Category Archives: Reproductive Choice

UPDATE: The Washington, DC-based Family Research Council throws its significant heft into the fight, like Colorado-based Personhood USA also in stout support of Todd Akin:

Was his statement offensive? Absolutely. Was it inappropriate? Without a doubt. But if we abandoned every politician who made a ridiculous comment in their careers, there’d be no one left in Washington! Todd Akin has a long and distinguished record of defending women, children, and families–and unlike the GOP establishment, I refuse to throw him under the bus over one inarticulate comment for which he has apologized. If Congressmen Akin stays in the race, it will be up to voters to decide if his candidacy is a viable one. Until then, FRC Action is not going to walk away from a man whom we support based on a lifetime of service–not one indefensible moment.

FRC’s influence in national GOP politics is considerable, much greater than that of Personhood USA with a vastly larger membership. Could this portend a recovery for Akin?

And what would that mean for every other race in America?

—–

That in a press release we received moments ago from Arvada-based national anti-abortion group Personhood USA, the same organization responsible for the campaign to place the “Personhood” abortion ban on Colorado’s ballot for the third consecutive election. According to Personhood USA, it’s time for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan to “stop their opposition to the Republican Party platform.”

On Monday Governor Romney disavowed the Republican platform on abortion, supporting the death penalty for children conceived in rape, then called for Congressman Akin to drop out of his Senate race, despite Akin’s conservative voting record and apology after his misstatement…

“In calling for Congressman Akin’s exit of the Senate race, Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are throwing a prolife Congressman under the bus over a blunder, and it seems they are doing so because they disagree with his no exceptions position on abortion – a position that is an integral part of the Republican Party platform, the same position that was held by President Ronald Reagan,” explained Jennifer Mason, Personhood USA spokesperson. “We are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion, and Romney Republicans, a fringe group of liberals who compromise on human life.” [Pols emphasis]

“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan now have the opportunity to stop their opposition to the Republican Party platform,” continued Mason. “By withdrawing their call for Akin to quit the race, and retracting their anti-life position on the death penalty for children conceived in rape, Romney and Ryan would at the very least be in agreement with the Republican Party’s position on abortion.”

It seems like every year, the “Personhood” crowd does something that ends up hurting their fellow Republicans much more than they are worth in terms of base mobilization. In 2008, they attacked GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer for his failure to support their initiative, and his denial of alleged forced abortions in textile factories in the Mariana Islands. In 2010, “Personhood” played a key role in the destruction of GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck after Buck flip-flopped on the initiative under fire from women advocacy groups and voters.

This time around, they appear to be aiming for the top.

Full story: Personhood USA to Mitt Romney: “Support Todd Akin”

Los Angeles Times:

After saying he “can’t defend” Rep. Todd Akin’s suggestion that women don’t get pregnant from rape, Mitt Romney stepped up his rebuke on Tuesday when he called on Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race. But archives from Romney’s previous presidential bid show that the Massachusetts Republican has historically supported the person who is the source of Akin’s theory, Dr. Jack C. Willke, the father of the antiabortion movement.

A physician and former president of the National Right to Life Committee, Willke was an “important surrogate” for Romney’s 2008 presidential bid. Willke is the oft-cited source of the theory that rape-related pregnancies are “rare.” The theory is sometimes used by antiabortion advocates to argue that abortion laws should not contain exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

Willke believes that trauma caused by violent rape causes a woman’s reproductive system to shut down. He presents this belief as fact in educational materials, including a book about abortion and a website called abortionfacts.com. Willke’s views – and his role in promoting a theory that has been widely rejected in modern medicine – appear not to have concerned Romney in 2007, when he touted Willke’s endorsement…

The intensity with which fellow Republicans have attacked Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin is meant to inoculate the rest of the party from the stigma of Akin’s “indefensible” statements about rape and pregnancy. But it serves another purpose, too: obfuscating the fact that such views have been central to the anti-abortion movement’s philosophy for many years.

From presumptive vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s sponsorship of stridently anti-abortion legislation–eagerly supported by Republican members of Congress, including Colorado’s delegation–to Romney’s prior willing use of anti-abortion fringe luminaries who spout Akin’s views unapologetically, there is just no way to walk it all back. And the issue seems certain to take on a much greater importance this year than prior years–not just because Democrats are pushing it, but because Republicans have so spectacularly indicted themselves.

