If I grow this moustache, will you forget what I said about Personhood?
Colorado Democrats have put out a web ad highlighting the highly-conservative record of Rep. Cory Gardner. You can see the ad after the jump, but first, here's FOX 31's Eli Stokols:
The one-minute video focuses on Gardner’s support for the 2010 Personhood initiative, which would have effectively banned abortion in Colorado, a House GOP budget plan that would have “ended Medicare as we know it”, and his opposition to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
Democrats also included the CBS News report showing Gardner on a 2012 fishing trip junket with oil and gas lobbyists; the caption over the video clips: “He even vacations with Washington lobbyists.”…
…Gardner, considered a rising star within the House GOP caucus, has long harbored ambitions beyond the House; but he had never noticeably tempered a conservative voting record that, while representing his sprawling, rural district, seemed outside the mainstream of the state’s overall electorate. [Pols emphasis]
We've discussed many times in this space that we think Gardner is going to have a real problem in explaining his ultra-partisan record to voters outside of CD-4. The fact that Gardner never even tried to moderate himself since winning election to Congress in 2010 is a major reason that Democrats and Republicans alike were surprised when he decided to enter the Senate race late last month.
UPDATE 4:35PM: GOP Reps. Bob Gardner and Mark Waller, both pro-life but “reluctantly” unable to vote for an “unconstitutional” bill to ban abortion, join Democrats in voting against House Bill 14-1133. Bill dies on a final vote of 9-2.
UPDATE #3: Hearing now underway, this Texas-style rotunda photo sent to us from the press conference prior:
Karen Middleton, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado director, told the Independent that calling attention to this kind of legislation is important, especially given the way the local and national political landscape on the issue of women’s reproductive rights has shifted in recent years.
“Leadership in the Colorado House and Senate is always in the balance,” she said. “This is a bill that has been introduced in the past and will likely be introduced again. It could get through, maybe not this year, but next year… Voters have to take note.”
…Middleton points to the historic wave of anti-abortion bills passed in statehouses around the country in recent years that, she suggests, voters may not have supported had the consequences of the laws been more clearly spelled out in debate.
“You can see what is happening. You see what happened in Texas,” she said.
UPDATE: From the release announcing today's opposition press conference:
A diverse coalition of Coloradans, including reproductive health organizations, doctors, and women with stories about their reproductive health experiences will be speaking out in advance of Tuesday’s hearing on HB 1133, the abortion ban bill.
HB14-1133, which is being sponsored by Republican leadership, would ban abortion in Colorado in almost all circumstances, including in cases of rape and incest. The bill would make it a Class 3 felony for a physician to perform an abortion, which carries a 4-12 year prison sentence. This bill does not represent the needs of Colorado women and families, or the values of Colorado voters. Coloradans have rejected abortion bans at the ballot box twice, and strong majorities continue to support access to safe abortion services.
When & Where: 1:00 pm, Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Rotunda, 2nd Floor, Outside Old Supreme Court Chambers
Who: Physicians, health care providers, Colorado women
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado
COLOR – Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity & Reproductive Rights (bilingual)
Today at 1:30PM in the Old Supreme Court Chambers, debate in the Colorado House Judiciary Committee will commence on a key piece of Republican legislation, House Bill 14-1133. As we've discussed in this space already, this bill has a simple purpose:
Here's a brief but important clip of video from yesterday's interview by Brandon Rittiman of 9NEWS of once-and-future GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez:
RITTIMAN: Have you ever supported Personhood, and do you now?
BEAUPREZ: No, I've got a 100% pro-life voting record, as you probably know. So I'm very much pro-life. But Personhood, uh, as my dear friend and my archbishop Charles Chaput, our previous archbishop here in Denver, said that's not the way to do it. I think it creates a whole 'nother set of problems that probably don't help anyone really. And probably won't save more lives. I don't think this is the right solution to, uh, a big uh, a big issue that's been with us for a long time and probably will be.
Well, the only thing we can assume is that Bob Beauprez hopes you never see his 2006 Colorado Right to Life candidate questionnaire! Because it pretty straightforwardly makes a liar of Bob Beauprez:
"Bob's answer was the right answer," said Dustin Olson, a strategist working for the campaign.
The Beauprez campaign asserts that "personhood" can mean different things to different people. [Pols emphasis]
"Just like the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' can encompass a spectrum of specific policy points, the term 'Personhood' in the context of Colorado's landscape actually means 3 entirely different policy proposals over just the last 6 years," Beauprez said. "I'm firmly pro-life, and my record reflects that, but some of the proposals we have seen on the ballot in Colorado over the last 6 years have been written in a way that could have far-reaching unintended consequences."
