are elected to represent their constituents to the best of their ability. Like it or not, “personhood” issues have become a kind of litmus test in all elections. So since CD4 is not in CD7, by definition, the two really have nothing to do with each other.
    
    Added to the fact that Pols did not write this diary and that no one warned of any problems makes me think that you: can’t read, are horribly confused, are stupid, and/or can’t stop yourself spouting nonsense under your impostor handle. Next time add something about the Keystone Pipeline, or how Obama is a Muslim. It doesn’t add credibility, but it does add a sense of completeness in the ridiculous.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. DaftPunk says:
      
      February 25, 2012 at 1:11 am
      
      You can damn well bet that IE groups will target Gardner for Personhood, defund Planned Parenthood, eliminate Title X, etc.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. breatheandreboot says:
        
        February 25, 2012 at 1:25 am
        
        But it didn’t hurt Gardner last go ’round. Noticeably. I think that’s what the shill was getting at. Maybe. Faux-GOP seems scattered.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        BlueCat says:
        
        February 25, 2012 at 5:07 am
        
        You’ll notice his comment is a reply to me which has nothing to do with my comment. He just sees what the general subject is and uses it as an excuse to spout a talking point du jour that may or may not have anything to do with anything. Also, as with all the rightie talking points there is no effort to maintain any kind of internal consistency. Let’s say Rs like something one week, then Dems say, so do we. Rs suddenly don’t like it, never liked it and if you find video of them saying they liked it, you’re the one who’s a liar. Scattered and self contradictory is pretty much their thing.
        
        Now have a nice weekend, all. I think I’m making progress toward getting off the top (in quantity, that is) 10 list for commenting.
        
        Log in to Reply
dwyer says:

February 25, 2012 at 7:30 am

Due to unusual language in the 14th Amendment, a more complicated process, involving approval by state legislatures, is not required to amend the 14th Amendment.)

That is an assertion, never legally proven. You have just accepted the premise of the far right that opts to destroy the protection of the 14th Amendment.

who told you the above? Or, do you just accept whatever boyles tells you. Because this is one of his favorite talking points…along with a person has to be the child of two US citizens in order to be a “natural born citizens.”

Log in to Reply
1. Ralphie says:
  
  February 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. dwyer says:
    
    February 26, 2012 at 3:08 am
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Jason Salzman says:
  
  February 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm
  
  You’re right, I should have attributed that to a lawyer.
  
  But the 14th Amendment the 14th Amendment, Section 5, states:
  
  “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
  
  If a law changing the definition of a person cleared Congress and were signed by the President, then we’d have a court battle. That’s what the experts I’ve contacted say anyway.
  
  Log in to Reply
thiokuutoo says:

February 25, 2012 at 9:58 am

have to be in a separate test tube To keep them from marrying?

Log in to Reply
1. Prophet says:
  
  February 29, 2012 at 5:12 pm
  
  I can’t wait to see the GOP give talking points on zygote marriage.
  
  Log in to Reply