Nothing Learned: House GOP Introduces 2014′s Abortion Ban Bill

UPDATE: Karen Middleton of NARAL Pro Choice Colorado weighs in:

“It’s bad enough that this bill puts politicians and government in between Colorado women, their families, and their physicians, something Colorado voters have repeatedly rejected at the ballot box,” said Karen Middleton, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. “This bill could result in jailing doctors. A Class 3 felony is a minimum 4-12 year sentence.”

“This bill is  an insult to Colorado women and Colorado physicians, and out of touch with Colorado voters. Too many of our politicians still don’t get it,” Middleton concluded.

—–

A metaphor.

A metaphor.

Making even many Republican strategists cringe, while Democrats marvel at their good luck–a press release moments ago from the Colorado House Democratic Majority announces House Bill 14-1133, a bill sponsored by a large group of Republican lawmakers that very straightforwardly makes abortion a class 3 felony:

Rep. Humphrey’s bill, HB14-1133, would ban abortions in Colorado. It was  introduced today with  the cosponsorship of Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso (R-Loveland) and Reps. Perry Buck (R-Windsor), Justin Everett (R-Littleton), Chis Holbert (R-Parker), Lois Landgraf (R-Colorado Springs), Daniel Nordberg (R-Colorado Springs), Kevin Priola (R-Henderson), Lori Saine (R-Dacono), Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling), Spencer Swalm (R-Centennial) and Jared Wright (R-Fruita). 

The Humphrey bill says anyone who performs an abortion in Colorado commits a Class 3 felony, making no exception in cases of rape or incest. It would ban all forms of pregnancy termination, including Plan B, the “morning-after pill.” The bill also defines life at conception and would ostensibly establish “personhood” in Colorado’s statutes…

“Been there, done that,” Rep. Court said. “Colorado is not going to deny a woman’s right to choose or allow the government to meddle in the private relationship between a woman and her doctor. And similar measures in other states have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional. The sponsors of these bills are setting a new standard for being out of touch.” 

Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Lakewood) pointed to statewide votes in 2008 and 2010 in which Coloradans decisively rejected proposed constitutional amendments to ban abortion. 

“Colorado is clearly a pro-choice state,” she said. “Rep. Humphrey and a large group of House Republicans are trying to overturn the verdict of the voters. The GOP just doesn’t get it.” 

“Colorado Republicans push extreme positions that disrespect the women of our state and trample on their freedoms,” Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D-Boulder) said. “And then those same Republicans wonder why they lose elections.” [Pols emphasis]

Here's the text of the abortion ban bill as introduced. In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by Sens. Scott Renfroe, Kevin Grantham, Ted Harvey, Kent Lambert, Kevin Lundberg, Vicki Marble, and Mark Scheffel

If you were wondering if perhaps Republicans might be thinking a little more strategically about this year's elections in light of perceived Democratic weakness, and as a result maybe considering some moderation, affected or otherwise, to maximize their chances with swing voters…well, you can stop wondering.

It appears, at long last, that they just can't help themselves.

29 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DawnPatrol says:

    Like shooting fish in a barrel, only these fish are really, REALLY dumb.

    Love it when the enem — er, opposition, rolls over on its back for us like this.

     

    • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

      Minor quibble- this is not like shooting fish in a barrel which sort of gives the fish a sporting chance. This is more like fishing for them in the barrel with Dupont spinners( ask a Vietnam vet about the term).I sometimes wonder whether the harder core or headed Republicans don't introduce things knowing they have no chance just to create some thing to complain about.

    • Progressicat says:

      It seems to me more like walking up to a barrel full of fish, dropping in a gun and some rounds, and having the fish load the gun and shoot themselves.

  2. Meiner49erMeiner49er says:

    Times like this, I don't know whether to cry, or jump for joy at the way I'm represented by Mrs. Buck and Mr. Lundberg!

  3. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    Gee. What have I learned from this bulletin? It's an election year, and the Republicans bag of tricks is empty. They got nothin', so they're recycling bills! Now, if we could just get them to do that with their newspapers and soda cans.

  4. dustpuppydustpuppy says:

    Why do Republican women even exist? It is now an oxymoron. These actual women are hags in disguise.

    They are not terribly bright people by a long shot.

    I would favor an amendment to declare that Colorado is firmly pro-choice and any attempts to say otherwise is legally and forever barred from breathing our air and ask that they bring their own oxygen. We don't need the disease to be spread out. Fundamentalism is dying now and they're trying to grasp their own selfish needs.

    • Progressicat says:

      Why do gay Republicans exist, or Republicans of color, or rural white Republicans for that matter.  Some because they believe the lie that the crumb they get is what they deserve, rather than a piece of the cake.  Some because they believe they "got out" because they were so good, not so very lucky.  Some because they think identifying with the party of "fiscal responsibility" is more important than identifying with the party of wanting them to live free and happy, secure in their right to be themselves.  Some because they believe that their bodies are intended by God as vessels for the fruit planted by those they submit to, rather than intended as vessels for expression and pursuit of their own desires and dreams (including having children if they choose).

      I can understand a well-to-do white male Republican.  The others are a lot harder to fathom.

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      Very interesting link, DP. I'm solid pro-choice, but I do think that it can be a moral gray area. I think that the fetus probably has rudimentary consciousness (somewhere between 12-20 weeks, which is when most modern abortions happen). Spiritually, I reconcile the taking of a potential life with basic physics since Einstein: energy can neither be created nor destroyed – it merely changes form. So it is with the soul's energy. It recycles, I think.

      I guess the difference between myself and a "pro-life" person is that I trust women to be able to deal with that gray area, and wrestle with ethical choices, make good decisions for their existing children (61% of women seeking abortions have other children), and for their own lives. We do know that women have a "right to life". 

      We've always thought that men in certain jobs (police, soldiers, doctors, Presidents) and with certain training should be able to make those life and death decisions. 

      All that said, this bill is crap and should go nowhere, which is what its proponents cynically plan on.  Something else scary? Myself and Modster appear to be on the same page with the ethics of abortion. (Safe, legal, rare.)  Let's enjoy it while we may, Mods. 

      dustpuppy? Why do Republican women even exist? What the hell does that mean? Back in the days of moderation, many good Republican women existed. They're fiscal conservatives, skeptical of good intentions, possibly libertarian. There are still Republican women who are pro-choice, although they're almost extinct. Olympia Snowe, Barbara Bush, a few others. 

      The other thing to keep in mind is that women use contraception and abortion at roughly the same rate regardless of their political or religious labels. 

       

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Myself and Modster appear to be on the same page with the ethics of abortion. (Safe, legal, rare.)

        I believe that was JBJK16, mama….

      • ParkHill says:

        dustpuppy? Why do Republican women even exist? What the hell does that mean? Back in the days of moderation, many good Republican women existed. They're fiscal conservatives, skeptical of good intentions, possibly libertarian.

        Fiscally Conservative? Since when has the Republican Party ACTUALLY been "Fiscally Conservative"?

        Give a Republican a balanced budget and they'll bust it open by cutting taxes to the wealthy.

        The primary political goal of the Republican Party is to lower taxes on the wealthy, which is fiscally expensive. Look at the Federal deficit pattern over the terms of the different presidents. Every Republican President has increased the deficit; every Democratic President has decreased the deficit. For example, Clinton drove the  deficit way down, which gave Bush the opportunity to drop taxes for the wealthy.

        Deficits are normal and useful, even essential during a recession in order to boost demand; Deficits are bad in a boom-time because they push inflation and or bubbles. That's just econ 101.

         

  5. Urban Snowshoer says:

    If there is ever a need for the "kill committee", this is it.

     

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.