Definitely not what GOP Rep. Ken Summers, candidate for the Colorado Senate in the key SD-22 battleground district, wants suburban women to see in their mailbox today:
This mailer from the independent Coalition for Colorado’s Future attacks Summers for his support, as confirmed in a 2008 Rocky Mountain News candidate questionnaire discussed in this space recently, for Amendment 48–the first of the failed “Personhood” abortion ban initiatives on Colorado’s statewide ballot. As everyone even remotely conversant in our state’s politics knows, the “Personhood” initiative would have banned abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and has become singularly toxic to Colorado Republican candidates who embraced it.
Needless to say, this mailer could be a serious problem for Summers’ SD-22 bid, one of the most evenly-balanced and competitive Senate districts in the state. Coming right after Summers’ idiotic remarks questioning President Barack Obama’s status as a “true American,” which received damaging coverage in the Denver paper this weekend, there’s a growing body of evidence to disabuse SD-22 voters of the idea that Summers is a rational choice for this Senate seat.
But for Democrats, “Personhood” is truly the gift that keeps on giving.
Full story: Ken Summers Slammed By Hard-Hitting “Personhood” Mailer
It’s disgusting for two reasons. First, it’s not true. In 2007, Ken Summers voted for the bill to require emergency contraception for rape victims. Look it up, SB 07-060.
Second, Summers is not a hard core right winger. He’s voted with Dems on lots of bills, and this is how the 527s repay him. Nobody even likes Andy Kerr.
Not to worry though, the ad is so over the top that nobody will believe it anyway. It will go right into the trash with the rest of the political hate mail they get.
Personhood bans abortion in cases of rape and incest. It doesn’t matter if sometime BEFORE he supported Amendment 48 that he supported something else. You can’t get a little bit pregnant, and you can’t support a constitutional amendment with personal exceptions. The Colorado constitution makes none.
As to the rest of your blather, like MADCO says.
…before he was against it.
The actual text from the candidate questionnaire reads differently.
First he was wrongly attacked for out of context remarks in a private meeting. Now you’re wrongly holding an initiative Summers did not write and only conditionally supported against him. This is not illuminating, it’s nothing but a cheap smear campaign like Colorado Pols and their Democrat allies pull every election! Don’t be fooled.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is there a Ken Summers exception in the constitution? If the Personhood amendment Summers supported had passed, would Summers be able to get a “condition” added? If that like the “Ken Summers Can Take it Back” provision?
It’s amazing the stupid shit you write sometimes. Seriously.