The campaign says Beauprez did sign on to HR 552, federal personhood legislation, which in a similar manner to ballot questions that have appeared in Colorado aims to confer legal protections on unborn children…
As you can see above, Beauprez answered "yes" to every one of Colorado Right to Life's litmus-test questions. According to this questionnaire, Beauprez supports a constitutional amendment protecting "preborn human beings." Beauprez opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. And most important for this discussion, Beauprez answered "yes" when asked if he would sign on to federal HR 552, the "Right to Life Act." Which reads:
The terms `human person' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, [Pols emphasis] cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.
So there's absolutely no confusion, here's the text of Colorado's Amendment 48, the 2008 "Personhood" initiative that failed in Colorado by over 70%.
Section 31. Person defined. As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization. [Pols emphasis]
Anyone who entertained the notion that Beauprez might have kicked his 2006 habits, which earned him a place in history as one of the worst candidates for governor ever, can now put that silly idea to bed. Beauprez's 2006 campaign was littered with like incidents of sloppy, disorganized flip-flopping–it's how he earned the nickname "Both Ways Bob."
A particular detail from last night's GOP U.S. Senate primary debate worth revisiting, as the Durango Herald'sJoe Hanelcaught but apparently no other press coverage did:
Buck, Hill and Stephens all said they supported the personhood amendment on the 2012 ballot, which would have declared that human life begins at conception – a legal change that would lead to bans on abortion and many forms of birth control.
To be clear, the question was actually in error from the moderators of the Denver Post, as the "Personhood" abortion ban ballot measure didn't actually make the 2012 ballot. In 2012, the "Personhood" initiative was disqualified by Secretary of State Scott Gessler for want of the necessary petition signatures. The last time this initiative appeared on the statewide Colorado ballot was in 2010 as Amendment 62, where it failed by just over 70% of the vote.
Neither the Denver Post, which hosted last night's debate, nor the Associated Press or the Colorado Springs Gazette mentioned that all three principal Republican primary candidates for the U.S. Senate all support the "Personhood" abortion ban. Given the pivotal role this issue has played in previous elections, and the controversy the "Personhood" initiative has generated within the Republican Party, that's astonishing to us. It may not hurt during the Republican primary to endorse a total ban on abortion, but in the general election, this is a massive liability. We'll say it again: Colorado has been a pro-choice state for years, with polling showing that trend growing every year. Recall that Ken Bucktried to flip-flop away from support for "Personhood" toward the end of his 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate, which he has now reversed again by re-endorsing it in 2014. Amy Stephens undercuts her claim to be more electable than Buck or Hill by endorsing this hugely unpopular initiative.
The last few elections in Colorado are littered with failed GOP candidates who ran aground at least in part over "Personhood"–either angering anti-abortion activists by not embracing it, or the rest of the electorate by doing so. Last night made it clear again that this albatross is still very much wrapped around the Republican Party's neck.
A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the right to end her pregnancy, Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) wrote in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views.
Martin, the former chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee, wrote a lengthy post about his opinions on women's bodies on his Facebook wall last week in response to a critical Valentine's Day card he received from reproductive rights advocates.
"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it."
You're not even a mother anymore, ladies! Now you're just the "host." Sounds sci-fi, doesn't it?
As the Denver Post'sLynn Bartelsreports, nailing GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Brophy on a false statement from Tuesday night's debate:
Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy incorrectly asserted in a gubernatorial debate Tuesday that the state is violating the constitution by paying for abortions and "that needs to stop."
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment does not provide funding for abortions, spokesman Mark Salley said.
Asked Wednesday for proof of his claim, Brophy backpedaled.
"We'll check and verify that, and if not's true, then we don't have to do anything (to stop it)," the Wray farmer said.
Colorado voters in the 1980s banned using state money to pay for abortions. The state still must comply with federal law, which requires abortion coverage for Medicaid patients in instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.
When pressed about this Tuesday, Brophy claimed that Planned Parenthood's "abortion clinic" isn't required to "account for the monies they get." But officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Planned Parenthood insist that's not the case. Bartels reports on a flap from 1999 over sublet space within Planned Parenthood's facilities, which led to then-Gov. Bill Owens' administration slapping punitive restrictions on Planned Parenthood. Owens' successor, pro-life Democrat Bill Ritter, undid those sanctions, but Planned Parenthood never applied for the additional money they then could have–because it wasn't available.