The biggest losers in all this are Republicans who aren’t obsessed with wedge issues like the extremists once again hogging the GOP spotlight. Not Republicans who flip-flopped on Colorado’s “Personhood” initiative now that it’s politically inconvenient (see: Joe Coors, Mike Coffman), Republicans who knew it was inviting disaster all along. Republicans who cringe every time a fellow Republican goes off the rails, as opposed to leaping to their ill-advised defense. We are aware that’s a substantial number of Republicans. Many of them are our friends.

From what we can see, they’re pretty much screwed.

Full story: Reason #846 Why Romney Can’t Escape Akin

(Rosen audio added, as bad as it reads – promoted by Colorado Pols)




Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

Conservative talk-radio hosts are fairly unified in their condemnation of GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin’s statement that the female body has a natural ability to identify and repel the sperm of rapists.

But they’ve been a bit more iffy on the question of how serious it was for Akin, who’s vowing not to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, to distinguish between “legitimate” rape from other kinds.

“If you’re a guy, and you throw the word ‘legitimate’ in front of rape, you’re in trouble,” KLZ radio host Jason Worley told listeners Monday. “You’re already in trouble. If that was all he did, he could actually come back, and he honestly could, and say, what I meant was ‘actual’ rape cases, like when there was a crime committed…He may have been able to come back from it.”

KOA’s Mike Rosen also sort of defended Akin:

“He had a very ill-phrased remark, put his foot in the mouth, talking about whether abortion should be allowed in cases, as he put it, of ‘legitimate’ rape. What he meant to say was in the case of very clear forcible rape. In any event, this is an area into which he should not have gone.”

These radio wordsmiths have developed new categories of rape. For Worley, it’s “actual” rape cases, presumably versus the fake kind.

For Rosen, it’s “very clear forcible” rape cases.

By adding the adverb “very clear,” Rosen is one-upping Rep. Mike Coffman, Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Doug Lamborn, and Rep. Scott Tipton, who all voted to redefine the definition of rape so that federal funding would only be available for “forcible” rape, not other kinds,

For Rosen, it looks like only the “very forcible” kind of rape counts?

I didn’t get a chance to listen to all our favorite radio hosts, but one can only imagine all the other categories of rape that they might come up with.

Please send me any and all new rape categories that you hear from conservative radio hosts. I’m working on a comprehensive list that I want to share with the talk-radio crowd, to see if I can get them on the same page, like they are so often when it comes to President Obama.

Full story: Radio wordsmiths offer new categories of rape, like the “very forcible” kind

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



You might think it would take a miracle to find a serious presidential ticket that supports personhood laws, which would ban some forms of birth control, as well as all abortion, even after rape or incest.

That doesn’t sound like a super popular position for a presidential candidate to have, now that we are exactly 62 years beyond the year 1950.

But, it turns out, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are both apparently for personhood.



Paul Ryan obviously supports it, since he co-sponsored federal personhood legislation just last year. His bill grants “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges” to fertilized eggs (or “zygotes”). It also grants authority to the states to pass personhood.

Romney is also apparently a supporter of personhood, but he has said he’s against a federal personhood law, like the one Ryan co-sponsored.

Instead, Romney favors personhood efforts at the state level. Presumably this would include Colorado’s personhood initiative, but he hasn’t been asked about it.

Romney has flipped around a bit on the issue, but as recently as October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution codifying his belief that life begins when a sperm enters egg.

Later, Romney’s spokespeople reinforced this, telling Politico’s Ben Smith that Romney supports “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide.”

Ryan would almost undoubtedly support efforts to enact personhood at the state level, given his history on the issue, and given that the federal legislation he co-sponsored paves the way for it.

So how will Romney and Ryan work out their differences on personhood?

Will Romney bend a little bit and accept the federal approach to personhood, as well as the state path?

Or will Ryan bow to the top of the ticket, give up his efforts to pass personhood at the federal level, and, per Romney’s approach, focus on the states, like Colorado?

That’s something reporters should seek clarification on, as the campaign moves forward.

(Note: For a more detailed explanation of state versus federal personhood, please read this previous blog post of mine. For a list of other co-sponsors of federal personhood bills, click here.)

