Gardner Was Affirming Personhood Belief Just Days Before Flip-Flopping

Former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry was famously attacked in 2004 for his own admission that he voted against the War in Iraq before he voted in support of the conflict. Republican Congressman Cory Gardner, now running for the U.S. Senate, may have just upped the ante on flip-flopping; it's sounding like Gardner was against Personhood while he supported it.

The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels writes in "The Spot" today about Sen. Mark Udall's campaign hitting hard on Rep. Cory Gardner's Personhood flip-flop:

Sen. ’s campaign is up with a brutal online ad on Congressman , looking at his comments and his actions on and .

The message from the ad, which features ominous music: “His beliefs haven’t changed. Just his ambitions.”…

…Gardner’s views have been national news ever since The Denver Post revealed last Friday that Gardner had switched his position on personhood, saying it was wrong to have supported the ballot measures because he now agrees with critics that they outlawed some forms of birth control. Gardner said he still opposes abortion.

In Bartels' post at "The Spot," she mentions receiving a copy of an email sent from Gardner's office to a CD-4 constituent just a few days before Gardner flip-flopped on Personhood. The email is important because it contradicts Gardner's original claim to Bartels last Friday that he began re-thinking his position on Personhood after it was pummeled in the polls in 2010. According to Gardner's official email, that's not true. At all. Take a look:

From: "Representative Cory Gardner" <CO04CGIMA@mail.house.gov>
Subject: Responding to your message
Date: March 17, 2014 at 1:02:20 PM MDT
To: <lbouche@>

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

Dear Mrs. Hauser,

 Thank you for contacting me regarding the Women's Health Protection Act.  I appreciate you taking the time to write.  It is an honor to serve you in Congress and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.  

 On November 13, 2013, Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3471, the Women's Health Protection Act of 2013. This legislation works to eliminate regulations and laws which restrict women's access to abortions. It has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

 Throughout my life, I have been committed to the protection of life beginning at conception. [Pols emphasis] I am also a strong supporter of women's rightsOn February 28, 2013, for example, I voted in favor of the Senate proposal to reauthorize funding for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant programs to help prevent domestic violence and protect victims of abuse. I was also a co-sponsor of the H.R. 3067, the Accelerating the End of Breast Cancer Act, in the 112th Congress. Common-sense legislation like this ensures women have access to necessary resources in times of crisis. I will continue to support legislation which promotes women's health, as well as the health and lives of their unborn children. 

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you. [Pols emphasis]

 

 Sincerely,

Cory Gardner
Member of Congress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


There you have it, folks. Cory Gardner, in his own words, directly contradicting his own words. Could he possibly have been any sloppier with this Personhood flip-flop?

32 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. dwyer says:

    This is a medical/sematic nightmare.  It all boils down to how contraception works. If a method of  contraception can be proved, not to stop conception, but to stop implantation in the uterus, then the answer is that the contraception really acts as an aborticificant. The answer  will determine how SCOTUS rules on the Hobby Lobby question.  

    As I understand it, medical science can theorize how some forms of contraception work (such as the IUD), but there is no scientific data actually documenting the failure to implant in the uterus in any given instance.  Medical science has to work backward to even estimate when conception or failure to conceive occurred.  

    We should just ask all those angels dancing on the head of a pin.

     

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      What's the definition of abortion?  What's the definition of pregnancy?  Are all women who conceive pregnant?

      Depending on these answers, prevention of implantation being "aborticacient" is Stockholm Sundrome.  Because someone say sit is so does not make it so, and parroting their words as if they were true facilitates their argument.

      • dwyer says:

        The religious argument that is being presented is that all women who conceive are pregnant. 

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        DP , I'm curious. What is the official medical definition of pregnancy? After fertilized egg attaches to lining? Do you think this medical definition will be a factor in the case SCOTUS is hearing?

        • BlueCat says:

          Maybe Daft can give us the latest most accepted answer but a search for medical definitions turned up both conception and implantation. Looks like there is enough ambiguity among medical definitions to preclude either side from claiming that there's is the correct definition. Daft?

        • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

          See:

          Conception/Implantation

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

          http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11893

           

           

          Pre-implantation conceptus wastage

           

          http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf

           

           

          Abortion Definition

           

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_abortion

           

          • "[T]he standard medical definition of abortion [is] termination of a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable".[11]
          • "Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced."[12]

          Other OB/GYN textbooks

          • "Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation calculated from date of onset of last menses. An alternative definition is delivery of a fetus with a weight of less than 500 g. If abortion occurs before 12 weeks' gestation, it is called early; from 12 to 20 weeks it is called late."[13]
          • "Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability. Because popular use of the word abortion implies a deliberate pregnancy termination, some prefer the word miscarriage to refer to spontaneous fetal loss before viability [...] The National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) define abortion as pregnancy termination prior to 20 weeks' gestation or a fetus born weighing less than 500 g. Despite this, definitions vary widely according to state laws."[14]

          ​So if abortion is termination of pregnancy, and the routine outcome for fertilized eggs is NOT implantation, and any drug/device/intervention that could theoretically increase the likelihood of that conceptus NOT implanting (theoretical/unproven), such methods are only "abortifacient" if women who have conceived are considered pregnant, the vast majority of whom will not bear a child as a result of that event.