Bottom line: Bartels does a great job debunking an critical talking point for lots of pro-life Republicans. And that's what we really want to add here: the persistent and false claim that Colorado taxpayer dollars "fund abortions" is a much bigger problem than Greg Brophy. Colorado Right to Life's candidate questionnaire asserts without basis that the prohibition on public abortion funding in the Colorado constitution has "mostly been ignored." Last year, Sen. Owen Hill introduced Senate Bill 13-066, the "Taxpayer Abortion Separation Act," to "force compliance" with the state constitution's prohibition of public money for abortion. In 2011, every male Republican Colorado Senator sponsored a similar amendment to the state budget. Here's what fellow Republican Sen. Nancy Spence had to say in response to them, as reported by Patrick Malone at the Pueblo Chieftain:
“My concern about defunding Planned Parenthood is that it provides good family planning services and health services to women,” Spence said. “I agree that public funds should not be used for abortion, but if abortion is part of Planned Parenthood and you can’t separate out the funds that they use for abortion services versus family planning and women’s health services, then I have to come down on the side of Planned Parenthood. [Pols emphasis] It’s too important for low-income women in this state not to have access to that kind of information, when I think it’s an appropriate use for public money.”
It's very easy to agree with Sen. Spence, especially now that you know it was never a real issue anyway. And with that, perhaps this long-cherished but bogus talking point can finally be put to bed? Sadly, don't count on it.
UPDATE: The conservative Daily Caller helps roll out the new female-friendly Ken Buck:
Buck promises this video is merely be the first in a series of maybe ten, or so, he will release. And although they’re too long to air on TV in their current format, “at some point in time,” he avers, “parts of these interviews will be pulled out and ads will be created to set the record straight.”
For a candidate hoping to neutralize a predictable attack, having these testimonials filmed and in the can should go a long way. “I anticipate that once again the Democrats will create the ‘war on women’ narrative,” he said, “and these women talk about who I [really] am.”
2010 GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck.
T.M. Fasanowrites for the Greeley Tribune today in a story shameless puff piece notably outside their usual paywall:
[Ken] Buck, the Weld district attorney and GOP frontrunner to run against Colorado Sen. Mark Udall in the U.S. Senate race, unveiled a two-minute video titled “Ken Cares: Stephanie’s Story.” Several other videos will be released over the next several weeks and months also showing Buck’s support from women…
When Buck ran for the U.S. Senate seat against Michael Bennet, and barely lost, in 2010, he was portrayed as anti-woman, something that annoys Buck to this day. [Pols emphasis]
“It’s terrible. It’s an absolute lie. I have a daughter. I have a wife,” Buck said. “I understand that politics is unfair, but at some point there has to be some basis in truth and the fact is that I have spent 25 years of my life trying to help the most vulnerable in our community. For someone to suggest that because I’m pro-life that I don’t care about the vulnerable is not logical.”
He added, “What the Democrats have done to me and to Romney and to dozens of others is to say that because we are pro-life we don’t care about women. Nothing can be further from the truth. We have a position on one issue. Look at the whole group of issues before making a decision. What the liberals have done is they have taken one issue and have tried to create a character trait based on that issue and it just isn’t true.”
Of course, there's an obvious bottom line underlying any effort to rehabilitate the image of Weld County DA Ken Buck with women voters:
Buck’s numbers in the latest Quinnipiac University poll has him trailing Udall by only 3 percentage points (45 to 42), but among women voters he’s trailing Udall by 21 percentage points (54 to 33). [Pols emphasis]
“I’ve never met someone who is as dedicated as Ken, so it’s very surprising to me to see the polls showing such little support for him over women’s issues,” [domestic violence survivor Stephanie] Drobny said.
During Ken Buck's failed 2010 campaign for the U.S. Senate, a race he unexpectedly lost principally due to a crushing lack of support from women voters, there were many incidents that hurt him–like during the primary campaign against Jane Norton, when he suggested Republicans vote for him because he does "not wear high heels." Buck also aggressively campaigned on a "no exceptions" platform of opposition to abortion, proudly volunteering that he opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
But the worst came for Buck when a story broke in early October of 2010 about a case of alleged sexual assault he had refused to prosecute, claiming the alleged victim had a case of "buyer's remorse"–this despite the fact that the alleged perpetrator was caught on tape admitting to the crime. The victim in turn had a recording of Buck's callous treatment of her during the investigation, which she released. Combined with a disastrous appearance on Meet the Press and already well-established anti-woman narratives about Buck from the primary campaign (see above), this event helped turn Buck's momentum toward likely victory at the end of September into a narrow loss to Sen. Michael Bennet by Election Day.
