Politifact Rates Udall’s First Ad “Half True”

Pulitzer Prize-winning fact checker Politifact, operated by the Tampa Bay Times, has kept a close eye on ads in this year's U.S. Senate race in Colorado. Having reported in detail on Politifact's hammering of ads against Sen. Mark Udall as factually untrue, we'd be remiss if we didn't note their analysis of Udall's first ad against GOP opponent Cory Gardner, now playing widely–the most aggressive claim in which is rated "half true."

In 2006, Colorado Right to Life asked all politicians running for office if they supported the Right to Life Act in Congress, "recognizing that personhood begins at fertilization." Gardner, then a first-term state representative answered yes.

Udall’s campaign provided a television news story from March 17, 2008, that appears to briefly show Gardner in a room with several Republican colleagues signing on to the petition to put personhood on the Colorado ballot (around the 1-minute mark).

Gardner’s campaign did not respond to questions about his support of the 2008 referendum. His campaign did, however, acknowledge that Gardner supported the referendum efforts in 2010 at a candidate forum.

In a video clip from the forum, Gardner says he signed the petition and circulated it at his church. He also said the measure "backs up my support for life," but did not mention contraceptives or birth control.

News stories from Colorado papers in 2008 and 2010 mention the debate over contraceptives involved in personhood legislation. In fact, Ken Buck, the 2010 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Colorado, backed away from his previous support of the personhood referendum because he said it could impact some forms of birth control. So contraception was a live issue at the time.

But Cohen, the Harvard professor, told PolitiFact that "it is unclear that the Colorado 2008 and 2010 referendums were intended to ‘outlaw birth control in Colorado’ — that's what the word ‘crusade’ seems to imply. It is more clear that the language of those amendments might have outlawed some forms of birth control, whether that was the goal or not."

In other words, Gardner may have been in favor of the amendment, but for reasons other than curbing contraception.

This is the same ad that 9NEWS Truth Tested late last month, concluding this same assertion that Gardner "championed an eight-year crusade to outlaw birth control here in Colorado" is "debatable." The debate over this question seems to hinge on whether a ban on certain forms of so-called "abortifacient" birth control was the intention of proponents. In some cases, it demonstrably was the intention, but a reasonable person might give the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that it was not in all cases.

The problem is, by 2010 when Gardner backed Amendment 62 in a televised debate, and even helped circulate petitions, the consequence–either intended or unintended–of banning some forms of birth control was common knowledge. This had been the principal argument against "Personhood" two years before. This means that even if banning birth control was not Gardner's purpose in supporting Personhood, he cannot escape responsibility for those consequences. He either supported that outcome, or viewed it as acceptable collateral damage.

Do the full facts of this make the Udall's campaign's claim that Gardner "championed an eight-year crusade to outlaw birth control" debatable? Yes. Reasonable people can debate the full extent of that. But there's certainly enough of an argument on Udall's side to have that debate–and no amount of time spent debating this is helpful to Cory Gardner.

30 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. BlueCat says:

    I'd say a lot more than half true. 

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Yeah, but that "half true" is all the baggers need to claim their 100% bullshit ads are "no worse." I understand it's defensible, and that there is a huge difference between this and the lying AFP ads, but our side should be careful to leave the right absolutely nothing to quibble with. It's easier to have no "buts" at all.

  2. Old Time Dem says:

    Cohen, the Harvard professor interviewed by Politifact, is confusing the "intention" of a proposed law (which, by the way, he gets wrong–there is very strong evidence that the most extreme anti-choicers do, in fact, want to outlaw certain kinds of contraception, so I don't see why he discounts that as an intention of the proposed law) with Gardner's "intention."

    Garder "intends" the forseeable consequences of his actions.

    If Gardner backed the measure, and one of the forseeable effects of that measure was to outlaw certain methods of birth control…then he intended to outlaw certain methods of birth control.

     

  3. Sunmusing says:

    Let's just face it…Republicans/baggers are bad for our country…

  4. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Ridiculous. You can't defend this, Gardner was never part of a crusade to ban birth control. The most you can say is this may have been an unintended consequence of Personhood. Gardner was never part of a crusade to ban birth control, it was never Gardner's intention to ban birth control, and Democrats are lying to say otherwise, period.

  5. horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

    right now

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.