Clock ticking on Gardner's opportunity to withdraw his co-sponsorship from federal personhood bill

11 Comments

by: Jason Salzman

(Will he or won't he? Does it even matter now? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Cory Gardner.

It's a big week for senatorial candidate Cory Gardner, as the clock ticks down on his opportunity to withdraw his co-sponsorship from a federal personhood bill, which aims to ban all abortion, even for rape and incest.

To get his name off the legislation, Gardner is required to make a speech from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is expected to adjourn as early as this week. And it would not meet again prior to the election. So this is Gardner's last chance.

Fact checkers in Colorado (here and here plus yours truly) and nationally have concluded that the Life at Conception Act, which Gardner cosponsored just last year, is substantive legislation, written and promoted by its sponsors to end a women's right to choose.

But, inexplicably, both Gardner and his spokespeople, like Owen Loftus, have told reporters that the bill is symbolic. Most recently, Gardner told 9News' Brandon Rittiman, "There is no federal personhood bill." The bill he cosponsored "says life begins at conception," Gardner told Rittiman. Loftus once said, "The Democrats like to say that it is personhood but it's not."

Given these statements by Gardner, who's challenging pro-choice Democrat Sen. Mark Udall, you wouldn't expect Gardner to withdraw his name at this point, because he'd have a mouthful of explaining to do–like why he thinks his legislation is symbolic when no one else does.

Reporters should put that question to Gardner regardless of whether he removes his name form the bill in the coming weeks. Why is he repeating the documented falsehood that the Life at Conception Act is symbolic, given the text of the legislation and the fact checks. With the deadline approaching, now would be a really great time to ask him.

11 thoughts on “Clock ticking on Gardner’s opportunity to withdraw his co-sponsorship from federal personhood bill”

DawnPatrol says:

September 17, 2014 at 1:29 pm

Jason, I think Cory's gonna go right to the wall on this one, and not remove his name.

I figure he figures cynically that most of these "dumb voters" won't hear about the federal bill he clearly still supports, so he can leave his name on it, providing wink-wink tacit support to his CO Personhood buddies and the national Personhood organizations, pulling off the perfect political sleight-of-hand.

Sadly for Cory, almost nothing has gone according to plan in his Senate run. I see no reason to think this move of his will succeed either.

Log in to Reply
Moderatus says:

September 17, 2014 at 2:19 pm

This is all foolishness. I believe now that Gardner should never have flipped on Personhood. There was no need. Neither Personhood nor the federal legislation Gardner sponsors SAY A WORD ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL. The truth is, they are both statements of principle, and it would be up to the courts to interpret.

Gardner doesn't need to take his name off the federal bill. Gardner should stand on principle, and his principles will win the election.

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 3:27 pm
  
  It doesn't have to, modster. Once you declare a fertilized egg to be a person, that fertilized egg has the same rights as any other person. It's no longer a question of birth control. It's a question of murdering a person.
  
  The same people who promote personhood also claim that many forms of birth control are abortifacient, meaning they kill an already fertilized egg. It would definitely make all abortion, including for rape and incest, illegal if the Supremes agreed and overturned Roe v Wade in light of the fertilized eggs rights. Forms of birth control judged to be abortifacient would be as illegal as abortions, because abortifacient means using them is abortion. But you and Gardner and the other anti-choicers already believe all that, right?
  
  We're not making any of this up. And we're pretty sure your side knows exactly where they want this to go because they do want all abortions to be considered murder under the law, do want them banned, do want Roe v Wade overturned and do want many of the safest and most effective forms of birth control banned. The fact that those who want all of that support Gardner with few complaints means they know that he's with them, regardless of what he feels he has to say for political purposes. Pro-choice voters think they're right. Gardner will lose.
  
  If you don't believe me, ask Fladen. Ask him if he considers all abortion murder. Ask him if he wants Roe v Wade over-turned. Ask him what the legal status of a fertilized egg would be, once declared a person under the law. Ask him if he believes certain forms of birth control are abortifacient.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. FrankUnderwood says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 3:51 pm
  
  Stand of principle? Wouldn't that be a change……..
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Progressicat says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 4:29 pm
  
  Nobody is claiming that personhood (which is the federal legislation that Cory supports) would ban contraception (which Griswold would prevent). It would only ban the most effective means of contraception (which Griswold allows, as the state has an interest in regulating drugs fatal to people). If a zygote is a person the moment it is formed by the joining of the female gamete (egg) and male gamete (sperm), then any method of contraception that prevents that zygote from moving on to form a blastocyst or to implant in the uterus is, by definition, ending the life of that human person.
  
  Because IUDs, implants, the pill, and Depo-Provera injections work to prevent pregnancy, in part, by toughening the uterine lining and preventing implantation, any doctor prescribing them or pharmacist providing them is knowingly providing a lethal dose of drug to a purchaser to use in a murder.
  
  By the way, saying "you believe now" that Gardner shouldn't have flipped is a crock. You never believed he should have flipped. Also stop with the law– you're terribad at it..
  
  Log in to Reply
Moderatus says:

September 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm

According to Griswold vs. Connecticut, Personhood's statement of principle cannot ban contraception. This is all a big lie perpetrated by Democrats to scare women.

Log in to Reply
1. horseshit GOP front group says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 3:37 pm
  
  So Cory wants to ban the birth control that he wants to make available over the counter.
  
  Makes perfect sense to me Moddy. I mean, it is Cory we're talking about.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. DaftPunk says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 4:01 pm
  
  Must bite on this one:
  
  Sage constitutional lawyer, please explain to me what in the Griswold decision makes this so.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Progressicat says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 4:31 pm
  
  Vote yes on personhood and we can all convert to rhythm methodism!
  
  Log in to Reply
FrankUnderwood says:

September 17, 2014 at 3:52 pm

Maybe he'll split the difference here to. Take his first name off but leave his last name on the bill. Or delete all of the consonants but leave the vowels.

He's giving Both Ways Bob a good name…..

Log in to Reply
1. itlduso says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm
  
  Same Cory,
  
  Different story.
  
  Log in to Reply