Recognizing what happened, Buck is smart to work overtime to repair the damage with women voters in 2010–the persistence of which appears to be his biggest impediment as the GOP's frontrunner for the nomination to challenge incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in 2014. The fact that women voters remember Buck well enough to favor Udall by twenty-one points means that Democrats did a very good job in 2010.
Still, Buck gets credit for recognizing this as his biggest challenge. Much like the hard-right Rep. Mike Coffmanpulling a 180 on immigration, though, can Ken "Buyer's Remorse" Buck really make nice with the ladies? It's a tall order to say the least.
Sunday's Denver Postincluded a story about protests that occurred Saturday marking the 41st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, which established the right of American women to abortion of unwanted pregnancies. The story goes into some detail about the fact that the battle over abortion in Colorado is ramping up yet again, with a Republican-sponsored bill to ban all abortions introduced in the state legislature, and yet another flavor of the "personhood" abortion ban headed for the statewide ballot this November.
For as much useful background on abortion politics that Christopher Osher's story supplies readers, he focuses almost exclusively on the protest organized Saturday by the Catholic Church–making only the briefest of mentions of another protest, organized by Colorado Right to Life, "at the state Capitol." The problem is, that protest was certainly the event more relevant to the political backstory Osher lays out. Frustratingly, we've not been able to find any coverage of the CRTL protest, not even on the organization's own websites and social media. If anyone has links to coverage of this event, please give us them in comments or email us, and we'll update this post.
What we do know is that hard core anti-abortion group Colorado Right to Life held a protest at the state capitol on Saturday, and that the keynote speaker at this event was none other than Republican U.S. Senate candidate Owen Hill. We know that only due to this photo, sent to us from the event via a passer-by:
With all due respect to Archbishop Samuel Aquila, shouldn't this be part of the story? Our guess is Hill is trying as hard as he can to pump up his pro-life credentials while Ken Buck and Amy Stephensflail away at each other. That said, it may honestly be that Owen Hill's so-far minor Senate candidacy just doesn't rate much coverage.
But somebody tell us what Hill had to say to that horrifying little doll, who is also nowhere to be found in news coverage.
In an article yesterday, The Denver Post's Kurtis Lee reports Rep. Amy Stephens' response to Ken Buck's comment Monday comparing pregnancy with cancer:
"It's Ken again being Ken," Stephens, who is among several Republicans vying to unseat U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, insisted Thursday. "Just like in 2010, we have high-heels comments, we have alcoholism and homosexuality, now we've got cancer and pregnancy."
Buck in 2010 was the nominee for U.S. Senate against Democrat Michael Bennet. His statement on "Meet the Press" comparing homosexuality to alcoholism was considered the turning point in a campaign he had been expected to win.
Before telling Lee about "Ken again being Ken," Stephens was on KNUS' Dan Caplis Show Wed., where she made her opinion of Buck's candidacy even more clear, saying she does not believe Colorado Republicans will unify around Buck if he wins the nomination, and saying, based on what Buck's offered so far, it would be the "definition of insanity" to run Buck again.
Stephens @10 min: I am not convinced Ken has given us an argument as to why we should go down this path again. And I call the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over with the same results….
I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that's going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support. [BigMedia emphasis]
On the radio, Stephens went on to say that she'd be better able to "take on Sen. Udall on issues that they normally love to hit our men with, and I think as a woman, I have a very strong voice to speak about."
But as Caplis should have pointed out, Stephens' anti-abortion record, including ten years on the staff of Focus on the Family, sets herself up for the same criticism Buck has faced.
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.
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]
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.
Fast-forward three-plus years later, and Buck’s at it again. The goal this time? Don’t say anything stupidly and overtly sexist. That shouldn’t be too hard, right?
Turns out, yep, that is too hard! Speaking on a talk radio show on Wednesday, Buck attempted to explain his anti-choice absolutism — he opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest — by likening a woman’s desire to control her own body while pregnant to how he felt when he had cancer.
Apparently trying to connect to women voters, who arguably cost him a U.S. Senate seat in 2010, Ken Buck appeared on a Denver radio station Monday and discussed the differences and similarities between pregnancy and his recent bout with cancer.