Full story: How will Ryan and Romney reconcile their different approaches to enact personhood?

UPDATE #2: NBC News’ Rachel Maddow covers the action Tuesday in great detail:

—–

UPDATE: Despite the apparently successful pranks described below at today’s Paul Ryan rally, Westword’s Michael Roberts reports on a group of Lakewood High School students who were allegedly denied access to the event under dubious circumstances:

Earlier today, we reported that four students who don’t support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were banned from the vice presidential candidate’s Lakewood rally after they were overheard speaking to yours truly; see our complete coverage below…

Jacob Spetzler, an eighteen-year-old rising freshman, got a ticket last night to watch Ryan speak today. He then posted a Facebook status that read, “who else is going to the paul ryan rally? are signs expressing our displeasure in order?”

One of his high school friends, who volunteers for the Romney campaign, apparently saw the status and commented: “just so you know, protesters won’t get in tomorrow.” [Pols emphasis]

And he didn’t–even though someone named “Fertilized Egg” did. Kids are mean, aren’t they?

—–

FOX 31′s Eli Stokols has the first report up on today’s rally at Lakewood High School featuring newly-minted GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan:

Ryan’s speech, which lasted less than 20 minutes, was a looser version of the five-point plan Romney outlined in Jefferson County two weeks ago, hitting on the five key priorities of a Romney administration: energy independence, education reform, debt reduction, small business outreach and job growth…

Interestingly,  Ryan never sought to frame the argument over his controversial House GOP budget that has, with his selection as Romney’s vice presidential candidate, suddenly become a central issue in the race for the White House.

The Obama campaign is already highlighting how Ryan’s package includes drastic spending cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which could cost Romney in a state like Florida.

Increasing the pressure on Ryan in Colorado, the editorial board of the Denver Post, the only remaining metro daily and single-most influential newspaper in the state, published an editorial Monday night calling Ryan a “radical” choice who is “likely to alienate” moderate voters.

By all accounts, Rep. Ryan’s speech at Lakewood High School today was notable mostly for its inoffensive platitudes, and generalized calls for “reigniting the American Dream” and “turning our country around.” As Stokols reports, Ryan made no mention of his controversial budget proposals to privatize Medicare, and no mention of Ryan’s support for banning abortions even in cases of rape and incest–similar to what’s called for in the “Personhood” amendment headed to Colorado’s ballot for the third consecutive election. Ryan may have been able to slip in and out of Colorado without addressing his support for “Personhood” today, but we seriously doubt he’ll be able to skate through to November–this is a state this campaign has to win, after all.

Though as Politico’s Glenn Thrush reports, there were pranksters in the crowd, scoring press on Ryan’s controversial stands without his help:

Someone forwards along a picture of ‘Fertilized Egg’ being admitted to Ryan’s event in Lakewood, Colo.

It’s, of course, a reference to Ryan’s position on fetal personhood – and his support for the  Sanctity of Human Life Act, which defined fertilized eggs as a human being.

We’re kind of shocked that this ticket made it through security, but we’re thinking this is the last time it’s ever going to happen. Meanwhile in the air outside, Raw Story reports:

Members of the Choose Ryan, Lose Choice campaign managed to fly a banner while Ryan was speaking in Lakewood, Colorado. CNBC reporter Eamon Javers tweeted a picture of the banner, which read, “Hey girl, choose me, lose choice – P. Ryan.”

Bottom line: the more you try to dodge the tough questions, the less people let you.

Full story: Paul Ryan Avoids “Personhood,” Medicare In Suburban Denver Debut

This is a pretty harsh indictment, folks. Rachel Maddow last night on the relationships between Colorado’s failed “Personhood” abortion ban initiatives and local politicians who supported them in the past such as Mike Coffman and Joe Coors, and implications for the avowedly pro-”personhood” Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan GOP ticket–both within and outside our swing state:

Say what you will about Maddow, after watching it you’ll either want every woman in your life to see this report, or you won’t want any woman voter to see it (dependent on your affiliation).

Full story: NBC’s Rachel Maddow on “Personhood,” Coffman, Coors, Romney-Ryan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Colorado has a lot of experience with politicians endorsing personhood, then trying to slide away from it when the eyes of everyday people turn toward them.

