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%
January 23, 2013 08:31 AM UTC
6 Comments
There is irony in Sen. Renfroe’s polemics on “breathing” while he breathes through his mouth.
Renfroe’s part of an odd assortment of anti-choice zealots, some in politics, some not.
The schizophrenic nature of his ilk is worth paying attention to, mainly because people like these see a fetus as sacrosanct, a born child as not so much. It’s an odd way to look at life, with protection of an unborn child, no matter the week of pregnancy, as a higher priority than either the life of the mother OR the safety, well being, or prospects of the baby once born.
Renfroe’s against the social safety net. As with most teabaggers, this hypocrite has zero empathy for a family of 7 that’s not as fortunate and well off as his.
Renfroe waxes about the breaths not taken by aborted children. To date he’s adopted no children, hasn’t been part of any legislative attempts to give a child born into abject poverty a shot at a decent life like his, and is even against contraception.(2010 session HB10-1021…”No”).
The guy’s the type of twisted loon that drives you crazy. No contraception, no womens’ reproductive choices. But when the baby’s born, “you’re on your own”.
He’s Jo Scott without the lipstick. (I’m guessing he doesn’t wear lipstick).
At the heart of it is anti-intectuallism and ignorance. And as you point out, hypocrisy.
That poll is not the first time that a poll has shown majority support for legal abortion. The fact is that in 40 years the numbers have never changed, no matter what the lazy main stream media and the anti-choicers would have you believe. There has always been about 55% support for abortion in all or most cases. The numbers have fluctuated between the two, but the two have always added up to 55%. There has always been 35% for rape, incest, fetal deformity. These people are really pro-choice. On this the anti-choice mob and I agree. There has always been 10% in favor of a no exceptions ban. There has always been 70% who don’t want to overturn Roe. I remember a national poll taken for The Republican Coalition for Choice in the early 1990’s when I was on the National Board. It showed exactly these numbers and it showed that a majority of Republicans favored keeping Roe. The Board (with me voting no) changed its name to the Republican Majority for Choice.
The only, only, only time that polls have ever shown lack of a majority for choice is when the three part question is asked namely, always, in some cases, never. Only in these cases have they shown less than a majority, but they have shown the same number for always, in the low 40’s. The problem with the three part question is that it gives those of us who say that a girl in a prom dress shouldn’t be able to abort after the sixth month a hobson’s choice in choosing an answer. Some of us drop off to the “in some cases” answer.
Please don’t misread this poll or misremember the past. There has always been a majority for choice when the four part question is asked.
I really appreciate your detailed.post.
I’m just taken aback by one part.
.Are you saying that in that you believe you have the right to call the shots, make decisions, lay down the law, run the show, for “that girl in the prom dress after the sixth month”.?
Are you going to adopt the child?
Are you going to do everything to give that child a fair shot at life once that child is born?
What I’m getting at here, and I apologie if I’m misreading you, is that you would prefer to be privelidged to interfere in another person’s decision making process, in spite of Roe, depending on another person’s “circumstances”.
That you’re the moral compass.
Even if it’s 1 out of 100 cases, if you think you have any right to run somebody else’s show, you’re anti choice.
Best case scenario, if you want to punish this girl in a prom dress, that’s a demon you have to work out yourself, but if that’s your gig, at least clean up the mess you just caused by adopting the baby.
Or……………mind your own business, let the girl in the prom dress and hopefully her family handle their situation.
Again, if I misread you, I’m sorry.
This is what Al Bundy would be as a politician. NO MA’AM!