Rep. Gardner, see you at the No on Personhood rally?

(He should be there, right? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Dear Representative Gardner,

Recently, you told the news media that you were giving up your longstanding support for the Personhood abortion ban ballot measures in Colorado. You may have read that the NO on Amendment 67 campaign is kicking off their opposition to this year’s Personhood abortion ban amendment with a rally and press conference today.

Can I tell them you’ll be joining us?

Thank you for your decision to reverse your years of support for the Colorado Personhood abortion bans. As you know, Personhood would have the added consequence of banning many common forms of birth control, which is one reason it has failed repeatedly at the polls by an overwhelming majority.

It’s unfortunate, Rep. Gardner, that you remain a co-sponsor of the federal Life at Conception Act, which contains the same language as the Personhood amendments that have previously failed here in Colorado.  The federal Life at Conception Act would ban many forms of birth control–in addition to banning all abortions even in cases of rape or incest. Because this directly contradicts your reasons for flip-flopping on Colorado’s Personhood amendments, I hope you announce today that you are also removing yourself as a cosponsor of that bill.

The voters of Colorado look forward to you proving yourself. Please don’t let them down!

19 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    Time/Place of rally?  If not too late, I might want to go so long as rally is limited to opposing the Personhood measure. 

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Why not oppose the Life at Conception Act in Congress while you're at it?

      Or would that run you afoul of Gardner, Elliot?

      • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

        Would be an area of disagreement, but would not be sufficient to have me not vote for Gardner.  If Udall wanted a chance for my vote he would need to convincingly pledge (convincingly being key) to nominate only originalists justices to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. 

        • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

          Oops – I mean approve the nomination of, not nominate (President nominates)

        • ModeratusModeratus says:

          Bad form, Elliot! You're not going into the liberal sterotype box the way they want you to. :)

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            Yup, being socially progressive and fiscally conservative has a way of not making one fit into boxes.

            That's not even taking into account all of the fringe craziness where one has to hate Democrats and deny science.

            Elliot, I recommend that when someone accuses you of not fitting into a box or recommends that you think outside the box, give them a blank look and ask, "There was a BOX?!!!"

        • Ralphie says:

          Originalists?  Like people who support slavery?

        • Curmudgeon says:

          "(convincingly being key)" means Udall could make any pledge about nominations and Fladen still has an open-ended excuse to weasel out.  

          Don't worry, Elliot, no one thinks you'd ever vote for a Democrat.  It's just a pose you take as part of your "Libertarian" facade.  You're really the only one who believes it. 

           

        • BlueCat says:

          The Founding Father's were radical movers, shakers and modernizers. The idea that the expected to keep the world standing still preserved in 18th century amber is pretty far fetched. They couldn't solve the thorny problem of bringing all the colonies together and getting rid of slavery, not to mention their own personal finances (they were self interested humans, after all, not perfect heroes carved in marble), but I believe they'd all have been pretty happy to see that problem worked out in the future and would not have pouted over the abolition of slavery not being true to originalism.  In their day originalists fought against them and for King George. In our day, they fight against societal progress and for keeping the oppressed in their place.

    • UglyAmericanUglyAmerican says:

      Noon today. Sorry you missed it. 

  2. DawnPatrol says:

    Craven Cory is way too much of an unctious worm to show up at a rally either for OR against.

    He'll just keep avioding substantive interviews and doing his best impression of Both Ways Bob.

  3. Ralphie says:

    I take it Cory wasn't there?

  4. FrankUnderwood says:

    They had the cardboard cut out of him.  That doesn't count?

  5. dwyer says:

    Amendment #67 is different from the earlier Personhood amendments.  This one refers only to the criminal code.  Abortion is not a crime. Opponents argue that in the future it could be used to outlaw abortion, but the amendment does not call for banning abortion.  Here is how it reads:

    Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?[6]

    From the website: http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Definition_of_%22Personhood%22_Initiative,_Amendment_67_(2014)

    "In 2009, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that “this is an area that cries out for new legislation.” The court also pointed out that the Colorado “general assembly, unlike congress and most state legislatures, has precluded homicide prosecutions for killing the unborn.”

     

    II have two political concerns:  

    1) Many people who are pro-choice support an amendment that says if you murder a preganant woman, either deliberately or in vehicle homicide, you should be proscuted for killing two people.

    2) The political game plan for the dems evidently calls for wrapping Gardner in the personhood blanket, regardless of the specifics. I think distorting the intent of this amendment could contribute to the idea that "out of state" consultants are running things for the dems and they don't understand Colorado or Colorado law…..is that law still on the books that promoting falsehoods about a candidate or his/her positions is illegal?

    One of the main spokespersons for #67 is a woman who was hit by a car when she was in the final weeks of her pregnancy.  Her unborn son was killed.  Her testimony is powerful.  

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.