It’s time for reporters to draw on this experience in questioning Rep. Paul Ryan, when the opportunity presents itself.

Will Ryan, who  supported personhood legislation in Congress, stand by his position?

It won’t work for Ryan to say, like Rep. Mike Coffman and Rep. Cory Gardner did last week, that it’s a just measly state issue that’s not relevant to him as federal candidate , because Ryan endorsed it at the federal level.

(Actually, that excuse doesn’t work for Coffman and Gardner, since they supported it when they ran for federal office previously, according to Colorado Right to Life.)

It won’t work for Ryan to say, like congressional candidate Joe Coors did last week, that the voters have twice voted the ballot measure down, and so Ryan is going to respect their decision, because Ryan was pushing federal legislation on the issue despite voter hostility and long odds against him?

(And that logic doesn’t excuse Coors from telling voters why he supported personhood.)

Will it work Ryan to un-endorse personhood, like Colorado Senate Ken Buck did in 2010, because he doesn’t understand that personhood would ban common forms of birth control.

I mean, he co-sponsored the personhood bill!

Can you imagine a guy like Ryan offering the excuse that he’s a budget maven not a birth-control maven?

Or will Ryan follow the lead of Rep. Doug Lamborn, who’s separated himself from his GOP personhood allies in Colorado by saying through a spokesperson that he’s still a “supporter” of personhood.

You might guess that Ryan’s model would be Lamborn, since Lamborn co-sponsored the same federal personhood “Sanctity of Human Life” bill that Ryan did.

In any case, at some point, whether it’s tomorrow, if Ryan takes questions from reporters, or at some future debate or press conference, some reporter has to ask Ryan, “You’re a co-sponsor of a bill making personhood federal law.”

“Why are you so strongly against choice, that you want to ban common forms of birth control, as personhood laws would do?

Why do you feel so strongly about abortion, that you want to ban it, even for a girl who’s raped by her father?”

Full story: Which CO politico will be Ryan’s role model on personhood? Buck, Coffman? Coors? Gardner? Lamborn?

FOX 31′s Eli Stokols:

Newly-minted GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will be in Colorado for a fundraiser Monday night and rally Tuesday morning in Lakewood, FOX31 Denver has learned.

After being introduced as Mitt Romney’s running mate Saturday morning in Virginia and barnstorming across that state and rallying voters in his home state of Wisconsin on Sunday, Ryan is parting ways with Romney, who’s heading to Florida Monday.

Click here to get your tickets for Ryan’s speech at Lakewood High School tomorrow–doors open at 9:00AM for this 11:00AM event, so bring a book (or a tablet–you can live Tweet the speech).

A new USA TODAY/Gallup poll out this morning suggests that Rep. Paul Ryan has his work cut out for him–not just here in Colorado, but across the country as well.

Americans don’t believe GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney hit a home run with his choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, with more of the public giving him lower marks than high ones.

Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, is seen as only a “fair” or “poor” choice by 42% of Americans vs. 39% who think he is an “excellent” or “pretty good” vice presidential choice.

USA TODAY/Gallup Polls of registered voters after the announcements of running mates since Dick Cheney in 2000 all showed more positive reactions. Only Dan Quayle in a 1988 Harris Poll of likely voters was viewed less positively than Ryan, with 52% rating Quayle as a “fair” or “poor” vice presidential choice. The Ryan poll includes all adults, not just registered voters.

We would guess that Rep. Ryan does not appreciate comparisons to Dan Quayle. But there does seem to be something troublingly Quayle-like in the reception of Ryan by the public so far, underscored by the results of this latest poll. Ryan is viewed enthusiastically by Republicans, who say they are more likely to vote for Mitt Romney as a result–this is significant after polls have persistently shown a lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for Romney.

For everyone else, there’s Ryan’s record. Politico:

Last spring when Ryan unveiled his budget proposal, which proposed changing Medicare to a private program with government subsidies, pollsters jumped to see what Americans thought.

A flurry of polls showed a majority or at least a plurality of voters didn’t like Ryan’s idea. Among the elderly, it was wildly unpopular…

And something for Lakewood soccer moms, Washington Post:

Ryan is a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which defines a fertilized egg as a human being – similar to recent “personhood” efforts in a handful of states. He also won his seat in 1998 by running to his opponent’s right on abortion and emphasizing no exceptions.