Asked by 560-AM KLZ talk-show host Randy Corporon about his abortion position, Buck, who's running again for U.S. Senate this year, said:
Buck: "Yes, I am pro-life. While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body.–it's certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient, I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body–there is another fundamental issue at stake. And that's the life of the unborn child. And I hold that life dear and precious and believe we have to do everything we can to protect the life of the unborn."
So Buck is saying that his successful battle with cancer is like pregnancy insofar as they both require decisions affecting a human body. But for a cancer patient like Buck, they are personal medical decisions, and Buck was glad to be able to make them. But for a woman who is pregnant, difficult as it may be, she shouldn’t be afforded the same freedom to make decisions affecting her body.
Now Buck drives his anti-abortion point home in the starkest of language by saying how happy he is that the government didn’t dictate his health decisions when he had cancer. But pregnant women should have no choice.
As the Colorado Statesman'sPeter Marcusreports–you might not agree, but be aware of this spin:
Motivated by a grassroots uprising this summer that ousted two sitting Democratic state senators, proponents of a ballot initiative that would ask voters in 2014 to define an unborn child as a “person” say they are likely to target Republicans who don’t support their anti-abortion movement…
Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, said his organization and its followers feel empowered after gun rights activists and liberty groups were able to take down Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron last month with limited financing compared to recall opponents. Similar to personhood, the efforts were assembled by a grassroots base that felt overlooked by state officeholders.
Mason points out that his volunteers inserted themselves into the recall elections, where personhood once again became an issue. Political attack ads highlighted the Republican successor candidates’ support for personhood. Bernie Herpin in Colorado Springs and George Rivera in Pueblo faced the assaults.
Herpin found himself on the defensive, vowing that he did not support personhood. But Rivera unapologetically stated his support for the drive.
In response, Mason said personhood supporters sent volunteers to Pueblo to help Rivera, but ignored Herpin in Colorado Springs because he rejected the initiative.
Supporters of the "Personhood" abortion ban constitutional amendments, which appeared on the ballot in Colorado in 2008 and 2010 and only narrowly missed the ballot again in 2012, have at times been quite belligerent with their fellow Republicans who express an insufficient degree of support. The reason is simple: the issue of banning abortions can be as damaging to Republicans campaigning in a general election as it is a litmus test in a Republican primary. The best example was probably the assault on U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, who faced withering criticism for his failure to endorse the 2008 initiative–complicated by Schaffer's defense of labor practices in the Mariana Islands which allegedly included forced abortions on pregnant female workers. In 2010 and to a greater extent 2012, Personhood proponents softpedaled their criticism of Republicans who were by then in full retreat on the issue–at least publicly.
Well, folks, antithetical to the desire by most Republicans to keep themselves out of this toxic wedge-issue fray, the Personhooders evidently think the recent recalls prove they were right all along. Sen. George Rivera's victory in Pueblo, whatever the true reasons, seems to have persuaded the anti-abortion movement to double down–which means taking a public stand for or against Republican candidates based on their support.
However giddy with victory they may be, we know Republicans who will find that prospect absolutely horrifying.
Judging from what Buck has said previously about his failed 2010 campaign, he was undoubtedly thinking about his views on social issues, like abortion, which were widely viewed as his downfall last time around.
But the ironic part is, if you think back to 2010, the most damaging single utterance Buck made, caught on video at a conservative gun gathering, showed a shocking exuberance by Buck himself to talk about his opposition to abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.
A radio talk show host should have corrected Colorado Springs recall candidate Bernie Herpin, when he denied yesterday that, if elected, he wouldn't have any power to restrict a woman's access to birth control.
Randall @4:00: When they say, certain types of birth control, the implication is, if you elect an extremist like Bernie Herpin, you’re not even going to be able to get your birth-control pills in the state of Colorado.
Herpin: …Of course I’m not going to do anything to restrict a woman’s choice on birth control. That’s completely ridiculous, and I don’t even have that power. Jeez.
In fact, state government tries to restrict access to contraception because anti-abortion lawmakers consider some forms of contraception, like the morning-after pill, to be abortion drugs.
Herpin apparently missed the news, for example, that Oklahoma just passed a law requiring women 17 and over to show ID (and younger women to have a prescription) to buy emergency Plan B contraception. Last month, a judge stopped implementation of the law, which conflicts with recent FDA guidelines, pending a review of whether it violates the state constitution.
Judging from Herpin's past support for government restrictions to protect zygotes (fertilized eggs), you'd expect him to support such legislation, given that some believe Plan B potentially destroys zygotes.