          Pregnancy is the state of gestation characterized by the physical and hormonal changes that happen in a woman's body once a zygote has implanted in her uterus. No implantaion-No changes, hence no pregnancy.

          Calling pre-implantation events abortion focuses only on the fetus at the exclusion of the woman.  Pregnancy and abortion are things that happen to women.  It's clear who the Personhood movement cares more about.

          • BlueCat says:

            I actually had already visited the first two you link to but fund neither absolutely definitive on whether it would only be correct to define prgnancyi n terms of implantation. I agree with your analysis but don't think that medical definition of pregnancy will be a useful thing to hang  a hat on in courts.

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      Pols, were you paying attention in 2004?

      The Kerry quote is from a bill to continue appropriations for the Bush wars.  He was for it when it include taxes on high earners to pay for it, and voted against it after it was defunded and tacked on to the deficit.

  2. dwyer says:

    I will be waiting to see the next poll on Gardner to see how the general public is reacting – concerned or just turning out.

  3. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Nobody cares.  This is a Pols story.  Period.

  4. Republican 36 says:

    A MATTER OF TRUST

    The specific policy issue doesn't matter. Its the fact Mr. Gardner has lied repeatedly over at least the past four years on a major public policy issue.

    2010: In 2010, he lied to the editoral board of the Ft. Collins newspaper when he said he wouldn't sponsor anti-abortion legislation even though two weeks prior to that, at a Tea Party event, he specifically told the audience he would sponsor such legislation and within two months of taking his seat in Congress he began sponsoring and supporting anti-abortion legislation and thereby confirmed his lie to the Ft. Collins newspaper..

    2010 – March 17, 2014: Over the next four years he had a 100% voting record supporting anti-abortion legislation and resolutions including co-sponsoring the national Personhood Amendment in July 2013.

    He decides to run for the U.S. Senate on February 26, 2014 and tells the voters on March 21, 2014 that he has been reconsideirng support for the Personhood Amendment since it was defeated in 2010, even thoug, as stated above, he cosponsored the Personhood amendment in July 2013 and as late as January 28, 2014 voted and supported an anti- abortion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    And now today, we find out that only four days before his announcement last Friday, he writes to a constituent in the 4th congressional district that "Throughout my life, I have been committed to the protection of life beginning at conception." That is an endorsement of the Personhood Amendment. 

    He lied to Colorado voters when he said he's been reconsidering his stance on the Personhood Amendment for four years and he lied by attempting to make the voters believe he is no longer pro life.

    His introduction to the voters of Colorado consists of two points. First, he is an incumbent congressman and second, he is a liar.

    Mr. Gardner can't be trusted.

    • DawnPatrol says:

      "Mr. Garnder can't be trusted."

      In that simple, accurate declarative sentence, you've enunciated the underpinning of every anti-Gardner Udall/Dem Party political ad Coloradans will see between now and the election: Gardner's a weasel, a chameleon, a shapeshifter, a con artist, a grifter, a backslider — in short, an untrustworthy liar. Same richly deserved fate awaits Coffman.

      This outburst of crassly opportunistic, pathetically transparent flip-flopping by Dumber (Cory) and Dumberer (Coffman) has been a godsend to the Udall and Romanoff campaigns.

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      Udall is an incumbent Senator and he is a liar.

      Udall can't be trusted.

      So where does that leave things,

      One candidate lied about healthcare and it hurt people.  

      The other candidate lied about Personhood and I could care less.

  5. exlurker19 says:

    The late great Pete Seeger's attempt at keeping politicians honest:

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUb8RAyLf80

     

    Given my technological impairment, this may not work.

  6. Old Time Dem says:

    Gardner's letter doesn't say what his position on HR 3471 is. He straddles the issue by claiming to be both "committed to the protection of life beginning at conception" and "a strong supporter of women's rights."  Oddly, he also describes HR 3471 in terms that a commited pro-choice advocate would ("works to eliminate regulations and laws which restrict women's access to abortions").  Real anti-choicers call the bill the "Abortion Until Birth Protection Act."

     

    What a weasel.

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.