Read this weekend’s post from NARAL Pro Choice Colorado for more on Ryan and “Personhood.” As you can see, Ryan’s addition to this race adds an interesting dynamic, particularly with regard to issues and campaigns already taking shape in Colorado.

But there’s little sign yet it’s a winning dynamic.

Full story: Ryan Heads Straight For Colorado (With Baggage)

(At least he’s not your… oh, wait, he is. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)



All that personhood-dodging by federal candidates who previously gushed about banning abortion and the most commonly used forms of birth control? That’s going to get a lot harder with Mitt Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate. The congressman from Wisconsin co-sponsored a federal bill granting recognition of fertilized eggs, the federal equivalent to a constitutional amendment Coloradans already have rejected twice by overwhelming margins and are expected to defeat again should the measure qualify. But Ryan’s anti-reproductive rights record doesn’t stop there.

NARAL Pro-Choice America counts 59 times that Ryan has voted against a woman’s right to choose during his tenure in Washington. The organization spotlights a number of votes Ryan cast that will do little to turn undecided women voters in Romney-Ryan’s favor:

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Update: In an article published today, the Colorado Statesman’s Peter Marcus reports that this year’s personhood  initiative has been clarified to state that only  ”methods of birth control and assisted reproduction that kill a fetus” would be affected. This presumably refers to the forms of birth control, like IUDs and some forms of the Pill, that can kill a fetus, by preventing implantation. So nothing has changed birth-control wise about personhood since 2010. The same forms of birth control would still be outlawed. Marcus also reports for the first time that Rep. Cory Gardner will not endorse personhood this year, because, like Rep. Mike Coffman said, he’s running for federal office and this is a state issue.

———

If you know the name “Ken Buck” you undoubtedly know that the personhood amendment would, among other things, ban common forms of birth control.

Buck claimed not to know this when he endorsed personhood, so he un-endorsed it during the 2010 campaign, saying he didn’t understand that personhood would ban such things as IUDs and common birth-control pills.

Ever since, it’s been an established fact that a personhood law would ban common forms of birth control.

Yet, in this week’s coverage of personhood, only The Denver Post and the Durango Herald reported the critical fact that the personhood measure would ban common forms of birth control.

The Denver Post’s Electa Daper wrote Aug. 9 that “some forms of birth control” would “effectively” be banned under personhood. The Post story stated:

On Monday sponsors of the ballot initiative, which would amend the state constitution to effectively ban all abortions and some forms of birth control, turned in petitions with 112,121signatures to Colorado’s secretary of state. [BigMedia emphasis]

The Durango Herald reporter Joe Hanel described personhood this way in an Aug. 8 about state ballot initiatives:

This year is the third time around for the Personhood initiative, which seeks an amendment to the state constitution to declare that embryos from the moment of conception have the same legal rights as any person. The amendment could lead to bans on abortion, common forms of birth control and fertility treatments. [BigMedia emphasis]

Unfortunately, other coverage of personhood, including stories on 9News, CBS4, didn’t mention birth control at all.

That’s a big omission, because, among personhood’s many and varied impacts, outlawing some common forms of birth control could be its most significant, at least from your everyday person’s perspective (Or every week’s person’s perspective or twice weekly person’s perspective, depending on who you are).

I’m not saying other basic facts about the amendment, that it would ban abortion and define life as beginning at the zygote (fertilized egg) stage, are of lesser importance. They’re also basic descriptors that should be worked into all personhood coverage.

But to be fair, reporting on the personhood amendment should at least include all three facts. It would 1) ban on abortion, 2) ban on common forms of birth control, 3) define life as beginning at conception.

There proposed amendment would do much more than that, of course, like ban abortion in the case of rape and incest. And the ramifications of giving legal rights to zygotes are mind-bogling.

And these many and varied components of personhood should be explored with current endorsers and opponents alike, as well as previous supporters, like candidates Joe Coors and Mike Coffman.

But ongoing reporting of the measure shouldn’t leave out the birth-control aspect.

Full story: Personhood coverage should include fact that the measure would ban common forms of birth control